Late Tuesday night, December 11 the Mountain View Council majority took an action so disturbing that I want to make sure that everyone in our community, indeed in our region, knows what happened. I am therefore sending this to several lists. Please excuse the repetition if you’re on more than one list.
Just after midnight Tuesday night/Wednesday morning the Mountain View City Council voted four to three to approve a developer’s proposal to tear down 20 rent-controlled, naturally affordable apartments to build 15 townhomes and rowhouses, displacing 75 predominantly Spanish-speaking residents. Before the vote, the Council and an overflowing chamber of tenants and their supporters heard impassioned pleas from representatives of the Royal Viking Apartments’ residents, affordable housing advocates, and others to deny the project.
The spokesperson for the applicant, an offshoot of Dividend Homes, explained that the new homes are expected to sell for at least $1.3 million. And he reinforced the developer’s plan to offer relocation benefits above and beyond the requirements of Mountain View’s relocation assistance ordinance as well as the Measure V rent control law.
Council members Showalter and Rosenberg immediately opposed the proposal, noting how the development would displace people whom we need in our community. Rosenberg called the proposal an unintended consequence of rent control.
Three Council members – Abe-Koga, Matichak, and McAlister – clearly supported the project. Matichak emphasized the rights of the property owner, reminding us that the existing apartments are old. Abe-Koga called for consistency in the application of zoning rules, and she noted her support for more ownership housing. McAlister again brought up his proposal that the city buy apartment buildings and convert them into subsidized projects, and he suggested that the proposed development might house more people than the existing units.
Chris Clark initially appeared to support redevelopment, but he also expressed concern that it would result in fewer units. Still, he didn’t feel comfortable denying the application in the absence of a clear policy, something he hopes to propose next year. Clark sought ways to defer the project, refer it back for further review, or deny it without prejudice. Each of those options proved to have legal or practical shortcomings.
I spoke last, recalling that developers have proposed a series of tear-downs in Mountain View. This is the first one where there was significant organized resistance. Even before rent control was on the horizon, ownership developments promised much higher profits than rents from older apartments. The solution, I suggested, is to provide developers with the opportunity to make money building new housing on what is now commercial property, and that’s what Mountain View has been doing.
I warned that approval would not only displace residents, diminishing the educational opportunities of their children, but that it would remove people we need in Mountain View to make the community tick. One of the tenant speakers reported that he works in a Google cafeteria. I wondered how software engineers will eat if there is no place for food-service workers to live.
I pointed out that the cost of providing subsidized housing, whether in new or converted buildings, is high. This project would provide fees to build only one affordable unit. If the residents are moved into subsidized projects, taxpayers and fee-payers would essentially be paying for the windfall profits of the developer and property owner, and other needy people would lose their opportunities to be affordably housed.
I said that Mountain View doesn’t need this project. It will not expand our housing supply. It will not expand our supply of affordable housing. It will not make it easier for middle-income people to buy their first homes.
If the Council were to have denied the project, the developer would have simply moved on to another property, losing only the money invested in creating plans. The resident and community will lost much more.
I recalled the last two verses of Woody Guthrie’s ballad, Pretty Boy Floyd:
As through this world I’ve wandered
I’ve seen lots of funny men;
Some rob you with a six-gun,
Some with a fountain pen.
And as through my life I travel,
As through my life I roam,
I’ve never seen an outlaw
Drive a family from their home.
I concluded, “This project is wrong.”
In the end Clark supported the project, with the condition, agreed to by Dividend, that the move-out date for tenants be moved from the end of August, 2019 to the end of December.
I am extremely disturbed by the outcome. Even if some of the residents are able to remain in Mountain View, we will lose twenty housing units that are naturally affordable because of their age and construction. Mountain View is approving a steady stream of affordable housing projects, but those projects are expensive and will have little benefit if we continue to remove naturally affordable homes from the market.
Here are some of the news stories about the decision.
https://abc7news.com/home/demolition-of-affordable-housing-units-passes-in-mountain-view/4882858/
Here’s a link to the Council video. See Item 6.1. My initial comments begin at 5:10 elapsed time.
http://mountainview.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=3210
Feel free to share my report.