News

Mobile home park owner raises $94K to fight Measure D

Landlord lobby raises nearly $200K for council-backed rewrite of rent control measure that would exempt mobile homes from rent control

In a strange twist less than two weeks from election day, a prominent Mountain View mobile home park owner is pouring money into a campaign to defeat a ballot measure that would exempt mobile homes from rent control.

Last Friday, a new campaign committee called "Citizens Opposed To The Amendment To The Community Stabilization And Fair Rent Act" was created in opposition to Measure D, a city-sponsored measure appearing on the March 3 ballot. The measure was put forth by City Council members and would change several aspects of the city's existing rent control law, including establishing a fixed 4% cap on annual rent increases.

On Thursday, the newly formed committee was suddenly flush with cash: Two businesses, VG Investments and VO Limited Partners, poured a combined $94,400 into the campaign. John Vidovich, the owner of the Santiago Villa and Sahara mobile home parks in Mountain View, is listed as a partner in both businesses. Vidovich did not immediately respond to the Voice's request for comment, and the campaign's treasurer, Tom Montgomery, declined to comment.

What's unusual in that Measure D is largely opposed by mobile home residents in Mountain View, who have long argued that the city's current rent control law should be extended to the 1,100 homes across the city's six mobile home parks. The Community Stabilization And Fair Rent Act (CSFRA) does not explicitly include or exclude mobile homes, instead leaving it up to the interpretation of the city's Rental Housing Committee. In 2018, the committee opted to exclude mobile homes.

Under Measure D, the council is seeking to resolve the ambiguity by exempting mobile homes and spaces for mobile homes from the renter protections. The rationale, according to council members, is that it opens the door for the city to craft its own rent stabilization ordinance tailored specifically for mobile homes and separate from CSFRA.

What's local journalism worth to you?

Support Mountain View Online for as little as $5/month.

Learn more

The explanation did little to win over mobile home residents rankled by the idea that they should be treated any different from apartment tenants in the city. But it was also unpopular among park owners as well. At a meeting last month, Frank Kalcic of the Sunset Estates Mobile Home Park and Craig Oku of the Moffett Mobilehome Park both urged the council not to pass a rent control ordinance for their tenants, suggesting that decisions on rent increases are best left between park management and tenants.

Vidovich's lawyers previously threatened to sue the city in 2018 if the Rental Housing Committee attempted to extend CSFRA to mobile home properties.

The newly formed committee is entirely separate from an effort by the Mountain View Housing Justice Coalition to defeat Measure D, which has been raising funds and distributing flyers since January. Former Mountain View City Council member Lenny Siegel, a member of the coalition, told the Voice that he is skeptical that Vidovich -- a staunch opponent of rent control -- is rallying to defeat Measure D, and that he believes the new committee may shift gears and be used as a tool to pass the measure.

"It appears that the owner of Mountain View's largest two mobile home parks has hired an out-of-town consultant who doesn't even know which side of the issue he is on," Siegel said. "John Vidovich is against rent control on mobile homes and mobile home spaces, and we expect his money to be used to promote Measure D."

So far, that doesn't seem to be the case. The committee has created a website opposing the measure, called D for Deception, and has posted sponsored content on Facebook calling Measure D a "fraud."

Stay informed

Get daily headlines sent straight to your inbox.

Sign up

Montgomery, the treasurer for the new committee, said in an email that he has appropriately filed campaign documents against Measure D on behalf of his client, and questioned why the Voice would seek comments on Vidovich's campaign contributions. He declined to relay an interview request to Vidovich, citing anti-media sentiment.

"I just don't like the media, one way or the other. You've already made up your minds on everything and you're only out to further your own agenda. Doubt me? Just look at the national media starting with CNN, MSNBC, CBS, etc.," he said.

CAA raises $193K to pass Measure D

Campaign spending in support of Measure D has primarily been spearheaded by the California Apartment Association and financed by large residential property owners in the city, with the latest campaign filings showing the group has raised $193,000 since the start of the year.

The latest donations have come from Prometheus Real Estate Group, which contributed $82,600 earlier this month, followed by Americana I, LLC, which donated $27,200. Another group called Real Housing Solutions for Santa Rosa, which poured funds into previous a previous CAA-sponsored measure in Mountain View, contributed $7,000 to the "Yes on D" campaign.

Previous large donations to the campaign came from Tod Spieker ($49,500) and ACCO Management Company ($26,950). Campaign documents disclosing how the funds were spent through Feb. 15 had yet to be filed as of Thursday morning.

The CAA has a long history of opposing rent control in Mountain View, fighting CSFRA when it came to voters in 2016 as Measure V and, once it passed, gathered signatures for a ballot initiative for the November 2020 election that would eliminate rent control in the city through a poison pill provision tied to occupancy rates.

Though Measure D leaves many aspects of CSFRA intact, the association has since come out in support of the measure and has taken active role in trying to pass it.

Opposition raises $7,500

The latest round of campaign finance filings shows that the Mountain View Housing Justice Campaign has raised a total of $7,458 since the start of the year in its opposition efforts to Measure D, with numerous small donations primarily from Mountain View residents.

Contributions between Jan. 19 to Feb. 15 total just under $3,000 from 19 contributors, with the largest donations coming from Irene Yoshida ($300), Alice Martineau ($250) and Andrew McCreight ($200).

The campaign has spent $6,575 of those funds on a mix of flyers, signs, post cards and door hangers.

More information on Measure D can be found in the Voice's Voter Guide story.

Craving a new voice in Peninsula dining?

Sign up for the Peninsula Foodist newsletter.

Sign up now

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

Mobile home park owner raises $94K to fight Measure D

Landlord lobby raises nearly $200K for council-backed rewrite of rent control measure that would exempt mobile homes from rent control

by / Mountain View Voice

Uploaded: Thu, Feb 20, 2020, 5:28 pm

In a strange twist less than two weeks from election day, a prominent Mountain View mobile home park owner is pouring money into a campaign to defeat a ballot measure that would exempt mobile homes from rent control.

Last Friday, a new campaign committee called "Citizens Opposed To The Amendment To The Community Stabilization And Fair Rent Act" was created in opposition to Measure D, a city-sponsored measure appearing on the March 3 ballot. The measure was put forth by City Council members and would change several aspects of the city's existing rent control law, including establishing a fixed 4% cap on annual rent increases.

On Thursday, the newly formed committee was suddenly flush with cash: Two businesses, VG Investments and VO Limited Partners, poured a combined $94,400 into the campaign. John Vidovich, the owner of the Santiago Villa and Sahara mobile home parks in Mountain View, is listed as a partner in both businesses. Vidovich did not immediately respond to the Voice's request for comment, and the campaign's treasurer, Tom Montgomery, declined to comment.

What's unusual in that Measure D is largely opposed by mobile home residents in Mountain View, who have long argued that the city's current rent control law should be extended to the 1,100 homes across the city's six mobile home parks. The Community Stabilization And Fair Rent Act (CSFRA) does not explicitly include or exclude mobile homes, instead leaving it up to the interpretation of the city's Rental Housing Committee. In 2018, the committee opted to exclude mobile homes.

Under Measure D, the council is seeking to resolve the ambiguity by exempting mobile homes and spaces for mobile homes from the renter protections. The rationale, according to council members, is that it opens the door for the city to craft its own rent stabilization ordinance tailored specifically for mobile homes and separate from CSFRA.

The explanation did little to win over mobile home residents rankled by the idea that they should be treated any different from apartment tenants in the city. But it was also unpopular among park owners as well. At a meeting last month, Frank Kalcic of the Sunset Estates Mobile Home Park and Craig Oku of the Moffett Mobilehome Park both urged the council not to pass a rent control ordinance for their tenants, suggesting that decisions on rent increases are best left between park management and tenants.

Vidovich's lawyers previously threatened to sue the city in 2018 if the Rental Housing Committee attempted to extend CSFRA to mobile home properties.

The newly formed committee is entirely separate from an effort by the Mountain View Housing Justice Coalition to defeat Measure D, which has been raising funds and distributing flyers since January. Former Mountain View City Council member Lenny Siegel, a member of the coalition, told the Voice that he is skeptical that Vidovich -- a staunch opponent of rent control -- is rallying to defeat Measure D, and that he believes the new committee may shift gears and be used as a tool to pass the measure.

"It appears that the owner of Mountain View's largest two mobile home parks has hired an out-of-town consultant who doesn't even know which side of the issue he is on," Siegel said. "John Vidovich is against rent control on mobile homes and mobile home spaces, and we expect his money to be used to promote Measure D."

So far, that doesn't seem to be the case. The committee has created a website opposing the measure, called D for Deception, and has posted sponsored content on Facebook calling Measure D a "fraud."

Montgomery, the treasurer for the new committee, said in an email that he has appropriately filed campaign documents against Measure D on behalf of his client, and questioned why the Voice would seek comments on Vidovich's campaign contributions. He declined to relay an interview request to Vidovich, citing anti-media sentiment.

"I just don't like the media, one way or the other. You've already made up your minds on everything and you're only out to further your own agenda. Doubt me? Just look at the national media starting with CNN, MSNBC, CBS, etc.," he said.

CAA raises $193K to pass Measure D

Campaign spending in support of Measure D has primarily been spearheaded by the California Apartment Association and financed by large residential property owners in the city, with the latest campaign filings showing the group has raised $193,000 since the start of the year.

The latest donations have come from Prometheus Real Estate Group, which contributed $82,600 earlier this month, followed by Americana I, LLC, which donated $27,200. Another group called Real Housing Solutions for Santa Rosa, which poured funds into previous a previous CAA-sponsored measure in Mountain View, contributed $7,000 to the "Yes on D" campaign.

Previous large donations to the campaign came from Tod Spieker ($49,500) and ACCO Management Company ($26,950). Campaign documents disclosing how the funds were spent through Feb. 15 had yet to be filed as of Thursday morning.

The CAA has a long history of opposing rent control in Mountain View, fighting CSFRA when it came to voters in 2016 as Measure V and, once it passed, gathered signatures for a ballot initiative for the November 2020 election that would eliminate rent control in the city through a poison pill provision tied to occupancy rates.

Though Measure D leaves many aspects of CSFRA intact, the association has since come out in support of the measure and has taken active role in trying to pass it.

Opposition raises $7,500

The latest round of campaign finance filings shows that the Mountain View Housing Justice Campaign has raised a total of $7,458 since the start of the year in its opposition efforts to Measure D, with numerous small donations primarily from Mountain View residents.

Contributions between Jan. 19 to Feb. 15 total just under $3,000 from 19 contributors, with the largest donations coming from Irene Yoshida ($300), Alice Martineau ($250) and Andrew McCreight ($200).

The campaign has spent $6,575 of those funds on a mix of flyers, signs, post cards and door hangers.

More information on Measure D can be found in the Voice's Voter Guide story.

Comments

D for Down
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Feb 20, 2020 at 5:33 pm
D for Down, Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Feb 20, 2020 at 5:33 pm
24 people like this

The landlord orgs and developers are behind that one and the local pols who support it are in their back pockets.
No way I'm voting for it.


Gary
Sylvan Park
on Feb 21, 2020 at 1:52 am
Gary, Sylvan Park
on Feb 21, 2020 at 1:52 am
11 people like this

Mr. Vidivich may be thinking or hoping that his corporations can successfully oppose or invalidate any ordinance enacted by the City Council controlling rents at mobile home parks based on section 1717(a) of the current rent control article in the city charter (Measure V). There, it is stated that Measure V "supersedes any ordinance" in the area of "rents and evictions." But a law "supersedes" another when there is a conflict. Since a court has determined that Measure V empowers its rental housing committee to determine whether it extends to mobile home parks, and the committee has - so far - said "no." there can be no conflict between Measure V and an ordinance regulating rents or rent increases at mobile home parks. If the rental housing committee later decides Measure V extends to mobile home parks, then Measure V's limitations on rent increases would apply in mobile home parks and would prevail over any ordinance concerning mobile home park rents enacted by the city council. Of course, there is no assurance that the city council will ever appoint a majority of rent housing committee members who think Measure V applies in mobile home parks OR will ever enact an ordinance controlling rents or rent increases in mobile home parks.


The Business Man
Castro City
on Feb 21, 2020 at 9:24 am
The Business Man, Castro City
on Feb 21, 2020 at 9:24 am
7 people like this

In response to Gary who wrote:

“Mr. Vidivich may be thinking or hoping that his corporations can successfully oppose or invalidate any ordinance enacted by the City Council controlling rents at mobile home parks based on section 1717(a) of the current rent control article in the city charter (Measure V).”

Just understand the City Council will NEVER do it. Given that the City in fact owns all land in the City under the City Charter as documented here:

“Section 102. - Rights and Liabilities.

The City of Mountain View SHALL REMAIN VESTED WITH, AND CONTINUE TO HAVE, HOLD AND ENJOY, ALL PROPERTY, RIGHTS OF PROPERTY AND RIGHTS OF ACTION OF EVERY NATURE AND DESCRIPTION NOW PERTAINING TO THIS MUNICIPALITY, AND IS HEREBY DECLARED TO BE THE SUCCESSOR OF THE SAME. IT SHALL BE SUBJECT TO ALL THE LIABILITIES THAT NOW EXIST AGAINST THIS MUNICIPALITY.”

As everyone knows the MUNICIPALITY is THE ENTIRE CITY. It is defined in law as being defined by the law dictionary found here (Web Link):

“What is MUNICIPALITY?

A municipal corporation : A CITY, TOWN, BOROUGH, OR INCORPORATED VILLAGE. Also the body of officers, taken collectively, belonging to a city.”

You wrote:

“There, it is stated that Measure V "supersedes any ordinance" in the area of "rents and evictions." But a law "supersedes" another when there is a conflict. Since a court has determined that Measure V empowers its rental housing committee to determine whether it extends to mobile home parks, and the committee has - so far - said "no." there can be no conflict between Measure V and an ordinance regulating rents or rent increases at mobile home parks.”

But Measure D allows the City Council complete control over the RHC with the parts of the Measure D that I documented earlier that says:

Just look at the original provision inside the CSFRA as published by the city website (Web Link) it states:

(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 AMENDMENT part of Measure D published online at (Web Link) :

(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. THIS IS NOT A MINOR TWEAK, THE CITY COUNCIL WILL CONTROL THE RHC.

MEASURE D WILL ALLOW NON RESIDENTS OF MOUNTAIN VIEW JUDICIAL POWER OVER CITY CITITZENS OF MOUNTAIN VIEW. REMEMBER THE CSFRA DOES NOT STATE THERE MUST BE 2 MEMBERS THAT ARE OWN OR MANAGE ANY RENTAL PROPERTY, OR THAT ARE REALTORS OR DEVELOPERS. IT ONLY STTES THERE CAN BE NO MORE THAN 2. THE ORIGINAL TEXT CAN BE FOUND HERE(Web Link) and it states:

“Composition. There shall be in the City of Mountain View an appointed Rental Housing Committee comprised of Mountain View residents as set forth in this Section. The Committee shall consist of five (5) Committee members appointed by the City Council, and an alternate Committee member. The alternate Committee member shall be permitted to attend all Committee meetings and to speak, but not be authorized to vote unless a regular member of the Committee is absent at that meeting or is recused from voting on an agenda item. THERE SHALL BE NO MORE THAN TWO (2) MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE THAT OWN OR MANAGE ANY RENTAL PROPERTY, OR THAT ARE REALTORS OR DEVELOPERS. Anyone nominated to this Committee must be in compliance with this Article and all other local, state and federal laws regulating the provision of housing. Annually, the Committee shall elect one of its members to serve as chairperson.:

The changes Measure D proposes from the original text here:

“Section 1709. - Rental housing committee. (b)

Eligibility and Appointment. Committee members shall be appointed by the City Council at a public meeting. Applicants for membership on the Committee shall submit an application to the City Council. The application shall include a statement under penalty of perjury of the applicant's interests and dealings in real property, including but not limited to, ownership, trusteeship, sale, or management, and investment in and association with partnerships, corporations, joint ventures, and syndicates engaged in ownership, sale, or management of real property during the three years immediately prior to the applicant's application. This documentation shall be made available to the public.”

Measure D’s Changes are:

(b) Eligibility, Appointment, and Removal. Committee members shall be appointed by the City Council at a public meeting, AND SHALL BE SUBJECT TO REMOVAL BY MOTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTED BY AT LEAST FOUR AFFIRMATIVE VOTES. Applicants for membership on the Committee shall submit an application to the City Council. IF THE CITY COUNCIL DETERMINES THAT IT HAS NOT RECEIVED ADEQUATE QUALIFYING APPLICATIONS FROM MOUNTAIN VIEW RESIDENTS FOR ANY VACANT POSITION, THEN THE CITY COUNCIL MAY APPOINT AN OTHERWISE ELIGIBLE PERSON WHO IS NOT A MOUNTAIN VIEW RESIDENT TO THE COMMITTEE SO LONG AS THE PERSON MAINTAINS AN OWNERSHIP OR TRUSTEESHIP INTEREST IN. OR MANAGES. ONE OR MORE COVERED RENTAL UNITS. PROVIDED THE LIMITATION ON THE NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS WHO OWN OR MANAGE ANY RENTAL PROPERTY. OR WHO ARE REALTORS OR DEVELOPERS IN SECTION 1709(A) SHALL CONTINUE TO APPLY. The application shall include a statement under penalty of perjury of the applicant's interests and dealings in real property, including but not limited to, ownership, trusteeship, sale, or management, and investment in and association with partnerships, corporations, joint ventures, and syndicates engaged in ownership, sale, or management of real property during the three years immediately prior to the applicant's application. This documentation shall be made available to the public.

First there is the new line saying:

“AND SHALL BE SUBJECT TO REMOVAL BY MOTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTED BY AT LEAST FOUR AFFIRMATIVE VOTES”

This means the City Council is threatening the “independent RHC member with being thrown out for any reason.

“IF THE CITY COUNCIL DETERMINES THAT IT HAS NOT RECEIVED ADEQUATE QUALIFYING APPLICATIONS FROM MOUNTAIN VIEW RESIDENTS FOR ANY VACANT POSITION, THEN THE CITY COUNCIL MAY APPOINT AN OTHERWISE ELIGIBLE PERSON WHO IS NOT A MOUNTAIN VIEW RESIDENT TO THE COMMITTEE SO LONG AS THE PERSON MAINTAINS AN OWNERSHIP OR TRUSTEESHIP INTEREST IN. OR MANAGES. ONE OR MORE COVERED RENTAL UNITS. PROVIDED THE LIMITATION ON THE NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS WHO OWN OR MANAGE ANY RENTAL PROPERTY. OR WHO ARE REALTORS OR DEVELOPERS IN SECTION 1709(A) SHALL CONTINUE TO APPLY’

Again the City Council is incorrect in thinking that the CSFRA requires at Least 2 members that are THERE SHALL BE NO MORE THAN TWO (2) MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE THAT OWN OR MANAGE ANY RENTAL PROPERTY, OR THAT ARE REALTORS OR DEVELOPERS. THIS IS A LIE AND IT DOES NOT REQUIRE THERE BE 2 MEMBERS SATISFYING THAT CRITERIA, ONLY THAT A MAXIMUM OF 2 CAN BE.

THE CITY COUNCIL WANTS TO TAKE OVER THE CSFRA

THE CITY CANNOT LET THEM. You said:

“If the rental housing committee later decides Measure V extends to mobile home parks, then Measure V's limitations on rent increases would apply in mobile home parks and would prevail over any ordinance concerning mobile home park rents enacted by the city council.”

THIS WILL NEVER HAPPPEN IF MEASURE D PASSES ANYWAY. You said:

“Of course, there is no assurance that the city council will ever appoint a majority of rent housing committee members who think Measure V applies in mobile home parks OR will ever enact an ordinance controlling rents or rent increases in mobile home parks.”

IN FACT ON PAPER 2 MEMBERS COULD BE PROPERTY OWNERS BUT ANY NUMBER OF OTHERS WILL NOT ADVOCATE FOR TENANTS EITHER. THIS IS A RIGGING OF THE PROCESS THEREBY VIOLATING DUE PROCESS BY HAVING A BIASED RHC AFTER MEASURE D IS PASSED.


Sending D to it's grave
Bailey Park
on Feb 21, 2020 at 10:47 am
Sending D to it's grave, Bailey Park
on Feb 21, 2020 at 10:47 am
7 people like this

This is a terrible manipulation by the loosing side. No on D!


The Business Man
Castro City
on Feb 21, 2020 at 12:41 pm
The Business Man, Castro City
on Feb 21, 2020 at 12:41 pm
11 people like this

THE MOUNTAIN VIEW CITIZENS CANNOT TRUST OR RELY ON THE CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW CORPORATION.

I just did a “drive by” regarding the 2005 and 2030 Rock Street apartments that were designated to be replaced in 2017-18. What did I discover? 2005 Rock Street is fenced off and NOTHING is being worked on regarding the project. 2030 appears to have just started the “demolition process”

Didn’t the projects get approved and permits issued in 2017-18? Why did the City approve a project when all permits were not filed and processed? The “Construction Worker” I talked to said they just got the demolition permits issued. And they only got 2 of the buildings processed. Granted it may take as much as 3 weeks to property destroy a building and truck it away, but that means only about 2 months of work has been done. It has been more than a year since these projects were approved. Why does it take more than a year to start the projects? IT IS BECAUSE THE CITY DOES NOT REQUIRE ALL PERMITS AND PROCESSES REQUIRED TO ACT ON THE DEVELOPMENT BE COMPLETED FIRST. WHY NOT?

HERE IS MORE REALITY, WHATEVER THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVES IS NOT DONE. WHAT HE HAD IS THE CITY EVICTING PEOPLE FROM THEIR HOMES WITH NO JUST CAUSE BECAUSE THEY KNEW THE BUILDINGS PROJECTS WERE NOT READY TO START. IT WAS A CITY COUNCIL ATTACK ON ITS “SUBJECTS” BECAUSE THE “SUBJECTS” USED THE CITY CHARTER TO DICTATE THE ACTIONS OF THE CITY COUNCIL. WE CANNOT ALLOW THE CITY COUNCIL TO HAVE ANY POWER OVER THE CSFRA, THEY WILL DESTROY IT.


Bill
Old Mountain View
on Feb 21, 2020 at 3:33 pm
Bill, Old Mountain View
on Feb 21, 2020 at 3:33 pm
9 people like this

Gary makes a good point on statutory interpretation, but any litigation would cost much more than $100k.


The Business Man
Castro City
on Feb 21, 2020 at 3:55 pm
The Business Man, Castro City
on Feb 21, 2020 at 3:55 pm
9 people like this

Litigation is still underway.

Te original decision by the Santa Clara Court is under appeal.

So this is in the process.

What is happening is that the City Council is trying ti subvert the court case, by rewriting the CSFRA to explicitly delist Mobile Homes.

The City Council knows the appeal will overturn the prior decision.

They are desperate.


Gary
Sylvan Park
on Feb 21, 2020 at 9:57 pm
Gary, Sylvan Park
on Feb 21, 2020 at 9:57 pm
11 people like this

Yes. The Business Man. The pro-landlord city council is trying to undermine Measure V, and no one should vote for Measure D. But the issue raised by the article is why the biggest Mountain View mobile home park owner is spending money to defeat Measure D. I suggested he thinks or hopes that he can avoid rent control at his (corporate) mobile home parks better under existing law. He thinks or hopes that (1) a majority of the Rental Housing Committee (appointed by the city council) will not attempt to extend Measure V to parks and (2) if the city council adopts an ordinance controlling rents in mobile home parks, it might be invalidated by a court as "superseded" by Measure V.


The Business Man
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Feb 22, 2020 at 7:31 am
The Business Man, Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Feb 22, 2020 at 7:31 am
7 people like this

On the Vote yes on D website the people there claims that the City Attorney provides an IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS. THAT SIMPLY IS IMPOSSIBLE.

How? Because the City Attorney represents the City Council and NOT the City Citizens, just looks at the City of Mountain View City Attorney website it states this:

“Mission Statement

TO PROVIDE LEGAL SERVICES AND COUNSEL TO THE CITY, INCLUDING CITY COUNCIL, BOARDS, COMMISSIONS, AND CITY OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES; AND PARTICIPATE AS A MEMBER OF THE MANAGEMENT TEAM IN SUPPORT OF CITY DEPARTMENTS.

About Us

THE CITY ATTORNEY IS APPOINTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AS THE ATTORNEY FOR THE CITY AND LEGAL ADVISOR TO THE CITY COUNCIL.

The City Attorney hires subordinate attorneys to assist in the discharge of assigned responsibilities. THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE DEFENDS AND PROSECUTES OR RETAINS COUNSEL TO DEFEND AND PROSECUTE ALL CIVIL ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS TO WHICH THE CITY IS A PARTY AND PROSECUTES ALL CRIMINAL ACTIONS INVOLVING THE CITY CODE. City Code Enforcement is under the direct supervision of the Assistant City Attorney. Staff is responsible for enforcing the City Code provisions relating to zoning, neighborhood preservation, and vehicles on private property.

The City Attorney's Office represents and advises the Council, boards, commissions, departments, and all City officials in matters of law and necessary drafts of legal documents, ordinances, resolutions, contracts, and other documents pertaining to the City's business.

The Office is also responsible for providing legal services in connection with the Shoreline Regional Park (North Bayshore), Downtown Parking District, and Downtown Revitalization Authority.”

THUS THERE IS NO WAY THIS PERSON CAN PREPARE AN IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS. THE CITY ATTORNEY IN EFFECT CANNOT REPRESENT A CITY CITIZEN UNDER THIS DESCRIPTION. IT HAS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST BECAUSE ITS CONTINUED EMPLOYMENT IS DEPENDENT ON SATISFYING THE CITY COUNCIL AS ITS CLIENT. ANY REAL CITY THE CITY ATTORNEY IS OBLIGATED TO REPRESENT THE CITY CITIZENS WHERE THERE IS LEGAL CAUSE TO PURSUE LEGAL ACTION FOR THE CITIZENS. THIS IS ANOTHER BIG LIE THAT HAS BEEN MADE AGAINST THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW. WHEN WIL THE PEOPLE OF MOUNTAIN VIEW FINALLY UNDERSTAND HOW MUCH THE CITY LIES TO IT AND TAKES ADVANTAGE OF IT?


B.
Rengstorff Park
on Feb 22, 2020 at 4:36 pm
B., Rengstorff Park
on Feb 22, 2020 at 4:36 pm
12 people like this

Any logical tenant in Mountain View should vote No on Measure D, period. If you read the measure, it will INCREASE rents and gives wide discretion to landlords to make improvements that YOU pay for.

Measure D is dishonest, and absolutely trash. It's a spit in the face of residents and the public and is deceptive. The mayor should resign for allowing such a measure to be introduced just a few years after rent control was passed. This is another example of outsider elitist California public officials trying to squeeze more money out of residents.


No On D!
Cuesta Park
on Feb 22, 2020 at 5:19 pm
No On D!, Cuesta Park
on Feb 22, 2020 at 5:19 pm
7 people like this

I just received a RunSurveys text survey with questions that are blatantly misleading and meant to manipulate voters. This is truly disgusting and pathetic. The whole 'committee salary ' argument is truly a lie as it was never an issue nor has the committee ever mentioned the idea to begin with. Just deceqptive scare tactics by corporate interests.

Question 7/10

Measure D is opposed by a former MAYOR, some LABOR UNIONS and the Democratic SOCIALISTS of America. How do you feel about this?

1 - MORE likely to SUPPORT
2 - MORE likely to OPPOSE
3 - Undecided

Reply with a number from 1 to 3 to this message



Question 4/10

Measure D prevents the Rental Housing Committee from paying itself a SALARY. They must volunteer like all other city commissions. How do you feel about this?

1 - MORE likely to SUPPORT
2 - MORE likely to OPPOSE
3 - Undecided

Reply with a number from 1 to 3 to this message


Gary
Sylvan Park
on Feb 22, 2020 at 5:21 pm
Gary, Sylvan Park
on Feb 22, 2020 at 5:21 pm
10 people like this

The City Attorney is responsible for providing an "impartial analysis" and did. It is in the voter guide with other materials including the ballot arguments. There was a short public display period for any legal challenges to the proposed election materials - including to the "impartial analysis." No challenge was filed by anyone. In the analysis, the City Attorney chats about the changes the measure, if adopted, would make to the current rent control section of the city charter. Not addressed is whether there is any legal impediment currently to the City Council's enacting a rent control ordinance for mobile home parks. I contend above that there is nothing in the current charter provisions (we will call "Measure V") that ever stopped the City Council from enacting such an ordinance - except that there was and remains some uncertainty about whether mobile home park rents are already covered. A judge ruled a year or two ago that it is a close question and one to be answered by the Rental Housing Committee (RHC) under its express authority to enact rules that interpret and implement Measure V. The RHC (majority) had interpreted Measure V as NOT extending to mobile home parks. "Clarifying" Measure V by amending it on this topic was never necessary.
The proposed amendment would end the debate (and appeal) about whether Measure V covers mobile home parks by stating it DOES NOT.
If Measure D passes, the City Council can proceed to consider mobile home park rent control or just have a good laugh. If Measure D does NOT pass, the City Council can still proceed to consider mobile home park rent control as I have explained above. Would the City Council (majority) pretend the situation remained too murky to enact an ordinance. Maybe. But politicians who pretend can never be trusted anyway.


Gary
Sylvan Park
on Feb 22, 2020 at 6:02 pm
Gary, Sylvan Park
on Feb 22, 2020 at 6:02 pm
8 people like this

By the way and at the risk of distracting the couple of readers following my last post, Bernie Sanders evidently finished first in the tiny Nevada sort-of party caucuses today by the wide margin. So people against Trump need to consider whether Bernie would have a good chance of defeating him in the general election. Evidently, Vladimir Putin thinks Bernie would NOT have the best chance of beating Trump and so Putin is helping Bernie. But then again, Trump and Putin can't stop lying. Speaking of propaganda, I received another mailer today from the Yes on Measure D campaign including a face shot of this year's mayor Margaret Abe-Koga and face shots of other "DEMOCRATS FOR MEASURE D - including former mayor (and former Republican) Mike Kasperzak. One of the lines in the mailer attributed to school board member "Jose Gutierrez, Jr." also there spelled "Gutienez, Jr." is that Measure D would "protect mobile home park residents." Protect them from what? Below that, the statement is made that Measure D would help by "(g)iving the City Council the opportunity to expand renter protections to mobile home residents." The City Council has always had that "opportunity" as I explained above.


The Business Man
Castro City
on Feb 22, 2020 at 6:35 pm
The Business Man, Castro City
on Feb 22, 2020 at 6:35 pm
6 people like this

Gary,

Just understand that in order for any report to be "IMPARTIAL" there are certain requirements. Especially involving any ballot measure being written by a "CITY"

First, no money can be used by the analyst that has ANY ties to ANY side of the argument. THAT means there must be a public fund that has no ties to any private interest nor any other influence. Simply put any financial connect to the ANALYSTS creates an assumption of bias. Remember our system is supposed to uphold the appearance of no possibility of bias.

Again the City Attorney is employed and paid by the ones that created Measure D. The only way that the work regarding this analysis can be considered impartial is it has to provide PROOF it is impartial.

Just giving it a title called impartial doesn't make it so.

The voter have allowed this kind of deception to occur in the state of California.

We should expect better.


Gary
Sylvan Park
on Feb 22, 2020 at 7:06 pm
Gary, Sylvan Park
on Feb 22, 2020 at 7:06 pm
9 people like this

@The Business Man. The City Attorney is given the task of preparing an "impartial analysis" of proposed city measures by law. If it turns out to be incorrect or incomplete, any local voter can sue as I explained to have a judge order changes. No one sued. County counsel prepares an "impartial analysis" for county measures. The CA AG's office prepares an "impartial analysis" for proposed state propositions. The offices and persons involved may be biased. But their job to to write an "impartial analysis." They do. If you are going off on a tangent,write about the Nevada Democratic primary. It is more interesting.


The Business Man
Castro City
on Feb 22, 2020 at 7:47 pm
The Business Man, Castro City
on Feb 22, 2020 at 7:47 pm
6 people like this

In response to Gary you said:

“@The Business Man. The City Attorney is given the task of preparing an "impartial analysis" of proposed city measures by law.”

Something like this being done “by law” doesn’t mean it is IMPARTIAL You also said:

“If it turns out to be incorrect or incomplete, any local voter can sue as I explained to have a judge order changes.”

From what I understand in his PARTICULAR situation, the City Council acted with such a SHORT window of time to put the ballot into this election that became in effect impossible. Why should a California citizen have to go to court, to in effect force a REAL impartial analysis? That is BACKWARDS. Perhaps the LAW needs to be removed by BALLOT measure and require my suggestion. The people are entitled to unbiased government action especially if it is favoring out of town private interests. Don’t you think that is true? You said:

“No one sued. County counsel prepares an "impartial analysis" for county measures. The CA AG's office prepares an "impartial analysis" for proposed state propositions. The offices and persons involved may be biased. But their job to write an "impartial analysis." They do.”

What PROOF do you have for this, given that never do these people disclose their conflict of interest. At least the America Economics Association requires disclosure. No this is a secret method of manipulating elections by using “Orwellian” logic that a person with a conflict of interest is impartial. And you know it. You said:

“If you are going off on a tangent, write about the Nevada Democratic primary. It is more interesting.”

This is no tangent. This analysis is nothing but another SALES PITCH crafted by the City, Just like what happens as you described it regarding County Measures and State Measures. This is a very ugly scam perpetrated by the State of California, the County of Santa Clara, and he City of Mountain View, equally guilty Democrats and Republicans.


Gary
Sylvan Park
on Feb 22, 2020 at 8:59 pm
Gary, Sylvan Park
on Feb 22, 2020 at 8:59 pm
6 people like this

You might want to read the CA Elections Code sections concerning the process for ballot measures and materials. Just Google it.


The Business Man
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Feb 23, 2020 at 1:57 am
The Business Man, Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Feb 23, 2020 at 1:57 am
6 people like this

Gary,

Let’s look at some recent history, remember Proposition 10 in 2018?

It was altered by the state government in order to manipulate the voters.

It was originally titled “AFFORDABLE HOUSING ACT of 2018” as reported by the University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law found here (Web Link)

But the state changed the title to “Local rent control initiative”

Also you had multiple state agencies publishing “impartial analysis” against it. Most notoriously the Legislative Analyst’s Office, which has a conflict of interest whenever public ballot initiatives are trying to overrule the legislature. It is ”non-partisan” but in this case both parties and the legislative powers were threatened by a citizens ballot measure. I am certain ANY proposition created by the public that overrides legislative actions would be attacked by this office routinely.

This again is an example that the state laws and government has “rigged” and “manipulated” the process to such a degree that you simply cannot trust it. No voter should ever trust the Legislative Analysts Office regarding their work because they have a conflict of interest in favor of the Legislature and the California Status Quo.

It also should go that I did not check if any of the language of the originally file Proposition 10 was possibly also altered during this process.

WHY WOULD THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO THIS? Because Proposition 10 if successful would BYPASS the PROFESSIONAL LEGISLATIVE PROCESS and had the CITIZENS DICTATE TO THE STATE how to enact or revise housing law.

California deserves better.


Harold Dennison
Jackson Park
on Feb 24, 2020 at 8:16 am
Harold Dennison, Jackson Park
on Feb 24, 2020 at 8:16 am
7 people like this

Don't put too much stock in a City Attorney's "impartial analysis."

For a State Ballot Measure, the Attorney General writes the impartial analysis and ballot summary and the legislature can't change it. But for city ballot measures, apparently there is no law against the City Council changing the analysis.

Mountain View's Measure D is probably a good idea, and was written in an attempt to undo some of the damage caused by Measure V. It's not sustainable to provide subsidized housing via rent control and doing so ends up causing more displacement, but at least 4% is less bad than what we have now.

Measure D will likely fail and those that voted against it will be shocked when more affordable apartment buildings are torn down and converted to high-cost for-sale housing.


The Business Man
Castro City
on Feb 24, 2020 at 8:57 am
The Business Man, Castro City
on Feb 24, 2020 at 8:57 am
5 people like this

In response to Harold Dennison you said”

“For a State Ballot Measure, the Attorney General writes the impartial analysis and ballot summary and the legislature can't change it. But for city ballot measures, apparently there is no law against the City Council changing the analysis.”

Again, even if the legislature doesn’t change the analysis, nor the language of the ballot measures, the Attorney General can and does on it’s own. It knows that it must act in the interests of the legislature because it’s budget is controlled by the legislature. You said:

“Mountain View's Measure D is probably a good idea, and was written in an attempt to undo some of the damage caused by Measure V. It's not sustainable to provide subsidized housing via rent control and doing so ends up causing more displacement, but at least 4% is less bad than what we have now.”

CSFRA IS NOT SUBSIDIZED HOUSING. THE CSFRA IS SUSTAINABLE AS LONG AS THE FEES ARE PAID BY LANDLORDS TO FUND THE RHC. AS LONG AS THE CSFRA GETS FUNDS TO OPERATE THAT MAKES IT SUSTAINABLE. THE IDEA THAT CURRENT OWENERS CANNOT OPERATE THEIR BUSINESS EFFICIENTLY ENOUGH TO MAKE THE PROFIT THEY WANT DOESN”T MAKE CSFRA UNSUSTAINABLE. THAT IS THE DEFINITION OF SUSTAINABLE IN THIS CASE. You said:

“Measure D will likely fail and those that voted against it will be shocked when more affordable apartment buildings are torn down and converted to high-cost for-sale housing.”

Again SB330 does not allow that to happen until 2025, but if the private sector does not improve the accessibility and build more affordable housing by then, it WILL be renewed. SB330 requires that for every unit of affordable housing proposed to be removed a like kind and like price unit must be part of the plan. Which means simply that if you change it to “ownership” the mortgage will have to be the same price as the rent.

On top of this also there is the no net loss state law as well.

Measure D was created because the City Council wants CONTROL over the RHC, and it makes that so if it passes. The City Citizens NEVER wanted that, it wanted the RHC to be INDEPENDENT of the City Council, and the voters must not pass Measure D.


No D and corrupt politicians
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Feb 24, 2020 at 9:51 am
No D and corrupt politicians, Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Feb 24, 2020 at 9:51 am
6 people like this

This is the attempted PAYOFF to the mega landlords and developers who paid for the seats of the 3 Council members who are supporting this.
At least we can all see which politicians are in the back pocket of the out of control developers, and we can also see who is responsible for our declining quality of life!
Start wit No on D, then vote the sell-outs OUT!
LET THEIR NAMES BE FOREVER TIED TO MEASURE D...lest we all forget next election.


Harold Dennison
Jackson Park
on Feb 24, 2020 at 1:37 pm
Harold Dennison, Jackson Park
on Feb 24, 2020 at 1:37 pm
6 people like this

Measure D will at least allow property owners to pass on the cost of major repairs that are necessary, along with a 4% maximum increase unrelated to necessary repairs.

If you look at San Francisco, the large number of Ellis Act conversions is due to the extremely low allowable rent increase. For 2020-21 it's 1.8%. Even though San Francisco's rent control ordinance does allow property owners to apply for higher increases to cover repairs, it's so difficult to do so that few property owners even bother.

A 4% maximum increase, plus increases for repairs, will at least slow the number of property owners exiting the rental market which ends up increasing the average rent increase as the percentage of properties not subject to rent control goes up.

Remember, rent-control is subsidized housing that is NOT income qualified. It's the most unfair type of subsidized housing.


The Business Man
Castro City
on Feb 24, 2020 at 2:13 pm
The Business Man, Castro City
on Feb 24, 2020 at 2:13 pm
5 people like this

In response to Harold Dennison you said:

“Measure D will at least allow property owners to pass on the cost of major repairs that are necessary, along with a 4% maximum increase unrelated to necessary repairs.”

SINCE WHEN IS THE PUBLIC RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT A PRIVATE PERSON DOES IF IT DOES RESULT IN A LOSS OF MONEY. THE ONLY EXCEPTION IS IN THE CASE OF FRAUD. OTHERWISE THE GOVERNMENT NOR THE PUBLIC BEARS ANY RESPONSIBILITY FOR THAT. You said:

“If you look at San Francisco, the large number of Ellis Act conversions is due to the extremely low allowable rent increase. For 2020-21 it's 1.8%. Even though San Francisco's rent control ordinance does allow property owners to apply for higher increases to cover repairs, it's so difficult to do so that few property owners even bother.”

AGAIN, THAT WAS THEN AND THIS IS NOW, THE NEW STATE LAWS WILL NOT ALLOW THE CITY TO SIMPLY RAZE EXISTING AFFORDABLE OR RENT COTROLLED HOUSING UNLESS IT IS REPLACED WITH AN EQUAL NUMBER OF SIMILAR UNITS WHTHER OWN OR RENT. THAT SIMPLY IS NOT AN APPLICABLE EXAMPLE ANYMORE. You said:

“A 4% maximum increase, plus increases for repairs, will at least slow the number of property owners exiting the rental market which ends up increasing the average rent increase as the percentage of properties not subject to rent control goes up.”

BUT AB330 DOES NOT ALLOW REMOVAL OF THE UNITS FROM THE MARKET. IF ANY PARTICULAR OWNER WANTS TO KEEP THE PROPERTY BUT NOT BE IN BUSINESS THAT IS FINE. BUT THEY GET NO INCOME. IF THE EXISTING OWNERS DO NOT WANT TO BE IN THE BUSINESS THEY CAN GO UNDER ELLIS. BUT THE UNITS DO NOT DISAPPEAR, AND THE UNITS PRICES UNDER CSFRA AND AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENTS UNDER STATE LAW WILL REMAIN. YOUR NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT IS REALLY HAPPENING, OR YOUR TRYING TO DISTRACT FROM THE REAL PROBLEMS. You said:

“Remember, rent-control is subsidized housing that is NOT income qualified. It's the most unfair type of subsidized housing.”

RENT CONTROL IS THE POWER OF THE CUSTOMERS TO DRIVE A MARKET VALUE CORRECTION. IT IS NOT SUBSIDIZED HOUSING AT ALL. THAT IS NOTHING BUT A LIE. THE PORTERS MODEL POWER OF THE CUSTOMER ALLOWS FOR THIS METHOD OF PRICE CORRECTION. THAT’S ALL IT IS. THE SITUATION IS THAT WHEN THE CUSTOMERS GET TOGETHER THEY CAN FORCE PRICES TO DROP. PLEASE STOP DECEIVING THE PUBLIC?


Harold Dennison
Jackson Park
on Feb 24, 2020 at 4:56 pm
Harold Dennison, Jackson Park
on Feb 24, 2020 at 4:56 pm
6 people like this

Measure V was poorly conceived with no thought of the unintended consequences. Measure D would at least correct the worst parts of Measure V. If John Vidovich opposes Measure D then that's one good reason to vote for it!

The liberal Brookings Institute wrote the following about rent control:
"Rent control appears to help affordability in the short run for current tenants, but in the long-run decreases affordability, fuels gentrification, and creates negative externalities on the surrounding neighborhood. These results highlight that forcing landlords to provide insurance to tenants against rent increases can ultimately be counterproductive. If society desires to provide social insurance against rent increases, it may be less distortionary to offer this subsidy in the form of a government subsidy or tax credit. This would remove landlords’ incentives to decrease the housing supply and could provide households with the insurance they desire."

Remember, rent control is simply another form of subsidized housing, but it doesn't have any income qualifications. It's the worst kind of subsidized housing, but at least it can be made less bad with Measure D.


The Business Man
Castro City
on Feb 24, 2020 at 5:21 pm
The Business Man, Castro City
on Feb 24, 2020 at 5:21 pm
4 people like this

In response to Harold Dennison you said:

“Measure V was poorly conceived with no thought of the unintended consequences. Measure D would at least correct the worst parts of Measure V. If John Vidovich opposes Measure D then that's one good reason to vote for it!”

That is your opinion, but you simply have NO PROOF, You triy to say:

“The liberal Brookings Institute wrote the following about rent control:”

THIS CANNOT BE USED AS EVIDENCE NOW. IT IS STALE AND WAS NOT ADDRESSING THE CURRENT SITUATION. 2 YEARS OF NEW STATE LAWS INVALIDATED ANY CONCLUSIONS THEY MADE. YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE TO USE ANY ECONOMIC SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH PERFORMED AFTER JANUARY 1, 2020 THAT MAKES NO REFERENCE TO OLD AND INAPPLICABLE RESEARCH. THE PEOPLE IN MOUNTAIN VIEW SHOULD BE AWARE OF IT. You said:

“Remember, rent control is simply another form of subsidized housing, but it doesn't have any income qualifications. It's the worst kind of subsidized housing, but at least it can be made less bad with Measure D.”

AGAIN I WILL REPEAT: RENT CONTROL IS THE POWER OF THE CUSTOMERS TO DRIVE A MARKET VALUE CORRECTION. IT IS NOT SUBSIDIZED HOUSING AT ALL. THAT IS NOTHING BUT A LIE. THE PORTERS MODEL POWER OF THE CUSTOMER ALLOWS FOR THIS METHOD OF PRICE CORRECTION. THAT’S ALL IT IS. THE SITUATION IS THAT WHEN THE CUSTOMERS GET TOGTHER THEY CAN FORCE PRICES TO DROP. PLEASE STOP DECEIVING THE PUBLIC?


The Business Man
Castro City
on Feb 24, 2020 at 9:22 pm
The Business Man, Castro City
on Feb 24, 2020 at 9:22 pm
5 people like this

A report about the lates mailer sent by the City Council

What I found is it basically threatens that if Measure D does not pass housing will be unsafe.

Using grossly misleading highlighting and that there are unsafe housing units in Mountain View.

First, yes there are buildings not up to code and if they are not, the landlords will pay a VERY high cost in the case of an earthquake. Their INSURANCE will not cover the costs because they are violating building codes.

Second, it is not like they can threaten with not doing the retrofitting, it is required under STATE laws. If they do not, the City has no choice but to pull their license to operate their apartments, this will force them to pay relocation costs, and even make them pay for housing provided by someone else.

Or worse they are forced to have empty apartments that cannot be used until the retrofitting is completed. Thus leaving them with no operational income.

And if the use their Ellis Act rights, they cannot just sell the building without disclosing the violation of state laws. The prices they get will be maybe 25 cents to the dollar of their perceived value. But if they have a current mortgage, I doubt that will cover the existing balances.

No the fact is this is required to be fixed no matter what happens. This is just another BIG LIE via selective editing of existing stories to mislead the voters.

BY THE WAY THE RETURN ADDRESS IS NOT TO A PERSONS HOME OR OFFICE IT IS TO A UPS STORE P. O.BOX, KIND OF REMINDS ME F A CAYMAN ISLANDS HEADQUARTERS TO US THEIR BANKING ANONYMITY AND TAX AVOIDANCE/EVASION. JUST GOOGLE 530 SHOWERS DRIVE #243 MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA, 94040

WHAT DECEPTIVE ACTION.


Frank Iverson
Rengstorff Park
on Feb 24, 2020 at 10:35 pm
Frank Iverson, Rengstorff Park
on Feb 24, 2020 at 10:35 pm
8 people like this

Measure D is at least a half-hearted attempt to address the deficiencies in Measure V.

But it keeps in place a broken system of property owners providing non-income-qualified subsidized housing.

Of course tenants are going to vote in favor of rent control, it provides at least temporary relief. But all the experts agree that rent control leads to higher average rents, plus the beneficiaries are often not those that actually need the subsidized housing.

It's much better to have income qualified subsidized housing, either through Below Market Rate rentals and sales, or through affordable housing projects built by non-profit organizations. We have to move away from rent control which is essentially subsidized housing, but without any income qualifications.


Sad
Cuernavaca
on Feb 24, 2020 at 11:02 pm
Sad, Cuernavaca
on Feb 24, 2020 at 11:02 pm
7 people like this

Frank Iverson, Harold Dennison, Herb Masterson, jeez you landlords are really a shady bunch. Pick a fake name and stick with it.


The Business Man
Castro City
on Feb 24, 2020 at 11:15 pm
The Business Man, Castro City
on Feb 24, 2020 at 11:15 pm
4 people like this

In response to Frank Iverson you said:

“Measure D is at least a half-hearted attempt to address the deficiencies in Measure V.”

WHAT deficiencies, it was not designed to solve the affordable housing problem. Which was caused by the Private Housing Sector. How can I say this? It was disclosed by a poster on this website that all builders choose to build only luxury housing and either pay a fee or build maybe 20% of their housing to be Blow Market Rate. REMEMBER MARKET RATE ON LUXURY HOUSING, NOT STANDARD.

Herb Masterson Said:

“Developers are not going to build affordable housing because there is no profit in doing so. The idea that a luxury housing development would subsidize a percentage of BMR housing was great in the past, when developers would do anything to get a project approved, but now we have a glut of luxury housing and developers don’t want to build their luxury projects.”

THAT WAS CAUSED BY THE PRIVATE HOUSING INDUSTRY AND HERE’S HOW:

HERE is the real FAILURE of the PLAN. Typical housing needs will be able to be plotted in a normal bell curve defined HERE Web Link) where the Median price is considered a MODERATE quality and cost housing.

And that you can take into account 1 standard deviation to cover the Moderate housing component of the market. In a standard bell curve 1 standard deviation will cover 34.1% of the available product.

Realize the LUXURY units are ABOVE Moderate, which means you are building units that are only expected to comprise of the following math:

The +1 to Median Standard Deviation will contain 34.1% of the products in the market

The -1 To Median Standard Deviation will contain 34.1% of the products in the market.

The Low Income housing will comprise of the -2 to -1 Standard Deviation will contain 13.6% of products in the market

The Very Low Income Housing will be -2.5 to -2 Standard Deviation will contain about 2.1% of the products in the market

The Extremely Low income will cover the bottom to -2.5 Standard Deviation which contains .1% of the product market.

Now if the PRIVATE Sector had understood this, it would have known that the maximum production of LUXURY housing should be 100% - (34.1% + 34.1% +13.6 % + 2.1% + .1%) which would mean no more 16% of all housing should have been built as luxury to avoid a surplus of High Cost Housing.

75%-16% is a 59% excess of production. Why didn’t the PRIVATE sector know this? They KNEW it but attempts to manipulate the housing market by intentional misappropriation of resources. That is not the Governments fault because the Private sector demanded this result. In effect the private sector expects the public sector to BAIL them out by providing the other housing. This reminds me of the old joke:

“How many Harvard Business School MBA’s does it take to replace a burned out light bulb?”

Answer “NONE”. They let the market take care of the problem.

These developers developed the problem themselves and demand everyone else fix the problem. But they promised to provide adequate housing which established the Costa Hawkins law, by saying if they could be independent of price control, they KNEW how to provide adequate housing. THEY DIDN'T. And now they want all of us to bail them out. You said:

“But it keeps in place a broken system of property owners providing non-income-qualified subsidized housing.”

AGAIN THE BROKEN RECORD OF RENT CONTROL IS SUBSIDIZED HOUSING. WHAT IS THE DEFINITION OF A SUBSIDY FROM MERRIAM WEBSTER DICTIONARY (Web Link)

“a grant or gift of money: such as:

a: a sum of money formerly granted by the British Parliament to the crown and raised by special taxation

b: money granted by one state to another

c: a grant by a government to a private person or company to assist an enterprise deemed advantageous to the public,”

SIMPLY PUT YOU ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT ANY SUBSIDIES HERE. STOP TRYING TO RENT CONTROL INTO SOMETHING IT IS NOT.

AGAIN I WILL REPEAT: RENT CONTROL IS THE POWER OF THE CUSTOMERS TO DRIVE A MARKET VALUE CORRECTION. IT IS NOT SUBSIDIZED HOUSING AT ALL. THAT IS NOTHING BUT A LIE. THE PORTERS MODEL POWER OF THE CUSTOMER ALLOWS FOR THIS METHOD OF PRICE CORRECTION. THAT’S ALL IT IS. THE SITUATION IS THAT WHEN THE CUSTOMERS GET TOGETHER THEY CAN FORCE PRICES TO DROP. PLEASE STOP DECEIVING THE PUBLIC? You said:

“Of course tenants are going to vote in favor of rent control, it provides at least temporary relief. But all the experts agree that rent control leads to higher average rents, plus the beneficiaries are often not those that actually need the subsidized housing.”

WHAT RESEARCH HAS BEEN DONE WITH THE STATE LAWS AS OF JANUARY 1, 2020, THERE ARE NONE. YOU ARE NOT ABLE TO USE ANY OLDER RESEARCH BECAUSE THE LAWS AND RULES THAT RESEARCH WORKED UNDER ARE NOT THE SAME AS TODAY. ECONOMIC SCIENCE REQUIRES HAT YOU CANNOT USE OLDER RESEARCH WHEN THE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE DIFFERENT THAN THEY WERE DURING THAT RESEARCH. SO YOU HAVE NO PROOF TO SAY THIS ANYMORE. You said

“It's much better to have income qualified subsidized housing, either through Below Market Rate rentals and sales, or through affordable housing projects built by non-profit organizations. We have to move away from rent control which is essentially subsidized housing, but without any income qualifications.”

NO, WE HAVE TO GET THE PRIVATE SECTOR OF THEIR BEHIND AND MAKE THE PROPER HOUSING. THEY OVERBUILT WITHOUT DOING THE LEAST QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS TO DETERMINE THE OPTIMUM NUMBER OF UNITS TO BUILD IN A CITY, COUNTY, OR THE STATE. SO NOW WE HAVE A SURPLUS OF LUXURY HOUSING AND NOT ENOUGH OF THE REST. WHOSE FAULT IS THAT?


Gary
Sylvan Park
on Feb 25, 2020 at 4:07 pm
Gary, Sylvan Park
on Feb 25, 2020 at 4:07 pm
5 people like this

I received in the mail today a No on D from the mobilehome park owner who thinks or hopes he is better off without Measure D's passing and a yes on D piece from the landlords featuring former Mayor-Councilmember Mike Kasperzak whose attributed statement is "Vote Yes on Measure D to protect our city's finances from the possibility of an unelected board paying itself whatever salary or pension it deems reasonable with no oversight from the city council or City Manager." Has the board - the Rental Housing Committee - ever even proposed to pay its members any money? Is there any provision in the current law that would allow the Rental Housing Committee to pay itself any money? Maybe Mr. Kasperzak will post his answers below. Any bets?


The Business Man
Castro City
on Feb 25, 2020 at 4:34 pm
The Business Man, Castro City
on Feb 25, 2020 at 4:34 pm
3 people like this

In response to Gary that asked:

“I received in the mail today a No on D from the mobilehome park owner who thinks or hopes he is better off without Measure D's passing and a yes on D piece from the landlords featuring former Mayor-Councilmember Mike Kasperzak whose attributed statement is "Vote Yes on Measure D to protect our city's finances from the possibility of an unelected board paying itself whatever salary or pension it deems reasonable with no oversight from the city council or City Manager." Has the board - the Rental Housing Committee - ever even proposed to pay its members any money? Is there any provision in the current law that would allow the Rental Housing Committee to pay itself any money? Maybe Mr. Kasperzak will post his answers below. Any bets?”

The status is this:

No declaration of prohibition of paying the RHC members appears to exist.

BUT, they must be paid via funds collected by the rental fees, the City Budget cannot be touched.

So yes it is possible, but the advertisement is a LIE because the City Citizens Taxes do not fund the possible salary, only the Landlords fees can be used.


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.