News

Ahead of rent-control vote, eviction spree hits tenants

Fearing locked-in prices, landlords seek to oust below-market renters

For Elized Ramirez, this is a time of uncertainty, when her longstanding financial planning has been thrown into limbo. In that regard, she has something in common with the landlord who is evicting her family.

Any day now, the mother fears her family of five is going be kicked out of their Clark Avenue apartment, where they've lived for 12 years. She fears her family won't find a comparable home nearby. She fears her children will be pulled out of school and placed in a new district. She fears that she and her husband will have to take on second and third jobs, respectively, to afford a new home in Mountain View.

"We just don't know what we will do," Ramirez said. "We weren't expecting this would all happen so soon."

Two months ago, the property manager at their Clark Avenue apartment knocked on the door and handed Ramirez a 60-day eviction notice. No reason was given, and the property manager refused Ramirez's offer to pay a rent increase or her request to give the family more time. She later learned that at least three other households in the same apartment complex received similar notices, all in the same week.

The evictions are being carried out just days ahead of the Nov. 8 election in which Mountain View voters will decide on two separate rent-control initiatives, measures V and W. If either measure passes, Mountain View apartment tenants will receive eviction protections as well as some level of assurance that there will be limits on annual rent increases.

What's local journalism worth to you?

Support Mountain View Online for as little as $5/month.

Join

But for the Ramirez family and other evicted tenants, either measure would have effectively locked in apartment rents significantly below the market rate. This possibility appears to have spurred the property owners into firing off a spree of eviction notices. Once they are vacated, the apartments can be immediately rented out at any price the market will bear.

Members of the Mountain View Tenants Coalition, the group advocating for Measure V, say they have been notified of 13 such evictions across the city, but they believe the real number is probably much higher. They point to the capricious nature of the new evictions as evidence that tenants need the safeguards provided by rent control.

"This is exactly why we need Measure V -- to prevent speculators from bidding up the price of apartment buildings and raising rents on longtime residents to pay for it," said Daniel DeBolt, a volunteer serving as the spokesman for the Tenants Coalition. "Mountain View's hard-working families should not have to pay such a terrible price for poor investment decisions."

The anxiety of being evicted hits home for DeBolt, who said he recently learned that he, too, was being evicted. After nine years in his rented house, his landlord wouldn't give him a reason for the eviction, DeBolt said.

Ramirez and her family say they aren't sure what's going to happen now, but the last two months have been extremely stressful. One downstairs neighbor has already moved out. But on Monday, Oct. 31 -- the day they were supposed to be out -- Ramirez's family was still living in the apartment, although they had several bags packed with their belongings in case they had to leave abruptly.

Stay informed

Get daily headlines sent straight to your inbox.

Sign up for free

Stay informed

Get daily headlines sent straight to your inbox.

Sign up for free

That evening, Ramirez's 8-year-old daughter Yexalen pranced around the living room in her princess costume, blissfully oblivious to her family's troubles. She left to go trick-or-treating with a group of children who were chaperoned by a neighbor.

Once her daughter was out the door, Ramirez exhaled and her frustrations came pouring out. She fumed about her kitchen's faulty stove, the water leaks and the rats that her family could hear scurrying in the walls at night. It was tacitly understood that complaining about these issues meant management would pass along any costs through a rent increase, so the residents mostly stayed mum, she said.

The Voice's efforts to reach the owners of the apartment complex in the 900 block of Clark Avenue were not successful. The 12-unit apartment complex is owned by Sambuceto Partners, a limited-liability corporation that lists a San Jose attorney as the only contact. That attorney didn't return calls for comment.

Ramirez works for a food-services contractor at the Google campus. Her husband is a cook at Applebee's who moonlights doing landscaping jobs. Yet they say they can't afford renting another two-bedroom apartment in Mountain View without dipping into their savings and abandoning their dream to some day own a home in Kentucky, where their relatives live. Right now, their best option is to put their possessions in a storage unit and live out of a hotel, she said.

More than anything else, Ramirez said, her top priority was to keep Yexalen and her 16-year-old son Juan Ignacio in the same school district. Her son is getting good grades, taking three AP classes during his critical junior year of high school, but he admits he has been losing focus since he learned his family was losing its home.

Hearing the news about evictions occurring throughout Mountain View, Mayor Pat Showalter said she was "horrified." She urged tenants facing displacement to contact the city's mediation group, Project Sentinel, to determine whether they are being treated lawfully.

"I find it deeply disturbing that landlords would evict tenants for no reason and wreak havoc on Mountain View families simply to avoid the possibility of a rent regulation measure," Showalter said. "I urge landlords to be respectful of the impact of their actions on hard-working and well-behaved tenants."

Getting an eviction notice was similarly heartbreaking for Martin Cortez, a single father who has lived for 11 years in a two-bedroom apartment on Del Medio Avenue. Unlike the Ramirez family, Cortez said he had a good personal relationship with the property owners, Paul and Ann Lethers, a friendly Fremont couple who would drop by almost every week to perform maintenance on the building. Years ago, when the market was tilted in favor of renters, the couple even invited their tenants out to a barbecue at their house.

How different things are now, Cortez said, unfolding the eviction notice the couple gave him and three other longtime tenants earlier this month. When they handed him the notice, they were deeply apologetic, even crying at points, he said.

But the Lethers couple, who have since rescinded some of the evictions, explained at the time that they had no other choice. About one year earlier, they had reportedly taken out a sizable loan to purchase the adjacent 417 Del Medio Ave. apartments for $3.9 million. According to Cortez and other tenants who were interviewed, the Lethers made the purchase based on the assumption that rents would continue to rise at the dramatic pace of recent years. The news that a political groundswell in Mountain View was pushing for rent control blindsided them, and they said they needed to protect their new property from possible foreclosure.

While Cortez says he sympathizes with his landlords' situation, he has to think about his own family. He lives with his 19-year-old daughter, who is autistic and extremely sensitive to any changes. Using a different spice or utensil for dinner can set her off on a tantrum. Previously, she had run away from home over what might seem like small matters, he said. But losing her own room and sense of home would be catastrophic, and he fears he would need the police to intervene.

"I don't know what's going to happen; I don't know what I'm going to do," he said before learning that the eviction had been withdrawn. "Last night I had six nightmares that my life was falling apart. I'd wake up and fall back asleep again and it'd happen all over again."

When contacted by the Voice, the Lethers family declined to speak over the phone. In an email, they described themselves as a working-class family that had saved every penny to buy the apartments as a retirement nest egg.

They referred the Voice to their attorney, Todd Rothbard, who said his clients were an example of property owners who are being unfairly punished for keeping rent below the market rate. If rent control passes, he said, older "mom and pop" landlords will be stuck with low rents while larger firms controlling newer apartments built after 1995 will be free to do as they please. After hearing of the Lethers family's situation, Rothbard said, he advised them that their only recourse was to evict their older tenants to bring those units up to the market price.

But on Monday, two weeks after the evictions were served, the Lethers family contacted Cortez and other tenants to rescind their evictions. The landlords told their tenants they would weather the economic loss somehow.

Rothbard said some of the evictions had to be withdrawn due to an oversight, because some tenants had active lease agreements that would have been violated by a no-cause eviction.

Ann Lethers contacted the Voice's after the Wednesday press deadline, and said she was still trying to contact all the tenants to inform them the evictions were being withdrawn. But in at least one instance, she was asking tenants if they would agree to a $400 monthly rent increase to stay. She and her husband were "desperate" since their apartment rents were far below the market rate, she said.

"I'm not being greedy, I just want to survive," Lethers said. "Money is not the top priority for us."

While his immediate crisis was averted, Cortez said the experience was a harsh reminder that he could be evicted at any time.

"I still have hard feelings about this," he said. "I didn't see this coming and it was a shock to be treated this way. I don't know if this is the end of it."

Craving a new voice in Peninsula dining?

Sign up for the Peninsula Foodist newsletter.

Sign up now

Follow Mountain View Voice Online on Twitter @mvvoice, Facebook and on Instagram @mvvoice for breaking news, local events, photos, videos and more.

Ahead of rent-control vote, eviction spree hits tenants

Fearing locked-in prices, landlords seek to oust below-market renters

by / Mountain View Voice

Uploaded: Fri, Nov 4, 2016, 1:11 pm

For Elized Ramirez, this is a time of uncertainty, when her longstanding financial planning has been thrown into limbo. In that regard, she has something in common with the landlord who is evicting her family.

Any day now, the mother fears her family of five is going be kicked out of their Clark Avenue apartment, where they've lived for 12 years. She fears her family won't find a comparable home nearby. She fears her children will be pulled out of school and placed in a new district. She fears that she and her husband will have to take on second and third jobs, respectively, to afford a new home in Mountain View.

"We just don't know what we will do," Ramirez said. "We weren't expecting this would all happen so soon."

Two months ago, the property manager at their Clark Avenue apartment knocked on the door and handed Ramirez a 60-day eviction notice. No reason was given, and the property manager refused Ramirez's offer to pay a rent increase or her request to give the family more time. She later learned that at least three other households in the same apartment complex received similar notices, all in the same week.

The evictions are being carried out just days ahead of the Nov. 8 election in which Mountain View voters will decide on two separate rent-control initiatives, measures V and W. If either measure passes, Mountain View apartment tenants will receive eviction protections as well as some level of assurance that there will be limits on annual rent increases.

But for the Ramirez family and other evicted tenants, either measure would have effectively locked in apartment rents significantly below the market rate. This possibility appears to have spurred the property owners into firing off a spree of eviction notices. Once they are vacated, the apartments can be immediately rented out at any price the market will bear.

Members of the Mountain View Tenants Coalition, the group advocating for Measure V, say they have been notified of 13 such evictions across the city, but they believe the real number is probably much higher. They point to the capricious nature of the new evictions as evidence that tenants need the safeguards provided by rent control.

"This is exactly why we need Measure V -- to prevent speculators from bidding up the price of apartment buildings and raising rents on longtime residents to pay for it," said Daniel DeBolt, a volunteer serving as the spokesman for the Tenants Coalition. "Mountain View's hard-working families should not have to pay such a terrible price for poor investment decisions."

The anxiety of being evicted hits home for DeBolt, who said he recently learned that he, too, was being evicted. After nine years in his rented house, his landlord wouldn't give him a reason for the eviction, DeBolt said.

Ramirez and her family say they aren't sure what's going to happen now, but the last two months have been extremely stressful. One downstairs neighbor has already moved out. But on Monday, Oct. 31 -- the day they were supposed to be out -- Ramirez's family was still living in the apartment, although they had several bags packed with their belongings in case they had to leave abruptly.

That evening, Ramirez's 8-year-old daughter Yexalen pranced around the living room in her princess costume, blissfully oblivious to her family's troubles. She left to go trick-or-treating with a group of children who were chaperoned by a neighbor.

Once her daughter was out the door, Ramirez exhaled and her frustrations came pouring out. She fumed about her kitchen's faulty stove, the water leaks and the rats that her family could hear scurrying in the walls at night. It was tacitly understood that complaining about these issues meant management would pass along any costs through a rent increase, so the residents mostly stayed mum, she said.

The Voice's efforts to reach the owners of the apartment complex in the 900 block of Clark Avenue were not successful. The 12-unit apartment complex is owned by Sambuceto Partners, a limited-liability corporation that lists a San Jose attorney as the only contact. That attorney didn't return calls for comment.

Ramirez works for a food-services contractor at the Google campus. Her husband is a cook at Applebee's who moonlights doing landscaping jobs. Yet they say they can't afford renting another two-bedroom apartment in Mountain View without dipping into their savings and abandoning their dream to some day own a home in Kentucky, where their relatives live. Right now, their best option is to put their possessions in a storage unit and live out of a hotel, she said.

More than anything else, Ramirez said, her top priority was to keep Yexalen and her 16-year-old son Juan Ignacio in the same school district. Her son is getting good grades, taking three AP classes during his critical junior year of high school, but he admits he has been losing focus since he learned his family was losing its home.

Hearing the news about evictions occurring throughout Mountain View, Mayor Pat Showalter said she was "horrified." She urged tenants facing displacement to contact the city's mediation group, Project Sentinel, to determine whether they are being treated lawfully.

"I find it deeply disturbing that landlords would evict tenants for no reason and wreak havoc on Mountain View families simply to avoid the possibility of a rent regulation measure," Showalter said. "I urge landlords to be respectful of the impact of their actions on hard-working and well-behaved tenants."

Getting an eviction notice was similarly heartbreaking for Martin Cortez, a single father who has lived for 11 years in a two-bedroom apartment on Del Medio Avenue. Unlike the Ramirez family, Cortez said he had a good personal relationship with the property owners, Paul and Ann Lethers, a friendly Fremont couple who would drop by almost every week to perform maintenance on the building. Years ago, when the market was tilted in favor of renters, the couple even invited their tenants out to a barbecue at their house.

How different things are now, Cortez said, unfolding the eviction notice the couple gave him and three other longtime tenants earlier this month. When they handed him the notice, they were deeply apologetic, even crying at points, he said.

But the Lethers couple, who have since rescinded some of the evictions, explained at the time that they had no other choice. About one year earlier, they had reportedly taken out a sizable loan to purchase the adjacent 417 Del Medio Ave. apartments for $3.9 million. According to Cortez and other tenants who were interviewed, the Lethers made the purchase based on the assumption that rents would continue to rise at the dramatic pace of recent years. The news that a political groundswell in Mountain View was pushing for rent control blindsided them, and they said they needed to protect their new property from possible foreclosure.

While Cortez says he sympathizes with his landlords' situation, he has to think about his own family. He lives with his 19-year-old daughter, who is autistic and extremely sensitive to any changes. Using a different spice or utensil for dinner can set her off on a tantrum. Previously, she had run away from home over what might seem like small matters, he said. But losing her own room and sense of home would be catastrophic, and he fears he would need the police to intervene.

"I don't know what's going to happen; I don't know what I'm going to do," he said before learning that the eviction had been withdrawn. "Last night I had six nightmares that my life was falling apart. I'd wake up and fall back asleep again and it'd happen all over again."

When contacted by the Voice, the Lethers family declined to speak over the phone. In an email, they described themselves as a working-class family that had saved every penny to buy the apartments as a retirement nest egg.

They referred the Voice to their attorney, Todd Rothbard, who said his clients were an example of property owners who are being unfairly punished for keeping rent below the market rate. If rent control passes, he said, older "mom and pop" landlords will be stuck with low rents while larger firms controlling newer apartments built after 1995 will be free to do as they please. After hearing of the Lethers family's situation, Rothbard said, he advised them that their only recourse was to evict their older tenants to bring those units up to the market price.

But on Monday, two weeks after the evictions were served, the Lethers family contacted Cortez and other tenants to rescind their evictions. The landlords told their tenants they would weather the economic loss somehow.

Rothbard said some of the evictions had to be withdrawn due to an oversight, because some tenants had active lease agreements that would have been violated by a no-cause eviction.

Ann Lethers contacted the Voice's after the Wednesday press deadline, and said she was still trying to contact all the tenants to inform them the evictions were being withdrawn. But in at least one instance, she was asking tenants if they would agree to a $400 monthly rent increase to stay. She and her husband were "desperate" since their apartment rents were far below the market rate, she said.

"I'm not being greedy, I just want to survive," Lethers said. "Money is not the top priority for us."

While his immediate crisis was averted, Cortez said the experience was a harsh reminder that he could be evicted at any time.

"I still have hard feelings about this," he said. "I didn't see this coming and it was a shock to be treated this way. I don't know if this is the end of it."

Comments

Member
Monta Loma
on Nov 4, 2016 at 2:26 pm
Member, Monta Loma
on Nov 4, 2016 at 2:26 pm

I don't like the fact the Voice can only report on rent control with total bias, doing its best to incite some level of class warfare. It's practically a self fulfilling prophecy here though, none of these evictions would go out if this was not on the ballot. So I hold the voice and Mt. View accountable for these displacements.

That said, if you are investing in property 'Lethers made the purchase based on the assumption that rents would continue to rise at the dramatic pace of recent years' is a really stupid assumption to make. Did we learn nothing ten years ago about over leverage? Banks should not be giving leveraged loans pace on any double digit growth sustained over time. Multiple levels of failure.


Neighbors Helping Neighbors
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Nov 4, 2016 at 2:41 pm
Neighbors Helping Neighbors , Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Nov 4, 2016 at 2:41 pm

Counselor Appointments in Person


LoveYourDNA
Old Mountain View
on Nov 4, 2016 at 2:41 pm
LoveYourDNA, Old Mountain View
on Nov 4, 2016 at 2:41 pm

I was evicted for reporting termites in my kitchen cabinets. Rothbard is unethical. My attorney tried to get a fair deal but instead I ended up not only being evicted (during a cancer diagnosis, no less) but had to pay the owner's attorney's fee! I paid to be unfairly evicted. Project Sentinel was of no help either. Good luck out there folks, I feel for you.


Neighbors Helping Neighbors
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Nov 4, 2016 at 2:44 pm
Neighbors Helping Neighbors , Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Nov 4, 2016 at 2:44 pm

Counselor Appointments in Person


Jim Neal
Registered user
Old Mountain View
on Nov 4, 2016 at 2:50 pm
Jim Neal, Old Mountain View
Registered user
on Nov 4, 2016 at 2:50 pm

I am sure that many people will try to place this in the category of "unforeseen consequences", but the truth is that this consequence was totally foreseeable.


When I ran for city council 2 years ago, I was the only candidate to oppose rent control , and this was one of the reasons. I was honest with the residents in telling them that this would be one of the effects of trying to implement a rent-control measure, because property owners have certain fixed expenses that MUST be paid for such as taxes, repairs, etc.

When there are new tax measures on the ballot, it is frequently the property owners that are required to pay the lion's share; and since those taxes get higher and higher at a minimum of every two years, it makes sense that property owners would need to charge a rent not only to meet that current obligation, but also to anticipate any future obligations.

Also, Nixon proved that wage and price controls do not and cannot work. The market will always seek harmony and equilibrium; so when one aspect of a market is constrained, the market will find some way to compensate, and that usually means that some or many people will be affected in the process.

No one in their right mind buys property to lose money, and the property owners are not responsible for allowing the glut of new office construction that is the REAL reason for the housing shortage. Property owners are merely the convenient targets that city governments can direct the anger of residents towards in order to hide the fact that they have mis-managed the growth of the cities and created this crisis.

However, that does not mean that there are not at least a few property owners that are also taking advantage of the situation, but the city governments created the situation. How many people can honestly say that if they saw $1 Million just lying on the street, that they would not take it? That is basically the situation that the city governments have created by giving the green light to develop offices at warp speed in order to fill the cities' bottom lines.

The answer always has been and always will be balanced and controlled growth. That is why it was one of the fundamental themes of my campaign when I ran for city council. Until people demand that, this problem won't be resolved until the bottom falls out of the economy again, and that will bring a set of issues all its own!



Jim Neal
Old Mountain View


Emily Hislop - Project Sentinel
another community
on Nov 4, 2016 at 2:59 pm
Emily Hislop - Project Sentinel, another community
on Nov 4, 2016 at 2:59 pm

I am the case manager for the Mountain View Rental Housing Dispute Resolution Program. Anyone receiving a notice of termination should immediately contact the Mountain View Rental Housing Dispute Resolution administered by Project Sentinel at 650-960-0495 or [email protected]

The City contracts with Project Sentinel to assist tenants and landlords with rental housing issues. We educate both parties regarding California law and the 3 rental housing ordinances currently in place in Mountain View and help them come to a resolution that works for both sides. The services are confidential, neutral and free.

Web Link


Mike
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Nov 4, 2016 at 3:11 pm
Mike, Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Nov 4, 2016 at 3:11 pm

If anyone has an allegation to make against a landlord for discrimination or harassment, you need to report it.

I find it suspicious that this new article is being created and new allegations are being made against landlords. There has been so much name calling, assuming peoples identity here and making derogatory remarks all in an attempt to claim that they are racist and discredit them. This has happened to me twice this week on this site.

If your are making any claims now, please provide evidence to back up your claims.

You have been making false statements as to what is in these rent control measures up till today, I view these new claims as very suspicious.


Mike
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Nov 4, 2016 at 3:13 pm
Mike, Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Nov 4, 2016 at 3:13 pm

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.

n 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


Mike
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Nov 4, 2016 at 3:54 pm
Mike, Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Nov 4, 2016 at 3:54 pm

Mr. Noack,

Did you ask if these people opened a case with the City's Rental Housing Dispute Program? If you did, did you see the date of the paper work? If not, why not? That would cover this.

Also, the new ordinance for rental units that started this year, was for existing tenants and where supposed to have been offered options for up to a one year lease. Your article stated that some where under a lease and the notices where rescinded. Did you ask if the others turned down the option for the lease? If they would have chosen the lease then these notices are not valid.

One take away from this story is, that not all landlords have been raising rents and forcing out the low income. This article states that they can not afford a new place here. That says that they where not being treated unfairly till this potential of a new rent control law changed everything. More un-intended consequences.

I will not post this person's last name, Angel S. he is a Moderator here for the Voice, and he also works for the MVTenantsCoalition. You also have Mr.Debolt, another "former" employee of the Voice working for this MVTenantsCoalition.
There is a conflict of interest here.


Mark Noack
Registered user
Old Mountain View
on Nov 4, 2016 at 4:14 pm
Mark Noack, Old Mountain View
Registered user
on Nov 4, 2016 at 4:14 pm

Hi Mike,

I don't know if these tenants opened a dispute resolution case. It wasn't something we discussed during our interviews.

On your other point, I can assure you that Angel S. is not a moderator for the Voice. We've never had outside moderators policing these forums, and my boss got a good chuckle when I asked her about this.

You're totally correct that Daniel DeBolt used to have my job two years ago and he's now working on behalf of Measure V. We don't hide that fact. DeBolt has no role at the Voice anymore.


Fact Checker
Old Mountain View
on Nov 4, 2016 at 4:30 pm
Fact Checker , Old Mountain View
on Nov 4, 2016 at 4:30 pm

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.


Mt. View Neighnor
North Whisman
on Nov 4, 2016 at 4:48 pm
Mt. View Neighnor, North Whisman
on Nov 4, 2016 at 4:48 pm

Not surprising this sort of thing is happening. This story is totally biased.

Even the recent legislation for right to lease results in evictions as landlords try to decrease their risk factors. Requiring landlords to offer tenants a long term lease, when tenants have been less than ideal, leaves landlords with two options: do not renew the lease at all, or risk long term liability if a bad tenant.

Now, you've got this ridiculous ballot measure designed to punish landlords. In the case mentioned here, the landlord has been kind enough to allow rents to stay below market on multiple units. If the new laws pass,Mathis poor landlord woukd be stuck with a liability that he can't even get his money back out of if the rents are low. He wouldn't even be able to sell the property at market value with the low rents. Given the choice, landlords (especially small ones) will always try to keep existing tenants. With the laws so pro renter, renters can repeatedly violate lease agreements and landlords have no protection. With so many renters subleasing via Air BnB and others, against most rental agreements. Landlords have no choice but to evict if tenants gave shown themselves to be untrustworthy.

Of course, the landlord can't give a reason for the eviction notice because in this "blame the landlord" market", any landlord woukd be a fool to open themselves to liability by offering a reason, verbal or otherwise.

With so many pro renter laws, landlords find the environment very hostile and have to do what they can to protect themselves from liability.


Mike
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Nov 4, 2016 at 4:55 pm
Mike, Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Nov 4, 2016 at 4:55 pm

Mark,
Spelling of her name maybe wrong but the editor Andrea Gommet? Stated that moderators must use their real name when they make a posts here.

About 7 months ago was a discussion on this site about rent control for our city. One poster in particular, was making posts over and over again for rent control. Making posts about the MVTenants Coalition and what their stand was and asking people to come to the meetings. After a long post the overwhelming majority of posts where against him. He got so mad that he wrote that he was locking the thread and never look at it again, and that is what happened. It was locked. That poster name was Angel S.

This past summer before the city council meeting when it was announced that the initiative qualified for the ballot was 3 people at a table before the council. They where from the MVTENANTS Coalition. The person on the end was Angel S. again I will not use his last name here. They are the same person.

You do understand why some people here, who have been following the story of rent control for the past year in our city, and your obvious bias for rent control and never once done a story from the perspective of a business owner and the bills that they have, do not believe you. You have no credibility on this issue.

You never once wrote a story who the actual people are who wrote this measure, or history about this advocacy group. You never disclosed that Mr.Debolt worked for this group until another paper wrote about it.

You also never wrote some of the most controversial measures of V, to inform the public about them. Have you taken a position as to why owners of a property can not move in family members in most cases, is such a threat to the community that we need a law to stop this?

Can you explain why that in V, the allowable rent increase allowed would not even cover the annual increases in Water, Sewer,Trash,Garbage and PG&E?
How many other rent controlled cities have this low of an increase that is allowed?

You also never explained in your endorsement of V how MTN.View will be different than other rent control cities that are blighted and have more crime.

I can add more but you get my point.

I have been trying to post my rebuttal to the Voices Endorsement for over a week, but it would never get posted. I did expect an article like you wrote today to appear. You do understand, assuming the article is true, that if these rent control measures would not be on the ballot, those notices would not have gone out.


Fair
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Nov 4, 2016 at 5:16 pm
Fair, Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Nov 4, 2016 at 5:16 pm

The Voice has been very fair with their coverage. That doesn't mean they are obligated to publish lies.

For example, Mike has been robopasting his list of questions and complains that nobody answers him. Well, he did get answered MULTIPLE TIMES, but then continues his rabid behavior.

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;”

See, he is making claims that are easily refuted if one were just to read Measure V. Of course, he will deny all. He will cry CONSPIRACY! Let him.


Not Again
Blossom Valley
on Nov 4, 2016 at 5:34 pm
Not Again, Blossom Valley
on Nov 4, 2016 at 5:34 pm

@ "Fact Checker", again

Again you are posting the same post that has been totally disproved.
.
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


Fair
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Nov 4, 2016 at 5:51 pm
Fair, Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Nov 4, 2016 at 5:51 pm

The Voice has been very fair with their coverage. That doesn't mean they are obligated to publish lies.

For example, Mike has been robopasting his list of questions and complains that nobody answers him. Well, he did get answered MULTIPLE TIMES, but then continues his rabid behavior.

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;”

See, he is making claims that are easily refuted if one were just to read Measure V. Of course, he will deny all. He will cry CONSPIRACY! Let him.


Mike
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Nov 4, 2016 at 5:52 pm
Mike, Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Nov 4, 2016 at 5:52 pm

@ VOICE,

I am not able to make posts from the computer that I used 2 hours ago to make my last post.

Are you blocking my IP address from making any further posts?


Mike
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Nov 4, 2016 at 7:16 pm
Mike, Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Nov 4, 2016 at 7:16 pm

@ "Fair" aka "Fact Checker"

How is it that you can make two posts under different names and not get them erased by the moderator?

You have proven yourself over and over again as the most dishonest and debunked poster on this site.

" Claim :8" no, the majority of tenants do not pay the PG&E, YET. This is one of the things that will change if rent control passes. There will be more changes.

"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;”

Answer.
Page 16 and 17 and 18, Sec.1710 (a)
You stated the important words your self, "The hearing officer SHALL CONSIDER relevant factors" There is no language in this measure that states flatly that any cost increases must be passed thru. It only SHALL BE CONSIDERED.

Page 18 sec. 1710. (3) (a) (c) (E) Fair rate of return-Factors excluded
A- Debt service
C- Cost of capital improvement
E- Income taxes.

No business in the United States has these sets of rules imposed on them. All goods and services provided have to figure in the entire cost of doing business. The fact that debt service can not be considered for a "Fair Return" is outrageous and will have many mom and pop buildings go out of business because that is the single biggest expense in running these businesses.

Page 13, Sec. 1707 (e) 10% Annual Rent Increase Limit.
"The overall rent increase in any 12 month period shall not exceed (10%) of the rent actually charged to the tenant".

This language includes banking of rents. Meaning if rents where not raised for 2 years in a row, and you had major price increases, the limit is still 10%. No matter how much money you are losing you are still capped at 10%. There is no consideration for Fair Rate of Return under this section.

I do not appreciate having my main computer blocked from posting here.

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


P.S
There is far more about the article that is not being told. It says that the Ramirez apartment, on the 900 block of Clark Ave. A 12 unit apartment building.

"It was tacitly understood that complaining about these issues meant management would pass along any cost through a rent increase, so the resident's stayed mostly mum, she said"

It is state law already that all of these rental housing units have to be inspected. The city inspector has to periodically do inspections. Good properties can go no longer than 4 years. Bad properties can be inspected every 6 months if needed.

About a month ago the Voice had a commentary about the high percentage of violations that some buildings have. Did Mark, the reporter of this story fact check this with the building department to see when the last inspection was on this property? And what did the report show? Where there any violations and what where they?


@Mike
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Nov 4, 2016 at 7:22 pm
@Mike, Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Nov 4, 2016 at 7:22 pm

Your opposition position is that Measure V will destroy MV. Please 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. Your 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. Come to the side of goodness and vote Yes!


Mike
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Nov 4, 2016 at 8:07 pm
Mike, Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Nov 4, 2016 at 8:07 pm

@ "@Mike"

The burden of proving that measure V will not harm our city is on you to prove it. You are asking for a Charter Amendment, for the intended reason that you wanted to make this next to impossible to change. There is no Bay Area city that has these restrictive limits on rents, and most allow improvements to be passed thru. V does not allow for that.

Every one who knows the bay area knows that they would not want to live in East San Jose, East Palo Alto, Hayward, Oakland, San Leandro and even San Francisco is the number one city in all of United States for property crime. If San Francisco would not be a tourists attraction, that city would be a total mess.

You are committing fraud against the residents here by not telling them what's in it and why. We do not even know the names of all the people who wrote it or where this dark money came from that funded it.The dishonesty alone coming from the proponents of V should have everyone very concerned at the very least.

Everyone should read all of the 40 some pages of W and V. If you do not read it all, do not vote for it.

If you support rent control, 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


strategery
Willowgate
on Nov 4, 2016 at 8:41 pm
strategery, Willowgate
on Nov 4, 2016 at 8:41 pm

The rent control measures reward those who have aggressively raised rents relative to those who kept them more modest and it is a matter of basic economic self-interest to not allow one's property to be locked in at below-market rates.

One thing I teach in my economics course is not to trust in oversimplified conclusions proffered by superficial treatments of introductory economics, like "raising the minimum wage will (necessarily) lead to higher unemployment" or "rent control schemes will exacerbate shortages." Still, there is a reason that that is the starting place for the conversation, and V in particular is a poorly crafted piece of legislation.

This property owning progressive economics teacher voted no. But I wouldn't be upset if W passed, that was a tough call.


@Mike
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Nov 4, 2016 at 9:04 pm
@Mike, Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Nov 4, 2016 at 9:04 pm

So, you still are not able to provide a simple document that analyzes Measure V and shows how it will destroy the City? That's very telling!

The text of Measure V is very clearly written. It lays out the why and how of a rent stabilization program. There is plenty of opportunities for landlords making a reasonable profit. When a tenant moves, the rent can be set to any amount the landlord wishes. Incredibly reasonable.

What is not reasonable are the empty-headed and incessant accusations of a Voice conspiracy to push Measure V through. What is not reasonable are the equally empty-headed and incessant copy/paste spamming of this board with anti-V propaganda.

Vote Yes on V and W. Lets preserve our community!


Sad but expected
Rex Manor
on Nov 4, 2016 at 9:29 pm
Sad but expected, Rex Manor
on Nov 4, 2016 at 9:29 pm

Why is anyone surprised by this? It's like taking someone, tying them up (which is effectively what rent control is - limiting the landlords options) and then being upset when they try to escape your control. What the heck did you think would happen? Daniel DeBolt may think this is proof why rent control is needed. I think this is proof why we should stop putting shaddy, ineffective policies in place that completely distort markets and have many unintended, undesirable consequences. And no, I'm not a landlord, just an intelligent, rational person.

I'm very sorry for people having to go through this. Your anger should be directed at the MV Tenants Coalition and the MV Voice, not your landlord who most likely has not raised rent on you for a long time (which is why they feel the need to do so now). I sincerely hope you are able to settle someplace and continue your life in peace.


Mike
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Nov 4, 2016 at 9:35 pm
Mike, Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Nov 4, 2016 at 9:35 pm

@"@Mike"

So you still haven't answered one question about measure V!

Not one! You can not defend it!

I have posted page and section of the actual text of V,and have discredited the proponents of it who claim it does X when in fact it does not. People should look at the other threads that have been posted in the Town Square as It would be redundant to constantly repost the facts to PROVE you wrong again. You have yet to contribute to a constructive dialog, not on any thread here.

All your side can do is distract, discredit people, call them names and spin the language into something it is not. The name calling from your side is very telling, if you can not win the debate by defending the measure, then plan B is to attack the messenger. That is all your side has been doing.

Why is a family member such a threat to the community that a new law is needed to deny a property owner the right to do a family
move in-eviction? Do you need a white paper to say that is wrong!

Do you need a white paper to say that it is wrong to take away rights from a legal business owner because the mob is bigger than the little guy and you can?

Either everybody has the same rights as everyone else, or the rules are made by those who has a bigger stick.


Expo
Shoreline West
on Nov 4, 2016 at 10:02 pm
Expo, Shoreline West
on Nov 4, 2016 at 10:02 pm

When the bottom falls out when India will be the next silicon Valley which is happening this will be the next Detroit homes will be under 100k and crime rampid i will be in Virginia on my 13 acres living the life.


@Mike
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Nov 4, 2016 at 10:10 pm
@Mike, Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Nov 4, 2016 at 10:10 pm

"So you still haven't answered one question about measure V!"

Mike--you keep writing this. Your questions have been answered with excruciating detail. The fact that you keep repeating this calls into question your character, your sanity or both.

Families are getting evicted right and left. That is why Measure V is so important. Your smokescreen spamming is more gaseous, than opaque if you know what I mean.


Mike
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Nov 4, 2016 at 10:26 pm
Mike, Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Nov 4, 2016 at 10:26 pm

@"@Mike"

The people who have been reading measure V and W, the people who have been following the various threads on Town Square, they all know who has been telling the truth.

No, no matter how often you say the sky is pink, people know the truth. You can not post one answer to any of the questions concerning these rent control measures.

Here is a repost from a person, care to point to where someone has repeatedly answered it? This is just one example.



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.




Mike
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Nov 4, 2016 at 11:05 pm
Mike, Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Nov 4, 2016 at 11:05 pm

@ "@Mike"

While I'M waiting for your non answer answer, you said,

"Families are getting evicted right and left. That is why Measure V is so important. Your smokescreen spamming is more gaseous, than opaque if you know what I mean."

What families are getting evicted left and right? We have 45,000 rentals in the city, and even this article only says one building with 4 notices. The other building had those notices rescinded.

The way the proponents have been acting, and denying what's in these measures, as you are, to have a civil factual discussion about the language has been impossible. The MVTC and the Voice has no credibility on this issue. The Voice is now blocking my computer that I made a post on this afternoon to shut me up. Produce that list of names and addresses of all these people who are getting evicted just to raise rents. I expect that list to be easily over 1000 names and addresses, after all you said "families are getting evicted left and right" it should be really easy to put together all these names.

I have a friend who was evicted last month from his apartment. Yes, they are tearing it down to build Condos. I am sure this new rent board will be writing new laws to prevent that from happening in the future. That is how things always start, just get your foot in the door then it's to late to turn back.

There is no doubt that this article was written as a hit piece just before the election to drive up anger against landlords.

"Titled eviction Spree" really, only one building and 4 notices in that building. Tell me how does that qualify for the meaning of Spree?


@Mike
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Nov 4, 2016 at 11:09 pm
@Mike, Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Nov 4, 2016 at 11:09 pm

So, you still are not able to provide a simple document that analyzes Measure V and shows how it will destroy the City? That's very telling!

The text of Measure V is very clearly written. It lays out the why and how of a rent stabilization program. There is plenty of opportunities for landlords making a reasonable profit. When a tenant moves, the rent can be set to any amount the landlord wishes. Incredibly reasonable.

What is not reasonable are the empty-headed and incessant accusations of a Voice conspiracy to push Measure V through. What is not reasonable are the equally empty-headed and incessant copy/paste spamming of this board with anti-V propaganda.

Vote Yes on V and W. Lets preserve our community!


AmBeingEvicted
Cuesta Park
on Nov 5, 2016 at 12:57 am
AmBeingEvicted, Cuesta Park
on Nov 5, 2016 at 12:57 am

There seem to be commenters questioning if these evictions are actually happening. They are. I live in an apartment on Pamela Drive, and I just got a 60 Day Notice of Termination yesterday, with no reason given. I know of at least 3 of my neighbors in this complex who also got the same notice in the past few weeks. I also have a friend in another MV complex who got the same notice.

I have been a good tenant for the past 9 years, always pay my rent on time - even when they have been jacking up the rent every 6 months or so for the past several years. I am currently paying over 60% more than I was paying for this apartment 5 years ago.

I'm not advocating either for or against rent control, but this situation is out of control for renters, and I can completely understand why people feel that something needs to be done.


AmBeingEvicted
Cuesta Park
on Nov 5, 2016 at 1:02 am
AmBeingEvicted, Cuesta Park
on Nov 5, 2016 at 1:02 am

@Sad but expected - you say, "Your anger should be directed at the MV Tenants Coalition and the MV Voice, not your landlord who most likely has not raised rent on you for a long time (which is why they feel the need to do so now)."

You clearly have not been a renter in Mountain View recently. I have been renting here for 9 years, and over the past 5 years or so, my rent has been increased every 6 months. I am currently paying over 60% more than what I was paying for this apartment 5 years ago. If you think that rents around here have not been increasing at an unmaintainable level, you're clearly not paying attention.


MVWoman
Cuesta Park
on Nov 5, 2016 at 2:31 am
MVWoman, Cuesta Park
on Nov 5, 2016 at 2:31 am

This article by the MV Voice is simply more of the one-sided argument we have come to expect, as they have been the mouthpiece for Measure V all along. Yes, they finally were forced to admit that Daniel DeBolt used to work for them, but Mr. DeBolt has been asked multiple times if he still has a connection of some type with the Voice, and he refuses to answer. The Voice continues to publish only their pro-V opinion of the Measure V fiasco, and thus they have lost the last shred of credibility they had.

The Voice published this article, hopefully to pull at your heartstrings for the renters, but there is no concern for the landlords - many of whom have these buildings as their only income and barely scrape by (or are in the red). NOTHING good can come out of this for tenants, landlords, or the rest of us living in Mountain View. Rent Control is never a solution, it only brings very serious problems for the entire city.

I find it pathetic that the one pro-V poster (obviously the same person over and over, just using different names) keeps demanding that the ANTI-rent control people prove the fallacies of Measure V, but that is NOT THEIR responsibility! Rent control has already been proven a hideous failure in every honest and professional study done on it. The Measure V people are the ones who need to prove THEIR cause with FACTS for a change - not just their unproven claims. Unless they can show definitively how V is dramatically different from every other rent control, they FAIL. Since they refuse this challenge, it's clear they have NO valid argument.

The Voice lets the pro-V poster use several names, they let him use crude and insulting language, they let him manipulate and smokescreen. What a sad example of journalism (if the Voice even reaches the level to even be considered journalism anymore).

I think this latest "push" article by the Voice is so poorly written and so clearly obvious in their bias, that they merely encourage thinking people to VOTE NO.


mvresident2003
Registered user
Monta Loma
on Nov 5, 2016 at 7:51 am
mvresident2003, Monta Loma
Registered user
on Nov 5, 2016 at 7:51 am

If this wasn't such a serious situation it would almost be comical the extent to which the pro-rent control group is trying to push their agenda. There's obviously a few posters coming in under various names posting the same tired posts that make no sense unlike most of the NO ON V posters who are registered members of our community.

And I'll post here again as I did on another also under my REGISTERED name the same response to the one who keeps asking for prof of something that hasn't even yet happened;

All the Pro-V rent control posters can say is "prove to us how our ill-thought, one-sided, we-get-to-tell-landlords-how-much-to-charge measure is going to ruin your City". That's all they can keep saying, as you can see for repeats posts over and over again, the same "prove to us how we will ruin your City"

I don't need to prove to you how you will ruin our City and frankly none of us want to "test" it with Measure V, that's one test I truly don't want to even run the slightest risk of failing.

VOTE NO ON V & W


power to the People
Cuesta Park
on Nov 5, 2016 at 10:10 am
power to the People, Cuesta Park
on Nov 5, 2016 at 10:10 am

@Mike "It's a power grab." 'Power to the People.' Charter initiative process. 'Right ON!'

Vote yes on V and grab the POWER, people.


("Power to the People", John Lennon, 1971)


As Expected
Cuernavaca
on Nov 5, 2016 at 10:29 am
As Expected, Cuernavaca
on Nov 5, 2016 at 10:29 am

This is happening because of the potential of imposing rent control. Some say what is the damage of measure V . This is one. Early evictions to avoid the harm of measure V. Just as expected, these evictions are a respone to measure V possibly passing.

If neither measure passes, I'll bet the eviction notices will be rescinded. Of course Debolts will not


Maher
Martens-Carmelita
on Nov 5, 2016 at 12:14 pm
Maher, Martens-Carmelita
on Nov 5, 2016 at 12:14 pm

Well, the horse is out of the barn, so to speak.

If anything proves the need for rent control to offset landlords' willy nilly use of evictions to allow them to raise rents for the new tenants ... THIS REACTION CERTAINLY DOES.

Don't blame measure V for the landlords' choices. Blame rampant greed.

A fair profit in an open market does not require this sort of greed, nor does it require this sort of blind indifference to good tenants who pay their rent.

Don't make excuses for these landlords. Hold them accountable to a moral compass that needs to operate in every venue. Unless, of course, you take the stance that morality has no role in Capitalism. In which case, the proof is in the pudding.


MV Landlord and Resident
Registered user
Old Mountain View
on Nov 5, 2016 at 12:29 pm
MV Landlord and Resident, Old Mountain View
Registered user
on Nov 5, 2016 at 12:29 pm

I love Mountain View, and have lived here since 1998. I own a 4-unit building that I lived in for years, and some of the current tenants have been with me since I purchased the building, or shortly thereafter. They include families and retirees. I still live in Mountain View, and I plan to stay.

I have never raised the rent more than 8% in a year, to avoid dislocating tenants. As a result, the rents in that building are significantly below market. I'm fine with that, because I know eventually there will be a slowdown, and it will be possible to align the rents with the market, without dislocating tenants.

As a landlord, I believe the tenants and I would be seriously hurt by Measure V, because the rents will always be significantly below other units under rent control. Not too long from now, it will become difficult to maintain the property with the rent increases allowed by Measure V. Almost certainly, my only option would be to sell the property to a developer, who is likely to demolish and re-build without rent control restrictions.

As a resident, I truly believe that Measure V would cause older neighborhoods to dilapidate. Increases in crime will inevitably follow, and because Measure V is a city charter amendment, it will be very difficult to change when that happens. It's very unlikely that the required effort would go into modifying the amendment in the future.

Measure W would be a much better choice, for several reasons. For example, it allows 5% rent increases and can be more easily adjusted if necessary. That annual increase is likely to eventually let the rents reach market rates and allow for proper maintenance, without dislocating tenants.

I strongly urge all Mountain View voters to vote NO on V
If you believe in rent control, vote YES on W

Sincerely
MV Landlord and Resident


As expected
Cuernavaca
on Nov 5, 2016 at 12:58 pm
As expected, Cuernavaca
on Nov 5, 2016 at 12:58 pm


"Don't blame measure V for the landlords' choices. Blame rampant greed."

of course measure V is to blame for the actions of landlords. Where was this spike in evictions before measure V was introduced. Of course, proponents want to blame greedy landlords and ignore the obvious harm caused by putting measure V on the ballot.

I wonder how many tenants are now reconsidering whether to support measure V

No matter how much rhetoric the proponents spout, they just can't handle the truth about the harm caused by measure V


Elaine
Blossom Valley
on Nov 5, 2016 at 12:59 pm
Elaine, Blossom Valley
on Nov 5, 2016 at 12:59 pm

Many of the buildings that will be impacted by this law were built during the building boom after WWII -- 50-70 years ago. The older a building gets, the more upkeep it needs -- including major structural improvements like new pipes, new sewer lines, new roofs,new heating systems, etc. One major upgrade can cost anywhere from $10-40K or more -- often equivalent to 3-4 years of income from a property. Will landlords be able to raise rents when they make these kinds of improvements? For some maybe, but not for others.

At some point, properties become more valuable WITHOUT the older apartment buildings on them than WITH them (now that condos in Mountain View routinely sell for $700K+, townhomes for $1.3M+ and new houses $1.M). This has been happening in pricier parts of Los Angeles (with a similar rent control ordinance, where 20,000 older apartments have been taken off the market in recent years). Web Link

The Ellis Act allows for these kinds of evictions.

I don't say this to scare people, but to remind them of unintended results.

Many people on here have brought up Proposition 13, and may not remember the original justification for it -- to protect poor and elderly home owners from drastically rising property taxes.

While it did this, it has also had several negative unintended consequences. People stay longer in their homes because it is cheaper to stay than to move, cities prefer building retail and office space to building new homes, and buying a home in California is less affordable than ever. (that's on top of the reduction of education and other services in the state)


Mom of schoolkid
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Nov 5, 2016 at 3:14 pm
Mom of schoolkid , Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Nov 5, 2016 at 3:14 pm

it is a crazy situation where we rent at market prices, the houses around are over $1m, and our neighborhood school has a majority of kids on free lunches, test scores are low, and as a result most middle class families just go private! In a normal situation the market would even the situation out, with more middle class families moving in and eventually sending their kids to local public schools, which in turn improves the school and attracts more families.

However, as a result of measure V, we will see families who clearly cannot afford staying here- clinging to their dilapidated housing (repairs not done), staying 10-12 people in a 2 bedroom, barely scraping by... then increase in petty crime and worsening of schools.



Bored M
Cuesta Park
on Nov 5, 2016 at 5:34 pm
Bored M, Cuesta Park
on Nov 5, 2016 at 5:34 pm

There are clearly passionate feelings on both sides, but in the end markets will adjust. If V passes then landlords will be incentivized to sell to developers. I'm not sure what W incentivizes landlords to do. If V and W fail then rents will keep marching upward over time.

If trying to plant roots then it is best to buy something and that may mean moving out of Mountain View. There's nothing wrong with building equity and setting the cost of housing for the rest of your life.


@ mom of school kid
Monta Loma
on Nov 5, 2016 at 6:02 pm
@ mom of school kid , Monta Loma
on Nov 5, 2016 at 6:02 pm

Yes, yes, yes, yes, and yes!


Yes On V to save our community
Rex Manor
on Nov 5, 2016 at 6:51 pm
Yes On V to save our community, Rex Manor
on Nov 5, 2016 at 6:51 pm

Landlords don't have to behave badly. AND I have met many landlords that have not driven their rents sky-high. Those landlords are personally voting YES ON V. These landlords are exhibit A that rent control works -- they practiced it personally.

Unfortunately, there are not enough landlords that are reasonable.

Greedy Landlords are behaving badly because they are selfishly only caring about their own greed.

They don't care about the community they are destroying.

They are just using Measure V as a convenient excuse to evict tenants. The evictions and astronomical rent increases were happening in 2015 - when tenants were pleading with the city council for compassion. For Pat Showalter to say that she is horrified to learn the evictions are happening just proves that she was not listening in city council meetings.

The landlords created the desperation that drove the creation of the MV Tenants Coalition and Measure V.

Now *greedy* landlords are complaining about how others are solving the problem that they created!

Cry me a river, Cry me a river.


@mom of school kid
another community
on Nov 5, 2016 at 7:32 pm
@mom of school kid, another community
on Nov 5, 2016 at 7:32 pm

You have it backward. Currently there is no one paying less than market rate, because the market depends on the quality of the abode. The market for run down 50 year old housing, with rat and cockroach infestation in many cases, commands a lower rate. However, the landlords are able to squeeze a ridiculous profit out of this shabby housing, precisely because they have been charging market rate to the poor people who can't afford better. It's still a lot of money in rent. They can't increase without limit though, if that's our point. What they would need to do is to rehabilitate the housing which can be quite expensive. More reasonably this old rundown stuff would be torn down and replaced with something new--with a big increase in capital costs needed for that investment.

So Measure V will ENCOURAGE that housing is upgraded, because there won't be this undue profit in running a slum building. It's hard to speak it, but Mountain VIew has heen filled with slum buildings, and they are co-dependent with the poor people who must
live in them. I can't believe the people who say Measure V will make slums. We already have slums. People are just not very observant. The residents are quiet fearing an additional rent hike, and they are probably right. Some landlords would indeed try to raise the already high rents if they got rid of the vermin, for example. But it's going to take a lot more than that to make Google people want to live in these ancient 50's style apartment buildings since the good ones have already long since been upgraded and repaired. We're looking at the BAD buildings now that are the ones with cheaper rents, but of course even these are not really cheap.


Mark
Castro City
on Nov 5, 2016 at 8:25 pm
Mark, Castro City
on Nov 5, 2016 at 8:25 pm

Not to be overly picky, but Jim Neal is wrong in his recollection that he was the only candidate for City Council two years ago to publicly oppose rent control. All of the candidates except Lenny Siegel were reported as opposed to rent control. Two of those candidates (Showalter and Rosenberg) got elected with the help of some #100,000 in "dark money" from landlords.


MVWoman
Cuesta Park
on Nov 5, 2016 at 10:11 pm
MVWoman, Cuesta Park
on Nov 5, 2016 at 10:11 pm

To "Yes on V" - so you know lots of landlords voting yes on V? Name a few. You CAN'T. You're back to your multiple "under different names" postings and resorting to your usual hysterical hyperbole: "greedy landlords", "landlords don't care", landlords are "destroying communities", "astronomical rent increases", "desperation", Mountain View is filled with slums, etc. etc. You have NO facts to support your false claims, so you get overly dramatic and start name-calling.

You think rent control will help you? It will only force building owners to sell to avoid losses - and then the new corporate owners will either tear them down, or convert to condos - and WAY out of price range for renters. You only cause MORE of the problem you claim to solve. You don't care, because you actually believe there may be a chance you could win in this game?

You want to confiscate the investment for owners, you don't care when neighborhoods degrade and the number of rentals in MV actually decline, you don't care that this "rent board" can spend our tax money as THEY see fit, and will probably cause cuts in services or additional taxes on residents to support them.

Educated economists are universally against rent control, but you deny this and just yell, call people names, make unsupported statements and refuse to give examples of how your rent control would actually work (as it has FAILED everywhere it has been tried). You demand the public show how your specific Measure V fails - but that is not the PUBLIC'S responsibility. YOU have to show actual numbers and FACTS how it will work. Your tediously long Measure doesn't do that, so you just constantly attack and berate your opposition.

You remind me of a famous Socrates quote: "“When the debate is lost, slander is the tool of the loser.”



Jim Carroll Jones
Old Mountain View
on Nov 5, 2016 at 11:02 pm
Jim Carroll Jones, Old Mountain View
on Nov 5, 2016 at 11:02 pm


Has Economics Failed?

Dr. Thomas Sowell|Posted: Nov 01, 2016 12:01 AM


It is especially painful for me, as an economist, to see that two small cities in northern California -- San Mateo and Burlingame -- have rent control proposals on the ballot this election year.

There are various other campaigns, in other places around the country, for and against minimum wage laws, which likewise make me wonder if the economics profession has failed to educate the public in the most elementary economic lessons.

Neither rent control nor minimum wage laws -- nor price control laws in general -- are new. Price control laws go back as far as ancient Egypt and Babylon, and they have been imposed at one time or other on every inhabited continent.

History alone should be able to tell us what the actual consequences of such laws have been, since they have been around for thousands of years. Anyone who has taken a course in Economics 1 should understand why those consequences have been so different from what their advocates expected. It is not rocket science.

Nevertheless, advocates of a rent control law are saying things like "this will prevent some landlords from gouging tenants and making a ton of money off the housing crisis."

The reason there is a housing crisis in the first place is that existing laws in much of California prevent enough housing from being built to supply the apartments and homes that people want. If landlords were all sweethearts, and never raised rents, that would still not get one new building built.


CARTOONS | STEVE KELLEY
VIEW CARTOON
Rising rents are a symptom of the problem. The actual cause of the problem is a refusal of many California officials to allow enough housing to be built for all the people who want to rent an apartment.

Supply and demand is one of the first things taught in introductory economics textbooks. Why it should be a mystery to people living in an upscale community -- people who have probably graduated from an expensive college -- is the real puzzle. Supply and demand is not a breakthrough on the frontiers of knowledge.

A century ago, virtually any economist could have explained why preventing housing from being built would lead to higher rents, and why rent control would further widen the gap between the amount of housing supplied and the amount demanded. Not to mention such other consequences as a faster deterioration of existing housing, since upkeep gets neglected when there is a housing shortage.

Today's economists have advanced to far more complicated problems. It is as if we had the world's greatest mathematicians but most college graduates couldn't do arithmetic.

Part of the problem is that even our most prestigious colleges seldom have any real curriculum requirements that would ensure that their graduates had at least a basic understanding of economics, history, mathematics, science or other fundamental subjects.

Many students and their parents spend great amounts of money, and go into debt, for an education that too often leaves them illiterate in economics and ignorant of many other subjects.
Part of the problem is that many college graduates do not take a single course in economics. Another part of the problem is that many economics departments leave the teaching of introductory economics in the hands of some junior or transient faculty member, or even graduate students who get stuck with the job.

One of the things that made me proud of the economics department at UCLA when I taught there, decades ago, was that teaching the introductory economics course was the job of a full professor, even if not the same professor every year.

In all too many subjects today, the introductory course is taught by junior faculty, transient faculty or graduate students, while the full professors teach only upper level courses or postgraduate courses.

That may save a department the expense of staffing the introductory course with their more highly paid members. But, it is extravagantly expensive from the standpoint of society as a whole, when it means sending graduates out into the world unable to see through the wasteful economic hokum spread by politicians.

That is how you get ill-informed voters who support price controls of many kinds, without understanding that prices convey economic realities that do not change just because the government changes the prices. It is as if someone's fever was treated by putting the thermometer in cold water to bring the temperature reading down. You don't get more housing with rent control.

Web Link


MVWoman
Cuesta Park
on Nov 5, 2016 at 11:20 pm
MVWoman, Cuesta Park
on Nov 5, 2016 at 11:20 pm

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment/personal attack]


Econ 101
Cuesta Park
on Nov 6, 2016 at 12:20 am
Econ 101, Cuesta Park
on Nov 6, 2016 at 12:20 am

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 renting out the unit m). 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!


power to the People
Cuesta Park
on Nov 6, 2016 at 7:56 am
power to the People, Cuesta Park
on Nov 6, 2016 at 7:56 am

@ Jim Carrol Jones, Ah - all bow down to the Chicago School of Economics. Noble Prizes from decades ago - and a 'successful' dictatorship in Chile to show for it. Jim Carrol Jones - why did the conservative philosopher/economist Sowell happen to miss our little berg in his political commentary? Heck, he is a Hoover (tower) Institute man, paid with the Milton Friedman fellowship.

Think I'll take my economics from Elizabeth Warren, rather than Sowell.


Mike
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Nov 6, 2016 at 10:04 am
Mike, Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Nov 6, 2016 at 10:04 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.


Mike
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Nov 6, 2016 at 11:01 am
Mike, Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Nov 6, 2016 at 11:01 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 allready 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.

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

So much Dishonesty with these proponents of rent control, they can not be trusted with asking for a extreme change to our city charter.


Jim Neal
Old Mountain View
on Nov 6, 2016 at 2:57 pm
Jim Neal, Old Mountain View
on Nov 6, 2016 at 2:57 pm

[Name removed by request] Please do not claim to be me when making your comments. Everyone here know that I use my real name (which you misspelled) when making posts precisely because I want people to know exactly who is making them so then can judge the validity of the source for themselves. I think people should be free to agree or disagree with my opinions as they see fit and based upon what they know of me.

If you cannot show respect for others and choose to use pseudonyms, maybe you should rethink making future posts here.

Jim Neal
Old Mountain View


alanmcdonough
Registered user
Gemello
on Nov 6, 2016 at 4:22 pm
alanmcdonough, Gemello
Registered user
on Nov 6, 2016 at 4:22 pm

I will vote Econ 101


alanmcdonough
Registered user
Gemello
on Nov 6, 2016 at 4:50 pm
alanmcdonough, Gemello
Registered user
on Nov 6, 2016 at 4:50 pm

last comment is out of line just like your comment to Superintendent Rudolph


mvresident2003
Registered user
Monta Loma
on Nov 6, 2016 at 5:09 pm
mvresident2003, Monta Loma
Registered user
on Nov 6, 2016 at 5:09 pm

Econ101; when applying Economic Science, I prefer to use facts, not random posts like yours. 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


Mike_
Registered user
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Nov 6, 2016 at 8:27 pm
Mike_, Another Mountain View Neighborhood
Registered user
on Nov 6, 2016 at 8:27 pm

@ "Jim Neal",

Regarding your last post here, you write and ask that people should not claim to be you and make comments using your name.

I had my identity taken three times now in the last week. They have made derogatory remarks aimed at the community all in an attempt to discredit me by making it look like I wrote it. They are doing everything they can to discredit, distract, name calling and all in an attempt to take the eye of the ball, which is what the actual language is in these measures.

This repeated type of behavior and name calling sounds like the very same language that comes from the Mountain View Tenants Coalition. If you ever attended their weekly meetings on Wednesday night, you will know that this is true. They are telling renters that when this passes that they will make landlords remodel their apartment or they will lower their rents.

I have been posting actual language from these rent control measures and asking questions about them and letting the public know what is in them. They do not like that. One poster called the actual language that I posted from Measure V "propaganda" They where hoping to sneak this thru the electorate and surprise everyone after the election with all the power and authority they will have with this new rent board.

Everyone should read all of the 40 some pages of the actual V and W measures. Do not read the voter pamphlet only, far to much has not been written in it, namely all the bad stuff.

If you owned a property and where told that you could not move in a family member, how would you feel? Is that fair? If you vote for these rent control measures, and it passes, then we will have a new law that will say that.

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


Mike_
Registered user
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Nov 7, 2016 at 8:53 pm
Mike_, Another Mountain View Neighborhood
Registered user
on Nov 7, 2016 at 8:53 pm

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.


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Post a comment

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