|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Responding to the Voice’s story that a landlord advocacy group hid $85,000 in late election spending from voters, Mountain View’s City Council voted unanimously on Tuesday, Feb. 10, to have the city attorney investigate a way to speed up the public disclosure of such spending.
The $85,000 in spending by the California Apartment Association (CAA) wasn’t reported until late January, and had been funneled through a shadowy group called the “Neighborhood Empowerment Coalition” (NEC).
November’s election, with nine candidates competing for three open seats, was marked by intense discussion of the city’s housing crisis and skyrocketing rents. While no candidate championed it, there were public discussions about the need for rent control in Mountain View for the first time in over a decade.
City Council member Ken Rosenberg raised the issue at the very end of Tuesday’s meeting, despite having been the largest beneficiary of the CAA’s spending during the race. He said he had no control over the independent spending during the race, which also came from the National Realtors Association and mostly went to mailers in support of his campaign, as well as the campaigns of Ellen Kamei and Pat Showalter. All three opposed rent control.
“I would like to find out if Mountain View can take a position that outside money needs to be disclosed in a more expeditious way,” said Rosenberg. “As a recipient of $65,000 to $80,000 of outside spending, it’s nauseating. I’m wondering if we could tackle that as a council.”
In an email, Rosenberg pointed to two different ways the city could take action. One is by endorsing a law that has yet to approved by the California legislature called the Disclose Act, which would require political advertisements to include a website address where the top 10 funders of the ad would be listed.
Another, potentially more comprehensive approach, is for Mountain View to adopt a law based on the American Anti-Corruption Act proposed in 2011, as has been done in Tallahassee, Florida and Princeton, New Jersey. Such a law could include disclosure requirements, outlaw spending by lobbyists and allow public financing of City Council candidates.
Earlier in the council meeting, community organizer Job Lopez called the Voice’s story on the CAA’s funding “more proof that the one percent is reigning.”
“Even though some of the council members members who won the election said they had no idea and no control over what happened — and we tend to believe that — once again we have more proof that the one percent is reigning and the 99 percent has no voice,” Lopez told the council. “Do everything you can to prevent the dirty tactics that were just revealed, by the NEC and the CAA.
Otherwise, he said, “we are just becoming accomplices of those people and organizations and committees that are doing immoral things.”
City Attorney Jannie Quinn requested two to three months to investigate “what other cities have done and if that’s successful,” to which council member Mike Kasperzak said, “I think you have until 2016.”
The City Council could “absolutely” take big steps to require disclosure of the sort of spending that the CAA made in November, and do much more to curb outside spending, said Mansur Gidfar, communications director for Represent.us, a nonprofit that is helping cities pass legislation based on the American Anti-Corruption Act.
“The Anti-Corruption Act was written as model legislation for the federal level but it can be modified to fit the needs of a city or state,” Gidfar said in an interview with the Voice.
As taking nearly three months for the CAA to report its spending, “It’s 100 percent possible to have it disclosed online within 24 hours of that disclosure being made,” he said. He added that several other reforms would need to be passed in one fell swoop to curb the flood of money into elections, or “you’ll just be playing whack-a-mole.”
“Only tackling outside spending is a very piecemeal approach to the problem,” Gidfar said. “If you are going to do outside spending, make sure anyone working as a lobbyist, make sure it is illegal for them to coordinate campaign fundraising activity. Set up a small citizen funding system, make it possible for people to run for City Council without having to go to developers (for funds).”
Gidfar suggested that council candidates be allowed to pledge, “I will not take big donations from special interests and in return for that, I can accept public funds for my campaign.” Residents would control the funds, he said. Each voter would get “a $100 voucher to give to the candidate of their choice.”
Until last year, the amount of money spent on council candidate campaigns rarely went above the city’s voluntary expenditure limit, which was $22,689 per candidate for the 2014 election. But it is feared that the outside spending, which totaled more than $100,000, may push some candidates to disregard the limit in 2016.
No candidate decides to run for office and says, “I can’t wait to go grovel before the developers so I can run for office because that’s the only way I can run a viable campaign,” Gidfar said.
If candidates could forget about that, “I think everyone would prefer that world — a little more West Wing and a little less House of Cards.”
Hmm, the more money spent, the better for the Economy as a whole. Let them spend as much as needed. The post office sure benefited.
Within the next 6 months let’s put a stop to unknown and unwanted outside election spending here in Mountain View.
Rich people are not all that many, we can end their control of elections if we band together.
It’s certainly good to address the elections funding, but let’s also address the underlying issue-rent control. The underhanded support from CAA/NEC should encourage Showalter and Rosenberg to demonstrate their independence by giving the issue serious consideration.
Vince: Please cease your campaign to insinuate the phrase “rent control” throughout this forum. It reflects badly on you.
Rent control ONLY sounds appealing to people who currently are in rented properties they think will be covered by it, and who have NOT been through the viciously bitter experience of trying to find housing in a “rent-controlled” market. Rent control takes an existing, underlying problem (too many people competing for existing spaces) and rather than address the causes, exacerbates them by suppressing rents to below what the market is willing to pay. That brings far MORE people into competition for nonexistent vacancies; it brings in new corruptions like bribery to secure rent-controlled places (i.e. the real market value asserting itself); it immediately discourages owners from renting their units; if it looks at all likely, the first effect will be huge rent increases across the entire market so the owners won’t be faced with future rents not keeping up with their expenses and inflation. In a nutshell, it messes up the whole rental market for the benefit of a few people too selfish and self-absorbed to care. I’ve been through this in various towns. (I am not and have never been a landlord.)
I’d vote for rent control tomorrow, IF it also compelled every current renter to vacate their property and compete on the new market with the 10s of thousands of other people then wanting to rent in Mountain View. Then the “rent-control” advocates would get the FULL experience of what they’re creating, and they might finally, at long last, grasp that easy-looking solutions to complex problems are wrong and fatuous.
I agree with Vince that some form of rent control would benefit the community. The people that oppose it are either selfish or ignorant. Think about it. The problem cited above is that cheaper rents would allow more people to apply for available vacancies. Why? Because the rents would be affordable! (Gasp!)
Oh no! You mean that more people besides the wealthy could compete for an apartment? Oh dear. That would make it harder for the wealthy to live here!!!!
That is the dirty little secret these anti-rent control wingnuts are trying to hide. Class warfare–pure and simple.
Give Ken Rosenberg a little credit for supporting campaign reform – but only a little. His credibility was taking a real beating, due to the massive CAA/NEC spending on his behalf, and he needed to try to get in front of the news cycle.
Opposition to rent control may never have been the actual reason for CAA/NEC funding these candidates. Actually, rent control was never going to happen, regardless of which candidates were elected.
The real pot of gold is in the development of North Bayshore, with the new council likely to approve 1000-5000 new housing units there (as well as more, elsewhere in the city). Don’t expect much “affordable” or ownership housing in the mix. Expect more Madera-style “luxury” rentals, and expect Prometheus to get a piece of the action.
@Older but wiser:
I have owned a home in MV for 30+ years–I have nothing to gain personally from some form of rent control. However, I work and associate with enough people who struggle to find affordable housing to know that housing costs are a real issue (and are a factor in causing traffic congestion). I am also aware that rent-control can be problematic and absolutely should be done in a careful and thoughtful way.
Thanks for proving your name sake.
At Vince, you say you have owned here, but have you rented as well? and if you did, was it for a friend or family you rented to at a lower rate? or did you rent at the going rate? If you charge your relative a lesser amount then the going rate, should i come in and force you to charge the going rate? Think about it.
We can’t house every rich and every poor person here in Mt. View. It’s first come first serve. Some people will be priced out and other won’t be able to find a place. We already have too much apartments/homes, can’t we see that by our traffic mess?
All these commies liberals trying to tell free people what to charge for their place is ridiculous.
The best law of the land is capitalize, you get what you are worth. If you want more, better yourself, make something more of yourself by going to school or whatever. If you work hard you can and more then likely will succeed, now in a communistic society, their is no getting ahead, everyone is the same, there is no will or want to better one’s self. Is that what the younger generation want, more government Cheese? What type of teachers do they have?
@ @older and wiser — Do us all a favor, Monta Loma Moron. if you want to put out your usual wingnut garbage, do it on Free Republic’s website. If you want to make an intelligent, thought-out argument, do it here.
No one — and I mean NO ONE — is making the “argument” you are making concerning housing here in Mountain View. And if you really think that pricing people out of this city is somehow appropriate and necessary, then you are beyond help.
I certainly support local measures to deflate the corrupting effects of the Citizens United USSC decision. And I also support carefully designed rent control as a local measure to offset the endemic greed of the real estate market.
When the election campaign was happening in 2014 it did feel it was skewed to me and I was suspicious. Now I find I was correct. No enjoyment taken.
Election skewed. Community skrewed.
Special interest groups have always supported their favorite candidates -often surreptitiously. Sure, we should know before voting how special interest groups have voted with their contributions. But I don’t see local politicians elected with the assistance of third-party spending doing anything but pretending to be concerned.
I’d vote for rent control so long as it was expanded to ownership property as well, i.e. can only sell your house for however much the City dictates. That would keep housing prices low for everyone, right?
…. to which council member Mike Kasperzak said, “I think you have until 2016.”
Well, it’s now …. 2016. Any progress on these election transparency efforts?
$100 voucher per voter? What kind of asinine idea is that? I thought we’re trying to REDUCE campaign spending? That would equate to $3,300,000 being spent on campaigns!