|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Following weeks of unrelenting complaints that rising rents are pricing out scores of tenants, the Mountain View City Council finally dipped its toes into the political tempest on Tuesday. It was the city’s first substantive talks on what some describe as a regional rental crisis, but the meeting offered little more than a prelude to a string of further discussions to come.
Over recent weeks, hundreds of renters and housing advocates have made a concerted effort to pressure city leaders to address the local affordability problems. Numerous tenants complained they are on the verge of being displaced due to repeated rent increases and the threat of eviction.
That pressure showed no signs of waning at the Oct. 6 meeting, and a series of public speakers reiterated the state of desperation to city leaders. Giving a new take on the problem, Principal Kim Thompson of the Graham Elementary School explained how rent increases were to blame for the declining enrollment at her campus. A teacher from the same school district described how many faculty members were similarly hard-pressed to stay in the area.
But those with a counter perspective also made a show of force. Landlords and advocates for apartment owners admonished city leaders that the renters’ tales they were hearing of wanton evictions could be grossly exaggerated.
“Many of these things are being mischaracterized. We don’t casually toss residents aside,” said Michael Pierce, a board member for the California Apartment Association. “There’s many operators that are not going crazy with rent. Many of us are operating very affordable housing.”
Most of the back-and-forth public comments came in the early minutes for what became a marathon six-hour council meeting. Around midnight, when most of the crowd had gone home, the council began discussing a relatively mild proposal to address the rental issue — the last item on the night’s agenda.
In an uncommon step for an elected leader, Councilman Mike Kasperzak had drafted his own proposal that he described as a good starting point that could be implemented relatively quickly. His idea was to create a set of compassionate practices that landlords could voluntarily operate under. In what he dubbed a “fair rental-practices program,” Mountain View landlords would commit to limiting rent increases to once per year. The voluntary program wouldn’t stipulate a specific cap on rent increases — instead it states that such increases should be “reasonable.”
What exactly would be a reasonable rent hike? Kasperzak suggested 7.5 to 10 percent per year fit the definition in his mind, but he avoided setting that as a guideline.
Under the program, landlords would agree to go beyond their legal obligations by providing tenants renewable 12-month leases as well as 90-day notices for evictions. Under state law, tenants being evicted must receive at least 30 days notice, or more if they have lived there longer than a year. The voluntary program would also call for landlords to listen to tenants’ complaints and participate in mediation to resolve disputes. In his report, Kasperzak explained that he was modeling the program on similar efforts in Healdsburg and San Rafael.
Those landlords willing to abide by the fair-rental practices would be singled out in a list publicized on the city’s website. Landlords who refuse to join the program or fail to follow its guidelines could also be revealed in a city “naughty list,” Kasperzak said.
Such volunteer efforts haven’t always shown success, Kasperzak admitted. Nevertheless, he said he thought the program would be a good starting point that could be implemented relatively quickly.
“This clearly is no panacea,” he said. “But this gets the discussion going and hopefully the apartment industry as a whole is listening, and realiz(ing) the council won’t tolerate people taking advantage of the market.”
But even in the late hours, plenty of public speakers complained that the proposal seemed toothless. Voluntary programs were a poor substitute for actual enforceable measures for renters, said Carol Lamont, who previously managed East Palo Alto’s rent-control program.
“When I saw this proposal, I thought of the weak gestures other cities have tried over the years,” Lamont said. “There’s nothing other than rent stabilization that I’ve found to be effective.”
Many public speakers urged city leaders to enact formal regulation that would limit how much a property owner could hike rents year to year as well as a moratorium on immediate increases. Councilman Ken Rosenberg asked the city staff about how such a moratorium could be enacted, but he declined to bring the idea to a vote. Such an action would require approval from six out of seven council members.
Dabbling in the rental market clearly made council members nervous, and Kasperzak and others signaled they would not support anything resembling rent control. Kasperzak and Mayor John McAlister pointed out they had engaged in talks with landlord groups in recent days to discuss possible solutions. Representatives from the California Apartment Association said at the meeting they were supportive of Kasperzak’s voluntary proposal.
Other council members described the voluntary program as little more than a Band-Aid, but they didn’t mount an effort to oppose it.
“The fact that it’s all voluntary leaves me skeptical, but it’s something we could put into place quickly,” said Councilwoman Pat Showalter. “We really need to know the extent of the problem to get the proper remedy.”
A consensus emerged that the city would look to collect data in the coming days. Kasperzak’s proposal would be added to a “menu” of housing options that would be prepared by city staff for an Oct. 19 housing study session. That meeting is scheduled for 6 p.m. at the Senior Center at 266 Escuela Ave.
-
One of two designs for a new elementary school on the Slater School campus at 325 Gladys Ave., by Quattrocchi Kwok Architects. Courtesy of Mountain View Whisman School District. -
The fire department of NASA Ames Research Center puts out a propane-fueled fire during a drill session held at Moffett Federal Airfield on Oct. 8, 2015. Photo by Michelle Le -
After putting out a propane-fueled fire, members of the fire department of NASA Ames Research Center open the aircraft door during a drill session held at Moffett Federal Airfield on Oct. 8, 2015. Photo by Michelle Le -
The fire department of NASA Ames Research Center puts out a propane-fueled fire during a drill session held at Moffett Federal Airfield on Oct. 8, 2015. Photo by Michelle Le -
The fire department of NASA Ames Research Center return to their vehicle after putting out a propane-fueled fire during a drill session held at Moffett Federal Airfield on Oct. 8, 2015. Photo by Michelle Le -
Palo Alto-based Homemade Cooking offers weekly two-hour cooking classes at which members are introduced to seasonal ingredients, taught various cooking methods and given a wide variety of healthy recipes. Photo by Scott Fitzloff. -
Palo Alto-based Homemade Cooking offers weekly two-hour cooking classes at which members are introduced to seasonal ingredients, taught various cooking methods and given a wide variety of healthy recipes. Photo by Scott Fitzloff. -
Palo Alto-based Homemade Cooking offers weekly two-hour cooking classes at which members are introduced to seasonal ingredients, taught various cooking methods and given a wide variety of healthy recipes. Photo by Scott Fitzloff. -
From left, Katarina Hayes, left, looks around as her husband Jim, right, gets an estimate from Woodcliff Builders President Joey Kochanski at their property on Oct. 12, 2015. Photo by Michelle Le
Most Popular
A legal settlement protects RV residents in Mountain View – it's expiring soonSeptember 22, 2026 1:48 pm
Keep in mind that 6 of 7 members of the Mountain View City Council were screened and endorsed as candidates by fictitiously named landlord groups such as the Mountain View “Housing Council” (established in 1980 in response to talk of rent control). The only Councilmember not beholden to landlords is Lenny Siegel. State Assembly candidate Michael Kasperzak’s proposal would not affect the “bad” landlords who would simply not volunteer to particiate in his “fair rental practices” program or drop out when caught not abiding by its terms.
There’s a slight complication for tenants with below-market rents: The IRS can hit them with “imputed income” for the difference.
Well, vonlost, it makes sense for IRS to do that, because “below-market” rent means someone subsidizes the rent either explicitly or effectively; the renter is getting a tangible dollar benefit.
“Market” rate is what those in the market are willing to pay; it is this demand that renders rentals “unaffordable” to some other renters. Thus the euphemism “affordable” for housing that could never be so without some form of subsidy. Like other lottery winnings (almost none of the applicants are lucky enough to win the token number of subsidized units), the winnings are taxed.
Honestly the big problem we have in Mountain View is there are just more people than the town can comfortably support. New business are coming in. Start ups are everywhere and eating up office space. Residential space is converting to commercial if zoning will allow it. Big employers like Google and LinkedIn are expanding and they’re putting up new buildings which bring in more residents with their families and even more commuters. The town is being dragged forward to expand at a frantic rate and our infrastructure is straining to support this. The tax revenue goes up, but you just can’t make the roads wider and the existing parking lots bigger. If you build housing you have to make it high density. If you have been on Castro street on the weekend you’re well aware of how things are different now. We can put a moratorium on new construction which will slow it down somewhat, but this trend is not going to stop unless we have a market correction (the tech bubble pops) and a crash would be painful for almost everyone for at least the short term. My feelings are mixed because there’s a lot of tradeoffs with this growth and it’s not as simple as people would have you believe. People who are already here and found a nice comfy place to live are going to dislike any change to their housing situation by a wide margin, which you’d expect and is certainly reasonable.
Now the people who want rent control have a legitimate problem and there are a lot of emotional stories that tug at your heart strings and some cases where renters are being treated badly, but ultimately I think the city should not try to lock rents or keep them artificially low. Why? Because we have huge numbers of people pouring into town who really like Mountain View the demand is going to keep going through the roof. It’s easy to paint landlords are greedy and it’s a simple narrative but for the most part I believe that’s not what’s going on. House prices keep going up due to strong demand and low supply so rent is going up. It costs more to buy property so you charge more to rent it. Or maybe you bought property a few year ago and now rent that place for a short term loss because you think your rent will continue to go up so you’ll eventually break even and then you’ll start making some return on your money after a few years. Or you raise your rent because the same property down the road rents for a lot more money than yours does. That does not qualify as greed in my opinion.
There will be some bad side effects if the city officials decided that rent is the only part of the cost of living here that should not be priced according to the market. If the price difference between renting in Mountain View and the surrounding towns shrink, for instance, the market will respond and more people will try to come here because it will be a relative bargain compared to other towns nearby. It still won’t be cheap by any definition, but the price difference will drop. Another effect is that if the cost of rent here goes up more slowly than other towns, people will tend to move away less because they cannot find the same sort of value near so they stay put. They want to move, but they can’t. If their home were priced according to the market they would pay more here, but also be able to move if they have to.
Last thing I want to say is that I do not have any rental property in town and there’s more people who rent in town that own their home, so there’s a risk of the majority of voters trying to force the city to do something that would hurt the minority (those that own property). Let’s hope that doesn’t happen because that will help a few renters who cannot pay the high market cost of renting in our town, but it hurts the broader community.
So the landlords who don’t participate willingly “… could be revealed in a city “naughty” list,”? Gosh MV City Council, way to put some teeth into the program! In Mountain View, two powerful groups kinda own the city: (1) Google; and (2) real estate interests, so this toothless “voluntary program” is useless …
Why do people think because they work here they get to live here? I lived in four different cities throughout my career and NEVER was I able to live in the city I worked, I always commuted in from a more affordable city. Twice with 1+ hour commute each way. Sucked but I did it.
“I lived in four different cities throughout my career and NEVER was I able to live in the city I worked, I always commuted in from a more affordable city.”
Well, that’s your fault, isn’t it? You obviously didn’t work hard enough…
You do not have to depend on the IRS to make an “imputed income” determination. Make the renter agree to receive a 1099-MISC statement in the amount of reduced rent, if they want to participate in the BMR.
The renter most likely will pay zero in taxes since they are in a low tax bracket. The landlord is compensated fairly for surrendering their property to the community’s benefit.
If the BMR folks cannot agree to this, then they clearly are just looking for a handout.
>If Mt. View was not a sanctuary city, it wouldn’t have this housing problems. And the schools
>wouldn’t be begging for more money.
Based on your grammar, I don’t believe you went to school. If you did, you certainly didn’t take economics.
What kind of daycare center toddlers have we elected to our city council and to be our mayor?. Let’s play nice? Really? Me thinks the question is: can’t this all just go away until I’m out of office? I don’t want to be the man or woman who stood up for EVERYONE’S quality of life.
Our city council will meet again tomorrow evening. Since they have a let’s play nice toddler mentality, good. They can stay up past midnight.