News

Mountain View voters strongly rejecting Measure D

City Council's rewrite of rent control was opposed by local tenant groups, backed by major landlords

The Mountain View City Council's bid to soften the city's rent control law is headed for defeat, with preliminary results in the March 3 primary election showing a sweeping majority of voters rejecting Measure D.

As of Monday, March 9, the opposition to Measure D was leading with 68.8% of the 16,880 votes counted in Mountain View, according to the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters.

The council-initiated measure was the first attempt to modify rent control in Mountain View since the law passed in 2016, and was largely billed by its proponents as a compromise that landlords and tenants alike could learn to live with. Despite the rhetoric about compromise and unification, most of the changes to rent control were geared toward the benefit of property owners.

As the campaign developed over the past three months, efforts to create a broad coalition in support of Measure D appeared to fall flat. Local tenant groups, including a vocal contingent of mobile home residents, swiftly opposed the measure, calling it unnecessary, deceptive and a handout to landlords. Large property owners, meanwhile, were Measure D's biggest financiers, donating more than $190,000 to the "Yes on D" campaign through Feb. 15.

Members of the opposition campaign were upbeat as they watched the election results roll in Tuesday night at the Crepevine in downtown Mountain View, eating in during the 45-minute periods between updates from the county. One of the campaigners, Alex Nunez, told the Voice he is grateful for all of the support from voters, volunteers and donors.

What's local journalism worth to you?

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

Learn more

Assuming the results hold, Nunez said he believes the vote on Measure D is an affirmation that Mountain View voters didn't fall for deceptive tactics by the City Council and landlord-backed groups seeking to weaken rent control.

"Consistently, I've been hearing that people in the community really value political discourse based in truthfulness and good-faith compromise," Nunez said. "I think those traditional values were upheld and reaffirmed with these results."

Among the proposed changes, Measure D would have upended the current limits on annual rent increases under Mountain View's Community Stabilization and Fair Rent Act (CSFRA). Instead of tying rent increases to the rate of inflation, Measure D would have instead allowed property owners to raise rent by 4% each year. It also would have created an easier, streamlined way for apartment owners to make upgrades to their properties and pass the costs onto tenants -- which could have potentially raised rents by as much as 10% in a year.

Though CSFRA does allow for property owners to pass certain capital improvement costs onto tenants, it can only be done if landlords can prove the rent increases are necessary to get a fair rate of return on the property. Measure D's proponents argued that the process was far too onerous, particularly for small "mom and pop" property owners and landlords seeking seismic retrofit upgrades to aging apartments.

Measure D also sought to explicitly exempt mobile home parks from being covered under CSFRA, drawing frustration from mobile home residents who have long argued that they should be covered by rent control for the spaces their homes occupy.

Stay informed

Get daily headlines sent straight to your inbox.

Sign up

Residents who voted on Super Tuesday were more likely to oppose Measure D, with 1,869 (73.3%) of the 2,550 votes cast on March 3 in opposition to the charter amendment. Even when parsing out same-day voting, Measure D was still largely defeated among vote-by-mail ballots as well, with 5,321 (65.6%) voting against the measure.

As of Wednesday morning, the "no" vote was leading in all 11 Mountain View precincts, with the greatest opposition in the Santiago Villa and North Whisman neighborhoods, along with Castro City and communities near Rengstorff Park. Measure D was seeing the greatest success in the southern, single-family neighborhoods of Mountain View, picking up just over 39% of the yes vote in the Blossom Valley neighborhood and 38% in the Waverly Park and Martens-Carmelita neighborhoods.

During the campaign, representatives of the California Apartment Association said the lobbying group would be willing to stop backing its November ballot initiative that would essentially eliminate Mountain View's rent control in the event that Measure D passed.

Nunez said he and other members of the Mountain View Housing Justice Coalition, which spearheaded the No on D campaign, are already planning to shift gears and fight the CAA-backed measure.

Note: Election results were updated on Monday, March 9.

Follow MV-Voice.com and the Mountain View Voice on Twitter @mvvoice and Facebook for breaking news, local events, photos, videos and more.

Mountain View voters strongly rejecting Measure D

City Council's rewrite of rent control was opposed by local tenant groups, backed by major landlords

by / Mountain View Voice

Uploaded: Tue, Mar 3, 2020, 9:57 pm
Updated: Tue, Mar 3, 2020, 11:19 pm

The Mountain View City Council's bid to soften the city's rent control law is headed for defeat, with preliminary results in the March 3 primary election showing a sweeping majority of voters rejecting Measure D.

As of Monday, March 9, the opposition to Measure D was leading with 68.8% of the 16,880 votes counted in Mountain View, according to the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters.

The council-initiated measure was the first attempt to modify rent control in Mountain View since the law passed in 2016, and was largely billed by its proponents as a compromise that landlords and tenants alike could learn to live with. Despite the rhetoric about compromise and unification, most of the changes to rent control were geared toward the benefit of property owners.

As the campaign developed over the past three months, efforts to create a broad coalition in support of Measure D appeared to fall flat. Local tenant groups, including a vocal contingent of mobile home residents, swiftly opposed the measure, calling it unnecessary, deceptive and a handout to landlords. Large property owners, meanwhile, were Measure D's biggest financiers, donating more than $190,000 to the "Yes on D" campaign through Feb. 15.

Members of the opposition campaign were upbeat as they watched the election results roll in Tuesday night at the Crepevine in downtown Mountain View, eating in during the 45-minute periods between updates from the county. One of the campaigners, Alex Nunez, told the Voice he is grateful for all of the support from voters, volunteers and donors.

Assuming the results hold, Nunez said he believes the vote on Measure D is an affirmation that Mountain View voters didn't fall for deceptive tactics by the City Council and landlord-backed groups seeking to weaken rent control.

"Consistently, I've been hearing that people in the community really value political discourse based in truthfulness and good-faith compromise," Nunez said. "I think those traditional values were upheld and reaffirmed with these results."

Among the proposed changes, Measure D would have upended the current limits on annual rent increases under Mountain View's Community Stabilization and Fair Rent Act (CSFRA). Instead of tying rent increases to the rate of inflation, Measure D would have instead allowed property owners to raise rent by 4% each year. It also would have created an easier, streamlined way for apartment owners to make upgrades to their properties and pass the costs onto tenants -- which could have potentially raised rents by as much as 10% in a year.

Though CSFRA does allow for property owners to pass certain capital improvement costs onto tenants, it can only be done if landlords can prove the rent increases are necessary to get a fair rate of return on the property. Measure D's proponents argued that the process was far too onerous, particularly for small "mom and pop" property owners and landlords seeking seismic retrofit upgrades to aging apartments.

Measure D also sought to explicitly exempt mobile home parks from being covered under CSFRA, drawing frustration from mobile home residents who have long argued that they should be covered by rent control for the spaces their homes occupy.

Residents who voted on Super Tuesday were more likely to oppose Measure D, with 1,869 (73.3%) of the 2,550 votes cast on March 3 in opposition to the charter amendment. Even when parsing out same-day voting, Measure D was still largely defeated among vote-by-mail ballots as well, with 5,321 (65.6%) voting against the measure.

As of Wednesday morning, the "no" vote was leading in all 11 Mountain View precincts, with the greatest opposition in the Santiago Villa and North Whisman neighborhoods, along with Castro City and communities near Rengstorff Park. Measure D was seeing the greatest success in the southern, single-family neighborhoods of Mountain View, picking up just over 39% of the yes vote in the Blossom Valley neighborhood and 38% in the Waverly Park and Martens-Carmelita neighborhoods.

During the campaign, representatives of the California Apartment Association said the lobbying group would be willing to stop backing its November ballot initiative that would essentially eliminate Mountain View's rent control in the event that Measure D passed.

Nunez said he and other members of the Mountain View Housing Justice Coalition, which spearheaded the No on D campaign, are already planning to shift gears and fight the CAA-backed measure.

Comments

Good!
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Mar 3, 2020 at 10:52 pm
Good!, Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Mar 3, 2020 at 10:52 pm
50 people like this

So glad to hear that the greedy landlords and their council shills have been defeated! Pat and Lenny should re-take their leadership roles and undo some of the damage left by Abe-Koga and Matchiak.

Hopefully, a national blue wave in response to the Trump debacle will cement the end of American-born facism!!


Gary
Sylvan Park
on Mar 3, 2020 at 11:52 pm
Gary, Sylvan Park
on Mar 3, 2020 at 11:52 pm
16 people like this

Looks like D goes down to defeat - putting the even worse "sneaky repeal" of Mountain View rent control on deck for November. Only about half the ballots appear to have been counted at this hour (before midnight) but the MV-Whisman $259 bond measure at 63% should get the required 55%. The two Community College measures (G and H) could win or fall short. Measure G is the $898 million bond needing 55%. Measure H is a 5-year parcel tax that needs two-thirds of those voting. Also locally, former Assemblywoman Sally Lieber leads Josh Becker in the race for termed-out State Senator Jerry Hill's seat with the lone Republican close behind in third. The top-2 vote getters meet in November. The Republican would have no real chance in a November runoff. Lieber v. Becker should be a contest.


Castro Street
Blossom Valley
on Mar 4, 2020 at 6:46 am
Castro Street, Blossom Valley
on Mar 4, 2020 at 6:46 am
20 people like this

Thrilled to see that, so far, D is going down in flames.

We will likely see the CAA's measure on the ballot in November (the one they spent nearly $500K on, with out-of-area paid signature gatherers telling outright lies to get people to sign their petition), so the efforts to combat the deception will go on.


MVresident
Monta Loma
on Mar 4, 2020 at 7:25 am
MVresident, Monta Loma
on Mar 4, 2020 at 7:25 am
31 people like this

We will be revisiting this again in November, but at least Mountain View voters clearly see the California Apartment Associations', and now some Mountain View City Council members' lies, deception, greediness, and the intent to destroy further the fabric of this community. The backers behind Measure D and the previous Measure to overturn rent control have lied twice, and they will lie again, in November. We're ready for you! And we will vote you down again.


Good Riddance
Castro City
on Mar 4, 2020 at 8:01 am
Good Riddance, Castro City
on Mar 4, 2020 at 8:01 am
38 people like this

Let's not forget School Board Member Jose Gutierrez's shameless and glossy pitch in favor of Measure D. It was a pure power run designed to ingratiate himself with the likes of Abe-Koga and the rest of the City Council. The guy will sell out any one to feed his inflated ego, his community, renters, the poor, his friends, his family. Maybe it's time to get a new suit as well Jose.


The Business Man
Castro City
on Mar 4, 2020 at 8:34 am
The Business Man, Castro City
on Mar 4, 2020 at 8:34 am
23 people like this

Now comes the big question:

Will Margaret Abe Koga AND Lisa Matichak even run for reelection since they clearly do not have support of the City of Mountain View?

To me, they did their job as paid advocates for the landlords, hoping to have achieved something, but failed miserably. Their job was paid by the California Apartment Association and the California Association of Realtors. Will their bosses fire them because they couldn't do their job?

Remember freedom comes at the cost of eternal vigilance, it is now time to purge the CAA and CAR influence from the City Council once and for ALL.

As voters, we should use access to the form 700 at the City Hall to find out who is running the campaigns of these candidates.

And lets send a message to the CAA and the CAR that you cannot manipulate the City of Mountain view anymore forever.

The fact was these people trying to pass Measure D constantly tried misinformation, like selling the measures impact IN ONE CLAIM AFTER ANOTHER when the TEXT of the measure said SOMETHING ELSE.

Next they tried to say you are UNFAIR because any FAIR minded person would vote for it. WHY does being FAIR mean you vote for something that is NOT GOOD for the City?

Then they tried BULLYING the people by saying if you reject Measure D you just DON"T KNOW ECONOMICS? WHY assume that good ECONOMICS actually would support rent control, when all research done is funded by the PRIVATE interests, ESPECIALLY STANFORD, and there is NO SCIENCE to support their claims as of JANUARY 1, 2020?

If this is all they got, no wonder it crashed and burned.


They lied to us
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Mar 4, 2020 at 8:40 am
They lied to us, Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Mar 4, 2020 at 8:40 am
31 people like this

The council members pushing this for the special interests flat out lied to us in order to get their precious donations.
THEY. MUST. GO!

MV is NOT for sale!!!


Antuan
Whisman Station
on Mar 4, 2020 at 8:45 am
Antuan, Whisman Station
on Mar 4, 2020 at 8:45 am
21 people like this

The Business Man, well said.

I’m glad our efforts against measure D were fruitful. We must remain vigilant to these kind of deceptive measures. I received countless of cards advocating for Measure D, they were all a lie. I wonder how many people fell for it.

Good job Mountain Viewers!


The Business Man
Castro City
on Mar 4, 2020 at 10:38 am
The Business Man, Castro City
on Mar 4, 2020 at 10:38 am
19 people like this

WOW,

What happened to Herb Masterson, Pat Pakery, KMS, Amazed, Joe Fleming, Paltize, Yuriko Zaranatello, Rent control limits supply, "Enough, Yes on D", Mark, Corine, Tom Halstrom, or others?

Oh, maybe they were "ASTROTURFERS" who were trying to scam the people of Mountain View?

Rather than admit defeat because the campaign was so BADLY done, they are now QUIET.

You all criticized me over and over again. Trying to discredit my words with irrelevant facts.

NOW, you are dealing with the consequences of this ill-advised plan.

And now you are going to try again in November.

OR are you?


MV renter
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Mar 4, 2020 at 10:50 am
MV renter, Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Mar 4, 2020 at 10:50 am
42 people like this

As a renter barely making enough to pay rent, I have been loosing sleep worrying about the outcome of Measure D. Now that the results are out, I want to thank the residents and voters for exposing the deceptive tactics of CAA, CAR, Margaret Abe Koga, and Lisa Matichak. The gift of freedom, and democracy only works for the people when we have residents like the ones make up the community of MV, thank you!


Miguel Sanchez
North Whisman
on Mar 4, 2020 at 11:16 am
Miguel Sanchez, North Whisman
on Mar 4, 2020 at 11:16 am
33 people like this

If you look at the voting details of the precincts in the city, I don't think any got above 40% in the YES votes, and most got in the low 30%.
So across the city, the margin of rejection seems to have been 2/3 NO to 1/3 YES.

This is something to keep in mind for all those people those in the council and landlord groups that pushed all those glossy pamphlets claiming things like "Democrats support" and heavily implying that teachers, firemen, or overall working people supported this.

In my opinion, the YES group had a gross misunderstanding of the support they had in the city and of what throwing money into a deceitful campaign would accomplish. Remember, the NO campaign was very simple, "It's Deceitful"


The Business Man
Castro City
on Mar 4, 2020 at 11:51 am
The Business Man, Castro City
on Mar 4, 2020 at 11:51 am
9 people like this

Now comes the next Chapters in the Saga of the Mountain View housing crisis:

Chapter 1 was the failure of the City Council to do anything regarding it in 2015.

Chapter 2 was the birth of the Mountain View Tenants Coalition in 2015

Chapter 3: the Measure V initiative writing in 2016

Chapter 4 the Measure V Ballot signatures in 2016

Chapter 5 The Measure V ballot campaign in 2016

Chapter 6, It gets voted in in 2016

Chapter 7 THE CITY COUNCIL CONSPIRES WITH THE CAA TO INTERFERE WITH THE CITY CHARTER IN 2016-2019

Chapter 8, THE CAA PAYS JOHN INKS AND A LOCAL PROPERTY MANAGER TO GET PAID AND USE SIGNATURES FOR THEIR BALLOT INITIATIVE IN 2018.

Chapter 9 Information comes to the CAA through PRIVATE polling that says it will not pass even though they got the signatures after more than a year in 2020.

Chapter 10, The City Council tries to get their power over the CSFRA by putting a ballot measure “D” into an off election, praying that the citizens do not vote at that time. At the same time waging an misinformation war on the City Citizens in 2020

Chapter 11, the Measure D fails by a voting ration of 2 to 1. In 2020

The possible next chapters:

Chapter 12, the CAA and CAR wage another war of misinformation on the City to try to get their ballot initiative to pass, spending another perhaps +$200,000 in the process. And it is likely to fail. In 2020

OR

Chapter 12, the ballot measure is removed, but that is not the end of the story in 2020.

Upon either failure to pass or quit comes Chapter 13

If anyone ever read Disclosure from Micheal Creighton, you know that where there is LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANIES are involved, sometimes SELF-DESTRUCTION makes more money. The primary plot is that a “Female” executive tries to “Sexually Harass” a particular executive.

In the story the real plot was to get rid of a particular employee of the company because he was in fact “too good”, he made a revolutionary device that would put all others to shame. Thus the other manufacturers bought shares of his company and arranged to find a way to get him fired.

Thus the Sexual Harassment, which resulted in a “settlement” where if it could be proven he was incompetent, he would be summarily fired.

The Same “Female executive” altered the development of the production system so that the device would be riddled with defects. Thus making him look incompetent.

BUT he gets wind of it from “A Friend” and gets the evidence together to prove the sabotage.

Thus saving his job, forcing the company to produce the product, and in effect causing major loss to the competitors who tried to prevent it.


Chapter 13, What does this have to do with Chapter 13, well the “LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANIES” are going to INTENTIONALLY MISMANAGE their BUSINESS to such a degree they will declare BANKRUPTCY, or PETITION the City for a rent adjustment based on their INABILITY to get a FAIR rate of return. THIS will be BY DESIGN so that they can attempt to either SCAM the RHC into providing higher rent increases or threaten the City with closing down the apartments under ELLIS. BOTH WILL FAIL IN SOME WAY.

The petitions will likely not succeed no matter what PRESSURE the owners try to use. The OWNERS will declare bankruptcy and the PROPERTIES will fall into the hands of a RECIEVER and thus all debt on the properties will be dropped onto the lender. All cash profits before it will be required to accounted, but there ways to scam that so that the profits are not touched.

THUS those PRIVATE OWNERS are not accountable for their business actions. And they will do major damage to a lot of people. In the end this will result in the same situation.


Longview
another community
on Mar 4, 2020 at 12:33 pm
Longview, another community
on Mar 4, 2020 at 12:33 pm
19 people like this

I keep wondering where that "broad coalition" of supporters for D was? They certainly did not attend any of the CSFRA subcommittee meetings. The only people we met delivering flyers for Yes on D were workers hired by the landlords - we never met any door to door volunteers. So maybe the coalition was 4 council members, 1 wanna be council member, 2 renters,the California Apartment Association and some corporate landlords? Note to Council woman Abe-Koga - most people would not call this "broad". But you keep telling us to trust you. That's not going so great.


The Business Man
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Mar 4, 2020 at 1:11 pm
The Business Man, Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Mar 4, 2020 at 1:11 pm
10 people like this

Longview

IT is called "RETAIL" politics, where anything is stated by the politicians or the interests to MANIPULATE voters into voting for something that will hurt them.

The challenge is for the people to show proof of the deception, and take the control they possess to prevent or better use the process to create better conditions.

We should work to explicitly include mobile homes, curtail rent increases even more, and adopt the new rules established under AB1482 to expand rent control to any units above 10 that are owned by any one landlord or company that owns more than 10 in the state.

Let the landlords go to court to challenge it.


badgolfer
Waverly Park
on Mar 4, 2020 at 4:13 pm
badgolfer, Waverly Park
on Mar 4, 2020 at 4:13 pm
24 people like this

So now that Measure D is behind us, let's get rid of Abe-Koga and the other anti-democracy crowd and have a real dialog on the issue. I am not a renter but I was one once. It is a position full of uncertainty. I am a property owner and don't want to see my rights unnecessarily impinged. I voted against D simply because I don't think the present council are honest brokers of information and looking for a solution. So, we will wait until some real proposal to emerges. Until then we will wash our hands regularly and avoid Covid as best we can.


Rick
Cuernavaca
on Mar 4, 2020 at 5:08 pm
Rick, Cuernavaca
on Mar 4, 2020 at 5:08 pm
37 people like this

Rent control doesn't work. It is the wrong solution to the housing supply shortage: Building more density at public transit is the only solution that can slow rent increases, solve the housing shortage and alleviate traffic. Rent control is just a lottery for a few select people who got in at the right time, who can never move out because their rent will go up, thus people can't move closer to their jobs so traffic gets worse. People have to live far away from their jobs and commute in on our roads.

That said, I voted against measure D because it sounded pretty shady to me. Letting real estate owners who don't even live here sit on the board? Don't give power to people who don't even live here, and don't tell lies to sell the measure. Measure D wouldn't have solved the issues of rents, housing and traffic. My approach to any measure is: Vote no unless you are 100% convinced it is a good thing. If it sounds shady, it's probably shady.

Double the number of apartments in the bay area and build more public transit and you won't need rent control. Subways should run up and down El Camino from San Jose to San Francisco with dense housing at every stop. That's the only way rent increases slow and people have a place to live, and it's the only way to get traffic under control.


Tim
Blossom Valley
on Mar 4, 2020 at 5:21 pm
Tim, Blossom Valley
on Mar 4, 2020 at 5:21 pm
17 people like this

It is time for voters to drive out this crop of council representatives who only care about their own interests, not those of Mountain View residents.


Shady
Cuesta Park
on Mar 4, 2020 at 8:02 pm
Shady, Cuesta Park
on Mar 4, 2020 at 8:02 pm
25 people like this

Heartless Margaret is now saying she will refuse to help the Mobile Home communities because her ballot was defeated.

What a great leader. This is just trashy!
Who does it council hate the poor and elderly so much. This is not who we are.


Caring resident
Monta Loma
on Mar 4, 2020 at 8:08 pm
Caring resident, Monta Loma
on Mar 4, 2020 at 8:08 pm
19 people like this

Shady, that is so true

Just cover the MHs under the CFSRA already. Any real RHC appointees would have followed the law and this issue would have been settled years ago.

Our current council is looking their pockets and testing or communities apart. We already voted on this. They are supposed to be covered. Why does the council have the right to undue our vote with their cronies?


Bring it on in Nov!
Rex Manor
on Mar 4, 2020 at 8:43 pm
Bring it on in Nov!, Rex Manor
on Mar 4, 2020 at 8:43 pm
31 people like this

Since measure D, which was a fair compromise didn't pass, I'm looking forward to voting in favor of whatever is put on the Nov ballot!

You people posting here are shameful. Margaret is a great person and she's done more to help Mountain View and people living here than any of you posting your ridiculous comments. It's shameful how you just assume bad intentions. You are very close-minded. I expected better of MV residents but increasingly I no longer recognize the city I've lived in for so long.

MV Voice, this is your doing as well for your lack of fair, neutral reporting.


@Bring it on
Martens-Carmelita
on Mar 4, 2020 at 8:52 pm
@Bring it on, Martens-Carmelita
on Mar 4, 2020 at 8:52 pm
15 people like this

I wish you the best of luck, but you still only get a single vote in November much like you did for Measure D. Given that the landlords spent about a quarter million trying to pass D, I'm not sure what you expect to be different in November. If I were a landlord, I wouldn't throw good money after bad, and I'd simply try to run my business as best I can.


The Business Man
Castro City
on Mar 4, 2020 at 9:32 pm
The Business Man, Castro City
on Mar 4, 2020 at 9:32 pm
11 people like this

In response to Bring it on in Nov! you said:

“Since measure D, which was a fair compromise didn't pass, I'm looking forward to voting in favor of whatever is put on the Nov ballot!”

Sounds like a loser that is very angry because the people did not get conned into giving up their rights. You also said:

“You people posting here are shameful. Margaret is a great person and she's done more to help Mountain View and people living here than any of you posting your ridiculous comments.”

WHAT DID SHE DO THAT BENEFITS THE CITIZENS OF MOUNTAIN VIEW AND NOT THE CTIY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW CORPORATION? WE NEED MORE THAN JUST A CONCLUSION. WE NEED DEDUCTIVE OR INDUCTIVE PROOF. OTHERWISE YOUR JUST MAKING IT UP You said:

“It's shameful how you just assume bad intentions. You are very close-minded. I expected better of MV residents but increasingly I no longer recognize the city I've lived in for so long.”

INTERESTING, WHEN IT IS DEMONSTRATED THE FLASE STATEMENTS MADE BY MARGEREAT ABE KOGA DURING THIS ELECTION. YOU ARE SIMPLY TRYING TO IGNORE ALL OF THE FALSE STATEMENS SHE MADE INCLUDING TRYING TO PASS OFF HER BALLOT MEASURE AS SUPPORTED BY THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY. WHEN THEY SPECIFICALLY STATED THEY WERE AGAINST MEASUE D.

By the way it was interesting to see 2 men in suits leaving Margaret Abe Koga’s house discussing rent control in public. I live on Centre Street I was walking back from Starbucks on Church Street. It was simple coincidence. She is a trickster who is making constant plans to use her position to enrich her benefactors that fund her campaigns by punishing the voters for doing what is their rights. The Voters must continue to use the City Charter to CONTROL the City Council from now on.

THE VOTERS NOW MUST PUT A BALLOT MEASURE ON TO MAKE CSFRA SPECIFICALLY CONTROL LAND RENT IN MOBILE HOMES IMMEDIATELY. NOW IS THE TIME TO TAKE THAT POWER AWAY FROM MARGARET ABE KOGA, LISA MATICHAK, JOHN MCALLISTER AND CHRIS CLARK FOREVER.


David Speakman
Sylvan Park
on Mar 4, 2020 at 10:06 pm
David Speakman, Sylvan Park
on Mar 4, 2020 at 10:06 pm
11 people like this

Anyone want to help start up a recall effort of a couple council members (including the current Mayor) who were responsible for forcing this deceitful measure though, lying to us, and wasting our taxpayer money on creating it?

Web Link


A Renter
Rengstorff Park
on Mar 4, 2020 at 10:29 pm
A Renter, Rengstorff Park
on Mar 4, 2020 at 10:29 pm
19 people like this

These 4 are now on my list of "people who should never hold public office again".

* Margaret Abe-Koga
* Chris Clark
* Lisa Matichak
* John Mcalister

Who else should be on there?


Another Renter
Martens-Carmelita
on Mar 4, 2020 at 10:46 pm
Another Renter, Martens-Carmelita
on Mar 4, 2020 at 10:46 pm
17 people like this

@A Renter,

Don't forget Ellen Kamei. She voted to put Measure D on the ballot, but has tried to lay low and pretend she didn't support it.


Gary
Sylvan Park
on Mar 5, 2020 at 3:47 am
Gary, Sylvan Park
on Mar 5, 2020 at 3:47 am
13 people like this

Since a judge determined that Measure V (now part of the city charter) does not cover renters in mobilehome parks (at least as long as the City Council-appointed Rental Housing Committee does not find and declare otherwise), the City Council has been free to enact rent control at mobilehome parks but NEVER HAS DONE SO. Instead, the City Council (majority) dangled such possible rent control in an effort to get votes for deceptive Measure D. It should now come as no surprise that the City Council (majority) will make excuses and NOT enact any (real) mobilehome park rent control. Measure V should have addressed mobilehome parks expressly. Anyone may propose another city charter amendment by initiative petition that, if enacted by voters, would establish such rent control. The City Council could propose such a charter amendment itself. The issues raised differ from those involving the rental of apartments. Some people - including renters - may also want to find candidates to support for City Council in November. Monied special interests will have their secret slate(s) of candidates. Those special interests will include landlords, mobilehome park owners as well as developers, real estate profiteers, giant corporations and the MV Chamber of Commerce. Should be interesting.


The Business Man
Castro City
on Mar 5, 2020 at 8:49 am
The Business Man, Castro City
on Mar 5, 2020 at 8:49 am
11 people like this

Gary,

I agree with you, we need to act PROACTIVELY

FIRST, a ballot measure needs to be made to modify the City Charter by eliminating the City Manager because they work for the City Council. And create a real Mayor of Mountain View by election every 2 years. The Mayor will take over all City Manager powers EXCEPT they will be independent of the City Council. They will also have the power to VETO any City Council act but it can be overturned by a 5-2 vote of the City Council.

SECOND, a ballot measure needs to be made to modify the City Charter to establish greater limitations of the actions of the City Council by declaring that ANY action done by the City Council that can be found by a court under the reasonable person standard can be determined to be designed to the determent of any citizen or resident of Mountain View for the financial benefit of a private interest shall be NULL AND VOID and be grounds for a court ordered removal of said city council members.

THIRD, a ballot measure needs to be made to modify the City Attorney required services to provide that a City Citizen or Residents needs must be provided by the office of the City Attorney. And specifically, if there is a conflict of interest between the City Corporation and the City Citizen, the City Citizens legal remedy takes precedence over the City Corporations.

FOURTH, THE CSFRA EXPLICITLY INCLUDES THAT MOBILE HOME SPACE RENTS ARE SUBJJECT TO THE CSFRA AND MUST BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH IT.

These actions will greatly improve the function of the City of Mountain View by formally recognizing the rights of those living in this city.


Gary
Sylvan Park
on Mar 5, 2020 at 10:33 am
Gary, Sylvan Park
on Mar 5, 2020 at 10:33 am
12 people like this

A separately elected mayor has been discussed in MV some in years past. Sunnyvale just adopted a city charter amendment (apparent early results in Tuesday's election) for City Council seats in 6 districts and a mayor elected citywide. As far as the powers of a mayor or city council vis-a-vis the city manager, you might want to examine San Francisco which has a "strong" mayor with many, many direct employees. Oakland has a full-time mayor as does San Jose. The powers of the mayor vary. Monied special interests love powerful mayors who dream of becoming Governor or President.


Old timer
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Mar 5, 2020 at 1:16 pm
Old timer, Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Mar 5, 2020 at 1:16 pm
24 people like this

When a majority demand a minority to give up their rights, it is the beginning of a fall of a society.
Berkeley has been going down this path for 45 years, and it has the least supply of housing been created! It is clear that city decision makers do not understand history nor economics.
The process of demanding higher fees on new housing, new construction codes, abused environment impact laws, crazy approval process, all pushes up on “marginal cost” of housing - this creates a rising tides for housing prices!
How naive to think that housing problem can be solved by these incremental fees and restriction.


The Business Man
Castro City
on Mar 5, 2020 at 2:53 pm
The Business Man, Castro City
on Mar 5, 2020 at 2:53 pm
6 people like this

[Post removed due to excessive and/or repetitive post by same poster]


Old timer
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Mar 5, 2020 at 7:40 pm
Old timer, Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Mar 5, 2020 at 7:40 pm
5 people like this

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]


Old timer
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Mar 5, 2020 at 7:47 pm
Old timer, Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Mar 5, 2020 at 7:47 pm
5 people like this

Oops, I am not sure if the link is accessible, but the link points to:
UC Berkeley, Terner Center for housing innovation.

"The Terner Center for Housing Innovation formulates bold strategies to house families from all walks of life in vibrant, sustainable and affordable homes and communities.


The Business Man
Castro City
on Mar 6, 2020 at 4:16 pm
The Business Man, Castro City
on Mar 6, 2020 at 4:16 pm
9 people like this

Thanks for the information regarding the Terner Center however did you ever read their research on their last article titled “Lessons In Effective Land Use Reform” found here (Web Link), especially the conclusion that stated:

“Conclusion

In supply-constrained markets, increasing housing supply across all income levels is essential to achieving affordability.”

The City of Mountain View fails this objective. It goes on to say:

“This is especially true in California, where major land use reform has stagnated. While zoning changes are not a panacea and should be combined with other tools to ensure positive outcomes, they are a critical piece in California’s efforts to address long-term affordability challenges by increasing the production of housing overall. OVERCOMING THE PRODUCTION SHORTFALL REQUIRES AN OVERHAUL OF BUSINESS-AS-USUAL LAND USE PRACTICES.”

It goes on to say:

“Achieving such significant change is difficult, but California policymakers can learn from the experiences of localities and governments who have successfully planned, passed, and implemented such land use reforms.”

BUT NO SUCH LAND USE REFORM IS OCCURING IN MOUNTAIN VIEW. It goes on to say:

“California policymakers should also understand that land use reform does not happen in a vacuum, and care should be given to align new policy with other housing changes. THE STATE’S UPDATED REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT (RHNA) WILL SOON REQUIRE LOCALITIES TO PLAN FOR MORE HOUSING THAN IN PREVIOUS RHNA CYCLES.”

Let’s do some history here, the RHNA in Mountain View has shown practically no improvement of affordable housing for more than 20 years. The current RHNA report from 2015 to 2017 (Web Link) stated:

Mountain View has a need of 814 VERY LOW income units, it currently has 120 which only meets 15% of the need.

Mountain View has a need of 492 LOW income units but has only 135 which meets only 27% of the need

Mountain View has a need of 527 MODERATE income units and has NONE which meets 0% of the need.

Mountain View has a need of 1,093 ABOVE MODERATE units but has 2,004 which meets an excess of 83% of the actual needs of housing in this city. The report goesw on to say:

“If done thoughtfully, statewide land use reform could prove to be an important tool for localities to meet these new RHNA requirements. Lastly, there is an opportunity to build on last year’s successful passage of significant tenant protections, WHICH INCLUDED AN ANTI-GOUGING RENT CAP AND JUST CAUSE FOR EVICTION POLICY. GIVEN THIS MOMENTUM, now is the time to pursue the kind of meaningful statewide land use reform that is ultimately necessary to alleviate California’s long-term housing challenges.”

THIS WOULD INDICATE THAT THIS GROUP IS FOR MORE MARKET REGULATIONS TO CORRECT FOR THE HISTORICALLY POOR LAND MANAGEMENT DONE IN MOUNTAIN VIEW. THE FACT THAT DEVELOPERS DON’T EVEN BOTHER TO READ SUCH INFORMATION SO THAT THEY DO NOT OVERBUILD IS CRAZY. AND OF COURSE YOU WILL ARGUE WHY SHOULD THEY BUILD ANYTHING BUT WHAT THEY WANT TO BUILD?


Alex M
Willowgate
on Mar 9, 2020 at 3:08 pm
Alex M, Willowgate
on Mar 9, 2020 at 3:08 pm
11 people like this

@They lied to us wrote: MV is NOT for sale!!!

No, but apparently it's for rent, which is a shame. We need more ownership in MV, not more rental properties.


The Business Man
Castro City
on Mar 9, 2020 at 4:44 pm
The Business Man, Castro City
on Mar 9, 2020 at 4:44 pm
4 people like this

In response to Alex M you said:

“@They lied to us wrote: MV is NOT for sale!!!

No, but apparently it's for rent, which is a shame. We need more ownership in MV, not more rental properties.”

Alex, sometimes being a home owner is simply not only unfeasible but unwise given the nature of the work practices in this area. The “BIG TECH” companies have used less than 50% of their work in the area as full-time employees, rather they use temp workers. That makes it impossible for those workers to be home owners, their work is slated to only last at most 12 months unless extended.

Why is it assumed that the only way to have a good life is to be a home owner? Actually that is the goals of the California Association of Realtors, but they use land so inefficiently that the only result is even more lack of housing in the area. Simply put the highest efficiency for a traditional family home is a tenth of an acre.

Given we have 74,000 people living here and let’s say we have 3 persons per housing unit we need 24,667 Single Family Units, thus we need 2,466 acres of land to just accommodate the housing.

But the city has an area of 7,670,400 acres. But how much of the city is zoned for housing? The city doesn’t even know. But what is known is that the maps indicated that 20% is not used for anything being called “Planned Usage” but NOT USED. 20% is unusable. 15% is industrial. 15% is commercial. 10% is City owned. The rest is for residential zones. That’s 100-(20+20+15+15+10) which is 20%. But you have to subtract at least another 505% of that for existing multifamily or high density which leaves 10% of the land in Mountain View is Single family Units.

Now let’s say that each is a half an acre and that 10% of 7,670,400 means we have 767,040 acres for Single Family Home that are ALREADY there. That means we should have 1,536,000 units in Mountain View. If we need only 74,000 to live in Mountain View which comes to 24,667 units and they take up only 12,333 acres, something here doesn’t add up. To me it looks like there are either a lot of houses for sale, or they are being kept off the market by Realtors to inflate the housing costs in the City.

Does the City even have this data acquired or analyzed? It looks like it doesn’t, because if this analysis was done, and provided to the public, the public would know how poorly the City Council manages the City.

THERE MUST BE SOME MISTAKE HERE. UNLESS THERE ARE A LOT OF HOMES IN THE CITY THAT ARE NOT ON THE MARKET OR THEY TAKE UP AS MUCH AS AT LEAST ONE HALF AN ACRE. BUT THAT SHOULD MEAN THERE IS ALREADY ENOUGH HOMES FOR 1,000,000 PEOPLE IN MOUNTAIN VIEW. WHAT IS HAPPENING IN THIS CITY? IT LOOKS LIKE THERE ARE HOMES NOT ON THE MARKET INTENTIONALLY IN ORDER TO DRIVE UP THE PRICE.


The Business Man
Castro City
on Mar 10, 2020 at 11:10 am
The Business Man, Castro City
on Mar 10, 2020 at 11:10 am
1 person likes this

I HAVE A BIG APOLOGY TO THE READERS HERE

I misread the amount of land that the City of Mountain view has, I read Wikipedia wrong SO BAD. The area of Mountain View is not 7,670,400 acres but 7,855.

Thus my original writing must be revised, this proves that there is NO WAY a Single Family Home could ever meet the demands for housing in Mountain View. Let’s look at the available land issue. The city has an area of 7,855 acres.

Let’s do some analysis here. Say for example we take the current population 83,370 and divide that by 4 persons per unit. That leaves 20,840 units of housing necessary to provide the CURRENT need.

Now if you look at the City Zoning Map the total land area available for housing is approximately 35% of the City, which means that the City has operating and SET ASIDE land for housing that totals 7,855 times .35 or 2,750 acres.

But that does not take into account that at least 20% of that space will be needed for roads and infrastructure to support the housing so you must discount that area by 20% (550) which leaves 2,200 real acres of land

That means to just satisfy the current population with a generous 4 person per unit estimate that each unit would have to be the size of a tenth of an acre.

Does the City even have this data acquired or analyzed? It looks like it doesn’t, because if this analysis was done, and provided to the public, the public would know how poorly the City Council manages the City.

The reality is that just to satisfy todays housing demand the City needs to get all land online and operational. ALONG with dealing with the fact that the “HIGH-EARNERS” in the City cannot plan to buy any housing because greater than half are “TEMPORARY” workers for the Valley Tech Industry. So that is our REALITY that we cannot change.

That is why the CITY is responsible for the high cost of housing. BUT it also makes the PRIVATE HOSING SECTOR even MORE responsible. Because it cannot keep up with demand of housing. It is too slow, and inefficient to deal with the needs. But that is by design because it wants to sustain a critical housing shortage t inflate housing costs, instead of actually provide real affordable units.

THE CITY COUNCIL CLEARLY CAN FIX THE PROBLEM BY ONLY PROVIDING PERMITS THAT PROVIDE THE DIVERSE HOUSING NEEDS THAT ARE EASILY DETERMINED WITH COMPETENT ANALYSIS. BUT THE CITY CANNOT AFFORD TO DO THAT BECAUSE IT IS IN COLLABORATION WITH THE PRIVATE BUILDING SECTORS MARKET MANIPULATION. SO IT INTENTIONALLY WILL NOT EVEN GET AN INDEPENDENT ANALYSIS DONE TO GUIDE THEM REGARDING THEIR ACTIONS. IT WILL ONLY USE THEIR OWN EMPLOYEES OR PAID CONSULTANTS.


@Gary...Becker v Lieber
Blossom Valley
on Mar 10, 2020 at 2:23 pm
@Gary...Becker v Lieber, Blossom Valley
on Mar 10, 2020 at 2:23 pm
5 people like this

@Gary

You said above that Lieber leads Becker and that the two will have a runofff for State Senate. This is not accurate (or it’s only partially accurate).

You are missing the fact that San Mateo County voters also voted in this election. Sooooo....adding the two county votes, you have Becker with a commanding lead with Glew (Republican) in second.


The Business Man
Castro City
on Mar 10, 2020 at 9:34 pm
The Business Man, Castro City
on Mar 10, 2020 at 9:34 pm
3 people like this

Let’s look at this picture:

Measure D was voted down by a ratio of 2 to 1.

This surely indicates that the City DOES NOT TRUST Margaret Abe Koga, Lisa Matcihak, John McAllister and Chris Clark. These individuals were the sale-people behind Measure D, even though the Democratic Party of Santa Clara did not endorse it.

Now 2 of these people cannot run for reelection that leaves Margaret Abe Koga and Lisa Matichak.

Now given that in effect this Measure is a negative vote of confidence to these individuals, the only way they can even have a chance to get reelected is to create an ordinance providing all protections provided under CSFRA to the Mobile Home owners in the city regarding their land rent. This means a retroactive rent-rollback and the AGA/Petition process for the adjustment of rent.

And just to make sure you won’t mislead the public, the CSFRA provides a FLOOR regarding what the City can do, it does not prohibit the City from adding protections to these people. THAT IS A BIG LIE AND THESE PEOPLE KNOW IT.

If they do not get it done before the election, then they are left with no record of providing any effective service to the City Citizens of Mountain View.

Of course they will say that the CSFRA does not let them do this. But the language of the CSFRA DOESN NOT SAY THIS AT ALL.

Time for these 4 to stop trying to hurt the city citizens, like they tried with Measure D and actually do something for city citizens.


The Business Man
Castro City
on Mar 10, 2020 at 9:34 pm
The Business Man, Castro City
on Mar 10, 2020 at 9:34 pm
3 people like this

Let’s look at this picture:

Measure D was voted down by a ratio of 2 to 1.

This surely indicates that the City DOES NOT TRUST Margaret Abe Koga, Lisa Matcihak, John McAllister and Chris Clark. These individuals were the sale-people behind Measure D, even though the Democratic Party of Santa Clara did not endorse it.

Now 2 of these people cannot run for reelection that leaves Margaret Abe Koga and Lisa Matichak.

Now given that in effect this Measure is a negative vote of confidence to these individuals, the only way they can even have a chance to get reelected is to create an ordinance providing all protections provided under CSFRA to the Mobile Home owners in the city regarding their land rent. This means a retroactive rent-rollback and the AGA/Petition process for the adjustment of rent.

And just to make sure you won’t mislead the public, the CSFRA provides a FLOOR regarding what the City can do, it does not prohibit the City from adding protections to these people. THAT IS A BIG LIE AND THESE PEOPLE KNOW IT.

If they do not get it done before the election, then they are left with no record of providing any effective service to the City Citizens of Mountain View.

Of course they will say that the CSFRA does not let them do this. But the language of the CSFRA DOES NOT SAY THIS AT ALL.

Time for these 4 to stop trying to hurt the city citizens, like they tried with Measure D and actually do something for city citizens.


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

To post your comment, please login or register at the top of the page. This topic is only for those who have signed up to participate by providing their email address and establishing a screen name.