A dishonest debate over rent control | August 17, 2018 | Mountain View Voice | Mountain View Online |

Mountain View Voice

Opinion - August 17, 2018

A dishonest debate over rent control

There's nothing wrong with a fair debate over rent control. Rent control has always been a controversial issue, and there are compelling arguments on both sides.

This story contains 569 words.

Stories older than 90 days are available only to subscribing members. Please help sustain quality local journalism by becoming a subscribing member today.

If you are already a subscriber, please log in so you can continue to enjoy unlimited access to stories and archives. Subscriptions start at $5 per month and may be cancelled at any time.

Log in     Subscribe

Comments

Like this comment
Posted by SRB
a resident of St. Francis Acres
on Aug 17, 2018 at 9:55 pm

SRB is a registered user.

"We hope that the second time around, the CAA and its backers will see fit to engage Mountain View citizens in an honest debate"

Not holding my breath as the CAA is still unrepentantly peddling the same Sneaky Repeal proposal.

Nothing surprising as it's just the latest of a long series of political Deceptive Dirty Tricks by the CAA.

Most disappointing was to see the 2 former and 1 current City Council Members act as CAA's accomplices in deceiving their constituents.

"Mountain View voters will have to remain vigilant " ...especially of these 3 accomplices (one of them running in November) and quite frankly of any candidate or campaign financed or endorsed by the CAA.


7 people like this
Posted by mike rose
a resident of another community
on Aug 18, 2018 at 7:17 am

mike rose is a registered user.

I love to read the lamenting over HUGE SUM of $260,000 spent on the repeal of the onerous regulation, which in reality deprives the property owner of any rights.
Where was the outrage (not in MVV) when in San Francisco for example the payouts to the tenants were required to be well above 100,000 per unit to vacate, with no requirement that this money be spent on housing. 3 payouts would cover the $260,000.
Fortunately the courts stopped that thievery, but it does not happen in every case.


1 person likes this
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Aug 18, 2018 at 1:18 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

In response to mike rose you said:

“I love to read the lamenting over HUGE SUM of $260,000 spent on the repeal of the onerous regulation, which in reality deprives the property owner of any rights.”

Mike you know the courts have not said that. You are not a judge, and do not have the authority to determine this. You said:

“Where was the outrage (not in MVV) when in San Francisco for example the payouts to the tenants were required to be well above 100,000 per unit to vacate, with no requirement that this money be spent on housing. 3 payouts would cover the $260,000.”

However, there are examples that landlords conduct caused serius penalties. Like this story (Web Link) where the landlords simply cause their own losses. As quoted here:

“A notorious San Francisco landlord, who has repeatedly come under fire for harassing and illegally evicting tenants, has been slapped with a $3.5 million judgment after a jury found her guilty of ousting a family from its home of 21 years to rent the unit at a higher price.

A jury this month found that Anne Kihagi violated the law when she booted Dale Duncan, his wife, Marta Mendoza, and their then-6-year-old daughter from their home on Hill Street in San Francisco’s Mission District. The judgment is the largest in a single-unit landlord-tenant case not involving personal injury claims in the nation, attorneys for the family said Friday”

So, before you make any claims that landlords are not responsible for their own problems, your peers are going to have to stop misbehaving. You said:

“Fortunately the courts stopped that thievery, but it does not happen in every case.”

There are plenty of cases where landlords are caught doing the same thing. Simply put, only if you can establish that landlords are “innocent” of any “wrongdoing” will provide your point of view sufficient weight in the eyes of the public. I am only providing the public information for their consideration.


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

Don't be the last to know

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