|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Mountain View’s Rental Housing Committee on Monday approved a program for landlords to adjust rents on severely underpriced apartments, one of the final decisions needed to implement the city’s new rent-control law.
Committee members tried to keep things simple by picking a program based on federal housing data, similar to that of other California cities with rent-control programs. Even so, the Monday, Aug. 28, meeting was possibly the committee’s most complicated session so far. Committee members as well as public speakers repeatedly expressed bafflement over a series of complex options and how each one would affect the local rental market.
The big topic of the night was setting a so-called “Vega Adjustment,” a mandatory program for any city with rent control in California. The name derives from a 1990 state appellate case, Vega v. City of West Hollywood, that revolved around an elderly landlord who hadn’t raised rents for about 20 years and was later blocked from increasing them by her city’s rent-control law.
It was exactly the kind of cautionary tale that rent-control opponents in Mountain View have long been warning about — the considerate landlords who kept rents low would end up being hurt the most by the government’s attempt to fiddle with the housing market.
But the silver lining for landlords is that, thanks to the Vega case, rent-control cities in California now have to establish a system to resolve these rare situations.
For Mountain View, that meant the committee on Monday was tasked with defining what “disproportionately low” actually meant. To set this baseline, most other rent-control cities looked to a fair-market housing price index published by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). This is the same data used to calculate Section-8 housing vouchers.
A landlord seeking a Vega adjustment could instead use the HUD index price as a baseline, if the index price is higher than the rent that was charged in 2015. The committee agreed at an earlier meeting that 2015 would serve as the base year for comparisons in cases when landlords petition to raise rents higher than the annual increase tied to the Consumer Price Index.
But many pointed out these HUD numbers seemed unrealistically low — for example: a Santa Clara County studio apartment was determined to cost $1,213 per month, and a two-bedroom unit was listed as $1,809. Any renter would be extremely lucky to find an apartment in Mountain View for that cost. Landlords hoping for a Vega adjustment would have to prove they were charging less than those amounts in 2015.
“These HUD numbers, on their face they don’t seem accurate,” said committee member Julian Pardo de Zela. “Why would we adopt one set of numbers that don’t seem representative of Mountain View?”
For that reason, committee member Tom Means at the last meeting pitched his own alternate system that he promised would be more precise. Any apartment unit would be considered severely underpriced if it was two standard deviations lower than the average for the property, he proposed. The city’s consultants credited this idea being better tailored to individual properties, but it also required some college-level math to figure out. Means was absent from the Monday meeting.
Late in the evening, Chairwoman Vanessa Honey admitted that she didn’t understand how Means’ idea worked, and she suspected she wasn’t the only one in the room who felt overwhelmed. She proposed a simpler system — just take the HUD index and add on an extra 20 percent.
“My conscience will not let me vote for the HUD formula,” she said. “It’s so low.”
Her idea didn’t win much support, and her detractors said that would be tantamount to a giveaway to landlords. Committee member Emily Ramos pointed out that last month the committee had tweaked a pricing system to be extra generous for landlords. The HUD rents were based on survey data, meaning that these low rents actually did exist in Mountain View, she said.
In a 3-2 vote, with Means absent, the committee approved using HUD data for individual unit adjustments, which staff described as the simplest option. Honey and Pardo de Zela voted against it.
The RHC just guaranteed redevelopment of many more rent controlled apartments by using HUD calculations for the Vega adjustment.
The apartment owners that are damaged the most are the very owners that had their rents the lowest and most reasonable in the city. It’s funny how when the government gets involved, it always does exactly the opposite of what they’re trying to accomplish.
Well folks guess what, many of these landlords are left with only one option now and that is to tear it down and build expensive homes where this affordable housing sits. This is very profitable for landlord/developer and removes the rent controlled properties from the market.
This will make great profits for them and they can 1031 exchange the proceeds without paying taxes into apartments elsewhere. Also, the city increases the property taxes sometimes 10 fold on these deals making happy city planners.
This is why they will do it:
The City of Mountain View has adopted Rent Control Measure V for all housing of 3 or more units which were built before 1995.
This measure caps rental increases on 15,000 older rental units in the City of Mountain View to the CPI (Consumer Price Index) making the units NOT ECONOMICALLY VIABLE as an investment to existing and new operators in the real estate industry.
CPI is considered the annual inflation of a region, in this case the Bay Area which was 3.4% over the past 12 months as reported. If a candy bar costs $1.00 12 months ago it should have increased in price to $1.034 today according to the CPI.
Apartment building valuations are determined by Capitalization Rates by buyers and banks that finance them. After that the buyer who is now an investor looks at their Return On Investment Rates. ROI Rates rise directly and only as a result of increased rental income minus all expenses.
Return on investments need to increase over time from rising rents to make an investment ECONOMICALLY VIABLE to the investor. If the rents rise at the rate of inflation or CPI then the Appreciation Rate of that investment is stagnate and mirrors the inflation rate or CPI, meaning there is no financial benefit to investing in it. That would be like knowingly buying a stock that is always WORTH THE SAME FOREVER.
If the building was worth $1.00 12 months ago, and now $1.034 but the cost of everything else went up the same percentage, food, gas, cars, vacations, etc., what’s the benefit to the investor of investing millions of dollars and risking losing capital with all the work necessary to run the business? The building will always be worth the same amount taking inflation into consideration.
NOT ECONOMICALLY VIABLE is the definition of what has happened to all these apartments under Measure V. The values dropped dramatically enough leaving owners to either demolish them for new ECONOMICALLY VIABLE housing or accept no appreciation in the future. The larger properties will be redeveloped with expensive housing, further frustrating the shortage of affordable housing in the City.
The smaller properties that can’t be redeveloped because of zoning requirements will fall into disrepair over time as the owner cuts back on expenses to cover the financial shortfalls.
This the future for Mountain View now under Measure V.
Bob, just because you make portions of your text ALL CAPS repeatedly doesn’t mean you have a logical argument. In fact, it’s usually an indication otherwise ;-).
I really wish I could take bets on all the FUD that landlords post about what will happen under Measure V. I remember when people were saying it would lose, the CAA would win its lawsuit, the Supreme Court would rule rent control unconstitutional, etc. Now the latest one is that the city will collapse due to a lack of landlords. The flailing would be hilarious if it weren’t so sad.
Here’s a better plan, why don’t the landlords come together with the tenants to help improve Mountain View and make it so everyone who wants to live here can afford to do so? They had their chance to avoid Measure V, but they were more than happy lining their pockets to care about the real effects the previous policies were having on the hard-working people that are the lifeblood of our city. Come to the table now, let’s bring rents down by building enough housing for everyone, and make Measure V unnecessary!
You say, “Here’s a better plan, why don’t the landlords come together with the tenants to help improve Mountain View and make it so everyone who wants to live here can afford to do so?”
You’ve got to be joking. What city is next? Los Altos? Atherton?
Yes, shouldn’t that be the case? If not, why not?
@LOL,
“Yes, shouldn’t that be the case? If not, why not?”
Because Los Altos and Atherton are not adding thousands upon thousands of square feet of office space that suck in tens and hundreds of thousands of outsiders to take those new jobs. Instead, the people who live in both of those cities make conscious choices to keep their cities the way they like them, knowingly and deliberately forfeiting the tax opportunities that commercial development brings. In short, those cities are not part of the problem, so why should they be burdened with cleaning up everyone else’s mess?
In fact, if we had region-wide policies in place that incentivized quality of life instead of incentivizing commercial development at the expense of everything else, we wouldn’t have the mess in the rest of the Bay Area either. Our governor wants to try to force housing construction by decree (good luck with that), but what if instead, for example, he rewarded cities that balance housing and jobs with extra funding for infrastructure, transportation, schools and other things that communities need?
To all that dismiss my claim, your forgetting that it is not the landlords that are responsible for the shortage of housing .
This is a social problem and it is the city and county that needs to pay for this, not a certain class, the landlords.
If you think the landlords are rich enough to foot this bill, you’re going to be shocked at the consequences of this policy.
I know many landlords and we are investors in the business of profit as we should be. Your lil world of Mountain View has no spell over our investment strategies and there are enough markets available outside that are calling with better returns.
I own property in Mountain View and am moving my capital elsewhere as we speak.
That’s not a threat but a business decision.
I carry no political agenda, just common sense. You wanna take care of low income, I’m all for it but not on my dime unless the community as a whole pays too.
THIS IS AMERICA where social problems are the entire communities problem not a select group of individuals that have invested a certain way.
This will come back to bite this community in a bad way not because I say so but because it is the philosophy of capitalism.
LOL,
I mean this in a nice way so don’t get me wrong.
I agree, let’s come to the table.
You bring Your $10,000,000 like I’ve invested in your community and we will meet to talk about how you can give me something in return.
That’s what I have done for the renters in Mountain View over the past 30 years and they have been difficult and good. I wouldn’t change a day.
You have no concept of my contributions because you can’t pay the bills I pay.
I have invested in 7 different business centers throughout America from the midwest to the west both in Residential and Commercial properties. I have apartment buildings , houses, condos, retail buildings, shopping centers both in the Bay Area and outside California.
You name any county in the Bay Area and I own property there.
I have a great understanding of how this works and just took an interest in your little place called Mountain View because I don’t want to see it destroyed like so many other places.
You think my motivation is to maximise my profits and suck all the goodie out of your community.
Your wrong, I want to invest in your community and help make it better. I’m a landlord and I don’t think that’s a synonym for leach. Look it up!
If you truly want to come together, then stop caping my rents when my expenses are increasing. You want to be my partner, bring your checkbook and we will pay these bills together.
I would love to have you as a partner. I mean that in a nice way so you could understand.
Bob, I saw you dodge actually posting a property you own in the other rent control thread, so until you post the slightest bit of evidence, it’s more likely that you’re just a shut-in roleplaying online as a jet-setting investor. I’m happy to be proven wrong, but I get it, everyone needs a hobby, especially in these dark times.
When it comes to providing housing, that is a SERVICE not an INVESTMENT FOR APPRECIATION (land speculation; land is a commodity which gets speculated on). Historically, rental property was a service. Only under rare circumstances is rent ever raised on a tenant; nor is it ever necessary. The professionalism is setting the correct rent in the first place. Land speculation causes nothing but trouble … the worst of which is global warming from emissions from travel to places with lower rent. Does a homeowner escape from the effects of rent rises? NO … my property taxes went up $500 in the last 15 years in spite of Prop. 13 protections. Why? … because the greedy landlord keeps hiking the rents next door on his 250 units!
From the last 3 postings I can see there is no reason to go further with my statements. Hopefully, others that can articulate and have business experience in Real estate will benefit from them.
The 3 of you obviously have no knowledge about what your even talking about.
Leveraging with mortgages and not having liability(by the way I do have 10mil of my own money there), setting rents for eternity because costs never rise and the other who wants me to identify my property online.
Why don’t you tell me where you live… If you don’t you must be a liar, thing.
Iv’e made my statements which are truthful and that’s all I wanted to achieve here.
It’s your city, where you live and just a investment for me. I got out of there long ago for the country hillsides where acreage is plentiful and the views are pristine.
Sounds like you deserve the road ahead. Good luck and no hard feelings.
Wow, Bob, didn’t think directly calling you out would get you to bail so quickly. Come on, a bigshot landlord could post one property, you’ve got one in every county!
Quick tip: don’t drunk post next time.
Please be kind to Bob?
Bob and others like him or her made a significant gamble in investing in Mountain View apartment profits. However, these investors NEVER could see the entire investment risk. Most are “PROMISED” they would make a good profit when purchasing the properties here in Mountain View. No one should bank on promises. And those making poor choices are stuck wit the results.
However, they refuse to understand the amount of risk they signed up for. And more importantly, place the blame for that increased risk on others. It is an investor sole responsibility for any losses they suffer for a poor decision unless they can document some kind of “Fraud” was done to them.
To use his term “Economically Viable”, any property that can make a CPI% profit based on the MNOI is considered “Economically Viable”. But that is not what Bob wants, he wants to make as much profit as possible without restrictions. If he cannot make that level of profit, in his definition, the property is NOT “Economically Viable”.
It all depends on who determines the definition, but the CSFRA has established an objective and unbiased standard. It is just not one the current owners want to adhere to.
This may all be a moot discussion, given that if the TCE vapors in the City of Mountain View are high enough, the City my require forceful relocation under EPA Superfund standards.
In response to Bob you stated:
“You bring Your $10,000,000 like I’ve invested in your community and we will meet to talk about how you can give me something in return.”
My question, how much of this $10 Mil was leveraged? Leveraging is defined as:
the use of a small initial investment, credit, or borrowed funds to gain a very high return in relation to one’s investment, to control a much larger investment, or to reduce one’s own liability for any loss.( http://www.dictionary.com/browse/leveraging)
How much is that in fact a loan or mortgage? How much of it is “Other People’s Money”? MY business education establishes that one must “leverage” the cost of investment to the maximum you can, in effect “NEVER INVEST YOUR OWN MONEY” into a business. Thus if you are willing to publically disclose the actual amount of your own money spent, and provide proof of it, I would be inclined to appreciate your situation.
However leveraging is the way to reduce liability, thus this is the process of establishing a LLC. Investors are sold either stock (equity) or bonds (credits) to provide the investment seed money for a LLC. Then the LLC spends the leveraged funds to investments that will hopefully increase in value. But if you wind up making poor investments, the leveraged money is lost, but not the LLC’s owners personal funds.
@John C
Even if the “greedy landlord” left the rents next door unchanged, your property taxes would have gone up because the value of your property has gone up. Surely you get bulk mail from real estate agents with details (asking price, actual sale price, number of offers) about the properties that have sold in your area recently. How much would it cost someone to buy a property similar to your own in your neighborhood? How does that compare with what you paid 15 years ago?
In response to Bob you said:
“The 3 of you obviously have no knowledge about what your even talking about.”
I find this statement VERY objectionable, but I do not want it removed from the discussion.
Why?
Because instead of explaining to us how the information presented was either incorrect or irrelevant, you categorize all opposing points of view as being “unknowledgeable”
You also stated:
“It’s your city, where you live and just a investment for me. I got out of there long ago for the country hillsides where acreage is plentiful and the views are pristine.”
If this is true, then you have no financial interests in play here. This makes me suspicious regarding what ARE your interests in play here.
I do respect your point of view no matter what anyway.
I have addressed your points respectfully, but with contradictory information.
But, it would be safe to say somewhere your financial interests must be in play here for you to be arguing so strongly.
“Sounds like you deserve the road ahead. Good luck and no hard feelings.”
You categorize the opposing point of view as simply invalid. You know in our public policies decisions, all people’s points of view are valid. You remind me of the police chief that said to the black voters wanting to register to vote “I don’t mind and you don’t matter”
It appears by the count of “likes” that there are many who believe that this approach is a valid method to persuade the public. That reality is disturbing.
I cannot believe the ignorance of city council members who felt that calculating a standard deviation “required some college-level math to figure out.” That’s high-school math at most, you fools, and I would expect my city council to have received a high school diploma at least. And this is Silicon Valley, full of smart people — if you don’t know how to calculate a standard deviation, just look around the room and you’ll see a lot of people who do, and would be happy to instruct you. It was unfortunate that Tom Means was absent. His proposal to use standard deviation, a basic and well-understood statistical measure, was objective, self-adjusting to local conditions, and applicable to individual properties, unlike the brainless HUD index the council eventually settled upon.
Why was Tom Means absent?
Bob, I appreciate your input and your comments about “good luck and no hard feelings”. Unfortunately there a lot of us who would love to stay here but are increasingly dismayed and ticked off at the recent events. We would support you and do as much as possible but as an investor I don’t blame you for the steps you’ve had to take.
There is a very big underground swell though of many of us who have absolutely had it and we are hoping it will be felt big time in the next election.
Bob
You are spot on. I am preparing to remove my investments from Mountain View and take my assets elsewhere. This will mean 300+ units exiting the Mountain View rental market. I have weathered up and down markets, given hundreds of renters “breaks”when they fell on hard times, and kept my rents low and fair. But why should I be forced to subsidize renters who happen to have lived there more than two years? That is really the only sector measure V helps.
It is obvious that “business man” and “John” do not understand economics nor have they ever had to make investment decisions (please do not tell me how smart you are or how many degrees you have. Your comments speak for themselves) A good investment decision is based on return on investment and buildings built before 1995 in Mountain View are no longer a wise investment, and no Pro Bono tenant lawyers can make it so.
In response to Do no harm
You said: “You are spot on. I am preparing to remove my investments from Mountain View and take my assets elsewhere. This will mean 300+ units exiting the Mountain View rental market. I have weathered up and down markets, GIVEN HUNDREDS OF RENTERS “BREAKS”WHEN THEY FELL ON HARD TIMES, and KEPT MY RENTS LOW AND FAIR. BUT WHY SHOULD I BE FORCED TO SUBSIDIZE RENTERS WHO HAPPEN TO HAVE LIVED THERE MORE THAN TWO YEARS? That is really the only sector measure V helps.”
Before anyone can consider your claims any value, YOU WILL HAVE TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE OF SUCH CLAIMS THAT YOU GAVE ANY RENTERS ANY BREAKS and KEPT MY RENTS LOW AND FAIR. I am simply explaining that say you did is not enough. Without such evidence, this is an unsubstantiated claim only designed to infer that you in fact are being treated unfairly. YOU ARE NOT BEING SINGLED OUT, YOU ARE JUST ONE OF MANY THAT ARE IN THE SAME SITUATION.
You also said: “It is obvious that “business man” and “John” do not understand economics nor have they ever had to make investment decisions (PLEASE DO NOT TELL ME HOW SMART YOU ARE OR HOW MANY DEGREES YOU HAVE. YOUR COMMENTS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES) “
My analysis surely does not benefit your financial interests, thus you will criticize it, which is your right. However, you must explain exactly what was wrong with the information I presented if you wish to be given proper consideration. Please provide some kind of evidence that substantiates your comment that I quote “YOUR COMMENTS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES”. I PROVIDED INDEPENDENT OBJECTIVE AND VALID INFORMATION WITH CITATIONS REGARDING REPUTABLE INFORMATION RESOURCES. Please provide the same?
You also said: “A good investment decision is based on return on investment and buildings built before 1995 in Mountain View are no longer a wise investment, and no Pro Bono tenant lawyers can make it so.”
My interpretation of this statement is that if you cannot “BE IN CONTROL” of the fate of the people living in the apartments in Mountain View, you simply will quit your business. To me this is not a good example of business ethics or judgment. But it is your right to take such action. However, just understand that having such a record in doing so should impact your future business, because the “internet” social networking will reflect this action. PROSPECTIVE CUSTOMERS SEEING SUCH ACTION DOCUMENTED ONLINE ARE VERY LIKELY TO AVOID DOING BUSINESS WITH YOU IF YOU TAKE SUCH AN ACTION.
Sometimes your gut instincts will satisfy your emotions today, but can result in much more damaging results. ALL I AM SAYING IS THAT YOU SHOULD THINK VERY CAREFULLY BEFORE YOU CAUSE YOUR OWN IRREPARABLE HARM TO YOURSELF.
Anyone who really want this city’s rent to be controlled at artificially low level, use your own money please. By using other people’s money to show your “kindness”, that only means you are the real greedy person.
There are many opportunities out there to own a MV rent control apartment, go buy an apartment and become a landlord instead of letting the builders buy it.
Measure V is to let the landlords and new renters to subsidize current renters. The new renters could be our relatives and children who are trying to start their own family.
As for MV’s future, our neighbor city is a real example — East Palo Alto!
In response to Bluejay you said :”Anyone who really want this city’s rent to be controlled at artificially low level, use your own money please. By using other people’s money to show your “kindness”, THAT ONLY MEANS YOU ARE THE REAL GREEDY PERSON.
Simply trying to use MORAL RELATIVISM to excuse the actions that required the political policy change in the City of Mountain View is a very poor argument. MORAL RELATIVISM is defined as:
MORAL RELATIVISM is the view that moral judgments are true or false ONLY RELATIVE TO SOME PARTICULAR STANDPOINT (for instance, that of a culture or a historical period) and that NO STANDPOINT IS UNIQUELY PRIVILEGED OVER ALL OTHERS.
Moral Relativism | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
http://www.iep.utm.edu/moral-re/
You know the prior to the political action in the birth of the CSFRA there was a clear PRIVILEGED POSITION OF THE LANDLORDS IN THE CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW. It would appear that you are trying to use almost the same logic that Donald Trump used to claim that the Charlottesville murder was caused by the actions of “ALL” the protestors in Charlottesville. In which it appears he still does. Even though the one operating the car that killed the woman was an active provocateur with a specific political motive in the City of Charlottesville.
Again realize that the Santa Clara Court’s decision in April clearly demonstrated that the court judged that the City tenants’ are charged excessive rent. This judge is not the Mountain View Tenants Coalition and not the Attorneys for the Citizens of the City of Mountain View. This judge performed AN UNBIASED LEGAL DECISION based on the legal precedence and reasoning that was GIVEN PROPER CONSIDERATION. The CAA in fact upon dismissal simply understood it has no legal or UNBIASED justification to get the court to consider their argument.
You simply do not agree with it, you have that right. But a court does have the power to enforce public policy until said policy is repealed.
You said :
> This will mean 300+ units exiting the Mountain View rental market.
I am really, really curious how you intend to physically move this many apartment buildings?
If you mean that you will sell the units — o.k. but the apartments will still be there. I don’t think anyone really cares if you personally disinvest from MV.
> Anyone who really want this city’s rent to be controlled at artificially low level, use your own money please. By using other people’s money to show your “kindness”, that only means you are the real greedy person.
Or to paraphrase …
Anyone who wants electrical power rates to be regulated should buy their own generator!
OR
Anyone who wants to control what is built nextdoor should buy the property instead of these horrible zoning laws that prohibit people from putting chemical plants where ever they want ( hattip Texas )
OR
…..(insert any example of government putting limits on private property usages) ….
It appears that Do No Harm is in fact Elizabeth Lindsey of Lindsay Properties. How can I assume this, by looking at her public comments reported here?
“Adding more pressure, some landlords warned there would be a mass exodus of property owners leaving Mountain View if the rules were too draconian. Elizabeth Lindsay, owner of more than 300 apartments in the city, said she was mulling selling off her property so it could be transformed into condominiums that would be immune from the rent-control law.”( https://www.mv-voice.com/news/2017/07/11/rent-committee-punts-on-tough-questions)
The fact you stated you will take 300 units off the market in effect identified you.
I guess the name “Do No Harm” really means “Do No Harm TO MY BUSINESS”. I find it amazing that you chose a phrase from the Hippocratic Oath to cover up the political interests you represent.
AS the previous comments stated, IF YOU DO TAKE ACTION TO PERMANENTLY RESTRICT TENANTS FROM RENTING THESE APARTMENTS, you will in fact establish proof of the landlords’ and the CAA corrupt practices. Said action will result in SUCH POLITICAL FUEL TO DESTROY THE BLOCK OF RENT CONTROL UNDER COSTA HAWKINS THAT IT WILL IN FACT GUARANTEE ITS DESTRUCTION.
Do you want to be the one that will in fact brings down the apartment industries political power. Because if you do take said action, it is highly likely you will. Again, be very careful regarding your actions.
Re: “If you mean that you will sell the units — o.k. but the apartments will still be there.”
That depends on who buys the property. There are a number of apartments that no longer exist in our neighborhood. In their place, there are (or soon will be) new townhomes/rowhouses, each of which sells for well over a million dollars.
VERY IMPORTANT NEWS TENANTS MUST SHOW UP AT TONIGHTS MEETING SEPTEMBER !! 2017
The RHC is reconsidering its position regarding issuing the resolution establishing the CSFRA enforcement date as December 23rd, 2016 tonight, if you look at the current agenda for Sept 11,2017.
ALL TENANTS MUST SHOW UP IF POSSIBLE
Now that the RHC has caved to the Mills Legal Clinic, the building of the bureaucracy will now commence in full. Listening to them talk about building an IT system to manage this is frightening. Perhaps the Business Man should lend his considerable IT expertise at a discount in order to develop a cost effective system that integrates with existing County and City resources.
Once the local economy reverts to the historic mean, it will be a complete bloodbath. For that reason, I’m out, can’t dispose of my apartment bulilding fast enough, hopefully it will be in time not to have to deal with this new bureaucratic beast. Other free markets beckon my capital. Best of luck Mountain View.
Hello All,
IT IS NOW OFFICIAL, THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE CSFRA IS DECEMBER 23, 2016.
IT WAS ADOPTED AT 2000 HRS ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2017 BY THE RHC UNANIMOUSLY.
NOW IT IS TIME FOR THE LANDLORDS TO ISSUE REFUNDS FOR THE OVERPAID RENT FROM DECEMBER 23RD 2016, TO APRIL 30, 2017.
Hello All,
Here is more information for consideration:
When the ballot “Measure V” was in the signature collecting stage, the landlords were given a heads up by the CAA it was likely to be adopted. This was the time for the property owners of Mountain View to go and get their properties reassessed in value and renegotiate their mortgages. Thus radically lowering their “expenses” proactively, which would have resulted in greatly improved profits. Or more importantly would have given them the ability to lower rents thus preventing the passage of Measure V in the first place. Why, because they chose to do so against all realistic expectations. They expected that the measure would not pass.
This did not happen, thus much higher risk and cost was chosen by these people. Why, because they chose to do so against all realistic expectations.
When the election was in play they could have done this, but they did not, thus much higher risk and cost was chosen by these people. Why, because they chose to do so against all realistic expectations. They relied on the CAA to prevent passage of the measure.
When it passed they could have done this, but they did not, thus much higher risk and cost was chosen by these people. Why, because they chose to do so against all realistic expectations. They relied on the CAA to prevent enforcement of the measure via a constitutional challenge in court. Which in effect failed in Richmond and Mountain View miserably.
Now they complain that they are being run out of business. THEY HAD THE OPPORTUNITIES TO MAKE GOOD DECISIONS TO MITIGATE THEIR LOSSES BUT CHOSE NOT TO DO SO.
When one stood up to the RHC yesterday claiming 100% leveraging of his apartment investment, that meant not one dollar of “HIS” money was spent on the investment. The down payment was made from other people’s money. I am surprise he said this and then said he is losing the cost of investment. His cost was only the operating expense and the mortgage payments under his own testimony. This person simply didn’t understand what was “HIS” expenses versus his “INVESTORS” expenses given he leveraged the entire cost.
Why are these people choosing to take these actions, when simple independent research would indicate potential devastating consequences? I just do not understand.