In July, a guest opinion was published Web Link from a volunteer lead with the group MV YIMBY. The author urged passage of SB 423 in order to “extend and strengthen” SB 35. One of the bills that Newsom just signed into law was SB 423, authored by Sen. Scott Wiener.

At first glance, SB 35 sounds lovely. A bill that enables/forces construction of at least 50% of units as below market housing in a housing project? What’s not to like? But then I wondered what would induce a for-profit developer to embrace SB 35? Developers are business people, they are driven by profit, and there simply is not profit in building affordable housing. When one looks at the Vallco Mall Project, the answer becomes visible: the profit will come from a sneaky trick: OFFICE SPACE is part of the “housing” project. Wait, what?

“The Vallco Shopping Mall redevelopment project in Cupertino is the largest project to have utilized SB 35. The project will include retail and 2 million square feet of office space, and 2,402 total units of housing. Half of those units, or 1,201, will be designated as below-market rate housing for low and very low-income residents.” - Web Link

In order to qualify for SB 35, the project must “be on land zoned for residential use”, that’s one of the rules. See what happened? With Vallco, SB 35 was used to create office space in what was previously a residential area. In the guest opinion, @LongResident left a comment: “Cupertino was forced to allow over 2 Million square feet of new office and commercial space into the city, in the name of adding housing. But it's not even enough housing for the people working in the project itself!”

SB 35 is like free lunch. Most of us understand that there is no such thing, when a “free lunch is given something else is paying for it. Using SB 35, and now SB 423, to INCREASE the jobs/housing imbalance is nothing but a very clever trick to fool the public.

When a “housing project” is approved that increases THE NEED for housing beyond the actual number of new units it creates, we are chasing after fool’s gold. Developers make $$$, check. The need for affordable housing grows, check. SB 423 is NOT a step in the right direction. Please keep that in mind when you vote next year.

SB 35 is designed to streamline the approval process for housing projects in cities. It requires cities to approve projects that meet specific criteria outlined in the law, such as being consistent with local zoning codes and general plans. The intention behind SB 35 is to address the housing crisis by making it easier to build housing developments, especially affordable and below-market-rate units, in areas where there is a housing shortage.

In the case of the Vallco Mall Project, it's accurate that the development included both housing and office space. While the inclusion of office space might seem counterintuitive to the goal of increasing residential housing, the law does not prohibit the combination of residential and commercial spaces. Instead, it aims to promote the construction of housing units by streamlining the approval process for projects that align with local zoning and planning guidelines.

The argument against SB 35 seems to be based on the concern that developers could exploit the law to prioritize commercial space over housing, exacerbating the jobs/housing imbalance. However, the responsibility lies with local authorities to ensure that the projects approved under SB 35 adhere to the intended goal of increasing housing supply.

SB 423, which you mentioned in your initial message, is a different legislation aimed at extending and strengthening SB 35. It is essential for local communities to remain vigilant and actively engage with the development process to ensure that projects approved under these laws genuinely address the housing crisis and benefit the community as intended. The focus should be on effective implementation and oversight rather than dismissing the legislation itself.

”The intention behind SB 35 is to address the housing crisis by making it easier to build housing developments, especially affordable and below-market-rate units, in areas where there is a housing shortage.”

That is the publicly stated intention. But voters today are savvy enough to understand that politicians have both public positions and private ones, the ones they only reveal in non-public events held with campaign donors. Private “intentions” are best observed by Following The Money: Who makes $$$ from a bill? Who is harmed? Who makes $$$ when it is easier to build housing, over the objections of residents? Developers, that’s who.

“The argument against SB 35 seems to be based on the concern that developers could exploit the law to prioritize commercial space over housing, exacerbating the jobs/housing imbalance. “

Use the PAST tense, not the future tense: developers HAVE EXPLOITED a law given to us by Sen. Scott Wiener and approved by state politicians. A bill that was supposed to “boost affordability, help tenants’ will actually cause more harm than good: it will exacerbate the jobs/housing imbalance. Oops.

”However, the responsibility lies with local authorities to ensure that the projects approved under SB 35 adhere to the intended goal of increasing housing supply.”

Wait, what? I think you are trying to have your cake and eat it too. SB 35 is a bill that TAKES AWAY CONTROL by local authorities, because they have supposedly been doing such a lousy job for decades and decades and decades. Isn't that the excuse? And now SB 423, recently signed into law by Gov. Newsom, “extends and strengthens” SB 35. Now that the truth is out, that SB 35 has been EXPLOITED by developers to increase the jobs/housing imbalance in the wrong direction … now you want to lay that burden onto the shoulders of local authorities? Sorry, but no.

“"It's simple math," said Newsom in a statement released by his office. "California needs to build more housing and ensure the housing we have is affordable."”

These words are so dishonest. When a “housing project” is approved that increases THE NEED for housing beyond the actual number of new units it creates, we are chasing after fool’s gold. That’s what these bills do, ever so cleverly. They don’t solve the problems, they keep the problems going.

You are correct that SB 35 does aim to streamline the approval process for housing projects in cities. However, it does not completely strip away local control. Cities still maintain control over their zoning and general plans. SB 35 applies in cases where cities are not meeting their own predetermined housing goals and have fallen behind in providing affordable housing options.

In the examples you provided, the projects approved under SB 35, including the combination of residential and office spaces, were consistent with the cities' own zoning and general plans. While it might seem counterintuitive, the local authorities had the flexibility to approve such projects based on their existing plans. SB 35 becomes applicable when cities fail to meet their housing targets, encouraging them to prioritize housing development without entirely disregarding their established guidelines.

The issue you raised about developers exploiting the law to increase the jobs/housing imbalance is a valid concern. It emphasizes the importance of effective oversight and community engagement. Local authorities must strike a balance between encouraging housing development and ensuring that it aligns with the needs and goals of the community. Proper implementation and vigilance can help address these concerns without dismissing the entire legislation.

“Cities still maintain control over their zoning and general plans.”

No. With Vallco, SB 35 was used to create office space in what was previously a residential area. The city's zoning was over-ruled.

“SB 35 applies in cases where cities are not meeting their own predetermined housing goals and have fallen behind in providing affordable housing options.”

This is yet another sneaky political trick. State politicians hand unfunded mandates to cities, and then when the cities don’t “comply” (because they don’t have the funds!), they give perks to developers!

Take MV for example. Per our new Housing Element, page 241, MOST OF THE NEW HOUSING “mandated” by the state is supposed to AFFORDABLE housing:

“The City’s RHNA requirements for the 2023-2031 Housing Element projection period are summarized in Table 35 ... the City of Mountain View is required to plan to accommodate the development of at least 11,135 housing units. This includes 2,773 units for very low-income households, 1,597 units for low-income households, 1,885 units for moderate-income households, and 4,880 units for above moderate-income households.” - Web Link

These goals will not be met. Why? The city lacks BOTH plans and funding to build these units.

As a result, the residents of MV will be harmed in multiple ways:

1) we won’t get the 6,000 units of affordable housing that the state knows we need.

2) the state actually BLAMES US for not providing this affordable housing to ourselves (!)

3) developers then become eligible to use a bill like SB 35 to create office space in what was previously a residential area, thus keeping the jobs/housing imbalance going and keeping housing costs high.

Bills like SB 35 are very sneaky. They don’t solve the problems, they keep the problems going.

The claim that SB 35 was used to create office space in what was previously a residential area, and that the city's zoning was overruled in the Vallco case, is factually inaccurate. The Vallco development plans were in line with the local zoning regulations and general plans. SB 35 requires projects to be compliant with local zoning and general plans, and in the case of Vallco, the proposed development followed the mixed-use zoning, which includes residential, office, and retail spaces. Therefore, the use of SB 35 for Vallco was consistent with the established local plans and zoning regulations, and there was no overruling of the city's zoning in this context.

“FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQs) ABOUT SENATE BILL 35 AND VALLCO TOWN CENTER APPLICATION” - Web Link

“2. WHAT ARE THE ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR THE SB 35 STREAMLINED, MINISTERIAL APPROVAL PROCESS?”

“State housing law requires cities and counties to report their housing production annually according to the number of building permits issued within the jurisdiction by income level. SB 35 applies to cities that are unable to issue sufficient number of building permits to meet their regional housing needs allocation (“RHNA”) goals for both above income and lower income units. At this time, Cupertino has issued enough building permits to meet its RHNA goal for construction of above-moderate income housing. However, there has not been enough construction activity leading to the issuance of building permits for lower income units.”

“Projects providing affordable housing for low income levels are eligible for the streamlined, ministerial approval process if they meet all of the following criteria:

“c. Designated for Residential Uses. Have a general plan and/or zoning designation that allows residential or mixed-use with at least two-thirds of the square footage as residential use.”

"g. Consistent with Objective Planning Standards. Must meet all objective general
plan, zoning and design review standards in effect at the time the application is
submitted. Note: SB 35 defines objective standards as those standards that involve
no personal or subjective judgment by a public official, and are uniformly verifiable
by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and
knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official prior to submittal."

The use of SB 35 for Vallco was consistent with the established local plans and zoning regulations, and there was no overruling of the city's zoning in this context.

Alert readers are aware that STATE POLITICIANS have recently put MV and all other cities through a “Housing Element” exercise, where city leaders were FORCED to whatever was necessary to achieve the unexplainable RHNA numbers mandated by the state: 11,135 total, 6,225 affordable housing units (p 241, Web Link ). In it’s zeal to comply, our city council set an even more aggressive goal for the total, 15,000 units, (a 40% increase over today!) but somehow didn’t spell out how many of those would be affordable.

I bring this up to point out that any areas that are newly designated as mixed-use are now potential targets for office construction and loss of retail. It is all dependent on the FINE PRINT in these laws.

“Mountain View City Council approves zoning changes to add residential and mixed-uses to city's shopping centers” - Web Link Residents who liked the idea of housing over retail? Surprise! Prepare for housing over office space instead, made possible by bills like SB 35. As long as a project meets the FINE PRINT spelled out in the law, a then sitting City Council will have no choice but to “reluctantly approve” such a project. That’s also a nefarious part of this housing strategy. Laws are passed now, and most of the public HAS NO IDEA what they really mean or if they contain poison pills that will be encountered at some point in the future. Politicians in the future will have little choice except to “obey the law”, or risk lawsuits where ultimately the lawyers decide what the law really means. That’s the lesson to be learned from Vallco.

State politicians are serving the best interests of developers and other who profit from the production of market rate housing instead of ordinary residents. Why is that? Web Link Is this the kind of world you want to live in? Where local politicians have no real powers to protect residents? Voters need to urgently wake up and see this, and keep that in mind when you vote next year.

It's understandable to have concerns about the impact of legislation like SB 35 on local communities. However, it's essential to clarify that SB 35 operates within the framework of existing zoning and general plans set by cities. In the case of Cupertino and the Vallco project, the city had zoned the area for roughly 2 million square feet of office space. While it may be surprising to some residents, the inclusion of office space in the project aligns with the city's zoning regulations. Retail zoning and office zoning are separate uses, so you are incorrect in saying that because Mountain View is zoning for retail it means one can build offices.

The intention behind SB 35 is to encourage cities to approve projects that conform to their established plans, promoting housing development in areas where it is needed. It's crucial to base discussions on accurate information to foster a better understanding of the legislation's objectives and limitations. Misinformation can cloud the conversation around these important issues.

@Clarence, I can only be guilty of being mistaken, not of spreading “misinformation”. I am learning more ugly truths about our housing policies almost every day.

The devil is in the details. “While it may be surprising to some residents, the inclusion of office space in the project aligns with the city's zoning regulations.” I am confident that MOST RESIDENTS are not intimately familiar with all of our city’s zoning regulations, either the old ones or the new ones that have been forced upon us in order to “comply” with the state’s mandates. Which leaves us vulnerable to abuse by those who have far more knowledge about these matters and their own political objectives.

“Retail zoning and office zoning are separate uses, so you are incorrect in saying that because Mountain View is zoning for retail it means one can build offices.”

??? I never said that. I provided evidence that shows that state politicians have handed cities incredibly expensive and unfunded mandates to build low-income housing, and then provided bills like SB 35 and SB423 to be used as weapons by developers when we don’t meet those mandates.

Projects are eligible for SB 35, if they meet all criteria. One of the criteria is “Have a general plan and/or zoning designation that allows residential or mixed-use with at least two-thirds of the square footage as residential use.” The city council recently approved zoning changes to add residential and mixed-uses to city shopping centers (but only because of pressure to meet density mandates from state politicians)

So based on the information that I have been able to glean, it appears that our shopping centers are now eligible to be projects under SB 35, if a developer desires to do so. Please show me where I am wrong. Please provide evidence to explain why you know with such certainty that some developer won’t pull a Vallco on our shopping centers.

Admitting mistakes and correcting misinformation are crucial steps toward a better understanding of complex issues like housing policies. It's essential for all of us to engage in open and informed discussions, being receptive to new information and perspectives. Our collective efforts to learn and share accurate information contribute to a more constructive dialogue around these critical topics.

For example, the following quotes of yours contain inaccuracies around what SB 35 does:

"With Vallco, SB 35 was used to create office space in what was previously a residential area. The city's zoning was over-ruled."

"Residents who liked the idea of housing over retail? Surprise! Prepare for housing over office space instead, made possible by bills like SB 35."

SB 35 does not "over-rule" a city's zoning, and if any office space is built, it is not due to SB 35, but rather the city's local zoning and general plans. I appreciate your willingness to admit these inaccuracies and correcting the misinformation.

“It's essential for all of us to engage in open and informed discussions, being receptive to new information and perspectives. ”

These are pretty words, @Clarence. I wish you would follow your own advice. I’m trying to engage in open and honest debate, yet you failed to answer my question:

“Please provide evidence to explain why you know with certainty that some developer won’t pull a Vallco on our shopping centers.”

Why don’t you answer the question? Is it because even though you present yourself as some kind of an expert on these matters, you don’t know the answer? Or is the situation even worse? Is it possible that I am correct, and you simply don’t wish to admit the truth? The city council approved zoning changes to add residential and mixed-uses to city shopping centers (because of heavy handed pressure to meet density mandates from state politicians, mind you, not any other reason). From what I can glean, such zoning creates the opportunity for some developer to “leverage” SB 35 to “incentivize” our city council to approve the project, just as Sand Hill did in Cupertino to gain approval for Vallco.

You are correct, SB 35 does not “over-rule” a city’s zoning. State politicians essentially did that when they put heavy handed pressure on MV to meet their outrageous density mandates. I am confident that MOST RESIDENTS are not intimately familiar with all of our city’s zoning regulations, either the old ones or the new ones. Which leaves us vulnerable to abuse by those who have far more knowledge about these matters and their own political objectives. The zoning that we have meets the approval of the state, but not necessarily the majority of people who actually live here. We never had a say in the matter.

State politicians are serving the best interests of developers and other who profit from the production of market rate housing instead of ordinary residents. Why is that?

“In a revealing 2017 article, Pantheon CEO Zack Rosen, who co-founded California YIMBY, explained Big Tech’s jump into land-use and housing policy. He told The Information, a news site for tech insiders, that a “combination of over-regulation by the state and the tech industry’s success has created the [housing] problem. I feel there’s a real onus on us to lead.”

“In other words, California YIMBY, fully staffed with organizing directors, assistants, a lobbyist, and policy wonks, and State Sen. Scott Wiener, the most aggressive California legislator of YIMBY policies, are carrying out an orchestrated defense, and expansion, of Big Tech’s gigantic profits.” - Web Link

This is not democracy. This is oligarchy, with a side of fascism.

Consistency in rules, especially in zoning and land-use plans, is essential. Cities need to establish clear and coherent guidelines that accurately represent the kinds of projects they are willing to approve. Clarity in these regulations is key to promoting responsible development.

For the city centers in Mountain View, you can see an example for the Grant-Phyllis Area permitted uses:

"1. Large-scale (i.e., having single -store floor area of approximately 30,000 square feet) retail anchor uses primarily oriented to serving the broader community
and the surrounding region. [...]

2. Restaurants, including those serving beer and wine incidental to food service. [...]

3. Community- or local-serving uses occupying no more than 60% of the total floor area in the Grant Regional Shopping Plaza, including the following:
a. Banks and other local-serving office uses.
b. Automobile gas stations, Including minor auto repair.
C. Retail and personal service uses"

In the principles section it explains:

"C. Local-serving retail and office uses may be appropriate if clearly secondary to the
regional commercial emphasis of this area.

D. Large-scale offices, especially those serving as employment centers rather than
service outlets, are not appropriate."

It's essential for communities to be actively engaged in the decision-making process, ensuring that their voices are heard when it comes to zoning regulations or development projects. Local participation and transparency in these matters are crucial to addressing the concerns of residents and ensuring that the policies implemented truly reflect the needs and desires of the community.

It's a complex issue, and it highlights the importance of balanced and informed dialogue between residents, local authorities, and policymakers to navigate these challenges effectively. Your concerns shed light on the need for more inclusive and democratic processes when it comes to shaping the future of our communities.

Can you please provide a link to your source, so that other parties such as myself can examine it more closely? Thank you.

I visited the Mountain View Voice link you provided, which had a link to the Council Report [ Web Link ]. From there or Mountain View's meeting page, one can easily find the attachments containing the specific text.

Vallco's project defies description in a number of ways. It absolutely was blanket or ministerialy approved without resident input that would have been exceedingly valuable.

It remains to be seen if much of the planned project is even built given the changed environment for office space and retail space which are the majority of the project cost-wise and floorspace-wise. Counting parking for residences as residential is really crazy. There's a lot of alleged residential floorspace inside this patchwork that is in fact just parking. SB35 got all the parking approved.

The thing is that it's sovereign wealth funds that were supposed to finance this monstrosity. Such funding may not flow through to completion and the nature of the complicated project means other funding sources are unlikely. All thanks to SB35....

It's not really a case of office or housing above retail. The retail is in separate buildings with nothing on top. The office space is likewise in completely separate buildings. Instead what we have is high price luxury ownership housing above low income housing that kind of resembles a ghetto. There's a bizarre faux hill that is a canopy separating the lower levels where the low income housing is from the view of the luxury 2500sf condos. So they look down on fake greenery with no trees but obscuring any visual clue to the existence of the lower status housing where the poor folks live. The natural light to the windows of the low income housing comes through window wells in the fake hill. All thanks to SB35. No one would have approved this discriminatory design without SB35..... go YIMBY you're building ghettos.

It's really amazing how little the terrible structure of the fake hill project is understood by the community in general.

This is why I say that consistency in rules, especially in zoning and land-use plans, is essential. Cities need to establish clear and coherent guidelines that accurately represent the kinds of projects they are willing to approve. Clarity in these regulations is key to promoting responsible development. If a plan that is consistent with zoning and land use would not be approved, that is a failure of the City of Cupertino to adequately plan.

From reading the City's FAQ about the project that Leslie shared, the City says:

"26. DOES THE VTC SB 35 PROJECT DISPERSE THE AFFORDABLE UNITS
THROUGHOUT THE PROJECT?

The affordable units are dispersed throughout the residential buildings."

Admitting mistakes and correcting misinformation are crucial steps toward a better understanding of complex issues like housing policies. It's essential for all of us to engage in open and informed discussions, being receptive to new information and perspectives. Our collective efforts to learn and share accurate information contribute to a more constructive dialogue around these critical topics.

“Cities need to establish clear and coherent guidelines that accurately represent the kinds of projects they are willing to approve. Clarity in these regulations is key to promoting responsible development.”

Agreed.

“If a plan that is consistent with zoning and land use would not be approved, that is a failure of the City of Cupertino to adequately plan.”

This is the kind of argument that only a lawyer would make, and it reflects the strategy taken by the CA YIMBY leaders. Not only are state politicians giving unfunded mandates to cities to build affordable housing, they are requiring that cities craft zoning regulations to such a degree of perfection that they reflect “the will of the people” all alone, by themselves. To craft such documents would be a Herculean, if not impossible, task. The strategy is nefarious, especially because the ultimate intent is to SILENCE OBJECTIONS from the ordinary people in the community, a group that is not “fully staffed with organizing directors, assistants, a lobbyist, and policy wonks” like CA YIMBY is. The strategy is to blame the victim: if the residents don’t like what developers are building, they can only blame themselves for not being more engaged in the process of crafting their city’s zoning documents when state politicians were forcing them to increase their housing supply by 11,000 units.

I’ve been reviewing the GRANT-PHYLLIS PRECISE PLAN, Web Link

It is a complex legal document that is difficult and time consuming to understand. I find it absurd for state politicians to presume that most voters in MV have read these documents at all, and certainly not to the extent required to formally approve them.

But from what I can glean, @Clarence, offices are not disallowed from General Plan Mixed-Use Village Centers. On page 7, under “Allowed Uses ” of “Neighborhood Commercial Floor Area” is the following: “Per the CN Zoning District in Section 36.18.05.” Clear as mud, right?

But I persisted, and found “DIVISION 4. - COMMERCIAL-NEIGHBORHOOD (CN) ZONING DISTRICT STANDARDS - SEC. 36.18.35. - CN zone development standards.” - Web Link

A “land use” of “office” normally requires a “conditional use permit”. I think that has a nice symmetry to it, because use of that land as a “General Plan Mixed-Use Village Center” is not a “Permitted Use,” it is only a “Provisional Use”.

Please explain why you know with certainty that some developer won’t use SB 35 to build office space in our shopping centers. “Per the CN Zoning District in Section 36.18.05.” seems to allow it, but I’m no lawyer (and neither are most voters in MV, I’m pretty sure).

Representative democracy is designed to address precisely this issue. In a representative democracy, citizens elect officials who are entrusted to study complex legal documents, make informed decisions on behalf of their constituents, and ensure that policies align with the community's best interests. Elected representatives are accountable to the voters, and it's their responsibility to delve into intricate documents like the Grant-Phyllis Precise Plan, allowing citizens to focus on their daily lives while still having a say in the direction of their community through their elected representatives.

It is crucial for these representatives to maintain transparency and engage with their constituents, providing accessible summaries and opportunities for public input. This ensures that the decisions made, even in the face of complex legal documents, remain representative of the community's needs and values. Effective communication between citizens and their elected officials is vital for a healthy democracy, allowing for the complexities of governance to be navigated while still reflecting the will of the people.

RE: Office CUP: "b. Offices. May be allowed by conditional use permit only where the zoning administrator determines that the proposed use is neighborhood-serving consistent with the purpose statement in Section 36.18. and sufficient parking is provided."

RE: Purpose Statement: "a.CN (Commercial-Neighborhood) district. The CN zoning district provides convenient shopping for surrounding residential neighborhoods, including retail and service uses that members of the public can obtain from the business (e.g., grocery stores, cleaners, restaurants, beauty salons, tax preparation and similar and related compatible uses). The CN zoning district is not intended for uses that may attract traffic from outside the local area. The CN zoning district is consistent with the neighborhood commercial land use designation of the general plan."

"28 cities and counties have met their lower and above moderate income RHNA. 298 jurisdictions have not created enough housing to meet their above moderate income RHNA.[29] Projects in these jurisdictions can qualify for SB 35 housing if developments with 10% of housing units devoted to below market housing.

213 jurisdictions have not created enough housing to meet their above very low and low-income RHNA.[29] Projects in these jurisdictions can qualify for SB 35 housing if developments with 50% of housing units devoted to below market housing.[29]"

NIMBY v. YIMBY I think is a fair (Bain v. Rown) critique of this thread (tapestry? :-)

The above quote from Bain's reference to SB 35 in Wikipedia IMO summaries Why the State Legislative Process took back the right of the State to regulate the public welfare, and be supreme to the cities it created. Local governing groups like Cupertino's city council, had for decades, (or in Berkeley's case a century) created and used local zoning in a way that created Red Lining and exclusion of lower income residents. Racial minorities (i.e. USA VP Harris time as a 'bussed student' in Berkeley's schools) were usually the target of such 'local control'. Cupertino, Berkeley, and other cities have had their legal ability to further do this stripped away! Hooray Leslie.
Many of us just say "Hooray!"

Since I have not received a response after posting a detailed followup, I hope that your concerns regarding the complexities of local planning documents and the decision-making process have been adequately addressed. It's essential for citizens to voice their concerns and remain engaged in the democratic process. By actively participating in community discussions, attending local meetings, and communicating with elected officials, residents like you play a crucial role in shaping policies and holding representatives accountable.

Additionally, local governments often provide resources to help residents understand complex documents, ensuring transparency and accessibility. If there are still aspects of the Grant-Phyllis Precise Plan or any other local policies that remain unclear, reaching out to your elected representatives or local community organizations can provide valuable insights and clarifications.

Your involvement and commitment to staying informed are key to maintaining a vibrant and responsive democracy. By continuing to express your concerns and seeking understanding, you contribute to the ongoing dialogue that shapes the future of your community.

“Representative democracy is designed to address precisely this issue.”

This is a gross misunderstanding of what those words actually mean. The word “representative” does not void or nullify the word “democracy”. Elected politicians are supposed to act in accordance with the will of the people, the voters who actually vote for them and thus give them power. We don’t have “representative monarchy”, where the politicians are chosen and empowered to be little kings who can do whatever they alone think is best. “Consent of the governed” is a very important principle, it refers to the “idea that a government's legitimacy and moral right to use state power is justified and lawful only when consented to by the people or society over which that political power is exercised.” - Web Link Interesting factoid: “Article 21 of the United Nations' 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that "The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government". ”

There are times when politicians compete with other politicians and express competing ideas on how to govern. When that happens, the victor is legitimately considered to have a mandate from the people for the idea they championed. As I recall, absolutely none of the candidates for City Council last November ran on platforms that gave them mandates to serve as champions of zoning expertise to “ensure that policies align with the community's best interests.” And I recall one of the candidates being condemned in certain quarters as being a “residentialist”, an adjective I continue to find shocking. How dare a candidate run on behalf of the residents of the community! Furthermore, Gov. Newsom did not sign SB 9 and SB 10 into law until AFTER his recall election had ended, he certainly had no mandate from the people on those laws. Why did he wait until AFTER the threat of recall to sign them? Web Link

“Elected representatives are accountable to the voters”

If only this were true. We are locked into Red Team vs Blue Team battles, where voters have no choice but to choose the lesser of two evils, which always results in evil. Politicians increasingly are accountable only to their donors.

“Study: US is an oligarchy, not a democracy” - Web Link

“The tech industry’s key agents are California YIMBY, the statewide lobbying group founded and funded by tech executives, and State Sen. Scott Wiener, who, since 2015, has socked away a staggering $554,235 in campaign cash from Big Tech, including sizable contributions from Facebook, Google, and Amazon ... California YIMBY and Wiener are inextricably linked — and Big Tech is the mothership.” - Web Link

You make a valid point about the challenges in the broader political landscape. In the context of Mountain View, it's worth noting that local elections, including the city council, are nonpartisan. Unlike partisan elections, where candidates are clearly aligned with specific political parties, Mountain View's nonpartisan system makes it difficult to identify the political affiliations of city council members. This approach aims to prioritize the issues and concerns of the local community over partisan politics, fostering a more direct connection between elected representatives and the residents they serve. While challenges certainly exist in the realm of campaign finance and political influence, the nonpartisan nature of Mountain View's elections encourages a focus on the city's unique needs and solutions.

There are indeed significant challenges in the broader political landscape, challenges that voters ignore at their own peril. But I am talking about what is happening right here in MV. State politicians are serving the best interests of developers and others (/Google) who profit from the production of market rate housing instead of ordinary residents who already live here.

It is wrong to imply that partisan politics do not affect us in MV. From Cambridge dictionary Web Link

“partisan – adjective

strongly supporting a person, principle, or political party, often without considering or judging the matter very carefully:

- The audience was very partisan, and refused to listen to her speech.
- partisan politics”

In MV, this plays out in interactions between the YIMBYs and the anti-YIMBYs. CA YIMBY was founded and funded by tech executives – make no mistake, the YIMBYs are on the side of Google. It is ordinary residents, not employed by or beholden to Google, who are often denounced as “NIMBYs”.

State politicians are helping Google using deceptive legislation related to “affordable housing”. It all begins with the State assigning responsibility for the creation of truly AFFORDABLE housing to our city itself. That is a pretty huge and unfair burden. Apparently we only have ourselves to blame for not creating such units? Never mind that most residents of MV are not in the business of creating housing. Never mind that for-profit developers ARE in that business, they build MOST housing, and they shy away from building AFFORDABLE housing unless compensated for it.

State politicians are basically requiring the residents of MV to build affordable housing without giving us any compensation to do so. Is this fair or even reasonable? No. As a result, the residents of MV will be harmed in multiple ways:

1) we won’t get the 6,225 units of affordable housing that the state KNOWS we need, the kind of housing that benefits teachers, service workers, and kids who don’t code.

2) the state actually BLAMES US for not providing this affordable housing to ourselves (!)

3) developers become eligible to use a bill like SB 35 which are designed to minimize and silence objections from residents.

This is not democracy, and it’s not “representative democracy” either.

You're highlighting a critical tension between state mandates and local autonomy. In the context of representative democracy, state-level representatives are responsible for addressing broader state issues, including affordable housing needs across various communities. Local governments, on the other hand, exist to serve the unique needs of their constituents. In the case of Mountain View, your local representatives are entrusted to design land use policies and zoning regulations that reflect the specific needs and preferences of the city's residents. See the example of the Grant-Phyllis Precise Plan.

While state mandates can present challenges, the essence of representative democracy lies in the power of local officials to advocate for their community. Your local representatives are crucial advocates, serving as a bridge between state-level requirements and the specific concerns of Mountain View residents. By engaging with your local government, you can voice your concerns and work collaboratively with your elected officials to shape policies that genuinely reflect the interests and well-being of the community. This ongoing dialogue between citizens and their representatives is fundamental to the democratic process, ensuring that local decisions are made with a deep understanding of the community they impact.

“You're highlighting a critical tension between state mandates and local autonomy.”

No, I’m highlighting the reality that CA YIMBY and Wiener are inextricably linked, and that they are fighting to serve Facebook, Google, and Amazon instead of ordinary residents.

When politicians do the bidding of the rich and powerful instead of ordinary voters, that form of government is called “oligarchy”. Once our country completely slips into it, democracy will be lost forever.

State politicians are helping Google using deceptive legislation related to “affordable housing”, words that historically been associated with helping lower-income people. But our new housing policy is designed to maximize construction of market-rate units so that tech companies can hire and house more highly paid workers without driving up the cost of units at the high end too badly. Pantheon CEO Zack Rosen, who co-founded CA YIMBY, recently wrote, “The Housing Theory Of Everything: Why The Future Of Innovation Depends On Housing Affordability” Web Link He writes about how “advances in technology typically require a critical mass of people and resources to come together. It’s called agglomeration … But today, we’re facing a situation in which perpetually inflating housing prices have become a barrier to bringing people together in innovation clusters.” He argues that Zoom is not good enough, “we still need agglomeration to build and sustain a competitive edge.” He’s not advocating to help low-income people, he is advocating to increase the number of highly paid workers here. They MUST be here, and nowhere else on earth!

I don’t object to construction of market-rate housing. What I object to is housing policy that disproportionately favors construction of market-rate housing. The result is gentrification, which actually HURTS “teachers, service workers, and kids who don’t code”. And I object to state politicians pretending to fight for lower-income and average workers while they actually pass the buck.