News

Seven step forward for rent control committee

New candidates apply to fill three open seats

With three upcoming vacancies, Mountain View's Rental Housing Committee is looking to recruit new members to help administer the city's rent control program. As of last week's deadline to apply, city officials reported they had received a total of seven applications.

Those candidates include attorney Julian Pardo de Zela, who previously served as the committee's alternate member and was appointed late last year to serve out the remainder of the term for one of the permanent seats.

The other applicants include Douglas Radtke, who works as finance director for the city of Portola Valley; Susyn Almond, a member of Progressive Action - Mountain View; Joan Brodovsky, a medical editor; and Jennifer Wayman, a fitness franchise owner. Occupation information on these applicants was drawn from their LinkedIn profiles. Other applicants seeking to join are Nicole Haines-Livesay and Nija Mashruwala; however their professional background information could not be immediately confirmed prior to the Voice's press deadline on Wednesday. The full application packets submitted by the candidates were not immediately made available by the city.

The three unpaid positions on the Rental Housing Committee include two regular seats with full voting privileges on the five-member board. In addition, City Council members will also need to appoint someone to a sixth alternate seat who would fill in as a substitute when a regular member is absent.

The two regular seats being vacated were occupied by Evan Ortiz and Tom Means. Both of them resigned last year after announcing they were moving out of the area.

Through most of 2018, the city's Rental Housing Committee had a busy schedule of meetings to establish a variety of nuanced policy rules for the city's rent control program. The committee has routinely drawn controversy because many of its decisions directly impact the livelihoods of tenants and landlords.

Each appointment to the Rental Housing Committee is subject to a vote by the City Council. It is not immediately clear when the City Council will take up the selection process.

What is community worth to you?
Support local journalism.

Comments

2 people like this
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jan 7, 2019 at 2:38 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

It woukld appear on its face that none of the candidates have any DIRECT relationship with the local real estate or apartment industries.

My only requirement is that the City Council takes steps to guarrenty that the current state court rules and the letter of the laws regarding the CSFDRA will be enforced without any bias.

The previous work done in the City Council in 2016 did not do so.

Given that these positions ARE JUDICIAL, these positions require the APPEARANCE of NONBIAS, let alone DEMONSTRATED BIAS.

BOTH Tom Means and Vanessa Honey have DEMONSTRATED BIAS in their actions. THIS MUST BE STOPPED.


2 people like this
Posted by Wrong
a resident of Bailey Park
on Jan 10, 2019 at 4:30 pm

Most of what BM posts is incorrect. For example the RHC is a mostly a legislative body. Very rarely have they acted as a judicial body. Except for a claim against Ramos, there have been no findings of bias by the staff attorneys. BM claims the RHC is not following the rules, but they have won the decisIon on MH parks. They have not been successfully challenged on any of the procedures they have followed. Picking a Different CPI measure for FRR is not a violation of the ordinance.

BM makes a lot of claims but fails to back them up with any facts. He just likes throwing pasta on the wall to see if anything sticks. If things were this bad, the FPPP or staff attorneys would file complaints against them.

BM just disagrees with the RHC decisions. So what. He just likes to complain. Maybe he should have applied for the open positions.


2 people like this
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jan 10, 2019 at 5:07 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

In response to wrong you said:

“Most of what BM posts is incorrect. For example the RHC is a mostly a legislative body. Very rarely have they acted as a judicial body.”

BUT THE#Y ARE A JUDICIARY BODY IF YOU READ THE CSFRA SECTION 1709 IT STATES THIS:

“(d) Powers and Duties.

The Committee shall have the following powers and duties:

(5) ADJUDICATE PETITIONS PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 1710 AND 1711 HEREIN AND ISSUE DECISIONS WITH ORDERS FOR APPROPRIATE RELIEF PURSUANT TO THIS ARTICLE.

(6) ADMINISTER OATHS AND AFFIRMATIONS AND SUBPOENA WITNESSES AND RELEVANT DOCUMENTS.

(9) HOLD PUBLIC HEARINGS. “

THIS IS PROOF THAT YOU ARE WRONG, THEY ARE JUDICIARY OFFICERS UNDER THE STATE LAWS AND THE CONSTITUTION. You said:

“Except for a claim against Ramos, there have been no findings of bias by the staff attorneys.”

THAT IS ONLY BECAUSE THE STAFF ATTORNEYS ARE ASSIGNED THEIR TASKS BY THE RHC, NOT THE PUBLIC, THEY ARE USED BY THE RHC MEMBERS ADVOCATING FOR LANDLORDS TO INTIMIDATE EMILY RAMOS. You said:

“BM claims the RHC is not following the rules, but they have won the decisIon on MH parks.”

BUT THEY PROVIDECNO EVIDENCE TO INVALIDATE ANY HEARING OFFICER DURING THEIR WORK, THAT IS A VIOLATION OF THEIR REQUIREMENTS. MOBILE HOMES ARE NOT AN ISSUE, YET. You said:

“They have not been successfully challenged on any of the procedures they have followed. Picking a Different CPI measure for FRR is not a violation of the ordinance. “

I HAVE NOT DISCUSSED THAT YET. You said:

“BM makes a lot of claims but fails to back them up with any facts. He just likes throwing pasta on the wall to see if anything sticks. If things were this bad, the FPPP or staff attorneys would file complaints against them. “

STAFF ATTORNEYS ARE EMPLOYEES OF THE CITY GOVERNMENT AND NOT THE CITY CITIZENS. YOU KNOW THAT. THE FPPP IS NOT INVOLVED BECAUSE RHC MEMBERS ARE NOT ELECTED, THEY ARE APPOINTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. You said:

“BM just disagrees with the RHC decisions. So what. He just likes to complain. Maybe he should have applied for the open positions.”

WHY WOULD I BE SUBJECT TO LOSS OF MY FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS TO POINT OUT ERRORS.


1 person likes this
Posted by Wrong
a resident of Bailey Park
on Jan 10, 2019 at 8:37 pm

More BS from BM. Fails to understand that RHC is mostly a legislative body. They are not just a judiciary body. You are also wrong about FPPC. RHC members must file a form 700. Also wrong that RHC attorneys are employees of city. They are hired as outside consultants. Sure it’s ok for you to express incorrect facts . That’s your free speech right


2 people like this
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jan 10, 2019 at 9:06 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

In response to wrong you said:

“More BS from BM. Fails to understand that RHC is mostly a legislative body. They are not just a judiciary body.”

SIMPLY PUT YOU ARE INCORRECT AS LONG AS ANY ADJUDICATION IS PERFORMED IT IS CALLED A “QUASI-JUDICIAL BODY” as defined as:


Definition of quasi-judicial

1 : having a partly judicial character by possession of the right to hold hearings on and conduct investigations into disputed claims and alleged infractions of rules and regulations AND TO MAKE DECISIONS IN THE GENERAL MANNER OF COURTS”( Web Link)

QUASI-JUDICIAL CONDUCT IS THE SAME AS JUDICIAL CONDUCT IN CALIFORNIA AND THESE MUST APPLY TO THE RHC:

“CALIFORNIA CODE OF JUDICIAL ETHICS

Amended by the Supreme Court of California effective October 10, 2018; adopted effective January 15, 1996; previously amended March 4, 1999, December 13, 2000, December 30, 2002, June 18, 2003, December 22, 2003, January 1, 2005, June 1, 2005, July 1, 2006, January 1, 2007, January 1, 2008, April 29, 2009, January 1, 2013, January 21, 2015, August 19, 2015, and December 1, 2016.

Canon 1. A judge shall uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary.

Canon 2. A judge shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of the judge’s activities.

Canon 3. A judge shall perform the duties of judicial office impartially, competently, and diligently.

Canon 4. A judge shall so conduct the judge’s quasi-judicial and extrajudicial activities as to minimize the risk of conflict with judicial obligations.

Canon 5. A judge or candidate for judicial office shall not engage in political or campaign activity that is inconsistent with the independence, integrity, or impartiality of the judiciary.

Canon 6. Compliance with the Code of Judicial Ethics.”( Web Link)

THUS YOU ARE SERIOUSLY MISTAKEN, ONLY IF THE RHC DID NO ADJUDICATION WOULD YOU BE CORRECT. You said:

“You are also wrong about FPPC. RHC members must file a form 700.”

FORM 700 IS SIMPLY A DISCLOSURE DOCUMENT. NOTHING MORE. THE FPPC WOULD ONLY INVESTIGATE WHEN A REQUEST IS MADE BY THE CITY ATTORNEY OR A SPECIFIC COMPLAINT IS FILED. IT DOES NOT ACT INDEPENDENTLY. You said:

“Also wrong that RHC attorneys are employees of city. They are hired as outside consultants.”

YES YOU ARE CORRECT, BUT ALSO SINCE THE RHC IS THEIR CLIENT THEY WILL ONLY PERFORM TASKS THE RHC REQUESTS OF THEM. NO ATTORNEY WILL ACT IN CONFLICT WITH THEIR CLIENT UNESS REQUIRED BY LAW. THE CITIZENS HAVE NO SAY IN THAT SITUATION AND YOU KNOW IT. You said:

“ Sure it’s ok for you to express incorrect facts . That’s your free speech right”

BUT SO FAR I DOCUMENTED THE TRUTH, THAT THIS BODY MUST COMPORT WITH JUDICIAL ETHICS AND FAILURE TO DO SO WILL HAVE GREAT CONSEQUENCES.


1 person likes this
Posted by Howard
a resident of Slater
on Jan 10, 2019 at 9:28 pm

Howard is a registered user.

Businesman,

The RHC is elected by a board not the public. They are no more Judiciary than you are the governor of California. Of course maybe you think your entitled to be?
Anyway, back to reality, you are wrong again.


3 people like this
Posted by Howard
a resident of Slater
on Jan 10, 2019 at 9:37 pm

Howard is a registered user.

Oh, by the way, I love your Judicial ethics. It's inconsistent with every Judicial employee or Judge I have ever met in the state of California and I know many.
The Canons or promises of our Judiciary have no place in our Judiciary at this time and don't apply.

You just don't get it that we live in times of corruption that starts at our courts and works its way down to the cop on the corner. Justice is just of our heritage that got lost along the way especially in California.

THIS IS WHY TRUMP IS PRESIDENT!


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jan 10, 2019 at 9:51 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

[Post removed due to copying text from another site/source]


2 people like this
Posted by Howard
a resident of Slater
on Jan 10, 2019 at 10:24 pm

Howard is a registered user.

Businessman,

You can cite any case law you want but that is not how it works in our courts today.
It is all about money and I have seen Judges ignore statutes in our Civil code as they are read to them. There is no justice in the courts and this is why money and politics talks and law walks in our courtrooms today.

Judges have full immunity and will decide cases on prejudice and don't even care that it is obvious. They expect that if you take it to appeal at whatever financial costs, it doesn't matter because "that Judge up there has my back anyway".

Absolute corruption!



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

Be the first to know

Get the latest headlines sent straight to your inbox every day.

Verve Coffee to start brewing in Palo Alto this Friday
By Elena Kadvany | 8 comments | 2,145 views

Premarital and Couples: Musings on Life
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 1,436 views

Why we are Warming
By Sherry Listgarten | 24 comments | 1,225 views

Cap On? Cap Off? The Cities Respond
By Laura Stec | 4 comments | 1,089 views