Opinion Written by: Joseph Weinstein
Late this past Tuesday night, I received an outraged call from a friend whose kids cannot afford to buy a home in Milpitas. She suggested I watch the City Council Meeting; Item 15, a housing development was the agenda item.
The Developer had worked with City Staff over a 7 year period to present a final design that not only met the various State and Local requirements, but also had been approved by our Planning Commission.
I watched hypocrisy in action; a blatant example of why our children cannot afford homes and why housing costs and rents keep rising.
The Applicant, after a number of comments by our Council, stated that they had negotiated in good faith for over 7 years and asked the Council to approve their development. They pointed out that the project would deliver around $10,000,000 to the City in fees.
Mayor Montano reminded them that the City Council could negotiate too! First, she asked for a police substation, while the Police Department already has one less than a ¼ mile away. When she couldn’t get that, she said that she would take $1,000,000 for the City; the applicant had already offered an additional $400,000. Her request had nothing to do with housing! She just wanted more money to fund “other things.”
Councilperson Chua agreed, offering no reason other than what the Mayor asked, and suggested that the payout be made in subsequent years.
Councilperson Barbadillo stated that because he liked to see both sides, the number should be $700,000.
There was no reason, related to housing, for these demands. Montano even suggested that even though she liked the development she might not support it if she didn’t get her money!
None of these 3 Council people’s requests was related to housing! The end result is the Applicant agreed to raise their contribution to $700,000, and Montano, Chua, and Barbadillo, smiled in victory. Who do they think is ultimately ending up paying for the $300,000!!!
They won, our residents lost. The 3 of them just added $300,000 in costs to the Development in a “victory for the City.” The only result of their efforts was to raise the cost of housing to buyers and low income renters!
Some may laugh and point out that an additional $300,000 in a multi-million project is meaningless in the long run. Well, if that is true, then why not reduce City Fees by $300,000 instead. Almost 30% of housing costs are related to government fees. The Council had a chance to address this in a meaningful way. This is just another example of government officials campaigning on housing affordability and then voting the opposite.
Where is the commitment to address housing affordability? Montano, Chua, and Barbadillo just acted opposite of almost everyone’s desire to lower housing and rental costs and pricing.
Note: The Author has been a Milpitas resident since 1976 and is a retired Real Estate Broker who was focused on helping First Time Home Buyers.
Dear Milpitas Beat & Editor,
My name is Ana Chavez, and we are a young couple living in Milpitas. I read this article and, and we do disagree with the framing in the recent article suggesting that City Council actions will simply “raise rents and housing costs.”
This argument overlooks the larger reality that housing prices in Milpitas are driven primarily by regional demand, limited supply, and broader economic conditions.
New developments continue to sell at very high price points, while many working residents still struggle to afford to stay in the city.
The article also leaves out the importance of community benefit contributions that come with the new development. These agreements are meant to help offset impacts on our neighborhoods and support real local needs such as infrastructure and public safety. From what I saw, there will be a total of $700,000 additional community funds from the developer. There will also be low income and very low income units allocated with this new site as part of the entire project.
In the southern part of Milpitas, for example, there is a clear need for a stronger public safety presence. With nearby schools, senior housing, and businesses that have experienced repeated burglaries, a small community-police space would make a practical difference. The approved program will allocate a police substation and ongoing property tax revenue for the city. With this new plan, the presence of officers nearby improves response times, helps deter repeat incidents, and provides reassurance to residents.
Reducing the issue to a simple claim that council votes “raise rents” misses the complexity of what is actually driving housing costs and what communities are asking for in return for continued growth.
I truly believe Milpitas deserves a more balanced discussion—one that recognizes both the need for housing and the need for tangible community benefits. I believe this article is slightly misleading and would like to shed some light on the other side as we feel this was a good plan for a site that was vacant for 10 years and more commercial space will be added into this site too.
Thanks for listening!
Sincerely,
Ana Chavez
Milpitas Resident
Dear Ms.Chavez,
Facts matter! Here is a quote from a major housing developer that was sent in response to the article. “ The basis is exactly right…those costs just get passed on to the homebuyer. Thank you for sending!”.
I started my career building homes, and have spent our 20 years focused on real estate. You obviously missed the first point, which the quote above details but the second point is the hypocrisy of Mayor Montano and Councilmember’s Chua and Barbadillo. They claim to want to address housing costs but given the opportunity did just the opposite.