News

Rent control opponents raise $1.2M to defeat Bay Area measures

 

It looks like no expense is being spared to defeat ballot initiatives restricting apartment rents in Mountain View and four other Bay Area cities.

The possibility that rent control measures might pass has been a boon to fundraising for the California Apartment Association, the chief group working on behalf of landlords and property-management firms. Since September, the apartment group has raised over $1.18 million to wage an opposition campaign against Bay Area rent control measures, including Mountain View's Measure V, according to the latest filings with the California Secretary of State's office.

The campaign finance documents reported spending as a whole and did not detail how much was spent specifically in Mountain View or the other four cities considering rent control measures on the Nov. 8 ballot: Burlingame, San Mateo, Richmond and Alameda.

The top donors to the anti-rent-control campaign include Essex Property Trust of San Mateo ($100,000), Equity Residential of Chicago ($100,000) and Prometheus Real Estate Group ($50,000), all firms that have a significant stake in Mountain View apartments. In addition to its $50,000 contribution, Prometheus gave the Apartment Association a $100,000 loan to be repaid after the election. The California Apartment Association also received checks from more than 200 other donors, most with ties to the apartment industry.

To date, about $990,000 of that money has been spent on the opposition campaign, according to campaign finance reports. The association hired the Connecticut-based firm Media Associates to conduct three rounds of polling and survey research, costing just over $100,000. It spent about $300,000 political spots for television, $72,000 on radio ads and another $92,000 for an online ad campaign. At least $153,000 was spent on political mailers.

The political spending by landlords is dramatic when compared to the shoestring pro-rent control operation. The Mountain View Tenants Coalition, the grassroots group spearheading Measure V, has raised just over $38,000, or roughly the amount spent by the CAA on just one phase of its polling research. New supporters include organized labor groups including the Service Employees International Union ($2,500) and Plumbers and Steamfitters and Refrigeration Fitters ($1,000). Others large donors included the Oakland based social-justice groups Just Cause ($5,000) and Bay Rising ($2,500).

The most recent Oct. 27 filing, which covers campaign finances up to Oct. 22, showed the group has spent about $3,000 on campaign consultants from the Hayward firm Eveleth Group. About $10,000 was spent on printing costs for mailers, door hangers, bumper stickers and yard signs.

While the Tenant Coalition is outmatched financially, its supporters say they rely on their strong volunteer base.

Comments

92 people like this
Posted by Mike_
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Nov 1, 2016 at 5:38 pm

Mike_ is a registered user.

Way to go Voice!

Maybe had you done your job as a "news organization" and written both sides of this story, the effects of rent control had on other city's, and from the business owners side, and what is actually in the 20 some pages of Measure V, the landlord group would not have to spend any money to get this information out to the public.

Showing your true colors here for an editorial board who does not live in Mtn.View. But your are telling voters to vote for measure V without telling them what's in it, who paid for that measure, like where did the $7 per signature gathers got paid, where did all this money come from? You never disclosed who all the people where in this outside special interest group who wrote this measure. You never disclosed any conflicts of interest with employes working at the Voice and for this measure V. That was disclosed thru another paper.

Not once have you described the process that a landlord will have to go thru to evict trouble tenants. Other landlords in rent control city's do not even try because they are always denied.

Not once did you disclose that a property owner is such a threat to the community that this measure V will prohibit-deny landlords from moving a son or mother onto their property.

Not once did you say that "improvements" will not be permitted for rent pass thru's, guaranteeing that these neighborhoods will turn blighted.

Not once did you explain that this measure V language is no different than other rent controlled cities, like Oakland, Hayward, East Palo Alto, East San Jose, etc, You did not explain HOW our city will not turn into one of those cities.

You have so much to explain for.

PLEASE ALLOW COMMUNITY MEMBERS TO PUT A NEW TOPIC ON TOWN SQUARE.
AT THIS POINT I FEEL YOU ARE DELIBERATELY BLOCKING PEOPLE FROM DOING THIS SO THEY CAN NOT POST INFO AS WELL ABOUT THIS MEASURE.

OPEN IT NOW.


10 people like this
Posted by @Mike_
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Nov 1, 2016 at 5:43 pm

Your constant complaining on these discussion boards is more than tiresome.

What you are really aiming at is to shut down ANY discussion on Measure V that goes against the point of view that your paymasters want to have put out to the public.

Too bad for you that not everyone in Mountain View accepts your propaganda.


60 people like this
Posted by Mike
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Nov 1, 2016 at 5:55 pm

. REBUTTAL TO EDITORIAL ENDORSEMENT:
. MEASURE V IS WRONG FOR OUR COMMUNITY

Did you know that an owners family is such a threat to the community that there will be a new law, if rent control passes, that would deny a family move in? Read on for details.

The Voice editorial board does not live in Mtn. View. For what ever reason, do they think that people should not be told the truth about what's in Measure V ?. They should have written one story to tell people whats actually in it, and ALL what's in it.

The Voice has been a pure advocate for this measure, has never run one story who the outside groups are that wrote and funded this. They have not done ONE story that showed any expenses that a landlord has. They have not explained how Mtn.View will be any different in the outcome from other rent control cities, regarding blighted neighborhoods and increased crime, because these other city have the same language that Measure V has. The outcome will be no different.

In 2008 voters passed Prop. 8 in this state that denied same sex marriage to gays. Just because the majority of voters can vote to take away rights from a minority group, does not make it right.

If housing is a community problem, then the community needs to solve it where everyone contributes. Lets not make the same mistake here.

Measure V had no public review. No Q & A from the public. It is over 20 pages long. Everyone associated with this group has refused to answer any question about what is in it. It has been reported to have been written by a special interest tenant advocacy group out of San Francisco, behind closed doors. We have the right to know all their names and qualifications on who these people are so we could judge the credibility of these people. We do not know where all the dark money came from to fund this, like the $7 paid for each signature gathered.

All these new potential rent control laws will not apply to 1995 and newer apartments, duplex's, single family houses, condos, row houses or town homes. They are EXEMPT.

If both measure V and W pass, Measure V will be the law as it is a Charter Amendment to the city. The burden is on the proponents of V to justify to the city residents, both what's in the language and why it is needed. Everyone should read it, understand it, or do not vote on it. Do Not read the ballot pamphlet only! Read the actual entire measure. Far to much of what is in these measures is not in the pamphlet.

If you support rent control, Vote No on V and Yes on W.

People who are low income, working here just trying to get by on their pay checks, would be personally in a much better place living in an area with a lower cost of living, where they will have the same pay and housing costs a fraction of what it is here. They then would have the opportunity to save money for retirement and possibly buy their own place. They can not do that here.To me, they are doing the most cruel thing to these people when they could have a far better life in a different area.

They could have done a means test for the low income and apply some kind of caps on that. They could have put a CPI cap on all expenses. They could have created a dialogue with the city resident's first to find a solution where everyone contributed to solve the issue. But they did not do any of that.

1980 was the first attempt to put rent control on the ballot here in Mtn, View, that did not pass and one other time it also failed. Had it passed back then when all these other cities got it passed, like East San Jose, East Palo Alto, Oakland, Hayward, San Leandro and even San Francisco today is the number one city in all of United States for property crime, Mtn. View would resemble those other cities instead of the vibrant city we have today where people actually want to come and live in.
============================================================================
. Who opposes rent control.
. _________________________
The super majority of the city council, and the super majority of city council candidates oppose V, Tom Means former city council member who served as mayor and director of the Council of Economic Education at San Jose State University, The California Association of Realtors, and the Daily Post newspaper oppose rent control. The Daily Post who has no conflict of interest to report, like a certain other newspaper who has a conflict of interest with employees working for both the paper and the rent control measure.

============================================================================
. What's in this rent control measure.
. ____________________________________

1- Measure V has language that states a landlord can not evict a tenant from a property for a family move in, like son or mother, unless that owner owns at least 50% interest in the property. Then that family member has to live there for at least 36 months or be subject to penalties.
No one has yet to explain why a owner of a property is such a threat to the community, and his family members, that they have to make new laws that would prevent family move in's from happening.

2- This new rent board has unlimited access to the general funds for what ever reason they choose. Measure V gives them this power. Any new laws they pass and gets challenged in a lawsuit, they can take as much money they need from the general fund to defend the lawsuit, etc.

3- This new rent board will be totally independent from our current city government. They will be an entire government body with all the power within our current governmental system.The city council, city attorney, and everyone else will have no say or control over what they do. There is no recall provision in V to remove these people. If we do not like the new laws that they will make the only option to repeal these will be to constantly raise money and put it on the ballot. This is a new bureaucracy with no oversight.

4- This new 5 panel rent board can not have more than 2 real estate or landlord advocates, and will be a 3 member tenant advocate board.

5- Creates a lengthy process to evict problem tenants. Other landlords in rent controlled cities do not even try to do evictions because they are always denied.

6- Repair and Improvements. If you have a oven that needs repair for $300, you can pass that cost thru the rent. If you bought a new oven for $1,200 you can not pass that cost thru the rent, that is an improvement. That is why you will have no landlord put any money into their property to fix it up, and that is why you have all these areas that have rent control turn into blighted areas.

7- Measure V is a Charter Amendment to the city. It's equivalent would be like the U.S Constitution. It is extremely difficult to change or fix the flaws unless more ballot measures are done. It is the nuclear option to address this issue. The public should have been apart of this debate, and had input, they where not included.

8- Under Measure V, the annual increase allowed will not even cover the annual increases in Water, Sewer, Trash and PG&E.

9- The writers of Measure V wrote that should measure V get challenged in court, the tax payers of Mtn.View will pay the legal bill, not the people who actually wrote the measure.
==========================================================================
. What proponents of rent control say we need.
. ____________________________________________

1- Rent increase, caps needed.
In 2001 market rent was $1,500. Today it is $2,000 for the same 1 bedroom. A 33% increase for a 15 year period.
Rent increases are now over. Market is in reverse, falling rents have started, vacancy's are up 400% on Craigslist from a normal market.
Free rents and move in bonuses are now being offered for new move in's.
Town Square article titled, "Second Largest Rent Decrease In US - San Jose Metro Area At -12%" From August 2016 thru September 2016 @ www.abodo.com

2- Just cause evictions needed,
The city council, this summer at a council meeting, stated that they keep asking to see these notices, but no one comes forward.
It is not happening.

3- Repair request with protections for tenants,
It is already a state law that these apartment housing units have to be routinely inspected.
The proponents side keeps arguing that measure V is needed because people will not call city inspectors for fear of retaliation. Not true because they are already being inspected and there is already state laws where a tenant can easily get an attorney to sue landlord for any retaliation or harassment towards them.

4- Retaliation against tenants,
For over a year this rent control discussion has been going on.
The proponents side says Tenants are being harassed and there is no way you can prove it. It was made clear a year ago, take out your smart phone and record it. You will then have prove. It's been a year now, no tapes have been produced.

==========================================================================

. What has city council done.
. __________________________

The city of mountain View passed this year a series of new laws, including that landlords give the tenant an option to rent in a month to month tenancy, a 6 month lease, or a 12 month lease. If a tenant chooses a 12 month lease then the rents could not be raised more than the one time.

Another new program is the Rental Housing Dispute Program, where rent increases higher than 7.2% in a 12 month period can go before the mediator. It also covers decrease in services, security deposits, 30 day-60 day notices to vacate, maintenance and repair. Council has asked for a report in 12 months on how this program is working, also stated they are prepared to go further.

Measure V will erase all rent and eviction laws that previous and current council has written.

The city council has approved numerous construction projects for apartments. Several thousand units have already been built. In the pipeline are a potential of another 30,000 units. One site, and the North Bayshore area alone could have as many as 19,000 new units.

Vote No
It's a Power Grab

Wrong for Mtn.View


7 people like this
Posted by @Mike
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Nov 1, 2016 at 6:00 pm

Same spam as always.

Guess when you don't have an *actual* argument, you're left with throwing stuff on the wall and hope that it sticks...eh?

Enjoy that paycheck from Prometheus, you won't be getting any more of them after November 8.


43 people like this
Posted by Mike
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Nov 1, 2016 at 6:15 pm

I tried several times to submit and an article here, but it never got posted. I posted it here, in this thread.

I have provided the Page, Section and Language from both rent control measures here that backs up this article in several threads now.

If you are going to post here and say anything is not true, post the Page, Section and Language to back up your claim. If I made a mistake, I will admit it.

I would like a civil discussion here with no more name calling, distractions, blanket denials about what's in it or trying to discredit people for no other reason than they do not agree with you. Just stay on topic and defend the specific sections of this rent control, or say why you have concerns over the measure and lets have a factual based civil discussion. I also hope that this discussion will stay on point, and not turn into other threads, just one long series of name calling.


8 people like this
Posted by Dave77
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Nov 1, 2016 at 7:10 pm

Dave77 is a registered user.

Many landlords have bought really old (1960-1980) rental property in Mountain View in the last couple of years and soon after have raised the rents 50% or more as well as handed out eviction notices to long-term residents. They have made zero improvements in the properties themselves.

This predatory behavior is very similar to pharmaceutical companies like Turing or Mylan who bought EpiPen from another company and then immediately jacked up the price by 300%. These predators will not learn to behave unless the community gets together and places some regulations on them (on rent increases as well as evictions).

So the rent control measures are essential in most of the cities in the Bay Area. If there are any desirable side effects to the measures, they can easily be corrected later.

Those developers who have built brand new properties of course deserve to recoup their investment - they have been rightly exempted from the measures on the ballot.


4 people like this
Posted by Dave77
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Nov 1, 2016 at 7:13 pm

Dave77 is a registered user.

I meant undesirable side effects in the comment above. These can be corrected later, after the basic Measures (either V or W) are passed.


40 people like this
Posted by Mike_
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Nov 1, 2016 at 8:00 pm

Mike_ is a registered user.

@ "Dave77"

Rents have only gone up 33% since 2001. You can not use the artificial low recession level rents as your base to say rents are up 50% and be fair. Rents fell 45% from 2001 thru 2003. Let's be fair here. Rents needed to go back up to pay the bills.
Many, many landlords filed for bankruptcy during the 2000 recessions because of low rents and high vacancies.

There where a number of apartments that did evict people, but most of those where to tear down the building for new construction.

The city council had been asking for people to come forward with eviction notices, that would only be for the purpose of just raising rents. No one came forward and produced those documents.

No, measure V cannot be easily corrected later, "after it passes" it is a Charter amendment and any changes has to go back on the ballot for another vote.

Your claim that "many really old apartments" that have new owners, made "zero improvements," Let's assume that is true for a moment. Under measure V there will be NO IMPROVEMENTS DONE to any rent control building any more, only the bare code minimum will be done. Why you ask, because measure V does not allow any pass thru's. This will guarantee that areas with these apartments will turn blighted, just like many other rent control cities.


12 people like this
Posted by Dave77
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Nov 1, 2016 at 8:28 pm

Dave77 is a registered user.

Mike,

if the rents have indeed gone up only 33% since 2001, then you should have no problem with the Measures which would allow a much higher increase than that over a 15 year period.

There is zero chance that Mountain View apartment will become 'blighted' - there is too much money in this area for that to happen. The real problem is that this money has attracted some pretty predatory investors who want to exploit the situation. An increase of 50% in one year (I know specific instances of this) can never be justified.


35 people like this
Posted by Mike
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Nov 1, 2016 at 9:00 pm

@ "Dave77"

Dave, do me a favor and read measure V so we could actually have a discussion on what the measure says. Let's not waste anyone's time by just making things up.

"then you should have no problem with the measures which would allow a much higher increase that the 15 year period."
This shows have uninformed you are regarding a business like this. In 2003 the market rent fell 45% at that point in just a 2 year period. Using Measure V CPI increase, how many decades will it take to get back to the rent level before it fell 45% ? Under measure V, the annual increases allowed, does not even cover the annual increases in the water, sewer, trash and PG&E.

"There is zero chance that MTN.View apartment will become blighted- there is to much money in the area for that to happen"
Yes, there is to much money in the area, alot of the tech workers have it who are renters, and others. But the problem is under rent control you are taking the money out of the pockets from people who have to pay the bills on these businesses. You have not capped one expense, not one that this business has. They are the ones who will be losing money, and you have not produced one P&L statement to show what these numbers are for this business. You just ASSUME that they are greedy fat cats as others have said.

There will be major changes done from property owners who run these businesses. If the community is going to give them the middle finger, you better expect it to come back on you.


8 people like this
Posted by Dave77
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Nov 1, 2016 at 9:26 pm

Dave77 is a registered user.

Mike, I am not sure why landlords would lose money. The rents are so high right now that they are already making huge profits. It is just the rate of increase of these enormous profits that will be reduced - there will definitely be no losses. There will be plenty of new development since that is not subject to rent control. I would not worry at all. Only if you are here to make a killing on market conditions, will you be disappointed. If you are here to make a reasonable living, Mountain View will be still a great place to be a landlord.


41 people like this
Posted by Mike
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Nov 1, 2016 at 10:00 pm

@"Dave77"

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

From 2001 thru 2009 the apartment building at 2235 California St. As an example, had 2 different owners and they both had a combined lost of $12 million dollars on that property.
Why? because the low recession rent levels, owners did not have the income to pay the bills. If there would have been rent control on those properties back then, they never would have been able to keep up with the building or even keep the building because you never would have been able to get the rents back up to pay all the bills.It was the 3rd owner who bought it, rehabed it, and economy turned around that they could make a go of it.

This was happening all over the valley and you did not have one landlord go into any city council and demand a bailout or rent control in reverse.

I find it so offensive to have uninformed individuals, who have no idea what these businesses actually make, you only assume, yet you want to tell them what to do. Tell me, why have you not once looked at a P&L statement from one of these businesses so you could at least be a little informed about these mom and pop businesses that you so incorrectly state are making a huge profit.

Tell me, how much money are you willing to contribute to solving this housing issue for the low income people? Or does your moral compass only work if others are paying the bills.

These measures V and W are before us now. Let's stay on topic and start talking about why family members moving into their rental property are a threat to the community.

Tell me why landlords in other rent controlled cities do not go to the rent board asking for trouble tenants to be evicted, because they always get denied. And what happens to these neighborhoods when no one but problem people start to take over a neighborhood. Look at what happened to East San Jose, Oakland,San Leandro and other rent control cities.

Tell me why in V that "Improvement's" are not allowed for pass thru's.

Tell me why in V that debt service is not allowed to be considered for a " Fair rate of return"

Tell me why taxes are not allowed to be considered for fair rate return.

V is excluding so many expenses for a Fair rate of return that no other business in United States has these rules. Every service or product has to price in these costs so they could pay their bills and make a profit and stay in business.


10 people like this
Posted by Dave77
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Nov 1, 2016 at 10:16 pm

Dave77 is a registered user.

Sounds like a Donald Trump type real estate loss. Rents have gone up so fast and so high in this area in the last 6 years that there is no way any landlord has lost any money. Debt is a great way to pretend to be not making any money. So the board unreasonable about evictions when there is cause and the landlords are perfect and reasonable all the time? That's like the healthcare industry's argument - government bureaucrats are bad and corporate bureaucrats are good.


54 people like this
Posted by mvresident2003
a resident of Monta Loma
on Nov 1, 2016 at 10:23 pm

mvresident2003 is a registered user.

@Dave77 You say "I'm not sure why landlords would lose money". well, bottom line, business class 101 says if your costs are higher than your income, it's going to cost you money.

You say "rates are so high they're making huge profits". Really? How do you know this?
Any property owners who bought recently, when costs were at market rates, are likely just covering their costs. Some are likely even losing money.

You say "I would not worry at all". Oh, but you should, you should. If rent control passes, as a tenant you should worry that your properry will not be kept up or it will be sold out from under you and you're REALLY have no where to live. Or as a landlord you should worry that you won't have ability to keep your property up.

@dave77 you say "make a killing on market conditions". I won't dispute that.....I'm sure there are some who have. Are you jealous of that? Are you resentful? What about those times when there weren't enough tenants to fill the property, cover the bills? Does your Measure V cover losses for landlords too? And there are also many landlords who haven't made a "killing" but who have been hanging on , keeping their properties up best as they can with the $ they've gotten.

Bottom line; rent control is not going to magically lower rents in MV and make it affordable for everyone who wants to live here.

Bottom line: the NONPARTISAN Legislative Analyst OFFICE of the State of California has come out with facts that rent control does NOT help those who need it.

Bottom line; rent control discourages/prevents landlords from improving properties (leading to slums)
Bottom line; rent control prevents evictions of criminals (do YOU want criminals in your neighborhood?)

VOTE NO ON BOTH V & W




39 people like this
Posted by Mike
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Nov 1, 2016 at 10:26 pm

@ "Dave77"

You made 5 posts now and have not added any constructive dialog to this discussion. You, like everyone on your side can not answer questions about the language in these measures or defend them. When you get pushed again on the language in the measure you now revert back to name calling, distractions and false talking points to drive up anger against a business owner.

Why don't you buy up all of these buildings and then you can have everyone live in there for free. I will vote for that.

Have a good evening.

Vote No
It's a power grab
Wrong for MTN.View


6 people like this
Posted by Dave77
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Nov 1, 2016 at 10:36 pm

Dave77 is a registered user.

Like I said if there are any side effects we can change the rules later. Nothing is going to fall apart in a couple of years.

The idea is not to lower any rents, the idea is to stop property speculators buying up ancient rental property in mountain view, doubling the rent and then selling the property to the next guy who wants to make a killing.

Unfortunately the last guy who bought the property before controls went to effect may not do that well, but what about all those he has already evicted when he bought it?


38 people like this
Posted by mvresident2003
a resident of Monta Loma
on Nov 1, 2016 at 10:48 pm

mvresident2003 is a registered user.

ah. "Stop property speculators"

yes, let's stop those interested in investing, taking old, run-down units and making them better. Again, your knowledge and understanding of economics and financing is really showing thru.


33 people like this
Posted by Mike
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Nov 1, 2016 at 10:51 pm

@ "Dave77"

Wrong Dave.

1- V will need a new ballot measure to make changes.


2- No, the measure is not designed to stop speculators, it is designed to degrade these older properties faster and have landlords subsidize renters. Who many of the tech workers make more money in 3 months than the owners make for the whole year. It is designed to put many of them out of business.

3- Thanks for demonstrating that your side continues to distract and not answer any questions about the language in these measures.

Vote No
It's a Power Grab
Wrong for Mtn.View


2 people like this
Posted by Marcell
a resident of Slater
on Nov 1, 2016 at 11:14 pm

Shoestring or not the Pro V side has done a remarkable job plastering all of Mt View with billboards. You can't drive anywhere without seeing their signs.

Meanwhile the No on V side has been completely absent. I think they put up a few confusing signs last week and that is it. And if you compare their websites, the No on V side has invested very little time in explaining the down sides of rent control.

I fear that the ill guided rent control measure will pass as the "$1.2 million" the developer groups raised is probably being squandered on Adwords and junk mail.


8 people like this
Posted by Fact Checker
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Nov 2, 2016 at 12:38 am

A prolific poster on rent control has provided a “laundry list” of issues and questions.

Let’s Fact Check them! I have provided verbatim excerpts from the list, followed by a TRUE/FALSE evaluation that hopefully includes and adequate explanation. In most cases, I have provided the relevant excerpt(s) from the text of Measure V, which can be found here: Web Link.

Let’s proceed with the fact check:

CLAIM: “1-Evictions for family member move-ins may only happen if the owner has at least 50% of the property.”
EVAL: TRUE! That’s what the text of Measure V states.

CLAIM: “Then that family member has to live there for at least 36 months or be subject to penalties.”
EVAL: FALSE! The family member must in good faith INTEND to move into the property.
SOURCE: “The Landlord or enumerated relative must intend in good faith to move into the Rental Unit within sixty (60) days after the Tenant vacates and to occupy the Rental Unit as a Primary Residence for at least thirty-six (36) consecutive months.”

CLAIM: “Family move-in’s of an owner are not possible.”
EVAL: FALSE! Family members of owners can be moved in if that owner owns at least 50%. “

CLAIM: “No one has yet to explain why a owner of a property is such a threat to the community, and his family members, that they have to make new laws that would prevent family move in's from happening.”
EVAL: FALSE! Family move-ins would only be prevented for owners that have < 50% ownership stake.

CLAIM: “2a- “This new rent board has unlimited access to the general funds for what ever reason they choose.”
EVAL: FALSE! The City provides the rent control board some initial funding, which is then refunded later at the City’s option.
SOURCE: “City to Advance Initial Funds. During the initial implementation of this Article, the City shall advance all necessary funds to ensure the effective implementation of this Article, until the Committee has collected Rental Housing Fees sufficient to support the implementation of this Article. The City may seek a reimbursement of any advanced funds from the Committee after the Rental Housing Fee has been collected.”

CLAIM: “2b-Any new laws they pass and gets challenged in a lawsuit, they can take as much money they need from the general fund to defend the lawsuit, etc.”
EVAL: FALSE! Funding comes from the landlords, except for initial funding of the rent board, which may be refunded at the City Council’s option. (Also, the rules they enact are not laws. Laws are enacted by elected officials and the People.)
SOURCE1: “The Committee shall finance its reasonable and necessary expenses, including without limitation engaging any staff as necessary to ensure implementation of this Article, by charging Landlords an annual Rental Housing Fee as set forth herein, in amounts deemed reasonable by the Committee in accordance with applicable law.”
SOURCE2: “The City may seek a reimbursement of any advanced funds from the Committee after the Rental Housing Fee has been collected.”

CLAIM: This new rent board will be totally independent from our current city government. The city council, city attorney, and everyone else will have no say or control over what they do.
EVAL: FALSE!. The rent board is dependent on the City in the following ways:
a) The board is appointed by the City.
b) The board is initially funded by the City.
c) The board cannot enforce an action against a landlord, nor participate in a litigation without approval by the City Council.
SOURCE1: “Pursue civil remedies as provided by this Article in courts of appropriate jurisdiction, subject to City Council approval. “
SOURCE2: “Intervene as an interested party in any litigation brought before a court of appropriate jurisdiction by a Landlord or Tenant with respect to Covered Rental Units, subject to City Council approval. “

CLAIM: “They will be an entire government body with all the power within our current governmental system.”
EVAL: FALSE! There does not exist any verbiage in Measure V that grants “all the power within our current governmental system.”

CLAIM: “There is no recall provision in V to remove these people.”
EVAL: FALSE! Recalls are only performed on elected officials. The rent board is appointed by elected officials—the City Council.

CLAIM: “If we do not like the new laws that they will make the only option to repeal these will be to constantly raise money and put it on the ballot.”
EVAL: FALSE! Measure V would become law if approved by a majority of the voters in MV. The board passes RULES, not laws. If a majority of voters do not like the board after it is formed, then they can pass an initiative.

CLAIM: “This is a new bureaucracy with no oversight.”
EVAL: FALSE! The City Council controls both appointments and authorizes the board’s legal actions.

CLAIM: “4- This new 5 panel rent board can not have more than 2 real estate or landlord advocates, and will be a 3 member tenant advocate board.”
EVAL: FALSE! The measure only requires that at least 3 of the board members not be involved financially in the rental or real estate business. If the board was dominated by landlords, then there’s a very real threat that the rent stabilization goals would be thwarted. In any case, if the City Council so wishes, it may appoint all five members who are politically opposed to rent control, as long as three of the five are not landlords or in the real estate game. Those three could live in houses, rentals, RV, trailers or even a boat. Measure V doesn’t care.

CLAIM: “5- Creates a lengthy process to evict problem tenants. Other landlords in rent controlled cities do not even try to do evictions because they are always denied.”
EVAL: FALSE! In Measure V, the process is simply to notify the rent board that an eviction notice has been served on the tenant. Then, it works exactly like all evictions without rent control, including a landlord initiated court action and assistance from the police to enforce the eviction. What is TRUE is that arbitrary evictions would be curtailed. If the landlord just doesn’t like the tenant for some reason, they can’t just kick them out.

CLAIM: “6a- Repair and Improvements. If you have a oven that needs repair for $300, you can pass that cost thru the rent. If you bought a new oven for $1,200 you can not pass that cost thru the rent, that is an improvement. “
EVAL: TRUE! in the limited case of an oven. Most expensive repairs in a rental would likely be related to a safety or code issue, which could then be passed through to the tenant. Even the oven scenario might be covered, depending on whether the fault created a code or safety issue.

CLAIM: “6b-“That is why you will have no landlord put any money into their property to fix it up, and that is why you have all these areas that have rent control turn into blighted areas.”
EVAL: FALSE! It is unlikely that NO landlords would not keep their properties maintained. It certainly has not happened in San Francisco, where most of the rent control units are reasonably well maintained. Most so-called “blighted” areas in the US are NOT under rent control, so a direct causal relationship is hardly a slam-dunk conclusion. Some studies indicate that rent controlled units may be BETTER maintained as the tenant is happy to have an affordable place to live and will contribute to the maintenance.

CLAIM: “7a- Measure V is a Charter Amendment to the city.”
EVAL: TRUE!

CLAIM: “It's equivalent would be like the U.S Constitution.”
EVAL: FALSE! Here’s the easiest available process to add an amendment to the US Constitution: Step 1: Two thirds of both the HOUSE and the SENATE proposes the amendment. Step 2: The amendment must then be approved by 3/4 of the State Legislatures. To pass or retract a charter amendment simply requires a majority vote by the voting eligible residents of MV.

CLAIM: “It is extremely difficult to change or fix the flaws unless more ballot measures are done.”
EVAL: TRUE! The reason that Measure V is being proposed as a charter amendment, is that the City Council failed to respond adequately to this important issue. If it was easy to change or fix, then the City Council would most likely gut it.

CLAIM: It is the nuclear option to address this issue.
EVAL: FALSE! A nuclear blast would completely destroy a city and make it uninhabitable. Most economists believe that any POTENTIAL for negative issues would come on slowly. However, given that new construction is exempt from rent control, even the most pessimistic of economists would believe that Measure V would flatten MV.

CLAIM: “The public should have been apart of this debate, and had input, they where not included.”
EVAL: FALSE! The whole point of putting this on the ballot is to get the most powerful input the public can give—a Vote! The public has given public feedback to the City Council, which certainly has been read by the authors of Measure V.

CLAIM: “8- Under Measure V, the annual increase allowed will not even cover the annual increases in Water, Sewer, Trash and PG&E.”
EVAL: FALSE! Usually, the tenant pays for PG&E, which is the largest expense. If the other smaller items are substantially raised which significantly and negatively affects the business, then there is a provision in Measure V to pass it along to the tenant.
SOURCE: “Fair Rate of Return – Factors. In making any upward adjustment to the Rent based upon a Landlord’s Petition to ensure a fair rate of return, the Hearing Officer or Committee shall consider relevant factors, including but not limited to, the following: …
(B) Unavoidable increases or any decreases in maintenance and operating expenses;”
…”

CLAIM: “9- The writers of Measure V wrote that should measure V get challenged in court, the tax payers of Mtn.View will pay the legal bill, not the people who actually wrote the measure.”
EVAL: FALSE! The budget for legal defense as well as ALL of the board’s operations would come out of the Rental Housing Fees the landlord would be paying. There is a provision that would allow the board to REQUEST funding from the City, but there is nothing that would REQUIRE the City to approve and fulfill that funding request.
SOURCE1: “The Committee shall finance its reasonable and necessary expenses, including without limitation engaging any staff as necessary to ensure implementation of this Article, by charging Landlords an annual Rental Housing Fee as set forth herein, in amounts deemed reasonable by the Committee in accordance with applicable law.”
SOURCE2: “The Committee is also empowered to request and receive funding when and if necessary from any available source including the City for its reasonable and necessary expenses.

Now, let’s crunch some #’s:

# of Claims: 22
# True: 4 (18%)
# False: 18 (82%)

Result: With 82% of the claims being shown to be False, and only 18% shown to be True, it makes me see how the arguments against Measure V are not very rational. I think those that oppose are philosophically against any form of price controls and/or they are vested financially in rental real estate. Otherwise, there ought to be a substantial and verifiable argument to be made against the proposed Measure by now.

I hope that this was helpful. I am not connected in any way to the Mountain View Tenant Coalition, Daniel Debolt or any other organization involved in tenant rights, landlord rights, real estate, etc… I am simply an informed voter who wanted to provide thoughtful input on this important election issue.


34 people like this
Posted by Votey McVoteface
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Nov 2, 2016 at 6:41 am

Not sure all that money was needed but I guess they want to make sure. I've already voted no.


8 people like this
Posted by Ank
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Nov 2, 2016 at 8:54 am

Vote Yes.

Greedy companies are forcing people like nurses & teachers out. Everyone I have asked so far is voting yes, not met a single soul voting no.

Let the people decide this.


8 people like this
Posted by Kacey Carpenter
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Nov 2, 2016 at 8:56 am

I strongly encourage Mountain View to move to public financed elections for all City Council candidates. The amount of special interest group spending in Mountain View, our region, and nationally is a disgrace. Think about what could be done with the $millions and $billions that are spent on print literature (waste), TV ads, and influence in MV, California and US. Instead think about the programs that could be funded instead with these contributions. I would argue that the limit should be $27 donations max from individuals only. Web Link


39 people like this
Posted by Brian
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Nov 2, 2016 at 9:16 am

Brian is a registered user.

I voted no. Rent control artificially incentivizes landlords to demolish and replace housing.


27 people like this
Posted by That's right
a resident of Blossom Valley
on Nov 2, 2016 at 9:28 am

I don't think people would spend that much on campaign ads if some people would stop doing stupid things like using the government to force people into exchanges that are harmful and dangerous. Like measure V and W for instance . Or let's impose a parcel tax on everyone to subsidize some people or a sales tax to subsidize wasteful spending on transportation


49 people like this
Posted by george drysdale
a resident of another community
on Nov 2, 2016 at 10:35 am

In order to graduate from high school in California you must pass a course in economics. Rent (price) controls are the most studied subject in economics. All social studies teachers and all economists are dead set against rent controls. Mountain View's rent control election will determine if the voters stand against the future good or will vote for their immediate wants. George Drysdale a social studies teacher


7 people like this
Posted by LMAO
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Nov 2, 2016 at 10:43 am

Mike is clearly a beneficiary of prop 13 and multiple other unfair government subsidies benefitting landlords - otherwise he wouldn't have so much time to post anti-rent control arguments on message boards such as these.

The reason people like him are so scared is that they are outnumbered badly and clinging to the past - a past that no longer exists. Their self-serving arguments don't matter to the majority of progressive minded young workers in the area. These progressive young voters SUPPORT measure V because it preserves the character of the city by allowing people to stay in their homes while only hurting a very small minority of people who are already very well off - landlords.


31 people like this
Posted by Mike
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Nov 2, 2016 at 11:22 am

@ "Fact Checker",.
You tried to do this in another thread, under a different name, but no matter how hard you try to straighten out a pretzel, it is still crooked.
.
==============================================
Claim 2-you said'
CLAIM: “Then that family member has to live there for at least 36 months or be subject to penalties.”
EVAL: FALSE! The family member must in good faith INTEND to move into the property.
.
Page 9, sec. 1705, (9)OWNER Move-In."The landlord seeks, after providing written notice to the tenant pursuant to sate law, to recover possession of the Rental Unit in good faith for use and OCCUPANCY as a PRIMARY RESIDENT by the landlord, or the landlord's spouse, domestic partner, children, parents or grandparents"..
Rent Boards like San Francisco routinely deny owners the right to move family onto their property, they say "landlord has ulterior motives and Deny's request". This V language is no different than the S.F rent board, and the outcome will be no different. That is why the proponents wrote it that way. They are taking the rights away from a property owner.
==============================================
Claim - you said,
CLAIM: “Family move-in’s of an owner are not possible.”
EVAL: FALSE! Family members of owners can be moved in if that owner owns at least 50%. “.
Page 10, sec.1705, (B)"No eviction may take place under this subsection if the same Landlord or enumerated relative already occupies a unit on the property."A landlord must have at least 50% ownership to be considered eligible to do a family move in-eviction, and if another relative like his son already lives on the property then the landlord does not have any rights to ask for a family move in-eviction. The rent board must still approve the move in.
.
==============================================
Claim 4- you said,CLAIM: “No one has yet to explain why a owner of a property is such a threat to the community, and his family members, that they have to make new laws that would prevent family move in's from happening.”
EVAL: FALSE! Family move-ins would only be prevented for owners that have < 50% ownership stake.
.
You still have not explained why family members are such a threat to our community that you have to make a new law to deny landlords the right to move in family members to their property. Nor have you justified to people why family members who owns a small building here, as was posted in another thread, it was 2 siblings and their parents each own a 25% interest in the property and none of them will be allowed to do a family move in-eviction.
================================================
Claim-5, you said,CLAIM:
“2a- “This new rent board has unlimited access to the general funds for what ever reason they choose.”
EVAL: FALSE! The City provides the rent control board some initial funding, which is then refunded later at the City’s option.
SOURCE: “City to Advance Initial Funds. During the initial implementation of this Article, the City shall advance all necessary funds to ensure the effective implementation of this Article, until the Committee has collected Rental Housing Fees sufficient to support the implementation of this Article. The City may seek a reimbursement of any advanced funds from the Committee after the Rental Housing Fee has been collected.”.
This shows are totally dishonest you are. You should have finished writing the very last sentence in the paragraph that you partially copied from. Page 15, sec. 1709, (j) It says,"The committee is also EMPOWERED to request and RECEIVE FUNDING when and if necessary from ANY AVAILABLE SOURCE INCLUDING the CITY for its reasonable and NECESSARY EXPENSES".If the rent board gets into lawsuits or other large expenses, you will not be able to pass this an to landlords as courts have said that they have to be "reasonable" otherwise you will face more lawsuits over this measure.
==============================================
Claim, you said,CLAIM:
This new rent board will be totally independent from our current city government. The city council, city attorney, and everyone else will have no say or control over what they do.
EVAL: FALSE!. The rent board is dependent on the City in the following ways:
.
Page 16, sec.1709 (k),Integrity and Autonomy of Committee.The committee shall be an integral part of the government of the city, BUT shall exercise its powers and duties under this article INDEPENDENT from the CITY COUNCIL, CITY MANAGER, AND CITY ATTORNEY, except by the request of the committee."
.
============================================
Claim, you said,CLAIM:
“They will be an entire government body with all the power within our current governmental system.”
EVAL: FALSE! There does not exist any verbiage in Measure V that grants “all the power within our current governmental system.”.
Read above answer, this gives them sole independent power within the city government.

==============================================
Claim, you said,
CLAIM: “There is no recall provision in V to remove these people.”
EVAL: FALSE! Recalls are only performed on elected officials. The rent board is appointed by elected officials—the City Council..
Exactly right. You made my point. The residents have no recourse to remove members of the committee if we do not like what they do. They will be acting in many ways like the city council, with making new laws, access to money from the general funds and power over residents in our community and yet as residents, we have no recourse against any of the committee.
.
============================================
Claim, you said,
CLAIM: “If we do not like the new laws that they will make the only option to repeal these will be to constantly raise money and put it on the ballot.”
EVAL: FALSE! Measure V would become law if approved by a majority of the voters in MV. The board passes RULES, not laws. If a majority of voters do not like the board after it is formed, then they can pass an initiative.
.
Page 14, sec.1709, (d, 2),"Establish rules and REGULATIONS for administration and enforcement of this article."
.
===============================================
Claim, you said,
CLAIM: “This is a new bureaucracy with no oversight.”
EVAL: FALSE! The City Council controls both appointments and authorizes the board’s legal actions..
You can not be serious about this? Tell me, the committee writes new laws, council does not approve, what is the recourse to change it and who has the power over the committee to do it? Who has the power to tell the rent board that NO you can not use funds from any available source to do what ever you want?
Answer- NO ONE.
.
=================================================
Claim- you said,
CLAIM: “5- Creates a lengthy process to evict problem tenants. Other landlords in rent controlled cities do not even try to do evictions because they are always denied.”
EVAL: FALSE! In Measure V, the process is simply to notify the rent board that an eviction notice has been served on the tenant. Then, it works exactly like all evictions without rent control, including a landlord initiated court action and assistance from the police to enforce the eviction. What is TRUE is that arbitrary evictions would be curtailed. If the landlord just doesn’t like the tenant for some reason, they can’t just kick them out.
.
Post that section that says that, page, section and language.ALL matters like this will have to go thru the rent board for approval first. This is not a "simply notify the rent board" only action. They will decide.
.
===================================================
Claim, you said,
CLAIM: “The public should have been apart of this debate, and had input, they where not included.”
EVAL: FALSE! The whole point of putting this on the ballot is to get the most powerful input the public can give—a Vote! The public has given public feedback to the City Council, which certainly has been read by the authors of Measure V. .
The public does not know what is in the 20 some pages of V. Your side has been only telling people that it caps rents and has unjust evictions. If that is all what it would be, you could have wrote that on one page and you would not need a new government body created rent board..
Measure W has similiar caps and evictions language, that is in V without the need for a new rent board.
.
=================================================
Claim, you said,
CLAIM: “9- The writers of Measure V wrote that should measure V get challenged in court, the tax payers of Mtn.View will pay the legal bill, not the people who actually wrote the measure.”
EVAL: FALSE! The budget for legal defense as well as ALL of the board’s operations would come out of the Rental Housing Fees the landlord would be paying. There is a provision that would allow the board to REQUEST funding from the City, but there is nothing that would REQUIRE the City to approve and fulfill that funding request.
.
No, you are wrong. The courts have already ruled that these fees have to be "reasonable" if not you will have more lawsuits and the taxpayers will have to pay the bill.

============================================
In your previous post on this subject, in another thread, you had fuzzy math, and you still do.
.
You are being dishonest with what you are trying to represent what the actual language is to the residents of our city. I view it as fraud.
.
I hope everyone takes the time to read the 40 some pages of both these rent control measures, and understand them, then decide for yourself. If you do not understand them, do not vote on them..

Vote No
Its a power grab
Wrong for Mtn.View


37 people like this
Posted by Quite possible
a resident of Monta Loma
on Nov 2, 2016 at 11:24 am

@LMAO unfortunately you may be correct, those who understand economics and history really are outnumbered and your "progressive young minded workers" very possibly will succeed. Succeed in ruining what up to now has been a great place to live.

I fear for my children and what they'll be left with after all you "progressive young minded workers" run out of using everyone else's money so you can be spoiled and live wherever you want just because you feel like it's your right. But at least my kids aren't being raised that way. they're only in middle school, long way ahead of them, but I've already told them they probably won't be able to afford to live here and if they want to they better study hard, do really well in school and get some serious paying jobs. Otherwise they can expect to commute or move entirely out of this area. Sad but true. But they sure as hell aren't going to expect someone else to foot the bill for them. I'm raising them with pride, self-reliance and common sense.

I just think it's a damn shame there's whole generations coming up who expect to get everything they want and think it's funny to expect others to pay for them. Damn shame.


44 people like this
Posted by Dmitry
a resident of Rex Manor
on Nov 2, 2016 at 12:29 pm

I am not a landlord, so I have no dog in this race. I do understand economics, so I'll be voting against rent control. It have never worked anywhere, and there is no reason to believe it will be different here somehow.


13 people like this
Posted by YIMBY
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Nov 2, 2016 at 3:02 pm

@Quite Possible

If you are a beneficiary of prop 13, young voters are footing the bill for you. It's funny how many people on this article were born on third base and think they hit a triple. Think about all the government support you've accepted in your life, being of working age during the biggest boom in US history and then squandering all that wealth through tax cuts for yourselves.

But now you don't want to help the most vulnerable people in your community right when they need it most - when the rents and property values are sky high. Why should you? You already got yours. Your home is worth a fortune, why should even a penny of that go to help someone else? They should just pull themselves up by their bootstraps right?

Don't be swayed by the arguments of self-serving special interests pumping millions of outside money into the town. Vote for your own best interest and the best interest of the community as a whole - YES on measure V


8 people like this
Posted by Whisman
a resident of North Whisman
on Nov 2, 2016 at 3:04 pm

Mike above is probably a city council member, who, at a recent meeting were asked if any of them rent. Guess what the answer was. Guess why they aren't for rent control.


36 people like this
Posted by Voted NO
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Nov 2, 2016 at 3:16 pm

Rent Control advocates have some pretty screwy and false economic ideas. Here is their thought process, as it applies to the real world:
________________________________________________________

I'd like Safeway to not be able to raise prices to cover cost on anything, even if it means they lose money. I'd like clothing stores and hardware stores to do the same. I also think restaurants shouldn't be able to raise their prices to cover costs.

After all, I have a right to have what I want, when I want it. If it means the person who owns the store, restaurant (or whatever) loses money - that's not my worry. I WANT MINE and if it's at your expense, I don't care.

You tell me to work for what I want, and live where I can afford, but that's not FAIR. I don't care if you bought your apartment building when costs were high and you can't make enough to cover costs since you are limited to the low increases in Measure V. So you can't afford upkeep? Well, I'll just take you to the Committee and FORCE you to upgrade. You want your adult daughter to move into one of your apartments? No way - unless she is at least 50% owner, you're out of luck! If Measure V passes, Measure V's citizens' committee will refuse your pleas and you can just sell your building if you have financial trouble.

WAIT - you're going to do that? To a developer who will convert it to condos? I can't afford to buy one of those! I'll have to move! I don't understand!!! I don't care if the economy doesn't work that way, and that rent control had failed everywhere it's tried. I want to be the exception and I should get WHAT I WANT JUST BECAUSE I WANT IT.
_____________________________________________________________

Reading the posts above in this thread, actually makes me alternately angry and disgusted. The PRO V posters call people names, make false and misleading statements, refuse to answer questions asked of them and twist the facts. The Mountain View Voice is obviously a tool for this Measure V, and they obscure any rebuttal or exposure of the false narratives on it.

I've worked since I was 16. I was careful with money and expenses, I had a family size I could afford, and lived within my means. I bought a house that I love and keep it up. I didn't expect or demand a subsidy from anyone, but saw my life as MY responsibility. Now we see people demanding apartment owners subsidize them. If City funds are spent by this Rent Control Committee (which has very little restriction on expenses) it could well mean other City services are cut - or taxpayers will pick up the difference. No thanks.

I wish everyone could live where and how they want, but that is not the real world. I take care of me and my own family, MYSELF. Take care of yours YOURSELF.
I already voted NO on V and W. I hope they both fail miserably, or Mountain View could be in for a long struggle downward to blight and property value destruction.


7 people like this
Posted by YIMBY
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Nov 2, 2016 at 3:29 pm

@Voted NO

It's funny how many people are PRO prop 13 and against Measure V. What about all the money you're starving the schools and city services of with your huge government subsidy on taxes? Can we expect a big donation from you this year? I'll bet the people who will benefit from measure V contribute MORE to the city coffers than you do.

Your reply contained a few attempts at analogies (I think). If (god forbid) a tragedy were to befall the local area like an earthquake, then I would absolutely want the government to step in and ensure safeway didn't price gouge. We are in an affordability crisis, and landlords shouldn't be allowed to price gouge.

For those of you reading who are on the fence, don't be discouraged by hyperbole from price gougers.




16 people like this
Posted by Reader
a resident of Waverly Park
on Nov 2, 2016 at 3:34 pm

Council has done nothing to address this problem so the tenants group did! Measure V is not perfect but it'/s a start. I'm voting Yes on V.


6 people like this
Posted by Dmitry
a resident of Rex Manor
on Nov 2, 2016 at 3:50 pm

And do you define "gouge" as "charge anything more than I (as the most important person in existence) am willing to pay"? They charge what the market is willing to pay. Too much for you? sorry? such is the economic reality.


7 people like this
Posted by YIMBY
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Nov 2, 2016 at 3:54 pm

Price gouging = taking advantage of a crisis for personal profit. See also Mountain View landlords, with anti-building NIMBYs as their biggest ally :)


29 people like this
Posted by mvresident2003
a resident of Monta Loma
on Nov 2, 2016 at 4:17 pm

mvresident2003 is a registered user.

And once again, God forbid anyone have personal profit. I'd say asking to be subsidized, having someone else take the hit so YOU can live where YOU want even though you can't afford it,....I'd say that's the biggest example of taking for personal profit I've ever seen.

Vote No on V & W


32 people like this
Posted by Mike
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Nov 2, 2016 at 4:33 pm

Who created this "crises" landlords? Are you serious?

The median home price in MTN.View is $1.8 million dollars. Who created that price? Landlords? Are you serious? Who has all this money and is buying all these homes? Landlords? Are you serious? You, being here and living here is the problem. To many of us wanting to be here and not enough room.

Along with the high cost of housing here, everybody is raising their prices on goods and services in the area. $130 an hour for a mechanic, landscapers, painters, roofers, carpet installer, vinyl floor installer, plumber's, carpenter, pool service, not to mention all the property taxes and all the measures approving property tax increases which tenants will not be contributing to if rent control passes.

Rental prices is not the disease, it is a symptom of a larger issue which is that this area is built out with no more room to grow and MTN.View has become a very desirable city to live in.

Rent control destroys majority of cities.

Let's not repeat these same mistakes here.

Vote No
It's a power grab
Wrong for My.View


23 people like this
Posted by Elaine
a resident of Blossom Valley
on Nov 2, 2016 at 5:23 pm

It would have been nice if the Voice had at least PRETENDED to report objectively on Measures V and W, but it is clear that their intent in all of their articles is PERSUADE rather than inform. Perhaps you could have interviewed local residents who are also landlords, for example?

As Mountain View resident and landlord who will be affected by this proposition, I would like to add that Proposition V will punish landlords who weren't greedy in these past few years far more than the "greedy" ones. I have kept my rent raises at a minimum for existing tenants. I did this because I believed that rents were getting too high.

If V passes my rents will be stuck at an artificially low level for the next 10-20 years, even when repairs, construction, water, garbage and sewer rise more than 2-5% a year. It will cut into my already low rental income from the property.


As a landlord who lives in Mountain View, I may vote Yes on W but NO on V, and I urge Mountain View residents to do the same. Measure V is too restrictive and not needed, when W can do most of the same without penalizing property owners like myself for trying to do the right thing.


5 people like this
Posted by YIMBY
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Nov 2, 2016 at 5:24 pm

Wow, I really struck a nerve. Guess I must be on the right track... I suppose being FOR the prop 13 government subsidy because it keeps people in their homes but AGAINST measure V because god forbid the government try to keep people in their homes creates a lot of cognitive dissonance.

And the NIMBY attitude of "there's no space" to boot! Yes, there is more space - up! Build up and bring more supply, and pass Measure V as a stopgap until the new inventory comes online. But when someone wants to build, guess who wants the government to tell people what they can/can't do with their land...

It's a pretty silly argument to say landlords didn't create the crisis but they are able to benefit from it in an unlimited matter.

Don't be fooled by armchair economists, or those who would appeal to the authority of the same economists that caused the financial crisis. Vote YES on measure V!


9 people like this
Posted by Angel S
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Nov 2, 2016 at 5:28 pm

Vote yes on V! The people's choice! The community's measure! Tenant Protections! If you understand economics, vote V! If you understand the market, vote V! The measure that's fair for both, tenants and landlords! Don't believe all you read from "Mike". He's obviously getting paid for his article long comments and misinformation. Ignore him and yes, read V, you should always know what you're voting for. Check it out @ mvtenantscoalition.org and yesonvmv.org


8 people like this
Posted by The Donald
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Nov 2, 2016 at 5:33 pm

Folks, Lets all get it straight about whats going on. First I am going to be elected as President and all you left winged, left coast, rent controlling communists, I will prevail and buy up as much property as possible. I will level it and build 1.4 million dollar townhouses, which the city of Mountain View will approve because of the property tax increases. You will not find a place to rent for under 6K/month when I'm done.
You all made this possible for me by destroying the low income property owner.
Thank you all and get out and vote Republican!!
Friends don't let friends vote Democrat.....
I thank all of you!!
Donald J Trump.


30 people like this
Posted by My. View Neighbir
a resident of North Whisman
on Nov 2, 2016 at 5:43 pm

This measure sounds away too detailed. When you implement legislation with severe restrictions,my outbid the hands of reason and common sense for maintenance and upgrades. Any effort legislate these will fail and result in disaster for both tenants and landlords.

The reason is simple, you can't legislate common sense, ethics, or reason. These sort of restrictions make it impossible for landlords to make reasonable maintenance decisions because maintenance decisions are legislated. Did anyone think of the consequences of this sort if complex legislation on accounting? It forces the use of property management companies, because of the extensive and complicated restrictions. This increases costs unnecessarily and yet, again, hits small landlords the hardest.

This measure is ridiculous.

There's a belief that landlords created the housing crisis. Hello? They're the ones providing housing. It's as ridiculous as blaming homeowners for the high cost of purchasing a home. Landlords are at the whim of the market conditions, just like tenants. If you want to blame, take a look at city policies that implement things like "right to lease", which forces landlords to give notice to renters rather than risk further problem with a requirement to offer long term leasing when renewing. Then, landlords are also required to offer the same lease terms for all lease periods, essentially preventing landlords from offering discounts for long term leases. THIS is the city's recent rent control legislation. All it does is create transiency, higher rents and higher costs for landlords.

Measure V will only make it worse for everyone.
What are people thinking?!


35 people like this
Posted by harvardmom
a resident of Monta Loma
on Nov 2, 2016 at 5:43 pm

I'm a NO voter and the owner of one rental unit in MV. I have been laid off high-tech Silicon Valley jobs more times than I can count. I haven't been able to find work since my last layoff and am now dependent on my rental income, which after expenses, doesn't even amount to as much as I need. Not all landlords are greedy; we are trying to make it, too.


31 people like this
Posted by Mike
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Nov 2, 2016 at 6:38 pm

@ "Angel S"

I was wondering when you where going to make an appearance again. For the record I will not disclose your last name, but I know it. You where the one of three people sitting at the table before the city council meeting this summer when it was announced that the initiative had qualified for the ballot. You where the one on the left end. You are also a moderator on this site working for the Voice.

People should understand why there is a conflict of interest here with the Voice and this advocacy group.

Yes Angel, I agree with you on one thing, people should read all the 40 some pages from both V and W.

Do not call me a liar if you can not back up your claim. I have posted actual language from the measure so people can read it and judge for themselves. No one is paying me either Angel.
Along with my age and gray hair, I have many lessons and life experiences that you do not have. I have hemorrhoids that are older than you.


22 people like this
Posted by landlord
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Nov 2, 2016 at 6:43 pm

As a landlord of a small complex, I can tell you that I'm not making a killing on rent. I don't charge the kind of rent that the newer, post-1995, apartments owners charge. Most years, after taxes, earthquake insurance, fire insurance, utilities, repairs, and bank loan, I break even or make a small profit at best. Renters write their rent checks each month and assume the owners are making a killing. Not true. I do an earthquake retrofit to insure my building is safe, and there goes 5-6 months of rent before all the other expenses are calculated. There's a reason why California has a law to prohibit rent control on apartments built from 1995 on - rent control is a short-term fix with long-term negative consequences. Measures V & W exclude all singe family rentals, condos, and apartments built from 1995 onward. It will not help with the supply of rentals, but will put the burden of creating affordable housing on the small time landlords.

Vote NO on V & W.


11 people like this
Posted by Elaine
a resident of Blossom Valley
on Nov 2, 2016 at 6:46 pm

"Your reply contained a few attempts at analogies (I think). If (god forbid) a tragedy were to befall the local area like an earthquake, then I would absolutely want the government to step in and ensure safeway didn't price gouge. We are in an affordability crisis, and landlords shouldn't be allowed to price gouge."

Except that an earthquake would create a temporary crisis, and it wouldn't be fair to permanently control Safeway's prices with a measure that would become part of the city's "permanent" charter.


And to continue the analogy, what if it only affected Safeway and not Whole Foods, because Safeway was in business before 1995 and Safeway wasn't? If the situation continued, a black market would probably spring up for Safeway products (sub-leasing), and eventually the products would go down in quality.


5 people like this
Posted by Elaine
a resident of Blossom Valley
on Nov 2, 2016 at 7:12 pm

"For those of you reading who are on the fence, don't be discouraged by hyperbole from price gougers. "

Hyperbole? My tenants pay an average of $1050 a month for a 1 bedroom. Up from $700 in 1996. Fact, not hyperbole.

"Price gouging = taking advantage of a crisis for personal profit. See also Mountain View landlords, with anti-building NIMBYs as their biggest ally :)

I am a landlord who lives in Mountain View. I am making a fair, reasonable return, not taking advantage of a crisis. Many smaller landlords who live in Mountain View or the surrounding area do the same. But it sounds better to paint us with a broad stroke as rich greedy landlords.


4 people like this
Posted by Elaine
a resident of Blossom Valley
on Nov 2, 2016 at 7:28 pm

Here is the text of Measure V, for anyone interested:
Web Link
The text of W is linked at the mountain view site as well:
www.mountainview.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?blobid=1346


29 people like this
Posted by george drysdale
a resident of another community
on Nov 3, 2016 at 9:48 am

It's the price of usable land that is the driving force. In order for there to be many more apartment houses the would be developer has to cover the cost of the land purchase. Most all of he price of apartment houses in Silicon Valley is due to the very high price of land. Those who want price controls on land rents will destroy the production of new housing. It is the price fixing renters who become the price gougers.
George Drysdale economics teacher


14 people like this
Posted by My. View Neighbor
a resident of North Whisman
on Nov 3, 2016 at 11:07 am

George Drysdale, thank you for that simple and obvious explanation that so many fail to see.


1 person likes this
Posted by Not a teacher
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Nov 3, 2016 at 11:34 am

I was never a teacher of economics like Mr. Drysdale, but I do understand the proposed rent stabilization measures and California State Law.

When George states, "Those who want price controls on land rents will destroy the production of new housing.", it demonstrates an ignorance of the current situation. Slowing down the increase of rents has NOTHING to do with PRODUCTION of NEW housing, as new housing is EXEMPT from rent stabilization. That is state law. It is very clear.

If anything, a rent stabilization measure will INCREASE the building of new housing. With the ability to arbitrarily evict tenants removed or an elimination of rent spikes of 30, 40, 50 pct or higher, there should be fewer vacancies. With reduced supply of VACANCIES in the older housing, the new housing will have increased demand and therefore price. In other words, the VALUE of all housing will INCREASE. Increases valued will bring a better value proposition for NEW HOUSING. The end result ought to be more housing units built in MV with Prop V/W than without.

Therefore, George's statement is completely wrong. Again, I'm not an "economics teacher" like George. I'm simply a resident with relevant knowledge, experience and an ability to reason. Definitely NOT a teacher! ;)


6 people like this
Posted by The Donald
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Nov 3, 2016 at 12:15 pm

What both the teacher and simple resident aren't taking into consideration is that the land values are higher than the return on investment of holding old buildings at current rents.
You can sell your property to a developer for a price that gives a better ROI when reinvested then running the Apartment building.I know, I have received offers for 10 million on a property that was worth 4 million 6 years ago.
The developer can bulldoze it and build 18 $1,400,000 townhouses on top of the land and get $25,200,000 minus $3,500,000 in construction costs.Profit $11,700,000 to developer after giving me 10 million.
Keep going on rent control folks, and you'll find out there won't be any rental units to control.
Thought Id just add that.
Another greedy landlord, The Donald.
By the way, get out and vote republican and lets get this crooked Hillary in prison.


23 people like this
Posted by Mike
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Nov 3, 2016 at 4:11 pm

@ "The Donald"

Why are you people continuing to be so dishonest?

I assume your plan was to keep the contents of these rent control language quite so you could sneak it past the residents. Since people started to speak out about it, you could not defend what the actual language is so all that was left was to use an age old political game plan, which is to attack the messenger and destroy them politically.

We can not have a civil discussion based on the language that is in these measures, you can not answer or defend these measures. When you get pinned in to a corner you call people nasty names, try to discredit them and distract from the main issue.

Do you think you are an asset to our community?

Vote No
It's a power grab
Wrong for Mtn.View


Like this comment
Posted by Observer
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Nov 3, 2016 at 6:04 pm

[Portion removed due to disrespectful comment/personal attack]


4 people like this
Posted by Mike
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Nov 3, 2016 at 6:14 pm

@ "Observer"

No, not so much. "The Donald" is one of your buddy's.

By the way, where you the person who used my identity, for the second time yesterday to post derogatory remarks and make it look like I did it?

The Voice completely removed several posts and erased several others from the same poster using different names.

That certainly is a crowd with high morals and standards on your side there my freind.


17 people like this
Posted by Mike
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Nov 3, 2016 at 6:20 pm

P.S

Everyone needs to get the message out to your friends. Election is 5 days away and it will take word of mouth to get the message out to everyone, tell them what's in these measures and how bad it will be for the entire city.

If they insist on rent control, tell them to vote
No on V, and Yes on W.

I will vote NO on both.

Vote No
It's a power grab
Wrong for Mtn.View


2 people like this
Posted by Dee
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Nov 5, 2016 at 8:22 pm

Dave and Mike seem to be having quite a time of it!

My belief is that property owners have paid to offer the properties, and if renters cannot afford to rent there they should go somewhere else.

I owned rental property for years in another state -- the tenants tore everything up, did not pay rent, and it was impossible to evict them. Sometimes I offered to pay them to leave and even to pay their deposit at another property, and they still would not leave.

A highlight of my rental experience was when I stopped at a house to collect the rent and found a goat urinating on the living room carpet. The husband said the wife was homesick, so they brought a goat back from a visit to her home. They could not pay the rent, so I took the goat instead.

I sued one tenant to have her wages garnished. She showed up in court bandaged from head to foot -- like a mummy. I won the case, and her wages were garnished for one month, and then she left her job. She was at least 8 months behind in rent. She could not be evicted in winter or cold months because she had children. The only way I could get her out was to imply that I had put out a contract on her. She seemed to understand that, and was gone in 2 days.

The rent in my apartment in Mountain View has nearly doubled since 2010. I have loved my time here, but if I am no longer able to pay, I will leave.


3 people like this
Posted by @Dee
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Nov 5, 2016 at 9:22 pm

Bye-bye!

Since you are leaving, please don't vote in the local elections. For those of us that are committed to stay, we will vote to preserve our community. Most landlords in MV don't even live here. They are sucking the lifeblood of its residents while enjoying the benefits of Prop 13 and an artificially low tax assessment.

The smart vote is Yes On V!


1 person likes this
Posted by The Donald
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Nov 6, 2016 at 8:51 am

2 days till November 8th and I will own it all!!
Yes, Mountain View will pass Rent Control and I will buy these buildings for less and tear them down to build Luxury Homes...
Oh, "the PROFIT", I can taste it already....
See you at the polls:)


8 people like this
Posted by Mike
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Nov 6, 2016 at 10:30 am

The ballot should not be used as an Anger Management Tool.

We should also be aware that measure V will make a situation worse for other groups of people, and our city as a whole with new issues. Once rent control comes in a city, you will not be able to change it back. Look at the other rent controlled cities and ask why are they so undesirable to live in? We have East Palo Alto right next door to our city.

If people want rent control and everything they say is so great about it, why did they not move to a city that already has it? The classic argument is roots or schools in a community, why can they not set down roots and go to schools in those communities? They have capped rents, unjust evictions laws, schools and a community that has rentals just like Mtn.View.There are options in knowing that they have all of the peace of mind in knowing that they can live well there, like the proponents keep saying that rent control provides.

I have provided actual page number, sec. number of the measure and actual language in both V and W in different threads now to back up what I have been saying that is in them. I have been attacked for doing that and find it ironic that one poster is calling that information as propaganda when all I been doing is posting the actual language in the measure.

I have been asking questions that the public should know about, and should expect answers on. No conversion has ever taken place to discuss these issues with the people who wrote V. We do not even have the most basic information about them, like who are these people, what are there names and where did all the money come to fund this measure. One article in a other local paper wrote it came from an tenant advocacy group out of San Francisco. Why has all this information been Top Secret?

This measure is far more than just capping rents and having unjust evictions, this is a new government bureaucracy that will be totally independent from any other city office, like city council, city attorney, city manager, and as residents we can not vote them out or hold them accountable in any way except for another ballot measure. They have unlimited access to the general fund and have no check and balance on them for the use. They have the authority to write new laws that we do not know today what they will be. This is only the start for a very long and divisive fight that will continue in our city.

The argument that we need low income for diversity in our city is important, then we need a solution that would involve everyone contributing their fair share to provide a real solution to the problem. We have a $950 million dollar bond on the ballot now to provide low income housing. Lets see what the voters decide. But we need to use a scalpel approach that would provide targeted relieve to very specific people.

I found it very disturbing that the St. Joseph church on Hope Street sold their parking lot to a for profit developer to build row houses. This church was involved in collecting signatures for this ballot measure. It is some what hypocritical that this church is in part saying landlords should subsidize renters, regardless of the renters income, and yet they could not provide their land to a non profit low income developer to provide housing for low income people. No one said one word about that.


Like this comment
Posted by @Dee and Friends
a resident of another community
on Nov 6, 2016 at 10:34 am

The apartment owners are not really serious about fighting rent control. They want it to succeeed. Look at the Cupertino Vallco developers. They have ads airing on TV supporting Cupertino Measure D which THEY paid to put on the ballot. If apartment owners in MV really cared, they'd have e ballot measure of their own and they'd run TV ads
too.

After all, it's not like it's a grocery tax! Rent Control is most likely unavoidable and harmless.


8 people like this
Posted by Mike
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Nov 6, 2016 at 10:54 am

In yet another display of the Voice trying to manipulate this rent control story, and to silence the other side from getting their voice out so people can hear both sides, the Voice is now burying the anti rent control positions by not allowing the already written stories to be bumped up to the top of the Town Square. One has to even question all of these phony posts? of these sports stories being placed on here to bump all these anti positions stories to many pages back where no one can see them in these last days before the election.

What did the Voice do to only get there Pro side message out? it put on the front home page 2 stories that they wrote trying to discredit landlords. Yet they did not put one story from the other side, or even the Mayors own words why Measure V is bad for our city.

Such a disgrace to have the editorial team of the Voice who do not live in Mtn.View yet they are trying to manipulate the voters on how they should vote.

Here is a story titled,

Guest opinion: Rent stabilization is still rent control
Original post made on Oct 23, 2016

Please search it out and also read it.


7 people like this
Posted by george drysdale
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Nov 6, 2016 at 11:04 am

It is much simpler to provide for full ownership of one's property. That is why 44 states have outlawed rent controls. "Life is unfair" John F. Kennedy. It is the property owners' business to provide housing, not welfare. Rent control provides chaos, that which investors hate.

George Drysdale a social studies teacher


2 people like this
Posted by Dee
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Nov 6, 2016 at 11:23 am

I am a visitor in Mountain View, not a resident. I have a vacation apartment, but I do not vote here.

I cannot get my head around people dictating to property owners what they are allowed to charge for rent. Reading a lot of this snarky stuff makes me even more happy that I no longer own rental property.

Bye-bye yourself.


Posted by Name hidden
a resident of Old Mountain View

on Nov 6, 2016 at 2:18 pm

Due to repeated violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are automatically removed. Why?


Like this comment
Posted by alanmcdonough
a resident of Gemello
on Nov 6, 2016 at 4:23 pm

alanmcdonough is a registered user.

No Spammer Submitted Post Here


9 people like this
Posted by mvresident2003
a resident of Monta Loma
on Nov 6, 2016 at 5:11 pm

mvresident2003 is a registered user.

All these backyard Economists posting their personal observations based on feelings and emotion.

when applying Economic Science, I prefer to use facts, not random posts. Facts like those researched and presented by the NON PARTISAN fiscal and policy advisor of our very own California Legislative Analysts Office.


The Legislative Analysts Office, California's own nonpartisan fiscal and policy advisor says rent control does NOT WORK. Their economic studies and facts PROVE that;

Under rent control;
Rental subsidies go to affluent renters (not those in need)
Overall quality of housing declines
Reduces availability of affordable housing


VOTE NO ON MEASURE V


2 people like this
Posted by Econ 101
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Nov 6, 2016 at 7:35 pm

Lots of conservatives love to throw around "economic science", but constrain their thinking to a very narrow aspect. Free market, supply and demand, price controls are all interesting terms, but one must be careful on their application.

It seems to make a lot of sense that if rent control economically destroyed landlords, then rental properties would never be built. Supply would dwindle and prices would skyrocket. It all makes sense, right? Economic science rules supreme!

Where this all falls short is the particular (and peculiar) environment of California and the very limited proposals for local rent control. First, when a tenant leaves, the landlord can reset the rent to any amount they wish. Second, rent control only applies if the rental is the tenants primary residence.(disallows moving and subletting the unit)z Third, if the property is redeveloped, then rent control does not apply. Therefore, supply of new rental housing is not restricted.

When applying "economic science", it is incorrect to automatically assume that every economic study of rent control applies to all forms of it. Careful examination of the studies shows that California's unique situation differentiates itself from the cities that were studied--such as NYC. If one wishes to claim that "economic science" states that Measure V will cause massive devastation in MV, but cannot cite an apples-to-apples study supporting this, then really it is just an opinion.

Measure V will immediately protect tens of thousands of renters here in MV from massive price hikes and unjust evictions. That's why I'm voting for V!!


10 people like this
Posted by Mike
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Nov 6, 2016 at 7:55 pm

The issue we have before us is V and W.
These are the ballot measures that voters will be voting on.

Voters, do not read the ballot pamphlet as it does not say the bad things in it. You must read all the 40 some pages of the measure. If you do not read it and understand it do not vote on it.

We have a right to know who these outside special interest group is and who the people are that wrote it and funded it. We have been denied the repeated requests for them to be identified and to answer questions about the actual language in the measure. No credible reply has been given.

I am reposting a post below from someone who has yet to receive any answer.
====================================================Posted by Sue
a resident of North Whisman
on Oct 17, 2016 at 7:35 pm

Measure V is a Horrific measure that deserves a No Vote.

My family owns a 5 plex, Mother and Father, sister and me.
We each have a 25% ownership interest in the property.

My sister lives in another state, she has a son and daughter.
The son wants to go to Santa Clara University next year.
The year after that, the daughter wants to go to Palmer College.
We have already been talking that they will be living at our 5 plex.

We want them to live in the only unit that has a 2 bedroom.
Under this new law, if it passes, we will not have any legal right to move in any family member, if it is occupied.
You will have to have a 50% ownership interest first, and then go ask permission first from the rent board.


Each of us has a 25% interest, we have no legal right to do this as you first need a 50% interest!

How can this be even legal.

How can any of you justify this!

How can anyone support a council member or a candidate, that supports this measure.

We will just be continuing with these divisive acts against minority groups in our city if we send divisive candidates into the position of city council members.

Our city used to be a tolerant one. Our councils represented everyone, fairly an equally.

Now we have become like Washington and brought that nasty politics to our city, we no longer look at people and guarantee that everyone has all the same rights as others, but now it is about group politics to see who can we take rights away from to give to others.
====================================================


Vote No
It's a power grab
Wrong for MTN.View


12 people like this
Posted by mvresident2003
a resident of Monta Loma
on Nov 6, 2016 at 7:55 pm

mvresident2003 is a registered user.

I'll say it again. The NON PARTISAN (not liberal, not conservative) CALIFORNIA (not NY or other state) advisor states that rent control does not work.

Where are your factual information and statistical references Econ101? Oh right, you don't have any. You've been asked repeatedly and only throw out ideas, thoughts and feelings.


1 person likes this
Posted by Yes on V!
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Nov 6, 2016 at 8:07 pm

The opposition position is that Measure V will destroy MV. They should provide a study, a white paper or SOMETHING that proves this. If this has been provided before (it hasn't), it should be trivial to provide just ONE example.

If they cannot provide this very basic information, they are obviously on the wrong side of Truth.

What is very clear from reading (and understanding) Measure V, Is that it will provide relief to THOUSANDS of MV residents. Absolutely no study is needed for this most obvious fact. Their opposition position is tenuous at best. The anti-V position is to allow landlords to gouge their residents, evict them at will and fail to keep the properties safe and sanitary. This is absolutely true. Nobody honest can dispute it.

Measure V will pass. Vote Yes on V!


13 people like this
Posted by Mike_
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Nov 6, 2016 at 8:40 pm

Mike_ is a registered user.

White paper #1
East Palo Alto

White paper #2
East San Jose

White paper #3
Oakland

White paper #4
Hayward

White paper #5
San Leandro

White paper #6
San Francisco is the number 1 city in all of United States for property crime.

Vote No
It's a power grab
Wrong for MTN.View


Like this comment
Posted by Ren Control
a resident of another community
on Nov 6, 2016 at 8:51 pm

Mike's White Papers are conveniently missing yet he alludes to them as if they are real. None of them regards a city which has had its entire large corporation office space absorbed by just 2 fast growing companies and then rushed very quickly to triple
the allowed job growth in new space going forward.

Rent Control can be a useful tool to bridge the shock to the system caused by this
rapid freezing of available capacity in apartments.

There's never been a situation quite like this.

Anyway, it's too late now. It's most likely going to pass and then we'll see. But after all, it can be changed if it truly causes bad effects. Meanwhile everytime a new building is constructed, the fraction of non-stabilized apartments grows and grows.


12 people like this
Posted by Mike_
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Nov 6, 2016 at 9:34 pm

Mike_ is a registered user.

No, I provided 6 white papers, you do not like it, and I do not like what has happened to those cities and I do not want a repeat of those disaster to happen in our city as measure V language is no different than those other rent controlled cities.

The outcome will be no different.

I know it will be pointless to ask again but will you try to explain why we need a new law that would deny a landlord the right to move in a family member Tru a family-eviction? As has been posted again in the 5th post above this one.

[Portion removed due to disrespectful comment/personal attack]

Not to waste any more time on this, I am already replying to your next post non answer answer by saying,
Asked and Answered already.

Vote No
It's a power grab
Wrong for MTN.View


Like this comment
Posted by Corruption
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Nov 6, 2016 at 10:40 pm

The article says that 1.2 million dollars have been raised by landlords to fight rent stabilization, but I'm sure the actual number by now is much, much higher. Let's not let the greedy landlords buy the election.


Vote for both Measure V and W!


13 people like this
Posted by Mike
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Nov 6, 2016 at 11:03 pm

No, That money has been raised to get the message out to the public and to inform them what the language is in these rent control measures, that people like the Voice and the outside special interest group with the dark money that funded and wrote these measures will not tell you until it's to late.

Thank goodness that there is one group trying to get the truth out and to preserve desirable community's from turning into blighted areas with high crime problems like the other bay area rent control cities.

Vote No
It's a power grab
Wrong for MTN.View


Like this comment
Posted by @Mike
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Nov 7, 2016 at 12:32 am

[Portion removed due to disrespectful comment/personal attack]
Rent control did not make EPA a less desirable place to live. Palo Alto would not allow African-Americans to own houses in their exclusively white neighborhoods, so EPA was the closest they could get. Unfortunately, institutionalized racism caused that area to concentrate people that were economically disadvantaged. Rental prices started to climb and THEN rent control was enacted.

You have it backwards. You always have it wrong. That is why most residents support Measure V and W. If the opposition has resorted to spreading dumb lies, they must not be on the side of truth.

Voting Yes for V and W!


6 people like this
Posted by The Donald
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Nov 7, 2016 at 9:02 am

I am a landlord in Mountain View. I have been for 45 years. I have offered housing opportunities for hundreds of tenants over these years. I have had houses, condos, townhouses and apartments. I have run my business to benefit the tenant and my investment portfolio equally. I have increased rents over the years at a measured percentage even when the market got crazy and had to reduce my rents in the lean years. It has always made sense from a business perspective not to gouge my tenants but to expect a reasonable return on my investments. I believe I have acted responsibly as a property owner and as a business owner in our community.

Now, my business is under attack by the very community that I offered a valuable service too. I am the one that is being told that I have been unreasonable and taken advantage of the very people I have helped over all these years.
These people are now bringing the government in to regulate me and restrict me and tell me how to run my business.
Would you think this is right if you were me???
Do you believe this is what America is about???
What if your community told you that you could only raise your paycheck at the same rate as your cost of living was going up???
Would you continue to go to work everyday under these restrictions???

I wouldn't either.... and won't.
I have other investments in other communities that wouldn't do this because it doesn't make sense to control someone else's return on their investments because of the cause and effects of such a proposal.

Its clear to me that if rent control comes to Mountain View under measure V or W, that it will do 2 things.

First, it will make Investment of rental property in this city less desirable to investors. I won't buy anymore and I know other investors like me will not invest there hard earned dollars into a city that dictates the maximum amount of ROI an investor can earn in this city. This will take a toll on the amount of low rent units available for rent. If you think the rents are high on the available units, just wait and see what rent control will do. Look at San Francisco where 1 bedroom units that are old and small are $3500/month. Investors pulled out years ago.

Second, the property I own in this city will get limited maintenance because it won't be possible to run at the current level of service. I won't have to go the extra mile and replace the carpets or update the units periodically because the tenant will never move with cheap rent. Gardener, yea right:) I'll keep the water coming in and the sewage flowing out but that is all I will guarantee.

These proposals measure V and W will reshape the landscape of Mountain View for sure. Is this what you want. It's your choice. I will only have to reallocate my investment portfolio into different cities but you will have to live with what you've created.
It's your decision on November 8th and then I will make mine.


7 people like this
Posted by Mike_
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Nov 7, 2016 at 10:13 am

Mike_ is a registered user.

@ "@Mike"

No, racism has nothing to do with the problems that East Palo Alto has for the past 30 years.

EPA was for many years the highest murder rate per capital in the entire country. Being poor or discrimination is not the cause to murders and high crime.

What caused these high crime rates? The landlords where evicting trouble tenants. It does not take many of them to live on a street to totally turn an entire neighborhood into a gang area. Which is what happened in EPA.

When residents did not like any rent increases they past rent control that had "unjust evictions" language.
Just like measure V and W does.

When it passed, as in all rent controlled cities with unjust evictions, the rent board almost always denies any evictions. Then you have a downward spiral effect where landlords do not even bother with any evictions, you have entire neighborhoods turn into crime and problem areas as no decent person will want to rent there so that only leaves the trouble makers.

No, Google and Facebook and no other tech company where around in the 1980's to contribute to any problem in EPA.

If you look at EPA today, a city that borders MTN.Viw and Palo Alto with low cost of property
even today developers are reluctant to go in there to redevelop areas because of the problems that still exist in the community. It is not racism
that is the problem.

Had there been no rent control passed in EPA, the city and quality of live for people who live there would be better off today.

Vote No
It's a power grab
Wrong for MTN.View


4 people like this
Posted by The Donald
a resident of Monta Loma
on Nov 7, 2016 at 11:22 am

The Donald is a registered user.

Mike is right even though Mountain View would never get that bad.
The fact is that there are expensive places to live and low income places to live. Compare Mountain View to Bakersfield. It will always be that way and we cannot create wealth and quality of life communities by regulating housing costs. If you want to live in a community with great job opportunities and be able to create your own wealth, you have to understand that everyone is doing the same, even the landlords.
As a landlord, I don't complain that someone went to work for google years ago and was given stock options of 1000 shares of stock which went up 10,000 percent. Yea they made millions. Should we regulate these companies and tell them that they can't do that or the people should give it back that make out in this environment. I think we are seeing jealousy and what is proposed will only divide us more making things worse.


8 people like this
Posted by Mike_
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Nov 7, 2016 at 11:34 am

Mike_ is a registered user.

@ "The Donald"

"Should we regulate these companies"

If you ever went to the Mountain View Tenants Coalition meetings on Wednesday night at Rengstorff park, you will know that this is just the start for this group. Once this rent control passes they have already said that they will be going after businesses next. "Because they are the majority and they can".

They have hateful language that they constantly use to drive up anger in the community.

Vote No
It's a power grab
Wrong for MTN.View


9 people like this
Posted by Mike_
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Nov 7, 2016 at 8:49 pm

Mike_ is a registered user.

We have some serious ballot measures that will change the future of our city if passed.

It is vitally important that everyone read and understand all 40 sum pages of V and W. The voters pamphlet does not contain the controversial parts of these measures. Like the provision that will be a new law that would deny-restrict landlords the right to do family eviction move ins. Why would family members living on property that they own be such a threat to the community that we need a new law to regulate this.

Please, if you do not read all of it and understand it, do not vote for them.

These 2 measures do not apply to 1995 and newer apartments, condos, town homes, single family homes, and duplex's. They are EXEMPT from any rent control.

It will take another ballot measure to make any changes in V, which would be highly unlikely to ever happen.

Remember that V will create a new UN-elected, unaccountable 5 panel rent board that will be totally independent from the city council, city attorney and city manager. The people can not recall them or vote them out. They will have the full power to draw money from the general funds and they will have the power to write new laws. No one has any power over this new government bureaucratic agency to change what they do or to reverse any new law that they will write. Any lawsuits that should arise from this measure, tax payers will pay the bill to defend it.

IMHO, if you support rent control,
Vote No on V
Yes on W

We have a vibrant community where people actually want to come to and live in. Lets not gamble on the future when we already know the outcome for cities that already have rent control.

I will be voting No on both.
These measures are harmful to cities.


2 people like this
Posted by The Donald
a resident of Monta Loma
on Nov 7, 2016 at 9:05 pm

The Donald is a registered user.

Mike, their plan is to get in and make it impossible to undo.
This will be a unfriendly place to do business for landlords.
I will sell the land to developers (which I receive offers weekly for ungodly amounts of money) and 1031 my money into triple net commercial properties which I already own many like retail commercial and go about my business. My apartments will be bulldozed and redeveloped into high end residential and no one will get cheap rent on that land again.
Sorry all, I am a business man making a business decision.


Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Bacchus Management Group to open restaurant in Redwood City
By Elena Kadvany | 2 comments | 2,555 views

Twenty Years in the Sixties: How an Alcoholic Hippie Became a Self-Giving Servant
By Aldis Petriceks | 0 comments | 2,425 views

A New Way to Think About High Speed Rail
By Steve Levy | 16 comments | 2,169 views

Sweet Potato Canapé and Food Party! Holiday Favorites
By Laura Stec | 0 comments | 1,284 views

 

The holidays are here!

From live music to a visit with Santa, here's a look at some local holiday activities to help you get into the spirit of the season.

VIEW