Town Square

Post a New Topic

Landlords to pay more for displaced tenants

Original post made on Jun 19, 2014

The City Council voted Tuesday to require landlords to compensate a larger number of tenants who are evicted during renovations and redevelopments, and to increase compensation to as much as $13,000 per household.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Wednesday, June 18, 2014, 6:04 PM

Comments (13)

Posted by Bored M, a resident of Cuesta Park
on Jun 19, 2014 at 12:42 am

Bahl's comments are unpopular, but true...


Posted by Mtviewresident, a resident of North Whisman
on Jun 19, 2014 at 2:17 pm

Mtviewresident is a registered user.

Glad to see they made it for 4 or more tenants per year. It's really important to exempt small landlords who rent a home or rent out rooms in their personal resident, because these people provide additional needed housing. If the renter's laws do not protect small landlords, it is not in the best interest of homeowners to offer up their spare room for rent during a time when space is much needed.


Posted by Hmm, a resident of Monta Loma
on Jun 19, 2014 at 2:27 pm

Get rid of all property tax and have only one flat tax for state and federal. People would have more money to spend and the money could be better accounted for, not all this waste that is today.


Posted by Unintended Consequences, a resident of Old Mountain View
on Jun 19, 2014 at 3:11 pm

Now apartments will never get updated. The city staffers have condemned Mountain View to become ground zero of lousy, outdated, filthily, run-down apartments. Think tenderloin, bay view, and hunters point.

But if you are a slacker, rejoice! Now you can continue to slack your way through life while the liberal pandering city council members continue to buy your votes with my tax dollars.


Good work council, good work!


Posted by Becoming the City you don't want to live in., a resident of Shoreline West
on Jun 19, 2014 at 3:19 pm

Hmmm. Mountain View. A city with a big heart? Let me make sure a certain kind of person can not live here. But hey we will give you a little bit of money to go away without a fuss. Of course not enough to live in Mountain View.


Posted by Good or bad?, a resident of Old Mountain View
on Jun 19, 2014 at 5:48 pm

I can't tell if this is good news for low-income people or not. I guess if you already rent an apt here it's good for you. If you make below that $81,000 cut-off, your chances of moving into MV and getting a rental are now probably pretty slim. Does anyone think landlords will rent to future tenants making below $81,000 going forward? I doubt it. Even if the place is rundown and outdated, they'll probably wait until they can rent to someone who earns $82,000 or more. These policies may have good intentions, but many backfire...


Posted by Robert, a resident of Slater
on Jun 19, 2014 at 5:54 pm

Robert is a registered user.

Bahl and Inks got it right. Dear staff lady, please show us the proof that this kind of law does not discourage landlords from keeping their rental properties in good condition and we will be inclined to believe you. While I am happy that the trigger is 4 tenants, thereby helping the small mom & pop landlords, it's akin to saying how happy one is because only the hand was cut off and not the entire arm. This is the camels nose under the tent for rent control.


Posted by Duke, a resident of Old Mountain View
on Jun 19, 2014 at 7:39 pm

Is all of this "BIG BROTHER" or "ROBIN HOOD"?


Posted by VTA, a resident of Bailey Park
on Jun 19, 2014 at 11:20 pm

NBC3 reports on June 19 that the VTA has been found in volation of safety standards by the State. You won't read the story in local newspapers.


Posted by Steve, a resident of another community
on Jun 20, 2014 at 6:48 am

"We are a small city with a big heart"
Translated into layman's terms, that reads: "We are a small city with an equally tiny brain"


Posted by Casey, a resident of another community
on Jun 20, 2014 at 10:12 pm

Is the new ordinance really that big of a deal? The penalties imposed on the landlord seem to be completely preventable. Just structure the leases to expire before the demolition.


Posted by Susan, a resident of Castro City
on Jun 23, 2014 at 2:33 pm

I ask again...what is the definition of Affordable Housing? One thing to a Googleite, another to an hourly service-worker.


Posted by Lisad, a resident of another community
on Jun 23, 2014 at 4:52 pm

"It remains the only such ordinance in Silicon Valley."

Actually, East Palo Alto's Rent Stabilization Ordinance includes a requirement for relocation monies. A landlord in EPA could be required to pay up to $36,000 under certain circumstances to remove tenants in order to build condos.


If you were a member and logged in you could track comments from this story.

Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Handmade truffle shop now open in downtown Palo Alto
By Elena Kadvany | 3 comments | 2,329 views

Breastfeeding Tips
By Jessica T | 4 comments | 875 views

Who Says Kids Donít Eat Vegetables?
By Laura Stec | 5 comments | 639 views

Not Witty or Fun
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 582 views

Community Service Helps You, Too
By John Raftrey and Lori McCormick | 1 comment | 532 views