|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
One year ago this month, Mountain View voters approved Measure V, a rent-stabilization law meant to put the brakes on the out-of-control escalation of rental housing costs that was driving far too many of our neighbors from the community. The ordinance called for the appointment of a five-member Rental Housing Committee (RHC) that would implement the rent-stabilization program; the committee is charged with crafting policies vital to carrying out the renter-protection intent of Measure V while ensuring that landlords could receive a fair return on their investments. Once appointed, the members cannot be arbitrarily removed before their terms expire.
The City Council appointed two renters, one landlord and one property manager to the committee, which appeared to be a reasonable course. But the appointment of the fifth committee member, Tom Means, waved the red flag for Measure V supporters — and for us.
Means, a former City Council member, had forcefully spoken out against the citizen-driven measure, and has publicly stated his opposition to rent-control laws in general. It didn’t take long for those initial concerns about Means’ appointment to be proven valid, and the recent revelation of his paid work to help defeat another community’s rent-control ballot measure makes his presence on the RHC unacceptable.
Since the committee began meeting last spring, Means has dominated many of its discussions, challenging staff and consultant recommendations and advocating actions that undermine the spirit of Measure V. A key example: Means was responsible for pushing through a rule that gives landlords wanting to exceed the Bay Area CPI-based cap on rent increases an almost slam-dunk strategy for doing so. The voters’ intent was to limit rent increases to the CPI; Means led the successful charge to undermine that intent.
Last month, campaign finance reports filed by the San Mateo County Association of Realtors revealed that Means was paid $1,500 to provide material used to oppose a rent-control measure going before Pacifica voters on Nov. 7. This revelation underscores Means’ unsuitability to serve on a committee intended to uphold Mountain View’s renter-protection ordinance. And what’s more, his actions may have violated city policy and state law governing public officers.
Without excusing Means’ questionable ethics in accepting payment to oppose the same type of program, in another community, that he has been entrusted to fairly administer in this city, we must also question the judgment and motives of City Council members who voted to appoint Means in the first place. The excuses given for appointing an outspoken opponent of rent-control law to a body that exists to implement such a law are specious, and council members who supported his appointment have damaged the public’s trust.
Tom Means should resign immediately. If he doesn’t, the City Council should instruct the city attorney to conduct a legal review of whether Means violated state and/or city restrictions in working, for pay, for an anti-rent-control campaign while serving on the RHC — and include in the review the existing options for removing him from the committee if it is determined that he did.
Without commenting on the merits of your argument, I want to thank the Voice for publishing this editorial on its website. Everyone has biases but it is sometimes difficult to see what the Voice’s biases are without reading the editorials in the physical paper. This editorial adds some context to the previous article on this issue.
I love it when people think synthesizing evidence and coming to a conclusion is “bias.” Kudos to you, “Thanks,” for demonstrating your clear lack of reasoning and critical thinking.
This is no doubt revenge by the Voice for its misleading coverage of a previous meeting by a reporter who lied about the entire meeting. This prompted Means to write a letter which explained in great deal how the reporter failed to correctly report most of the meeting. The voice reluctantly revised their online story but failed to report the correction in next weeks issue.
The argument by the voice can be summarized as follows: we’re biased and bigoted in our reporting so Means must also be. It’s a silly argument but it sheds a lot of light on the motives of the voice. As stated above, means has done nothing wrong to suggest he resign. It’s pure hyperbole.
Or maybe it’s a vain attempt to increase readership?
We’ve got the real, unbiased posters “Repeal Rent Control” and “Voice revenge.” No chance they’re just astroturfing…
Sounds like people have taken a cue from Trump, if you don’t like someone’s reporting and logic, just call it fake news. Sad that irrationality has taken hold of our society, but thankfully the news media keeps fighting corruption!
Yes the voice fights corruption by revising their stories after they are called out. Why can’t they just print the truth instead of lying. They printed falsehoods and were called out. Just like shame that made two false statements on another blog and was called out. He has no credibility . The voice had to retract their story to maintain some small perception of credibility.
Amazing, now you’re accusing me of making false statements without any evidence. Is there no depth the landlords and Tom Means supporters won’t sink to?
Here are the simple facts: Mr. Means has received money from a political campaign while he was a sitting member of the Rental Housing Committee. The Political Reform Act contains a prohibition on receiving honoraria, of which the few exceptions allowed are unlikely to apply to Mr. Means. Care to rebut? Or will you just keep attacking others instead of addressing facts?
On another blog shame posted
“Robyn, two points. First, the prohibition against receiving honoraria, as Tom Means himself described his payments, exists regardless of disclosure. Second, the payments were only disclosed because the campaign filed its list of payments, and Mr. Means failed to disclose them on his Statement of Economic Interest filings.”
Both of these statements were lies as was pointed by other posters. Means has a right to receive payments and he has until April 2018 to post his form 700.
The prohibition against honoraria does exist regardless of disclosure. What is inaccurate about that?
The payments were only disclosed because the campaign filed its list of payments. Other posters were implying that Tom had disclosed this himself, and he did not.
If you have some evidence as to how these are lies, please post them here.
Frankly, that you’re resorting to smearing others rather than using rational thought and argument is disappointing, but not at all surprising.
Again read your statements . The prohibition does not apply to means. You knew that and lied that it did. Second, you claimed that he did not disclose the income on his filings on his form 700. This was a lie. Try addressing your actual statements. You are now backtracking from your lies because you can’t defend them. Shame on you shame.
You may not know what a lie is, so maybe you should ask your parents to explain it to you.
My bad on the name
Again read your statements . The prohibition does not apply to means. You knew that and lied that it did. Second, you claimed that he did not disclose the income on his filings on his form 700. This was a lie. Try addressing your actual statements. You are now backtracking from your lies because you can’t defend them. Shame on you shame.
You may not know what a lie is, so maybe you should ask your parents to explain it to you.
Wait, are you actually Tom Means? Or did you accidentally use his name in the “Name” field?
Try reading the actual words I’ve written. “The prohibition against honoraria does exist regardless of disclosure.” This is a fact, and a true statement. The Public Records Act established a prohibition against receiving honoraria, regardless of disclosure.
A separate issue is whether it applies to Mr. Means (you perhaps?). If it does not apply, please cite the exception.
“you claimed that he did not disclose the income on his filings on his form 700. This was a lie.” The only way that is a lie is if he (you?) did disclose it on Form 700. I wrote: “The payments were only disclosed because the campaign filed its list of payments.” This is correct and true.
You have no leg to stand on here, and that you’re flailing about and continually attacking other people rather than ideas is really quite sad.
There is an odd argument in a pro-landlord post (above) that Tom Means only participated for money in a campaign in Half Moon Bay and made and makes no government decisions there! Say what? The point is that Mr. Means is trying to undermine the Mountain View rent control law as a government official (rent board member) HERE. Apparently, Means did not report taking money for his political agenda. We do not know how much he has received or has been promised. If a government official acts in his official capacity for money or other financial consideration, he (or she) is taking a BRIBE – a felony. But it is not known or even alleged that Means is acting for landlords in exchange for compensation or promise thereof. And while taking a government position that should be used to implement a law to instead undermine it is OBJECTIONABLE, it is not unlawful. And the objection is not that just Mr. Means is working to undermine the law. So did some or all of the city councilmembers who appointed him. Where is the editorial calling for those cpuncilmembers to resign? Indeed, the Voice recommended the re-election of two anti-rent control crusaders;John McAlister and Chris Clark. They had voted to place a competing measure on the ballot that would have done nothing good for renters. It was rightly called A POLITICAL DIRTY TRICK. What did anyone expect from McAlister and Clark?
This is the beginning of the end of rent control in Mountain View.
Socialistic policies deviating from market in a democracy eventually fail because they’re not based on reality or fairness. There based on control by one group to control another and greed drives the control.
The conflict in the RHC will get worse and spread through the rental community, creating mistrust and perceptions of scandals. This was doomed before it began.
Maybe this is a sign it’s time to have a competitor to the MV Voice. Perhaps it could be started and funded by several local donors, and do some fun investigative journalism.
Maybe it’s time to remove the biased and systematic lies from the neighborhood, and get questions about Mountain View actually answered.
For example, “What is the long term plan with RVs?” And “What makes a building site historic?”.
That way, the journalists for MVVoice could continue working their Berkeley school newspaper in peace.
Business man,
Thank you for proving my point on mistrust and scandals.
Remember, other people think its the the other RHC members that should resign and the RHC should be built around Tom Means to create a more fair rent control.
But I guess you forgot that.
I think “The Business Man” outed himself. Hello Mr. Steven Goldstein, aka The Business Man
This is from his note above. I think he forgot to edit out the word “my.”
“…So some is garbled, but you can understand that in all respects, Steven Goldstein addressed his rights regarding my ability to speak, and simply and respectfully indicated the bad actions Vanessa took.”
Business man,
So you believe that this RHC is riddled with acts of impropriety from City Council members, City attorneys and members of the RHC board ?
If that’s the case, isn’t it time to reform the CSFRA and rid it of all these people? Ya, I believe it is time to “Drain The Swamp” too.
Oh, I forgot, this causes conflict with socialist ideas and only STEVEN GOLDSTEIN has the right to determine who’s rights have been violated.
Business man,
I think you’re right, it’s time to “Drain the swamp”. We need to rid the RHC of the pro rent control members. They voted for the landlords not to receive a fair rate of return on their investments which is in violation of the CSFRA.
The voters voted for rent control so we should have it as advertised to the voters.
Now they want to implement a housing fee which takes away 50% of many of the landlords 3.4% increases? I smell scandals and impropriety throughout the whole board of the RHC. I think their agenda is for an end to affordable housing so they can rebuild Mountain View with luxury housing. Is this is a means to an end?
Charlie is right, this is scandalous and is causing mistrust
Reform, reform, reform of the CSFRA is needed now!
Slander us a terrible crime for a newspaper editor to commit. Dr. Means is doing his best to protect his community against the tyranny of rent control which is literally like bombing Mountain View financially and morally. While looking for a new job the editor should continue her education and get her high school diploma where economics is the required subject: rent control is the most studied subject in economics.
George Drysdale social studies teacher and initiator of the San Jose Property Rights Initiative
I really feel for the landlord of the “Business Man”. He should have dealt him a 60 day notice to vacate sometime before September 2016. Now he is being sued for 3x the rollback when he lawfully made the refund in a timely manner once the RHC certified the effective date.
Instead of being grateful that the landlord did not exercise his rights to send him packing when he is obviously a tenant from hell, he stirs up more conflict with frivolous litigation and harassment of the RHC, the City Council and the City Attorney. He is locked in at an absurdly low rent and MV will be stuck with him for awhile, I can only pray his apartment complex is sold to a developer soon.
Directly from the CSFRA, Section 1709
“Conflict of interest.
Committee members shall not necessarily be disqualified from exercising any of their powers and duties on the grounds of a conflict of interest solely on the
basis of their status as a Landlord, realtor, developer, or Tenant. However, a Committee member shall be disqualified from ruling on a Petition if the Committee member is either the Landlord of the Property or a Tenant residing in the Property that is involved in the Petition. The provisions of the Political Reform Act, Government Code Sections 87100 et seq. shall apply.”
The Political Reform Act in a nutshell says:
“No public official at any level of state or local government shall make, participate in making or in any way attempt to use his official position to influence a governmental decision in which he knows or has reason to know he has a financial interest.”
Means is perfectly within his rights as a consulting economist to draft an opposing statement about rent control. Even the CSFRA affords the RHC body a presumably anti-rent control committee member seat (anyone who’s a landlord is surely against rent control).
Means hasn’t done anything to influence a government decision and has no financial interest in the outcome of the Half Moon Bay election. Even if he does, all the more reason for him to speak up if it would pose financial harm to him, a colleague, friend or family member.
Means happens to know from research, studies and simple observation that rent control measures do not accomplish their intended purpose. They expedite gentrification, displace the most vulnerable people in the community when unproductive apartment projects are redeveloped, leave neighborhoods blighted with run down “stabilized” housing, and create a massive housing shortage.
San Francisco has one of the most onerous rent stabilization programs in the U. S. Has it helped maintain affordable housing for 95% of the residents? Do you want Mt. View to soon look like East Palo Alto, Berkeley and West Oakland’s pre-1995 housing stock? It will unless this horrendously bad idea is repealed.
Meant to say Pacifica in the previous comment, which is the city voting on a similar rent stabilization measure next week. Who knows? HMB is probably next.
Tom Means is well within his rights to make editorial comment on rent control whenever and wherever he wants. It’s free speech (just like an editorial is free press) and doesn’t pose any conflict of interest with his committee duties in Mt. View–any more than a committee member who happens to be a landlord(lady), developer or Realtor and opposes the concept of rent control. His stipend from the San Mateo Association or Realtors for drafting a position statement is hardly cause for an ethical challenge. Such accusations are childish.
If government is supposed to be all one way of thinking then let’s disband congress and every other government agency across the US, including the poorly conceived CSFRA and its RHC in Mt. View. An impartial algorithm on a computer can make all the decisions and silence the dissenting votes. Divisiveness will cease and we can all live as lemmings.
In response to Do a little research you said:
“Means, Tom 5/15/2017 Assuming Office (04/19/2016 to 04/18/2017) Committee Member Rental Housing Committee
View PDF
“The last time I checked, his earnings from the study was not entered into the record.”
This is a very incomplete history of his political work in the City of Mountain View. He was a City Council member for 8 years and a previous Mayor. I did a search all the way back to 01/01/2001 and the only record was the current one.
Tom Means did not submit schedule C – Income, Loans & Business Positions – schedule attached. Thus he will have to prove he never earned ANY INCOME, not received ANY LOANS, or not held any BUSINESS POSITIONS in order to avoid a FALSE SUBMISSION OF A STATE RECORD, NAMELY STATE FORM 700. If in fact he performed any “Consulting” at this time it would make his Form 700 a false one. The rule is that it doesn’t matter how he earned the money, HE HAS TO DISCLOSE IT in order to PREVENT FILING A FALSE LEGAL DOCUMENT. If he had been paid for ANY WORK OUTSIDE CSU:SJSU prior May 15th,2017, he has filed a false document. However I am certain he did this intentionally to prevent any investigation regarding his conflict of interests that would occur once he disclosed his earnings that would occur with CSU.
This is the same tactic used by John Inks, he did not report any earned income at all. We all know that cannot have occurred. The City of Mountain View has not complied with the regulations regarding this. You went on to say:
“As far as the honorarium, I encourage all readers to go to the FPPC web site and read up on conflict of interest and honorariums. You will see that Means is able to receive honorariums based on his work as a Professor. Shame was wrong in stating he could not.”
I have never stated he is not allowed to have any honorariums, HE HAS THE RIGHT TO RECEIVE ANY HONORARIUMS, my only observation is that HE DID NOT DISCLOSE THEM. It appears that he did not submit a Schedule D: Income – Gifts- schedule attached or a Schedule E – Income – Gifts- Travel Payments – schedule attached. The simple truth is he has a habit of refusing to comply with any guidelines or codes of conduct from what I am observing. You went on to say:
“This is my last post. As I first stated, BM and Shame do not do their research and make false statements”
It appears you did not actually read the document you researched, you assumed he did disclose all schedules that could apply to him. The truth is he did not. So, am I making any false statements? It would appear you proved the accuracy of my research.
Here is proof of what I claim (http://www.fppc.ca.gov/content/dam/fppc/documents/advice-letters/1995-2015/2005/05172.doc)
September 26, 2005
Carol J. Monahan, Chief Counsel, Office of Environmental Health, Hazard Assessment, 1001 I Street, Sacramento, CA 95814
Re: Your Request for Advice Our File No. A-05-172
Dear Ms. Monahan:
This letter is in response to your request for advice on behalf of Dr. Ellen Gold regarding the honorarium provisions of the Political Reform Act (the “Act”).
QUESTIONS
1. Is Dr. Gold prohibited from accepting an honorarium that was agreed upon and for which services were provided prior to the date she assumed office?
2. If the payment can be accepted, how should it be reported on Dr. Gold’s Statement of Economic Interests (Form 700)?
CONCLUSIONS
1. DR. GOLD IS NOT PROHIBITED FROM ACCEPTING THE HONORARIUM.
2. IF DR. GOLD RENDERED SERVICES THAT CONSTITUTED FULL AND ADEQUATE CONSIDERATION FOR THE PAYMENT, THE HONORARIUM MAY BE DISCLOSED AS “INCOME” ON SCHEDULE C OF FORM 700. OTHERWISE, THE PAYMENT SHOULD BE DISCLOSED AS A “GIFT” ON SCHEDULE E.
Tom Means does neither, there are many other instructions on that web-site that concur with my point of view.
And oh by the way, he has to disclose the earnings within 30 days of receipt. Otherwise he violates the Political Reform Act. So for example since it is November 4, 2017, if he received payment say prior to October 5, 2017 and did not report it, he is in serious trouble. In fact he provided the report in September of 2017, thus he got paid in September, otherwise the report could not be dated or posted. This would be good circumstantial evidence to warrant an investigation, in which if it is true he got paid before October, he is in material violation of the Political Reform Act.
In response to Charlie you said:
“This is the beginning of the end of rent control in Mountain View. “
Actually now that significant evidence is piling up as to possible conspiracy to deny the Citizens of Mountain View their charter rights by the City Attorney and Current and Past members of the City Council. I would think it would be even more difficult to try to repeal the CSFRA. You also stated:
“Socialistic policies deviating from market in a democracy eventually fail because they’re not based on reality or fairness. There based on control by one group to control another and greed drives the control. “
And if you call Tom Means unethical, and perhaps illegal behavior is realistic and fair? Then I find it difficult to believe we could even have a civilized discussion on the matter. The simple truth also is that you are actually arguing that democracy itself is something to be fought against. No granted we are not in a democracy but a republic, but our constitution adopted and defends many democratic practices.. So one could observe you could be an enemy of the U.S. and California Constitution.
“The conflict in the RHC will get worse and spread through the rental community, creating mistrust and perceptions of scandals. This was doomed before it began.”
I agree with you regarding that the City Attorney and Current, and Past City Council members conspired to cause significant damage to the Citizens of Mountain View. However my observation is that mistrust seems be based on actual misconduct on behalf of the City of Mountain View. It is not a perception of scandal; it is a demonstrated failure to uphold the terms of the California Political Reform Act by the City of Mountain View. Tom Means flagrantly violates the terms of the California Political Reform Act. And on top of this Vanessa Honey interfered with Steven Goldstein’s first amendment rights to discuss the budget topic on October 23rd.
What happened was Vanessa Honey directed Steven Goldstein to leave the podium denying him his right to express his opinion. You can hear the act form the webpage (http://mountainview.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=2834) at time mark 27:15 to 28:40. She actively interrupted his right to express his information, and did not seem to understand the potential legal consequences of this act. It would appear that she needs significant training in order to perform as the chair of this committee. From what I understand, this was the responsibility of the City Attorney.
Please forgive the lousy audio quality, this is the city’s equipment. So some is garbled, but you can understand that in all respects, Steven Goldstein addressed his rights regarding my ability to speak, and simply and respectfully indicated the bad actions Vanessa took. Later on in the meeting, she tried to remedy the problem. But this simply was not good enough. Her attempt to remedy is at time mark 1:23:40 to 1:28:00.
This story seems to demonstrate such poor judgment on behalf of Vanessa Honey (https://www.aclu-mo.org/newsviews/2017/04/25/university-city-violated-citizens-first-amendment-rights-dur)
Specifically, the RHC must issue apology and ensure free speech at meetings, following consent judgement in an ACLU lawsuit that applies because:
“It doesn’t matter if you are in a big city or a small town in Missouri, your First Amendment right to free speech is guaranteed by the constitution,” said Jeffrey Mittman, Executive Director of the ACLU of Missouri. “The ACLU of Missouri will continue to protect rights of all Missourians.”
Read the decision: http://bit.ly/2piFXkP”
Steven Goldstein’s conduct was perfect during that session. He did not allow the situation to escalate to the point where the police or security would physically remove him. The fact was Steven Goldstein DEESCALATED the situation. He exhibited due respect to the RHC board, even though being injured at the time. He was entitled to speak, but to prove his point, he allowed such abuse to occur, only noting an appropriate objection. Simply put, Vanessa Honey is required to issue an apology, and this conduct simply demonstrates she cannot adequately Chair the RHC, and the Vice Chair should be ordered to take here place.
My question is, who is responsible for this problem?. The only answer is the City Attorney, Current and Past City Council members, Tom Means, and Vanessa Honey. Not the rest of the RHC board, and most importantly NOT THE CITIZENS OF MOUNTAIN VIEW.
Posted by Charlie you said:
“Thank you for proving my point on mistrust and scandals. “
Yes on behalf of the City Attorney, the City Councils, Past and Present, Tom Means, and Vanessa Honey, thank you. You go on to say:
“Remember, other people think its the the other RHC members that should resign and the RHC should be built around Tom Means to create a more fair rent control.
But I guess you forgot that.”
IF the others can be demonstrated as behaving in the way TOM MEANS AND VANESSA HONEY HAVE, I would be just as strong AGAINST THEM AS WELL. I an only demonstrating what errors of action causes and nothing more. If you can demonstrate that the other board members violated the Political Reform Act, or violated anyone’s constitutional rights to free speech, I will be right by your side. But can you demonstrate that the other members may HAVE VIOLATED THE LAWS AND THE U.S. CONSTITUTION? Until you can, I would not attempt to claim “MORAL EQUIVALENCE” in the situation. It is not wise
In response to @The Business Man you said:
“I think “The Business Man” outed himself. Hello Mr. Steven Goldstein, aka The Business Man”
Have a sense of humor, EVERYBODY KNOWS WHO I AM. EVERYONE KNOWS THAT STEVEN GOLDSTEIN IS “THE BUSINESS MAN”. You just don’t understand literary prose and how humorous it can be. ROFLOL
“This is from his note above. I think he forgot to edit out the word “my.”
“…So some is garbled, but you can understand that in all respects, Steven Goldstein addressed his rights regarding my ability to speak, and simply and respectfully indicated the bad actions Vanessa took.””
I have “outed” myself on so many occasions. I disclosed my identity at the City Council, the RHC, and almost everywhere else. You may just be late in the game. It is the fact that I really am transparent that it gets those who do not agree with me the most aggravated.
As I stated before and again “Don’t kill the messenger”
In response to Tom you said:
“I think you’re right, it’s time to “Drain the swamp”. We need to rid the RHC of the pro rent control members. They voted for the landlords not to receive a fair rate of return on their investments which is in violation of the CSFRA. “
Seriously, they just followed the letter of the CSFRA. They did not impose anything that the CSFRA already required the landlords to do . You are simply misinformed or misinforming. You also said:
“Now they want to implement a housing fee which takes away 50% of many of the landlords 3.4% increases? I smell scandals and impropriety throughout the whole board of the RHC. I think their agenda is for an end to affordable housing so they can rebuild Mountain View with luxury housing. Is this is a means to an end?”
You do realize that depending on your rent increases to maintain profitability is a very bad business model. What you’re really describing is that you do not have the knowledge to succeed without getting bailed out by those who are not responsible for your business situation. The 3.4% is not designed to be a profit margin, that is your responsibility.
In response to george Drysdale you said:
“Slander us a terrible crime for a newspaper editor to commit.”
Slanders universal defense is if the statement are “NOT FALSE”. Thus you are just trying to micharaterize what the freedom of the press is able to do under the First Amendment, expose the truth without consequnces. You also said:
“Dr. Means is doing his best to protect his community against the tyranny of rent control which is literally like bombing Mountain View financially and morally.”
Finally someone exposes the truth, “his community”? When he applied and swore in to the RHC “his community“ is only a very small part of the Citizens of Mountain View he swore to uphold their newly created City Charter Rights. If one in government attempts preferential treatment under the law, it is a violation of the U.S. 14th Amendment. If he cannot uphold the citizens’ rights, than he violates his oath to hold the RHC board position. You also said:
“While looking for a new job the editor should continue her education and get her high school diploma where economics is the required subject: rent control is the most studied subject in economics.”
This was simply a very poor example of a “social studies” teachers unprofessional conduct, nothing more. You also said:
“George Drysdale social studies teacher and initiator of the San Jose Property Rights Initiative”
How is the San Jose Property Rights initiative going? You started this in 2008. It doesn’t look like you have succeeded in your efforts. Al one needs to do is google your initiative. It seems to not be succeeding. Oh well.
Finally in response to Missed Opportunity you said:
“I really feel for the landlord of the “Business Man”. He should have dealt him a 60 day notice to vacate sometime before September 2016. Now he is being sued for 3x the rollback when he lawfully made the refund in a timely manner once the RHC certified the effective date. “
You know that under the CSFRA, it didn’t matter ever that the RHC was to “CERTIFY” the effective date. In fact, the RHC could do nothing regarding this issue. Even the City Attorney knew this fact. Any good business person would have not depended on groups like the CAA to fight a losing battle. It was the landlords’ sole responsibility to comply with the CSFRA within 30 days after the court denied the preliminary injunction, and the CAA and intervenors dismissed their case.
“Instead of being grateful that the landlord did not exercise his rights to send him packing when he is obviously a tenant from hell, he stirs up more conflict with frivolous litigation and harassment of the RHC, the City Council and the City Attorney.”
Yes, I demand my rights under the law. Does that categorize me as a “tenant from hell”? That simply does not qualify, as long as it is my right under the CSFRA. Does that categorize me as “stirs up more conflict with frivolous litigation”? It depends on whether I win in the court. If the court rules in my favor, that means my case is categorically not frivolous. Does that categorize me as “harassment of the RHC, the City Council and the City Attorney”? No it does not, I simply express my first amendment rights, and demonstrate serious problems that need addressing. If in fact I was “harassing” these people, they would have grounds to prosecute me for those acts. But they will have to demonstrate that my actions are wholly without truth. They cannot.
Really strange that “Voice revenge” stopped responding after they accidentally posted under the name “Tom Means.” Must be a strange coincidence.
As for MVVoiceCompetitor, perhaps you’d be happier just reading the CAA newsletter. It won’t challenge you with inconvenient things like facts and investigative journalism, it’ll simply reconfirm the things you already believe.
In response to George Drysdale THE SAN JOSE PROPERTY RIGHTS INITIATIVE(http://sanjose.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?meta_id=647694):
“Rent control is tyranny and an attack on liberty. In order to graduate from high school you have to know rent controls are bad.”
That is simply not correct, UNLESS YOU FORCE THE STUDENTS TO CONFORM TO YOUR POLITICAL POINT OF VIEW. But, that would in fact be UNPROFESSIONAL CONDUCT ON BEHALF OF THE TEACHER. I would never want my child to be “BRAIN-CONDITIONED” TO ONLY ADOPT ONE POINT OF VIEW. Public education is NOT ALLOWED TO BE USED FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES.
“Economics is a required course in high school.”
Yes
“Rent controls are literally LIKE BOMBING A COMMUNITY FINANCIALLY AND MORALLY.”
So you are comparing rent control to CYBER TERRORISM? By the way CYBER-TERRORISM IS INTENDED TO INFLICT FINANCIAL AND MORAL HARM.
“Economics is an obsession in Silicon Valley along with the other sciences. ALL ECONOMISTS AND SOCIAL STUDIES TEACHER ARE AGAINST RENT CONTROLS.”
This statement needs proof; you have to demonstrate that 100% OF ECONOMISTS AND SOCIAL STUDIES TEACHERS ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH YOU. Without such proof, this statement is questionable.
“Rent control on mobile home parks are already an enormous scandal, on the internet: The catastrophe IN CAPITOLA AND THE GREAT SANTA CRUZ LAND SWINDLE.”
The Capitola case simply was settled, there was no determination that LAND WAS TAKEN BY THE CITY OF CAPITOLA. So this statement is misleading at the very least. IN FACT THE SETTLEMENT DID NOT REMOVE RENT CONTROL BUT MERELY ESTABLISHED THAT VACANCY CAN DECONTROL A MOBILE HOME LAND LOT.
“One way or another San Jose will end up part of the number one lesson plan in basic economics. San Jose suffers hundreds of millions of dollars in financial damage a year because of rent controls.”
If that were the case and it was illegal or unconstitutional, than why not sue the City for the losses. The fact is that the landlords cannot establish what “damages” they suffered because they probably do not run their businesses well enough to establish the only cause of such losses was rent control. That is necessary to state a claim under this scenario.
“The initiative: Boot rent control out lock stock and barrel as fast as possible. If the San Jose city council throws rent controls out it will become heroes otherwise you will be regarded as cynics. Right now in Mountain View rent control has become a fiasco. 44 STATES HAVE OUTLAWED RENT CONTROLS.”
As I have posted before, 44 states do not outlaw rent control. This is a misrepresentation, I have demonstrated that only 15 states specifically outlaw rent control, and there are as many as 13 others with other regulatory mechanisms.
“There would be no shortage of housing if all the mobile home parks were converted into much needed apartments rather than allowing the swindle of having mobile home owners selling their trailers for many times their value because of price fixed rents and an unawareness of politicians. I will go further into this as the initiator just explain things to the city council as I did in Capitola.”
I would like some proof that there would be no shortages of housing because there is no rent control. The fact that Costa Hawkins forbids it in the state, and yet the state has a severe housing shortage crisis. Your claim simply is disproven by reality.
“The numbers. Added to this the initiative will be funded by probably the heaviest financing in state history, if not the history of the U.S. Rent control has been thrown out thousands of times. “
Since when does money spent on a campaign equate to what is reality. So much in politics is based not on reality, but what policies you want to benefit your group. This is the reality of government in the US.
“San Jose CA. is not San Jose Venezuela. Mexico City dumped rent controls. Time is of the essence. Your political careers are a stake.”
Does that sound like a threat to you?
“George Drysdale initiator and educator”
After what I just read, I do not agree you are an educator, because good educators do not dictate the thoughts of their students. They allow their students to do independent thinking. But as you said above, you do not allow that to happen.
It appears George Drysdale is a representative of the Apartment Owners Association. If you google his name and AOA you come up with multiple letters written on the AOA’s behalf or interest, so me are:
The End of Rent Control, the Crash and the Meltdown in Malibu – By George Drysdale…
https://www.aoausa.com/magazine/?p=582
The End of Rent Control, the Catastrophe in Capitola and the Great and the Great Santa Cruz Land Swindel by George Drysdale
https://www.aoausa.com/magazine/?p=1670
Letters to the Editor…” The End of Rent Control: The Epiphany in Silicon Valley – By George Drysdale AOA Magazine – Apartment Owners Association
https://www.aoausa.com/magazine/?p=3497
Letters to the Editor… | AOA Magazine – Apartment Owners Association
https://www.aoausa.com/magazine/?p=3269
Granted he has the right to express his opinion, but if anyone decides to read what he writes, like I did above, you can find a lot of problems in his reasoning. I am just making observations.
MY observations regarding RHC session on Nov 6, 2017:
First, no City Attorney was present at the meeting. That makes sense to me, the City Attorney has provided very poor advice and expressed significantly poor judgment through the birth of the CSFRA.. The City outside counsel was there instead.
After my public comment, it appeared that Tom Means finally googled CSU:Fresno ant Professor Timothy Stearns.
I could clearly observe his shock to discover that CSU does in fact deal with tenured professors harshly when dealing with their misconduct.
It was soon after that, that he did not endorse any “Fee-splitting” with regards to tenants. He did however agree with me that the City should bear the costs sharing in that respect. The only action taken was that a letter would be issued to the City Council to have $1,000.000. be allocated to reduce the landlords costs of the CSFRA fee. They refused to act on any fee-sharing by tenants, thereby leaving the landlord fee to be solely the responsibility of the landlords.
I always said the City in its active sabotage of the CSFRA by the City Attorney and the City Council in effect added as much a $600,000 at minimum to the costs of the CSFRA. IT was only logical that the City must bear that cost.
John Inks was observed as greatly opposed to the idea. Of course, it WAS his ACTIONS that caused the ENTIRE MESS IN THE FIRST PLACE given the closed door meeting on December 21 or 22 when he instructed City attorney to stipulate to the initial TRO that CAUSED SUCH A MESS FOR EVERYONE.
What is interesting is the City Council cannot oppose this action, GIVEN THAT THE CITY CHARTER IS WRITTEN TO AUTHORIZE THE RHC TO ACCESS ANY CITY FUNDS IT NEEDS. If the City opposes to provide funds, it will simply violate the City Charter.
I am very disappointed that the City of Mountain View has refused to even review the potential problems with Tom Means conduct.
It appears that the City is in effect endorsing his actions. How, by not even making a statement that his “opinions” are not the “opinions” of the City.
The City is in effect acting as an endorser of Tim Means political activism. Given that it is opposite of his required duties under the CSFRA, this raises very serious questions regarding the City Attorney or City Councils compliance with the City Charter. Granted , the City Council appointed him. At the same time with regards to the fact that Tom Means NEVER disclosed is earnings required under the California Political Reform Act, this technically requires his appointment to be rescinded. By not being in compliance with the act, he disqualifies himself regarding the RHC.
Don’t get me wrong, if any of the RHC members failed to do so, they are also required to be disqualified. This law must be applied equally.
Of course, it this is true than all members will need to be reappointed all over again. Too bad, but this is the current requirements.
Nonetheless, the fact that the City Attorney seems to be refusing to investigate all members based on this problem is a more serious problem.
At least my critics cannot claim I am playing favorites. If the board has failed to disclose all economic information via Form 700 and its identified sub parts, then all are in violation of non-disclosure.