9 ms·

Mountain View approves razing rent-controlled units for $1.5M homes

120 points by vector_spaces 8y ago

geekrax 8y ago
1.5M for a brand new house in Mountain View ? That's a bargain. /s
- Bud 8y ago
  I don't think the /s is really required. It actually is a bargain.
  - tehlike 8y ago
    1.5 initial tag. If market picks back up, it will go to highest bidder.
- asdf333 8y ago
  yea you can remove that /s....
- gumby 8y ago
  town house, not standalone house with a yard
  - burfog 8y ago
    It's odd that they would debase it like this. Even if getting the floor space means you have to build a place with 3 stories above and 2 basements below, that seems like a better plan. Being unattached from neighbors is highly desirable.
    - xnyan 8y ago
      It's why I live in a less exciting and not as progressive geographic location. I could not afford to have a buffer space around my house in new york or california and for me I value my solitary personal home with yard and trees over some (really great) economic and cultural benefits that would come from living in other more expensive regions.
  - jweir 8y ago
    A proper town home has a yard and no garage - but I don’t usually see those being built in CA.
- anbop 8y ago
  It’s a townhome, so pretty much market price.
kepler1 8y ago
Rant: I imagine that you, posting this story, or even some reading this thread, are doing so with the sentiment that "oh no, these unfortunate long time residents are being displaced", and that some cruel unfeeling capitalist society is allowing this travesty to happen. "How can we let big tech keep on doing this to our region??" You, who are likely one of the many tech workers in the Bay Area, should be cheering every development project like this. You should be cheering when cities start to free up housing and make it available to people who want to move here, or are already here and can't find anything affordable. Even if those people buying the houses are making "big tech salaries", you should be for it. Stop being blinded by the symbolic cases of the anti-gentrification sentiment, that the elderly widow is being forced out of her home to make way for ungrateful young tech workers. For every 1 of those stories, there are 50 families trying to make a new life in the area, unable to find a house for less than $1M or $6000/month in rent. For every 1 of those stories, there are 10 families that have lived here for 40 years, and are sitting on empty houses, maybe even 2nd houses that are underutilized. They're the rich ones. For every person occupying a rent controlled home, that's one unit of housing unavailable to someone else, and moreover, one additional unit of competition and higher prices imposed on everyone else who needs to find a place to live. Few among us will ever get to have the benefit of a rent controlled apartment. Everyone reading here has some degree of numeracy and literacy better than average. Think about the numbers, not symbols -- and don't let yourself fall into the trap of thinking that the news is good at reporting the deeper story. And think about what kind of system you want to incentivize when you vote or support knee-jerk policies. How does a region / city renew itself and make sure that it doesn't stagnate and turn into a place only for those people who got there first, screw everyone who comes afterwards? By ensuring that people with rent-controlled housing never have to leave? By tying up development for decades? I take the side of the majority who no one feels comfortable speaking up for. The thousands of young people and families who want to live, work, and be productive here. Not those who already got theirs and want to keep the rest out. Time for them to move on, and if they need a nudge, it's well past due.
- Jyaif 8y ago
  I'm all for stoping the rent control, but I don't think anyone is happy they are going from 59 apartments to 55 townhouses. They should be increasing the density, not reducing it.
gubbrora 8y ago
Aren't all rentals in mountain view rent controlled?
- jeffbax 8y ago
  Not sure about Mountain View but in SF its > 60% https://sf.curbed.com/2018/7/12/17565192/housing-needs-trends-report-rent-control-san-francisco https://sf.curbed.com/2018/7/12/17565192/housing-needs-trend... It's a disastrous policy, and one of the main reasons SF housing is such a mess. Tenant laws also tend to incentivize booting everyone at once and converting to condos instead of renting units.
  - femiagbabiaka 8y ago
    >disastrous policy it's literally the only reason most of the remaining long time citizens who aren't wealthy can live there still
    - refurb 8y ago
      It’s also the reason why rents are so high. And the crazy thing is it applies to everyone regardless of need. I know a few people clearing almost $1M per year and they love their rent controlled unit that has a rent 30% of market rate.
      - Jotra7 8y ago
        Those are gross, immoral people.
    - dodobirdlord 8y ago
      It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.
    - ninth_ant 8y ago
      Rent control rewards the entrenched people who were lucky enough to find a unit early, at the expense of everyone who came later. The beneficiaries of this may not consider it that way, but it most certainly is a form of wealth for them. So I would argue that even they too, are wealthy. The victims of rent control are everyone who is pushed out of the city -- or those who cannot move there -- because of how rent control makes building rental units unprofitable.
who_what_why 8y ago
It's amazing how the politicians representing the people of the Bay Area don't possess egalitarian values. There's so much unused and undeveloped land available in the mountains yet the property is crazy expensive.
- slavapestov 8y ago
  There's no need to develop any more open space. The south bay has plenty of dilapidated strip malls and empty parking lots that could be repurposed into high density housing.
  - stevenwoo 8y ago
    The financial incentive that kept office buildings along 237 empty for decades need to go away.
- everdev 8y ago
  Those mountains are pretty steep. If it's flat or has access to utilities it'll be pretty expensive.
- roflchoppa 8y ago
  if you want homes on hills go to LA.
- stevenwoo 8y ago
  All of that land that is undeveloped is owned by someone or something. Some of it will never be developed unless it is traded for similar land, i.e. Midpeninsula Open Space/National/State/County park land. A huge swath along 280 from Portola Valley to San Mateo is part of the water system for San Francisco - someone is going to have to convince them to give up Hetchy Hetch water before that goes away. Much of the open space near Palo Alto is owned by Stanford, and is why Stanford is one of the largest universities by size in the world. Unincorporated areas in the mountains have to supply their own water from wells and in the drought last year many places on the rainy side of the mountains went dry - building density where there is not enough water or sewage outside of septic tanks is not reasonable.
usaar333 8y ago
Doesn't seem they had a lot of choice in the matter: "Since the project fully complied with the city’s zoning code and met all the application requirements, City Attorney Jannie Quinn told council members Tuesday that it would be “very difficult” to “come up with a rationale to deny the project.” Quinn also informed the council that placing a moratorium on the demolition of rent-controlled apartments could put the city in a legal predicament due to the state’s Ellis Act, which protects landlords who want to leave the rental market."
- yonran 8y ago
  > Doesn't seem they had a lot of choice in the matter: Nonsense. The restrictively zoned cities in the Bay Area are leaving a lot of value on the table in order to protect their squat neighborhoods. If Mountain View truly preferred tenant protections over protecting neighborhood character, I’m sure they could have made a win-win solution with the developer to provide replacement rent-controlled units in exchange for an upzoning, even late in the process.
  - robbiemitchell 8y ago
    Rent control is not a solution. Build more housing.
    - nostrademons 8y ago
      That was a part of yonran's proposal: offer the developer increased density (upzoning) in exchange for rent-controlled apartments in addition to the townhomes. It's a win-win-win-win all around: the developer gets to sell more units (for more profit), the existing tenants get to maintain their rent control (in exchange for disruption while their old building is demolished and rebuilt), new homeowners get additional supply of housing, and the city doesn't have to deal with the protests of any of these groups.
      - cycrutchfield 8y ago
        ... or just build enough new housing without having to introduce market-distorting artificial price controls
powera 8y ago
There is only one solution to this problem. MOVE SOMEWHERE ELSE. These houses would cost less than half this amount in 99% of the country. So long as too many people insist on living in the same zip code, the problem is not solvable.
- YaxelPerez 8y ago
  Okay, but move the jobs there too.
- seanmcdirmid 8y ago
  People like to make money via jobs. Those cheaper houses come with fewer appropriate jobs or jobs that pay less.
Eyes 8y ago
In Mountain View 1.5m homes are the rent controlled units. /s
llbowers 8y ago
Just some casual observations from someone who doesn't know a lot about city planning, zoning laws, and other things like that but... I have spent a lot of time in various cities in eastern Asia, namely Hong Kong, Singapore, Tokyo, Seoul, and Taipei. I was always amazed at how much more efficiently space was utilized. Dense, high-rise housing. Smaller apartments for single occupants. Vending machines and convenience stores near ubiquitous so one did not have to go far for basic necessities. Also, the public transportation was wonderful. Whether subway, taxi, or bus one could get around without any need for a car. I always wonder why our cities can't be "denser". Perhaps we are too used to our cars and driving everywhere? I'm sure there are a myriad other reasons though.
- ghaff 8y ago
  The Asian cities you mentioned are pretty good for getting around. A lot of other ones are pretty miserable.
- purplezooey 8y ago
  You hit it right on the head. MV needs to be a lot denser. But the city council, much like other bay area councils, likes things just the way they are. After all its the supply constraints that have made existing residents rich, why would they want to fix the area's housing problem all by themselves?
  - khazhou 8y ago
    > MV needs to be a lot denser Why is this necessary? What requirement is satisfied only by increased density? I could equally say Google needs to stop growing and start moving projects elsewhere.
    - Simple_Guy 8y ago
      >The only change that's "needed" is increase in affordable housing to the lower- and middle-class which forms the support fabric without which the town can't exist. and how are they going to do that without allowing the city to be denser?
jweir 8y ago
Construction is a major contributor to climate change. So, how does tearing down and then replacing with town homes of similar density fit into the city’s climate change plan? https://www.mountainview.gov/depts/comdev/sustain/climate_change/default.asp https://www.mountainview.gov/depts/comdev/sustain/climate_ch...
herostratus101 8y ago
You would have to pay me a lot to live in a super fund site like that.

120 points by vector_spaces 8y ago

geekrax 8y ago

1.5M for a brand new house in Mountain View ? That's a bargain. /s

Bud 8y ago
I don't think the /s is really required. It actually is a bargain.
- tehlike 8y ago
  1.5 initial tag. If market picks back up, it will go to highest bidder.
asdf333 8y ago
yea you can remove that /s....
gumby 8y ago
town house, not standalone house with a yard
- burfog 8y ago
  It's odd that they would debase it like this. Even if getting the floor space means you have to build a place with 3 stories above and 2 basements below, that seems like a better plan. Being unattached from neighbors is highly desirable.
  - xnyan 8y ago
    It's why I live in a less exciting and not as progressive geographic location. I could not afford to have a buffer space around my house in new york or california and for me I value my solitary personal home with yard and trees over some (really great) economic and cultural benefits that would come from living in other more expensive regions.
- jweir 8y ago
  A proper town home has a yard and no garage - but I don’t usually see those being built in CA.
anbop 8y ago
It’s a townhome, so pretty much market price.

kepler1 8y ago

Rant: I imagine that you, posting this story, or even some reading this thread, are doing so with the sentiment that "oh no, these unfortunate long time residents are being displaced", and that some cruel unfeeling capitalist society is allowing this travesty to happen. "How can we let big tech keep on doing this to our region??" You, who are likely one of the many tech workers in the Bay Area, should be cheering every development project like this. You should be cheering when cities start to free up housing and make it available to people who want to move here, or are already here and can't find anything affordable. Even if those people buying the houses are making "big tech salaries", you should be for it. Stop being blinded by the symbolic cases of the anti-gentrification sentiment, that the elderly widow is being forced out of her home to make way for ungrateful young tech workers. For every 1 of those stories, there are 50 families trying to make a new life in the area, unable to find a house for less than $1M or $6000/month in rent. For every 1 of those stories, there are 10 families that have lived here for 40 years, and are sitting on empty houses, maybe even 2nd houses that are underutilized. They're the rich ones. For every person occupying a rent controlled home, that's one unit of housing unavailable to someone else, and moreover, one additional unit of competition and higher prices imposed on everyone else who needs to find a place to live. Few among us will ever get to have the benefit of a rent controlled apartment. Everyone reading here has some degree of numeracy and literacy better than average. Think about the numbers, not symbols -- and don't let yourself fall into the trap of thinking that the news is good at reporting the deeper story. And think about what kind of system you want to incentivize when you vote or support knee-jerk policies. How does a region / city renew itself and make sure that it doesn't stagnate and turn into a place only for those people who got there first, screw everyone who comes afterwards? By ensuring that people with rent-controlled housing never have to leave? By tying up development for decades? I take the side of the majority who no one feels comfortable speaking up for. The thousands of young people and families who want to live, work, and be productive here. Not those who already got theirs and want to keep the rest out. Time for them to move on, and if they need a nudge, it's well past due.

Jyaif 8y ago
I'm all for stoping the rent control, but I don't think anyone is happy they are going from 59 apartments to 55 townhouses. They should be increasing the density, not reducing it.

gubbrora 8y ago

Aren't all rentals in mountain view rent controlled?

jeffbax 8y ago
Not sure about Mountain View but in SF its > 60% https://sf.curbed.com/2018/7/12/17565192/housing-needs-trends-report-rent-control-san-francisco https://sf.curbed.com/2018/7/12/17565192/housing-needs-trend... It's a disastrous policy, and one of the main reasons SF housing is such a mess. Tenant laws also tend to incentivize booting everyone at once and converting to condos instead of renting units.
- femiagbabiaka 8y ago
  >disastrous policy it's literally the only reason most of the remaining long time citizens who aren't wealthy can live there still
  - refurb 8y ago
    It’s also the reason why rents are so high. And the crazy thing is it applies to everyone regardless of need. I know a few people clearing almost $1M per year and they love their rent controlled unit that has a rent 30% of market rate.
    - Jotra7 8y ago
      Those are gross, immoral people.
  - dodobirdlord 8y ago
    It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.
  - ninth_ant 8y ago
    Rent control rewards the entrenched people who were lucky enough to find a unit early, at the expense of everyone who came later. The beneficiaries of this may not consider it that way, but it most certainly is a form of wealth for them. So I would argue that even they too, are wealthy. The victims of rent control are everyone who is pushed out of the city -- or those who cannot move there -- because of how rent control makes building rental units unprofitable.

who_what_why 8y ago

It's amazing how the politicians representing the people of the Bay Area don't possess egalitarian values. There's so much unused and undeveloped land available in the mountains yet the property is crazy expensive.

slavapestov 8y ago
There's no need to develop any more open space. The south bay has plenty of dilapidated strip malls and empty parking lots that could be repurposed into high density housing.
- stevenwoo 8y ago
  The financial incentive that kept office buildings along 237 empty for decades need to go away.
everdev 8y ago
Those mountains are pretty steep. If it's flat or has access to utilities it'll be pretty expensive.
roflchoppa 8y ago
if you want homes on hills go to LA.
stevenwoo 8y ago
All of that land that is undeveloped is owned by someone or something. Some of it will never be developed unless it is traded for similar land, i.e. Midpeninsula Open Space/National/State/County park land. A huge swath along 280 from Portola Valley to San Mateo is part of the water system for San Francisco - someone is going to have to convince them to give up Hetchy Hetch water before that goes away. Much of the open space near Palo Alto is owned by Stanford, and is why Stanford is one of the largest universities by size in the world. Unincorporated areas in the mountains have to supply their own water from wells and in the drought last year many places on the rainy side of the mountains went dry - building density where there is not enough water or sewage outside of septic tanks is not reasonable.

usaar333 8y ago

Doesn't seem they had a lot of choice in the matter: "Since the project fully complied with the city’s zoning code and met all the application requirements, City Attorney Jannie Quinn told council members Tuesday that it would be “very difficult” to “come up with a rationale to deny the project.” Quinn also informed the council that placing a moratorium on the demolition of rent-controlled apartments could put the city in a legal predicament due to the state’s Ellis Act, which protects landlords who want to leave the rental market."

yonran 8y ago
> Doesn't seem they had a lot of choice in the matter: Nonsense. The restrictively zoned cities in the Bay Area are leaving a lot of value on the table in order to protect their squat neighborhoods. If Mountain View truly preferred tenant protections over protecting neighborhood character, I’m sure they could have made a win-win solution with the developer to provide replacement rent-controlled units in exchange for an upzoning, even late in the process.
- robbiemitchell 8y ago
  Rent control is not a solution. Build more housing.
  - nostrademons 8y ago
    That was a part of yonran's proposal: offer the developer increased density (upzoning) in exchange for rent-controlled apartments in addition to the townhomes. It's a win-win-win-win all around: the developer gets to sell more units (for more profit), the existing tenants get to maintain their rent control (in exchange for disruption while their old building is demolished and rebuilt), new homeowners get additional supply of housing, and the city doesn't have to deal with the protests of any of these groups.
    - cycrutchfield 8y ago
      ... or just build enough new housing without having to introduce market-distorting artificial price controls

powera 8y ago

There is only one solution to this problem. MOVE SOMEWHERE ELSE. These houses would cost less than half this amount in 99% of the country. So long as too many people insist on living in the same zip code, the problem is not solvable.

YaxelPerez 8y ago
Okay, but move the jobs there too.
seanmcdirmid 8y ago
People like to make money via jobs. Those cheaper houses come with fewer appropriate jobs or jobs that pay less.

Eyes 8y ago

In Mountain View 1.5m homes are the rent controlled units. /s

llbowers 8y ago

Just some casual observations from someone who doesn't know a lot about city planning, zoning laws, and other things like that but... I have spent a lot of time in various cities in eastern Asia, namely Hong Kong, Singapore, Tokyo, Seoul, and Taipei. I was always amazed at how much more efficiently space was utilized. Dense, high-rise housing. Smaller apartments for single occupants. Vending machines and convenience stores near ubiquitous so one did not have to go far for basic necessities. Also, the public transportation was wonderful. Whether subway, taxi, or bus one could get around without any need for a car. I always wonder why our cities can't be "denser". Perhaps we are too used to our cars and driving everywhere? I'm sure there are a myriad other reasons though.

ghaff 8y ago
The Asian cities you mentioned are pretty good for getting around. A lot of other ones are pretty miserable.
purplezooey 8y ago
You hit it right on the head. MV needs to be a lot denser. But the city council, much like other bay area councils, likes things just the way they are. After all its the supply constraints that have made existing residents rich, why would they want to fix the area's housing problem all by themselves?
- khazhou 8y ago
  > MV needs to be a lot denser Why is this necessary? What requirement is satisfied only by increased density? I could equally say Google needs to stop growing and start moving projects elsewhere.
  - Simple_Guy 8y ago
    >The only change that's "needed" is increase in affordable housing to the lower- and middle-class which forms the support fabric without which the town can't exist. and how are they going to do that without allowing the city to be denser?

jweir 8y ago

Construction is a major contributor to climate change. So, how does tearing down and then replacing with town homes of similar density fit into the city’s climate change plan? https://www.mountainview.gov/depts/comdev/sustain/climate_change/default.asp https://www.mountainview.gov/depts/comdev/sustain/climate_ch...

herostratus101 8y ago

You would have to pay me a lot to live in a super fund site like that.