News

Rent control boosters look to Richmond

To show how the legal skirmish over Measure V could have played out differently, Mountain View's rent control advocates are pointing across the Bay to the city of Richmond.

Much like Mountain View, the East Bay city passed its own rent control regulations in the November election, which also spurred a legal challenge from the California Apartment Association.

But unlike Mountain View, the Richmond City Council opted to mount an immediate defense of the measure. Richmond city attorneys formally opposed a request by the apartment association for a temporary restraining order to halt implementation of a sweeping rent rollback and other provisions. As a result, a Contra Costa County Superior Court judge last week refused to grant a restraining-order request.

The opposite occurred in Mountain View. A restraining order to halt Measure V was granted by a judge after city attorneys decided not to challenge it in court. As a result, it remains unclear when the city's rent-control package will be rolled out.

The city's response has clearly frustrated members of the Mountain View Tenants Coalition. On Tuesday, the group organized its second rally to protest the city's actions. Steven Goldstein, a local technology freelancer, said last week he was rescinding his application to be appointed to the rental-housing committee.

"What did the citizens of Mountain View do to deserve any different treatment under the law?" Goldstein said. "I want this measure to succeed, but given the fact that I'm being such a staunch critic, I think the City Council would have rejected my application anyway."

Correction: An earlier version of this story incorrectly described Goldstein as a volunteer with the Measure V campaign. He has not been involved with the effort.

Comments

20 people like this
Posted by Right on
a resident of Rex Manor
on Jan 11, 2017 at 2:45 pm

Right. Because Richmond is such a model city. I'm so glad we set our sights so high here in Mountain View so that we aspire to be like Richmond.


7 people like this
Posted by Right on
a resident of Rex Manor
on Jan 11, 2017 at 2:48 pm

I regret my last post. It was made in a heated state, and I would like to say that the city of Richmond has done a great job defending the will of the people.


3 people like this
Posted by Mike Rose
a resident of another community
on Jan 11, 2017 at 3:12 pm

Denial of TRO in Richmond case was to be expected. After all, the only real issue for the TRO decision is if "irreparable harm" would occur to landlords in the immediate future.
Clearly not the case here. The court date was on the Jan 5th, so most of January rents have been paid, and the judge scheduled the expedited hearing re: injunction for Jan 27th, before February rents would be paid.
The registration fee is not late till end of February.
But the Judge stated she was seriously concerned about the unconstitutional provisions of Measure L, that is why she scheduled the expedited hearing.


15 people like this
Posted by Mike Rose
a resident of another community
on Jan 11, 2017 at 3:27 pm

Having read through the arguments in both of these cases, and with the useful summaries from The Business Man, I'm happy to say that I've been convinced that both Measure V and Measure L are constitutional, and should be held up as such.


1 person likes this
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jan 11, 2017 at 5:21 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

is this

mike rose

or

mike rose?


this is getting schizophrenic


8 people like this
Posted by Bored M
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Jan 11, 2017 at 6:24 pm

There's so much wrong with that headline... Isn't that a clear sign something is wrong?


9 people like this
Posted by Me
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jan 11, 2017 at 6:27 pm

When I read the headline, I thought that they must be talking about Virginia.


9 people like this
Posted by iBob53
a resident of another community
on Jan 11, 2017 at 7:32 pm

iBob53 is a registered user.

I felt like we were being entertained by the Mike Rose (aka mike rose) and The Business Man show. Stay tuned to the next episode to see if mike rose (aka Mike Rose) and The Business Man remain friends of the Mountain View Voice.. :)


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jan 12, 2017 at 12:10 am

The Business Man is a registered user.

I consider Mike Rose a very good person no matter what.

Our great experiment of the U.S. is founded on the freedom to express yourself, he is a very good communicator.

However, I need to correct the story. Steven Goldstein never participated or actively campaigned for Measure V. He did discuss problems at City Council meetings, and did sign the petition for the ballot and voted for it. But he was not a member of the Mountain View Tenants Coalition. He did not make any phone calls, participate in any get out the vote, or any other Measure V campaign program.

What Steven Goldstein has done is simply perform independent research regarding business practices and legal cases on his own. He became highly active AFTER Measure V passed when it became clear that the City Council of Mountain View actively resisted the change in the current charter.

Steven Goldstein believes that when a City Council member takes office, they know that they swear to uphold all laws and constitutions. The City Charter is very clear City Council is preempted by the city charter if you read:

“Section 506. - Powers vested in the council.

All powers of the city, EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN THIS CHARTER, shall be vested in the council, and said council may establish the method by which any of such powers may be exercised.”( Web Link)

The City Council is restricted to specific actions defined as:

“Section 513. - Council action.

Legislative action shall be taken by the council only by means of an ordinance, resolution or minute action duly recorded in the official minutes of the city council. (As amended November 3, 1998.)”

The City Council may not judge whether the charter is unconstitutional or not, it can only create ordinances, or resolutions, where it is NOT PREEEMPTED by the city Charter. The City Council cannot determine whether the Charter is constitutional or not.

The Charter defines ordinances and resolutions as:

“Section 514. - Adoption of ordinances and resolutions.

With the sole exception of ordinances which take effect upon adoption referred to in this article, no ordinance shall be adopted by the council on the day of its introduction, nor within five days thereafter nor at any time other than at a regular or adjourned regular meeting nor until such ordinance shall have been published as required in this Charter. At the time of introduction or adoption of an ordinance or resolution it shall be read in full, unless after the reading of the title thereof, the further reading thereof is waived by unanimous consent of the councilmembers present. In the event that any ordinance is altered after its introduction, the same shall not be finally adopted except at a regular or adjourned regular meeting, held not less than five days after the date upon which such ordinance was so altered. The correction of typographical or clerical errors shall not constitute the making of an alteration within the meaning of the foregoing sentence.

No order for the payment of money shall be adopted or made at any other than a regular or adjourned regular meeting.

Any ordinance declared by the council to be necessary as an emergency measure for preserving the public peace, health or safety, and containing a statement of the reasons for its urgency, may be introduced and adopted at one and the same meeting if passed by at least five affirmative votes.

(As amended June 3, 1980.)”

Thus, the City Council violated the City Charter in its direct action to interfere with the City Attorney and it’s obligation to represent the citizens. The City Council has no authority judge the constitutionality of the charter or to act in any way to interfere with the adopted and certified election that it did on Dec. 13th, 2016. Once that was done, the Measure V preempted the City Council, thus establishing the violation of the City Charter by the City Council.

Steven Goldstein took serious offense by this action, and justifiably so given the irreparable harm he suffered because of the actions of the City Council. And openly criticized such behavior to the City Council on many occasions, as was his right to do so. What the City Council did was act in furtherance of private interests, specifically the CAA, it choosing the course of action it did.

But as we now have seen the City of Mountain View has been proven wrong regarding there so called determination that they can pick and choose what charter provisions it will follow in the Richmond decision.

Most importantly the City Council of Mountain View has in fact attacked its own citizens equal protection under the law because it’s judgement was so wrong that when the procedural and substantive due process was followed by the Contra Costa Court and was followed by the City of Richmond City Attorney, the courts came to the only action it could. It denied the restraining order

Remember a restraining order is issued only where there is a demonstrated likelihood of prevailing in a legal case, but the Contra Costa Court did not determine that Measure L was likely to lose in the court. In fact there is no case precedence mention in the complaints filed against Richmond or Mountain View in the unsubstantiated allegations made by the CAA in it's pleadings.

Steve Goldstein has the right to point this out, and attempt to educate the public where he can. And he is doing so with due respect to the public and the decorum required in the City Council chamber.






2 people like this
Posted by mike rose
a resident of another community
on Jan 12, 2017 at 6:13 am

mike rose is a registered user.

Please, The Business Man, do not mislead the public again.
You are confusing temporary restraining order with injunction.
In temporary restraining order merits of the case are not even argued. In fact often formal notification of the opposing party is not required, neither is their appearance, often done "ex parte" (case in Richmond).

What is critical there, is that the petitioning party MUST show to the court that "irreparable harm" will be done to them if the order is not granted.

I.e. in a tree removal dispute between neighbors, one may ask for TRO effective immediately, because regardless who is right or who is wrong, once the tree is cut down further court proceedings regarding saving the tree would be pointless. "Irreparable harm" would have been done.

Clearly, this does not apply to the Richmond case, as the CAA attorneys filed the motion AFTER the law went into the effect, January rent have been paid already, so whatever harm it was, it was done already for the most part.
So, I would not make heroes out of City of Richmond attorneys, nor RPA "brown shirts" appearing at the court hearing. The outcome would have been likely the same without them even appearing.
Now, in the case of permanent injunctions, the merits of the case are considered and argued. This hearing is scheduled for January 27th in an expedited time frame, because the judge expressed serious concerns about unconstitutional provisions of the Measure L.
Then the fact of likelihood of prevailing IN THIS PARTICULAR COURT is taken under consideration.
You rightly pointed out a while ago that proposition 8 (gay marriage) opponents were NOT granted injunction, but ultimately the Supreme Court of US ruled the law UNCONSTITUTIONAL.


12 people like this
Posted by mvresident2003
a resident of Monta Loma
on Jan 12, 2017 at 10:41 am

mvresident2003 is a registered user.

So much blame on City Council. I'd like to know where the culpability is for fair representation of both sides in the media? So that the general public could make a more informed vote?

I recently had a detailed conversation with a friend who started as a staunch supporter of rent control but who had no facts, no economic backing, nothing other than the very emotional feel-good statements purported by our very one-sided media.

We discussed in great detail rent control, the issues associated with it and she actually, truly came around and realized that it is wrong. She was very vocal that her concern is about gentrification and the inability of lower income to stay in high-cost communities and we both agreed that this is a very different issue than rent control. Rent control punishes investors. Affordability is a city-wide responsibility, not the responsibility of property owners. She understands this now and whole-heartedly agrees. Unfortunately there is so much incorrect, false, mis-leading information reported by our media it will be difficult to educate more......it's so easy when it's not your money to say "hey, you need to do this, it's only fair". It's so easy to take the emotional feel-good choice but sure isn't the fair thing.

Anyway, I guess my whole point was that so much blame is being placed on City Council when this whole mess was created and spread by the Tenants Coalition and a very one-sided, totally biased media.


6 people like this
Posted by SumYungGuy
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jan 12, 2017 at 11:39 am

SumYungGuy is a registered user.

If you can't afford to live here, just move somewhere else. Why punish property owners? Speaking for myself, I worked for minimum wage in Mountain View at such places as Taco Bell, Best, and Blockbuster video. For years, I had to commute to Fremont for $12 per hour while having to live in East Palo Alto. I worked my ass off for 20 years until I was finally able to buy a house. Now, a law is in place that will affect my investment just because people want to stay in a town they can't afford? Move somewhere else until you can afford to come back. Stop wasting time watching TV and checking Facebook and go back to school while you work so you can get a better job. It's tough, but it can be done. I've done it. The low paying jobs can be given to high school students.

The logic of Measure V: You have $2 and I only have $1. You should give me 50 cents so we can both have a buck fifty.


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jan 12, 2017 at 5:02 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

Mike Rose,

Please stop making intentional misrepresentations yourself you claimed:

“Please, The Business Man, do not mislead the public again.

You are confusing temporary restraining order with injunction.

In temporary restraining order merits of the case are not even argued. In fact often formal notification of the opposing party is not required, neither is their appearance, often done "ex parte" (case in Richmond).”

Here is the requirements for a restraining order:

Temporary, Preliminary, & Perminent Injunctions

The other classification of injunctions depends on the point at which the injunction can be issued and its duration. Those categories are:

1. temporary restraining order or TRO [Code Civ. Proc. §§527, 528];

A temporary restraining order is granted to maintain the status quo pending a decision on a preliminary injunction. IT CAN BE GRANTED EX PARTE IF THE APPLICANT ESTABLISHES GREAT OR IRREPARABLE INJURY. [Code Civ. Proc. §527] A temporary restraining order can also be granted as provided by statute. [See, for example, Fam. Code §2045(family law proceeding), Fam. Code §§7700, 7710, 7720(action to establish parentage), Code Civ. Proc. §527.6 (to prevent harassment), Fam. Code §§6250–6257, 6300–6305, 6320–6327 (to prevent domestic violence)]”( Web Link)

If the CAA demonstrated to the court that IT CAN BE GRANTED EX PARTE IF THE APPLICANT ESTABLISHES GREAT OR IRREPARABLE INJURY the Contra Costa court would have issued it.

But The Contra Costa Court denied the TRO. Why? Because I have repeated the following case information:

"Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 1, California.

Marvin B. GRAHAM, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., et al., Defendants and Respondents.

D063779

Decided: May 23, 2014 G”( Web Link)

In this case the Bank of America argued and won against Mr. Graham by arguing that appraisal values are not in fact REAL, they are simply an opinion rendered by one that is accredited to do so. The case states:

"Statements regarding the appraised value of the property ARE NOT ACTIONABLE FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATIONS.   Representations of opinion, particularly involving matters of value, ARE ORDINARILY NOT ACTIONABLE REPRESENTATIONS OF FACT.  (Neu–Visions Sports Inc. v. Soren/McAdam/Bartells (2000) 86 Cal.App.4th 303, 308 (Neu–Visions ) [accountant's opinion of the value of a building not actionable misrepresentation of fact];  Padgett v. Phariss (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 1270, 1284 [opinion of fair market value of property not actionable misrepresentation].)   A REPRESENTATION IS AN OPINION “ ‘IF IT EXPRESSES ONLY (A) THE BELIEF OF THE MAKER, WITHOUT CERTAINTY, AS TO THE EXISTENCE OF A FACT;  OR (B) HIS JUDGMENT AS TO QUALITY, VALUE ․ OR OTHER MATTERS OF JUDGMENT.’  “ (5 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (10th ed.   2005) Torts, § 774, p. 1123.)

Appraisals are “an opinion as to the market value” of a property prepared by a qualified independent appraiser.  (12 C.F.R. §§ 34.42(a), 34.45 (2014);  12 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (10th ed.   2005) Real Property, § 498, p. 576.)   IT IS AN ESTIMATE OF THE PRICE A BUYER WOULD BE WILLING TO PAY AND A SELLER WOULD BE WILLING TO ACCEPT AT A GIVEN TIME BASED UPON MARKET CONDITIONS."

Thus the CAA cannot claim that any harm regarding the loss of market values simply cannot be adopted by the court. The court established a double edged sword here. Mr. Graham cannot hold the bank liable for the loss of market value because it simply is disallowed by the law of California. Thus Mr. Graham had no legal basis to declare any damages for which the Bank of America must bear any financial responsibility.

But this is applicable to the CAA and apartment investors as well, the apartment investor is like any other home buyer, and if the apartment owner made a bad decision based on an appraisal, they cannot claim any damages with regards to the court. They are no different under the law. If the CAA has anyone to blame, blame the Bank of America because their lawyers threw you under the proverbial bus.

The simple truth is when the market values changes in the issue of Real Estate, the buyer cannot hold anyone financially responsible if the value goes down. The Appraised value is only valid during a purchase of property and the CAA or its members cannot complain if the property values drop, they knew what the risks were before making a purchase. If they wanted a guaranteed return on investment, you must invest in a financial security called a bond, it is defined as:

Bonds

Written documents by which a government, corporation, or individual—the obligor—promises to perform a certain act, usually the payment of a definite sum of money, to another—the obligee—on a certain date.

In most cases, a bond is issued by a public or private entity to an investor who, by purchasing the bond, lends the issuer money. Governments and corporations issue bonds to investors in order to raise capital. Each bond has a par value, or face value, and is issued at a fixed or variable interest rate; however, bonds often can be purchased for less or more than their par value. This means that the yield, or total return on a bond, varies based on the price the investor pays for the bond and its interest rate. Generally, the more secure a bond is (i.e., the stronger the assurance that the bond will be paid in full upon maturity), the less the bond will yield to the investor. Bonds that are not very secure investments tend to have higher returns. Junk bonds, for example, are high-risk, high-yield bonds. Except for the high-risk variety, bonds tend to be relatively solid, predictable investments, with prices that vary less than those of those of stocks on the Stock Market. As a result, litigation because of unpaid bond agreements has rarely proved necessary.

The most common type of bond is the simple bond. This bond is sold with a fixed interest rate and is then redeemed at a set time. Several varieties of simple bonds exist. Municipal governments issue simple bonds to pay for public projects such as schools, highways, or stadiums. The U.S. Treasury issues simple bonds to finance federal activities. Foreign governments issue simple bonds, known as Yankee bonds, to U.S. investors. Corporations issue simple bonds to raise capital for modernization, expansion, and operating expenses.

Conditional bonds do not involve capital loans. Most of these bonds are obtained from persons or corporations that promise to pay, should they become liable. The payment is usually a nonrefundable fee or a percentage of the face value of the bond. A bail bond is a common type of conditional bond. The person who posts a bail bond promises to pay the court a particular sum if the accused person fails to return to court for further proceedings on the date specified. Once a bond payer satisfies the terms of a conditional bond, the liability is discharged. If the bond goes into default (i.e., if the obligations specified are not met) the amount becomes immediately due. Parties also can mutually decide to cancel a conditional bond.

The emergence of simple government and corporate bonds into the modern marketplace began with the economic boom of the 1920s.” Web Link)

The CAA simply CANNOT claim that a real estate investment MUST BE GUARANTEED A PROFIT. Because in the REAL WORLD that cannot be true. The Crash of 2007-9 proved this idea to be a lie, and it hurt many people, and now the CAA is being hit with the same exact REALITY.

Mike, do not try to mislead the Citizens of Mountain View, please?


2 people like this
Posted by mike rose
a resident of another community
on Jan 12, 2017 at 6:02 pm

mike rose is a registered user.

MVresident2003,
I totally agree with you, media coverage is one sided, demonizing all landlords and glorifying all tenants. Have seen only few articles presenting fairly what the rent control is.
Steven,
You basically confirmed my take on TRO in the first part of your response, but later you started drifting off into some abstract about appraisals and property values which does not have anything to do with determining the "irreparable harm" in this case.
Like I said, I think the court was correct in this case, as between Jan 5th and 27th no significant "irreparable harm" would be done to landlords affected by measure L in Richmond.
Even if some harm is done it is not irreparable. When the law will be found unconstitutional the landlords could sue the City of Richmond for any and all damages, making it "reparable" in theory.


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jan 12, 2017 at 7:31 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

Mike Rose,

What you are demonstrating is selective perception. You only pay attention to what language satisfies your needs, but by ignoring the entire process you lose perspective of the real picture.

The CAA cannot establish any harm at all because legally there is no cause of action regarding negative impact on landlords due to the properly campaigned, and passage of Measure V. The CAA did not prevail in the election because of it's own lack of posing a proper argument or demonstrating that passage was not in the interests of the City of Mountain View. In fact the campaign was horrible because of its attempt to "BOILERPLATE" opposition by reusing the same language, same actress, same blue screen background, and only changed the measure letter in its advertisement. just look at youtube and you can see this terrible campaign, whoever provided the advertisements did the most terrible job I have ever seen.

Property value is the only potential claim to plead in court regarding the TAKINGS clause you correctly demonstrated. Your claim is that by damaging the financial value of the property Measure V is unconstitutional. But when the Bank of America successfully established no cause of action or liability due to the changing value of property, this in effect destroyed any legal basis to move forward. You have to complain to the Bank of America for that situation, you cannot put the blame on the citizens of Mountain View for it.

Please demonstrate where the CAA can document any harm being inflicted or to any landlord? In order to prevail in court, The CAA is required to provide a PREPONDERANCE of PROOF to prevail in Court in a Civil action. The PROOF must be demonstrated with EVIDENCE to substantiate it. If none of these are presented, the court cannot uphold the complaint that was filed, and the Contra Costa Court WILL reject the entire PLEADING based on lack of CAUSE OF ACTION, unsubstantiated ALLEGATIONS, no presentation of PROOF or EVIDENCE.

In fact the CAA will have to repay the costs incurred by the City of Richmond for filing a frivolous complaint.

So far the CAA has neither provided any PROOF or EVIDENCE to SUBSTANTIATE the ALLEGATIONS made in its PLEADING. If the CAA cannot provide this, the court will simply dismiss the case.

The only reason why the TRO occurred in Mountain View is that the CAA bullied the City into taking actions that it was prohibited from doing, and there will be a serious consequence against the City Council. I am preparing a complaint to seek damages from the City because of it. I strongly urge others to do so.


2 people like this
Posted by mike rose
a resident of another community
on Jan 12, 2017 at 7:44 pm

mike rose is a registered user.

Steven,
You state:
Please demonstrate where the CAA can document any harm being inflicted or to any landlord? In order to prevail in court, The CAA is required to provide a PREPONDERANCE of PROOF to prevail in Court in a Civil action. The PROOF must be demonstrated with EVIDENCE to substantiate it. If none of these are presented, the court cannot uphold the complaint that was filed, and the Contra Costa Court WILL reject the entire PLEADING based on lack of CAUSE OF ACTION, unsubstantiated ALLEGATIONS, no presentation of PROOF or EVIDENCE.
I demonstrate:
The financial harm to CCAA members is i.e. the difference between the rent charged on Dec 1st 2016, and Jan 1st 2017 ( in case of Richmond , July 2015 rent).
Another thing which financially harms landlords is the registration fee.
Another instant of harm is a payment of tens of thousands of dollars for owner move-ins so called "relocation assistance".etc etc.
BTW, rent control in MV was not won because proponents waged a perfect campaign, but solely because there is a majority of tenants who will financially benefit. Why wouldn't they vote themselves thousands of free dollars? I call this theft.


6 people like this
Posted by mike rose
a resident of another community
on Jan 12, 2017 at 8:05 pm

mike rose is a registered user.

SamYungGuy,

I totally agree with you, the injustice is very painful.
Lets hope the justice will soon prevail, not the attempted thievery.
I am hopeful for down to earth (not politically correct) Trump's Supreme Court which will make the long term wrong right.
People cannot steal another's property, just because they are in majority.
That would be a mob rule, and some on this forum are in support of it.
There are many like you, who worked hard and are stigmatized as evil now.
CAA stands up for property owners like you.


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jan 12, 2017 at 8:47 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

Mike Rose,

When are you going to disclose that you represent the CAA?

In fact I would not be surprised you're being paid to discuss things on this page.

I however am not, I am just a citizen. I am not provided any kind of compensation by the MVTC the supporters of Measure V. All I am doing is trying to protect myself from patently stupid business decisions by my new landlord.

My apartment was bought in Feb 2016 for 4.5 times its actual value. You can discover the REAL market value if you do your homework. But it appeared that this individual got conned into paying way too much for it. I was paying $1300 a month for a "BASIC" on bedroom 650 sq ft apartment, no central heat/ac, no pool, no gym, a single shared coin-operated washer and dryer. I am not living it up in any way. Yes the average cost per sqr ft annually in Mountain View is $35. but that is because more than 50% of the apartments here a "Premier" apartments. THey have their own dishwasher/ central heat and air conditioning, washer and dryers in each apartment, a pool, and gym, and maybe even a community facility for social events.

Given that my apartment has at least 25% less actual value than the the "Premier" apartments, my rent should be established at 25% less than the annual $35.00 per sqr ft or $26.25.

$26.25 * 650 = $17,062.50 annually equals $17,062.50 and divide that my 12 months is $1,412.88 a month. That is the appropriate rate I should expect given the current market and based on sound financial computations and the actual value of my property and not the crazy price my landlord got conned into paying. I would have no argument if my rent was raised to say $1500.00 a month under this sound business quantitative analysis.

May I remind you I have 2 Business Degrees if you don't know. So I have been educated to understand a variety of forces on the market. I was trained in the Harvard Business School Porter's five forces analysis (Web Link). My point of view is not unrealistic.

But to raise it to the rate of $2,200. a month where this property is no where similar to those in the "Premier" properties was enough to get anyone angry. That simply is $700.00 more of cost that cannot be justified by any business practice.

So before you try to state I am being unreasonable, you better start looking at the business analytics or lack thereof that landlords simply do not understand. And by expecting such unrealistic return on investment will simply no fly in court.

I pray that those willing to discuss this topic will take this into consideration regarding my discussions as we move forward.






My new landlord simply raised my rent to cover for HIS new mortgage payment. Not improvement of any kind was made to the property at all.

SO, what is the justification of passing ones debt to another? How is someone justified to increased payments for a property that was not renovated or improved? He raised my rent by $900. with no justification for it other than he had to pay his bills.

Why did he buy the property and such a unreasonable cost is beyond me. But there is no way that I must bear the cost of his stupidity. That is why I am justifiably angry that after all the work done by the MVTC and it's volunteers to succeed in passage of Measure V, that the City would backstab it's citizens in this way.


1 person likes this
Posted by Randy Guelph
a resident of Cuernavaca
on Jan 12, 2017 at 9:05 pm

Randy Guelph is a registered user.

Here comes Mike again, praying for Trump to appoint him to the Supreme Court to overrule a century of precedent. There's a phrase for that, it's called judicial activism.

Courts have been considering the constitutionality of rent control ordinances under several different theories and across many years and not a single court has found rent control to be a taking, without being overruled by the Supreme Court, that is. This is not all that surprising, for it is wholly appropriate for courts to exercise particular restraint in declaring regulatory takings, given that the text and history of the Fifth Amendment show that the Founders intended to limit only physical takings of property for public use without just compensation.

An honest, historical looks at rent control finds it to constitutional, and this has been upheld repeatedly.

I'm still waiting for my apology, I take your libel against me very seriously.


4 people like this
Posted by mike rose
a resident of another community
on Jan 12, 2017 at 9:29 pm

mike rose is a registered user.

Randy,
There is always such a thing as dissent.
Steve,
I do not represent CAA, I am not a CAA member even, believe it or not.
But I am inspired by what CAA is doing to protect the small landlords from mob's theft.


4 people like this
Posted by mvresident2003
a resident of Monta Loma
on Jan 12, 2017 at 9:47 pm

mvresident2003 is a registered user.

Ok. I don't even know where to begin with the Business Man's most recent post. How can you seriously expect the OWNER, the one who put up an investment, to take a hit because YOU don't think it's fair to pay a certain amount when there are others lined up who are more than happy to pay that amount? Honestly!

it shouldn't matter what YOU think it's worth, it only matters what others are willing to pay! Honest to god, I cannot believe you feel you have the right to determine what you pay. If you think your rent is too high MOVE SOMEWHERE ELSE.

you have two business degrees yet you are making statements like "i must bear the cost of his stupidity"? The simple FACT is that you are bearing NOTHING. you are making a choice to pay this, you are free to move somewhere else. Your LANDLORD is bearing the cost. Not you! How can you even imply that you are bearing any cost? Omg. This is the epitome of the entire WRONGNESS of this whole rent control. Renters now think that they're bearing the costs of things.

Wow. Quite simply wow.


3 people like this
Posted by mvresident2003
a resident of Monta Loma
on Jan 12, 2017 at 9:54 pm

mvresident2003 is a registered user.

Omg, I can't get over this. Re-reading The Business Man's post, one of the last statements, "mynew landlord raised my rent to cover his mortgage."

Imagine that. He's trying to cover his mortgage! shame on him!


2 people like this
Posted by Randy Guelph
a resident of Cuernavaca
on Jan 12, 2017 at 10:03 pm

Randy Guelph is a registered user.

mvresident, it's really sad how much hatred you have for your renter neighbors. I doubt you actually convinced your friend you were talking to, it's more likely they just wanted to stop your unhinged rantings.

This is the new cost of doing business in Mountain View, it's here to stay, and if you don't like it, maybe you're the person who should find somewhere else.


1 person likes this
Posted by mike rose
a resident of another community
on Jan 12, 2017 at 10:05 pm

mike rose is a registered user.

I am inclined to understand Steve's particular point of view in case of his rent increases and I can sympathize with him.
I agree that some landlords are unreasonable in their rent increases, especially the big corporations that see this only as business.
I personally do not have a problem with capping rent increases at 3% a year.
But these ordinances go WAY!!!!! beyond that.
Just cause tens of thousands of "relocation payments" ( san Francisco attempted hundreds of thousands of dollars recently of relocation payments from the same landlords who were forced to charge fraction of market rents for decades)
Richmond ordinance i.e. allows subletting without landlord's knowledge or approval.
C'mon these are crazy ideas by any standards.
If owner i.e. needs to spend money for repairs he would be additionally PUNISHED!!!!! by requirement to pay thousands of dollars "inconvenience" fees to the tenant. How is that fair?

I think the proponents of these measures pushed them to much and they are going to suffer the consequences, possibly the rent control repeal by Supreme Court


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jan 13, 2017 at 2:47 am

The Business Man is a registered user.

[Post removed]


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

Email:


To post your comment, please login or register at the top of the page. This topic is only for those who have signed up to participate by providing their email address and establishing a screen name.

Opening alert: Kyosho Sushi in Menlo Park
By Elena Kadvany | 0 comments | 2,395 views

Umeboshi - The Macrobiotic Antibiotic
By Laura Stec | 0 comments | 2,020 views

Recent Research for Wives to Keep Husbands from Straying
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 402 views