Several years ago a major prop was passed to provide funding for over/underpasses along Central Expressway in coordination w electrification of the railroad. For Mountain View this would be Rengsdorff & Castro.
I would like the Mayor & Council to be specific regarding the status of these previously approved funding. So far all talk, no action, literally kicking the can down the road…

15 minute city means that the city needs to re-examine zoning all over the city.

Did anybody check if the downspouts drain far away from the building?

The Rengstorff can is not being kicked down Central Expressway, if you will. This was not the forum to address that topic, but information about the Rengstorff grade separation is available elsewhere. Web Link

15 minute city means Mountain VIew needs another 100,000 residents so as to achieve sufficient population density for that. Where do all these new residents come from?

For those who are unfamiliar with the 15 minute city concept:

"The 15-minute city meets human needs but leaves desires wanting. Here’s why" - Web Link

"the most vocal proponent of the concept remains Paris, where the concept originated. Its mayor Anne Hidalgo has been championing the “ville du quart d’heure” since early 2020, and has embedded it into a broader plan to promote active mobility in lieu of cars"

"What’s not to like?

It turns out, the concept is not always a fit. For one, the 15-minute neighbourhood doesn’t work so well for a suburban nation, like the [US]. While it is easy to envision Paris, Copenhagen and Barcelona in small repeating parts – or even in certain places ... like Manhattan and Brooklyn, or big slices of Boston and Cambridge ... – it is harder to imagine this kind of reinvention of far-flung sprawling suburbs where the majority of Americans live."

"And 15-minute communities do little to alter the harsh realities of economic and geographic inequality. They promise close-by amenities and luxurious walkability for the well-to-do urban gentry. They are mainly a fit for affluent urban neighbourhoods and far less a fit in the disadvantaged parts of our cities. As Harvard University’s Ed Glaeser points out, less advantaged groups are hardly able to live their life in their own disadvantaged neighbourhoods, which lack jobs, grocery stores and amenities found in more upscale communities."

One of the above sentences speaks out loudly to me: "They promise close-by amenities and luxurious walkability for the well-to-do urban gentry."

Remember that housing is being built at a ratio of 9 market rate units for every 1 affordable unit, and there are no real plans on the table for how MV will build 6000 affordable units, which RHNA targets supposedly demand.

15 minute city looks like another effort to continue the gentrification of MV. How exactly did this goal get established for us?

I can't quite tell what the objections people have to 15 minute neighborhoods here. Mountain View is pretty compact, all things considered, so making sure we have pedestrian and bike paths, along with amenities like stores and public spaces seems like a net positive. I don't see why we can't do that today, and I don't see what's wrong with the city being designed around becoming less car-dependent for its residents. Make it happen, Council!

It's not that this 15 minute thing is a bad idea, but realistically it won't work with such a small population in the 12 square miles of Mountain View. Paris has 53,000 residents per square mile and they are trying to work toward that. Mountain View is at 6,000 people per square mile and the population density varies greatly from one spot to another. If your FIRST goal is just to put the 15 minute thing into effect just for the denser corridor along El Camino Real and San Antonio Road, you run into some obvious issues. e.g. Grocery stores are too far away for most of even that denser area. Dentists? That's absurd. Parks? What parks are near El Camino Real? That's got to be a good fraction of the total population and it's a struggle just to get the parks for them, let alone the rest of the city.

@Clarence, did you read article on World Economic Forum? “What’s not to like?” kind of summarizes what I hear you saying. On the surface, 15 minute city sounds like rainbows and puppies. Who could possibly object? To those at the top of the ladder, the goal sounds like utopia. But for those living farther down, the goal isn’t so great because they have other, far more important goals directly related to their survival, goals like affordable housing.

We are currently wrestling with a housing crisis. A lot of people are in pain. Have you read the Voice’s recent and excellent work to shine a light on the struggles faced by the homeless? And the failures of an interim homeless shelter program set up with great fanfare in 2021 to help them? Web Link ? One of the major takeaways is that “There’s not enough affordable housing to make it work.”

The bottom line for me is that I would rather the City Council focus on actually building affordable housing instead of chasing after some new shiny.

History shows that in the last RHNA cycle, all of the targets for affordable housing were not met. Were there consequences? No. The targets in the newest cycle are much bigger, but we don’t actually have a plan in place to meet them either. We are on track to fail once again. Too bad, so sad. I consider the RHNA process to be smoke and mirrors, to deceive the public into believing that “something is being done”. Something IS being done, only it’s not what most people think. History shows that 9 market rate units are built for every 1 affordable unit that gets built. This benefits those at the top of the ladder, the people who want to morph MV into a haven for the highly paid.

When talking about the jobs/housing imbalance, it is hypocritical to only focus on the plight of the highly paid. OBVIOUSLY one cannot walk 15 minutes to their job in MV when they cannot afford to LIVE in MV.

I believe that even with a smaller population density, creating a more walkable and bikeable community can greatly benefit the city by reducing traffic congestion, promoting healthier lifestyles, and improving local businesses.

Regarding the issue of grocery stores and parks being too far away, I think it's important to note that implementing the 15-minute city concept doesn't mean that everything has to be within a 15-minute walk. It's about creating neighborhoods where people can access their daily needs within a reasonable distance, whether it's a 10-minute bike ride or a 15-minute walk. Additionally, the 15-minute city concept is a long-term vision that can be implemented gradually, starting with denser corridors and expanding to other areas as the city develops.

As for your suggestion that the City Council should focus on building affordable housing instead, I agree that affordable housing is an important issue. However, I believe that creating more walkable and bikeable neighborhoods can complement affordable housing efforts by reducing the need for car-dependent infrastructure, which can be costly to maintain and exacerbate traffic congestion.

Lastly, I completely agree with you that the jobs/housing imbalance is a critical issue, and affordable housing should be a top priority for the City Council. However, I also believe that promoting safe streets and walkable neighborhoods can benefit all residents, regardless of income level, by creating a more livable and sustainable community.

@Clarence, you asked what my objections were to 15 minute city, and I did my best to explain within 2000 chars. At first glance, 15 minute city seems like a lovely goal. At second glance, it is a goal that disproportionately favors the rich over the poor. I don’t like that. It is also a goal that was never mentioned during election season this past November, which I kind of hate because I like democracy. What WAS mentioned during election season, a lot a lot a lot, was the need for affordable housing.

I have learned that in politics a lot of pretty words get spoken, and many voters are fooled by them. Actions are what counts, how political power gets used is what counts. History shows that 9 market rate units are built for every 1 affordable unit that gets built here. Nothing has changed to significantly affect this going forward. Under the nuclear weapon of the YIMBY movement, builder’s remedy, that ratio would change to 8 market rate units for every 2 affordable ones. Woo-hoo. Even if builder’s remedy was widely deployed, we are on a path to failure to build the 6000 affordable units that are needed to help THE MAJORITY OF THE POPULATION. Despite the pretty words, the truth is that we are building out MV to make it a haven for highly paid workers. The problem isn’t zoning, the problem is FUNDING.

If we FAIL to meet the challenge of enabling low-income and average income workers to even LIVE in MV, obviously they won’t benefit from the delights of a 15-minute city. IMHO, it seems kind of pretentious to be setting 15-minute city as a goal when WE DON”T HAVE PLANS ON THE TABLE about how we are going to build the 6000 affordable units for those at the bottom of the ladder.

Making MV “more walkable and bikeable” seem like pretty words from the YIMBYs. They seem to TRANSLATE to advocacy for policies designed to punish drivers for using cars, even when alternative transportation does not exist. I think that is cruel, ridiculous, and more than a little "ableist".

Have to agree with Leslie: housing is the overriding concern. Nothing we have today will make a significant dent in 200K units/yr in the Bay Area. Also with Mountain View and San Jose touting success with a few proposed projects that come in at $1M COST for 2x2 BMR unit, there isn't any kind of funding source in sight to make much progress. 15 minutes would be great if the "missing middle" much less low income and supportive residents could actually have a place to live in or near Mountain View.

I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that we have to shut down new office construction and actively discourage business formation here that isn't strictly focused on services to existing residents until housing is brought into balance. Also since even if we had money to built all these units, it will take years before they are available, so we should look into ways to incent people to leave: then their housing will be available for those without. Finally how about a big advertising campaign at the airports "You can't afford to do business here!" or advertising in campus papers around the world:"You can't afford to live here" and hopefully we export some of our congestion and housing issues.

I understand your concerns about the potential of the 15-minute city concept to disproportionately benefit the rich over the poor. However, I would argue that creating more walkable and bikeable communities can benefit all residents, regardless of income level. By reducing the need for car-dependent infrastructure, we can help lower-income residents save money on transportation costs, while also improving access to local amenities like grocery stores, parks, and healthcare facilities.

Regarding the issue of affordable housing, I agree that it's a critical issue that needs to be addressed urgently. However, I don't think that promoting walkability and bikeability necessarily takes away from efforts to create more affordable housing. Both issues are important and can be addressed concurrently.

I would argue that advocating for policies that promote alternative modes of transportation doesn't necessarily mean punishing drivers. It's about creating a more balanced transportation system that can benefit all residents. And while it's true that alternative transportation options may not be available in all areas, promoting walkability and bikeability can encourage investment in these options, which can benefit all residents over the long term.

Overall, I believe that creating more walkable and bikeable communities is an important goal that can benefit all residents, regardless of income level. While there are certainly challenges to implementing this concept, I believe that with thoughtful planning and community input, we can create more livable, sustainable, and equitable communities for all.

Must be the Paris link, when I see the words “15 minute city” my mind translates them to “Let them eat cake”. Story goes that when Marie Antoinette was told “the people have no bread”, she replied with snark. Supposedly it's a myth. but the mob believed she said the words because they felt the indifference of the ruling class to their plight.

Today, “the people have no housing”. Today’s ruling class is showing a different kind of indifference.

We don’t have plans on the table for how to build 6000 affordable units that the state mandates that we build. It's a weird mandate, because to build that many units would require a GREAT DEAL OF FUNDING, much more $$$ than a tiny suburb like MV can afford. Imagine a law that required you to feed and clothe your 10 closest neighbors for the entire year. Laws that force people to spend $$$ they don’t have for the benefit of others are considered unjust by most. Another weirdness is that if we don’t meet this mandate, no consequences will be meted out. In a way, that's a silver lining cuz it’s unfair for the great state of CA to be picking on the lowly residents of MV in this way. On the other hand, it's tragic because THE MAJORITY OF THE RESIDENTS OF MV are actually in desperate need of affordable housing! Bottom line, a lot of smoke and mirrors is being pushed about in order to confuse voters into thinking that "something is being done". The truth will eventually out: that is not true! A game of “let’s get past this moment” is being played, because the ruling class knows that the public has the attention span of fleas. In five years, only a tiny number of cranks will even remember what promises were being made and broken today. They will write fierce letters to the editor, and be ignored, of course.

Seems to me, that living in a 15 minute city would be like living in a 15 minute bubble. It’s hard to have compassion for those living lives of desperation when one literally never sees them.

The term 15 minute city is just a wrong description. We've been being more pedestrian and bike friendly for a few decades now. Mountain View started putting different roads on road diets at least 10 years back. That is a good thing but it's not fair to say it's only being done to be a 15 minute city. Ridiculous.

The only way the so called goal of everyone being within 15 minutes of everything they need is if we were to densify everywhere which would actually require more like 10 times the current population than the 100,000 added that I suggested above. All this push toward more dense living overlooks that problem that we are not likely to ever have the population to put San Francisco density across all of Santa Clara County. There is not that much demand for housing units.

I understand your concern about the lack of affordable housing in Mountain View and the challenges of meeting the state's mandate to build 6,000 affordable units. However, it's important to note that the 15 minute city concept is not meant to be a replacement for affordable housing. Instead, it's a vision for creating more livable, sustainable, and equitable cities that prioritize walkability, biking, and public transit. In fact, many cities that are implementing the 15 minute city concept, such as Paris, are also investing in affordable housing programs.

Furthermore, creating a walkable and bikeable city benefits not just the rich, but also low-income residents who may not have access to a car. It provides them with better access to jobs, healthcare, and other essential services. The 15 minute city is not about creating a bubble, but rather about creating a city where people from all backgrounds can thrive.

Regarding the state mandate for affordable housing, I understand your frustration about the funding challenges. However, I believe it's important to work towards meeting the mandate as best as possible, rather than dismissing it as an unjust law. There are various funding sources that cities can explore, such as state and federal grants, private-public partnerships, and tax incentives for developers. While it may be a difficult task, it's important to prioritize the needs of the community and work towards creating more affordable housing options.

I fail to understand the outrage over the 15mn city goal. Just about every Mountain View Precise Plan (North Bayshore, East Whisman, San Antonio....) aims to build a "complete neighborhood".... That seems fairly similar to a "15mn neighborhood" goal.

What is 15 minute city? We don’t have a common agreement on what it even IS, yet it has suddenly become one of the top goals for MV. @SRB says it is not even a new goal, since "complete neighborhoods" are already in the precise plans. @Dan says it will require zoning changes all over the city. Who is right? I think it’s lousy to wait until after an election is over to adopt goals that are not properly defined. That is not how democracy is supposed to work.

15 minute city also seems to hijack the conversation over needs for alternative transportation. Walking and biking are put on a pedestal. Walking and biking are lovely, but sorry folks, not everyone in the community is physically able to walk and bike, so 15 minute city is discriminatory. Does Paris even have something like the ADA? We have a car-centric culture. Most of us understand that this needs to change. I think we would make better progress, and FASTER progress, by having a BROADER conversation about alternative transportation. Our community shuttle is a step in the right direction, but it does not "go far enough". I need to walk ½ a mile to my nearest shuttle stop, and the hours are too limited. Also, funding runs out soon (2024). I LOVE, LOVE, LOVE the EV car program launched in Palo Alto, which offers point to point transportation at a reasonable cost. It would allow me to leave my gas guzzler at home.

We are currently wrestling with a housing crisis. A lot of people are in pain. History shows that in the last RHNA cycle, none of the targets for affordable housing were met. We don’t have a plan in place to meet our new targets. We are on track to fail once again. Does anyone care?

15 minute city looks like a giant distraction to me. It’s an opportunity to ignore the FACT that homeless people are living in their cars because we aren’t building enough affordable housing. It’s an opportunity to once again argue about zoning, which many love to do. The problem is not zoning. The problem is FUNDING.

The 15 minute city is a concept that proposes organizing cities so that people can meet most of their needs within a 15 minute walk or bike ride from their homes. The idea is to reduce car dependency, promote more sustainable transportation modes, and improve access to goods and services, such as groceries, schools, and healthcare. The concept has gained popularity in recent years as a response to urbanization, environmental concerns, and social inequality.

As for who is right about the 15 minute city in Mountain View, it depends on the specific interpretation and implementation of the concept. It is possible that the city's existing plans already incorporate some of the principles of the 15 minute city, such as mixed-use zoning, pedestrian-friendly streets, and public transportation. However, it is also possible that additional measures, such as expanding bike infrastructure or improving access to affordable housing, are necessary to fully achieve the 15 minute city vision.

It is true that not everyone in the community may be able to walk or bike, and it is important to consider accessibility and inclusivity when designing urban environments. The 15 minute city is not meant to be a one-size-fits-all solution, but rather a framework for creating more livable, healthy, and sustainable cities. Other forms of alternative transportation, such as public transit or ride-sharing, can also be part of the mix.

Regarding the housing crisis in Mountain View, it is a complex issue that requires a multi-faceted approach, including zoning, funding, and community engagement. Affordable housing mandates can be challenging for cities to meet, especially if they lack the resources or political will to do so. However, the consequences of not addressing the housing crisis can be severe, leading to displacement, homelessness, and social unrest. It is important for city leaders and residents to work together to find solutions that balance different priorities and values.

The hubris is thinking that Mountain View in the grand scheme of things stands alone as a city in its choices for goals. You have Palo Alto, Mountain View, Sunnyvale and Santa Clara lined up in a row along the Bay. They are all effectively the same general size. Palo Alto has half of its territory dedicated to foothill reserve. Otherwise you have these cities all 12-20 sq miles in size with similar development choices and similar populations. They all have a lot of land dedicated to office parks where no one lives but a lot of people work. In generally these work hubs are off to on edge of the city and not near the downtown. The office parks all see a lot of commuters who come in from outside the city. Palo Alto comes closer to this 15 minute idea due to its historic practices. South Palo Alto relies on Mountain View for most of the sservices involved in this 15 minute thing. Noth Palo Alto depends on Menlo Park. The retail areas are spread out more effectively around the city o ther than these service hubs being essentially outside of Palo Alto. You wouldn't see Palo Alto lamenting how people can't get to their 15 minute services in their Palo Alto neighborhood because they are in Menlo Park or Mountain View. Mountain View is the place where rampant office development has raised land prices and squeezed out any other commercial use of the land for services (besides office space) in some areas which once had more localized services.

LongResident is correct, Mountain View has too much commercial development. We need a moratorium on this until we can catch up with housing. While 15 minutes is nice, a lot of areas don't have a grocery store within a 15 walk, I'm thinking someone with a a wheeled basket for groceries: you can't shop for groceries on a bike. Again, wealthy people can just hop in their SUV but we're not going to be successful with housing for diverse groups the way we're going.

We are currently in a housing crisis. A lot of people are in pain. History shows that in the last RHNA cycle, none of the targets for affordable housing were met. We are on track for history to repeat itself. The silence on this topic, especially from so called “housing advocates,” is deafening. Sometimes people tell you a lot about who they are and what they stand for by what they choose to remain silent about.

Who benefits from us not talking about this truth? Politicians at both state + local level don’t want to be embarrassed by the fact that the solutions that they promised were fake promises. Density is being imposed on MV under a banner of “it will bring housing costs down”. But lo and behold, the “good part” of that density – the part that would benefit low income and average workers – is NOT GOING TO GET BUILT. Too bad, so sad. Our current path, building 9 market rate units for every 1 affordable unit, is a path that disproportionately benefits high wage workers + companies like Google who want to bring even more of them to MV.

“As for who is right about the 15 minute city in Mountain View, it depends on the specific interpretation and implementation of the concept.”

Thank you for proving my point: We don’t have a common agreement on what it even IS, and yet it has suddenly become one of the top goals for MV. The devil is in the details; those have not been provided. We don’t know if 15 minute city will bring rainbows and puppies, or whether it will be used to increase the pain of driving a car when no realistic and viable alternative transportation exists, and generate new schemes to change MV zoning even further in order to benefit high wage workers, developers, and Google.

15 minute city is a lovely new shiny. It looks like a GREAT WAY to generate heated conversations that will distract the public from the TRUTH that, despite all of the new construction, the housing crisis is going to continue for lower income and average workers. Too bad, so sad.

The issue of affordable housing is certainly a critical one, and it's understandable that you're frustrated by the lack of progress in meeting RHNA targets. It's important to note, however, that the 15 minute city concept is not necessarily at odds with affordable housing goals. In fact, many proponents of the 15 minute city argue that it can help to reduce transportation costs and make living in the city more affordable for low-income residents.

That being said, it's important to have a nuanced conversation about how the concept is implemented, as you rightly pointed out. It's also important to have a broader conversation about the root causes of the housing crisis and what can be done to address them. This may involve looking at issues such as zoning, funding, and other factors that impact housing affordability.

Ultimately, it's important to work towards solutions that benefit all members of the community, regardless of income level. This may involve finding ways to increase the supply of affordable housing, as well as investing in alternative transportation options and other infrastructure that can help to reduce the cost of living in the city.

For several years I have been hearing this theory that housing costs are high because SFH owners are “blocking supply”. No actual evidence has been provided, but a lot of young people believe it anyway. I think it’s an UGLY theory that falsely scapegoats innocent people for political and financial gain. I am stunned and outraged that this is happening in America in the 21st century.

The TRUTH is that housing costs are high because we live under capitalism, and the majority of housing is built by for-profit developers. They don’t build affordable housing for a simple reason: there is no profit in it. Most businesses strive to charge “whatever the market will bear” for their products. Developers are no different. Turns out that in OUR local market, there are a lot, a lot, a lot of very highly paid workers (the last census shows that about 1/3 of households earn $200K or more a year, yowza). This drives up the price of real estate.

RHNA targets specify that we build 6000 affordable units. This goal will not be reached. Why not? Are SFH owners “blocking supply”? Nope. The simple answer is that for-profit developers will not build them unless they receive sufficient compensation for doing so. The NEED for these units is great, in order to help low income and average workers who are in CRISIS over high rents. But they will not be built because of FUNDING. Our leaders know this.

MV YIMBY says: “We drive policy change to increase the supply of housing at all levels and bring down the cost of living in our thriving city.” - Web Link . These carefully selected words inspire visions of rainbows and puppies. Our current path does TECHNICALLY “increase the supply of housing at all levels”, so it meets YIMBY criteria. But building 9 market rate units for every 1 affordable unit is a path that disproportionately benefits HIGH WAGE WORKERS.

Make no mistake, the housing crisis will continue for teachers, service workers, and kids who don’t code. Now move along ...

While it is true that for-profit developers have a significant role to play in the high cost of housing, it is not accurate to completely dismiss the impact of SFH owners on the supply of housing. The reality is that there is a limited amount of land available for development, and SFH owners in many cases have successfully lobbied for zoning regulations that limit the amount and type of housing that can be built in their neighborhoods. This has resulted in a situation where demand for housing outstrips supply, driving up costs for everyone, especially low income and average workers.

The concept of the 15 minute city is actually a potential solution to the issue of housing affordability. By creating more walkable, bikeable, and transit-friendly neighborhoods, we can reduce the need for long commutes and make it easier for people to access the services and amenities they need. This can lead to a decrease in demand for cars and the associated costs of car ownership, which can help offset the high cost of housing in some areas.

Rather than blaming one group or another for the housing crisis, it's important to work together to find solutions that benefit everyone. This includes increasing the supply of affordable housing, implementing policies that encourage the development of mixed-use neighborhoods, and addressing the root causes of income inequality. The 15 minute city is one potential tool in this effort, but it's important to approach it with a clear understanding of its potential benefits and limitations.

There are two ways to meet this alleged 15 minute goal. One is less practical. The practical way is to build new housing in an area which is suitable to this criteria, or which is otherwise slated to become so suitable.

Now, the SyWest proposal for the 2 tall apartment towers replacing the movie theaters up near Google may not appear to fit at first glance. But when you consider the city already plans 8000 or so units up there, and the city claims to want to ADD services in that area, then this makes some sense. Already the area is barely within reach at 15 minutes from one of the few large Grocery stores (Down Shoreline to the Stierlin Safeway. This is a darn good start. The area is near tha massive Shoreline park which is difficult to reach by comparison for most residents, but not for new residents in Borth Bayshore.

So if the city is truly serious about thie 15 minute thing, I'd say they need to jump right on approving the SyWest residential towers, submitted as Builder's Remedy applicants. The area there makes even more sense than the East Whisman development for housing, because East Whisman also involves adding a ton of new jobs to an area where have been declining. But Google and others have already burdened North Bayshore with many new jobs. Perfect place to now add 2 large residential towers and create nearby residences for Google's massive HQ, whether Google endorses it or not. And why is Google against this plan? Hmmm?

S**** the jobs! Just build the housing! Building office space to finance the housing is like building more freeway lanes to ease congestion! It just brings more (over paid) people in who will bid up the price of more housing! We'll never catch up this way, and last time I heard the developer in North Bayshore was whining about the deal not penciling out at a cost of ~ $1M/unit including all the fees for parks, schools and setting aside affordable and BMR units. So to Leslie's point, even the market rate stuff, fully burdened is too expensive, won't sell (or rent) and investments won't be made unless even more people come in. I guess it's OK if your goal is turn the South Bay into Queens: miles and miles of midrise ugliness!

Usually you have the city begging for developers to build housing with the developers saying the things about not penciling out mentioned above. But in the case of this 16 acre Syufy property that has housed movie theaters and a drive in for decades, that's not the case. There you have a 2 year old proposal to build 2,019 housing units and not objecting at all to the city's burdensome regulations. They just want the project to be approved, contrary to the wishes of Google. In this particular case you have the developer sure that it will pencil out and others feigning concern that it won't pencil out as it were. But my money's on the developer. Consult this Voice article about the most recent proposal, prior to it being resubmitted as Builder's Remedy proposal earlier this year.

Web Link

“SFH owners in many cases have successfully lobbied for zoning regulations that limit the amount and type of housing that can be built in their neighborhoods.”

Please provide your EVIDENCE. Don’t present bald-faced assertions as fact. If you are going to make such a claim, you need evidence to support it. Don’t spread lies that encourage hate-mongering against a group of people who are innocent of the charges.

I have been a SFH owner for about 30 years, and have never once “lobbied for zoning regulations”, as you claim. Perhaps I am mistaken, but I don’t even recall ever even having had the opportunity to vote on any kind of a ballot measure such as you describe. What on earth are you even talking about?

“The concept of the 15 minute city is actually a potential solution to the issue of housing affordability.”

The devil is in the details, as it always is. I suggest that we drop this notion of 15 minute city, which is really just high level fluff, and reserve debate for more concrete and tangible proposals that can properly be discussed and debated.

“Rather than blaming one group or another for the housing crisis, it's important to work together to find solutions that benefit everyone.”

The cat is already out of the bag. YIMBYS have spread propaganda that blames SFH owners as the primary cause of high housing costs. I would love to see an apology from them, but I’m not holding my breath. We have high housing costs because of capitalism, and the fact that for-profit developers don't build affordable housing unless sufficient compensation is given to them. The problem is not zoning, the problem is FUNDING.

YIMBYs don’t object to constructing housing units at a ratio of 9 market rate units for every 1 affordable unit. That rather speaks for itself regarding their commitment to increase the supply of affordable housing for low income and average income workers.

While it's true that not all SFH owners have actively lobbied for zoning regulations, it is well documented that local homeowners' associations and neighborhood groups have often opposed development projects and lobbied for zoning regulations that limit the amount and type of housing that can be built in their neighborhoods. This has been observed in many cities across the United States, including San Francisco, where some neighborhood groups have fought against the construction of new housing developments, citing concerns about traffic, parking, and neighborhood character.

Regarding the concept of the 15-minute city, while it may not be a complete solution to the issue of housing affordability, it is a promising approach that has the potential to improve quality of life for residents and reduce dependence on cars, which can also contribute to lower housing costs.

It's important to recognize that blaming any one group for the housing crisis is not productive, and we should work together to find solutions that benefit everyone. As you noted, funding is a major issue when it comes to affordable housing, and we need to explore ways to provide developers with incentives to build affordable units, as well as increase public funding for affordable housing projects.

It's true that over history property owners occasionally have disputes with each other. It's a HUGE LEAP to conclude that such disputes are the PRIMARY CAUSE of high housing costs. You admit that “not all SFH owners” have participated in such lobbying, do you have any proof that a majority of SFH owners have done so? Without it, you are holding prejudiced beliefs against innocent people. I was raised to believe that prejudice is wrong, YMMV.

In 2016 Kate Vershov Downing resigned from the Palo Alto Planning Commission and wrote an article that went viral, Web Link : “It’s clear that if [highly paid] professionals like me cannot raise a family here, then all of our teachers, first responders, and service workers are in dire straits.” Note her PRIMARY concern was NOT low-income persons, she did not resign over THEM. She resigned because a highly paid couple should be able to buy a house, dang it! Her words struck a chord with other highly paid workers, and the YIMBY movement was born. Fun fact: former Mayor Lucas Ramirez is named in the article too!

Downing offered theories about the cause of high housing costs, which have been embraced as gospel truth by many (most?) YIMBYs: “There is a small minority in Palo Alto that is local, wealthy and powerful and they don’t want change. They just want more jobs to grow the tax base, but they don’t want new people. They want to keep housing as expensive as possible.” I am horrified by her theories, they don’t describe me or the residents that I know. Somehow behavior from a “small minority” in Palo Alto morphed into assumptions about the inner motivations of the MAJORITY of residents in MV. Sounds fair. Not.

"It's important to recognize that blaming any one group for the housing crisis is not productive."

The tone deafness of these words amazes me. SFH owners have ALREADY been found guilty in the kangaroo court held by the YIMBYs. Scapegoating innocents is an old political trick that often works, sadly. It seems to have worked again.

Anyone who turns a blind eye to building housing at a rate of 9 market rate units for every 1 affordable unit is also turning a blind eye to the ONGOING CRISIS faced by low-income and average workers.

Thank you for sharing your perspective. It's important to have a respectful and open dialogue about the complex issues surrounding housing affordability.

Regarding the claim that SFH owners have lobbied for zoning regulations that limit the amount and type of housing that can be built in their neighborhoods, I want to clarify that this is a general statement and not intended to apply to every single SFH owner. There are certainly SFH owners who are supportive of efforts to increase housing density and affordability. However, there have also been instances where wealthy SFH owners in affluent neighborhoods have used their political influence to oppose new housing developments that would bring more people and greater density to their communities.

As for the 15 minute city concept, I understand your skepticism about its practicality and specificity. It is a broad and ambitious idea, and there are certainly many details to work out in order to make it a reality. However, I believe that it is a valuable starting point for a conversation about how we can create more livable and sustainable cities.

I completely agree with you that blaming any one group for the housing crisis is not productive. There are many factors contributing to the high cost of housing, and it's important to work together to find solutions that benefit everyone. It's also important to recognize that increasing the supply of affordable housing is only one piece of the puzzle. We also need to address issues of income inequality, access to education and job training, and other systemic factors that contribute to housing insecurity.