Homeowners are also more likely to be NIMBYs and "get involved in community activities" like trying to preserve the neighborhood in amber.

The claim about homeowners being better citizens is oft repeated but rarely supported. Does Jim Hamilton have data that show greater community involvement among homeowners, controlling for wealth and length of residency, and excluding destructive NIMBYism?

It is unfortunate that a political movement emerged that blames high housing costs on existing homeowners. That’s like blaming the sinking of the Titanic on the women and children who made it to the lifeboats.

Our society is increasingly filled with predatory capitalists. Politicians don’t strive to solve our problems, they strive to advance their own careers, often by helping rich predators who fund their political campaigns. Increasing the supply of market-rate housing WILL NOT HELP middle income and lower-income workers, they can’t afford it! This strategy benefits developers, investors, high wage workers, and corporations who want to hire even more high wage workers. And it doesn’t even really help high wage workers, IMHO, but so many of them seem to be convinced that is what they want.

“"Middle-income buyers face the largest shortage of homes among all income groups … A two-fold approach is needed to help with both low affordability and limited housing supply. It's not just about increasing supply. We must boost the number of homes to the price range that most people can afford to buy."”

Let me repeat that: “We must boost the number of homes to the price range that most people can afford to buy.”

Almost all housing is created by for-profit developers, business people who want to maximize their ROI. They don’t build “affordable” housing for middle income buyers because they can make more $$$ building market-rate units for high income earners. Guess what? There are a huge number of high wage earners in CA! That is why housing is so expensive, there IS a market for it. Politicians are content to ignore the plight of folks who are father down the ladder.

Furthermore, landlords are in the business of maximizing their profits too. Did you know that the DOJ is actively investigating a product called RealPage, a product that appears to enable landlords to work together to drive up rents? Web Link “The letters raised concerns that RealPage’s pricing software could be pushing rents above competitive levels and allowing big landlords to coordinate their pricing in violation of federal antitrust laws.” As rents climb, it increases the demand for ownership housing, causing those prices to rise too.

While I understand your point about the housing market being for-profit, I'd like to explore the application of your argument to a broader context.

If we consider your argument, which emphasizes the profit-driven nature of housing development, it can be applied to many other goods and services as well. For instance, the same logic could be extended to the production of cars, electronics, or even luxury goods. In these cases, manufacturers also aim to maximize their return on investment by targeting higher-income consumers who are willing to pay a premium for their products.

Now, let's delve into your argument further. If housing prices are driven by the market demand created by high-wage earners in California, one might wonder why a similar market-driven dynamic doesn't apply to food. After all, just like housing, food is a basic necessity for everyone. If developers prioritize higher-income buyers due to their purchasing power, wouldn't food producers also prioritize catering to high-income individuals for higher profits?

Unlike housing, where limited availability can significantly impact prices, food is generally more widely accessible and subject to intense competition among producers. The sheer scale and breadth of the food industry allow for a broader range of options and affordability for consumers, irrespective of their income levels. Hence, encouraging more competition and production among developers will allow for more affordability across income levels.

@Clarence, I find your “advice” to be inconsistent, so I don’t trust it. Once upon a time you said: “It's important to acknowledge that there may have been instances where individuals or groups have engaged in name-calling or blaming others for the housing crisis. However, it's not productive to continue this cycle of blame and finger-pointing.”

Did you fail to notice the first comment on this article? The one that says “Homeowners are also more likely to be NIMBYs”? Where is your “advice” to the person who wrote those words? Your silence implies approval.

Instead, you proceed to debate my words. Your habit is to say that you “understand” my points, but only rarely do you explicitly agree. You don’t point out any flaws in my logic, you just toss it to the side in an attempt to change the topic. So much for sincere attempts to find common ground.

TBH, your comparison of housing prices to food prices made me think of an old Dixie cup joke:

“What’s the difference between an elephant and a dozen eggs?”

“I don’t know, what?”

“If you don’t know, I’m never sending you to the store to buy a dozen eggs!”

There are MANY differences between the food industry and the housing industry. Did you know that many people buy ingredients for themselves and cook at home? Not so with housing. Did you know that an entire Fast Food industry creates and sells cheap food, and makes a profit by doing so? Not so with housing. Did you know that most people eat three times every single day? Compare that to how many times they buy a home. The barrier to entry in food service is low, food trucks pop up every day. Housing developers must invest a ton of money in their product before they sell it, the barrier to entry is high.

Rather than engaging in hypothetical debate around a false equivalency, I prefer to discuss facts. Fact: over the past RHNA cycle, almost all of the housing units created were unaffordable to most residents of MV. The targets for expensive market rate units were WILDLY EXCEEDED (no “blocking of supply” there). Developers are smart business people, they have VOLUNTARILY CHOSEN to meet the needs of one target audience: high income workers.

If you think that my explanations are wrong, why don’t you tell me why ALL OF THE TARGETS for all of the other categories, the “affordable” categories, were not met. If it wasn’t developers chasing after profit, what was it?

I’d also like to understand what has changed in the new Housing Element to ensure that MV’s new targets for affordable housing (6,000 units) ARE met. Because I think the answer is NOTHING.

I understand that you have strong opinions on the housing industry and its dynamics. It's important to maintain a respectful and constructive tone when engaging in a discussion, so let's refrain from resorting to mockery or personal attacks.

You pointed out several differences between the food industry and the housing industry, highlighting factors such as consumer behavior, the presence of a fast-food industry, frequency of purchase, and barriers to entry. These differences are indeed valid and contribute to the unique characteristics of each industry.

Regarding the issue of affordable housing and the targets set for different categories, it is crucial to analyze the complexities involved. While it's true that in some cases, the targets for affordable housing may not be met, it doesn't necessarily imply that developers are solely driven by profit motives or deliberately neglecting the needs of certain income groups.

The challenges in meeting affordable housing targets can arise from various factors, including regulatory barriers, economic constraints, land availability, and the overall market demand and feasibility. It's a multifaceted issue that requires collaboration between developers, policymakers, and community stakeholders to address effectively.

To gain a comprehensive understanding of why all the targets for affordable categories may not have been met, it would be beneficial to consider a range of factors, such as local zoning regulations, cost of construction and land acquisition, financing options, and the overall economic environment. By examining these aspects, we can identify potential obstacles and work towards developing strategies that incentivize the creation of affordable housing without undermining the economic viability of development projects.

By focusing on a fact-based discussion and considering the complexities of the issue, we can foster a more productive dialogue that may lead to actionable solutions.

The Housing Element did a lot for affordable housing. I suggest you read it. If you think it's full of "giveaways" to "greedy developers", you may find some surprises.

You should also read The Color of Law. I found it eye-opening.

@Clarence, it is hypocritical for someone to preach values to others when they don’t apply it to themselves. The first comment posted above is name-calling at best and hatemongering at worst: “Homeowners are also more likely to be NIMBYs and "get involved in community activities" like trying to preserve the neighborhood in amber.” Comments such as these have appeared frequently over the past 2 years, I’m not sure why you don’t notice them or condemn them. They are dog-whistles to the faithful, a group of people who insist on scapegoating existing homeowners for high housing costs without proper evidence.

You wrote, “it doesn't necessarily imply that developers are solely driven by profit motives or deliberately neglecting the needs of certain income groups.” and then you present a stream of words that doesn’t present any other explanation about why the targets for market rate units are wildly exceeded while the targets for ALL OF THE AFFORDABLE income categories are not met.

You say “it is crucial to analyze the complexities involved.” and talk about “regulatory barriers, economic constraints, land availability, and the overall market demand and feasibility.” Yet you fail to present actual analysis! That does not prevent you from taking pot-shots at my simple explanations, however (without explaining how my logic is wrong).

According to basic economic theory, a business takes action when it senses demand that can be supplied by making a profit. For-profit developers sense the demand for market-rate units, and they strive to meet that demand because they know that they can make a nice profit by doing so. They sense the demand for affordable housing too, but they don’t take action to meet that demand because the profit margins aren’t there. We don’t have enough affordable housing because for-profit developers create most housing and they simply aren’t building it. It’s not rocket science.

The problem isn't zoning, the problem is FUNDING. State and local politicians understand this. MV’s target of 6,000 affordable units (MORE THAN HALF of the 11,000 total mandate) will NOT be met because the funding is not there. Why has the YIMBY movement ignored this issue?

I'd be interested to hear your perspective on why farmers or car makers are able to produce market-rate goods that cater to most segments of the income distribution. What factors or strategies do you believe contribute to their ability to serve a broader range of consumers across different income levels? What would a for-profit developer building "affordable housing" look like, would they use cheaper materials?

I believe that the answers to your questions can be found by examining the equation

PROFIT = REVENUES – COSTS

There are industries like fast food where the total profit on an individual sale is very small. These industries are able to continue because the owners “make it up on volume”. That is true for Fast Food and grocery stores, but because everybody needs to eat every day, the total volume of sales is enough to keep these businesses in business.

You mention farmers, which is interesting, because they are in a similar category as non-profit developers. These are industries which receive aid as part of their business models. Farmers receive government subsidies, non-profit developers receive funding either from either government or private sources. So for them, the equation looks more like

PROFIT = (REVENUES – COSTS) + SUBSIDIES/FUNDING

These entities would NOT be able to function without additional funding beyond the traditional revenues that they receive for their services from their customers.

In the case of non-profits, the project “won’t pencil out” unless there is sufficient FUNDING given to the project for the developer to at least “break even”. The revenues are limited by definition, the target audience has limited income. Whether or not the project proceeds depends on the costs and the funding available to the project. No funding = No project. In MV, costs are high because we live in a very desirable area for many reasons.

Note that when it comes to BMR units created by for-profit developers, those developers are providing the funding for those units out of the profits that they receive from selling the other, market-rate portion of the complex. They are enticed to do that because of benefits (/SUBSIDIES) given to them by the state when 11% of a project is BMR. MV “requires” that at least 15% of units in these projects be BMR, but it is a hollow requirement, the CC approves project after project with less than 15% BMR. I think they do that partly because YIMBYs have put pressure on them to create “more housing of any kind” instead of “more AFFORDABLE housing”. I imagine the howls that would arise if the CC vetoed a project because not enough of it was BMR. Note that in this case it may actually be YIMBY advocacy that is “blocking the supply” of affordable housing. In order to obtain at least 15% BMR units, the CC needs to be PRAISED for vetoing a project having insufficient BMR units, instead of condemned. That is one tiny action that could be done immediately to increase the amount of BMR units created. Put public pressure on the CC to veto any project that does not provide at least 15% BMR units as is currently "required" by the city.

If we want more AFFORDABLE housing in MV, we need to come up with additional FUNDING for it.

Using tax dollars as a giveaway to landlords and developers can be seen as an inefficient allocation of resources. Instead of directly addressing the issue of affordable housing, these funds may end up benefiting individuals and entities who are already financially well-off. This approach may not effectively target those in need or contribute to long-term solutions for housing affordability.

Providing giveaways to landlords and developers can distort the housing market. It may create an artificial incentive for developers to prioritize projects that cater to high-income earners, as they can rely on government support rather than focusing on genuinely affordable housing options. This can perpetuate the existing disparities in the housing market and hinder efforts to address the needs of lower-income individuals and families.

Without proper oversight and regulations, providing giveaways to landlords and developers can lack transparency and accountability. There is a risk that the funds may not be used efficiently or effectively to address housing affordability. Without clear guidelines and monitoring mechanisms, there is a potential for misuse or misallocation of public resources.

I'm not sure what is going on here. Now you are advocating AGAINST government funding of affordable housing? Seriously?

If your suggestions are adopted, creation of AFFORDABLE housing would grind to a halt. Do you understand that?

FACT: The primary reason that 11% of the housing created in MV is affordable is because of benefits to developers provided by the State. It is old legislation, YIMBY movement had NOTHING to do with it.

“The project will provide 11% of the project's base density for units affordable to very low-income households, making it eligible for a 35% density bonus and up to two concessions under the state density bonus law, plus development waivers. Concessions allow developers to build higher in exchange for providing affordable units.” - Web Link

FACT: The city of MV has a (hollow, it turns out) requirement that 15% of units in certain projects be affordable. It is old legislation, YIMBY movement had NOTHING to do with it.

"BMR rental and ownership units are incorporated into some new market-rate developments, where 15% of the units may be affordable." - Web Link

Wow that's interesting, there was a typo on that page for the longest time. They fixed it, but also changed the language in significant ways to ELIMINATE MV’s commitment to affordable housing. When did that happen? Why? Here’s what the page looked like back in 2020:

“BMR rental and ownership units are incorporated into some new market rate developments, where between 15-25% of the units may be affordable.” Web Link

It would be really, really lovely if someone could shine a light on why that text changed. Looks like MV's commitment to providing AFFORDABLE housing took a major hit over the past three years. How odd that it happened while state and local politicians were spending so much time talking about the need for "affordable" housing.

I believe tax dollars should be used to prioritize public services and programs that benefit society as a whole, such as education, healthcare, infrastructure, or social welfare. Allocating funds directly to developers and landlords may not effectively address the needs of the broader population or address systemic issues related to housing affordability.

The transfer of tax dollars to developers and landlords exacerbates existing wealth inequalities. These subsidies or incentives primarily benefit individuals and entities who are already financially well-off, potentially widening the wealth gap and perpetuating a system that favors the privileged.

Without proper oversight and regulations, there is a risk of misallocation or misuse of public funds, potentially benefiting the interests of developers and landlords over the broader public good.

Let me tell a story to explain the hard truth of our current housing policy. 10 men are invited to a conference. 4 highest wage earners sit on the right, the 6 others sit on the left. At lunch a pizza is ordered, it is cut into 10 slices. 9 slices are given to the 4 men on the right, 1 slice is given to the other 6 to share among themselves.

The ONLY REASON that 1 slice is given to the 6 lowest-wage earners is because of state and local govt programs. Without them, essentially NO PIZZA would be given to the 6 men on the left. Private charity does make contributions, but much less than 1 slice would be given.

The bottom line: one either TRULY CARES about the plight of the men on the left, or they don't.

Once upon a time, there was a lot of discussion about the "housing crisis", people translated those words into "housing is too expensive around here". We heard LOTS of talk about the need for "affordable" housing, right? The YIMBY movement emerged, painting itself as a bunch of white knights fighting against those who were responsible for high housing costs.

Suddenly we're not talking about high housing costs anymore, or the need for affordable housing. Instead we are talking about "lack of supply", without adjectives like "market-rate" or "affordable". I submit that those in the YIMBY movement have shifted the goal posts. They have passed legislation that will dramatically increase the amount of housing built in MV over the next 8 years, however ALMOST ALL of that housing will NOT BE AFFORDABLE to most residents. Will supply increase? Yes! Will that solve the pain faced by most people? NO! It was all a clever scheme to help Big Tech hire “future residents”.

“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

Sorry, but no. I don’t buy it, especially when an apologist starts to actually advocate AGAINST state and local govt programs to increase affordable housing.

While I understand your concerns and frustrations, I would like to focus on addressing the points you've raised without reiterating the flawed pizza analogy you mentioned.

It's true that discussions around the "housing crisis" often revolve around the issue of high housing costs and the need for affordable housing. Different groups and movements, including the YIMBY movement, have emerged with various perspectives on how to tackle these challenges.

It's important to note that the focus on the "lack of supply" in housing discussions is not necessarily a shift in the goal posts. The concept of supply and demand is a fundamental aspect of economics and plays a role in shaping housing markets. Advocates for increasing housing supply argue that by addressing supply shortages, it can have a positive impact on housing affordability over time.

However, it is crucial to ensure that the increased housing supply includes a range of options that cater to different income levels, including affordable housing options. The concern you've raised about the potential lack of affordability in the new housing units being built is indeed an important consideration. Balancing the need for increased supply with the need for affordable housing is a complex challenge that requires careful planning and policy implementation.

It's essential for policymakers and community stakeholders to work together to ensure that strategies and legislation aimed at increasing housing supply also incorporate mechanisms to promote affordable housing options and address the needs of local residents. By fostering collaboration and considering the diverse housing needs of the community, it is possible to pursue sustainable solutions that benefit a broader range of individuals and mitigate the challenges faced by many residents.

Ascribing motives such as a "clever scheme" to help specific industries or groups may oversimplifies the complex dynamics involved in housing policy. Focus on constructive dialogue.

Naomi Klein wrote “The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism” to explain how, during times of crisis, questionable policies are often put forward to exploit the public. People in pain are distracted and willing to embrace “solutions” that are deeply flawed.

Only when I had been around the block quite a few times did I finally begin to see the scope of deception in politics today. Politicos speak pretty words, but their actions don’t match them. It makes me very angry. In 2016 Hillary Clinton talked about “public positions” and “private positions”. In 2012, video of Mitt Romney at a closed-doors fundraising event showed him dismissing 47% of the nation as government-dependent. "My job is not to worry about those people". Web Link Alert readers understand that politicians are often not honest. They speak pretty words in order to get support from naive voters, but then use their political power to advance the interests of rich and powerful political donors.

Under a banner of “affordable housing,” the YIMBY movement put forward proposals that will do little to lower rents for most people; these schemes will instead generate massive profits for developers and Big Tech, and increase the percentage of high wage earners who live in MV (another name for that is GENTRIFICATION). Alert readers know that Brian Hanlon founded the CA YIMBY movement with funding from Silicon Valley tech executives. Web Link

Fast forward to today. Thx to YIMBY advocacy, MV has a shiny new housing element. ““I don’t disagree with the sentiment that we should strive for compliance,” [former mayor Lucas] Ramirez said during a Dec. 13 meeting where the council discussed the latest housing element draft.” Web Link Great efforts were made to comply with the RHNA target of 11,000 new housing units. But for some mysterious reason, efforts to comply with the RHNA target of 6,000 new AFFORDABLE housing units (over HALF of the “mandate”) were not made. Hmmmm …

The public has been conned. Our politicians are doing what is best for Google’s bottom line, instead of what is best for “we the people”. It is outrageous.

It's important to clarify that the housing element compliance includes the target for affordable housing units, which encompasses the goal of 6,000 new units for very-low, low-, and moderate-income individuals. Compliance with the Regional Housing Needs Allocation target involves both overall housing unit production and the provision of affordable housing.

The former mayor's statement regarding striving for compliance encompasses the comprehensive RHNA target, including both overall units and affordable units. The distinction between overall housing unit compliance and affordable housing unit compliance is an essential aspect of meeting the housing needs of various income segments within a community.

While efforts to comply with the overall housing unit target may be acknowledged, it's important to assess the progress made specifically in meeting the affordable housing unit target. Understanding the reasons behind any disparities or challenges in meeting the affordable housing goals is crucial for effective policy development and implementation.

By analyzing the specific factors that may have hindered progress in achieving the affordable housing target, communities can identify areas for improvement and develop strategies to address the housing needs of lower-income individuals and families. Collaboration among policymakers, developers, and community stakeholders is crucial to ensure that efforts to comply with the RHNA targets encompass both overall housing unit production and the provision of affordable housing, in alignment with the needs of the community.

“It's important to clarify that the housing element compliance includes the target for affordable housing units, which encompasses the goal of 6,000 new units for very-low, low-, and moderate-income individuals. Compliance with the Regional Housing Needs Allocation target involves both overall housing unit production and the provision of affordable housing.”

These are pretty words that say absolutely nothing. Does a target for 6,000 affordable units exist? Yes. Will it be met? No. There is not enough funding for it. State and local politicians understand this, it is a dirty little secret that they don’t want to talk about. MV YIMBY leaders understand this, yet they do not advocate for additional funding. And rather than advocate for additional funding, @Clarence goes the other way, advocating AGAINST the existing funding mechanisms that are already in place. At least, that is what he writes in THIS thread. He gives the appearance of being pro-funding in a different one: Web Link Which is it? Why the inconsistency?

Some people write comments to inform others. Their arguments are consistent, and they provide links to sources to enable others to confirm for themselves the truth of what is being said.

Others write comments to misinform. It’s not surprising, really. As I said in my first comment, our society is increasingly filled with predatory capitalists. Many politicians don’t strive to solve our problems, they strive to advance their own careers, often by helping rich predators who fund their political campaigns. The name of the game is deception. Politicians hold “public” positions to gain political power, then they misuse that power to help their donors.

The pain that so many people have re housing costs is being exploited to help certain rich players get even richer. After all the talk about the need for affordable housing, that pain is going to continue for low-income and average workers as our housing element gets implemented. And existing residents of MV have been being falsely scapegoated in the process.

Dramatically increasing the supply of market-rate housing WILL NOT HELP middle income and lower-income workers, they can’t afford it. This strategy benefits developers, investors, high wage workers, and corporations who want to hire even more high wage workers. Our housing strategy is designed to help Google hire “future residents”. It is outrageous. This ain’t democracy.

It's important to read comments fully and consider the complex and nuanced nature of the issues at hand. The issue of funding for affordable housing is multifaceted and involves various levels of government, budgetary considerations, and policy decisions. It's crucial to recognize that advocating for additional funding and determining the most effective funding mechanisms are complex tasks. Different individuals and organizations may have differing opinions and strategies on how best to approach this issue.

It's important to examine the context of my comments in different threads to gain a more comprehensive understanding of my stance. I have expressed different views or highlighted various aspects of the funding mechanisms based on the specific discussions or contexts.

The complexities surrounding housing affordability require careful analysis, collaboration, and informed decision-making. Different perspectives and approaches can contribute to a more robust and comprehensive dialogue. Providing sources and supporting arguments with evidence is indeed valuable in fostering an informed discussion where individuals can assess the information for themselves.

Engaging in constructive dialogue, considering diverse viewpoints, and being open to examining the complexities of the issues at hand are crucial steps toward finding effective solutions to the challenges of affordable housing.

@Clarence, you've written so many words, and you claim to be a proponent of affordable housing. But I don’t see how your words actually make that happen. It looks to me like you are making a lot of excuses about why affordable housing is so difficult or even impossible to provide, which is kind of odd since you claim to be so passionate about the need to provide it.

We have a shiny new housing element that was forced upon us by State politicians, and only one MV council member voted against it.

The housing element was forced upon us under a banner of “affordable housing”.

The housing element was forced upon us under a banner of “affordable housing”.

The housing element was forced upon us under a banner of “affordable housing”.

You write: “Different individuals and organizations may have differing opinions and strategies on how best to approach this issue.” If that is true, where was the robust discussion on this topic for the past 2 years?

For that entire time, I've been asking for an explanation about how building tons of market-rate units would cause rents to drop for low-income and average workers. The only explanation given is a faulty one using trickle down logic that does not hold water, see “Guest opinion: Housing affordability bills' math doesn't add up”, Web Link

YIMBYs have advocated for “more housing of any kind”, and that is exactly what we are getting in our housing element. Tons and tons of UNAFFORDABLE housing, which alert readers can see MEETS the criteria of YIMBY movement.

And now a YIMBY apologist explains why actual, you know, AFFORDABLE housing is so very difficult if not impossible to provide. Because of course that is what a YIMBY apologist would say. Heaven forbid that the YIMBY movement be held accountable for advocacy that disproportionately helps high income workers over those farther down the ladder.

I apologize if my previous explanations did not adequately address your specific concern about how building market-rate units would cause rents to drop for low-income and average workers. It's important to note that the relationship between market-rate housing and affordability is indeed a complex and multifaceted issue, and there are differing viewpoints on its impact.

The argument that increasing the supply of market-rate housing could potentially benefit lower-income and average workers is based on the principle of supply and demand. The idea is that by increasing the overall housing supply, it may alleviate some pressure on the housing market and help stabilize or slow down rent increases.

When there is a larger supply of housing units available, it can moderate the competition for rental units, thereby reducing the upward pressure on prices. This benefits lower-income and average workers by offering them more options and potentially limiting rent hikes.

However, it's important to acknowledge that the relationship between supply and demand in the housing market is not linear, and other factors come into play. Market dynamics, local policies, and specific market conditions can influence the actual impact on affordability.

Moreover, it's essential to address the specific needs of lower-income and average workers through targeted affordable housing programs, rent control measures, subsidies, and other initiatives designed to directly support these populations.

Ultimately, finding effective solutions to housing affordability requires a comprehensive approach that encompasses various strategies, including a mix of affordable housing options, supportive policies, and community engagement. Open and ongoing dialogue, considering diverse perspectives and empirical evidence, is crucial to shaping informed decisions and developing solutions that address the complex issue of housing affordability for all residents.

“I apologize if my previous explanations did not adequately address your specific concern about how building market-rate units would cause rents to drop for low-income and average workers.”

You did not provide ANY explanations. Of course that does not “adequately address [my] specific concern”. Love the use of the word “specific”, as if my “concern” for the welfare of those who are not at the top of the ladder is so obscure.

For the past 2 years, the YIMBY movement has painted themselves as white knights while they scapegoated existing residents as being the cause of the high cost of housing. This behavior needs to be called out. It is morally and ethically wrong to cast blame on innocent people.

State and local politicians have used strong-arm tactics to implement false “solutions” advocated by YIMBYs that were supposed to bring down the high cost of housing. A widespread campaign of propaganda and disinformation has been conducted. Will the cost of housing go down for low-income and average workers? No. This behavior needs to be called out.

YIMBYs have advocated for “more housing of any kind”, this is exactly what we are getting in our housing element. Tons and tons of UNAFFORDABLE housing. Hooray! YIMBY concerns for “teachers, service workers, and kids who don’t code” were all a ruse to manufacture consent for a housing element designed to help Google hire and house “future residents”, instead of the EXISTING RESIDENTS who are already here. Our democracy is broken. Politicians are doing what is best for the rich and powerful, instead of ordinary people.

“The laws of supply and demand have not one but two parts. The reason that “build, baby, build” seems so logical is that many people unwittingly forget about the “demand” part of the equation. When demand for housing is very high, as it is in Mountain View, increasing supply does not automatically lower prices. Remember: Developers prefer to build market-rate housing. They see strong demand for it.” Web Link

I apologize if my previous responses did not meet your expectations. I understand that you have concerns regarding the impact of market-rate housing and the strategies advocated by the YIMBY movement. It's important to have a respectful discussion about differing viewpoints.

You bring up valid concerns about the complexities of housing affordability and the potential limitations of relying solely on market-rate housing development. It is true that developers often prioritize market-rate housing due to the profitability it offers. The demand for housing in high-demand areas like Mountain View can create challenges in achieving significant affordability gains through market-rate development alone.

It's important to consider a comprehensive approach to address housing affordability that includes a range of strategies, such as targeted affordable housing programs, rent control, subsidies, and other initiatives. These measures can directly support lower-income and average workers and ensure that the needs of existing residents are not overlooked.

Engaging in informed discussions, challenging misinformation, and advocating for policies that prioritize the well-being of all residents are essential steps towards addressing housing affordability issues in a fair and equitable manner.

Ultimately, the goal should be to create a diverse and inclusive community that provides housing options for people of all income levels, while considering the unique challenges and context of each locality. By fostering dialogue and understanding, we can work towards finding solutions that prioritize the welfare of existing residents and promote a more equitable housing landscape.