|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
A ballot measure designed to drastically weaken Mountain View’s rent control program will likely be heading to voters in 2020. On Monday afternoon, Oct. 8, supporters Brian Danforth and City Council candidate John Inks delivered thousands of signatures to the city, seeking to put their initiative to roll back rent control on a future ballot.
City Clerk Lisa Natusch reported on Monday that the submitted petition had more than 7,100 signatures, putting it well above the 5,150 minimum needed to qualify for an election. She planned to forward the petition later this week to the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters so their office could verify the signatures.
If certified, the proposed measure could appear on the March or November 2020 ballot, Natusch told the Voice.
The proposed initiative contains some modifications for rent control, such as adding income eligibility requirements and spending caps on the program’s costs. But those reforms will likely never take effect because the measure also forces all rent control policies to be suspended unless the city’s housing vacancy rate drops under 3 percent. The rate hasn’t dipped that low for nearly two decades, leading tenant advocates to allege the measure is really a repeal of rent control under the guise of reforming it.
Collecting signatures for the measure had been an ongoing struggle for its supporters, who organized under the name Measure V Too Costly. The group raised about $260,000, mostly from landlords, to hire signature gatherers to canvass the city. The frenzied push for signatures led to many reports of paid workers bending the truth or outright lying in an effort to get registered voters to sign. About 350 residents later wrote to the city demanding that their names be removed from the petition, many saying they’d been told the petition was to save or expand rent control.
Originally, the Measure V Too Costly group was aiming to deliver their signatures to the city by June to get it placed on the November ballot, but they later announced they couldn’t make that deadline.
With the prop 10 trailing way behind in the recent PPIC poll, there is a good chance that this measure will pass. Particularly in light of the strong No on 10 campain, which is educating the electorate about devastating consequences of rent control.
I think rent control opponents should capitalize on the momentum and support legislative or initiative effort statewide, similarly to MV, to require means testing, so the well to do tenents would not have to be subsidized by often working class mom and pop landlords.
Also the fair rate of return should be defined statewide, at a reasonable level, so the most radical cities would not be able to limit that return to ridiculously low levels like SF (0.6% of inflation).
I doubt it will pass. 2020 is a presidential election year. Both the primary and general election will have high turnout from left leaning voters.
In response to mike rose you said:
“With the prop 10 trailing way behind in the recent PPIC poll, there is a good chance that this measure will pass. Particularly in light of the strong No on 10 campain, which is educating the electorate about devastating consequences of rent control.”
As Ronald Reagan says, there you go again, here is the response I present. The poll was done with a loaded question that resulted in a false result. The question was disclosed in the following report (http://www.ppic.org/wp-content/uploads/ppic-statewide-survey-september-2018.pdf)
THE QUESTION ASKED:
19. [likely voters only] Proposition 10 is called the “Expands Local Governments’ Authority to Enact Rent Control on Residential Property. Initiative Statute” It repeals state law that currently restricts the scope of rent-control policies that cities and other local jurisdictions may impose on residential property. The fiscal impact is potential net reduction in state and local revenues of tens of millions of dollars per year in the long term. Depending on actions by local communities, revenue losses could be less or considerably more. If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on Proposition 10?“
It is on page 25. OK lets look how it is loaded and designed to create a false result.
First, the question is based on “residential” properties. Specifically it stated “It repeals state law that currently restricts the scope of rent-control policies that cities and other local jurisdictions may impose on residential property. “ ANY unit for rent is NOT a residential property because a “residential” property is one where one lives in who owns it. The only way this qualifies is that the “residential” property owner must “live” in that unit, NOT RENT IT OUT TO ANOTHER. If it is rented out, is is NOT a residential property, but a “commercial” property. YOU KNOW THIS.
Second, the question is loaded with a threat that the anti proposition 10 campaign uses to argue against it namely “The fiscal impact is potential net reduction in state and local re4venues of tens of millions of dollars per year in the long term.” The reality is that the property values will drop regarding the raising Fed rates to 3% by 2021 which will cause a serious reduction in property values, thus resulting in the loss of tax revenues. This information is simply designed to intimidate and manipulate the results of the study. This means that proposition 10 cannot be held responsible alone for this assumption, but it is used to manipulate the results of the study. YOU KNOW THIS.
Third, the question poses the following premise “Depending on actions by local communities, revenue losses could be less or considerably more.” Again given the reality that real estate values are poised to drop without even with proposition 10, this information is used simply to intimidate and mislead the one be asked the question. YOU KNOW THIS.
There was a follow up question on page 17 but given that question 19 already poisoned the accuracy of the results this question was simply not going to correct the problem it stated:
33. [likely voters only] Do you think rent control- that is, the ability of local governments to set limits on how much rents can be increased each year- is a good thing?
Finally if you look at this question and its results you can also discover a poor sampling the question 34 asked:
Next, would you consider yourself politically? The sample indicated:
13% “very liberal” 19% “somewhat liberal” 31% “middle of the road” 22% “somewhat conservative” 12% “very conservative” 3% “Don’t know”
Lets look at the California political breakdown from their own study found here (http://www.ppic.org/publication/california-voter-and-party-profiles/) it states that:
Political Ideology 38% “Liberal” 28% “Moderate” and 34 % “Conservative” If you compare the two results the disparity is obvious
Your study indicated only 32% ”Liberal” where the voter proportion is 38% A DEFICIT OF 6% OR AN ERROR OF -15%.
The Moderate in your study was 31% where it was determined 28% AN ERROR RATE OF +7%.
The Conservative total in the study was 34% “Conservative” which was accurate.
But this indicates a failure of the study sample given the PPIC already knew that those results WERE NOT PROPORTIONAL WITH THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AS THEY FOUND IT. If you wanted to adjust for this, you will need to add 15% to the reported support of 36% in their prop 10 report which comes to 41% that will most likely vote for it. The report on page 11 (http://www.ppic.org/wp-content/uploads/ppic-statewide-survey-september-2018.pdf ) also stated:
“Forty-two percent of likely voters say that the outcome of the vote on Proposition 10 is very important to them, while a further 33 percent say it is somewhat important. Views on its importance are similar across parties and among those who would vote yes and those who would vote no on this proposition. Notably, renters (54%) are much more likely than homeowners (38%) to say that the outcome of the vote on Proposition 10 is very important to them.
“How important to you is the outcome of the vote on Proposition 10?”
Likely voters only
Very Important 42% of all likely voters, 44% Democrat, 39% Republican and 45% Independent, of the Very important category 46% will vote in favor and 45% will not
Somewhat Important 33% of all likely voters, 31% Democrat, 34% Republican and 31% Independent, of the Very important category 37% will vote in favor and 32% will not
Not Too Important 16% of all likely voters, 17% Democrat, 19% Republican and 13% Independent, of the Very important category 15% will vote in favor and 17% will not
Not At All Important 4% of all likely voters, 3% Democrat, 4% Republican and 3% Independent, of the Very important category 1% will vote in favor and 6% will not
Don’t Know 5% of all likely voters, 5% Democrat, 4% Republican and 7% Independent, of the Very important category 1% will vote in favor and 1% will not”
The final information you should consider is the inform ation fom this PPIC report that stated:
“Voter registration is up slightly; the share of independents has increased.
California’s 19 million registered voters constitute 75.7% of eligible adults, a slight increase from the registration rate in 2014 (73.3%), the year of the last gubernatorial election. THE SHARE OF REGISTERED VOTERS WHO ARE DEMOCRATS (44.4%) IS UP SLIGHTLY FROM 2014 (43.4%), WHILE THE SHARE OF REPUBLICANS (25.1%) HAS DECLINED SINCE 2014 (28.4%). At the same time, the share of voters who say they are independent (also known as “decline to state” or “no party preference”) has been increasing and is now 25.5%, up from 21.2% in 2014. OUR SURVEYS INDICATE THAT 47% OF THOSE WE CONSIDER MOST LIKELY TO VOTE ARE DEMOCRATS, 28% ARE REPUBLICANS, AND 21% ARE INDEPENDENTS.”
Thus if the democratic vote is high, especially after he insanity happening in Washington in effect enraging the democratic party voters, and many independents, This should result in a high voter turnout. Democrats already vote nearly 60% more and regarding if housing is the most important issue, the numbers per this report are not actually good.
“I think rent control opponents should capitalize on the momentum and support legislative or initiative effort statewide, similarly to MV, to require means testing, so the well to do tenents would not have to be subsidized by often working class mom and pop landlords.”
This is just a political spin. You know that the major majority of rentals are corporate owned. IN FACT, THE INDUSTRY OPENLY OPPOSES ANY REGISTRY OF RENTAL PROPERTIES BY ANY GOVERNMENT AGENCY. They do not provide proof of the claim that the majority of rentals are run by “working class mom and pop landlords”. This is just an attempt to deceive the public. You said:
“Also the fair rate of return should be defined statewide, at a reasonable level, so the most radical cities would not be able to limit that return to ridiculously low levels like SF (0.6% of inflation).”
A “fair rate of return” does not mean a “profit”. In any new purchase, there is an anticipated loss that will last at least 3 to 4 years in reference to the Zillow article found here (https://www.zillow.com/research/breakeven-horizon-real-estate-16595/) If any “investor” expects to break even at the time of purchase, that is unrealistic. “Profit” is achieved by efficient management, it is not achieved by “governmental” action. YOU KNOW THIS.
Right now throughout California why rent controls are bad is being taught in beginning economics classes. Rent control is the most studied subject in economics. Rent controls are pure poison. Politicians are aware of this especially with Google in town. Read history (largely European) how to knock rent controls out. In any case you do not deal with the devil. Rent controls out of Mountain View ante rent control. No compromise. First you knock most all of those old apartments into much needed safe buildings. Soft stories when the big one hits will be a disaster. Bring apartment house construction up to Japanese standards. After the election a war to knock rent control out of California “lock stock and barrel.” Only money from private investors can help solve the lack of housing.
In response to George Drysdale you said:
“Only money from private investors can help solve the lack of housing.”
AFTER 20 YEARS OF COSTA HAWKINS, YOUR CLAIM IS PROVEN WRONG. PRIVATE INVESTORS MADE THE HOUSING SITUATION WORSE BY ONLY SELLING TO THE MARKETS THEY WANT TO SERVE.
TBM,
You can spin it anyway you want, but the question asked in the poll was framed word for word as the prop 10 ballot title.
And yes, the ballot title specifically has word “residential (property)” in it.
Just look it up and stop misleading people again.
John Inks owns this measure but doesn’t own up to the fact that it is designed to kill rent control, not make it better. He is lying to Mountain View.
Sneaky John, why are you hiding?
mike, we get it. You’re an out-of-town landlord who wants to meddle in our community because you want to get rich off the backs of the hard work of our residents. Don’t you have anything better to do? Maybe maintain your properties instead of just posting here all the time? No, it’s definitely going to be your 9000th response to The Business Man that’ll convince our city.
LOL,
Very thoughtful comment. You just forgot to give yourself 15 likes in 10 seconds as you usually do.
Hahaha it’s always projection with you. Note how many you just gave yourself. How did your life get so sad? Did you see it turning out this way when you were younger?
Hahaha even now you can’t help yourself from liking your own comments. Projecting on the lies and “radical […] activists” again, too. Remember the radical group of landlords lying to gather these signatures? Are you ever not projecting? Is this really where you thought you’d end up?
Getting back to the topic at hand. Glad to see this will be on the ballot, just sorry we have to wait until 2020 and can’t vote to stop this abominable rent control right now. What a mess it’s been and an outrageous cost to our city. Just this week they’re voting to add yet another administrator at a cost of $66,000/year for admin. Enough!
mvresident, the RHC is funded through landlord fees, not the city coffers. But you already knew that, didn’t you?
In response to mike rose you said:
“You can spin it anyway you want, but the question asked in the poll was framed word for word as the prop 10 ballot title.”
And of course the title was correct regarding that phrase, but if you read the text provided by ballotpeadia (https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_10,_Local_Rent_Control_Initiative_(2018)) of the initiative its states:
“Affordable Housing Act
The People of the State of California do hereby ordain as follows:
Section 1. Title.
This Act shall be known and may be cited as “Affordable Housing Act.”
Section 2. Findings and Declarations.
The People of the State of California hereby find and declare all of the following:
a) Rents for housing have skyrocketed in recent years. Median rents are higher in California than any other state in the country, and among all 50 states, California has the 4th highest increase in rents.
b) Research by Apartment List indicates that the median rent for a one-bedroom apartment in California is $1,410, an increase of 4.5% in just one year. A one bedroom apartment in Los Angeles costs $1,350 per month. In San Francisco, it costs $2,450. In San Diego, the cost is $1,560.
c) The federal government has concluded that rent is not affordable if renters spend more than 30% of their income on housing costs. The State of California has found that more than half of California renter households (3 million) pay more than 30% and one-third of renter households ( over 1.5 million) pay more than 50% of their income toward rent.
d) According to the National Low Income Housing Coalition, a Californian earning minimum wage would have to work 92 hours per week in order to afford to rent an average one-bedroom apartment.
e) More Californians (5.8 million households) are renting than ever before, because overall home ownership rates in California have fallen to their lowest level since the 1940s, according to the state. One quarter of older millennials (25-34 years of age) still live with their parents. (U.S. Census Bureau)
f) Statewide labor unions, such as California Nurses Association, Service Employees International Union and the California Teachers Association, have made affordable housing a priority for their members. For example, teachers in California’s urban centers are paying 40% to 70% of their salaries on housing and many are being forced to live an hour or more from their jobs in order to afford a home.
g) Three times as many Californians are living in overcrowded apartments as compared to the U.S. as a whole. (U.S. Census Bureau)
h) Even though the state represents only 12% of the total U.S. population, California is home to 22% of the nation’s homeless population. (California Department of Housing and Community Development)
i) Homelessness is a major public health issue. People who are homeless are 3 to 4 times more likely to die prematurely and are more likely to have a communicable disease, according to the National Health Care for the Homeless Council.
j) The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention warn that vulnerable populations face lower life expectancy, higher cancer rates and more birth defects when their homes are displaced due to the gentrification of their neighborhoods.
k) The increased cost of housing is worsening traffic congestion and harming the environment by forcing commuters to live farther away from their places of employment and increasing commute times. A report by the Pew Charitable Trust noted that the number of Californians who commute more than 90 minutes each way increased by 40% between 2010 and 2015; the increase is a direct result of the dearth of affordable housing near jobs.
l) A major factor in California’s housing crisis is a 20-year-old law known as the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act. COSTA-HAWKINS GIVES PERMISSION TO LANDLORDS OF RESIDENTIAL APARTMENTS AND HOUSES TO RAISE RENTS AS MUCH AS THEY WANT IN BUILDINGS BUILT AFTER 1995; despite local laws that would otherwise prohibit such increases, landlords in Los Angeles can raise rents as much as they want on buildings built after 1978 and in San Francisco, on buildings built after 1979.
m) Costa-Hawkins also allows a landlord to raise the rent in any building built before 1995 to the market value when it becomes vacant, and lets the landlord decide what market value is.
n) Costa-Hawkins prevents cities from implementing laws that keep rents affordable for their residents.
Section 3. Purposes and Intent.
The People of the State of California hereby declare the following purposes and intent in enacting this Act:
a) To restore authority to California’s cities and counties to develop and implement local policies that ensure renters are able to find and afford decent housing in their jurisdictions.
b) To improve the quality of life for millions of California renters and reduce the number of Californians who face critical housing challenges and homelessness.
c) To repeal the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act.
Section 4. Affordable Housing Act shall be codified by repealing the following sections of the Civil Code:
Sections 1954.50, 1954.51, 1954.52 and 1954.53 of Chapter 2.7 of Title 5 of Part 4 of Division 3 of the Civil Code are repealed.
Section 5. Affordable Housing Act shall be further codified by adding the following section to the Civil Code:
Section 1954.54.
(a) A city, county, or city and county shall have the authority to adopt a local charter provision, ordinance or regulation that governs a landlord’s right to establish and increase rental rates on a dwelling or housing unit.
(b) In accordance with California law, a landlord’s right to a fair rate of return on a property shall not be abridged by a city, county, or city and county.
Section 6. Liberal Construction
This Act shall be broadly construed to accomplish its purposes.
Section 7. Amendment and Repeal
Pursuant to Article II, Section 10, Subdivision ( c ), of the California Constitution, the Legislature may amend this Act to further its purposes by a statute passed in each house by roll call vote entered in the Journal, two-thirds of the membership concurring, signed by the Governor. NO STATUTE RESTRICTING OR ELIMINATING THE POWERS THAT HAVE BEEN RESTORED BY THIS ACT TO A CITY, COUNTY, OR CITY AND COUNTY TO ESTABLISH RESIDENTIAL RENTAL RATES SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE UNLESS APPROVED BY A MAJORITY OF THE ELECTORATE.
Section 8. Severability
If any provision of this Act or the application thereof to any person or circumstances is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of the Act which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this Act are severable.
Section 9. Conflicting Measures
In the event that this Act and any other measure addressing the authority of local government agencies to establish residential rental rates shall appear on the same statewide election ballot, the provision of the other measure or measures shall be deemed to be in conflict with this Act. In the event that this Act receives a greater number of affirmative votes than another measure deemed to be in conflict with it, the provisions of this Act shall prevail in their entirety, and the other measure or measures shall be null and void.
Section 10. Legal Defense
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, if the State, a government agency, or any of its officials fail to defend the constitutionality of this Act, following its approval by the voters, the proponents shall have the authority to intervene in any court action challenging the constitutionality of this Act for the purpose of defending its constitutionality, whether in state or federal court, and whether such action is in any trial court, on appeal, or on discretionary review by the Supreme Court of California or the Supreme Court of the United States. The reasonable fees and costs of defending the action shall be a charge on funds appropriated to the California Department of Justice, which shall be satisfied promptly.
Section 11. Effective Date
Except as otherwise provided herein, this Act shall become effective the day after its approval by the voters.”
So if you READ the proposition, it contains NOTHING of what you claim regarding “residential properties”. It is simply a repeal of Costa Hawkins. It also prevents the legislature from enacting any other bans against rent control. THIS MUST BE TERRIFYING TO LANDLORDS. You said:
“And yes, the ballot title specifically has word “residential (property)” in it.”
Just look it up and stop misleading people again.”
I have already demonstrated your misleading comments for months. The VOTERS want the truth, well, here it is in raw form. My hopes are the voters will take their power of their vote and remove this unfair law because it simply treats renters differently based only on the age of the unit.
You need to seriously consider some new rules to prevent these same repeat posters who do nothing to contribute to the topic and discussion at hand.
Limit people to 2 post per topic.
Limit each post to 200 words.
That the measure to eliminate rent control will be on the 2020 ballot is no surprise. The backers of this measure have done everything — including by hook and crook — to make sure that it is.
What concerns me is what lengths landlords and the California Apartment Association will go to make sure this measure passes. Given their behavior and obvious lack of ethics in getting the measure on the 2020 ballot, I have no doubt they will go to equal unethical lengths to get it passed.
I just watched the report involved in this situation broadcast by KPIX at about 1810 on October 10, 2018.
Joshua Howard was simply unbelievable, his only statement is that if people were deceived into signing the ballot petition, they had plenty of time to read the papers prior to signing.
First observation, most people cannot read more than 5 pages of fine print documents when they are being told falsely that the initiative was a measure “for” rent controls. This is not a reasonable explanation by Joshua regarding the likelihood of individuals signing the petition where the one signing does not agree with the hidden text.
Second, he in his conduct supports deceptive practices regarding PAID contractors working on behalf of the CAA. He does not explicitly state that deceptive practices DID NOT take place in this City. He knows that if he had, that would possibly be rebutted by any documentation, like the 300+ withdrawal forms already filed with the City.
Third, in effect Joshua Howard simply states that if you signed the petition, even if you would not have if you were deceived, it doesn’t matter to him. He wants to hold anyone deceived to endorse an initiative under false pretenses to be compelled to take ownership of it without exception. Thus if you can tricked into signing anything, you deserve the results.
TBM:
I am shocked this statement comes from you of all people:
“…First observation, most people cannot read more than 5 pages of fine print documents…”
Yet you force us to read your lengthy tirades for years, despite the fact that they don’t make any sense, but you demand of others to be brief.
Unbelievable…..
Moderators, why do you allow “mike rose” to continue his targeted harassment of The Business Man? That you continue to let this happen here makes me seriously doubt you uphold your Terms of Service.
Randy,
Why do you think is it fair for TBM to be critical of Joshua Howard i.e. But not fair for me to be critical of TBM?
Possibly because it does not suit your agenda?
In response to mike rose you said:
“Yet you force us to read your lengthy tirades for years, despite the fact that they don’t make any sense, but you demand of others to be brief.”
With regards to “Yet you force us to read your lengthy tirades for years, despite the fact that they don’t make any sense” That is your OPINION, you have the right to your OPINION. BUT you do not have the AUTHORITY to dictate the public agree with your OPINION.
You also stated that “but you demand of others to be brief” again is a misleading statement. I NEVER DEMAND ANYONE TO BE BRIEF.
I WILL WELCOME ANY INFORMATION REGARDING THE TOPIC AS LONG AS YOU GIVE ITS RESOURCES SO I CAN READ THEM AND EVALUATE THE INTEGRITY.
ALL YOUR WORK IS TO PERSONALLY ATTACK AND ATTEMPT TO MALIGN ANYONE THAT DOES NOT AGREE WITH YOU.
OR PROVIDE HYPERBOLIC ARGUMENTS WITH VAGUE LANGUAGE AND NO RESOURCES TO BACK IT UP. WHEN YOU DO I FIND OUT THE INNACCURATE OR DEPTIVE NATURE OF THE CLAIMS. YOU SIMPLY BELIEVE YOU ARE ABOVE ANYONES INSPECTION OF YOUR INFORMATION. AND WORSE YOU DO IT ANONYMOUSLY.
That is what I can describe as: UNBELIEVABLE
If Josh Howard posted here and The Business Man were as aggressively attacking him as you attack The Business Man, I’d consider that targeted harassment. That you continue to be allowed to post here just shows how deeply unenforced the Terms of Service are here because you break them on a daily basis.
In response to mike rose ou said:
“Why do you think is it fair for TBM to be critical of Joshua Howard i.e. But not fair for me to be critical of TBM?”
I simply described Joshua Howard’s explanation made in public recorded by a new reporter. As a public figure, he knows that his conduct can and will be observed and critiqued. If you don’t understand that, then you need to learn about the explicit consent to public criticism when one is a public representative. However, the distinction between my comments and those of others is no one can claim I try to malign anyone, maybe their points, bit not anyone PERSONALLY.
You are guilty of the latter, I purposely let any comments (INCLUDING YOURS) stay on the website so that you demonstrate to the public your intentions and conduct all by yourself. I let the public make their own assessment, and I do not and will not prevent your freedom of expression. Unlike you and Stephen Levy who actively censor posts on the Mountain View Stephen Levy blog.
Joshua Howard chose his conduct, he is responsible for its interpretation by the public. If it is determined poorly, he should take better care in his conduct.
Randy,
There is nothing in the terms of service that would prevent a commenter from pointing out lies, misinformation and hypocrisies from other commenters.
The readers are entitled to the truth.
I do not mind anyone criticizing me and calling me on possible lies or misrepresentations.
Unfortunately, as many posters noted in the past, TBM has proven history of spreading falsehoods, making up laws and “stretching ” facts to mislead the public.
I have a right to call him on these attempts.
Why do you think this is wrong or improper?
Well TBM,
I have to call another lie of yours, like it or not.
I do not actively censor your posts on any of the blogs as you are claiming. Simply I do not have that ability even if I wanted to.
I will only cintinue to point out independent information that contradicts mike roses statemetns.
It is pointless to have a discussion with him, he has made up his mind, probably becasue his financial interests are theatened by VOTER ACTIVISM.
So he will attempt to discourage anyone using their vote for any action that risks his financial advantage in the California Housing market.
I will not get inovled in his “personal” attacks anyomore, in his mind he must win, by ANY means neccessary.
As far as the Blog, Stephen Levy implied it was you that constantly complained about my posts, and he being in the same “camp” regarding Prop 10, simply took advantage of his power to alter my entries without my permission.
You’ve been harassing The Business Man for months, Mike, and acting like you don’t understand is really unbecoming. We can all read your posts, they don’t just disappear into the void. The tacit approval the moderators have given your ongoing harassment is really disappointing, but they seem to enjoy the “engagement” these articles get.
TBM,
I am surprise to learn that you have the ability to “let my comments stay on the website” as you are claiming.
I thought TMVV was a neutral entity, not controlled by any interest groups or individuals.
Could you elaborate on that more?
TBM,
3rd lie in 5 minutes.
Steven Levy never implied that I constantly complained about your posts.
I did not and you totally made that up.
Moderators, please take a look at this article. Mike, as usual, continues to harass other commenters. Why do you let him continue to post here? Is this really the level of discourse you want to reflect on your newspaper? It’s been like this for years now.
mike rose,
You can say anything you want as long as it is YOUR opinion.
But any comments without any research to contribute to the topic is of no relevance.
Stephen deleted the comment I read, obviously you emailed him.
He then deleted the posts. THe blog is found here (https://www.mv-voice.com/blogs/p/2018/10/05/i-will-vote-no-on-prop-10) You will find the words “deleted” in my comments. That ws done by Stephen Levy
Randy, let him have enought rope to hang himself.
Randy, I’m not sure I understand where your objections are coming from. I don’t know “Mike Rose”, have only read the comments here but don’t feel like he’s harassing anyone or needs to be shut down. He’s posting opposing views to that of the BM’s.
Do you not feel someone can have an opposing view? Do you really think it gains credibility to shut down and ask that opposing views are deleted, removed?
I don’t care at all about what either of their viewpoints are. What I do care about are the posters here treating each other with respect and not personally attacking each other. The Business Man continually deals in factual arguments, whereas in article after article, mike rose attacks him personally. This is clear in the Terms of Service, but maybe you don’t care because mike agrees with you, mvresident2003.
I don’t get it why preventing someone from spreading lies by calling them each time on this forum is improper.
Many people reading this forum form opinion on the subject based on the posts.
How the criticism could not be personal if a person is spreading falsehoods.
Randy chooses to call it attacks and that is fine. He also prefers censorship, and TBM would love to see me “hanging myself”.
I understand their frustration to some degree in light of the recent events that are not going their way.
I am talking about PPIC poll showing prop 10 failing miserably ( PPIC polling always correctly predicted actual election results in recent elections) and now the reform of MV rent control likely qualifying for 2020.
They have to understand that when draconian measures are imposed on property owners without any consideration of their rights there is always going to be resistance.
Mike, you can pretend all you want, but all the readers here have seen your targeted harassment of The Business Man. To act like you haven’t been doing so, rather than being apologetic, simply shows that you not only a harasser, but a person without integrity as well.
THIS IS GOING TO BE LONG ANYONE IS ALLOWED TO EXPRESS AN EQUALLY COMPREHENSIVE POSTING
In response to mike rose you said:
“I don’t get it why preventing someone from spreading lies by calling them each time on this forum is improper.”
Yes, you have the right to express your OPINION. You said:
“Many people reading this forum form opinion on the subject based on the posts.”
Yes, that is correct, you said:
“How the criticism could not be personal if a person is spreading falsehoods.”
WRONG, disclosing EVIDENCE to prove information is a falsehood is CORRECT, simply attacking a person by labeling them LIARS and RADICALS simply isn’t ENOUGH. You said:
“Randy chooses to call it attacks and that is fine. He also prefers censorship, and TBM would love to see me “hanging myself”.”
As I pointed out you have the right to EXPRESS your OPINION, You do not have any AUTHORITY to DECLARE anyone else’s are invalid, unless you provide objective information that can be proven not on a simple result of any resource. I present evidence that contradicts you, but I never cross the line you have on so many occasions. Why I will explain later. You said:
“I understand their frustration to some degree in light of the recent events that are not going their way.”
The VOTERS make that decision, not you nor I. You said:
“I am talking about PPIC poll showing prop 10 failing miserably ( PPIC polling always correctly predicted actual election results in recent elections) and now the reform of MV rent control likely qualifying for 2020.”
THIS WILL TAKE A WHILE BUT LET ME EXPLAIN:
When I got my Human Resources Management degree from SJSU I was taught that “INTERVIEW QUESTIONAIRES” are subject to scrutiny if they are PROVEN TO EXPRESS ANY BIAS REGARDING THE RESULTS. If that does occur, THE COURTS WILL INVALIDATE THE PROCESS AND HOLD THE EMPLOYER GUILTY OF DISCRIMINATION BASED ON INTENTIONAL ACTS OR DISPARATE IMPACT. So I was trained to craft interview questions so that they WILL ONLY MEASURE THE CRITICAL ISSUES AND NOT CONTAIN ANY INFORMATION THAT “POISONS” THE ANSWERS.
This is where the survey you discuss runs into serious problems, if it were a job interview, the courts would tear it to shreds. I point out:
THE QUESTION ASKED:
19. [likely voters only] Proposition 10 is called the “Expands Local Governments’ Authority to Enact Rent Control on Residential Property. Initiative Statute” It repeals state law that currently restricts the scope of rent-control policies that cities and other local jurisdictions may impose on residential property. The fiscal impact is potential net reduction in state and local revenues of tens of millions of dollars per year in the long term. Depending on actions by local communities, revenue losses could be less or considerably more. If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on Proposition 10?“
It is on page 25. OK lets look how it is loaded and designed to create a false result.
First, the question is based on “residential” properties. Specifically it stated “It repeals state law that currently restricts the scope of rent-control policies that cities and other local jurisdictions may impose on residential property. “ ANY unit for rent is NOT a residential property because a “residential” property is one where one lives in who owns it. The only way this qualifies is that the “residential” property owner must “live” in that unit, NOT RENT IT OUT TO ANOTHER. If it is rented out, is is NOT a residential property, but a “commercial” property. YOU KNOW THIS.
Second, the question is loaded with a threat that the anti proposition 10 campaign uses to argue against it namely “The fiscal impact is potential net reduction in state and local re4venues of tens of millions of dollars per year in the long term.” THE REALITY IS THAT THE PROPERTY VALUES WILL DROP REGARDING THE RAISING FED RATES TO 3% BY 2021 WHICH WILL CAUSE A SERIOUS REDUCTION IN PROPERTY VALUES, THUS RESULTING IN THE LOSS OF TAX REVENUES. This information is simply designed to intimidate and manipulate the results of the study. THIS MEANS THAT PROPOSITION 10 CANNOT BE HELD RESPONSIBLE ALONE FOR THIS ASSUMPTION, BUT IT IS USED TO MANIPULATE THE RESULTS OF THE STUDY. YOU KNOW THIS.
Third, the question poses the following premise “Depending on actions by local communities, revenue losses could be less or considerably more.” Again given the reality that real estate values are poised to drop without even with proposition 10, this information is used simply to intimidate and mislead the one be asked the question. YOU KNOW THIS.
In effect, the question was not correct and statistically valid unless the question was simply:
“Do you as a voter support repeal of Costa Hawkins as placed on the ballot under Proposition 10?”
THAT is a scientifically correct and unbiased question. But this organization simply wanted a specific result so it rigged the question. THE QUESTIONS WERE GIVEN IN ORDER, SO ANY OTHER QUESTION WOULD BE TAINTED BY ANY PREVIOUS CONVERSATIONS.
There was a follow up question on page 17 but given that question 19 already poisoned the accuracy of the results this question was simply not going to correct the problem it stated:
33. [likely voters only] Do you think rent control- that is, the ability of local governments to set limits on how much rents can be increased each year- is a good thing?
Finally if you look at this question and its results you can also discover a poor sampling the question 34 asked:
Next, would you consider yourself politically? The sample indicated:
13% “very liberal” 19% “somewhat liberal” 31% “middle of the road” 22% “somewhat conservative” 12% “very conservative” 3% “Don’t know”
Lets look at the California political breakdown from their own study found here (http://www.ppic.org/publication/california-voter-and-party-profiles/) it states that:
Political Ideology 38% “Liberal” 28% “Moderate” and 34 % “Conservative” If you compare the two results the disparity is obvious
Your study indicated only 32% ”Liberal” where the voter proportion is 38% A DEFICIT OF 6% OR AN ERROR OF -15%.
The Moderate in your study was 31% where it was determined 28% AN ERROR RATE OF +7%.
The Conservative total in the study was 34% “Conservative” which was accurate.
But this indicates a failure of the study sample given the PPIC already knew that those results WERE NOT PROPORTIONAL WITH THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AS THEY FOUND IT. If you wanted to adjust for this, you will need to add 15% to the reported support of 36% in their prop 10 report which comes to 41% that will most likely vote for it. The report on page 11 (http://www.ppic.org/wp-content/uploads/ppic-statewide-survey-september-2018.pdf) also stated:
“Forty-two percent of likely voters say that the outcome of the vote on Proposition 10 is very important to them, while a further 33 percent say it is somewhat important. Views on its importance are similar across parties and among those who would vote yes and those who would vote no on this proposition. Notably, renters (54%) are much more likely than homeowners (38%) to say that the outcome of the vote on Proposition 10 is very important to them.
“How important to you is the outcome of the vote on Proposition 10?”
Likely voters only
Very Important 42% of all likely voters, 44% Democrat, 39% Republican and 45% Independent, of the Very important category 46% will vote in favor and 45% will not
Somewhat Important 33% of all likely voters, 31% Democrat, 34% Republican and 31% Independent, of the Very important category 37% will vote in favor and 32% will not
Not Too Important 16% of all likely voters, 17% Democrat, 19% Republican and 13% Independent, of the Very important category 15% will vote in favor and 17% will not
Not At All Important 4% of all likely voters, 3% Democrat, 4% Republican and 3% Independent, of the Very important category 1% will vote in favor and 6% will not
Don’t Know 5% of all likely voters, 5% Democrat, 4% Republican and 7% Independent, of the Very important category 1% will vote in favor and 1% will not”
The final information you should consider is the information from this PPIC report that stated:
“Voter registration is up slightly; the share of independents has increased.
California’s 19 million registered voters constitute 75.7% of eligible adults, a slight increase from the registration rate in 2014 (73.3%), the year of the last gubernatorial election. THE SHARE OF REGISTERED VOTERS WHO ARE DEMOCRATS (44.4%) IS UP SLIGHTLY FROM 2014 (43.4%), WHILE THE SHARE OF REPUBLICANS (25.1%) HAS DECLINED SINCE 2014 (28.4%). At the same time, the share of voters who say they are independent (also known as “decline to state” or “no party preference”) has been increasing and is now 25.5%, up from 21.2% in 2014. OUR SURVEYS INDICATE THAT 47% OF THOSE WE CONSIDER MOST LIKELY TO VOTE ARE DEMOCRATS, 28% ARE REPUBLICANS, AND 21% ARE INDEPENDENTS.”
Thus if the democratic vote is high, especially after he insanity happening in Washington in effect enraging the democratic party voters, and many independents, This should result in a high voter turnout. Democrats already vote nearly 60% more and regarding if housing is the most important issue, the numbers per this report are not actually good.
So, I have the training and expertise to analyze this process proven by my degree from SJSU. You stated:
“They have to understand that when draconian measures are imposed on property owners without any consideration of their rights there is always going to be resistance.”
Resistance YES, in this case approaching a “violent” potential because the VOTERS choose the laws, NOT LOBBYIST, NOR POLITICIANS THAT HAVE A FINANCIAL STAKE IN THE POLICIES. The proposition permanently give the VOTERS the right to CHOOSE rent policies and NOTHING MORE.
I simply state this VOTERS please make up your own mind and do not buy the claims made by the RESISTANCE without doing your own HOMEWORK.
TBM,
I have read many articles on polls done by PPIC.
There were few accusations in the past election cycles of their bias by the people who did not like the poll results.
Surprisingly all of these were accusing PPIC to be skewed to the liberal side.
ALL of these accusations, according to my research, were proven wrong by the actual election results in The past cycles.
If anything, the margin of the predictions by PPIC actually increased, once the votes were counted.
So, with this track record of PPIC in actually being correct 100% of the time, it would be a long shot to project that Prop 10 passes, to say the least.
In response to mike rose you said:
“I have read many articles on polls done by PPIC.”
Please provide links so we can read them too? You said:
“There were few accusations in the past election cycles of their bias by the people who did not like the poll results.”
Please provide the links so we can read them too? You said:
“Surprisingly all of these were accusing PPIC to be skewed to the liberal side.”
Please provide the links so we can read them too? You said:
“ALL of these accusations, according to my research, were proven wrong by the actual election results in The past cycles.”
Please provide the proof of this claim? We cannot base our decision only based on “according to my research”. We need the evidence, please provide us with it? You said:
“If anything, the margin of the predictions by PPIC actually increased, once the votes were counted.”
Again, please provide your research and your resources so we can read it too? You said:
“So, with this track record of PPIC in actually being correct 100% of the time, it would be a long shot to project that Prop 10 passes, to say the least.”
Again, the VOTERS make that decision, not a POLL.
@Randy….so someone posting rebuttals to TBMs posts are now harassment? Because you don’t like what he’s saying it’s harassment? It appears there are many of us reading that DO see the truth and it’s most certainly not as you’re suggesting.
@mike please do continue posting, don’t let them shut you down. The truth needs to be told and all of us should be talking about it with our neighbors. If everyone truly understood the implications I can guarantee this will not pass. But people are being lied to and this is being misrepresented by so many, particularly the media.
In response to mvresident2003 you said:
“@mike please do continue posting, don’t let them shut you down. The truth needs to be told and all of us should be talking about it with our neighbors.”
No argument with that, I do not DICTATE the truth, I simply provide information where it contradicts anothers opinion. You said:
“If everyone truly understood the implications I can guarantee this will not pass.”
That I cannot agree with, your point of view should not overwhelm others. I provided my information for the public to consider, but you assume that your point is the only one. Simply put, you cannot DICTATE that the proposition nor rent control is in fact DAMAGING to anyone. It is negative to those who made a gamble regarding the apartment business. You said:
“But people are being lied to and this is being misrepresented by so many, particularly the media.”
There you go again claiming the “fake” media. You simply cannot disregard any news coverage. Especially when the news must perform verification of their reporting. Most comments made here have no resources to back up the comments. So it is very easy to make claims with not resources. You simply cannot claim that news is false without proof.
TBM,
At your service Sir, as you requested here is the link showing the PPIC polls results vs actual votes.
https://www.ourcampaigns.com/PollingFirmPolls.html?PollingFirmID=375&Offset=20
Enjoy.
Forgot to mention when you open the link click on Polls Conducted 140 button that will direct you to recent polls 2016-2018 when they updated their methodology.
mvresident2003, you can look through all the other articles where mike has scores upon scores of deleted comments. He’s aggressively harassed The Business Man over and over again. You agree with mike so you’ll simply ignore it. I, on the other hand, don’t put up with targeted harassment by anyone.
Yes Randy, I admit that some of my previous comments were deleted by MVV.
Incidentally, I would have to assume deleting or allowing my statements to stay is at the discretion of TBM himself, according to his statement :
“..I purposely let any comments (INCLUDING YOURS) stay on the website…”
Look like he is in control of MVV.
Case in point, even now, mike can’t help himself from targeting The Business Man. When will the Voice moderators act and clean up the dialogue here?
Randy,
Was my statement false?
Or you would like me to be politically censored out even more?
Why are you so desperate?
Yeah, your statement is false that he’s in control of the Voice. You don’t actually believe that, and you’re trying to harass him. Be best.
Randy,
TBM asserted here (not me) full control on allowing someone (me) to post on MVV ( see above)
Why do you claim that citing that assertion constitutes harassment?
I think you need to stop these baseless accusations.
You just come across as very desperate person, who lacks arguments to support ( losing) ideology and attempts to forcibly impose censorship on the people with opposing point of view.
I n response to mike rose you said:
“At your service Sir, as you requested here is the link showing the PPIC polls results vs actual votes.
Web Link
Enjoy.”
You said PPIC POLLS were 100% accurate.
Please note the variances in the election results per your resources:
2016-11-08 22:00:00 Proposition 64 (Marijuana Legalization)
The PPIC result in yes was off 1.72% and no 2.21%
2016-11-08 22:00:00 Proposition 51 (School Bonds)
The PPIC results in yes were off 3.2% and no was off by 1.51%
2016-11-08 22:00:00 Proposition 55 (Tax Extension to Fund Education and Healthcare)
The PPIC result in yes was off 1.63% and no was off 2.63%
2016-11-08 22:00:00 Proposition 56 (Cigarette Tax)
The PPIC result in yes was off 5.07% and no was off 4,71%
2014-11-04 19:30:00 CA Prop 47: Reduce Nonviolent Crimes from Felony to Misdemeanor
The PPIC result in yes was off by 7.6% and no was 9.04% from the actual votes
2012-11-06 22:00:00 CA Proposition 38: Tax for Education & Early Childhood
The PPIC result in no was off by 14% and yes 13.4%.
2012-11-06 22:00:00 CA Proposition 30: Temporary Taxes for Education
The PPIC result in yes was off by 3.53% and no off by 2.89%
2012-11-06 22:00:00 CA Proposition 32: Prohibit Political Contributions from Payroll Deduction
The PPIC result in nos was off by .064% and yes by 1.28%
2010-11-02 22:00:00 CA Proposition 23 – Suspension of AB 32
The PPIC result in no was 10.53% off and yes 12.78%
2010-11-02 22:00:00 CA Proposition 24 – Repeals Recent Legislation That Would Allow Businesses to Lower Their Tax Liability.
The PPIC result in no was off 12% and yes off 3.97%
2010-11-02 22:00:00 CA Proposition 25 – Changes Legislative Vote Requirement to Pass a Budget from Two-Thirds to a Simple Majority
The PPIC result in yes was off 1.42% and no 4.31%
2010-11-02 23:00:00 Proposition 19 – Legalizes Marijuana Under California but not Federal Law
The PPIC result in no was off 1.03% and yes .054%
2010-06-08 20:00:00 CA Proposition 14 – Top Two Primaries Act
The PPIC result in yes was off 14.18% and no was off 15.87%
2008-11-04 22:00:00 CA Proposition 8 – Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry
The PPIC result in yes was off by 6.48% and no was off 6.32%
From what I can demonstrate here, the claim that the PPIC is 100% accurate is simply overstating the idea. Given that in some cases they were off as much as 14% in some cases, this cannot be your only evidence to prove your argument.
Also this is NOT a primary source. It can be argued that the web page can have errors in it because it in fact is a secondary source. Thus maybe you need to do more research on the subject.
AGAIN, THE VOTERS WILL MAKE THE DECISION NOT A POLL.
TBM,
All polls state clearly the % of undecided voters at the time the poll is taken, you knew that, right?
Final vote counts always differ because there are no undecided voters then after the vote, right?
Nevertheless all propositions in 2016 elections were predicted correctly by PPIC in terms of yes or no vote prevailing.
Actually the margins were larger than predicted.
But you are right in saying that the voters will make a choice, not pollsters.
It just does not look good for you at the moment.
mike, it’s straightforward. Do you believe that The Business Man is “in control of MVV”? Do you believe that “deleting or allowing my statements to stay is at the discretion of TBM himself”? The answer, that we all know, is that you don’t. Instead, you were mocking and harassing The Business Man. Show yourself to be a man of integrity and admit as much. Be best.
TBM,
I realize , I should be more specific as to my comments on PPIC polls. What I meant is they are 100% correct on the outcome of the vote on the statewide propositions in the last election cycle, rather than correct 100% on the number of the votes ( no one is ever going to predict that)
My apology if indeed this was misunderstood.
Randy,
It is not a matter of me believing him.
Do you believe TBM when he stated he is in control of letting my posts stay on the forum?
If you don’t I will have to assume you are harassing him.
It matters quite a bit if you believe him or believe that’s what he meant. Unless you state otherwise, it’s clear you don’t believe either, which means you’re simply trying to mock and harass him. Your continued attempts to dodge make it all the more clear.
Randy, this is very straightforward as you say, I just quoted TBM own words, no harassment here.
Do you dispute the fact that he LETS
my comment to stay on this website?
Do you dispute the fact that the word LET implies the power to allow or disallow my comments to stay on the website?
Are those things you believe? Everyone here knows you meant those things to mock and harass him. Do you think this act is convincing for anyone?
Randy,
You clearly avoided answer to 2 simple questions.
I hope the readers will see how disingenuous you are.
You are baselessly accusing me of harrasment but when pinned down on facts you just repeat your meaningless slogans.
That’s all
Moderators, I’ll put it to you again: is this the level of discourse you want on your newspaper? People engaging in targeted harassment, then pretending to believe that the poster they are harassing is somehow in control of your website? Really? Why do you let these people still post here, is the “engagement” really worth it?
Randy,
Would you finally stop this whining?
I think everyone on this forum is fed up with your temper tantrums.
In response to mike rose you said:
“I realize , I should be more specific as to my comments on PPIC polls. What I meant is they are 100% correct on the outcome of the vote on the statewide propositions in the last election cycle, rather than correct 100% on the number of the votes ( no one is ever going to predict that)”
Talking about changing the location of the “goalpost”. You know what you said and you should me more careful. I also noticed you tried to avoid the big error of the PPIC which was predicting that Question 8 would not pass, the same sex marriage ban. The PPIC predicted it would lose as seen here:
2008-11-04 22:00:00 CA Proposition 8 – Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry
ACTUAL YES votes were 7,001,084 or 52.24% and NO votes were 6,401,482 or 47.76%
THE PPIC POLL STATED on 10/12/2008-10/19/2008 (4.00% Undecided) that the NO votes would be 54.08% and the YES votes would be 45.76%.
So you try to give the impression of the PPIC as being all knowing. You use language that is clearly misleading. Then you try to change your claims in order to narrow the scope of fact finding. My simple observation is that on one of the most important proposition questions in the election history the PPIC was WRONG.
In so far about having your posts removed, I NEVER flag your comments as “report objectionable content”. Most cases are if one does click the link and the moderator sees that you are crossing the line into harassing another poster, it does get removed.
AND YOU NOTORIOUSLY COMPLAIN ABOUT CENSORSHIP BECAUSE THE POSTS HAVE BEEN REMOVED,
Or at least another mike rose does,
My apology if indeed this was misunderstood.