Just an observation,

as pointed out, the Housing Development and Safety Programs in this City are totally overwhelmed. THese departments need serious overhauls and reform.

THe problem with the land management here is severe, and to try to do a microsurgery on a macroinjury is impossible.

If anyone ever played SimCity, you know that sometimes you need to take a seriously large area and do a complete redesign of it to deal with traffic, gas, water, electric and sewage issues.

The facts are we do not have enough expertise or skills in the City Government to deal with Housing Development. That is why we are going to fail to get an approved Housing Element program going.

If anything, I do feel better that Emily was chosen. I know she has the right attitude. But I am insecure that as long as the City Manager and the City Council doesn't fix the serious problems here, that it may not help the city residents.

Did you know that at least one non-MV activist sent out tweets to encourage non-MV folks to show up at the Council meeting and express their support for Emily Ann Ramos?

On Jan 5, the Council decided that a special election would be “unfair” because it would likely have low voter turnout. So instead, they followed a process that allowed MANY PERSONS WHO DON'T EVEN LIVE IN MV to “vote” for Ramos at the Jan 30 meeting. How's that for “fair”, baby?

At least one Council member, Margaret Abe-Koa, expressed how impressed she was by the great support expressed for Ramos. She then voted for Ramos.

Was there ANY MENTION in the appointment process that the number of supporters making statements on Jan 30 would be a factor in the Council's decision? No.

Tweet sent Jan 30, viewed over 9400 times:

Web Link

Web Link

“today Mountain View has a chance to appoint a new fresh, pro-housing, pro-tenant, millennial to the City Council! Having Emily on council would be an absolute game changer for the south bay—please come give public comment on zoom, in person, or submit a letter in support”

“Link to Zoom: You may join the Zoom Webinar using this link: Web Link You may be asked to enter an email address and a name. Your email address will not be disclosed to the public. By phone: Dial: (669) 900-9128 and enter Webinar ID: 843 5126 7142”

“for speaking or letters: here is some talking points—”

“Emily is the most appropriate appointee for this council at this time. She is a collaborator, problem solver, and has the experience to center the needs of Mountain View residents in policy decision making.”

“Emily has demonstrated that she cares deeply for the city and our community by continuing to engage with a variety of different community groups over many years.”

etc.

What a perversion of democracy. But at least MV saved $2.1 million by not holding a LEGITIMATE, special election.

Tweets sent later on Jan 30:

Web Link

Web Link
"@EngineerEmily is your next Mountain View City Councilmember huge shoutouts to a great coalition of young activists, labor unions, tenants rights groups, and YIMBYs who came together to make this happen“

“and thank u @LucasRamirezMV
@mtnviewellen
pat showalter
@margaretabekoga
and Mayor Hicks for selecting Emily from a very qualified pool of applicants”

Oh look, YIMBYs came together to make this happen. I kindof suspected that, but it's nice to have actual evidence ...

Just an Observation,

Remember, a person can tweet about anything. The fact is that the City Council made a decision, it was based on the transparent process they used.

An mind you I applied and was rejected. You would expect me to be upset. But I know everyone got a fair chance.

Unless you want to challenge the appointment in court, we all simply have to accept that it is done.

I made my point earlier, the City needs a MAJOR OVERHAUL.

She won't run in 2024? The incumbent advantage won't come into play? Let's see what happens in the next election. With the other 3 candidates I wouldn't have worried about that.

Awesome! Love it. Now let’s BUILD BUILD BUILD. The more the merrier.

Every finalist for appointment talked about the importance (not to mention the housing element legal necessity) of adding housing to the City of Mountain View. Having knowledge and connections to other nearby cities is an asset. All of the current council members have their own regional connections as you can see from their campaign endorsements.

We can trust Emily to work hard, build connections, and most importantly, Mountain View can count on Emily to want a good future for all Mountain View residents. The MV City Council chose well.

Opinions by nonresidents are a distracting noise. They don’t vote or pay taxes, so they don’t get a voice. Pretty simple.

Endorsements by third parties are one thing. But I’m sure we would be upset if a bunch of Los Altos residents noisily attended our city council meetings to push for their favorites.

I actually must commend MV Voice on this series of events for keeping the public engaged and informed about the open seat. Very likely, it's due to MV Voice's article that got the # of applicants from near 0 to 10 in the final hours!

The League of California Cities and various NIMBY organizations coordinate action between cities, including sending speakers from So Cal to the Bay Area.

YIMBYs have pulled off a great political coup with regards to filling this vacancy on the City Council. The right of residents to choose our elected leaders was taken away, allegedly because low-voter turnout might happen + “would not be fair”. Instead, an “appointment” process was built on the fly, with (broken) promises of transparency. When was there mention that the number of supporters making statements on appointment day would be a factor? Never, but that turned out to be perhaps the most important factor of all. YIMBYs across the South Bay showed up to express support for Ramos, including many non-residents. Why did the Council allow public statements at this meeting if they truly believe that low-voter turnout is inherently unfair? SHAME ON THEM for replacing the voices of registered voters with those of persons who do not even live in MV.

YIMBY leaders proclaim that they are fighting for “affordable” housing, but the reality is that they are doing a much better job at advancing the best interests of DEVELOPERS + TECH WORKERS, instead of lower income persons who are in most desperate need of aid. Over the past 8-year RHNA cycle, almost 90% of housing units created were targeted for the highest wage earners. Consider a pizza sliced into ten pieces. Nine pieces are given to developers + tech workers, one piece is given to “teachers, service workers, + kids who don’t code”. Is that fair? YIMBYs are seemingly blind to the inequity; it makes sense that a movement born out of the pain of the highly paid would be blind to such details.

The true entity that is “blocking supply” of “affordable” housing is the City Council itself.

Every single time it approves a project where almost 90% of units are market-rate, which happens REGULARLY, they are turning a blind eye to the needs of those most harmed by the housing crisis: lower + average income workers. YIMBYs chirp, “Every unit helps!” … which is kind of true, it helps THEM, but not those farther down the ladder.

Just an Observtation,

I have to agree with Leslie as long as you keep building only 93 octane housing your never going to address the diverse needs of housing.

I feel bad that the City has put all of its bets on Google, and that looks like it is not going to finish.

No more carrots, they are rotting on the string.

Alright, fine, I’ll bite. Who’s going to build all this mythical affordable housing you brilliant true friends of the common folk keep talking about? If developers only want to build market rate, are you gonna put a gun to their head or what?

Just an observation,

Yes MANDATORY INCLUSIVE HOUSING is the only way to have affordable housing built.

It was a famous CA Supreme Court case case regarding it here "Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Inclusionary Housing Zoning" Web Link

and

the story "U.S. Supreme Court Declines Review of Inclusionary Zoning Case" here Web Link

This is the ONLY tool that actually works, so this is the deal, either provide the diverse levels of housing, or you cannot build at all. Realize if housing businesses cannot grow under capitalism, they DIE. Because their properties especially now are destined to depreciate.

What always happens is that properties AGE and they deteriorate. So the old idea that properties appreciate isa going away. Especially if BUYER are smart enough to require complete scans of the homes or apartments prior to purchase.

Yes there will be a GUN AT THE DEVELOPERS HEAD.

“Who’s going to build all this mythical affordable housing you brilliant true friends of the common folk keep talking about?”

My first reaction: finally, a glimmer of hope, that is the RIGHT question that must be asked. The path we are currently on, the path that YIMBY leaders have been waging in the name of “affordable” housing is a path to FAILURE with regards to truly helping “teachers, service workers, + kids who don’t code”.

I was trained as an engineer. To solve a problem, one must first identify the root cause. Misdiagnose the cause, the fix won’t work. But the first step on making a proper diagnosis is that blaming, shaming, and hate-mongering against existing residents must STOP. A civil war is raging because the pain and anger of young people is being milked and nurtured by those who have recognized an opportunity to profit from it. People have to be willing to LISTEN to each other, and stop getting a rush off “the battle”. I can offer my answer to your question, and in fact I have already done so. But my words seem to be viewed by many through a lens of “we cannot trust a word she says, she’s an evil, selfish, racist SFH owner” and ignored because of it.

Your question seems to acknowledge the cause of the problem: capitalism. For-profit developers have one thing in mind: PROFIT. They don’t build affordable housing because they can make better ROI on market-rate units. That doesn’t make them intrinsically evil. Most people prefer a higher salary to a lower one. Silicon Valley has had a booming economy for DECADES, it has an almost magical location, which real estate investors prize. That’s part of the problem too: global investors scooping up property, again in the name of ROI.

The problem is not zoning, the problem is FUNDING. I admired Li Zhang for speaking that truth in November. We NEED additional sources of funding. Growing rice in a desert takes a lot of water. Building TRULY affordable housing in MV will take a lot of funding.