News

Measure V rent control wins

Rent-control charter amendment passes; city alternative Measure W falls short

In a result that has huge implications for the local housing market, Mountain View voters have passed the Measure V rent-control charter amendment.

The voter initiative emerged with a thin lead on Tuesday night that grew as the night went on. By 9 p.m., cheers erupted at the Mountain View Day Worker Center as volunteers announced the initiative held a steady lead. By the time all precincts were reported, the measure had won 52.15 percent approval, giving it a 651-vote lead.

By 8 a.m. Wednesday, that lead had grown to 53.4 percent of the vote.

"This is a victory," said Maria Marroquin, executive director of the Day Worker Center and a leading proponent of the measure. "This is our time; this is our campaign."

In basic terms, Measure V calls for creating a new five-person rental-housing committee, appointed by the City Council, that would be in charge of setting allowable rents, making new regulations or ruling on tenant-landlord disputes. The policy stipulates that rents increases should adhere to the Consumer Price Index of the Bay Area, at a minimum of 2 percent and at most 5 percent in any year. The logic behind it, tenants advocates say, is for rent increases to be linked to the rising income levels of tenants.

"This means that a majority of the population that rents in Mountain View can finally breathe a sign of relief," said Daniel DeBolt, spokesman for the Mountain View Tenants Coalition. "We always expected this race to be super-close."

A city-sponsored counter-proposal to rent control, Measure W, was losing, with only 48.85 percent of the vote in support, according to the Wednesday morning results.

The two rent-control initiatives were perhaps the most consequential decision on the Mountain View ballot. Both initiatives promised a plan to curb the runaway apartment rental market and protect tenants. But while they shared a common goal, the means were quite different.

The main backers of Measure W were the four City Council members who voted to place it on the ballot: Mayor Pat Showalter and councilmen Chris Clark, John McAlister and Mike Kasperzak. They authored Measure W as an ordinance, giving them flexibility to amend it in future years with a five-member supermajority. Meanwhile, the Measure V supporters, the Mountain View Tenants Coalition, argued that rent restrictions are too important to be trusted to the whims of elected leaders. Their initiative would be written into the city charter, making it amendable only through another popular vote in an election.

More than a year ago, hundreds of tenants began making regular appearances at City Council meetings to demand the city immediately do something to stop what they described as a mass displacement of low-income families. To back up their claim, they pointed to statistics showing that average rents in the city had skyrocketed by 80 percent since 2009.

But the council's plan for action fell far short of what tenants sought. The council approved a right-to-lease ordinance allowing tenants to avoid month-to-month agreements, and a beefed-up mediation program to settle landlord-tenant disputes that stopped short of binding arbitration. But tenant advocates complained that landlords still had no real restrictions against no-cause evictions or huge rent increases.

In response, tenants' advocates aimed for a rent-control initiative. In a surprise to council members, the Tenants Coalition successfully gathered the 7,300 signatures needed to place Measure V on the ballot.

Fearing a rent-control package that would be too onerous, the City Council voted to put forward their own alternative plan on the ballot based on a binding-arbitration program they had rejected in March.

Mountain View's push for rent control came in tandem with similar campaigns in Alameda, Richmond, Burlingame and San Mateo. Efforts in Burlingame and San Mateo fell far short of the necessary majority to pass. Meanwhile, voters in the city of Alameda approved a milder rent-stabilization package with a sizable 68-percent majority vote. Similarly, Richmond also approved rent-control with a 62.9 percent majority.

What is community worth to you?
Support local journalism.

Comments

109 people like this
Posted by Oh Lord
a resident of Rex Manor
on Nov 9, 2016 at 12:06 am

Congratulations Mountain View. This is the perfect way to screw up a once wonderful city. This is even worse than the Trump win! I hope I'm still able to sell my house and get out of the city before it turns. Rent control in Mountain View. Clearly no one is thinking about the ramifications of their votes tonight.


36 people like this
Posted by Yay!
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Nov 9, 2016 at 2:38 am

I'm so happy for that the landlord lobbyist on Town Square was so vocal on their postings. They were so unreasonable, it put voters off and convinced them to vote for V. It really demonstrated how hard the landlords have been working to exploit their tenants.

I welcome all unhappy landlords to sell their places and leave. There are plenty of Trump-supporting states that would welcome you. :)


11 people like this
Posted by Dave77
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Nov 9, 2016 at 5:53 am

@Oh Lord, I would not worry too much about the rent control measure. The economy is about to crash and rents all over the bay area will do the same. The measure will have absolutely not effect. at least in the next few years.


30 people like this
Posted by Get what you ask for
a resident of Monta Loma
on Nov 9, 2016 at 7:35 am

All I can say is each and every one of you homeowners who voted for this should have to pay for it out of the equity in your homes.

I wish all of you tenants the best and truly hope this creates that affordable rent you're hoping for. Unfortunately I'm daily certain that's not going to happen.


34 people like this
Posted by LOL Oh Lord
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Nov 9, 2016 at 7:36 am

I feel so sorry for you Oh Lord. Your house has probably doubled in value once every 10 years at the minimum. I will feel so sorry for you when you sell your 1 million dollar plus house.

The rest of us apartment tenants can now rest easier knowing that their rent won't go up 5 times faster than their wages.


4 people like this
Posted by The Donald
a resident of Monta Loma
on Nov 9, 2016 at 8:12 am

The Donald is a registered user.

So does this mean that landlords have to roll back their rents to October 2015?


13 people like this
Posted by What choices did we hav
a resident of Slater
on Nov 9, 2016 at 8:32 am

Sometimes voters think the alternative is worse. The Clintons were worse than the Trump clan to many. The City Council's alternatives to rent control were phony. And when choices are made among unhappy alternatives, many eligible adults do not register or vote. There are some 220 million adult citizens in the USA. Only about 120 million voted for President. That means (apart from the Electoral College aspect), only 30% of eligible adults just carried the day in the Presidential race. Don't leave politics to insiders and liars and special interests and campaign ads and lunatics and then just expect everything will be okay. It wont.


46 people like this
Posted by @LOL
a resident of Rex Manor
on Nov 9, 2016 at 8:36 am

You've missed the point. It's not about home values. It's that Mountain View as we know and love right now will slowly be changed for the worse as properties deteriorate and less-than-desirable tenants slowly move in. I seriously doubt most people will want to be living in certain parts of Mountain View 10 years from now when the effects of rent control become apparent. Change won't happen overnight, but it will happen. I am equally upset the city that I love, the city that I have proudly called home for so many years has decided to go down such a risky path. Even residents of Burlingame and San Mateo were not that silly. But the people of Richmond were. So there you go Mountain View. We are now on par with Richmond. Congratulations. We can't afford to move, so we'll have to just live with it, but if I did have enough money to move to another city, I would.


23 people like this
Posted by Renter
a resident of Rengstorff Park
on Nov 9, 2016 at 8:43 am

These anti rent control people were really playing dirty. They stole and destroy Measure V signs everywhere. I allowed a guy with a measure v poster to post on my door but it was gone by lunch time.

These 5 person rental-housing committee will be corrupted and bribed by these landlords if you're not careful.


35 people like this
Posted by The Donald
a resident of Monta Loma
on Nov 9, 2016 at 8:56 am

The Donald is a registered user.

The renters got what they wanted through measure V, price controls on rental housing. They will see the unintended consequences over the short term and long run. Some landlords will be financially devastated and others won't but every landlord effected will change the way they do business. They may even sell to get out and the property most likely torn down for a more profitable redevelopment of high priced condos.This is a unattended consequence of measure V but is a reality of such a restrictive law aimed against the investors in your city.
The people have spoken in Mountain View as they have across America for change. They got it and it just means that the investors need to reevaluate their portfolios and properties for profitability. I know I will.


26 people like this
Posted by Eli
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Nov 9, 2016 at 9:20 am

Homeowners have had "rent control" for property tax through Prop 13, distorting California's housing market and creating artificially high prices that squeeze out renters.

Now renters get rent control, too, further distorting the market and precluding new housing from being developed.

In the long run, everyone loses -- but at least it's equitable now.


19 people like this
Posted by YIMBY
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Nov 9, 2016 at 9:32 am

So glad that more compassionate and forward thinking folks prevailed against the kind of attitudes responsible for our current presidential choice.

Take that as a lesson to all your NIMBYs who (thanks to Prop 13) had all the time in the world to rail against the measure on this board. You are outnumbered; your ideas are antiquated and self-serving.


28 people like this
Posted by george drysdale
a resident of another community
on Nov 9, 2016 at 9:54 am

Thousands of times rent controls have been enacted and thousands of times they've been thrown out (usually through the back door). It's the number one study in economics. As soon as they're enacted they start to go out. They are evil and create a parasitic population. The poor don't end of up with price fixed rents, just the opposite. Now the fun begins.
George Drysdale a social studies teacher


30 people like this
Posted by The Donald
a resident of Monta Loma
on Nov 9, 2016 at 9:59 am

The Donald is a registered user.

It is scary that the renters have so much animosity towards the property owners in Mountain View and vote with it. As I said, be careful what you ask for....you might get it and the consequences it causes.
Prop 13 has helped the long term property owners in your community but is only part of the equation of operating a apartment building. There are other costs that have and will rise faster then the CPI like mortgage rates(which are set to rise) water, garbage, repairs and improvements.
I know that I will put a hold on all improvements going forward and will only maintain what is necessary by law. I am looking into handing over the garbage and water bill to a company which will bill the tenants directly their share of these costs as fees which are allowable. I have absorbed these costs over the years but now have to pass it to the tenant.
In the end, I look at returns on investments in my portfolio which is invested in 8 different states, holding residential and commercial properties. I must do this because I have so much capital invested in each one of them. I deserve a return on my money and will get one whether its in Mountain View or Las Vegas.
I am only one investor in your community but I guarantee all investors think like me or they would of never earned the capital to own property in your community.
Yes, some of us have made a lot of money investing in Mountain View real estate but we took the chance and liability and put up our money. We deserved it!!


10 people like this
Posted by Alex
a resident of Gemello
on Nov 9, 2016 at 10:11 am

"In a surprise to council members, the Tenants Coalition successfully gathered the 7,300 signatures to force the measure onto the ballot."

Lots of surprises in this election.


33 people like this
Posted by YIMBY
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Nov 9, 2016 at 10:26 am

The Donald - landlords like you are exactly the reason this measure passed. If you start treating your tenants poorly as a result of these basic rights passing, I wonder how they will react in how they treat your property. Not good for the profits you think you are entitled to!

As I've said in previous threads - you are entitled to a reasonable profit but you are NOT entitled to take advantage of a crisis by price gouging. I am so glad we are finally doing something to alleviate the negative impacts of this crisis!

Also to the "social studies teacher", I hope for your students that you don't engage in similar ad hominem attacks in your classroom. Human greed can't go unchecked regardless of what an economics text says. Since you say you are a social studies teacher I'm sure you can think of a few examples from history when social stratification and greedy 1%-ers caused desperation and displacement with grave consequences for world peace.


27 people like this
Posted by KB
a resident of Rengstorff Park
on Nov 9, 2016 at 10:42 am

If you are not born and raised in this city and is angry about this measure passing, do us all a favor and sell your little house and move along to another city. We who are natives to this city understand deeply how badly this city needed this measure to pass. Native home owners who live in this city and are loyal to this city understand this as well. If you came after google established and all these big tech companies i understand why you are mad you are here for the money, the job. This city will hopefully little by little be back to what it used to be.
Good day :)


14 people like this
Posted by The Donald
a resident of Monta Loma
on Nov 9, 2016 at 10:49 am

The Donald is a registered user.

Yimby,
Your obviously a socialist and believe capitalists like me should not be allowed to receive a decent return on my investments. Remember, the top wealthiest 1% possess 40% of the nation’s wealth; the bottom 80% own 7%. I know these facts feel like biting on tin foil to you but it is this wealth that invests in your community in jobs and housing and allow you a lifestyle the bottom 80% couldn't. I don't think its to smart to bite the hand that feeds you.
If you feel that you have been taken advantage of, it wasn't me... look to your government and your own decisions in life for that.
I wish for all prosperity in our country and city, even you. Maybe our new president will do something to help the middle class which eventually can have the wealth that the top 1% have if they work hard enough.
Our government has destroyed the middle by taxation. Lets hope Trump turns this corrupt system around and gives everyone a better America!!
God Bless America!!!


26 people like this
Posted by I Agree w/ The Donald
a resident of North Whisman
on Nov 9, 2016 at 10:58 am

The problem as many have noted is the lack of new housing units created when millions of square feet of office space has been added to the City without the corresponding residential development. This is not a problem caused by property owners/operators of multi-family housing constructed prior to 1995, but they are the ones who will be sacrificed for this basic supply and demand issue. It may make certain beneficiaries feel good in the short term and proud of "democracy" in action, but it does not address the real issue here. What this really is when you take the emotion out of it, is a re-distribution of wealth that is not democratic at all. If wealth is to be redistributed (which generally doesn't fly in America in a free market economy), shouldn't all of those who have gained in Mountain View pay equally (the companies that have added millions of sq feet of office space, homeowners, new multi-family housing etc.) instead of discriminating against one class of mainly small business owners? Hats off to the Mills Legal Clinic of the Stanford Law School and the renters coalition for repackaging this slickly and creating the appearance that they are victims of mom and pop small business, it paid off bigly for them.


44 people like this
Posted by Angel S.
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Nov 9, 2016 at 11:19 am

Congratulations everyone! To all the reasonable landlords, thank you! To all the unreasonable ones... pff...well, I'm sorry you fell into the money first-people later mentality. It is destructive and needs to change. I'm sorry that you feel that you've been "cheated" off your investment. To begin with, we have a system that encourages your mentality and behavior, hence I understand you're blind and deaf to the needs of a community. None of this would have been necessary had greedy landlords listened to their tenants and cared about their situation..why? because we are all human beings and share this earth. No other reason needed. A house, food, healthcare, education... those are all basic necessities, and we cannot make it available only to those who "can afford it". Humanity is much, much more than that. I'm sure at some point your own parents or grand parents had talked to you about moral values and what's right and wrong. Right is not equal to "the status quo", often times it is the opposite. That's why we came together as a community and worked to change things ourselves...because you wouldn't listen, wouldn't budge... If there's anyone to blame, take a look at Tri-county and the CAA... They didn't want to negotiate. There terms were set in stone. No limit to rent increases. That was their bottom line. Many landlords decided to side with them and leave the fight in their hands...terrible mistake. There were opportunities during this campaign were we tried reaching out to landlords and attempted to compromise... unfortunately, instead of that, most landlords chose to throw money at CAA and sat back thinking our community's voice would be crushed. Bad mistake. We are the hand that feeds you. If there were no tenants, landlords wouldn't be able to afford their properties. We tenants pay for them, and at the end, we move out with nothing in return... but we're somewhat okay with that... we understand the contract. Now it's your time to follow the contract. No more excessive rent increases. Don't kick people out without a valid reason. Maintain your properties as mandated by law, which by the way many of you didn't do even before measure V.

To all my community, all the people that volunteered and gave hundreds of ours to our campaign, I'm grateful and inspired by your power and leadership. We did it! We get to stay near our jobs! We get to go to our same schools! We won't be separated from our families and friends! and it was all because of you! I'm proud and honored to stand by your side. Much love and respect to everyone!


9 people like this
Posted by Rich
a resident of Jackson Park
on Nov 9, 2016 at 11:22 am

So if this is being push by Stanford lawyers, why don't they do it in Palo Alto? I highly doubt any of these lawyers live here in Mountain View. It's easy to push for dangerous legislation when it won't effect you personally. These lawyers should be held accountable by having this happen in their home cities.


23 people like this
Posted by @The Donald
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Nov 9, 2016 at 11:23 am

Your sense of entitlement is disgusting. You think that just because you took the risk of a loan to purchase property means you are entitled to deprive your tenants of their livelihood? People accuse poor people of a misplaced sense of entitlement but it seems to me that upper middle class and rich people are the most entitled people I've ever seen. I don't see how anyone can justify taking 50-75% of master's degree post tax income for a tiny shitty apartment.

Instead of blaming the tenants for trying to survive, take your sense of frustration and lobby for a faster and more cost effective development process to green light the construction of more housing. I hope your disgust for this law will force you to tear down the old pre 1995 apartments and replace them with 5 story buildings thus more than doubling the housing stock on the same lot.


24 people like this
Posted by Rich
a resident of Jackson Park
on Nov 9, 2016 at 11:30 am

@ Angel

I have been devastated this morning that Trump won the presidency, but reading your post just now makes me actually think the Trump supporters have a point. You support a redistribution of wealth that has been taken too far at this point. Maybe Trump will be good at keeping extreme liberals in check afterall.


30 people like this
Posted by The Donald
a resident of Monta Loma
on Nov 9, 2016 at 11:40 am

The Donald is a registered user.

Angel S,

Your dedication to what you believe is moral is notable but your doing it on the backs of a single class in your community. This problem, and I agree as a landlord there is a housing affordability problem in our community, was not caused by who you decided should solely pay for. The success of the high tech business environment in your community and the local governments inaction and greed caused a shortfall in housing construction which would of created a healthy housing market for all investors whether the properties were built prior to 1995 or not.
What you are proud of is taking wealth from someone else that might not be as rich as you think as a right you deserve. You can't hurt me because I'm too big and have options to pull out with little effect. I own 10 million in Mountain View and it is less than 10% of my holdings which I've owned for 31 years. Yes, I made out but many you have hurt may lose their properties because you think you deserve it.
This will cause unintended consequences, I assure you.


40 people like this
Posted by Angel S.
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Nov 9, 2016 at 11:59 am

.1 I'm not taking wealth from anybody Donald. I pay rent, I make my landlord wealthy.

.2 I have no interest in hurting you. Measure V is to protect tenants, not to hurt landlords. It came out of our community's needs, not a desire to hurt.

.3 There are unintended consequences for EVERYTHING. As a matter of fact, this was the "unintended consequence" of landlords not caring at all about their tenants. It was an "unintended consequence" because our city's government has't done their job right... and we're holding everyone accountable...

.4 Not advocating a "redistribution of wealth" here. The way the housing market works has to change, but that's a different fight, separate from Measure V.

.5 Yes, landlords did not create the problem, they took advantage of it.

Feel free to reply to my comment, but I won't be coming back to check. I wanted to leave a few words of encouragement for my fellow community members, not engage in a pissing contest to see who's right or wrong.


45 people like this
Posted by Michael Shields
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Nov 9, 2016 at 12:02 pm

As a broker I see the impact rent control has on properties more than most. I am sorry to say that in almost every instance where rent control has been initiated we see the following: Deterioration of Existing Housing; Inhibition of new construction; Reduced Property Tax Revenues; High Administrative Costs; and Low Income Residents Cannot Find Housing. The quality of housing and values in most rent control cities including San Jose, Hayward, Oakland, and even San Francisco, lags behind surrounding cities without rent control. If you're interested in reading the facts you can start with my white paper, which was heavily researched: Web Link
or feel free to do the research yourself. As you will find, all research points to the same conclusionz: Tenants, landlords and the City lose in the long term. Please don't just take or oppose my word for it, conduct the research yourself.


19 people like this
Posted by Peach
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Nov 9, 2016 at 12:13 pm

Angel S,

Have you thought about what if all landlord choose to leave the business because it's not profitable anymore. If no more apartment to rent out, how will you stay with your families and friends forever? Do you plan to become homeowner?


25 people like this
Posted by The Donald
a resident of Monta Loma
on Nov 9, 2016 at 12:36 pm

The Donald is a registered user.

Angel S,

I'm not engaging in a pissing contest with anyone. I don't need to win anything from you or anyone else. I win on my own successes.
I just don't think measure V addresses anything to fix the problem we both feel should be fixed. The housing affordability whether your buying or renting in Mountain View is terrible and yes even well educated, master degree earning individuals are having a problem being able to afford to rent in Mountain View.

The answer is more housing, Period. This would causes a more competitive rental market on high density housing thus lowering rents.
One problem we all have is that we cannot build more land and because of this land costs will continue to increase. The investors in your community have and will continue to pay these high costs and pass those costs onto the tenants that live there.
The city will and should continue to enforce the amount of units per acre zoning regulations which will not allow increasing the number of units per parcel in residential areas for the good of the community. So, the only answer is to add residential units over commercial properties in commercially zoned parcels. You have seen this at the San Antonio shopping center.
Now that measure V has been enacted, it will only complicate this development process by limiting investors, exacerbating the problem you were trying to fix. You brought rent control to Mountain View and I don't and many others don't invest any more money into these type of areas because of the restrictions.
What you should of brought to the voters was a measure guaranteeing more housing to your community. Measure "A" didn't go far enough and didn't have enough money to do anything.
Sorry, emotional decisions are usually bad ones.


5 people like this
Posted by Bored M
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Nov 9, 2016 at 12:50 pm

Landlords of these affected properties should have their best interest in mind and evict people today or sell to developers. Under the new rule, the longer you hold your pre-1995 property, the farther behind it will become in terms of cash flow generation. That will give any future buyers an additional chip to use while bargaining against you.

I'm actually for Measure V, though I hate the notion of price controls. In other cities this type of rule leads to new buildings being erected and at high rents, so I can wait for the market shift. You can't stop economics from happening.


12 people like this
Posted by @The Donald
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Nov 9, 2016 at 12:59 pm

The Donald,

I don't see how Measure V hurts new developments like the one you mentioned at San Antonio shopping center. It only applies to apartments older than 1995 if I'm not mistaken. In fact, I don't see how Measure V hurts any new development.


14 people like this
Posted by I Agree w/ The Donald
a resident of North Whisman
on Nov 9, 2016 at 1:42 pm

The renters coalition made no secret of how they got this done and the legal support received from the Stanford Community Law Clinic. Kudos for taking advantage of free community resources provided by Stanford.

Web Link

As someone who is in the rental housing industry and member of CAA (California Apartment Association), it should be recognized that CAA believes/preaches/encourages equal rights under Federal/State/Local laws for landlords and tenants. It is simply bad business to have an adversarial relationship with your customers and the majority of the older housing stock run by small businesses are members of the community and care about their tenants and general fairness. You can make a good return and still be fair, which is what CAA is about in my experience. Josh Howard has been nothing but professional rational in his interviews with the media and testimony to the city. Stop demonizing legitimate businesses and its professional advocates for your own greedy ends to redistribute wealth by taking something for free that you did no earn. Essentially, tenants have received rights of ownership without taking any risk. Our ownership pays for liability insurance, earthquake insurance, rising PGE Natural Gas charges, gardening and on and on,none of these things are "pass through" and their cost goes up annually in excess of the CPI.


25 people like this
Posted by The Donald
a resident of Monta Loma
on Nov 9, 2016 at 1:54 pm

The Donald is a registered user.

@ the Donald,

The reason new construction decreases is because that investors don't want to invest in communities with rent control.

If I am a investor and I am, I will have to spend $700/square foot in construction costs which includes land costs with demolition of old building, permitting costs, materials, labor, insurance and interest on loans to build my new building.
I will need to get $5000/month on a small 2 bedroom in rent to break even.

Now what happens when I build it next to a rent controlled building that is deteriorating because the owner doesn't have the money to improve it? That owner rents his 2 bedroom for $2000/month under rent controlled building and they have moved 6 people in some of the units with 4 cars per household. (which that landlord can't throw out because of measure V)
I stand no chance of recouping my costs for construction and will probably lose it to foreclosure if I didn't put up 50% LTV.(Loan to Value)
Why would I invest my money there... I can go to a city where they turned down rent control and build my building without dealing with this.
Does this make sense to you?


53 people like this
Posted by resident
a resident of Shoreline West
on Nov 9, 2016 at 2:02 pm

I voted no on V and W. I understand why V passed, however, and am not surprised. I own a 5 unit property in Shoreline West. I rent 4 units and live in the other. I have long term tenants, charge them fair, reasonable, and yes below market rents. I value low turnover, stability, I know they take care of the units, and, they are my neighbors after all. I've done what I consider the right thing since I bought and repaired the property in 2009. It's unfortunate that now via measure V I will be the most penalized for my actions, even more so than the "greedy" landlords so many have commented on. But I suppose those with investor sense saw the writing on the wall and acted accordingly, although if not compassionately. They do not get a pass for that, I have a family myself and feel for those displaced, but I am now forced to see the business side of it more clearly now than I ever hoped to.

Truth be told, I will now be looking into options to sell, and/or tear down the property and rebuild new, exempt units or townhomes. Other small time landlords likely feel the same way, and will have to struggle with difficult decisions going forward. And I am sure the deep pocketed investors and developers will scoop up whatever they can get in a depressed market, buying opportunity, leaving the very real possibility we'll see more displacement in the future via new construction than we do today via high rents.

Speaking of rental prices, they have already stabilized, and gone down, over the past year to a great degree, for a number of reasons. As for past years, of course prices had to go up, let's not forget 2011-2012 was the worst economic depression in United States history. I certainly won't, I was losing a fair sum of money (and sleep) as a property owner in those years. Did rent go up too much, too fast? Yes it did. And some got too greedy. But not every landlord / investor / owner / resident is a deplorable Trump fanatic. It's unfortunate things have been painted that way.

Last, let it be said I still know I am very fortunate. To be a homeowner, to have stability, and the opportunity to live in a robust community. I'll continue to do my part to contribute, work hard to take care of my property, take care of my family, and be considerate to others not so fortunate, same as I always have. There are more important things in life than just the bottom line.


27 people like this
Posted by Thanks Council
a resident of Cuernavaca
on Nov 9, 2016 at 2:06 pm

Council messed this up. By adding "W", they ambiguously conveyed support for some form of rent control, and derailed a strong "No on V" campaign.

If they'd held firm, and strongly stated No on V, V likely would've failed, as did rent control measures in other communities on this ballot.

That's what happens when you're wishy-washy. Total choke.


29 people like this
Posted by At the end
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Nov 9, 2016 at 2:32 pm

Ironically, the biggest looser will be tenants who have good landlords now (maybe people like Angel). The good landlords probably can't afford to rent the apartments out anymore because they already charging a lower rent. If they decide to rebuild, all their tenants have to move out. Now the tenants (like Angel) have 3 choices:
1. Move into a new apartment probably has double the rent (All the existing older ones are occupied)
2. Buy their own house
3. Move out of the city


11 people like this
Posted by YIMBY
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Nov 9, 2016 at 2:33 pm

You gotta love @TheDonald. First he resorts to ad hominem attacks when he doesn't have anything intelligent to say.

Then he implies he has over $100M in real estate holdings yet spends his time as a MV voice message board troll. Maybe he has $100M Zimbabwe dollars? Anyone with that much money would know their most valuable asset is time :)


8 people like this
Posted by The Donald
a resident of Monta Loma
on Nov 9, 2016 at 2:42 pm

The Donald is a registered user.

YIMBY,

The reason I have time is because I have money...its like that when you can hire people to do your job. Remember, I'm a capitalists and I am spending today celebrating watching FOX news gloat over our new President. I'm like a pig in heaven today...


4 people like this
Posted by Troll alert
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Nov 9, 2016 at 2:50 pm

The Donald is trolling and being humorous. Of course, his jokes are so close to the truth, it's a bit difficult to tell...


5 people like this
Posted by @The Donald
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Nov 9, 2016 at 2:52 pm

I would believe your argument if there was any time in the history of Silicon Valley that real estate prices have fallen significantly. I understand that even when real estate has fallen more that 50% in other parts of the state most of South Bay maybe saw 20%? It's hard for me to empathize with you loosing out on a few million when all of your tenants can barely afford to feed themselves. I also doubt that there won't be other enterprising investors that would take a "gamble" on the incredible rent they could charge on new units in Mountain View.

Even if I do buy in to your argument, I would be very surprised to see the numbers you quote pan out without seeing the calculations myself.


6 people like this
Posted by The Donald
a resident of Monta Loma
on Nov 9, 2016 at 3:08 pm

The Donald is a registered user.

We have had periods where rents and property values have dropped in silicone valley. Not always at the same time because there are lags in new property ownership due to interest rates and over construction of multi residential housing. These are 2 very different markets with different reasons for decline in valuation or rental amount.
If interest rates rise and they will, you will see a decline in sales prices of homes in Mountain View...guaranteed. Maybe as much as 20% depending on the feds move.
Rents are tied more to supply and demand of rental units available which I think this little rent control stunt that the renters pulled off will raise rents in the near future for the long term. Trouble is not many units will come to market because no one will move out of their cheap rent unit.


8 people like this
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Nov 9, 2016 at 4:07 pm

As a Business educated person, I have 2 different business degrees, I am very supportive of Measure V.

I feel that landlords felt they were entitled to force people who may earn good wages to give the landlords a surplus. This idea was a false one, a landlord is only entitled to the actual value of the apartment they rent. The wages one earns is solely the property of the wage earner and no landlord.

Any speculative values that a landlord paid to own the property is not the current actual values. Thus the landlord practice of making a renter pay the cost for the mortgage of the property is false. The landlord assumes that risk when they signed to purchase any property, and there is never any guarantee that one will get a profit on such a purchase.

All investments are given the following disclosure: All past performance in investments are not indicative of future Value. The investors that decided to invest took on the risks of the deal, with no risk there can be no reward.

So Business educated people would probably not have bought properties that are clearly over-priced. But in California, the buyer of the property owns the consequences of their decision, and should never expect to force others to subsidize their bad decisions. This is the definition of "Moral Hazard".

Simply the buyers of the properties gambled with their money, and are going to lose. THey cannot blame anyone but themselves for it.


15 people like this
Posted by The Donald
a resident of Monta Loma
on Nov 9, 2016 at 4:26 pm

The Donald is a registered user.

Business man,
Your assertions are well thought out from a business standpoint but your statement,"force others to subsidize their bad decisions" and "force people who may earn good wages to give the landlords a surplus" are flawed.
First of all, there is a market comprised of hundreds if not thousands of owners in Mountain View. There can be no monopoly. If there is no monopoly, then there is competition.
As you said, "speculative values that a landlord paid to own the property is not the current actual values" is correct and could be referred to as risk. Risk has a value and is rewarded sometimes and can destroy you sometimes. This speculative value is based on the market at purchase and is determined by the market which is mainly driven by the economy.
Hence, no landlord has the power to forced a tenant to subsidize for his mistakes or believes the tenant should share in his rewards.
It is true that some landlords made a bad decision of when they bought or how much they paid. No one pays for that but the landlord.


10 people like this
Posted by DoctorData
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Nov 9, 2016 at 5:33 pm

DoctorData is a registered user.

Did anyone actually read the thing they voted on?

Web Link

Homes, condos, and duplex units excluded from control. Anything rented out starting from 1995 onwards also excluded from control (preempted by state law I think). I know that there's a lot of housing stock around here from before 1995, but I imagine that there's a lot that's still excluded.


47 people like this
Posted by Shari94040
a resident of Martens-Carmelita
on Nov 9, 2016 at 6:09 pm

I think this measure will have a very sad result for renters. Perhaps, because of V passing, they can force apartment owners to follow these restrictions - but the apartment owners can ALSO sell their buildings and get out rather than lose income or take a loss. That is what is called "unforeseen circumstances" for V.

I think you'll see this happening in Mountain View. Costs/expenses go up all the time for apartment owners, and artificially managing increases in rent sounds - at first - like it is the "golden ticket" for renters. However, once owners realize they are losing money, they will sell to a developer. That developer will create new construction, which is NOT restricted by Measure V, and the new apartments/condos will surely be out of range for past renters and buyers. What happens? = obviously a reduction in low income housing and a reduction in what some consider affordable rents. The end result is gentrification for Mountain View, but we lose the diversity that many of us value.

Be very careful what you wish for.


13 people like this
Posted by Mt. View Neighbor
a resident of North Whisman
on Nov 9, 2016 at 6:21 pm

Ok, well, this measure forces landlords to encurr higher expenses. Creates a competitive market disadvantage for small, older units, which tend to be cheaper anyway, and owned by ordinary people. Look at the long term consequences. This doesn't help the way people think it will. Have fun, as landlords are so burdened by extra costs and fearful of litigations that they can't give renters a break even if they want to. Good job, creating a really hostile environment for all.


7 people like this
Posted by The Donald
a resident of Monta Loma
on Nov 9, 2016 at 6:32 pm

The Donald is a registered user.

What should have been done instead was to build really cheap housing using cargo containers and setting them up in front of city hall on Castro street until the city drops all their outrages permit fees and allows housing to be built without the payoff these developers pay to the city..


18 people like this
Posted by jxramos
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Nov 9, 2016 at 8:04 pm

I think quoting an at length interview with Thomas Sowell on Uncommon Knowledge discussing his book Economic Facts and Fallacies would be very enlightening to the community.

Web Link

Peter Robinson: Economic Facts and Fallacies, quote, "The biggest economic fallacy about housing is that affordable housing requires government intervention".
Now Tom, Tom, I have to remonstrate with you. No poor person would be able to live on the Island of Manhattan or in the city of San Francisco if there weren't rent control or subsidized low income housing that these cities forced builders to set aside when they built their high rises for rich people. Isn't that manifestly true?

Thomas Sowell: No, it's not even remotely true.

Peter Robinson: All right, explain...

Thomas Sowell: Well first history. There were more people I believe living in Manhattan prior to the rise of rent control and prior to the rise of government housing projects. My gosh, at one time the lower east side of New York was one of the most tightly packed place in the world. New York and San Francisco have very long rent control laws, old and severe ones, and yet when you look at the cities with the highest rents in the country of any major cities they are number 1 New York and number 2 San Francisco.

Peter Robinson: So what’s going on? Why does the political system produce a perverse outcome, which is then supported in the press. Try to mention a repeal of rent control and the New York Times would go after you immediately.

Thomas Sowell: Absolutely. Well what happens in rent control, around the world really because it’s been tried so many times, is that if the rent control is severe people either reduce the amount of housing they build or they stop building housing all together. And so what happens the political authorities are then confronted with a situation do you want to have a situation where there is no new housing built and the old housing is wearing out, usually faster under rent control because the landlords don’t have to keep it up as much. And so they step in and they’ll have won some kind of modification so that “We’ll we’re trying to protect the poor so we won’t regulate luxury housing.” Of course luxury housing and ordinary housing use much of the same labor and the same materials. And so therefore all the materials that would otherwise have gone into making ordinary housing goes into building luxury housing.

Peter Robinson: Economic facts and fallacies once again. “If we go back to the beginning of the 20th century, before government intervention became pervasive in housing markets, we find,” and this is to me one the most arresting assertions in the book, “we find people paying a smaller percentage of their expenditures for housing than at the end of the 20th century. In 1901 housing costs took 23% of the average American family’s spending. By 2003 it took 33% of a far larger amount of spending. What’s going on?

Thomas Sowell: What’s going on is that they’re restricting the amount of housing that can be built. And obviously if you restrict the supply while the demand is growing the prices will go up through the roof.

Peter Robinson: cui Bono? Who benefits from this arrangement?

Thomas Sowell: Politicians most of all

Peter Robinson: How?

Thomas Sowell: Because they get the reputation of being for the poor and the downtrodden and that they’re setting aside affordable housing units, usually in some Token amounts. They are preventing the evil landlords from raising the rent by rent control, and if they’re able to keep the public paranoid that if they take off the rent control you know it’ll be just sky high prices. And so they gain by that. Both the landlords and the tents lose. They lose in different ways and to different extents. The tenants lose because they can’t find a place to stay. The landlords lose because they don’t make the profit they would have made otherwise. The builders lose because there’s no demand for apartment buildings if nobody can make a profit on it.


5 people like this
Posted by MV Renter
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Nov 9, 2016 at 8:49 pm

Not sure I agree with all the the comments. Los Altos has rent control and I have not seen a bad neighborhood there. Many house owners and apartment owners don't get rent increases every 6 or 12 months so you wouldn't understand how hard it is to be paying $450 more from last year. Landlords take advantage of tennants by not making upgrades to their apartment units when they decide to raise your rent by $450.


8 people like this
Posted by Yeah
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Nov 9, 2016 at 9:05 pm

The poor landlords. Now they cannot jack the rents up or do a no-cause eviction! Now, if the landlord does not maintain the unit, the tenant can get a rent reduction. How awful!!! :)

By the way, we are lucky to now have rent control in MV. Detroit does NOT have rent control and look what an awful place that is to live.


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

A few questions now that Measure V has passed: out of all the addresses here in MV - how buildings/units are pre-1995 and post-1995? How many of these homes/condos/units are lived in by homeowners or renters? And how many units out of the total number of units rented in MV have this price control luxury? How will this new Measure affect those who rent at market rate?


18 people like this
Posted by @ MV Renter
a resident of Monta Loma
on Nov 9, 2016 at 9:14 pm

Los Altos has rent control?? Since when? I think you might want to research that...


9 people like this
Posted by R.J.
a resident of Shoreline West
on Nov 9, 2016 at 9:31 pm

Before I comment on the fact measure V passed I want to make a series of comments on the things I read above.

I don't agree with The Donald. Honestly, laying all the cards on the table and saying that you invested in 8 states and you have 10 millions dollars in properties in the city, then complaining about a fair rent to people who rent in Mountain View is the perfect example of pure greed. I believe in return on investment but the attitude that you have and the fact you think you are entitled to it is just plain greed. YIMBY made a good point about taking advantage of renters by using price gouging. That's exacly what happened over the years in Mountain View and not only here. The bottom line is the attitude of owners that think like The Donald. They would squeeze any penny possible, even when a return on investment is already more than acceptable. The issue about increasing the supply of housing in Mountain View has been discussed several months ago by the mayor. There is a plan to solve that issue and houses or apartments have or are being built but they won't come up overnight. Beside, building apartments is a long-term solution. I'm sure you are not affected by the rent issue from the comfort of your 1-million dollar house. "I win on my own successes" is just the example of sheer boldness of those of you who should end up like the lady in Like a rolling stone by Bob Dylan. That kind of attitude just makes me puke. The Donald, by the way, since you have so much money, you may want to brush up on your English. It's not "would of created" but "would HAVE created", not "should of brought" but "should HAVE brought"! Also, not "silicone valley" but "Silicon Valley"! This is not San Fernando Valley!

I really like what Angel S. wrote and, in particular, his tone which I found genuine. I totally agree on the concept of what is right and what is wrong. I also agree on the basic needs and the fact that there was no willingness to compromise from the side of the owners because, after all, they own so they want to own every aspect of renting as well. In the end, I also agree on the fact nobody should be kicked out without a reason and even more on the fact that renting is a two-way contract. Lastly, which I think is well said, "landlords did not create the problem, they took advantage of it". That pretty much says it all.

I find the intervention of Michael Shields inappropriate and rather useless. Aside from the fact I don't understand why you have to capitalize the entire list since it's not necessary, basically you maintain that by capping rent you make it more difficult for low income residents to find a place to live. It just doesn't make any sense. Also, if an owner lets his property deteriorate then he or she is probably lazy and doesn't care because the law does not force him or her to take care of the residence. Honestly, a little bit of common sense should dictate the rules.

I like YIMBY's intervention on The Donald: LOL. The Donald may have money and time but his/her repeated posts are pathetically ridiculous.

Let's make a monument to The Business Man for his infinite wisdom. He made huge and solid points. When you find a spot in the city let me know and I will help to build his monument.

Now I want to pass to commenting on measure V which passed. As a republican-inclined person who shares some democratic values and rents in Mountain View, I am very happy the measure finally passed. I attended some of the meetings of the Mountain View Tenants Coalition (MVTC) and I had the pleasure to meet María Marroquín and Ángel who are pleasant and passionate people. Thanks to both of them and to other leaders in the group, we finally came to the end of a long battle which is to put a cap on skyrocketing rent in the city.

Since I moved to the city my rent increased by 10% every year and it did so for the past 6 years. Right now I put about 40% of my income in rent. I live alone. I have no family. To those of you greedy owners in the city I just ask one thing: think of having a wife and two kids and trying to make ends meet with a family income of $50-70k. Take off 30-40% in taxes, then subtract $2500-3000 in rent per month. Let me know how much money you have left to feed yourself, the wife and the kids (plus all the other expenses). After that try to come up with a reasonable rent.

Measure V is what people who rent in Mountain View waited for a very long time. It's there to provide fairness for renters so that the 10% I have seen over the years does not compound out of control.

Long live measure V! It was about time! Thanks to the MVTC group for making it happen!


8 people like this
Posted by EconMath Soapbox
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Nov 9, 2016 at 9:45 pm

The MV Voice wrote an article around 2013 stating there were 34,500 homes in MV and about 60,000 jobs. City Council made a plan to add 7,400 homes and over 22,000 jobs by 2030. That means in 14 years, MV projected @ 40,000 homes and over 82,000 jobs. Sadly, we've already hit (or are very close to) the projected job level that won't keep stopping. ***And we are not the only city who has this trend.*** So how do those 110,000 people with new jobs find a place to live (remember there are job-housing imbalances in Palo Alto, Los Altos, Sunnyvale, Cupertino, & Santa Clara as well-an estimation, but do you see the demand now?)? Either they will bid higher than asking price on homes up for sale (as we've seen homes sold after 7-10 days on market with multiple offers) or they will call up landlords like The Donald and negotiate a rental price that's higher than current renters' payment. Since landlords have 200 potential tenants willing to pay more for 1 unit in 1 building, he will tell his current tenants, "Pay this new price or find a new home."

There's so much blame on the landlords. What about Google, LinkedIn, Facebook starting up their business in this area and becoming extremely successful? Why not put blame on them? How about City Council approving way more office buildings to be built than housing. WHY not put the blame on them (why was it more attractive to our local government for Google, LinkedIn and many others to approved their rapid growth so quickly? Why are companies like Google, LinkedIn, Facebook, etc choosing the Bay Area as their location to start up when it's so already so crowded? Did they know they'd be this successful when they started so many years ago? How come they haven't moved out of the area to a location where there would be more land to build houses for their employees? What are the actions from the past and reactions to those decisions that got us to where we are today?


5 people like this
Posted by FillerUp
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Nov 9, 2016 at 9:57 pm

MV City Council did this to themselves when they approved to increase housing by buildings apartments rather than condominiums.

So how else can we curb this housing crisis? Let's create new land: dig away at the Santa Cruz Mountains and fill in the bay.


16 people like this
Posted by Chris
a resident of North Whisman
on Nov 9, 2016 at 10:18 pm

I've been a renter for many years and am now a landlord, so was kind of conflicted. Moderate efforts to prevent rent skyrocketing seems reasonable and I remember it being tough when similar rapid increases happened to me in the past. So I was OK with Measure W and voted for it, though it still seemed like an artificial thing to put a fixed percentage on allowable growth.

The stated aim of V was to keep rents in line with incomes. That seems logical and I could have gotten behind it. But that's not what it does! Incomes grow in dollar terms because of inflation PLUS real economic growth, which averages 2-3% per year in the US and much higher in this area recently. If they want to keep rents in line with incomes, they should index to incomes, not to just what stuff costs to buy. That odd restriction means that rents will fall relative to incomes for year after year. After a decade, the cost of renting relative to salaries will drop by 20-30%.

In the medium term, that's a nice gift to renters, but it only applies to the ones who live in building built before 1996. Everyone else sees rents go up, so why have this arbitrary difference? Now the owners of those older places know that they can't keep getting proportional income and will make up the lost revenue the only way they can, by doing as little maintenance as they possibly can get away with.

Also, as rent control has done every time in the history of the world, people get chained more and more strongly to where they're currently living and don't dare move because their rents will shoot up if they do. So they're stuck with a crappy commute if their job changes or stuck in a place that's too small if their family increases. Forcing people to live where they don't actually want to be with this sort of "golden handcuff" is exactly what happened to homeowners after the financial crisis. People couldn't afford to sell their houses which were underwater and move to places which actually had jobs. That hurts the individuals and the overall economy.

Again, if this actually indexed to salaries, it'd be tough but everyone would agree that it's basically fair. This doesn't even follow its own guidelines! So it will screw both the landlords who bought older properties and to some extent their renters who get stuck with their old places, while doing nothing about any building which happened to be built in the last 2 decades. That doesn't help anyone in the long term...


5 people like this
Posted by FillerUp
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Nov 9, 2016 at 10:24 pm

Oh, and don't forget what happened back in 2008 with subprime mortgage loans: when too many people fall for something that's too good to be true & the market finally collapses. Don't believe me? Watch The Big Short: the initial idea for subprime mortgage bonds started back in the 1970's when most of us were babies or not even born yet. Here's an article about who's to blame for the subprime crisis that caused The Great Recession.
Web Link

It doesn't take a year for something to fall apart, it takes decades (that's at least a generation guys).

And it's not just landlords vs renters. It's a huge complex puzzle of pieces that all interconnect.


16 people like this
Posted by The Donald
a resident of Monta Loma
on Nov 9, 2016 at 11:05 pm

The Donald is a registered user.

READ AND WEEP,

The National Multifamily Housing Council sums up the key drawbacks of rent control as follows:

Deterioration of Existing Housing
Case studies support that rent control reduces an owner’s return on investment, which in turn decreases their desire or ability to improve units. The result: a drop in the quality of existing rental stock. The NHMC also points out that this can lead to the abandonment of an unprofitable property or condominium and cooperative conversions, which in turn serves to reduce – not increase – the stock of affordable housing.

Inhibition of new construction
Low return rates in rent-controlled multifamily markets is not an attractive draw to investors. On the contrary, it serves to direct investment capital to more profitable markets. This decreases the construction volume of new units and/or creates scenarios whereby multifamily assets are converted to other uses.

Reduced Property Tax Revenues
As property values among rent-controlled buildings drop, so do the taxes that a municipality can assess on those buildings. In the late 1980s, the NMHC reported this causing New York City an approximate $4 billion loss in taxable assessed property values, equating to an estimated $370 million in lost annual property tax revenues. While not as significant, Berkeley has experienced a similar scenario.

High Administrative Costs
The municipal infrastructure required to create, monitor and manage complaints and appeals within a rent control system can be tremendous, and often outweigh the short-term benefits envisioned for rent regulation.

Low Income Residents Still Lose Out
Those living in a rent controlled unit often want to stay there, even once their income exceeds the intended limits of said housing. Some renters also unofficially sublet their units to family or friends, in order to retain control of a low rent base. This reduces the inventory of available rent control units for the true low-income wage individuals who need them. It also creates new factors that all renters in this category must contend with, such as finders fees and other entry costs.

HUD itself notes that, “Even moderate rent-control ordinances reduce mobility noticeably, thereby leading tenants to occupy units whose characteristics are not well-suited to their current circumstances, such as family size and job location.”

I'm sorry to tell you the truth but history has already tested rent control. Everyone is so great on here. The renters and landlords


6 people like this
Posted by Silverman
a resident of Waverly Park
on Nov 9, 2016 at 11:54 pm

@Oh Lord, Apparently you did not read the text of Measure V. Rent control only applies to multifamily rental units. Single family homes and condos are not affected by this new law. This measure will not impact the value of your home.


5 people like this
Posted by Dumb Donald
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Nov 9, 2016 at 11:59 pm

Do you understand anything? Studying rent control in NYC is USELESS!!!! One of the issues you cited is lower tax revenues from depressed prices in rental housing. All of the older rent controlled housing in MV is tax assessed a FRACTION of market value thanks to Prop 13!

If anything, your citations validate the reasonableness of Measure V.


10 people like this
Posted by The Donald
a resident of Monta Loma
on Nov 10, 2016 at 12:08 am

The Donald is a registered user.

Dumb Donald,

I am aware that some properties assessed values are below actual value on many properties but not all and over time will rise 2% per year until it tops out on a building that's not increasing in value because of rent control. Apartment buildings are valued in times gross values or capitalization rates.These values will stagnate over time due to the lower earnings thus creating a drop in assessed values over time.
Not so dumb am I.


16 people like this
Posted by @LOL
a resident of Rex Manor
on Nov 10, 2016 at 8:19 am

Silverman - I think you misunderstood the comment. We all know the law doesn't apply to single family units, but many people, including myself don't want to live in a city with rent control because it quickly becomes a run-down dreary place to live with increasing crime. East Palo Alto, San Jose, Richmond, even Berkeley are not great places to live (I have lived in two of those cities already). It has nothing to do with reading the law. This law will effect all property values in Mountain View, even those not covered by the law. However, I don't care about my property value, I just want a nice, safe place for my kids to grow up. I guess I should have picked another city besides Mountain View to live.


16 people like this
Posted by Price
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Nov 10, 2016 at 8:53 am

@LOL - Look at the brighter side. Things maybe go the other way around. Now the big developers have good opportunity to come in get good deals from the landlords (they will get the property at $3M instead of $5M). Then all the old apartments will be replaced with new ones which are not affected by rent control. MV is not going to become a run-down dreary place anymore. All happy except poor tenants who fought so hard to pass this rent control law.


10 people like this
Posted by The Donald
a resident of Monta Loma
on Nov 10, 2016 at 9:13 am

The Donald is a registered user.

Price,
That's a great thought but the reality is that investors run to other cities to invest.
Its to risky as a private investor to be the first to break ground. East Palo Alto is your example. Look, its next to Palo Alto, one of the highest property values in the country and you don't see private money rushing in to redevelop. You have some city projects but those are for low income housing with Bonds paid by the tax payers.
To risky and with rent control to hold it down. There's other business environments to invest that are less risky.
Sometimes you can build it and they won't come because its not anyone's "Field Of Dreams" in a rent control city.

"Inhibition of new construction
Low return rates in rent-controlled multifamily markets is not an attractive draw to investors. It serves to direct investment capital to more profitable markets. This decreases the construction volume of new units and/or creates scenarios whereby multifamily assets are converted to other uses."


5 people like this
Posted by Derrrr...
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Nov 10, 2016 at 9:16 am

"...but many people, including myself don't want to live in a city with rent control because it quickly becomes a run-down dreary place to live with increasing crime. East Palo Alto, San Jose, Richmond, even Berkeley are not great places to live..."

Oh, so those rent control cities you refer to had no "run-down dreary place[s]" BEFORE they enacted rent control????

Please go back to school and improve your cognitive abilities.


7 people like this
Posted by The Donald
a resident of Monta Loma
on Nov 10, 2016 at 9:23 am

The Donald is a registered user.

Derrr,
I didn't say that it wasn't already a blighted area before rent control. I am talking about future growth and investments into a community. This is all about what is good or bad for the future of this community


3 people like this
Posted by Price
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Nov 10, 2016 at 9:50 am

The Donald,

Does East Palo Alto rent control also apply to only the old buildings?


16 people like this
Posted by resident
a resident of Shoreline West
on Nov 10, 2016 at 10:19 am

State law (Costa-Hawkins Act) requires that all post 1995 construction is exempt from rent control. So, East Palo Alto rent control only applies to old buildings, same as Mt View (now). That Mt View now shares the same regulations with East Palo Alto is tough to come to terms with, I struggled to just type that but that is what has been done.

Los Altos does not have rent control. Not to mention that city has an entirely different housing inventory -- very very few apartments in Los Altos. I do not know where some people are getting their information.

I've been coming back to this thread periodically since my earlier comment. The Donald, much of what you say is based in truth, and you do clearly have some knowledge in this area. It would be nice if you could cut out the obvious attempts at trolling and shock value, but evidently calm and collected doesn't resonate these days, on internet message boards or Presidential elections. Very tough past couple days, for my vote at least.


25 people like this
Posted by J
a resident of Monta Loma
on Nov 10, 2016 at 11:00 am

Guys, "The Donald" isn't a billionaire that lives in Monta Loma. It's a great neighborhood but let's be realistic. He's trying to rile you all up and it's working. It's annoying, but let's be honest- as "resident" of North Shoreline just said (liked your comment, thank you), he has a knowledge of the area. We just need to tone down the sarcasm and rudeness.

The unintended consequences of Measure V passing are::
- pre-1995 unit landlords will sell their complexes to developers when they can't afford to pay for maintenance such as major plumbing repair, new furnaces for every unit, structural repair, dry rot, new roof, etc x20. Housing is EXPENSIVE to upkeep no matter how you slice it. Cost of living is rising dramatically.

- not all landlords are greedy scumbags. Some took a huge risk with all they had to buy a complex and they are scraping by. It is their job or nest egg.

- The passing of Measure V may mean that we actually see the opposite: we may see people selling to developers and see MORE displacement. More traffic with more high rides, higher rents, less diversity, and fewer families. Voting yes may have actually secured the opposite of what one may have been voting for. Measure V may actually be a one-way ticket out of Mountain View if landlords cannot keep up and sell to $$$$ developers that aren't controlled by this measure.


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

I was so hoping that the eventual gentrification will level out a situation where a neighborhood school surrounded by $1m houses has a majority of kids on free lunches and the GS rating is just so low.
I guess it will now stay the way it is if not become worse.
So in addition to mortgage people are stuck paying for private schools. What an absurd situation.


14 people like this
Posted by schoolmom as well
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Nov 10, 2016 at 1:28 pm

Schoolmom,

I was wondering the same thing too. After buying a house at such high price, now I have to send my kids to private school. Doesn't make sense at all.


3 people like this
Posted by CoolDudePants
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Nov 10, 2016 at 1:59 pm

Does anyone know how the rent control measure applies to townhomes?

I rent a townhome from an individual owner, built in the 1970s. I know that Measure V does not apply to single family homes, condos, or duplexes - but I don't see any specific mention of townhomes. Are they considered condos, or will my unit now be under rent control?


8 people like this
Posted by Sadness
a resident of Rex Manor
on Nov 10, 2016 at 2:26 pm

Today, the rights of the right hand is handed to the wrong hand. Property owner (People invested their life saving in Mountain View) will have to live the consequence. Some renters will become home-owner one day, and only then, they will against the idea of Measure V that they voted for-- because they have "the skin in the game".

MV has officially joined the East-Palo-Alto & Oakland to become a new heavenly place to live and rising family.

BTW. SF breakneck rent increase is finally cooling off due to supply catching up demand, and VC investment is dropping. When MV adding 3500 unit to the area, vacancy will increase, but it is a little too late.



20 people like this
Posted by Mike
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Nov 10, 2016 at 2:52 pm

@"Cool dude pants"

No, rent control does not apply to townhomes. They are exempt.

People and the taxpayers should be ready for the lawsuit to be filed over V.

The city's tax payers will have to pay the defense bill, as only reasonable fees can be assessed onto landlords as courts have already ruled on that.

You will never hear the truth from the Voice.


21 people like this
Posted by @ schoolmoms
a resident of another community
on Nov 10, 2016 at 3:40 pm

I hear you and feel you. Gave my neighborhood school a chance and it most certainly did not work out. How my house is worth $1.6M yet schools are rated 4-7 at very best and 68%+ are on free lunches (and breakfasts, and second chance breakfasts!) and reading at 1st grade level in 4th grade is absolutely astounding.
Not reporting my neighborhood on purpose but it's in MV and this Measure V really saddens me. Not a landlord, just a homeowner who isn't prideful but has seen firsthand for years what cramming 12 in a 2-bedroom does to our schools.
~ mom of 3 in elementary school


14 people like this
Posted by Rodger
a resident of Sylvan Park
on Nov 10, 2016 at 4:26 pm

This seems to be taking control of others property which should be overturned by the courts at least I hope. People who own property should be able to do as they want, if the price is out of line no one will rent the place and prices will come down.
I for one would like to live in Atherton but can't afford the prices so I stick with Mountain View which I see going down hill now.


13 people like this
Posted by I_Got_Mine
a resident of North Whisman
on Nov 10, 2016 at 4:28 pm

The words that no one likes to talk about: SLUM AND SLUMLORDS. When a property starts deteriorating, the renters usually accelerate the process by not caring about the units they rent. We have plenty of history to back me up with this observation, like " Hell's Kitchen " ( the original slum for Irish-Americans ).
Our family has investments in several places in the US. We own the houses on the investment properties. Rents and ownership ARE going up in the urban and suburban areas near big cities. Part of this new " land rush " is from transplants like some of the people here on these comments.

We will sell our Mtn. View house and invest that money in our other properties that have an ROI far better than living and staying in Mtn. View. The changes are not pleasant ( tearing down my Alma Matter for one )and turn Mtn. View into another " ticky-tacky housing development more like any other faceless community you can find all over the USA. 43 years of staying in our house is a long time but I can see the writing on the wall...


17 people like this
Posted by The Donald
a resident of Monta Loma
on Nov 10, 2016 at 8:06 pm

The Donald is a registered user.

To all,
I have heard there is going to be a law suit filed soon by an investment group that owns thousands of rental units in Mountain View that have been effected by this law. They have powerful lawyers and a lot of money. Tri County is going to join in and will be funded by the other landlords in the area.
The City of Mountain View is going to pick up the tab on this one and these costs will be passed onto the community. This will be tied up in court for years with lawyers billing the city millions. Congratulations, tenants coalition and all of you over at Stanford University!!
Has anyone heard of class discrimination? You will, and remember the Donald.


6 people like this
Posted by Schoolmom
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Nov 10, 2016 at 8:36 pm

@@schoolmoms: I won't be surprised if we live in the same neighborhood. I am still giving the school a chance but my kid is young.
Where did you end up sending your kids?
I am applying to all charters and a choice program but so far to no avail.


4 people like this
Posted by The Donald
a resident of Monta Loma
on Nov 10, 2016 at 8:51 pm

The Donald is a registered user.

Schoolmom,

I moved off the peninsula 25 years ago so I could put my children in the best schools in California. I am a investor in Mountain View but left long ago for the opportunity to own so much more.
I know how frustrating it is to pay so much and receive so little in city services. That's why I left Los Altos. I continue to own many units on the peninsula because of the business environment.


5 people like this
Posted by Paula
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Nov 10, 2016 at 9:30 pm

I am a newly retired single female who has lived in MV for 25 years. The money-before-people mentality of my rental property owner has raised my rent over 55% and I am about to be out of my home of 6 years (end of Dec). I am angered and saddened that the town I've supported, exchanged commerce with, stewarded its public land, and have always been a proud citizen of does not have the capacity to support nor help me. Perhaps the passing of Measure V will help my case.

If you can help me I assure you that I am a responsible and friendly tenant.


5 people like this
Posted by The Donald
a resident of Monta Loma
on Nov 10, 2016 at 9:41 pm

The Donald is a registered user.

Paula,
What do you do for a living and how much do you pay in rent?


10 people like this
Posted by Schoolmom
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Nov 10, 2016 at 10:07 pm

@Paula: I am a stay at home mom by circumstance and not by choice. I miss the times when I could afford so much more (financially and being able to make decisions affecting the way I live).
This is to say that I feel for you, but it is what it is.
We live where we can afford.


9 people like this
Posted by @ schoolmoms
a resident of another community
on Nov 10, 2016 at 10:34 pm

I'm in Monta Loma. Tried it for 5 years. Total disaster from 3rd-4th. Forced to bail for Pinewood. Completely life changing. Kids are 1,000x happier. What neighborhoods are you in?


3 people like this
Posted by drekin
a resident of Sylvan Park
on Nov 10, 2016 at 10:37 pm

drekin is a registered user.

When does measure V take effect?

My landlord sent me a letter a few days ago increasing my rent another ~8%. Was this way for the last 3 years. I was going to negotiate this year for the first time given that rents did not increase that much last year.

While I'm against rent control in general, I can't help to feel a sense of sticking it to the man. Excited to not only get a zero increase but a discount of about 8% to last years prices.


17 people like this
Posted by mvresident2003
a resident of Monta Loma
on Nov 10, 2016 at 11:03 pm

mvresident2003 is a registered user.

Paula, while I empathize with you I absolutely do not agree with you. Why should a "town" support/help you? Where is it ever that a "town" owes an individual anything? I quite simply do not understand this philosophy.

I too have loved living here. Every single day I look at our beautiful blue skies and appreciate our wonderful weather, and our proximity to amazing walking trails, local markets (Milk Pail for example) etc. But I know that we will not be able to afford living here when we retire. As much as I have planned and saved it just is not in the cards for us.

And yet, I don't expect the "town" to support or help me. It just means I need to look forward, plan, and move to an area that I can afford.


4 people like this
Posted by Paula
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Nov 11, 2016 at 12:01 am

MVresident
I respect your right to disagree with my views regarding support from my home town. I do not think of a town as a thing but rather as a community where people share and shoulder responsibility for the common good. This is inclusive of obeying laws of safety on our roads, supporting civic endeavors, supporting through our votes the bonds and measurements to improve local issues and electing individuals that we feel share our visions. In return the obligation as a community is to insure that all members are treated fairly and with equality while maintaining fair and manageable housing costs that will render assistance so we all may remain in our homes.


4 people like this
Posted by Tom
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Nov 11, 2016 at 2:21 am


I'm against rent control. Disclosure: I'm a homeowner.

But for those of you for rent control: 5% a year is a very, very big number. Just type in 1.05^10 into Google and see what you get. Be careful what you wish for - or in this case, well, you got it.

You may argue, in retort, that historically in our area, we have exceed 5% a year for the past x number of years. In response, I invite you to learn more about inflation, real estate prices, rate of returns, etc not only in the bay area but all over the world and throughout history. In a nutshell, if I owned an investment that is legally nearly guaranteed to grow 5% (in cashflow) per year, I would be doing cartwheels (in celebration).

Best -


10 people like this
Posted by The Donald
a resident of Monta Loma
on Nov 11, 2016 at 10:00 am

The Donald is a registered user.

Tom, The rental increases allowed under measure V are equal to the CPI
(Consumer Price Index) with a minimum of 2% and a maximum of 5%.
First of all a 5% return is necessary to break even in this business because of the expenses a landlord has including vacancies and improvements. If we get into a high inflation period it will put a landlord into the red and a landlord already in the red in foreclosure.
Price controls don't work in any market because of the changes in the economy and when you screw around with housing more than likely you will find you made it worse. This isn't a price control on a loaf of bread or dozen eggs. This is housing and a necessity!


6 people like this
Posted by Anke
a resident of North Whisman
on Nov 11, 2016 at 11:56 am

@The Donald, would you be willing to tell us where you moved to to find the best schools in California?

@school mom(s), I feel your pain. Have any of you considered homeschooling?


5 people like this
Posted by The Donald
a resident of Monta Loma
on Nov 11, 2016 at 12:10 pm

The Donald is a registered user.

ANKE,

I moved to San Ramon for the schools in 2000. Best in California
I now live in Alamo now that the children are in college.


11 people like this
Posted by Frank
a resident of another community
on Nov 11, 2016 at 12:56 pm

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]


4 people like this
Posted by Schoolmom
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Nov 11, 2016 at 4:16 pm

I am in Rex Manor.
Not too many middle class educated neighbors send kids to the neighborhood school, even though some do and are happy there.

@Frank: different kids have different needs, and it would be ideal if kids were grouped according to those needs. There is nothing worse than being a chronically underperforming student at a high performing school. Some of the low income kids need to catch up on basic reading comprehension, would be nice if they got indicidualized attention in school allowing them to catch up at least to grade level.

But I digress.


6 people like this
Posted by The Donald
a resident of Monta Loma
on Nov 11, 2016 at 4:47 pm

The Donald is a registered user.

Frank,

I will build that wall and Mexico is going to pay for it!!
Thank you for your vote!
Donald


3 people like this
Posted by I_Got_Mine
a resident of North Whisman
on Nov 11, 2016 at 6:40 pm

I have a place where my children learned at school and turned into happy adults. The local High School supported activities like Marching Band and football. The famous recent graduate is Trey Parker. He and Matt Stone UC Boulder and named the lunchroom the ALFERD PACKER GRILL. These two are more famous for creating South Park with crude animation and even cruder language.
I also have nearby bike paths and hiking trails, with close by Safeway and in-town restaurants, a public library and police/fire services nearby. The real estate market is good but that may change, as we do not have room inside the town limits for more growth.
A real estate investor thought they could built more condos. The Open Space District made a fair price offer on the property. The investor refused this offer. Since the water and sewer district knew they were built out for their facilities, they required a large tap fee for each apartment that was to be built. The land owner accepted the Open Space offer and a park, used by all, is now in that place where condos would have been built.
The Zip Code: 94043. 'Later!


4 people like this
Posted by Narrow Win defined
a resident of another community
on Nov 11, 2016 at 7:40 pm

Hmm, Hillary Clinton getting 200,000 MORE votes nationwide, yet Dawn Trump winning
is a narrow win.

Measure V has a 6.5% spread 47% against and 53% for. That's not really that narrow. Look at some of the city council and school board wins. Those are narrow. 6.5% spread is
a decisive win.


9 people like this
Posted by The Donald
a resident of Monta Loma
on Nov 11, 2016 at 9:35 pm

The Donald is a registered user.

Narrow win defined,
The presidential election was decided, close by popular vote, not so close by electoral vote.Trump won!
The vote to make one class pay for another wasn't so close and why would it be when Mountain View has more renters than homeowners. This is nothing but a power grab by the have nots.
Fortunately, the haves got there before and know how to deal with the class warfare they face. Reinvest, sell and bulldoze.
Mountain View will see a change...but not sure this is what everyone wanted.


5 people like this
Posted by Frank
a resident of another community
on Nov 11, 2016 at 10:13 pm

[Post removed due to personal attacks/off-topic]


9 people like this
Posted by The Donald
a resident of Monta Loma
on Nov 12, 2016 at 8:16 am

The Donald is a registered user.

Hey I'm not a racist.. I just think we should have walls around our country and between our low income and high income cities.
Measure V was intended to create this divide by allowing buildings built after 1995 to increase rents with the market. These are going to be the google employee buildings with lavish upgrades. The buildings built before 1995 are going to be the service peoples housing. Slums but if you have a job at taco bell...you can afford the rent under rent control.
This is the vision of a pre-socialist society. Aint it GRAND!!!


9 people like this
Posted by The Donald
a resident of Monta Loma
on Nov 12, 2016 at 8:55 am

The Donald is a registered user.

How to create a social state:

There are 8 levels of control that must be obtained before you are able to create a social state.

The first is the most important.

1) Healthcare — Control healthcare and you control the people

2) Poverty — Increase the Poverty level as high as possible, poor people are easier to control and will not fight back if you are providing everything for them to live.

3) Debt — Increase the debt to an unsustainable level. That way you are able to increase taxes, and this will produce more poverty.

4) Gun Control — Remove the ability to defend themselves from the Government. That way you are able to create a police state.

5) Welfare — Take control of every aspect of their lives (Food, Housing, and Income).

6) Education — Take control of what people read and listen to — take control of what children learn in school.

7) Religion — Remove the belief in the God from the Government and schools.

8) Class Warfare — Divide the people into the wealthy and the poor. This will cause more discontent and it will be easier to take (Tax) the wealthy with the support of the poor.

So measure V will divide people into different buildings rather than allow the MARKET to integrate the different classes of population.


6 people like this
Posted by george drysdale
a resident of another community
on Nov 12, 2016 at 10:12 am

The landlords will lose in court as they always have. Mountain View rent controls will be thrown out, however, as sure as the sun rises. People should read history. The internet has doomed rent control.

George Drysdale a social studies teacher


4 people like this
Posted by Mr. Big
a resident of Slater
on Nov 12, 2016 at 12:43 pm

To the one-percenters who have purchased "investment" property in Mtn. View:

You are one of the primary causes of the outrageous rent prices and now the people have spoken: "Your greed stops NOW!" My rent has increased 80% in three years.

Mtn. View has always been a diverse city both ethnically and economically. But, your outrageous greed has pushed many of the long-time residents to live in the streets or leave the city.

The long-time residents "Live" here, it's not an investment. We love our city, our diversity and will NOT let it become just another boom and bust white washed suburb.

We have built one of the greatest cities in America by keeping a diverse mix of businesses and residents.

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment]

The Revolution has started... We can not be stopped... We are Legion... You have no one to blame but your very own greed.


10 people like this
Posted by Mr. Big Thinks Small
a resident of North Whisman
on Nov 12, 2016 at 1:24 pm

LOL

It is comforting to know we have a large group of people living in Mountain View who are the noblest of patriots looking out for all of our best interests. How would the rest of us have survived without their selfless sacrifice and intervention? We would have been eaten alive by greedy little weasels I suppose.

Here's to Rainbows and Unicorns!

Viva la Revolución!



34 people like this
Posted by Shari94040
a resident of Martens-Carmelita
on Nov 12, 2016 at 3:09 pm

Shari94040 is a registered user.

Mr. Big, The Donald, Angel S, You all may have some good ideas, but I wish you were adult enough to remove the hatred and goading in your comments. Aren't you all getting weary of the negativity and cruel comments that do NOTHING to make your opinions more valid?

All landlords aren't GREEDY. All tenants aren't expecting HANDOUTS. There are good and bad in all categories. Most smaller buildings are owned by landlords that are doing good for their tenants, yet some landlords are called names and degraded by some of your comments. Most tenants are good tenants, yet some tenants are made out to be selfish and demanding of a free lunch. Can't we have a rational discussion?

Because of the anger, we ended up with a measure that will surely be overturned. It confiscates investments of owners and rewards tenants. It has a rollback provision that is most probably illegal, if not truly unconstitutional. It encouraged owners to give eviction notices to some excellent tenants and punish them through no fault of their own. I do understand the frustrations on all sides, but this was far from a healthy solution.

I have worked since I was 16 years old. I saved my money and lived well within my means - had the number of children I could well afford - invested well - and bought a house that I love and can sustain. I don't expect anyone to subsidize me. No one has a "right" to be subsidized merely to live where they WANT to live.

I would love a world where everyone could have what they want when they want it - but that's not real life, is it? There are no artificial solutions, and expecting someone else to support your desires is not only impractical, it is impossible.

Measure V was a desperate measure, supported by a group which refused to give their funding information. There are many problems with it that are counterproductive to their cause. I understand that some tenants saw their rent rise higher than they thought was acceptable, and yes, there are a few landlords that push this - but punishing all landlords is unwise. They can sell, rather than lose money, and the new apartments or condos that will surely result will be out of range for the tenants who thought this was the answer.

I wish Mountain View had waited to see how the new mediation methods would have worked, rather than taking a nuclear option. Now the eventual result will be gentrification in Mountain View - which will please a lot of people - but isn't the solution that I personally feel is what most of us wanted.


4 people like this
Posted by Schoolmom
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Nov 12, 2016 at 4:40 pm

Frank,
Oh, please. My children are at a very diverse school. Kids who are below grade level don't get anywhere near enough support. The instruction is targeted at an average child, not much is being done for either advanced or disadvantaged kids. And I don't blame the teachers, they are stretched thin.
In other regions, so much effort is targeted at struggling kids that average, let alone above average kids, just fly under (or over, in their case?) the radar.
Btw, are your kids in Castro elementary by any chance? Or maybe sunnyvale middle? Or did they go to a GS 3-5 school at all?
I am all for diversity but the kids need to learn and this is best done in an environment catering to their specific needs.


4 people like this
Posted by Frank
a resident of another community
on Nov 12, 2016 at 4:48 pm

Schoolmom,

My daughter is in Don Callejon in Santa Clara. Just like any good school, it's mostly Asian/Indian/White. Everyone bails and moves when the kid reaches middle school age. Then the scores drop. Why's that? That's when they bus in the Hispanics from Alviso.

Let's not get too far from the topic, which is rent control. No homeowner wants rent control - they want rents as high as possible to keep the resident quality as high as possible, keep the riffraff out, and keep their housing values nice and high. No subsidized housing wanted here.

Its a classic liberal NIMBY attitude - all for diversity, inclusion and the plight of the undocumenteds. Just not in MY community.


5 people like this
Posted by Paul
a resident of Martens-Carmelita
on Nov 12, 2016 at 6:44 pm

Only two-thirds of ballots counted - according to the Registrar of Voters website.


6 people like this
Posted by @Shari Emling
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Nov 13, 2016 at 1:12 am

[Post removed due to personal attacks/off-topic]


19 people like this
Posted by Shari94040
a resident of Waverly Park
on Nov 13, 2016 at 1:41 am

Shari94040 is a registered user.

[Post removed due to personal attacks/off-topic]


3 people like this
Posted by mvresident2003
a resident of Monta Loma
on Nov 13, 2016 at 8:43 am

mvresident2003 is a registered user.

Cha. Ching.


7 people like this
Posted by The Donald
a resident of Monta Loma
on Nov 13, 2016 at 9:24 am

The Donald is a registered user.

This rent control measure is a long way from being implemented.
They need to build a Board, they need to fund it,they need office and staff, Office equipment, phones, they need to bill landlords and collect to run it, they need to fight in court over the illegal parts of measure V, they need to deal with all those complaints that are already building up and will be a mile high by the time they get going.
Can't wait to see them enforce this one and that the city is going to have to find the money to get the ball rolling. This going to be expensive. Bureaucracy is expensive!!


3 people like this
Posted by Duck
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Nov 13, 2016 at 12:28 pm

[Post removed due to personal attacks/off-topic]


3 people like this
Posted by renter economist
a resident of Rengstorff Park
on Nov 14, 2016 at 4:14 pm

renter economist is a registered user.

Okay, Measure V passed. But don't hang up that "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" banner just yet.

Rent stabilization controls the prices of existing housing units, but it doesn't build one single housing unit, and our city and region still has a massive jobs-housing imbalance. There simply isn't enough housing near jobs for all the workers. That means thousands of our neighbors are paying exorbitant costs for their housing, or face hour-plus commutes, or both.

Whether you supported or opposed measure V, we all need to come together to continue to advocate for smart growth, environmental sustainability, and equality of opportunity.


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

All your news. All in one place. Every day.

Su Hong 2.0? Former waiter reopens Chinese standby under new name in Palo Alto
By Elena Kadvany | 9 comments | 6,228 views

What gives you hope?
By Sherry Listgarten | 8 comments | 2,922 views

Living as Roommates? Not Having Much Sex?
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 2,908 views

 

Support local families in need

Your contribution to the Holiday Fund will go directly to nonprofits supporting local families and children in need. Last year, Voice readers and the Wakerly, Packard and Hewlett foundations contributed a total of $72,000.

DONATE