Showing posts with label Mountain View. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mountain View. Show all posts

Thursday, April 28, 2016

Buy a Home in Silicon Valley for $25,000—but There’s a Catch

Anyone who lives here in the Silicon Valley knows housing (both renting & buying) comes at a premium. Last year I think it was when I heard the story of a guy in Mountain View who was renting a tent in his backyard for $800 a month, and I thought that was bad, but now I heard about this. So apparently a guy will rent a van, just to Google employees for $30.00 a day to sleep in their parking lot, since Google apparently doesn't pay some employees enough to afford a place. The employee can use their restroom, cafe, etc. provided they have a place to sleep - that's where the van comes in. Anyhow, seeing things like this speak to the high cost of housing here in the valley.

residential van in Mountain View, CA

Psst … want your own place in Silicon Valley for a mere $25,000? Then you should meet Robert Allen, an entrepreneur who’s retrofitted six vans with beds and kitchenettes. His target clientele? Google employees.

This makes total sense: The tech behemoth, based in Mountain View, is justly famous for its amenities that encourage employees to linger in the office around the clock. With cafeterias dishing up a range of delicious free food throughout the day and top-notch exercise facilities where you can shower, who needs to go home for anything but sleep?

That’s where Allen’s vans come in. He initially rented the vans to travelers staying a night or two, via his site Go-Tel.net (not hotel—get it?). But his latest Craigslist ad woos cash-strapped Googlers with the following pitch: “Eat Google food, use their gym, and sleep in the van (CHEAP).”

There is a precedent for this—in one highly publicized case, a 24-year-old software engineer opted to sleep in a box truck in the parking lot at Google to  save on housing costs. The company’s reaction? Shrug.

The vans rent for $30 per day, or you can buy one outright for $25,000. If you’re not lucky enough to be employed at Google, Allen’s ad says, “you tell me where you would like it parked and I do the research to make that happen” (which we infer/hope means he finds legal parking spots for you).

Sure, living in a van sounds cramped and uncomfortable, but it’s undeniably a deal, considering that the cheapest Mountain View apartments on realtor.com® start at $1,625.

Here’s a pic of the place, located at 1970 Latham St.:

Mountain View apartments starting at $1,625.

And here’s a peek at what we presume is the kitchen and, um, the rest. Cozy isn’t it? But hey, if you’re working around the clock at Google and taking advantage of its immense cafeteria and other amenities, all you really need at your crash pad is a few microwaveable meals in your freezer for the weekends. Assuming there’s room for a microwave, that is.

Mountain View apartment kitchen.

As for the cheapest house you can actually buy in Mountain View, that’s a whole different animal. The cheapest listing on realtor.com is a mobile home at 191 E El Camino Real, Space 210, going for $99,000.

Cheapest home in Mountain View, CA.

And according to the listing, it “may need to be a cash deal.” You may even need to bring it in a suitcase.

You can live here... for $100,000. In cash. Upfront.

Once you see the reality of real estate in Mountain View, a van for $25,000 starts looking pretty sweet, doesn’t it?

Source: Realtor,com, Judy Dutton



RELATED:
Camping Tent Rents at $900 a Month in Mountain View
Million Dollar Shack: Trapped in Silicon Valley's Housing Bubble

Wednesday, April 6, 2016

‘Help, a McMansion Is Going Up Next Door!’

I can think of one neighborhood right here in Cupertino, not far from my office that has a number of McMansions. 

ranch and mcmansion

Janet Per Lee has lived in the same house in Mountain View, CA, for over 40 years. Built in the 1950s, her 1,000-square-foot ranch house is situated on a secluded quarter-acre with trees whose branches hang heavy with apricots, plums, pears, and figs, which she shares with her neighbors. Her three kids grew up playing in that yard, attending top-notch local schools. Although the kids are no longer living at home, Per Lee loves her community and, in a normal world, would never consider moving.

But this is no normal world. In fact, the Google headquarters is located less than a ten-minute drive away.

As this tech titan has grown exponentially, so has the neighborhood’s popularity. As houses in the area have gone up for sale, developers have bought them, bulldozed them, erected 4,000-square-foot mansions that are selling for over $3 million. In fact, eight years ago, it happened right next door to Per Lee, who learned the new house would fill the entire lot from front to back and tower over her own.

“It’s built so much higher than my house, virtually every window looks out into my backyard,” she says. Desperate to protect her privacy, she planted Italian cypress trees as a natural barrier. She tried to reason with the builder, whose unsympathetic response was: “Shouldn’t everyone be able to build their dream home?”

Big homes = big problem

What’s going on in Mountain View is an extreme version of a problem cropping up all over the country: Huge houses are being built on plots of land originally meant to accommodate smaller dwellings, sparking a heated debate over what’s best for the community. Some argue that owners of larger homes pay more taxes, which can benefit all. But if your home happens to have its air and light blocked by a behemoth next door, you would likely be very, very upset—and can most likely kiss the idea of cashing out on your home sale goodbye.

Those against the lenient building codes that allow for “mansionization” also argue that it negatively affects a community’s vibe.

“These houses are often akin to fortress walls on city streets,” contends Greg Goldin, curator at the A+D Architecture and Design Museum. “People in big houses tend to lead noncommunitarian, noncivic lives. These homes are the embodiment of their desire to turn their backs on the shared experience and common spaces of real city life. They are anti-city.”

That might sound extreme, but it’s exactly what Per Lee has experienced as her once-secluded pocket of Mountain View has evolved. Realtors® and developers advertise the vibrant community and shady tree-lined streets as a draw, but then chop down those trees to maximize building space on the lots—and once new owners move in she barely sees them out and about mingling with their neighbors.

Another factor: Homeowners believe they have the right to do as they please with their properties—especially when they’ve paid big money for their land.

“If people are paying millions for the dirt on which a teardown sits, they want to be able to make their own decisions regarding the housing,” explains Arthur Jeppe, a partner at Read & Jeppe in Newport Beach, CA.

Which is understandable, but shouldn’t they at least consider the impact on their immediate neighbors?

‘Neighborhoods need to evolve’

In Renton, WA, Robert Walker’s 1,000-square-foot bungalow came with a view of downtown Seattle’s skyline and Lake Washington. But in 2005, buyers purchased the home across the street from him and built a three-story, 4,000-square-foot house that blocked his whole view. Despite collecting signatures for a petition and arguing his case before Renton’s City Council, Walker got nowhere.

“The feeling definitely seemed to be that being a place that’s attractive to stable homeowners was more important than regulating what’s being built,” says Walker.

A similar drama is playing out in Arcadia, CA, where more than 30 homes larger than 5,000 square feet (some as large as 8,000–9,000) have been proposed in the 850-home community over the past six years. In response, a group of longtime residents formed Saving Arcadia, which is currently battling the municipal government and City Council. Its argument: Overly lenient rules for developers have led to the proliferation of McMansions on lots that were zoned back in the 1950s for smaller homes. Plus, these oversize dwellings overburden the city’s water, gas, electricity, and other utility services.

Yet not everyone is against mansionization. According to Benjamin Reznik, a Los Angeles–based lawyer who often represents large-scale developers, neighborhoods evolve—and need to be allowed to do so. So while he agrees that neighborhoods’ historic character needs to be preserved, he thinks NIMBYism (for “not in my back yard”)—where locals oppose almost all new, larger residences simply because they don’t want them nearby—is a mistake.

“City councils need to take a refined, surgical approach to proposed projects rather than just enacting zoning restrictions that don’t actually make sense for some of the plots of land being discussed,” Reznik contends. In fact he believes the most effective way forward when disputes arise is compromise that includes allowances such as reasonable increases in a residential structure’s height if it’s set back from the property line.

Another option is finding a creative solution. One example is building downward (if a property is set on a hill) in order to increase square footage while preserving neighboring views, which is increasingly happening in various areas near Newport Beach. So maybe there’s hope that we can all play nice after all?

‘The neighborhood I loved is gone’

For Per Lee, however, things have already gone too far. She’s recently decided to sell her home, even though she knows it will most likely be replaced by the very kind of McMansion she hates. The silver lining: She frequently receives unsolicited offers from builders who want to buy her property, and the prices keep going up.

Per Lee says she’ll miss the neighborhood where she’s lived for decades, and her fruit trees, but that she’s looking forward to relocating to a quieter area that’s more in line with her values. After all, she points out, “Bigger isn’t always better.”

Source: Realtor.com, Audrey Brashich
http://www.realtor.com/news/trends/mcmansion-next-door/


RELATED: McMansion Definition 

Saturday, April 2, 2016

Mountain View rent control fight headed for ballot box? Tenant advocates to file initiative

For the record, I am all for the free market and fundamentally I don't agree with rent control, but there is a push by Silicon Valley residents to enact rent control. You see, this is what happens when you have property owners/landlords who continually raise rents just because they can. Just saying. . . 

Advocates with the Mountain View Tenants Coalition make their views known outside the Mountain View Senior Center before a city council meeting.

The fight over rent control in Silicon Valley is picking up steam.

The Mountain View Tenants' Coalition filed an initiative this afternoon named The Community Stabilization and Fair Rent Charter Amendment. This comes in the midst of a fierce rent control debate in San Jose and just one day after a Burlingame organization said it would file an initiative to overturn the city's anti-rent control law.

The Mountain View initiative would allow annual rent increases to between 2 and 5 percent, with the exact rate tied to changes to the Bay Area Consumer Price Index, a measure of inflation. The initiative also calls for a just cause ordinance, which would require landlords to have specific reasons, such as non-payment or lease violations, to evict tenants.

The city has until April 16 to prepare an official ballot title and summary of the measure. Depending on when this occurs, tenant advocates will need to gather around 4,500 votes by late mid- to late June in order to ensure the measure will appear on the November ballot.

Since last summer, Mountain View tenants have packed multiple city council meetings sharing stories about rent hikes and displacement, and pressuring councilmembers to implement rent stabilization measures.

In December, the council increased funding for a rent relief program and approved a "right to lease" ordinance that requires landlords to offer tenants a lease no shorter than six months.

But on March 15, in the face of heavy opposition by local landlords, Mountain View's city council rejected a proposal that would require binding arbitration to settle disputes over rent increases.

"Call it binding arbitration; call it rent control; call it rent stabilization - it's picking an arbitrary number without basis and deciding that's the amount that rents can increase in a year," Jessica Epstein, government affairs director with the Silicon Valley Association of Realtors, told the Mountain View Voice.

Tenants' Coalition volunteer Evan Ortiz said that meeting was the tipping point for the organization.

"Once we saw we weren't getting a reprieve from city council, we directed our energies to ... the charter amendments," he said.

Ortiz, who works at Google, has rented in Mountain View since 2011. He said the Tenants' Coalition came together last summer in response to a rise in evictions and what he called "egregious" rent increases.

He started with the group as a translator for Spanish-speaking tenants and got more involved as a result of his interaction with struggling renters.

"I just saw that the pain and suffering was so much more than I possibly could have imagined," Ortiz said.

Source: The Silicon Valley Business Journal, Bryce Druzin
http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2016/04/01/mountain-view-rent-control-fight-headed-for-ballot.html



RELATED:
Why Rent Control Hurts Renters