[purplezooey]

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?

[zamfi]

> 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?

I hear this argument a lot, but I’m not sure I buy the financial angle. If MV became Tokyo, the land alone in which a single-family home sits would be worth vastly more than it is today.

I legitimately think that they want to continue to live in a detached house with a yard, in a low-density neighborhood, like they have for a long time (or recently bought into).

The ones who have been there for decades don’t feel the increased prices (thanks to prop 13) and the ones who recently moved in are clearly wealthy enough.

Is it that hard to believe that people just don’t want their neighborhoods to change?

I think once we acknowledge that, we can work to preserve that neighborhood feel without dismissing that desire as being a disguised financial interest.

[imtringued]

I don't see how preserving a neighborhood involves kicking out 350 people.

[zamfi]

It doesn’t. That part is just a foul move on Mountain View’s part.

[chrisco255]

I mean, I think we could probably conclude it's a mix of both. But one way to nearly know for sure would be to observe the turnover of housing supply in that area.

[zamfi]

We could conclude that it's a mix of both, but I don't think the financial interest actually works in homeowners' favor.

> But one way to nearly know for sure would be to observe the turnover of housing supply in that area.

Could you describe what you mean? What direction of effect would you expect?

[chrisco255]

Like you look at what percentage of homes go up for sale in specific neighborhoods. If it's like 20% a year that would be pretty high. If it's 2-3% a year, that's a very stable neighborhood and would imply that folks are hunkering down for the long term there.

[taysic]

That’s not too telling. Introducing skyscrapers would mean units would be priced far less than single family homes are - which would enable large portions of people to enter the market who are locked out right now.

But building skyscrapers would mean more units could be sold, thereby greatly increasing the value of land - as long as demand is there in the lower price ranges.

[chrisco255]

I'm not sure what this has to do with turnover in specific neighborhoods for determining if folks are voting out expansion "to keep their neighborhoods the same" or "for profit expansion".

[Simple_Guy]

Well. People are known to be completely irrational when it comes to economics: minimum wage, welfare, healthcare etc.

[khazhou]

> 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.

[imtringued]

Nobody opposes Google's growth because it benefits existing homeowners.

[Simple_Guy]

>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?