Way cleared for development at demolished Cupertino shopping center 

@@49819d I remember when it was built...there was nothing else like it and it was beyond cool. As a teen it was a place to go to see, and be seen.

The Federal Government definition on affordable: "Housing is defined as affordable if it costs no more than 30% of one’s income" In other words, the developer is going to find super high income potential tenant so it'll be no more than 30% of their $300,000 salary.

The low income residents pay only 30% of their total income for the rent. Talk to someone who lives in these developments, and you will see. I know people are not happy with these, but at least something is better than nothing. CA mandates these all new developments to have 20% of these be low income unita. If they dont they have to pay even more to the city for the city to pay a developer to build these. SF pays pitsburg antioch and other cities to develop these and move their people out there.

@@JoeRogansGutBiome most Bay Area cities have failed to meet affordable housing goals for decades and some are actively fighting against it while being the worst offenders.

Ya I know 6000 a month right

@@fandyllic1975 always find it ironic that our state is 'liberal' but the most conservative on the planet when it comes to housing.

bay area nimbys are the literal worst. almost worse than trumpists

You mean those that don't make 7 figures a year? Valco had a McD's

@@f-86zoomer37nimbys? …lol, trumpists

@@bombloader8358 I’m sure every trumpist is a nimby, but trumpists have zero political power here in the bay area. It’s older rich white democrats. I’m saying this as a leftist myself.

you're the one they're trying to keep out

In the past, 20% affordable housing was lucky. I will believe 30%+ affordable housing when I see it… Silicon Valley developers regularly renege on their affordable housing promises.

How do you expect the developers to pay for more affordable units? They're just a business - they need to make a profit too.

@@empirestate8791 this is a false assertion that assumes affordable units are not profitable.

There ate no apple employees or are there

Sandhill couldn't even complete the Sunnyvale project which was taken away from them in court and you think they were going to make that dream rooftop Park actually possible

By affordable, they mean subsidized so lower income people can afford it.

@@jeffmishler1028not lower income, normal people who arent rich as hell

The NIMBY groups in Cupertino are some of the worst around. Lower home inventory keeps their home prices higher….so naturally they wanna keep development to a minimum. San Jose can’t keep taking the brunt of home development. Surrounding cities are gonna need to step up their game….finally.

Cupertino NIMBYs are the worst.

OH YOU SHUT UP, BRIAN THE TRUMPSTER FREAK!!!!!

What hoops? Developers just pay people off anyways

@@Dr_KW Yeah they shouldn't have to pay people off they should just be allowed to build

While I don't disagree, how would you ban the lawsuits? These neighbors were willing to take this fight this far...they are most definitely highly funded and willing to go as far as necessary. Perhaps better education to these neighbors for how this is a benefit to them would be a better alternative?

​@trer24 as one of those neighbors it's not going to be a benefit. I live right near there and don't want the traffic. The high school there is already overcrowded. I will be able to see those Towers from my backyard and they will be able to see into my backyard. The voters that actually pay taxes in Cupertino voted no on this project for a reason

@@markmatulewicz8970 Better not see you complaining about homeless people because your attitude is what causes them You want your home valuations because of a booming economy? Suck it up because that means people are attracted to move here for work then