News

Editorial: No on Measure D, the City Council's rent control rewrite

The argument in favor of Measure D, the City Council's rewrite of Mountain View's rent control law, boils down to this: Trust us.

Trust us when we tell you we've found a compromise that brings tenants and landlords together to end divisiveness and rancor over rent control.

Trust us to cut a deal with the country's largest landlord lobbying group, the California Apartment Association, and end its attempts to overturn rent control in Mountain View. Trust us, even though local tenant groups are actively campaigning against Measure D and, by definition, it's not a compromise if only one side has signed on. Trust us, even though there's no guarantee that CAA won't keep trying to kill rent control as soon as the political winds shift in its favor.

Trust us to take away much of the Rental Housing Committee's autonomy, which we're doing purely in the interest of good governance. Trust us, despite the fact that we're using CAA's patently misleading argument -- prevent the RHC's members from paying themselves, something no one's ever proposed -- to sell this point.

Trust us that opening up the RHC to landlords who don't even live in Mountain View is necessary to ensure we have an adequate pool of applicants, even though the commission will be fine if we don't, since there is no minimum number of landlords required, only a maximum.

Sponsored
...
6 Steps to master the home buying process during a pandemic

Your no-stress guide to buying a home no matter what the circumstance.

...
Sponsored
6 Steps to master the home buying process during a pandemic

Your no-stress guide to buying a home no matter what the circumstance.

Trust us when we compare Measure D's flat 4% annual cap on rent increases with the Community Stabilization and Fair Rent Act's (CSFRA) maximum of 5%, omitting the fact that, since rent control is tied to the local annual rate of inflation (CPI), 4% represents an increase over the current 3.6%. In fact, the last time CPI exceeded 4% was back in 2001.

Trust us when we say that, by making it much easier for property owners to pass through costs to renters and boost annual rent increases up to 10%, the council is just doing what's necessary to prevent redevelopment tear-downs and encourage seismic safety upgrades -- things that the City Council could have accomplished through separate legislation, but hasn't.

Trust us when we say that by eliminating mobile home parks from the existing rent control law, we're doing it so we can pass our own law someday. Trust us, even though a recent council meeting left many mobile home residents disgruntled and discouraged, and prompted former school board member Chris Chiang to drop his endorsement of Measure D.

As the adage goes, trust has to be earned. So voters must ask themselves, on the prickly subject of rent control, has the City Council done enough to earn their trust? In our opinion, the answer is no.

Since Measure V passed in 2016 and enshrined rent control as a charter amendment, the City Council's track record on the subject leaves much to be desired. The majority of the City Council is opposed to rent control on general principle, and its last attempt, in 2016, to pass a watered-down version of renter protections was defeated by voters in favor of the much more robust Measure V.

Stay informed

Get daily headlines sent straight to your inbox.

Sign up

In the crucial early months of implementing CSFRA, the City Council passed over RHC applicants who had worked on Measure V and gave a key appointment to former Councilman Tom Means, a Libertarian vocally opposed to rent control in all forms. While serving on the RHC, Means took a side job working for the landlord lobby on an anti-rent control campaign in Pacifica. That's the sort of thing that might make a voter question whether the City Council was truly acting in good faith.

It's possible that it was a major coup to get CAA to drop its support for the "sneaky repeal," a November ballot measure that purports to improve Mountain View's rent control law but would actually kill it with a poison pill provision tied to occupancy rates.

It's also entirely possible that CAA, looking at the results of a December push poll on rent control, decided the prospects of passing its own measure looked grim and found Measure D a palatable substitute. What is impossible to discern is how anyone would look at CAA spokesman Josh Howard's statement on Measure D and think it amounts to anything more than a temporary cease-fire. CAA has a long history of fighting rent control initiatives up and down the state, and there's no guarantee that Mountain View will be granted perpetual immunity from divisive battles over renter protections should Measure D pass.

Mountain View's brief experiment with rent control has not been flawless, but Measure D is not the right way to improve it. We are in agreement with the local League of Women Voters, the Santa Clara County Democratic Party, the Mountain View Housing Justice Coalition and the Mountain View Mobile Home Alliance: Vote no on Measure D.

Endorsements are the opinion of the Voice's editorial board and do not influence news stories or reporting.

Follow Mountain View Voice Online on Twitter @mvvoice, Facebook and on Instagram @mvvoice for breaking news, local events, photos, videos and more.

...
Sponsored
6 Steps to master the home buying process during a pandemic

Your no-stress guide to buying a home no matter what the circumstance.

Editorial: No on Measure D, the City Council's rent control rewrite

by / Mountain View Voice

Uploaded: Fri, Feb 14, 2020, 1:50 pm

The argument in favor of Measure D, the City Council's rewrite of Mountain View's rent control law, boils down to this: Trust us.

Trust us when we tell you we've found a compromise that brings tenants and landlords together to end divisiveness and rancor over rent control.

Trust us to cut a deal with the country's largest landlord lobbying group, the California Apartment Association, and end its attempts to overturn rent control in Mountain View. Trust us, even though local tenant groups are actively campaigning against Measure D and, by definition, it's not a compromise if only one side has signed on. Trust us, even though there's no guarantee that CAA won't keep trying to kill rent control as soon as the political winds shift in its favor.

Trust us to take away much of the Rental Housing Committee's autonomy, which we're doing purely in the interest of good governance. Trust us, despite the fact that we're using CAA's patently misleading argument -- prevent the RHC's members from paying themselves, something no one's ever proposed -- to sell this point.

Trust us that opening up the RHC to landlords who don't even live in Mountain View is necessary to ensure we have an adequate pool of applicants, even though the commission will be fine if we don't, since there is no minimum number of landlords required, only a maximum.

Trust us when we compare Measure D's flat 4% annual cap on rent increases with the Community Stabilization and Fair Rent Act's (CSFRA) maximum of 5%, omitting the fact that, since rent control is tied to the local annual rate of inflation (CPI), 4% represents an increase over the current 3.6%. In fact, the last time CPI exceeded 4% was back in 2001.

Trust us when we say that, by making it much easier for property owners to pass through costs to renters and boost annual rent increases up to 10%, the council is just doing what's necessary to prevent redevelopment tear-downs and encourage seismic safety upgrades -- things that the City Council could have accomplished through separate legislation, but hasn't.

Trust us when we say that by eliminating mobile home parks from the existing rent control law, we're doing it so we can pass our own law someday. Trust us, even though a recent council meeting left many mobile home residents disgruntled and discouraged, and prompted former school board member Chris Chiang to drop his endorsement of Measure D.

As the adage goes, trust has to be earned. So voters must ask themselves, on the prickly subject of rent control, has the City Council done enough to earn their trust? In our opinion, the answer is no.

Since Measure V passed in 2016 and enshrined rent control as a charter amendment, the City Council's track record on the subject leaves much to be desired. The majority of the City Council is opposed to rent control on general principle, and its last attempt, in 2016, to pass a watered-down version of renter protections was defeated by voters in favor of the much more robust Measure V.

In the crucial early months of implementing CSFRA, the City Council passed over RHC applicants who had worked on Measure V and gave a key appointment to former Councilman Tom Means, a Libertarian vocally opposed to rent control in all forms. While serving on the RHC, Means took a side job working for the landlord lobby on an anti-rent control campaign in Pacifica. That's the sort of thing that might make a voter question whether the City Council was truly acting in good faith.

It's possible that it was a major coup to get CAA to drop its support for the "sneaky repeal," a November ballot measure that purports to improve Mountain View's rent control law but would actually kill it with a poison pill provision tied to occupancy rates.

It's also entirely possible that CAA, looking at the results of a December push poll on rent control, decided the prospects of passing its own measure looked grim and found Measure D a palatable substitute. What is impossible to discern is how anyone would look at CAA spokesman Josh Howard's statement on Measure D and think it amounts to anything more than a temporary cease-fire. CAA has a long history of fighting rent control initiatives up and down the state, and there's no guarantee that Mountain View will be granted perpetual immunity from divisive battles over renter protections should Measure D pass.

Mountain View's brief experiment with rent control has not been flawless, but Measure D is not the right way to improve it. We are in agreement with the local League of Women Voters, the Santa Clara County Democratic Party, the Mountain View Housing Justice Coalition and the Mountain View Mobile Home Alliance: Vote no on Measure D.

Endorsements are the opinion of the Voice's editorial board and do not influence news stories or reporting.

Comments

Dan
Bailey Park
on Feb 14, 2020 at 3:48 pm
Dan, Bailey Park
on Feb 14, 2020 at 3:48 pm
216 people like this

This is the activist Voice working hand in hand with the Santa Clara County Socialist Party and Lenny Siegel.

Remember that they want to expand RV parking in our city and gathered the signatures to put the RV parking restriction on narrow streets on the Nov. ballot to overturn what the city council did.

They are an out of touch activist group, vote against them.


The Business Man
Castro City
on Feb 14, 2020 at 5:14 pm
The Business Man, Castro City
on Feb 14, 2020 at 5:14 pm
13 people like this

In response to Dan you said:

“This is the activist Voice working hand in hand with the Santa Clara County Socialist Party and Lenny Siegel.”

Here we go again with the RED BAITING, Do I need to post my report form a REPUBLICAN SENATOR that argued the validity of price controls on the FEDERAL level during a tim of WAR. The Fact is the emergency legislation is still on the books in the federal statutes. And we ARE in a STATE of WAR against TERRORISM. So please let’s stop this right now? You said:

“Remember that they want to expand RV parking in our city and gathered the signatures to put the RV parking restriction on narrow streets on the Nov. ballot to overturn what the city council did.”

But that was because the existing rights were already there. Any attempt to change them can be challenged in so many ways. The Courts use Strict Scrutiny standards to determine the constitutionality of the law which requires a overwhelming level of compelling governmental interest to change the rights. So the People chose another path rather than go to court. If the Ballot fails the courts will have to weigh in. You said:

“They are an out of touch activist group, vote against them.”

And what about any “out of touch” right wing groups, like those that argue private property rights which in fact do not exist in the U.S. or California? Please let’s stop trying to use personal attacks in this forum?


Dan
Bailey Park
on Feb 14, 2020 at 5:21 pm
Dan, Bailey Park
on Feb 14, 2020 at 5:21 pm
339 people like this

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]


The Business Man
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Feb 14, 2020 at 6:04 pm
The Business Man, Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Feb 14, 2020 at 6:04 pm
10 people like this

Dan,

All I can say is if you can only produce unsubstantial personal attacks against anyone that doesn't agree with you, then this will be a short conversation. You make statements that are in fact so untrue.

You still didn't address Alan Greenspan’s description of the failure of the housing market.

Please remember the REAL history of the Housing failure of 2007:

“Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan told a House committee Thursday that the banking and housing crisis is a "once-in-a-century credit tsunami." When asked if his ideology pushed him to make bad decisions, Greenspan said he found a "flaw" in his governing ideology that has led him to re-examine his thinking.

STEVE INSKEEP, Host:

The man who always seemed to be right when he was overseeing our economy now says he might have been wrong. Alan Greenspan, former chairman of the Federal Reserve, testified before lawmakers about the causes of the financial crisis. And he says, markets have been hit by a crisis worse than anything he could have imagined. HE STILL DOESN'T FULLY UNDERSTAND WHY. NPR's Brian Naylor reports.

BRIAN NAYLOR: The man once known as the maestro for his direction of the nation's economy as Fed chairman sat for four long hours yesterday, watching lawmakers who once cheered his performances turn into harsh critics. Testifying before the House Oversight Committee, Greenspan didn't down play the severity of the crisis in the nation's markets.

M: We are in the midst of a once-in-a-century credit tsunami. Central banks and governments are being required to take unprecedented measures.

NAYLOR: Under questioning from Democrats on the panel, Greenspan conceded he might have been, as he put it, partially wrong in not moving to regulate trading of some derivatives that are among the root causes of the credit crisis. HE ALSO ADMITTED HIS FREE MARKET IDEOLOGY MAY BE FLAWED. This exchange with committee chairman, Democrat Henry Waxman of California, verged on the metaphysical.

NAYLOR: You found a flaw in the reality...

M: FLAW IN THE MODEL THAT I PERCEIVED IS A CRITICAL FUNCTIONING STRUCTURE THAT DEFINES HOW THE WORLD WORKS, SO TO SPEAK.

NAYLOR: In other words, you found that your view of the world, your ideology was not right. It was not working.

M: HOW IT - PRECISELY. THAT'S PRECISELY THE REASON I WAS SHOCKED, BECAUSE I'VE BEEN GOING FOR 40 YEARS OR MORE WITH VERY CONSIDERABLE EVIDENCE THAT IT WAS WORKING EXCEPTIONALLY WELL.

NAYLOR: As for criticism that Greenspan let interest rates remain too low for too long, helping fuel a housing bubble, GREENSPAN SAID IT WAS INVESTORS' FAILURE TO PROPERLY FACTOR IN THE RISK THAT HOUSING PRICES MIGHT FALL THAT LED TO THE CREDIT FREEZE. Greenspan testified along with former Treasury Secretary John Snow and SEC chairman Christopher Cox. Democrat John Yarmuth of Kentucky said the three reminded him of an ill fated baseball player.

NAYLOR: I feel like I'm looking out there at three Bill Buckners, the first baseman for the Red Sox who let the ball go through his legs and cost his team the championship. All of you let the ball go through your legs, and you didn't want to let the ball go through your legs. You didn't try to let the ball go through your legs but it got through.

NAYLOR: Republican William Sali wanted to know the consequences of the meltdown.

NAYLOR: What do you say to the people in Idaho who lost their investment or the people that have caused this, is somebody going to go to jail?

NAYLOR: SEC chairman, Cox said there was no question that, as he put it, somewhere in this terrible mess many laws were broken. Cox said the SEC has 50 investigations under way into subprime lending, but Cox said there were other things equally as important as bringing charges.

M: Cleaning up the mess through law enforcement after the fact, while important, is not ideal. And the best thing that we can do, of course, as many of you are focused on, this hearing is focused on this, is to infer lessons from what happened and prevent anything like this - this astonishing harm from happening now.

U: The chairman...

NAYLOR: Cox suggested Congress call for a select committee to address the financial crisis. GREENSPAN SAID MORE REGULATION IS REQUIRED, THOUGH HE CONTINUES TO BELIEVE THAT AS HE PUT IT, WHATEVER CHANGES ARE ENACTED WILL PALE IN COMPARISON TO CHANGES THE MARKETS THEMSELVES HAVE ALREADY MADE. Brian Naylor, NPR news, the Capitol.

Copyright © 2008 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by Verb8tm, Inc., an NPR contractor, and produced using a proprietary transcription process developed with NPR. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.

Greenspan Calls Financial Crisis A 'Credit Tsunami'

October 23, 200810:12 AM ET

The current global financial crisis is a "once-in-a-century credit tsunami" that policymakers did not anticipate, former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan told Congress on Thursday.

Stocks rebounded in early trading after a drubbing the previous session as investors bought beaten-down stocks even as they absorbed disappointing economic news — a larger-than-expected increase in jobless claims.

The Labor Department's report offers fresh evidence that the economy is slowing despite government relief efforts and gradual improvements in world credit markets. The department says new applications for unemployment benefits rose 15,000 last week to a seasonally adjusted 478,000. That is above Wall Street's estimate of 470,000.

Worries about the economy sent the Dow Jones industrials tumbling 514 points Wednesday after a 231-point drop Tuesday. On Thursday, the Dow blue chips closed up 172 points to 8,691, a rebound that wasn't surprising after such a huge pullback.

Greenspan was to be the leadoff witness at a House hearing that lawmakers called to question past key financial players about what they think caused the most grave financial crisis since the 1930s. The witnesses also were expected to be asked how they thought the government would deliver the nation from the economic turmoil.

Greenspan was the chairman of the Federal Reserve for 18 1/2 years. In testimony prepared for the House Government Oversight and Reform Committee, he voiced shock over the current turn of events and called conditions deplorable.

HE SAID HE AND OTHERS WHO BELIEVED LENDING INSTITUTIONS WOULD DO A GOOD JOB OF PROTECTING THEIR SHAREHOLDERS ARE IN A "STATE OF SHOCKED DISBELIEF." GREENSPAN ALSO BLAMED THE PROBLEMS ON HEAVY DEMAND FOR SECURITIES BACKED BY SUBPRIME MORTGAGES BY INVESTORS WHO DID NOT WORRY THAT THE BOOM IN HOME PRICES MIGHT COME TO A CRASHING HALT.

"Given the financial damage to date, I cannot see how we can avoid a significant rise in layoffs and unemployment," Greenspan said. "Fearful American households are attempting to adjust, as best they can, to a rapid contraction in credit availability, threats to retirement funds and increased job insecurity."

He said a necessary condition for the crisis to end will be a stabilization in home prices, but he said that is not likely to occur for "many months in the future."

When home prices finally stabilize, Greenspan added, then "the market freeze should begin to measurably thaw, and frightened investors will take tentative steps toward re-engagement with risk."

Greenspan said until that occurs, the government is correct to move forward aggressively with efforts to support the financial sector. He called the $700 billion rescue package passed by Congress on Oct. 10 "adequate to serve the need" and said its impact is already being felt in markets.

In his written testimony, Greenspan did not specifically address criticism he has received about being partly to blame for the current crisis.

GREENSPAN'S CRITICS CHARGE THAT HE LEFT INTEREST RATES TOO LOW IN THE EARLY PART OF THIS DECADE, SPURRING AN UNSUSTAINABLE HOUSING BOOM, WHILE ALSO REFUSING TO EXERCISE THE FED'S POWERS TO IMPOSE GREATER REGULATIONS ON THE ISSUANCE OF NEW TYPES OF MORTGAGES, INCLUDING SUBPRIME LOANS. IT WAS THE COLLAPSE OF THOSE MORTGAGES AND RISING DEFAULTS A YEAR AGO THAT TRIGGERED THE CURRENT CRISIS.

In his testimony, GREENSPAN PUT THE BLAME FOR THE SUBPRIME COLLAPSE ON OVEREAGER INVESTORS WHO DID NOT PROPERLY TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE THREATS THAT WOULD BE POSED ONCE HOME PRICES STOPPED SURGING UPWARD.

"IT WAS THE FAILURE TO PROPERLY PRICE SUCH RISKY ASSETS THAT PRECIPITATED THE CRISIS," he asserted.

Meanwhile, Neel Kashkari, the interim head of the government's $700 billion rescue effort, and other government officials were going before the Senate Banking Committee to lay out their plans for implementing the massive program.

From the Associated Press”

We are replaying that tune again, record low interest is trying to keep prices up in housing. But the prices are still showing a falling trend, especially in California.



Dan
Bailey Park
on Feb 14, 2020 at 6:57 pm
Dan, Bailey Park
on Feb 14, 2020 at 6:57 pm
267 people like this

I have a suggestion for you, B.M, have you considered changing your screen name?
A more accurate screen name for you is "The Copy and Paste Man".


Quit Being so Lenny Triggered
Old Mountain View
on Feb 14, 2020 at 7:24 pm
Quit Being so Lenny Triggered, Old Mountain View
on Feb 14, 2020 at 7:24 pm
10 people like this

Here comes our favorite crank, ranting about Lenny Siegel and the Socialists. I'd feel a little sad about what's gone wrong in that poster's life if it weren't so funny that he just can't help himself from nonstop posting about the scary communists everywhere.


Teen Therapist+Teacher Household
North Whisman
on Feb 14, 2020 at 7:48 pm
Teen Therapist+Teacher Household, North Whisman
on Feb 14, 2020 at 7:48 pm
22 people like this

If you actually care about protecting the most vulnerable people in the housing market in our town, then vote against D. It's quite simple.

Rent control isn't perfect, but it is a thousand times better than what we had before. Measure D is going to neuter this ONE protection we were actually able to pass.

There's a reason why the supporters of Measure D all seem to be connected to big money (CAA, real-estate developer-funded PACs, out-of-town/state/country landlords, etc). If this bill was genuinely good for renters, you'd see way more division and much less opposition.


Hmm
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Feb 16, 2020 at 5:43 am
Hmm, Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Feb 16, 2020 at 5:43 am
5 people like this

The only good rent control is the free market, not a few commies behind some desk telling people what to do with their property. This is America, not some commie failure of a country.

VOTE YES ON D !!!!!!!!


@Hmm
North Bayshore
on Feb 16, 2020 at 7:23 am
@Hmm, North Bayshore
on Feb 16, 2020 at 7:23 am
4 people like this

I share @ Hmm's belief in the innovation of the free market and the efficiency of price signals, but we do not have a free market in local housing as long as supply is so highly regulated. Artificial shortages benefit landlords, artificial prices benefit renters, so either deregulate both or regulate both.


Message Discipline
Old Mountain View
on Feb 16, 2020 at 7:50 am
Message Discipline, Old Mountain View
on Feb 16, 2020 at 7:50 am
4 people like this

Hmm, you're not supposed to say the part about getting rid of rent control anymore. Listen to Margaret Abe-Koga, Measure D is about "reforming" and "keeping" rent control, not getting rid of it. Mountain View voters like rent control, so you have to mislead them now into thinking Measure D will strengthen rent control.


Christopher Chiang
North Bayshore
on Feb 16, 2020 at 10:06 am
Christopher Chiang, North Bayshore
on Feb 16, 2020 at 10:06 am
10 people like this

Data Voters Deserve to Know:
Rent control only applies to units built before 1995 because of state law; nothing short of future state law changes that (Costa-Hawkins Act).

MV Measure V-2016: rent increase set to CPI/inflation, not to exceed 5%, recently set to 3% Web Link
Statewide AB 1482-2019: rent increase set to 5% plus CPI/inflation, not to exceed 10%, for Santa Clara County, that is: 8% Web Link
Proposed MV Measure D-2020: 4% plus repairs/upgrades for a "temp" increase not to exceed 10% Web Link

If you vote -no- on Measure D:
-Rent stays around 3.5%
-Fate of mobile homes is in the hands of the Rental Housing Committee and/or courts.
-Lasting impact on the supply of pre-1995 rental supply is unclear, but there is a trend of apartments being demolished Web Link

If you vote -yes- on Measure D:
-Rent cannot increase beyond 8.34% (not 10% because of overriding state law sets it at 8% see above) but may be more than 4% -if- landlords apply capital repairs/investments to their rent, a likely scenario since there's always repairs/upgrades so what does "temp" really mean?
-Mobile homes are directly -removed- from protection, with promises of possible separate future protection by the city council.
-Whether this would prevent reduction of pre-1995 rental supply is unknown. Greatest impact on new housing supply is zoning, not any of this since new housing is exempt from all rent control.

What if all MV rental control measures were repealed, like what the apartment association's November 2020 initiative functionally does:
MV would then default to the new state protection set at currently 8% (AB 1482).

So those against Measure D-2020 should not say 10%, since AB 1482 already sets it at 8% (still much higher than the 3% that is currently set by Measure V-2016). Those for Measure D should stop using the possibility of the Rental Housing Committee paying itself, since it has never been paid or been asked to be paid.

I -initially supported- Measure D-2020 because 4% sounds fair since landlord expenses are certainly higher than CPI and the promise of protecting mobile homes is needed, given the fear many mobile home residents have. I stopped supporting Measure D-2020 when it became clear that the reality will not be 4%, or at any fixed rate less than 8%, given that repairs/upgrades are not fixed; and after the recent city study session on mobile homes, that there was -not- a clear actionable majority in support of actually protecting mobile homes, their views of support were too disparate to rely on. I hope data can help people make up their minds, even change their minds. There's good reasons to vote either way.


The Business Man
Castro City
on Feb 16, 2020 at 10:54 am
The Business Man, Castro City
on Feb 16, 2020 at 10:54 am
5 people like this

The most important reason is the lie written in the last mailing it said:

"Limits rent increases to 4% per year."

This is a LIE the text of the LIE specifically is this:

The original rent increases regulated states:

(b) Rent Increases Regulated. No Landlord shall increase Rent for a Covered Rental Unit except as authorized by this Article. Rent increases shall be limited to those imposed pursuant to Section 1707 (Annual General Adjustment) and, Section 1710(a) (Petition for Upward Adjustment-Fair Rate of Return). A Landlord may set the initial Rent for a new tenancy pursuant to Section 1708 (Initial Rents for New Tenancies).

The New Text regarding Measure D states:

“(b) Rent Increases Regulated. No Landlord shall increase Rent for a Covered Rental Unit except as authorized by this Article. Rent increases shall be limited to those imposed pursuant to Section 1707 (Annual General Adjustment) , Section l 710(a) (Petition for Upward Adjustment-Fair Rate of Return), AND SECTION 1710(E) (INCREASES FOR SPECIFIED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS). A Landlord may set the initial Rent for a new tenancy pursuant to Section 1708 (Initial Rents for New Tenancies).

That additional provision (AND SECTION 1710(E) (INCREASES FOR SPECIFIED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS) gives the landlords the ability to raise the rents at whatever rates they can claim will be passed to the existing tenants. Another LIE is the claim stating:

“Make apartments safer and energy efficient”

The fact is that if they are not safe nor energy efficient, they would be in possible violation of inhabitability and energy efficiency standards required under state laws. Measure D is not necessary nor needed to ensure that the apartments are safe and energy efficient in any way. Another LIE states:

“Protects taxpayers by preventing an unelected commission from paying itself a salary.”

THIS IS WRONG because any salary would have to come from the rental fees collected under the CSFRA. The only funds that the RHC has access to come from those fees. The REALITY is that the LANDLORDS do not want to pay a salary to those who regulate them. ANOTHER LIE is this one:

“Giving the City Council the opportunity to expand renter protections to mobile home residents”

NOTHING IN THE CSFRA PROHIBITS THE RHC NOR THE CITY COUNCIL FROM PROVIDING THESE PROTECTIONS. Measure D is not necessary to provide this.

FINALLY the ULTIMATE POWER TAKEOVER OF THE CSFRA STATES:

It removes the independence of the RHC and makes it subject to the City Council

Just look at the original provision:

(k)Integrity and Autonomy of Committee.

The Committee shall be an integral part of the government of the City, BUT SHALL EXERCISE ITS POWERS AND DUTIES UNDER THIS ARTICLE INDEPENDENT FROM THE CITY COUNCIL, CITY MANAGER, AND CITY ATTORNEY, EXCEPT BY REQUEST OF THE COMMITTEE. The Committee may request the services of the City Attorney, who shall provide them pursuant to the lawful duties of the office in Article 711 of the City Charter. In the period between the effective date of this Article and the appointment of the initial members of the Committee, the City shall take whatever steps necessary to perform the duties of the Committee and implement the purposes of this Article.

HERE is the AMEDNDMENT part of Measure D:

(k) Integrity and Autonomy of Committee.

(2) ill The Committee shall be an integral part of the government of the City, The Committee is not a separate legal entity, the Committee may carry out its purposes with City employees, third party contractors, or any combination of the two, and ,ay request services of the City Attorney, who shall provide them pursuant to the lawful duties of the office in article 711 of the City Charter.

NOTICE THE LANGUAGE REMOVED WHICH WAS:

“BUT SHALL EXERCISE ITS POWERS AND DUTIES UNDER THIS ARTICLE INDEPENDENT FROM THE CITY COUNCIL, CITY MANAGER, AND CITY ATTORNEY, EXCEPT BY REQUEST OF THE COMMITTEE”

The City Council is in fact taking over the RHC in this ballot measure. The Citizens never wanted the City Council to have any influence over the RHC.

Finally there is the provision allowing for NON CITIZENS of Mountain View to have a vote on matters involving a Mountain View Citizens rights. Simply put NO WAY. Critics said the CSFRA was designed by Non residents. BUT IT WAS APPROVED BY THE CITIZENS OF MOUNTAIN VIEW AND NOT BY NON CITIZEN VOTERS.

Again such lies. And this mailing had the endorsements of Margaret Abe Koga, Chris Clark, Lisa Matichak and John McAllister.

THEY WANT TO TAKE OVER THE CSFRA


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

Post a comment

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