2026 Mountain View Housing Justice Candidate Questionnaire

We need more housing at every income level, and market rate housing is part of that because more homes means less for each available unit and less pressure on rents over time, but it can’t be our entire affordability strategy. I’ve experienced housing and food insecurity, and through my work I’ve seen families who still can’t afford even our below market rate options. That’s why I want the city to keep approving housing while also putting city land and funding directly into deeply affordable homes.

New market rate housing does benefit our community because we need to increase our overall housing stock and provide a greater diversity of housing choices, and we are not meeting our Housing Element goals for ANY segment. But market rate housing alone will not solve our affordability crisis, particularly when new units are priced beyond the reach of many working families. We need to build more housing while aggressively pursuing truly affordable, missing middle, and other housing options at the same time, including a mix of ownership and rental opportunities at all price points.

Market rate housing can be a significant community benefit both in itself and indirectly. Most new “luxury” units are still more affordable than many single-family homes; research across many jurisdictions has consistently shown that new market-rate housing supply reduces rents by making it so that higher-income households don’t bid up the rents on existing buildings; new buildings meet modern building codes, improving efficiency, safety, and quality of housing; new buildings result in increased long-term tax revenue for the city; and, of course, when market-rate housing means additional new housing, Mountain View is able to welcome more new neighbors, including people who may not be welcome in other parts of the country or world.

Some of the potential negative effects of re-development of existing buildings are alleviated by the displacement protections that now exist, such as the state-level protections from SB330 and the local CSFRA and TRAO, although SB330 protections do expire in 2030.

I believe that all housing benefits the community as it increases options for residents. Luxury apartments will meet the needs of some residents who can move out of the naturally affordable housing, relieving some of the pressure.

Mountain View is considered a pro housing city and should remain that way while also continue to practice diverse housing practices that don't limit neighborhoods to apartments vs. single family homes. We need to continue to build duplexes, quadplexes, condos, affordable housing for low-income families and capitalize on successful workforce housing projects that would involve industry partners that help build market rate housing for essential workers to live and work in the area and cheaper costs and faster rates. I would also seek to declassify some new housing as "luxury" based on the standard of location, amenities etc. to further make moving and owning here in Mountain View more tangible.

I support building more housing, but we must make sure we are also building housing that low-income and working families can actually afford. Market-rate housing can increase the overall supply, but it cannot be our only solution. I want Mountain View to remain a community where people of all income levels have the opportunity to live and raise their families.

It’s helped tremendously. Measure V provided rent stabilization and just cause eviction protections that help residents stay housed. I would defend the CSFRA and make sure our recently strengthened relocation protections work for the tenants who need them, and work to expand access to low or no cost legal help for renters facing eviction.

I believe rent control has helped Mountain View tremendously, and I supported the original effort to establish it and remain a steadfast public supporter. Many people have been able to stay here because of it--I hear this regularly. Rent control provides important protection against displacement and extreme rent increases in an extraordinarily expensive housing market. I support maintaining strong rent stabilization and just-cause protections, along with effective enforcement so tenants actually receive those protections.

It has helped by reducing the risk of displacement for those living in eligible units, whether via the rent stabilization for those in eligible units or eviction protections for those in all covered units, while being designed in a such a way to still allow for the new developments that we need in order to resolve the housing crisis long-term. The creation of the Rental Housing Committee also provides a valuable forum for monitoring the implementation of the CSFRA and finding opportunities for improvements as time progresses.

I think it helped Mountain View, but I wish it had included rent control for Mobile Homes from the beginning. That always seemed by an odd gap in the coverage.

Rent control for the most part has been a positive for the city but has some negative impacts when it comes to housing market adjustments and making housing purchases and building more expensive, which is also coupled with our increased rates and zoning practices. However, rent control has made it easier for families to move to Mountain View and stay in Mountain View while they build equity to buy and find market paying jobs in the area. I would only suggest utilizing the standards laid down by the US Congress' 21st Century Road to Housing Act that allows for deregulation and making building easier and collaboration with developers to discuss their concerns regarding building and maintenance costs. So, if planned correctly, we can maintain our rent control standards that have allowed so many new residents to Mountain View while opening up to public private partnerships to make things cheaper, and ecologically sound, in the immediate and distant future.

I believe rent control has helped Mountain View, especially low-income families and renters who are struggling with the high cost of living. Stable and predictable rent can help families remain in their homes instead of being displaced. As a renter myself, I understand how important housing stability is, particularly for families living paycheck to paycheck.

Yes, I would’ve voted in favor of it. Mobile home residents often own their home while renting the land underneath it, and for many seniors and people on fixed incomes, simply moving isn’t realistic. The new formula gives residents greater stability and predictability while preserving a fair return.

Yes. In fact, I previously advocated publicly for exactly this change during my 2024 campaign: limiting the annual adjustment to the lesser of 60% of CPI or 3%. Mobile home residents often own their homes, have expenses apartment renters do not, and live in some of Mountain View’s last naturally affordable housing, so keeping space rent increases predictable is especially important to supporting mobile home residents.

Yes; the financial structure of mobile home parks, where residents typically own the structure of their home while leasing their space from the mobile home park owner makes for a situation where enhanced tenant protections are particularly desirable. Any time price increases are kept under CPI I do exercise some care, because that may create future incentives for property owners to work harder to evict tenants or avoid filling vacancies, but the tradeoffs in this case are appropriate.

Yes. I think that it makes sense for the rent to be capped as long as the property taxes are capped, otherwise we are just subsidizing landlords at the expense of our communities.

With the Berkley Rent Board Standard at 65%, I would have voted for this and proposed further a standard of 55% lowering of the CPI even so wages of residents can catch up to the high rents as they stand currently, as well as the high cost of purchases in the area. I serve in the Army and my wife is a nurse, and while we love living in this area, there still is not possibility to purchase with the average prices at $1.5 million for a house and condo, and residents our age are not alone. Property managers and retailers make money when residents move in and/or make a purchase, so it behooves the government leadership to partner with developers to adhere to standards that make it easier to for residents to move and afford the price of their properties.

Yes, I would have voted for this change. Mobile homes are an important source of more affordable housing in Mountain View, particularly for seniors, low-income residents, and people on fixed incomes. Keeping rent increases reasonable helps protect these residents from being priced out of their homes while still allowing property owners a fair return.

Both need protections from displacement, but mobile home residents have to face an additional factor of owning a home on land they don’t own but have to pay to use. Since that home cannot be moved, they have fewer alternatives if the land they’re renting becomes unaffordable. That’s why mobile homes need protections tailored to their situation, while we continue protecting apartment renters from being priced out of Mountain View.

Both apartment and mobile home residents need protection from rapidly rising rents, but mobile home residents face an additional vulnerability because many own their home while renting the land beneath it. They already have additional expenses from owning their home, and if they need to move due to unaffordable rents, moving a mobile home can be difficult. In fact, it is extraordinarily expensive, so residents cannot simply relocate when space rents become unaffordable. And many mobile home residents in Mountain View are seniors or on fixed incomes, and cost and housing stability are even more important for them. That makes strong and predictable rent stabilization particularly important in mobile home parks.

As noted in the prior question, while both apartment renters and mobile home owners are renting their space and are both financially and emotionally invested into their homes, mobile home owners have a uniquely large financial investment in the physical structure of their mobile home that both means that they are responsible for a larger proportion of their home maintenance and upkeep and means that they have a large amount of money sunk into a home that would be difficult-to-impossible to actually relocate were they forced out due to rising rents.

I will also draw a minor but relevant distinction here: Mobile home residents who rent from a mobile home owner but do not own the mobile home itself may be more similar to apartment renters in this regard, and anyone owning a unit within an apartment building is largely unaffected by rent control.

I believe rent control is more necessary for mobile home residents because they inherently have invested in the property. Their mobile home can effectively be leveraged for ransom if the land owner increases the rent quickly.

As a millennial, I am increasingly convinced that the only way for me to own a home would be through a mobile home situation and it makes it more out of reach when there is no rent control on space rent on top of a mortgage for that potential home. As a renter, the policy of rent control is predominantly sustained with property managers adhering to gas and electric standards, whereas mobile homeowners who want to build equity, generational wealth and a family home are subject to hidden fees and are responsible for their own property maintenance where unmanaged where even a modest increase in monthly space rent could be unaffordable for the homeowner. So, in order to support future homeowners and current renters, we need to sustain our current standard of regulating rent control on rental properties and conduct a more thorough investigation into mobile home costs beyond rent control alone so property owners of all ages are better supported.

Both groups need protection from displacement, especially low-income residents. Mobile home residents face an additional challenge because many own their home but rent the land underneath it, and relocating a mobile home can be extremely difficult. We need strong protections that help both apartment renters and mobile home residents remain in Mountain View.

I support more housing and density, especially near transit, and jobs, because it can create more housing choices, shorten commutes, support transit and local businesses, and help us fight climate change. Growth should also come with the investments that make neighborhoods work – affordable housing, childcare, parks, and safe walking biking and biking connections – and we should plan those needs at the same time, not years later. That means combining development contributions with city, county, and state funding so we’re building complete neighborhoods, not just more units.

Denser zoning can increase both the number and diversity of homes available in Mountain View. It can also make better, more efficient, use of land and support transit, walking, and neighborhood businesses. I support zoning changes that create more housing choices as part of a broader strategy that also includes affordable housing and preservation of existing affordable homes.

Denser housing provides a variety of benefits, the most important being that it provides more places for people to live in our wonderful city.

Additionally, by allowing more people to live in our city near schools, parks, and public transit, we reduce the amount that people need to drive. Reduced driving means improved sustainability, improved street safety, and less time spent commuting.

To realize the full benefits of denser housing, we do need to do things like improve our street infrastructure to make sure that, as new developments occur, we are making it easy for people to actually drive less while actively improving the city for existing residents.

Higher density zoning, especially when combined with mixed use zoning increases both housing and transportation options for residents. I think that making Mountain View bikeable and walkable for all will make it a better city for kids.

While zoning for denser housing does lead to blow back when it comes to pollution and loss of green spaces, Mountain View has a standard of utilizing zoning to allow a denser diversity of housing, and this leads to more opportunities for buying homes and numerous opportunities for more people to move here, while also allowing for supply to better meet demand and having a more substantial effect on high cost. There just needs to be a strategy to ensure there isn't too much of one category of housing (affordable or luxury) that becomes exclusionary both in status and in affordability and there are private-public solutions (workforce housing) that serves as a bridge between government projected and market projected housing.

I support additional housing density when it helps create more affordable housing opportunities for low-income and working families. Density can allow us to build more homes on limited land, particularly near transit and in areas already suited for multifamily housing. As we increase density, we should also protect existing residents from displacement and make sure affordable housing is a meaningful part of new development.

Yes, duplexes, fourplexes, and other missing middle housing can give families, young adults, and seniors more rental and ownership options than they have today. The design and scale can look different from neighborhood to neighborhood, but every part of Mountain View should help create more housing choices.

Yes, mixed housing like duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, ADUs, and other examples, as shown via the link, are appropriate throughout Mountain View. We already have MANY neighborhoods where different housing types coexist successfully, increasing neighborhood diversity and housing choice, and supporting inclusion.

Jumbled densities are good and a sign of a healthy, diverse city. Without a variety of types of housing available, it is hard for low/middle-income families to live in lower-density neighborhoods that predominately consist of single-family homes, perpetuating historic patterns of spatial segregation.

Absolutely. Some of the single family homes being built are the same size as a four-plex. If the exterior design standards are universally enforced, I don't see why we should limit the builds based on how many kitchens are on the property.

Mixed/diverse housing options and neighborhoods are actually more diverse in its housing planning than most cities in the Silicon Valley. Not only would I support the current mixed housing neighborhoods we have, I would also move to expand it to making more of these diverse housing neighborhoods throughout the city; especially with new categories of housing to be included in plans (multi-family, bungalow, multiplex, workforce etc.) and of course rendered green spaces.

Yes, I am open to more mixed housing throughout Mountain View. Duplexes, four-plexes, townhomes, and other smaller housing types can create more housing opportunities within existing neighborhoods. I especially want to explore how these changes can produce housing that low-income and working families can afford while respecting existing neighborhoods.

Yes, I would lease or purchase land to maintain and expand safe parking. I also want to make the program easier to access, because requirements like insurance, registration, an operable vehicle, and a drivers license can become barriers for people already in crisis. We should make sure applicants get stronger, hands-on help navigating those requirements and connecting them with the right resources, while making sure case management starts on day one with a clear path to interim or permanent housing.

Yes. I have long supported creating and expanding safe parking and believe both leasing and purchasing land should be options the city considers. Safe parking works.

We should be looking to expand safe parking sites, and I would be looking at whether we could lease or purchase land to do so, likely with an eye towards using said land for things like more permanent affordable-housing developments in the long-term, as we work towards making it so that no one needs to live out of a vehicle any more. The current fiscal situation of the city may make it hard to do so immediately, but the city is also currently spending a non-trivial amount of money and staff time on street-parked RVs, which may be more manageable if more RVs were in safe parking lots.

I would prefer to expand our stock of free and low cost housing that meets proper safety and health codes for residents. I am concerned that RV's can be hazardous to resident health, both for those living in them and residents outside- due to use of gas generators and issues with sanitation due to a lack of sewage hookup. RVs are an inefficient format for permanent, fixed housing.

Mountain View should build, lease and purchase land for RVs to finally address the problem of RV parking throughout the city. The current strategy is simply to enforce an ordinance to have RV owners move spots, rather than direct them to parking structures or areas designated for RVs, which is the standard in most cities and in my experience all military posts for residents with RVs as well. Not only should the city explore land leasing and purchasing options for our RVs, I have also suggested possible exploration of leasing land on the Federal Moffett Field property from respective agencies, for not only RV park options, but also leasing or purchasing land and/or already built housing not in use like the commercialized Shenandoah Square and Westcoat Villages as Google has gone this route already on the Moffett property for themselves.

Yes. If appropriate land is available, I support Mountain View leasing or purchasing land to expand safe parking. People living in RVs are members of our community and deserve a safe and dignified place to stay. Safe parking should also connect residents with services and pathways to permanent affordable housing. Our ultimate goal should be helping people move from vehicles into stable homes they can afford.