|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Some issues unite all eight candidates vying for a spot on the Mountain View City Council this November. Everyone agrees that traffic congestion needs to be addressed, that more housing is needed to meet the incredible demand and that residential displacement needs to be prevented in order to maintain the city’s rich diversity.
But how to achieve each of these goals is where candidates part ways, particularly when it comes to handling the explosive cost increases for Mountain View renters. And with two dueling rent control measures on the Nov. 8 ballot, there is a clear dividing line between candidates.
Tuesday night marked the first of several planned forums with the eight candidates who are competing for four council seats — two incumbent are up for re-election and term limits will leave the other two seats open.
The field of candidates is made up of Parks and Recreation Commissioner Thida Cornes, former council member Margaret Abe-Koga, Planning Commissioner Lisa Matichak, Human Relations Commissioner Lucas Ramirez, school board member Greg Coladonato, community volunteer Ken “Kacey” Carpenter and incumbent councilmen John McAlister and Chris Clark.
One of the critical questions at the Aug. 30 forum at the Microsoft campus cut right to the chase: do you support Measure V or Measure W?
Both measures would afford protections for renters, but take very different approaches. Measure V, a voter initiative drafted by the Mountain View Tenants Coalition, would be an amendment to the city charter and would restrict annual rental increases each year based on the increase in the local Consumer Price Index, up to a maximum of 5 percent in a 12-month period.
Measure W, on the other hand, was crafted by the Mountain View City Council as an alternative rent control measure. Measure W would amend the city’s existing landlord-tenant mediation program to include binding arbitration, which would be mandatory if a landlord increases the cost of rent by more than 5 percent in a year.
Half of the candidates — Abe-Koga, Clark, Matichak and McAlister — threw their support behind Measure W. Clark, who voted in favor of putting the measure on the ballot, argued that modifying the city’s charter would be an extreme and hard-to-reverse move that could only be remedied every two years through an election. Mountain View would be stuck, he said, with any unforeseen problems with the measure.
“Thinking about the long term, we have to avoid the temptation to knock out problems in the simplest way possible,” Clark said.
McAlister and Abe-Koga both voiced similar concerns about the five-person rental housing committee that would be created under citizen-backed Measure V. The members would be charged with determining annual rent adjustments, establishing regulations and acting as the enforcement agency. McAlister argued that the board will have no accountability to anyone for five years, while Abe-Koga worried about how much it was going to cost the city.
“I don’t want this to end up being another item that we have to look at when we come to a recession, and have to choose between public safety and the rent control board, because they came up short on cost-recovery,” she said.
Two candidates — Ramirez and Carpenter — said they supported Measure V. Ramirez said he will be voting in favor of both measures, but threw his full-throated support behind the tenant coalition’s initiative as the better of the two options. Responding to Clark’s concerns, Ramirez argued that the City Council is empowered to rectify any problems with Measure V through its own charter amendment, and that the measure affords landlords plenty of protections as well. If vacancy rates in the city rise too high, for example, landlords would be able to raise rents at higher rates in order to recoup investment losses.
“It’s a protection for landlords in the event that there is a major economic catastrophe,” he said.
Cornes, who did not say whether she supported one measure over the other, called the two rent control measures the most divisive issue facing the city of Mountain View — so much so that members of her own campaign team are split on Measure V. The Mountain View Tenants Coalition collected more than 7,100 signatures from residents, Cornes said, which eclipses the number of people who voted for any one candidate in 2014.
Coladonato stood as the lone dissenter to both measures, saying that it would be better to use the power of persuasion, instead of creating new laws. Landlords and tenants should come together to find a better way to control rent increases in the city, he said. The existing rental mediation program the City Council approved in April already would force landlords to justify and explain why they are doubling rental costs all at once, he said.
When it was passed, the program was derided by tenant advocates and council member Lenny Siegel for having no teeth, as the mediation is non-binding, and was the catalyst for the creation of Measure V.
“I don’t support the nuclear option of either (measures) V or W,” Coladonato said.
Traffic, transit and growth
Council candidates overwhelmingly advocated for better transit options for Mountain View, and continued housing growth throughout the city — particularly in fast-changing areas like East Whisman and North Bayshore — though there were some subtle differences among candidates on how to deal with both.
Ramirez said he believes future development needs to be geared towards maintaining Mountain View’s socioeconomic diversity, and that housing will be a critical part of that plan. The worst thing the city could do, he said, is close down development and go down a slow-growth trajectory, pointing to Palo Alto as a prime example of how to head in the wrong direction.
“We need to add a lot of housing, we need to be comfortable with some degree of urbanization,” Ramirez said.
Clark, on the other hand, advocated for a more cautious approach, and said that the city needs to grow in a “sustainable manner” and maintain the small-town feel that Mountain View has kept.
“The critical decision that we have to make is … what is the right amount of growth, what is the sustainable level of growth that protects the things that we love about Mountain View, whether it’s diversity or the character of neighborhoods,” he said.
Carpenter, who frequently said at the forum that the city is at an “inflection point” in the way it plans for future growth, said he would advocate for transportation policies that get more cars off the road, and support changes in infrastructure that encourage alternative forms of transportation.
“I don’t want to see any cars,” he said. “We need a moonshot.”
When asked about her vision for the future, Matichak said she’s for maintaining the diverse neighborhoods in the city, and making sure that there’s enough housing built so that anyone who wants to live in Mountain View can afford to do so. Any new or expanded neighborhoods, Matichak cautioned, will need to come with smart planning and plenty of nearby services so people can get around without having to get into a car.
McAlister also took a transit-oriented approach to the future, saying that he would continue to support region-wide plans to make sure people can get to and from their jobs effectively and without a 90-minute commute. He pointed to his progress working with VTA as an example of how he has encouraged regional agencies to support transit on major corridors, including Highway 85, which acts as a major thoroughfare between Mountain View and the South Bay.
The forum was hosted by the Mountain View Chamber of Commerce and moderated by Jan Hutchins.
The next candidate forum will be held on Sept. 21 at Charlie’s Cafe on the Google campus on Amphitheatre Parkway. It’s hosted by Google and the League of Women Voters. More information can be found on the League of Women Voters website, lwvlamv.org.
Mother of Mountain View motorcyclist who died in crash sues Palo Alto for negligenceDecember 22, 2025 6:12 pm
The worst thing the city could do, [Ramirez] said, is close down development and go down a slow-growth trajectory, pointing to Palo Alto as a prime example of how to head in the wrong direction.
I wholeheartedly agree with this. Let’s build more housing so we keep Mountain View a vibrant and diverse city!
Thank god for Ramirez and Caperenter. The rest of the candidates are bad news for the 60 percent of Mountain View that rents.
The candidates backing Measure W wont tell you that it has a giant loophole allowing landlords to evict people to raise the rent. Good luck getting people enthusiastic about that.
I am united and please do not tell me how to vote. Just tell us how you’re going to vote. I’ve already made up my mind and I’m voting no, not because I’m anti-renter, but because I’m PRO Mountain View
Something smells bad here. I can understand why Measure V was crafted and agree that something has to be done for renters. We owners have to stop being such money hungry heartless people. It seems that Measure W was crafted to divide votes from people who understand that MV must be more caring and appreciative of renters. I think that the “W” people are heartless and are not being honest. “W” should be cancelled. Maybe this isn’t possible now but the fact is it smells bad. Somebody is up to no good with Measure W.
It’s not either or. VOTE NO on BOTH.
And it shouldn’t be the leading campaign issue. It’s in the hands of the voters at this point.
We should build more housing, but the problem is that it’s much easier to approve new housing than the transit and road improvements needed to support it. We’re never going to have the billions of dollars needed for those improvements short of a new tax — the one on the ballot in November isn’t enough and only a fraction of it will end up being spent in MV.
And even if we did have the money, it’ll take years to plan and even longer to build. The longer we wait, the more painful it gets — closing down lanes on already saturated roads, not having right-of-way because we already built too much.
I’m all for as little growth as possible and keep what little small town wholesome feel we have left. Build quality of life and enhancement infrastructure. All this housing no schools no parks, will be NYC traffic h$ll in 5 years…. We don’t HAVE to build more houses you know…
Glad to see Lucas Ramirez speaking up about the need for smart policy for Mountain View housing. His commitment to Mountain View politics is evident in his breadth of knowledge about these issues.
If one of these rent control measures does pass, our family will plan to move to a city without rent control. Interestingly, I think we will rent out our current home and buy a new one in a better city. I don’t mind being a landlord under rent control, but I do mind being a resident in a rent controlled area. I know those pushing for rent control have the best of intentions, and in the short-term it allows you to “feel” like you’ve done something to help, but it will cause greater problems for Mountain View in the long run, and I don’t want to be a part of that future. We had been planning to stay in Mountain View, but not with rent-control.
mvresident2003 Glad you know everything about everybody and are not making any assumptions in your post NOT.
I support Measure V because it is the ONLY measure on the ballot that prevents evictions merely because the owner wants to raise the rent. And I support Lucas Ramirez and Kasey Carpenter, the only candidates for City Council who support Measure V. They recognize the importance of retaining Mountain View’s economic diversity.
I believe renters make valuable contributions to our community, and we should help them remain in Mountain View by not making them subject to the whims of apartment owners. Currently apartment owners call the shots. They can raise rents to whatever the market will bear without being subject to binding arbitration, and they can evict people without cause. Tenants are left with few affordable nearby housing options. Apartment owners are investors, taking risks and looking out for their own financial interests, but sometimes to the detriment of the community at large.
If rent control was good, most cities in the United State should already been in rent control. If rent control was good, it should have been revolutions in many of the states to switch over to rent control. People should find out why that did not happen before they vote.
North Korea has everything under the government control (including rent). I don’t think people would like to live there. Again, people should ask why.
Ramirez and Carpenter, I presumed they know how to conduct simple research, are taking a stand to get votes. They are the real politician who know how to win.
Wait, do we really need someone who care about winning the race more that the city?
I think I will vote NO to both Ramirez and Carpenter!
Why is Rent Control taking up so much of the election conversation? All the candidates are supporting a form of rent control (whether V or W) except for the perennial libertarian candidate. This is going to be decided by the voters anyway and not the future council.
They talked about traffic, but not BRT and how they are going to take away a lane on El Camino? When is that going to be part of the conversation? Where do each of the candidates stand on that?
The rent control opposition is still spouting garbage. “Rent control destroys cities so I’m going to move!” Or “I pay under market rents and now rent control will bankrupt me!”
Or, the “supply and demand” nonsense.
Wake up! This is not the end of the world. All that will happen is that hundreds or thousands of people will not be thrown out on the street for not being able to handle a massive rent increase. Grow up!
I’m predicting neither measure passes. Judging by how area people have told me they were voting along with the “Likes” here on the msg boards, it looks like neither measure has any traction with voters. Maybe that was the plan, confuse everyone so they vote no. Margin of error +/- 50%
COLANDONATO, CLARK, and MCALISTER GET MY VOTE!
Colandonato is the only one standing up to the minority special interests with facts, sound logic, and reasoning, and more importantly believes in Mountain View.
Clark and McAlister are doing a good job but are tough on new residential developments.
Ramirez and Carpenter are disciples of Kim Jong-Un.
I guess I will do what they did in San Francisco if Rent Control is enacted.
As the units come empty, I’ll take them off the rental market and list them on airbnb and I’ll charge $300 per night instead of $70 per night. The business environment will support it here too just like San Francisco. I love America and Capitalism!!
When one side degrades the argument into sarcasm, you know what side has run out of good arguments.
Watch this one go down in flames at the ballot box. Guaranteed.
These measures make me nervous as a potential landlord. I currently own a tiny one bedroom condo. I’m hoping to someday purchase something a little bigger so that we have a second bathroom, and a yard for my dog to run around it. As you know it’s not just rentals that are skyrocketing but the prices of homes are too. But if we are ever able to upgrade, my plan was to rent out my condo. If the city is going to regulate and restrict how I do this, I will probably sell my condo instead. And I don’t think I’m the only one who feels this way and I think we’ll in the long run see a drop in rentals in older buildings. Leaving a bunch of the overpriced full service apartments that charge $3K for a studio that seem to be popping up everywhere lately.
And that’s too bad since I would make a great landlord. I think the skyrocketing rent in the area is ridiculous. As a landlord, I would just charge what is reasonable, that would just about cover my mortgage, property tax, rental tax, HOA fees, Insurance etc. But unlike someone who rents, there’s going to be other expenses that need to be dealt with. Here are my concerns:
I recently had to pay my HOA $15K, wiping out my savings to make some much needed renovations in our community. If I was renting out my unit, the tenant would have an improved area to live in, but I wouldn’t be able to charge them more to recoup my savings, or pay back my loan if I needed to cash out on a re-fi. The $15K was on top of my monthly HOA fees that’s doubled in the last 5 years.
What if the tenant was inconsiderate and annoying/ pissing off the neighbors? Is it going to be harder for me to evict them? If I get fined for their actions, can I not charge them? If s/he is stompy and I need to change my flooring to sound proof it to remain on good terms with the HOA, can I not increase the rent to account for that? I get that the ballot measure will allow for an annual 5% increase. But that may or may not cover increases that the homeowner is responsible for.
I saved for years to be able to take this leap/risk to purchase my condo. It turned out to be a great investment. But if rent control passes I think I’d rather sell my property to pay off my new loan, instead of renting it out.
We have heard about measure v and W.
I want to put measure X on the ballot. It reads that all incomes received and prices of goods sold in Mountain View will roll back to 1970. Then I can find a Lava Lamp for under 7 bucks. I miss my Lava lamp and $4 LP’s
See you at the ballot box!
@LetsAllGoBack oh gawd…@ $1.45/hour (minimum wage), that lava lamp was 5 hours of work. not worth it imo. 🙂
Well, Coladonato just earned my vote. I just wish McAlister, Clark, Abe-Koga and Matichak would have had the guts to say no to both as well. They say this is the most divisive issue but what isn’t said is that it is the most vocal by the most minority (no, I’m not referring to race, I’m referring to number of people).
This article did bring up a very important key piece of information that isn’t being discussed. If this were by some far-fetched reason to pass, what exactly is the cost to the City? And why are we incurring more costs for something that truly isn’t a solution?
(And I said far-fetched because despite all the talk on the boards everyone I’ve talked to is against it)
@svsportz “we owners have to stop being such money hungry heartless people”? Really? Seriously? Spoken like someone who hasn’t a clue what is really involved in real estate investments.
Once again I’ll say, it sure is easy for you to spend other’s money; you have absolutely NO skin in the game, you took no risk, you made no investment. And yet you expect others to give it away.
It frightens me, the attitude of entitlement that is being displayed. I am sorry for my kids to have to live with this.
OK Homeowner1, let’s take this down to the nitty gritty. Let’s see how willing YOU are to retain the “economic diversity” as you say.
If you REALLY want to maintain this diversity, how about you set aside a room in your home so someone isn’t subject to the “whims of apartment owners” (honestly, WTH does that even mean?). You say that currently apartment owners “call the shots”….OK, how about YOU call the shots? YOU house them. Yes, why don’t YOU give them “affordable options”.
Please. Tell us. Put your money where your posts are.
oh wait! you can’t do any of those things because
A)
B)
C)
Go ahead, list it out. You should have lots of options, lots of reasons right? Or wait…..maybe, just maybe it’s easy to spend other people’s money, harder to do it yourself eh? Wow, novel idea there.
I’m definitely voting for Mr. Coladonato. Rent control is complicated. We have a housing shortage in our area, and all rent control does is create a different set of winners and losers, it’s not a win-win idea like the proponents would have you believe. We live in a political climate where bad laws stick around forever, so his opposition to both measures is great, since we’ll be stuck with whatever we get. The council just approved almost 10,000 housing units in north bayshore. That will completely change the housing scenario in the city – let’s wait and see how that helps.
I’m happy to see someone pragmatic running for city council.
In Mountain View only 179 new housing units were built between 2010 and 2014 at the same time that the population grew by over 5,000 people. Housing units rose by about one-half a percent while population rose by 7 percent.This is the problem and rent control is not the solution.
Further, capping rents and rent increases exacerbates the problem in the long run even as it offers a temporary salve in the short term. While stopping the rent increases may feel good to renters at the moment, it lowers the incentive for builders to construct more rental housing which is the only long-run solution when a location is in high demand. It also makes current landlords less interested in maintaining and renovating existing buildings, meaning that the quality of housing declines under rent control.
The true villain is not greedy landlords but the local politicians who refuse to approve enough new construction and the residents who advocate for land conservation and neighborhood preservation. Rent control may temporarily ease the pain, but the only cure is to build enough new housing to keep up with population growth.
Vote NO on measure V and W and tell your city officials to approve construction for new rental units. This is the only solution in a rapid growth area.
@MV Condo Owner: Condos are exempt from Measure V. Here’s the relevant text:
“…
In
addition to the Rental Units exempted in Subsection 1703(a) of this Article, the following Rental
Units are also Fully Exempt from this Article:
(a) Single-Family Homes and Condominiums. Single-family homes, condominiums,
and other Rental Units specified in Civil Code § 1954.52(a)(3)(A).
…
”
That being said, I plan to vote against Measure V.
@AHB Thank you! That’s a relief. If you’re still following this thread will it be possible for you to provide a link from where you pulled the text from? Everything I could find just uses the term “landlord” loosely. And the MV website wasn’t very helpful either. http://www.mountainview.gov/depts/clerk/election/city_election_reference_materials.asp
thank you!