it's a decent budget.

How about finding ways to reduce the financial burden of exorbitant property taxes on <10yr residents, rather than “significantly invest in the organization”.

1) Q. Why do we need a ballot measure to “allow the city to add new parks and open spaces”.

A. MV YIMBY explains that our new housing element includes “A commitment to evaluate the totality of [developer] fees on an ongoing basis, and a robust program specifically for park in-lieu fees”. Web Link

Translation: Fees previously paid by developers to fund new parks and open spaces will no longer be collected. YIMBYs call them “unnecessary”. Look what is happening as a result. The city wants to raise property taxes on ordinary residents instead.

Net result: burden shifts from developers to residents. Will buying a home be less expensive? Probably not. If measure passes, the answer is “no”: home buyers will PAY HIGHER PROPERTY TAXES. If it fails, there's no guarantee that developers will pass on savings. Why would they? And parks and open spaces will suffer.

The rich get richer ...

2) “With city tax revenues rebounding and even surpassing pre-pandemic numbers, McCarthy said Mountain View is ready to get “back to business.””

Remember, only a few short months ago (Jan 2023) then Mayor Lucas Ramirez, together with council members Ellen Kamei and Pat Showalter, expressed concerns about cost of a special election to fill the vacancy left by Sally Lieber. Web Link

Ramirez said it would be really nice to have “funds for things that the community will actually NEED” (Web Link ~1.35.10), implying that the public's right to choose its political leaders doesn't even register on his radar as an important “need”.

Now we learn that the city is in good financial shape?

It was outrageous for the CC to take away voters’ rights back in Jan. Finding out MV actually had $$$ to pay for a special election after all is like rubbing salt in the wound.

Never forget that by filling the seat themselves, the CC essentially silenced the voice of voters when it came to the new Housing Element. Never forget that the new Housing Element benefits developers, Google, and high-wage earners far more than most residents. So much talk about “affordable housing” over the past two years, all done to manufacture consent for thousands and thousands of new units that are unaffordable to most people who live here.

thanks for details @Bain / now Fact Check? Your 1) A ... has "MV YIMBY" commenting on "a robust program specifically for park in-lieu fees" and then you "Translate". ... Can you please specify the MV City document (and provide link) where the City explains what you, personally "translate". Maybe (?) better to pull out the MV City text (probably in English) and then we won't have to (possibly) doubt your "translation".

best,

I'll probably, myself, forget that the CC appointed a person to fill a CC vacancy - especially if that person later 'runs for the Office and Wins.' time-will-tell

BTW agreed - thousands of market-rate + , so little BMR

@Steven, I am a big believer in transparency. One huge concern that I have about our new housing element is that one needs a PHd in "housing element" issues in order to thoroughly understand it. Do most voters have such expertise? No. That is very bad for democracy because laws are being passed that most of the public does not understand, and therefore cannot properly approve. Of course in this case, voters were never even given the opportunity to vote on these matters, they were forced upon us by the State.

I admit that I personally lack such a PHd, I only have about a Masters or so. I do not have intimate knowledge of city documents. I have had many conversations, though, with local YIMBY leaders who told me that they consider developer fees to be a "tax on housing" and therefore they opposed them. I agreed, they are a tax on housing, but that does not make them "bad". I said their advocacy was the equivalent of defunding schools and parks, because that is what those fees are used for. Governments collect taxes in order to pay for services, there is usually a bit of a logic to them. Developer fees are collected to enhance the shared infrastructure (such as schools and parks) that NEEDS to be enhanced when the population expands. It makes sense that the entities responsible for increasing the population (namely developers creating housing) share the burden of enhancing that infrastructure as part of the cost of doing business.

The shared infrastructure is akin to the Tragedy of the Commons. Everyone benefits from it, but nobody really wants to pay for it. I oppose the concept of corporations "privatizing the profits" and "socializing the costs". Developers make great profits, they are better able to pay for the shared infrastructure than ordinary residents.

I would be relieved if my translation was wrong, but then I would be confused about 1) why did MV YIMBY post those words (what do they actually mean?), and 2) why do we need a ballot measure to “allow the city to add new parks and open spaces”?

Re CC vacancy - remember that incumbents have tremendous advantages when running for re-election. That was acknowledge by the CC at the time, there was talk of requiring the appointee to not run for re-election because of it. Staff advised that was not possible, but CC moved forward with appointment process anyway. The appointee was given an enormous, unearned advantage if they choose to run for re-election.

“BTW agreed - thousands of market-rate + , so little BMR”

Thank you <3