Rent control foes deliver signatures to city | October 12, 2018 | Mountain View Voice | Mountain View Online |

Mountain View Voice

News - October 12, 2018

Rent control foes deliver signatures to city

by Mark Noack

A ballot measure designed to drastically weaken Mountain View's rent control program will likely be heading to voters in 2020. On Monday afternoon, Oct. 8, supporters of the measure delivered thousands of signatures to the city, seeking to put their initiative to roll back rent control on a future ballot.

This story contains 378 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 The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Oct 12, 2018 at 5:10 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

After the false signautres collected in Pacifica, my hopes are the registrar of voters of Santa Clara County will prevent that from occuring here. The PAID signature gatherers have a history of falsifying theire collections if you read the story from Pacifica found here (Web Link)

That discovery nullified the election results.

Pacifica now has rent control.


5 people like this
Posted by mike rose
a resident of another community
on Oct 12, 2018 at 5:55 pm

mike rose is a registered user.

This story is old, TBM.
There are always bad apples. I appreciate your hope against all hope, but it just does not look good for rent control proponents in MV or statewide.
Californians seem to get it, according to le latest PPIC poll, across the board. Prop 10 is lagging badly, and the MV rent control ordinance cleanup is likely going to qualify for 2020.
No guarantees here, but if I was a tenant activist in MV, I'd be concerned.


5 people like this
Posted by mike rose
a resident of another community
on Oct 12, 2018 at 6:08 pm

mike rose is a registered user.

TBM,
I hope Randy Guelph is not going to accuse me of harassment, but I can't find any info confirming the fact that ( as you state) Pacifica has rent control, and election results there were nullified.
Could you please help all the readers and provide some proof?
Thank you very much in advance.


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Oct 12, 2018 at 6:51 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

In response to mike rose you said:

“This story is old, TBM.

There are always bad apples. I appreciate your hope against all hope, but it just does not look good for rent control proponents in MV or statewide.”

IT IS RELEVANT BECAUSE THE SIGNATURES GATHERED IN MOUNTAIN VIEW WERE PAID AS MUCH AS $40 PER SIGNATURE. You said:

“Californians seem to get it, according to le latest PPIC poll, across the board. Prop 10 is lagging badly, and the MV rent control ordinance cleanup is likely going to qualify for 2020.

No guarantees here, but if I was a tenant activist in MV, I'd be concerned.”

THE QUESTION ASKED:

19. [likely voters only] Proposition 10 is called the “Expands Local Governments’ Authority to Enact Rent Control on Residential Property. Initiative Statute” It repeals state law that currently restricts the scope of rent-control policies that cities and other local jurisdictions may impose on residential property. The fiscal impact is potential net reduction in state and local revenues of tens of millions of dollars per year in the long term. Depending on actions by local communities, revenue losses could be less or considerably more. If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on Proposition 10?“

It is on page 25. OK lets look how it is loaded and designed to create a false result.

First, the question is based on “residential” properties. Specifically it stated “It repeals state law that currently restricts the scope of rent-control policies that cities and other local jurisdictions may impose on residential property. “ ANY unit for rent is NOT a residential property because a “residential” property is one where one lives in who owns it. The only way this qualifies is that the “residential” property owner must “live” in that unit, NOT RENT IT OUT TO ANOTHER. If it is rented out, is is NOT a residential property, but a “commercial” property. YOU KNOW THIS.

Second, the question is loaded with a threat that the anti proposition 10 campaign uses to argue against it namely “The fiscal impact is potential net reduction in state and local re4venues of tens of millions of dollars per year in the long term.” The reality is that the property values will drop regarding the raising Fed rates to 3% by 2021 which will cause a serious reduction in property values, thus resulting in the loss of tax revenues. This information is simply designed to intimidate and manipulate the results of the study. This means that proposition 10 cannot be held responsible alone for this assumption, but it is used to manipulate the results of the study. YOU KNOW THIS.

Third, the question poses the following premise “Depending on actions by local communities, revenue losses could be less or considerably more.” Again given the reality that real estate values are poised to drop without even with proposition 10, this information is used simply to intimidate and mislead the one be asked the question. YOU KNOW THIS.

There was a follow up question on page 17 but given that question 19 already poisoned the accuracy of the results this question was simply not going to correct the problem it stated:

33. [likely voters only] Do you think rent control- that is, the ability of local governments to set limits on how much rents can be increased each year- is a good thing?

Finally if you look at this question and its results you can also discover a poor sampling the question 34 asked:

Next, would you consider yourself politically? The sample indicated:

13% “very liberal” 19% “somewhat liberal” 31% “middle of the road” 22% “somewhat conservative” 12% “very conservative” 3% “Don’t know”

Lets look at the California political breakdown from their own study found here (Web Link) it states that:

Political Ideology 38% “Liberal” 28% “Moderate” and 34 % “Conservative” If you compare the two results the disparity is obvious

Your study indicated only 32% ”Liberal” where the voter proportion is 38% A DEFICIT OF 6% OR AN ERROR OF -15%.

The Moderate in your study was 31% where it was determined 28% AN ERROR RATE OF +7%.

The Conservative total in the study was 34% “Conservative” which was accurate.

But this indicates a failure of the study sample given the PPIC already knew that those results WERE NOT PROPORTIONAL WITH THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AS THEY FOUND IT. If you wanted to adjust for this, you will need to add 15% to the reported support of 36% in their prop 10 report which comes to 41% that will most likely vote for it. The report on page 11 (Web Link ) also stated:

“Forty-two percent of likely voters say that the outcome of the vote on Proposition 10 is very important to them, while a further 33 percent say it is somewhat important. Views on its importance are similar across parties and among those who would vote yes and those who would vote no on this proposition. Notably, renters (54%) are much more likely than homeowners (38%) to say that the outcome of the vote on Proposition 10 is very important to them.

“How important to you is the outcome of the vote on Proposition 10?”

Likely voters only

Very Important 42% of all likely voters, 44% Democrat, 39% Republican and 45% Independent, of the Very important category 46% will vote in favor and 45% will not

Somewhat Important 33% of all likely voters, 31% Democrat, 34% Republican and 31% Independent, of the somewhat important category 37% will vote in favor and 32% will not

Not Too Important 16% of all likely voters, 17% Democrat, 19% Republican and 13% Independent, of the not too important category 15% will vote in favor and 17% will not

Not At All Important 4% of all likely voters, 3% Democrat, 4% Republican and 3% Independent, of the not at all important category 1% will vote in favor and 6% will not

Don’t Know 5% of all likely voters, 5% Democrat, 4% Republican and 7% Independent, of the Very important category 1% will vote in favor and 1% will not”

If one were to use this formula regarding weighted averages to calculate the percentages above:

Yes (42% * 46%) + (33% * 37%) + (16% * 15%) + (4% * 1%) + (5% * 1%)

19.3% + 12.21% 2.4% .25% + .20% = 34.36%

No (42% * 45%) + (33% * 32%) + (16% * 17%) + (4% * 6%) + (5% * 1%)

18.9% + 10.56% + 2.72% + .24% + .20% =32.62%

The calculations made by the PPIC are questionable. They do not take into account the weighting of the statistics described above. It would look like no is losing. The yes vote should come to 34.36% but the no under this data should have been 32.62% Somewhere, there is a severe mathematical error made by the PPIC.

The final information you should consider is the information from this PPIC report that stated:

“Voter registration is up slightly; the share of independents has increased.

California’s 19 million registered voters constitute 75.7% of eligible adults, a slight increase from the registration rate in 2014 (73.3%), the year of the last gubernatorial election. THE SHARE OF REGISTERED VOTERS WHO ARE DEMOCRATS (44.4%) IS UP SLIGHTLY FROM 2014 (43.4%), WHILE THE SHARE OF REPUBLICANS (25.1%) HAS DECLINED SINCE 2014 (28.4%). At the same time, the share of voters who say they are independent (also known as “decline to state” or “no party preference”) has been increasing and is now 25.5%, up from 21.2% in 2014. OUR SURVEYS INDICATE THAT 47% OF THOSE WE CONSIDER MOST LIKELY TO VOTE ARE DEMOCRATS, 28% ARE REPUBLICANS, AND 21% ARE INDEPENDENTS.”

Thus if the democratic vote is high, especially after he insanity happening in Washington in effect enraging the democratic party voters, and many independents, This should result in a high voter turnout. Democrats already vote nearly 60% more and regarding if housing is the most important issue, the numbers per this report are not actually good. You said:

“I hope Randy Guelph is not going to accuse me of harassment, but I can't find any info confirming the fact that ( as you state) Pacifica has rent control, and election results there were nullified.

Could you please help all the readers and provide some proof?”

Here is the proof from the City of Pacifica Website:

(Web Link)

It clearly showed that after the election, the City Council REVERSED the election results.


8 people like this
Posted by mike rose
a resident of another community
on Oct 12, 2018 at 7:13 pm

mike rose is a registered user.

See, TBM, this is where you are being caught lying again. Pretty much at every post.
The truth is the City of Pacifica DOES NOT HAVE RENT CONTROL, NOR THE ELECTION RESULTS WERE NULLIFIED.
THIS IS A 100% FALSEHOOD SPREADING ON YOUR PART>
Here is a quote from the link to the CITY OF PACIFICA WEBSITE, YOU YOURSELF provided:

Update 4/19/2017: The Pacifica Tribune edition of April 19, 2017, led with the headline “City Enacts Rent Control.” Elsewhere, the article stated the City Council had placed consideration of a rent stabilization ordinance on the November ballot. Both the headline and the statement regarding an election are erroneous. As the information below explains, the City had neither – as of publication of the newspaper – adopted a rent stabilization ordinance nor called an election. These matters continue to be under consideration by the City Council.

STOP SPREADING LIES!!!!!
READERS SHOULD NOT BELIEVE ANY STATEMENTS MADE BY THE BUSINESS MAN.


5 people like this
Posted by mike rose
a resident of another community
on Oct 12, 2018 at 7:27 pm

mike rose is a registered user.

TBM,
You can prove me wrong easily.
Just provide a link to City of Pacifica Rent control ORDINANCE.(the actual law).


4 people like this
Posted by mike rose
a resident of another community
on Oct 12, 2018 at 7:29 pm

mike rose is a registered user.

BTW,
Where is Randy Guelph when we need him?


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Oct 12, 2018 at 7:33 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

CORRECTED LANGUAGE AND CALCULATION PLEASE ACCEPT MY APOLOGIES

In response to mike rose you said:

“This story is old, TBM.

There are always bad apples. I appreciate your hope against all hope, but it just does not look good for rent control proponents in MV or statewide.”

IT IS RELEVANT BECAUSE THE SIGNATURES GATHERED IN MOUNTAIN VIEW WERE PAID AS MUCH AS $40 PER SIGNATURE. You said:

“Californians seem to get it, according to le latest PPIC poll, across the board. Prop 10 is lagging badly, and the MV rent control ordinance cleanup is likely going to qualify for 2020.

No guarantees here, but if I was a tenant activist in MV, I'd be concerned.”

THE QUESTION ASKED:

19. [likely voters only] Proposition 10 is called the “Expands Local Governments’ Authority to Enact Rent Control on Residential Property. Initiative Statute” It repeals state law that currently restricts the scope of rent-control policies that cities and other local jurisdictions may impose on residential property. The fiscal impact is potential net reduction in state and local revenues of tens of millions of dollars per year in the long term. Depending on actions by local communities, revenue losses could be less or considerably more. If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on Proposition 10?“

It is on page 25. OK lets look how it is loaded and designed to create a false result.

First, the question is based on “residential” properties. Specifically it stated “It repeals state law that currently restricts the scope of rent-control policies that cities and other local jurisdictions may impose on residential property. “ ANY unit for rent is NOT a residential property because a “residential” property is one where one lives in who owns it. The only way this qualifies is that the “residential” property owner must “live” in that unit, NOT RENT IT OUT TO ANOTHER. If it is rented out, is is NOT a residential property, but a “commercial” property. YOU KNOW THIS.

Second, the question is loaded with a threat that the anti proposition 10 campaign uses to argue against it namely “The fiscal impact is potential net reduction in state and local re4venues of tens of millions of dollars per year in the long term.” The reality is that the property values will drop regarding the raising Fed rates to 3% by 2021 which will cause a serious reduction in property values, thus resulting in the loss of tax revenues. This information is simply designed to intimidate and manipulate the results of the study. This means that proposition 10 cannot be held responsible alone for this assumption, but it is used to manipulate the results of the study. YOU KNOW THIS.

Third, the question poses the following premise “Depending on actions by local communities, revenue losses could be less or considerably more.” Again given the reality that real estate values are poised to drop without even with proposition 10, this information is used simply to intimidate and mislead the one be asked the question. YOU KNOW THIS.

There was a follow up question on page 17 but given that question 19 already poisoned the accuracy of the results this question was simply not going to correct the problem it stated:

33. [likely voters only] Do you think rent control- that is, the ability of local governments to set limits on how much rents can be increased each year- is a good thing?

Finally if you look at this question and its results you can also discover a poor sampling the question 34 asked:

Next, would you consider yourself politically? The sample indicated:

13% “very liberal” 19% “somewhat liberal” 31% “middle of the road” 22% “somewhat conservative” 12% “very conservative” 3% “Don’t know”

Lets look at the California political breakdown from their own study found here (Web Link) it states that:

Political Ideology 38% “Liberal” 28% “Moderate” and 34 % “Conservative” If you compare the two results the disparity is obvious

Your study indicated only 32% ”Liberal” where the voter proportion is 38% A DEFICIT OF 6% OR AN ERROR OF -15%.

The Moderate in your study was 31% where it was determined 28% AN ERROR RATE OF +7%.

The Conservative total in the study was 34% “Conservative” which was accurate.

But this indicates a failure of the study sample given the PPIC already knew that those results WERE NOT PROPORTIONAL WITH THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AS THEY FOUND IT. If you wanted to adjust for this, you will need to add 15% to the reported support of 36% in their prop 10 report which comes to 41% that will most likely vote for it. The report on page 11 (Web Link ) also stated:

“Forty-two percent of likely voters say that the outcome of the vote on Proposition 10 is very important to them, while a further 33 percent say it is somewhat important. Views on its importance are similar across parties and among those who would vote yes and those who would vote no on this proposition. Notably, renters (54%) are much more likely than homeowners (38%) to say that the outcome of the vote on Proposition 10 is very important to them.

“How important to you is the outcome of the vote on Proposition 10?”

Likely voters only

Very Important 42% of all likely voters, 44% Democrat, 39% Republican and 45% Independent, of the Very important category 46% will vote in favor and 45% will not

Somewhat Important 33% of all likely voters, 31% Democrat, 34% Republican and 31% Independent, of the somewhat important category 37% will vote in favor and 32% will not

Not Too Important 16% of all likely voters, 17% Democrat, 19% Republican and 13% Independent, of the not too important category 15% will vote in favor and 17% will not

Not At All Important 4% of all likely voters, 3% Democrat, 4% Republican and 3% Independent, of the not at all important category 1% will vote in favor and 6% will not

Don’t Know 5% of all likely voters, 5% Democrat, 4% Republican and 7% Independent, of the Very important category 1% will vote in favor and 1% will not”

If one were to use this formula regarding weighted averages to calculate the percentages above:

Democratic Vote Yes (42% * 46%) + (33% * 37%) + (16% * 15%) + (4% * 1%) + (5% * 1%) =

19.3% + 12.21% 2.4% .25% + .20% = 34.36%

Democratic Vote No (42% * 45%) + (33% * 32%) + (17% * 17%) + (3% * 6%) + (5% * 1%)

18.9% + 10.56% + 2.89% + .18+ .20 = 32.73%

DEMOCRATIC COMPOSITION WOULD BE 34.36% FOR AND 32.73% AGAINST

Republican Vote Yes (39% * 46%) + (34% * 37%) + (19% * 15%) + (4% * 1%) + (4% * 1%)

17.94% + 12.58% + 2.85% + .25% + .25% =32.15% = 33.87%

Republican Vote No (39% * 45%) + (34% * 32%) + (19% * 17%) + (4% * 6%) + (4% * 1%)

17.55% + 10.88% + 3.23% + .24% + .25% =32.15%

REPUBLICAN COMPOSITION IN THE VOTE WOULD BE 33.87% FOR AND 32.15% AGAINST

Independent Vote Yes (45% * 46%) + (31% * 37%) + (13% * 15%) + (3% * 1%) + (7% * 1%)

20.7% + 11.47% + 1.95% + .33% + .15 % = 34.6%

Independent Vote No (45% * 45%) + (31% * 32%) + (13% * 15%) + (3% * 6%) + (7% * 1%)

20.25% +9.92% + 1.95% + .18% + .15 % = 32.45%

INDEPENDENT COMPOSITION OF VOTE IS 34.6% FOR AND 32.45% AGAINST

The calculations made by the PPIC are questionable. They do not take into account the weighting of the statistics described above. It would look like no is losing. The Democratic vote alone is demonstrated to have a significant advantage of passing along with the Republican vote and the Independent vote. Where did he PPIC get the additional negative statistics? It appears somewhere, there is a severe mathematical error made by the PPIC.

The final information you should consider is the information from this PPIC report that stated:

“Voter registration is up slightly; the share of independents has increased.

California’s 19 million registered voters constitute 75.7% of eligible adults, a slight increase from the registration rate in 2014 (73.3%), the year of the last gubernatorial election. THE SHARE OF REGISTERED VOTERS WHO ARE DEMOCRATS (44.4%) IS UP SLIGHTLY FROM 2014 (43.4%), WHILE THE SHARE OF REPUBLICANS (25.1%) HAS DECLINED SINCE 2014 (28.4%). At the same time, the share of voters who say they are independent (also known as “decline to state” or “no party preference”) has been increasing and is now 25.5%, up from 21.2% in 2014. OUR SURVEYS INDICATE THAT 47% OF THOSE WE CONSIDER MOST LIKELY TO VOTE ARE DEMOCRATS, 28% ARE REPUBLICANS, AND 21% ARE INDEPENDENTS.”

Thus if the democratic vote is high, especially after he insanity happening in Washington in effect enraging the democratic party voters, and many independents, This should result in a high voter turnout. Democrats already vote nearly 60% more and regarding if housing is the most important issue, the numbers per this report are not actually good. You said:

“I hope Randy Guelph is not going to accuse me of harassment, but I can't find any info confirming the fact that ( as you state) Pacifica has rent control, and election results there were nullified.

Could you please help all the readers and provide some proof?”

Here is the proof from the City of Pacifica Website:

(Web Link)

It clearly showed that after the election, the City Council REVERSED the election results.


7 people like this
Posted by Farce
a resident of Bailey Park
on Oct 12, 2018 at 7:44 pm

BM your Web page is prior to the actual election in Pacifica on November 7 2017. There is no rent control ordinance in place currently. The voters did not pass a rent control ordinance. The measure that is listed was passed by council and temporary. It was repealed by council.


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Oct 12, 2018 at 8:26 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

In response to Farce you said:

“BM your Web page is prior to the actual election in Pacifica on November 7 2017. There is no rent control ordinance in place currently. The voters did not pass a rent control ordinance. The measure that is listed was passed by council and temporary. It was repealed by council.”

That is what the web page said, I did make a mistake. I am surprised the webpage is still up given it is not in effect.

Except that IF the signature gatherers are found guilty, the election will be required to be nullified because it is a result of a criminal act. In effect upon criminal conviction, the signatures are determined VOID. Thus the question on the ballot would be disqualified. I am keeping an eye on the case. You are not aware of that?


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Oct 12, 2018 at 9:57 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

Here is a report regarding the current topic from KPIX TV. You can play it from this link

Web Link

I just find the explanation from Joshua Howard unbelievable regarding the collection of the signatures. His comments were:

“When they are presented with the petition on the clipboard, they have the right to take as much time as they need, as much time as they want, to read the whole thing, that’s up to the voter to read it, and understand, it before they sign it.”

THAT in effect specifically approves any means necessary to get a signature. It does not make a statement that the CAA does NOT endorse anyone in using deceptive statements to entice a person to sign a petition.

I am sure that mike rose will say that I am being unfair to Joshua Howard. But Joshua Howard has simply admitted that the CAA does nothing to insure that the signatures are valid nor that the methods used to get them are not done by making any false statements by the paid signature collectors.

Mike rose will simply support that if the voter is convinced to sign the document, they have themselves to blame. However, our election process cannot be subject to such tactics. That is why over 300 withdrawal forms have been submitted.

I am certain that this process can be possibly led to an investigation. It may result in the same problems involved with Pacifica. The CAA is the one that hired them and are responsible for their conduct. The CAA has to be made accountable for this action. So, I strongly urge the VOTERS to do so.


4 people like this
Posted by mike rose
a resident of another community
on Oct 13, 2018 at 8:51 am

mike rose is a registered user.

When the signatures were collected for Prop 10 repeal I approached the collector to ask what is this about?
The explanation was bogus, he did not even know what Costa Hawkins was.
The bottom line is that you cannot expect from the professional signature gatherers to be fully knowledgeable on every issue.
It would be prudent for the voters to read and understand what they sign.
Ignorance is not an excuse to blame others.
I thought this broadcast was very pro tenant biased as expected from the liberal media.


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Oct 13, 2018 at 9:07 am

The Business Man is a registered user.

In response to mike rose you said:

“When the signatures were collected for Prop 10 repeal I approached the collector to ask what is this about?”

Please tell us where and when? You cannmot expect us to believe you when you did make these claims:

““So, with this track record of PPIC in actually being correct 100% of the time, it would be a long shot to project that Prop 10 passes, to say the least.”

THEN you said:

“I realize , I should be more specific as to my comments on PPIC polls. What I meant is they are 100% correct on the outcome of the vote on the statewide propositions in the last election cycle, rather than correct 100% on the number of the votes ( no one is ever going to predict that)”

Talking about changing the location of the “goalpost”. You know what you said and you should me more careful. I also noticed you tried to avoid the big error of the PPIC which was predicting that Question 8 would not pass, the same sex marriage ban. The PPIC predicted it would lose as seen here:

2008-11-04 22:00:00 CA Proposition 8 - Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry

ACTUAL YES votes were 7,001,084 or 52.24% and NO votes were 6,401,482 or 47.76%

THE PPIC POLL STATED on 10/12/2008-10/19/2008 (4.00% Undecided) that the NO votes would be 54.08% and the YES votes would be 45.76%.

So you try to give the impression of the PPIC as being all knowing. You use language that is clearly misleading. Then you try to change your claims in order to narrow the scope of fact finding. My simple observation is that on one of the most important proposition questions in the election history the PPIC was WRONG. Then you said:

“The explanation was bogus, he did not even know what Costa Hawkins was.”

Again, you have to provide some kind of proof to make this statement. You went on to say

“The bottom line is that you cannot expect from the professional signature gatherers to be fully knowledgeable on every issue.”

YES WE HAVE TO. YOU CANNOT GET AWAY WITH THE CLAIM THAT THE SIGNATURE GATHERERS CAN BE IGNORANT OF THEIR JOB. THAT IS THEIR “PROFESSION” AS BEING A “PAID GATHERER”. THAT IS THE POOREST EXPLANATION I HAVE EVER HEARD. THESE PROFESSINALS MUST BE AWARE OF WHAT ACTIONS DISQUALIFY THEIR WORK IF THEY ARE PROFESSIONALS. You said:

“It would be prudent for the voters to read and understand what they sign.”

NO you sound just like Joshua Howard. Again a PROFESSIONAL political agent MAY NOT MAKE FALSE CLAIMS. This is just saying if you can con a voter into shooting another person, you aren’t responsible for it. You said:

“Ignorance is not an excuse to blame others.”

It is not ignorance if one is being provided false statements to convince them to sign a document. THAT IS AN ACTIVE DECEPTION. If one did so without any “false” statements made at any time, I would agree with you. You said:

“I thought this broadcast was very pro tenant biased as expected from the liberal media.”

There you go again blaming the media for catching and reporting the story, and the lack of good judgement on Joshua Howard’s part to put the blame on the voters. Joshua Howards group the CAA was paying these people to do anything to get a signature. The CAA simply has a proven history again regarding the signature gatherers in Pacifica. You just don’t like to see your friends get caught and be asked to explain this. Especially how poorly Joshua Howard did.


2 people like this
Posted by mike rose
a resident of another community
on Oct 13, 2018 at 9:20 am

mike rose is a registered user.

Even a first grader would understand, that when I said PPIC poll was 100% correct it referred to the outcome of voting on propositions or candidates vs their poll predictions.
You naively and wrongly assumed that PPIC polls are 100% correct in predicting the EXACT number of votes.
Where did I say that?
You look i.e. at the link I provided for last 2016 election, when they updated their methodology, and you see that every race and every proposition went the way PPIC predicted.


6 people like this
Posted by mike rose
a resident of another community
on Oct 13, 2018 at 9:32 am

mike rose is a registered user.

If someone felt they were deceived they can request their signature to be removed, there is a process for that situation. 300 people did, 7000 did not.
At some point you have to assume voters should be responsible for their actions. They cannot pretend to be naive, uneducated children if they aspire to vote.
Unfortunately when things don't go your way and voters chose opposite point of view you are looking for someone or some entity to place blame on.
The fake news media go along with that unfortunately


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Oct 13, 2018 at 9:46 am

The Business Man is a registered user.

In response to mike rose you said:

“Even a first grader would understand, that when I said PPIC poll was 100% correct it referred to the outcome of voting on propositions or candidates vs their poll predictions.”

That was not what you said, you said ““So, with this track record of PPIC in actually being correct 100% of the time, it would be a long shot to project that Prop 10 passes, to say the least.” You said:

“You naively and wrongly assumed that PPIC polls are 100% correct in predicting the EXACT number of votes.”

WRONG, I TOOK YOUR WORDS AS YOU SAID THEM. You said:

Where did I say that?

You said it before it was purged from the Mountain View website on Friday. I kept a copy of it. The original story was posted on Monday, the website purged over 60 comments and reposted a link to the story on Friday via clicking the current issues on the home page. It was previously purged and closed. You said:

“You look i.e. at the link I provided for last 2016 election, when they updated their methodology, and you see that every race and every proposition went the way PPIC predicted.”

That is like the current problem with the FBI investigation into Kavanauhs prior background checks, you want to limit it artificially. I will not and here is the inaccuracy in the PPIC history I demonstrated after your claims it was 100% accurate:

You said PPIC POLLS were 100% accurate.

Please note the variances in the election results per your resources:

2016-11-08 22:00:00 Proposition 64 (Marijuana Legalization)

The PPIC result in yes was off 1.72% and no 2.21%

2016-11-08 22:00:00 Proposition 51 (School Bonds)

The PPIC results in yes were off 3.2% and no was off by 1.51%

2016-11-08 22:00:00 Proposition 55 (Tax Extension to Fund Education and Healthcare)

The PPIC result in yes was off 1.63% and no was off 2.63%

2016-11-08 22:00:00 Proposition 56 (Cigarette Tax)

The PPIC result in yes was off 5.07% and no was off 4,71%

2014-11-04 19:30:00 CA Prop 47: Reduce Nonviolent Crimes from Felony to Misdemeanor

The PPIC result in yes was off by 7.6% and no was 9.04% from the actual votes

2012-11-06 22:00:00 CA Proposition 38: Tax for Education & Early Childhood

The PPIC result in no was off by 14% and yes 13.4%.

2012-11-06 22:00:00 CA Proposition 30: Temporary Taxes for Education

The PPIC result in yes was off by 3.53% and no off by 2.89%

2012-11-06 22:00:00 CA Proposition 32: Prohibit Political Contributions from Payroll Deduction

The PPIC result in nos was off by .064% and yes by 1.28%

2010-11-02 22:00:00 CA Proposition 23 - Suspension of AB 32

The PPIC result in no was 10.53% off and yes 12.78%

2010-11-02 22:00:00 CA Proposition 24 - Repeals Recent Legislation That Would Allow Businesses to Lower Their Tax Liability.

The PPIC result in no was off 12% and yes off 3.97%

2010-11-02 22:00:00 CA Proposition 25 - Changes Legislative Vote Requirement to Pass a Budget from Two-Thirds to a Simple Majority

The PPIC result in yes was off 1.42% and no 4.31%

2010-11-02 23:00:00 Proposition 19 - Legalizes Marijuana Under California but not Federal Law

The PPIC result in no was off 1.03% and yes .054%

2010-06-08 20:00:00 CA Proposition 14 - Top Two Primaries Act

The PPIC result in yes was off 14.18% and no was off 15.87%

2008-11-04 22:00:00 CA Proposition 8 - Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry

The PPIC result in yes was off by 6.48% and no was off 6.32%

From what I can demonstrate here, the claim that the PPIC is 100% accurate is simply overstating the idea. You cannot claim that the history should only be restricted to after 2016. Given that in some cases they were off as much as 14% in some cases, this cannot be your only evidence to prove your argument.

Also this is NOT a primary source. It can be argued that the web page can have errors in it because it in fact is a secondary source. Thus maybe you need to do more research on the subject.

AGAIN, THE VOTERS WILL MAKE THE DECISION NOT A POLL.

OF COURSE YOU AREN’T ADDRESSING THE RESPONSE I MADE HERE IT IS AGAIN:

In response to mike rose you said:

“When the signatures were collected for Prop 10 repeal I approached the collector to ask what is this about?”

Please tell us where and when? You cannmot expect us to believe you when you did make these claims:

““So, with this track record of PPIC in actually being correct 100% of the time, it would be a long shot to project that Prop 10 passes, to say the least.”

THEN you said:

“I realize , I should be more specific as to my comments on PPIC polls. What I meant is they are 100% correct on the outcome of the vote on the statewide propositions in the last election cycle, rather than correct 100% on the number of the votes ( no one is ever going to predict that)”

So you try to give the impression of the PPIC as being all knowing. You use language that is clearly misleading. Then you try to change your claims in order to narrow the scope of fact finding. My simple observation is that on one of the most important proposition questions in the election history the PPIC was WRONG. Then you said:

“The explanation was bogus, he did not even know what Costa Hawkins was.”

Again, you have to provide some kind of proof to make this statement. You went on to say

“The bottom line is that you cannot expect from the professional signature gatherers to be fully knowledgeable on every issue.”

YES WE HAVE TO. YOU CANNOT GET AWAY WITH THE CLAIM THAT THE SIGNATURE GATHERERS CAN BE IGNORANT OF THEIR JOB. THAT IS THEIR “PROFESSION” AS BEING A “PAID GATHERER”. THAT IS THE POOREST EXPLANATION I HAVE EVER HEARD. THESE PROFESSINALS MUST BE AWARE OF WHAT ACTIONS DISQUALIFY THEIR WORK IF THEY ARE PROFESSIONALS. You said:

“It would be prudent for the voters to read and understand what they sign.”

NO you sound just like Joshua Howard. Again a PROFESSIONAL political agent MAY NOT MAKE FALSE CLAIMS. This is just saying if you can con a voter into shooting another person, you aren’t responsible for it. You said:

“Ignorance is not an excuse to blame others.”

It is not ignorance if one is being provided false statements to convince them to sign a document. THAT IS AN ACTIVE DECEPTION. If one did so without any “false” statements made at any time, I would agree with you. You said:

“I thought this broadcast was very pro tenant biased as expected from the liberal media.”

There you go again blaming the media for catching and reporting the story, and the lack of good judgement on Joshua Howard’s part to put the blame on the voters. Joshua Howards group the CAA was paying these people to do anything to get a signature. The CAA simply has a proven history again regarding the signature gatherers in Pacifica. You just don’t like to see your friends get caught and be asked to explain this. Especially how poorly Joshua Howard did.


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Oct 13, 2018 at 10:36 am

The Business Man is a registered user.

In response to mike rose you said:

“If someone felt they were deceived they can request their signature to be removed, there is a process for that situation. 300 people did, 7000 did not.”

BIG ERROR IN LOGIC. IF SIGNATURES ARE FORGED OR FALSIFIED THE SIGNEWRS WILL NOT BE AWARE OF IT. THEY CANNOT FILE A SIGNATURE WITHDRAWAL REQUEST IF THEY DON’T KNOIW THEY WERE “SIGNED” BY THE PAID SIGNAUTRE GATHERERS. JUST LIKE PACIFICA. YOU ARE WRONG. You said:

“At some point you have to assume voters should be responsible for their actions. They cannot pretend to be naive, uneducated children if they aspire to vote.”

BIG ERROR IN LOGIC. IF SIGNATURES ARE FORGED OR FALSIFIED THE SIGNEWRS WILL NOT BE AWARE OF IT. THEY CANNOT FILE A SIGNATURE WITHDRAWAL REQUEST IF THEY DON’T KNOIW THEY WERE “SIGNED” BY THE PAID SIGNAUTRE GATHERERS. JUST LIKE PACIFICA. YOU ARE WRONG. You said:

“Unfortunately when things don't go your way and voters chose opposite point of view you are looking for someone or some entity to place blame on.”

AS EXPLAINED ABOVE, A FALSE SIGNATURE SIMPLY CANNOT BE DETECTED WITHOUT A THORIUGH INVESTIGATION. YOU CANNOT ASSUME GIVEN THE CAA HISTORY AND THE PROSECUTION IN PACIFICA THAT THESE SIGNATURES WERE IN FACT SIGNED BY THE VOTERS. You said:

“The fake news media go along with that unfortunately”

REALLY? AND THE PACIFICA SIGNATURE GATHERERS ARE NOT BEING CHARGED AND ARE NOT IN COURT?

You really have to do better than that. You still haven’t addressed my point earlier:

“When the signatures were collected for Prop 10 repeal I approached the collector to ask what is this about?”

Please tell us where and when? You cannot expect us to believe you? You said:

“The explanation was bogus, he did not even know what Costa Hawkins was.”

Again, you have to provide some kind of proof to make this statement. You went on to say

“The bottom line is that you cannot expect from the professional signature gatherers to be fully knowledgeable on every issue.”

YES WE HAVE TO. YOU CANNOT GET AWAY WITH THE CLAIM THAT THE SIGNATURE GATHERERS CAN BE IGNORANT OF THEIR JOB. THAT IS THEIR “PROFESSION” AS BEING A “PAID GATHERER”. THAT IS THE POOREST EXPLANATION I HAVE EVER HEARD. THESE PROFESSINALS MUST BE AWARE OF WHAT ACTIONS DISQUALIFY THEIR WORK IF THEY ARE PROFESSIONALS. You said:

“It would be prudent for the voters to read and understand what they sign.”

NO you sound just like Joshua Howard. Again a PROFESSIONAL political agent MAY NOT MAKE FALSE CLAIMS. This is just saying if you can con a voter into shooting another person, you aren’t responsible for it. You said:

“Ignorance is not an excuse to blame others.”

It is not ignorance if one is being provided false statements to convince them to sign a document. THAT IS AN ACTIVE DECEPTION. If one did so without any “false” statements made at any time, I would agree with you. You said:

“I thought this broadcast was very pro tenant biased as expected from the liberal media.”

There you go again blaming the media for catching and reporting the story, and the lack of good judgement on Joshua Howard’s part to put the blame on the voters. Joshua Howards group the CAA was paying these people to do anything to get a signature. The CAA simply has a proven history again regarding the signature gatherers in Pacifica. You just don’t like to see your friends get caught and be asked to explain this. Especially how poorly Joshua Howard did.


8 people like this
Posted by mike rose
a resident of another community
on Oct 13, 2018 at 10:53 am

mike rose is a registered user.

The link to the broadcast you posted was about MV.
In theory signatures could be forged by anyone on any side.
Just because there was one bad apple in Pacifica your extension that it happened in MV is a silly one.
No proof at all.
Your logic is like this: one man is a killer, therefore we don't now if not all men are but we must assume so.
Crazy!!!!
Now I have to go and place 50 NO on 10 campaign signs.
Working Saturday ugh...


7 people like this
Posted by mike rose
a resident of another community
on Oct 13, 2018 at 10:57 am

mike rose is a registered user.

BTW,
I encourage every opponent of prop 10 to go to NO on 10 website and order bumper stickers and yard sign.
I got them for free by UPS 2 weeks ago, but it seems like right now they charge for the signs.


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Oct 13, 2018 at 11:05 am

The Business Man is a registered user.

In response to mike rose you said:

“In theory signatures could be forged by anyone on any side.”

Correct, but the CAA has a history of paying them to be forged. You said:

“Just because there was one bad apple in Pacifica your extension that it happened in MV is a silly one.”

Given that the same organization was the “BOSS” of the signature gathering, I can claim that that history is relevant. You said:

“No proof at all.”

Enough for an investigation, called probable cause. As defined as(Web Link) :

DEFINITION

PROBABLE CAUSE IS A REQUIREMENT FOUND IN THE FOURTH AMENDMENT THAT MUST USUALLY BE MET BEFORE POLICE MAKE AN ARREST, CONDUCT A SEARCH, OR RECEIVE A WARRANT. COURTS USUALLY FIND PROBABLE CAUSE WHEN THERE IS A REASONABLE BASIS FOR BELIEVING THAT A CRIME MAY HAVE BEEN COMMITTED (FOR AN ARREST) OR WHEN EVIDENCE OF THE CRIME IS PRESENT IN THE PLACE TO BE SEARCHED (FOR A SEARCH). Under exigent circumstances, probable cause can also justify a warrantless search or seizure. Persons arrested without a warrant are required to be brought before a competent authority shortly after the arrest for a prompt judicial determination of probable cause.”

You said:

“Your logic is like this: one man is a killer, therefore we don't now if not all men are but we must assume so.”

NO I SAID:

“This is just saying if you can con a voter into shooting another person, you aren’t responsible for it.”

In effect conning a voter to irreversibly harm another by falsified motivation is the issue. Loss of shelter is a direct threat to life. So my analogy is not very far off and is possible. So your claim that

“Crazy!!!!”

Is not valid. It is a foreseeable consequence that your actions can kill another.


9 people like this
Posted by mike rose
a resident of another community
on Oct 13, 2018 at 12:22 pm

mike rose is a registered user.

Wow,
The neighborhood looks beautiful with all these NO on 10 signs.
But coming back to the subject on hand.
TBM, I wholeheartedly agree with you here.
If you have evidence that CAA "paid the gatherers to forge the signatures" as you stated, you as an exemplary citizen should immediately notify the proper authorities.
Solicitation of someone else to commit forgery is a criminal offense ( Cal Penal Code 653 f)
Especially if this is combined with the evidence that you claimed to have few months ago that CAA conspired in breaking anti gouging laws(?).
These are serious charges and I am sure the authorities will take them seriously.
I can only hope that you will be kind enough to update us on the results of your complaint.


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Oct 13, 2018 at 2:06 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

mike rose please explain the following information from (Web Link):

California Landlords: Stop Anti-Democratic, Retaliatory Prop 10 Evictions

10/9/2018

CALIFORNIA APARTMENT ASSOCIATION, APARTMENT ASSOCIATION OF GREATER LOS ANGELES (AAGLA), SAN MATEO COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS®, AND OTHER GROUPS REPRESENTING CALIFORNIA LANDLORDS,

We are calling on you to take responsibility for educating your members on electoral ethics and holding them accountable for grave ethical violations.

There are now a growing number of cases of tenants around the state facing rent increases and evictions where the landlord cites the potential success of Prop 10, the Affordable Housing Act, as the reasoning behind their actions.

We have already seen press coverage of a Los Angeles landlord telling tenants that the company will cancel a new rent increase if a California rent control ballot measure fails in November. In Concord, a building of 29 families was given 60-day notices where Prop 10 was cited as the reason. In Modesto, a tenant was given a rent increase on a single-family home under the assumption that repeal of Costa-Hawkins would mean immediate coverage of these homes under rent control. In National City, we have been informed by press that multiple property owners are issuing building-wide 60-day eviction notices, citing both Prop 10 and the local rent stabilization ordinance on the November ballot. We are hearing new incidents with alarming frequency, and expect to see many more in the coming month.

These fears are unfounded, as cities themselves would have to take local action to pass or expand rent control. Still, landlords are using their position of leverage in providing housing to sway the tenant vote. We make no mistake in calling this what it is: grossly unfair, potentially illegal intimidation of voters.

WE KNOW THAT CALIFORNIA LANDLORDS HAVE A HISTORY OF MISLEADING AND INTIMIDATING VOTERS. DURING THE PREVIOUS WAVE OF RENT CONTROL FIGHTS IN THE 1970S, LANDLORDS PROMISED THAT THEY WOULD NOT RAISE THE RENT IF TENANTS VOTED FOR PROP 13. WHEN PROP 13 PASSED, LANDLORDS RAISED THE RENT ANYWAY, PRECIPITATING DOZENS OF FIGHTS FOR LOCAL RENT CONTROL AROUND THE STATE. THERE IS POTENTIAL FOR TENANT BACKLASH FROM THIS KIND OF ABUSE OF POWER TO INFLUENCE VOTERS.

Today, a coalition of community, labor, and tenant organizations are taking the moderate step of removing the state-mandated loopholes in local rent control, leaving cities to decide for themselves what, if any, rent control they want. Yes on 10 and the repeal of the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act does not enact statewide rent control.

HOWEVER, OPPONENTS OF PROP 10 ARE SPREADING LIES FAR AND WIDE THAT COSTA-HAWKINS REPEAL ENACTS BLANKET RENT CONTROL AND HURTS PROPERTY OWNERS. IF PROP 10 PASSES, THERE WOULD BE NO IMMEDIATE EFFECT ON ANY PROPERTY OWNER IN THE STATE. MEANWHILE, ONE OF THE LETTERS A TENANT RECEIVED STATES, “YOUR PROPERTY IS NON-RENT CONTROLLED BUT MAY BECOME RENT-CONTROLLED AS EARLY AS NOVEMBER 6TH, 2018.” THIS IS COMPLETELY FALSE.

MANY OF THE RENT INCREASE NOTICES GIVEN BY LANDLORDS SAY THAT THEY WILL “REVISIT THE RENT INCREASE” IF PROP 10 FAILS TO PASS. THIS IS AN ATTEMPT AT VOTER INTIMIDATION, PRESSURING TENANTS TO VOTE NO ON THE MEASURE IN ORDER TO NOT RECEIVE A RENT INCREASE.

THE CALIFORNIA APARTMENT ASSOCIATION CODE OF ETHICS STATES THAT YOUR MEMBERS “COMPLY WITH ALL APPLICABLE LAW AND REGULATIONS” AND THAT YOU “COMMIT TO HONESTY, INTEGRITY AND FAIR DEALING IN OUR CAPACITY AS RENTAL HOUSING PROFESSIONALS.” SIMILAR STATEMENTS EXIST ON AAGLA AND SAMCAR’S WEBSITES.

MEMBERS OF OUR COALITION INTEND TO FILE COMPLAINTS AGAINST LANDLORDS WHO ISSUE THESE LETTERS, BUT WE ARE ALSO CALLING ON YOU TO PROACTIVELY EDUCATE LANDLORDS THROUGHOUT THE STATE AND VOLUNTARILY REPORT VIOLATIONS THAT YOU ENCOUNTER. WE BELIEVE THAT FAIR LANDLORDS DO NOT ARBITRARILY EVICT THEIR TENANTS, AND THAT THEY ISSUE ONLY REASONABLE RENT INCREASES, AND MAKE REPAIRS. WE ALSO BELIEVE THAT WHEN CITIES TAKE AN ACTIVE ROLE IN PROTECTING RESIDENTS, THAT THE WHOLE COMMUNITY BENEFITS.

We hope you take seriously the need to intervene and condemn these serious ethical violations, and help ensure that the election is a fair and just assessment of the people’s will for the expansion of rent control.

Sincerely,

WHY SHOULD THE MOUNTAIN VIEW VOTER BE WILLING TO VOTE FOR THIS INITIATIVE WHEN THE CAA ACTS LIKE THIS?


4 people like this
Posted by mike rose
a resident of another community
on Oct 13, 2018 at 2:27 pm

mike rose is a registered user.

TBM,
I understand that many owners, who are charging well below market rent are facing the possibility of not being able to ever increase the rent if prop 10 passes.
To protect their equity and income they are in essence FORCED to increase the rents before the election. If they don't they would have to subsidize their tenants forever.
This is precisely one of the unintended consequences of these RADICAL rent control laws, that the tenants are trying to push presumably in their favor.
When these backfire, they scream foul play.
Thats all.


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Oct 13, 2018 at 2:44 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

In response to mike rose you said:

“I understand that many owners, who are charging well below market rent are facing the possibility of not being able to ever increase the rent if prop 10 passes.”

YOU HAVE NO PROOF OF THAT. PLEASE PROVIDE IT BEFORE YOU MAKE ANY SUCH CLAIM. THE LETTERS AND THREATS AND INIMIDATION ARE IN EVIDENCE HOWEVER. you said:

“To protect their equity and income they are in essence FORCED to increase the rents before the election. If they don't they would have to subsidize their tenants forever.”

WRONG, A LANDLORD DOES NOIT SUBSIDIZE ANYONE. SUBSIDIES ARE GORVENMENT FUNDS BEING GIVEN TO EITHER A PERSON OR A COMPANY. YOU CONTINUE TO SPREAD FALSE INFORMATION. IF THE RENT IS REGULATED THEN THAT IS ALL THAT IS OCCURING. YOU CANNOT MISLEAD THE PUBLIC INTO THINKING THAT LANDLORDS ARE BEING UNFAIRLY TREATED> THIS IS BUSINESS REGULATIONS THAT ARE PERFECTLY LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL. You said:

“This is precisely one of the unintended consequences of these RADICAL rent control laws, that the tenants are trying to push presumably in their favor. “

IT IS AT MINIMAL UNETHICAL, BUT MOST LIEKLY ILLEGAL INTIMIDATION OF VOTERS AND YOU KNOW IT. YOU CANNOT BLAME “RADICAL” RENT CONTROL LAWS THAT DON’T EVEN EXIST YET. WHY DON’T YOU UNDERSTAND THAT ABUSE OF THE CUSTOMERS LEADS TO LEGAL REGULATIONS. You said:

“When these backfire, they scream foul play.”

TAKING THIS COURSE OF ACTION IS THE SAME GAME PLAN DONE DURING MEASURE V. WHEN IT PASSED THE CITY COUNCIL INTERVENED ON EVICTIONS BY PASSING AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE PUTTING JUST CAUSE EVICTION INTO EFFECT IMMEDIATELY. PERHAPS HUNDREDS OF TENANTS WERE PROTECTED BECAUSE OF IT. IF PROP 10 PASSES, THE CITIES WILL SIMPLY VOID ANY EVICTION PROCESSES FILED.

THE VOTERS MUST NOT LET THE LANDLORDS INTIMIDATE THEM. THEY MUST GET OUT AND VOTE.


4 people like this
Posted by mike rose
a resident of another community
on Oct 13, 2018 at 3:03 pm

mike rose is a registered user.

The letters that you cite are neither illegal nor unethical.
Property owners can increase the rent at any time, complying with applicable laws, and technically no stating of any reason is required.
In this case they state a reason which is completely legitimate reason. They are protecting their equity and income when threatened.
There is a chance that part of their equity and income will be "taken" by the government or tenants activists.
Most of them promise to cancel this increase when the threat subsidizes.
This is not voter intimidation but rather an early manifestation of unintended consequences of these radical laws.
Proponents of prop10 spin it of course their way and pretend to be shocked .
How heinous it is that the owners are trying to protect themselves and their property from draconian price controls.
But, as all the economists warn, this is just the beginning of unintended consequences.
If prop 10 passes, likely there will be mass evictions from SF homes and condos under Ellis Act.
Then the tenants will scream foul play again, and go after Ellis Act.


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Oct 13, 2018 at 4:40 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

In response to mike rose you said:

“The letters that you cite are neither illegal nor unethical.”

That is your point of view, but you are not an AUTHORITY to dictate it is to everyone. You said:

“Property owners can increase the rent at any time, complying with applicable laws, and technically no stating of any reason is required.”

A great example of abuse of the customers, which in turn justifies government intervention. Keep it up. You said:

“In this case they state a reason which is completely legitimate reason. They are protecting their equity and income when threatened.”

Their equity and income is subject to the market. The market has two equally powerful forces, the voluntary regulations incurred by competition (which there is none in California) and involuntary regulations by government. Simply put, these people thin that their political lobbyists and trade organizations can buy the public policies. Prop 10 eliminates that and gives it to voters. You said:

“There is a chance that part of their equity and income will be "taken" by the government or tenants activists.”

NO THERE IS NO TAKING INVOLVED HERE. YOU ONTINUE THAT CLAIM WHEN THE U.S. SUPREME COURT AND THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT DOES NOT AGREE REGARDING RENT CONTROL IS A TAKING. IN FACT PLEASE READ THIS FROM “Washington University Law Review: Volume 64 | Issue 1: 1986 ;Constitutional Limits on Price and Rent Control: The Lessons of Utility Regulation by John N. Drobak FOUND HERE (Web Link):

In Bowles v. Willingham,23 a landlord claimed that the standard of "generally fair and equitable" rents made the Act unconstitutional because its application could result in rents that were unfair and inequitable to a particular landlord. 24 According to the landlord, the Constitution required that each landlord be accorded reasonable rents, just as the Hope doctrine protected each utility. The Court rejected the landlord's claim, focusing briefly on the ability of a landlord to avoid the rent control.

Because the Act did not compel the lease of rent-controlled apartments (or the sale of price-regulated goods), 25 the Court concluded without any analysis that the statute did not unconstitutionally take any property.26 The option of not leasing apartments or not selling goods was financially impractical for most landlords and sellers, but the Court did not consider whether the option was illusory. Instead, the Court primarily rested its holding on the two justifications for the "generally fair and equitable" standard.

The Court first examined "considerations of feasibility and practicality."27 Nationwide rent control that assured fair rentals for each landlord would have required individual proceedings, which the Court considered "quite impossible."28 The precedents justified group regulation, going back as far as 1877 when the Supreme Court first upheld the authority of states to regulate prices. 29 The cases also recognized that although group regulation would cause financial harm to those firms with higher costs, that disparate result did not make group regulation unconstitutional. 30 Although the impracticality of individual regulation was an important justification for the holding in Bowles, the other justification, the economic demands of war, overwhelmed the Court's analysis.

War does not stay the operation of the constitutional protections of individual rights, 31 but it influences greatly the Court's application of the Constitution. The approval of the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II is the most poignant example of the Court's reliance on the special needs of war.32 The Court's recognition of the exigencies of war in upholding economic regulation, although pedestrian and less controversial, was equally important to those holdings. When the government banned the operation of gold mines in the hope that miners from that industry would alleviate the shortage of skilled workers in the nonferrous metal mines, the Court found no compensable taking because of the needs of the wartime economy.33 In Bowles, the Court ended its analysis of the substantive challenge to the Emergency Price Control Act by relying on the paramount wartime justification for price controls:

We need not determine what constitutional limits there are to price-fixing legislation. Congress was dealing here with conditions created by activities resulting from a great war effort.... A nation which can demand the lives of its men and women in the waging of that war is under no constitutional necessity of providing a system of price control on the domestic front which will assure each landlord a "fair return" on his property. 4

The economic demands of war also played the primary role in the Court's approval of the government's requisition practices during World War II. United States v. Commodities Trading Corp.35 is especially important because the government's requisition destroyed the firm's ability to withhold its goods from the market. The case involved a dispute over whether the ceiling price for black pepper imposed under the Emergency Price Control Act was also the constitutional measure of the just compensation that the government had to pay when requisitioning pepper. Commodities Trading Corporation, an investor in pepper, began to accumulate pepper with the intention of using the regular cyclical fluctuation of pepper prices to earn profits.36 After the ceiling price was imposed, Commodities withheld its pepper from the market, choosing to wait for higher prices after the end of the war. Pepper became very scarce, so the government requisitioned about 760,000 pounds from Commodities and offered to pay the ceiling price.3 7 Commodities refused the offer and chose instead to sue for compensation under the fifth amendment.

The right to withhold goods from the marketplace was unusually valuable to a pepper investor because pepper could be stored for years while the investor waited for the desired market price.38 The requisition destroyed that right. The compensation requirement of the fifth amendment normally requires payment of the fair market value of requisitioned property, but the controlled economy during World War II was not the "free, open market" needed to determine that value.39 Commodities rejected the government's alternative of using the ceiling price, based on historical market price, because it failed to include the "retention value" of pepper.

The majority of the Court relied on the unusual wartime economic problems and held that the ceiling price was just compensation. The majority was concerned that its acceptance of retention value would only benefit those few sellers of nonperishable goods who could and chose to withhold their goods from sale. Favoring this group "would create discrimination against owners impelled by a sense of duty to sell their goods to the Government at ceiling prices without waiting for requisition. A premium would be placed on recalcitrance in time of war."40 The majority perceived that Commodities' loss of anticipated profits was no different from the wartime economic losses that countless other firms suffered.

Although the economic demands of war were the most important justification for the constitutionality of the World War II controls, the cases upholding price controls during the early 1970s demonstrate that a massive war effort is not a prerequisite to price controls that fail to satisfy the constitutional ratemaking doctrine. In 1971, President Nixon imposed a ninety-day freeze on nearly all prices, rents and wages, acting under the Economic Stabilization Act of 1970.42 General controls on prices, rents, wages and profits followed the freeze and remained in effect in different versions until the Act expired in 1974.43 The United States was still fighting in Vietnam when Congress authorized and the President enacted the freeze and the controls, but the war effort was not the justification for the regulation. Rather, the economic program was an attempt to control inflation and to stimulate the unproductive segments of the economy.'

The Supreme Court did not hear any takings or substantive due process challenges to these controls. 45 In Western States Meat Packers Association v. Dunlop,4 6 the Temporary Emergency Court of Appeals rejected a takings claim on the basis of Bowles.47 The court did not consider whether Bowles was an inappropriate precedent because it involved wartime controls; nor did it investigate the difference between the need for controls during World War II and during the early 1970s. Although the justification for the World War II controls was much greater, the court's reliance on Bowles was proper. The serious economic problems of the early 1970s were a justification for requiring the firms to bear a share of the economic distress.48 Even if the economic justification alone were not sufficient to permit a departure from the Hope requirements, the temporary duration of the controls easily satisfied the takings clause.

The temporary duration of the government's interference with property rights is a factor that the Supreme Court has relied upon to reject takings challenges to many different kinds of regulation.49 In Block v. Hirsh,5° the Court upheld rent control in the District of Columbia during World War I in part because the regulation was a temporary measure. 5' Even though that opinion preceded the change in the economic substantive due process doctrine, the Court's reliance on the temporary duration of the rent control is still a vital principle.52 CONSEQUENTLY, THE TEMPORARINESS OF PRICE CONTROL IS AN IMPORTANT FACTOR THAT CAN MAKE THE CONSTITUTIONAL UTILITY RATEMAKING PRINCIPLES OF HOPE INAPPLICABLE.53 CONGRESS INTENDED THE NIXON-ERA PRICE FREEZE AND CONTROLS TO BE TEMPORARY, AND THEY WERE." STRANGELY, THE COURT IN DUNLOP UPHELD THE NIXON-ERA CONTROLS WITHOUT RELYING ON THE TEMPORARY DURATION OF THE CONTROLS. INSTEAD, THE COURT REJECTED THE TAKINGS CLAIM SIMPLY BY RELYING ON THE ABILITY OF THE REGULATED FIRMS TO WITHDRAW FROM THE PRICE-CONTROLLED BUSINESS. 5”

SINCE WE ARE IN A STATE OF WAR, THE BOWLES CASE IS IN EFFECT AND THUS AS LONG AS A LANDLORD CAN GET OUT OF THE BUSINESS, THERE IS NO TAKING. You said:

“Most of them promise to cancel this increase when the threat subsidizes. “

THAT IS BLACKMAIL AND EXTORTION AND ILLEGAL. You said:

“This is not voter intimidation but rather an early manifestation of unintended consequences of these radical laws.”

THAT IS BLACKMAIL AND EXTORTION AND ILLEGAL. You said:

“Proponents of prop10 spin it of course their way and pretend to be shocked .”

EXTORTION AND BLACKMAIL IS ILLEGAL DON’T YOU KNOW THAT? You said:

“How heinous it is that the owners are trying to protect themselves and their property from draconian price controls.”

YOU CAN DO THAT BY ADVERTISING AND POLITICAL ACTION NOT BLACKMAIL AND EXTORTION. YOU KNOW THAT. You said:

“But, as all the economists warn, this is just the beginning of unintended consequences.”

ECONONMISTS ARE NOT GODS, THEY CANNOT PREDICT THE FUTURE ONLY PROMOTE THEIR THEORIES. THEY CANNOT PROVE CAUSE AND EFFECT BECAUSE IT IS A SOCIAL SCIENCE AND NOT A NATURAL ONE. YOU KNOW THIS. You said:

“If prop 10 passes, likely there will be mass evictions from SF homes and condos under Ellis Act.”

UNDER THE ELLIS ACT A PERSON CAN QUIT AN APARTMENT YES, BUT QUITTING AND AT THE SAME TIME EVICTING IS NOT. YOU CANNNOT EVICT AND QUIT AT THE SAME TIME. THUS YOU WILL HAVE TO EVICT UNDER JUST CAUSE AND BE SUBJECT TO ANY REGULATIONS REGARDING IT. OR JUST LEAVE THE APARTMENT. You said:

“Then the tenants will scream foul play again, and go after Ellis Act.”

THAT MAY BE TRUE AND THEY MAY JUST SUCCEED.


3 people like this
Posted by mike rose
a resident of another community
on Oct 13, 2018 at 5:23 pm

mike rose is a registered user.

Ok TBM,
Just don't forget to update us on the course of your complaint against CAA due to their alleged criminal solicitation of signature gatherers to forge voters signatures.
Can't wait for the update.


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Oct 13, 2018 at 7:31 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

In response to mike rose you said:

“Ok TBM,”

I believe this situation will warrant an investigation on federal prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 594 - Intimidation of voters. In effect the CAA has encouraged landlords to commit a criminal act as defined here:

“WHOEVER INTIMIDATES, THREATENS, COERCES, OR ATTEMPTS TO INTIMIDATE, THREATEN, OR COERCE, ANY OTHER PERSON FOR THE PURPOSE OF INTERFERING WITH THE RIGHT OF SUCH OTHER PERSON TO VOTE or to vote as he may choose, or of causing such other person to vote for, or not to vote for, any candidate for the office of President, Vice President, Presidential elector, Member of the Senate, Member of the House of Representatives, Delegate from the District of Columbia, or Resident Commissioner, at any election held solely or in part for the purpose of electing such candidate, SHALL BE FINED UNDER THIS TITLE OR IMPRISONED NOT MORE THAN ONE YEAR, OR BOTH.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 720; Pub. L. 91–405, title II, § 204(d)(5), Sept. 22, 1970, 84 Stat. 853; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(H), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.).”

Notice the sentence is separated by the word or after the capitalization, that mean that as long as that part of the law is violated, the rest is not required to have been achieved. So, it may be a good idea for me to contact the Proposition 10 campaign to have them seek a federal investigation on the threats made to the tenants. You might be surprised that when people get used to having their way, they make a very serious mistake in conduct. You said:

“Just don't forget to update us on the course of your complaint against CAA due to their alleged criminal solicitation of signature gatherers to forge voters signatures.”

I will work on that.


6 people like this
Posted by mike rose
a resident of another community
on Oct 14, 2018 at 5:47 pm

mike rose is a registered user.

One of the best articles I read exposing the lies and evil intentions of prop 10 proponents towards homeowners:

"By Ron Bassillian
With less than a month to the election, Prop. 10, the “California Local Rent Control Initiative,” is waking up as the sleeper issue of the state.
Prop. 10 is a repeal of the 1995 Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act, which protects home and property owners from overarching rent-control laws.
The existing Costa-Hawkins law has three main protections: it exempts single family homes, duplexes and condominiums from rent control; it grants the right to raise rents on vacant units to market rates, and it exempts any building erected after 1995 from rent control.
Prop. 10 would do away with all of that, allowing municipalities to adopt whatever rent control laws they wish.
Supporters are already flooding the airwaves and internet with ads, raising the alarm of the “housing crisis” and the lack of “affordable housing.”
Ads for Prop. 10 are calling property owners “Wall Street Landlords,” “Trump donors” and “parasites.”
Their ads are full of blatant falsehoods about “predatory landlords” and “price gouging” and a “homeless crisis spawned by Trump donors.” Let’s clear the air:
• 80 percent of landlords are small landlords, no different from homeowners. They’re generally owner-occupiers with four or fewer units, hardly the 1 percent which enjoy political power along with immense wealth. Ironically, Prop. 10 supporters are the ones with this kind of wealth.


• California is run by Democrats, not Republicans, not Trump donors. The homeless crisis--which is really a vagrant crisis that comes with thieves, drugs and prostitution—is only a few years old. It’s a direct result of Democrat legislation – Props 47, 57, and AB 109 – which have left police powerless to deal with vagrants and drug addicts. This lack of consequences has allowed them to spread like wildfire.
• “Rent gouging” is an extremely rare exception to the rule. It generally happens when someone buys a building with unnaturally low rent, and just wants to flip it. To say this is a regular occurrence is a lie. Existing rent-control statutes already protect against this in many cities.
On a basic level, rent control does not work because it doesn’t account for supply and demand. At the very best, it helps a few existing renters by keeping their rents artificially low. It does so by locking down existing stock, leaving new renters scrambling for what little is left.
On a more fundamental level, this is a state power grab for our homes disguised as a humanitarian measure. It does nothing to change the housing situation. It will allow cities more power over your home, your condo or duplex, no matter when you bought it or what you do with it. Even if you decide to AirBnB it or rent out a room, repealing this will leave you vulnerable to rent control laws.
You would think the supposed “fat cats” who oppose this proposition would be well placed to finance its defeat.
However, their funds are being eclipsed by its supporters. The wealthiest foundations and most powerful political brokers in our state are all organized behind this proposition.
Eric Garcetti [Mayor of Los Angeles] was instrumental in getting this initiative on the November ballot.
This proposition will collapse the small housing market – and that’s the intention. By making small operations untenable, big developers can buy people out, raze their modest holdings, and replace them with the behemoths we’ve been seeing all over town.
It’s all part of an agenda by the biggest developers and the most established Democrats to consolidate the economy into the hands of a privileged few.
Keep in mind this proposition isn’t coming at us in a vacuum. State Legislators have already been busy trying to repeal Prop 13, which restricts property tax hikes.
If this proposition passes, guaranteed Prop 13 will be next on the chopping block. Other measures abound that make it increasingly harder for small owners to operate in this state. In the end, only those with deep warchests and political connections will be able to own property in California.
I implore you to keep your eyes open this election season. A lot of big money is floating around pretending to be the champion of working people.
Beware of politicians bearing gifts: Vote NO on Prop. 10 if you want to save your home."


Like this comment
Posted by LOL
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Oct 14, 2018 at 6:07 pm

Hahaha mike, why is it not surprising you'd share something so poorly thought through and detached from reality? Care to tell us where you came across such a well-researched, clear-headed piece of literature?


2 people like this
Posted by mike rose
a resident of another community
on Oct 14, 2018 at 6:17 pm

mike rose is a registered user.

I can only add to this the fact that the main sponsor and campaign contributor of prop 10 is AIDS Healthcare Foumdation with 2017 annual revenue over 1 BILLION
Dollars.Michael Weinstein ,the head of AHF, is the brain behind this.
AHF sponsored the failed Measure S in LA in 2017.
In short, Measure S opposed high density development in LA, which was intended to alleviate the housing shortage.
I will let the readers to conclude on the logic of these two measures as to what the ultimate goal of Mr. Weinstein has been.


4 people like this
Posted by mvresident2003
a resident of Monta Loma
on Oct 14, 2018 at 6:20 pm

mvresident2003 is a registered user.

Thanks for posting that @mike, excellent article and I'll be sure to share on social media. People need to be informed!


Like this comment
Posted by LOL
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Oct 14, 2018 at 6:25 pm

Hahaha and of course mvresident2003 will share it on social media with the rest of her Boomer Trump supporter friends.


5 people like this
Posted by mike rose
a resident of another community
on Oct 14, 2018 at 6:27 pm

mike rose is a registered user.

LOL,
Majority of Californians, according to the recent polls show that you are the one detached from reality.
Check the prop 10 polls by PPIC.
But not all news is bad . They are still handful of countries ( Cuba, Venezuela or North Korea) that would consider your views mainstream.


Like this comment
Posted by LOL
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Oct 14, 2018 at 6:34 pm

It's funny how your brain is just basic impulse-response. What's it like having the mental capacity of a parrot? Don't have anything to say, why not just start talking about Venezuela? Here's an exercise that is I'm certain far above your ability level: compare and contrast the political systems of the above countries and what the root causes of their various problems are today. I'm not going to hold my breath that you'll answer because this isn't pre-digested fornyou on Fox News.


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Oct 14, 2018 at 6:35 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

MIKE ROSE EVERY TIME I FIND INFORMATION THAT YOU CANNOT ARGUE YOU TRY TO CHANGE THE SUBJECT

In response to mike rose you said:

“One of the best articles I read exposing the lies and evil intentions of prop 10 proponents towards homeowners:

"By Ron Bassillian”

Lets look at his education and experience professionally it is found here (Web Link)

Education

BA/BS, Political Science/Mathematics, University of California at Los Angeles, 1992-1997

Political Experience

CANDIDATE, UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, DISTRICT 37, 2018

Caucuses/Non-Legislative Committees

NO CAUCUS INFORMATION ON FILE.

Professional Experience

System Engineer, Deluxe Entertainment Services Group, 2017-present

SYSTEMS ENGINEER, CONFIE SEGUROS, 2015-2017

SYSTEM ADMINISTRATOR, LOANMART, 2017

SYSTEMS ADMINISTRATOR, ANSWER FINANCIAL, 2015

Information Technology Director, Entertainment Studios, 2007-2015

Creator, Inferno Los Angeles/Neoclassics Press, 2008-2015”

Network administrator, SD&A Teleservices, 2001-2007”

In effect, he has no expertise or education regarding civil planning or public policy itself. IN FACT HE HAS WORKED FOR THE FINANCIAL SECTOR THUS LIKELY HAS STOCKS AND INVESTMENTS IN THE FINANCIAL SECTOR. THIS SECTOR IS A CRITICAL COMPONENT OF THE OPPOSITION OF PROP 10 BECAUSE IT WILL BE ANOTHER FORCE LIKE THE FEDS RAISING THE PRIME RATE TO 3% BY 2021, WHICH WILL FORCE A REAL ESTATE MARKET CORRECTION. HE IS SIMPLY ACTING AS AN AGENT FOR THOSE INTERESTS AND NOT SERVING THE PUBLIC. His expertise is being a Systems Administrator and Engineer. Why should the public grant him any special consideration when he is expressing only his OPINION.

What party does he represent? The Republican Party. A party that has never expressed any balance in the issues of rent control. THEIR ONLY POSITION IS THAT THEY WANT TO PREVENT IT NO MATTER THE COST, OR THE METHODS, INCLUDING ILLEGAL AS DESCRIBED BEFORE.

In effect he is an institutional politician. Prop 10 blocks legislatures, supervisors and city councils from passing any rent regulations because it states (Web Link)) :

“Section 7. Amendment and Repeal

Pursuant to Article II, Section 10, Subdivision ( c ), of the California Constitution, THE LEGISLATURE MAY AMEND THIS ACT TO FURTHER ITS PURPOSES BY A STATUTE PASSED IN EACH HOUSE BY ROLL CALL VOTE ENTERED IN THE JOURNAL, TWO-THIRDS OF THE MEMBERSHIP CONCURRING, signed by the Governor. NO STATUTE RESTRICTING OR ELIMINATING THE POWERS THAT HAVE BEEN RESTORED BY THIS ACT TO A CITY, COUNTY, OR CITY AND COUNTY TO ESTABLISH RESIDENTIAL RENTAL RATES SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE UNLESS APPROVED BY A MAJORITY OF THE ELECTORATE.

BY THE WAY, THIS IS WAY THE LEGILATIVE ANALYST OFFICE DOES NOT WANT PROP 10 TO PASS. IT REQUIRES A 66% PASSAGE IN THE LEGISLATURE AND REMOVES COUNTY LEGISLATURES, SUPERVISORS, AND CITY LEGISLATURES AND COUNCILS ABILITY TO CONTROL THE RENT REGULATIONS. IN EFFECT IT REMOVES THE ABILITY OF ORGANIZATIONS LIKE THE CALIFORNIA APARTMENT ASSOCIATION AND CALIFORNIA ASSOCITATION OF REALTORS FROM USING MONEY AND LOBBIESTS FROM MAKING UP ANY OTHER LAWS IF IT PASSES. THUS THE CAA AND THE CAR WILL HAVE TO SELL ONLY TO THE VOTERS.

ALL POLITICIANS BOTH DEMOCRAT AND REPUBLICAN THAT BENEFIT FROM THE CASH AND POLITICAL SERVICES PERFORMED BY THE CAA AND THE CAR ARE AGAINST PROP 10 BECAUSE THEY MAKE THEIR LIVING OFF OF THE FOR PROFIT POLITICAL SYSTEMS. I AM AN INDEPENDENT AND THINK IF A POLITICIAN WILL ACT TO PREVENT THE VOTERS SUPREME POWER OVER POLICY, THEY ARE OUT TO EXPLOIT THE PUBLIC.

VOTERS DO NOT LET YOUR POWER BE PREVENTED. MAKE UP YOUR OWN MIND AND VOTE.


Like this comment
Posted by LOL
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Oct 14, 2018 at 6:36 pm

Hahaha I also missed "they are still handful of countries." No wonder you copy-paste everything, you aren't even capable of putting simple sentences together.


2 people like this
Posted by mike rose
a resident of another community
on Oct 14, 2018 at 6:46 pm

mike rose is a registered user.

LOL,
You are right in not holding your breath, breathe freely while you can.
Your comrades in Venezuela probably would not allow you to breath for long if you exercised such a freedom of speech there.


Like this comment
Posted by LOL
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Oct 14, 2018 at 6:48 pm

Hahaha you literally can't engage in critical thought and are for some reason proud of it. It's adorable, like watching a two-year old repeat things they heard on the news.


2 people like this
Posted by mike rose
a resident of another community
on Oct 14, 2018 at 6:50 pm

mike rose is a registered user.

TBM,
What your response has to do with anything?


Like this comment
Posted by LOL
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Oct 14, 2018 at 6:52 pm

Hahahahahaa "what your response has to do with anything?" No wonder you have to regurgitate thoughts from others.


2 people like this
Posted by mike rose
a resident of another community
on Oct 14, 2018 at 7:05 pm

mike rose is a registered user.

Look LOL,
It seems that no one "likes" your comments here, no one voiced their support for you. Since you stopped posting the self gratifying "likes" recently, the count is 0.( like TBM's)
Don't you get the message that it would be prudent on your part to shut up with your communist views, and to seek any self gratification you desire in other areas of your life.


Like this comment
Posted by LOL
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Oct 14, 2018 at 7:17 pm

Hahaha projecting again mike? You are, amazingly, the most simple-minded poster here. No wonder you're a failed landlord, you don't have the mental capacity to do anything besides passively take money from others.


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Oct 14, 2018 at 7:23 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

In response to mike rose you said:

“TBM,

What your response has to do with anything?”

If you cannot understand the words coming out of my keyboard, you need some help.

I just pointed out that in comparison to the author you cited

By Ron Bassillian

Education

BA/BS, Political Science/Mathematics, University of California at Los Angeles, 1992-1997

Compare it to me, STEVEN GOLDSTEIN who has BOTH BACHELORS OF SCIENCE IN BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION: HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGEMENT AND MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS FROM LUCAS COLLEGE OF BUSINESS, SAN JOSE STATE UNIVERSITY.

THAT EDUCATION REQUIRED ME TO SHOW PROFICIENCY IN THE FOLLOWING SUBJECTS:

B.S. Business Administration Management Information Systems

Preparation for the Major

ECON 001A. Principles of Economics: Macroeconomics, ECON 001B. Principles of Economics: Microeconomics, ENGL 002. Critical Thinking and Writing, MATH 071. Calculus for Business and Aviation, ENGL 100WB. Written Communication: Business

Requirements of the Major

BUS3 010. Discovering Business, US1 020. Financial Accounting, BUS1 021. Managerial Accounting, BUS3 080. Legal Environment of Business, BUS2 090. Business Statistics, BUS4 091L. Computer Tools for Business,

Upper Division Business Fundamentals Courses

BUS2 130. Introduction to Marketing, BUS5 140. Fundamentals of Operations Management, BUS3 160. Fundamentals of Management and Organizational Behavior, BUS1 170. Fundamentals of Finance, BUS2 190. Quantitative Business Analysis,

Upper Division Business Integration and Perspectives Courses

BUS5 187. Global Dimensions of Business, BUS3 189. Strategic Management, PHIL 186. Professional and Business Ethics, One non-business global perspectives course in Area V

Concentration Requirements

BUS4 092. Introduction to Business Programming, BUS4 110A. Fundamentals of Management Information Systems, BUS4 110B. Systems Analysis and Design, BUS4 111. Networking and Data Communications, BUS4 112. Database Management Systems, BUS4 119B. Business Strategy and Information Systems

Complete one course from:

BUS4 119A. Practicum in MIS

Additional Courses

Complete two courses from:

BUS4 116. Advanced Database Management Systems, BUS4 118C. Information Security and Assurance Management

B.S. Business Administration Human Resources Management

Lower Division Courses

BUS3 010. Discovering Business, BUS1 020. Financial Accounting, BUS1 021. Managerial Accounting, BUS3 080. Legal Environment of Business, BUS2 090. Business Statistics, BUS4 091L. Computer Tools for Business

Upper Division Business Fundamentals Courses

BUS2 130. Introduction to Marketing, BUS5 140. Fundamentals of Operations Management, BUS3 160. Fundamentals of Management and Organizational Behavior, BUS1 170. Fundamentals of Finance, BUS2 190. Quantitative Business Analysis,

Upper Division Business Integration and Perspectives Courses

BUS5 187. Global Dimensions of Business, BUS4 188. Business Systems and Policy, BUS3 189. Strategic Management, PHIL 186. Professional and Business Ethics, One non-business global perspectives course in Area V

Concentration Requirements

BUS3 150. Fundamentals of Human Resource Management, BUS3 154. Workforce Planning, Staffing and Training, BUS3 157. Legal Issues in Human Resource Management, BUS3 158. Compensation and Reward Systems, BUS3 159. Senior Seminar in Human Resource Management

Additional Courses

Complete one course from:

BUS3 151. Labor Relations, BUS3 152. Human Resource Information Systems, BUS3 155. Performance Management and Development.

I TAUGHT THE GRADUATE STUDENTS IN THE MASTERS VERSION of BUS3 153. Management of Diversity

I AM TRUSTED WITH CLASSIFIED COMPUTER SYSTEMS AND SUCCESSFULLY PROTECTED THEIR DATA FOR THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT. SO FAR ANY SYSTEM UNDER MY WATCH HAS NOT HAD A PROBLEM.

I HAVE AN INTERNATIONAL CERTIFICATION REGARDING INFORMATION SECURITY (CISSP)

Thus try to understand that you try to make yourself or others look like experts. Please provide your expertise?

The simple fact is you only provide surface level information without taking any steps to validate the information or understand that the information you provide is significantly limited in scope or applicability.

That’s All.


2 people like this
Posted by mike rose
a resident of another community
on Oct 14, 2018 at 7:25 pm

mike rose is a registered user.

LOL,
I am not projecting.
I spent 25 years living under communist rule.
I know what I am talking about ( not like you who forms his opinion watching fake news).
You would fit right in there into the highest echelons of the politburo, with your ideology.
Have guts to admit it. Don't just pretend and give us the BS that you are this caring and concerned citizen.


2 people like this
Posted by mike rose
a resident of another community
on Oct 14, 2018 at 7:33 pm

mike rose is a registered user.

TBM,
You often cite your qualifications and education level.
Have you ever thought this could be an embarrassment to the schools you graduated from?
The logic in your arguments is very questionable most of the time, you make up laws that don't exist, you lie in almost every post as proven by me and admitted by you after confrontation with facts.
Please do not give a bad name to good schools.


3 people like this
Posted by mike rose
a resident of another community
on Oct 14, 2018 at 7:39 pm

mike rose is a registered user.

I will repost this important article as we veered of the subject:
By Ron Bassillian
With less than a month to the election, Prop. 10, the “California Local Rent Control Initiative,” is waking up as the sleeper issue of the state.
Prop. 10 is a repeal of the 1995 Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act, which protects home and property owners from overarching rent-control laws.
The existing Costa-Hawkins law has three main protections: it exempts single family homes, duplexes and condominiums from rent control; it grants the right to raise rents on vacant units to market rates, and it exempts any building erected after 1995 from rent control.
Prop. 10 would do away with all of that, allowing municipalities to adopt whatever rent control laws they wish.
Supporters are already flooding the airwaves and internet with ads, raising the alarm of the “housing crisis” and the lack of “affordable housing.”
Ads for Prop. 10 are calling property owners “Wall Street Landlords,” “Trump donors” and “parasites.”
Their ads are full of blatant falsehoods about “predatory landlords” and “price gouging” and a “homeless crisis spawned by Trump donors.” Let’s clear the air:
• 80 percent of landlords are small landlords, no different from homeowners. They’re generally owner-occupiers with four or fewer units, hardly the 1 percent which enjoy political power along with immense wealth. Ironically, Prop. 10 supporters are the ones with this kind of wealth.


• California is run by Democrats, not Republicans, not Trump donors. The homeless crisis--which is really a vagrant crisis that comes with thieves, drugs and prostitution—is only a few years old. It’s a direct result of Democrat legislation – Props 47, 57, and AB 109 – which have left police powerless to deal with vagrants and drug addicts. This lack of consequences has allowed them to spread like wildfire.
• “Rent gouging” is an extremely rare exception to the rule. It generally happens when someone buys a building with unnaturally low rent, and just wants to flip it. To say this is a regular occurrence is a lie. Existing rent-control statutes already protect against this in many cities.
On a basic level, rent control does not work because it doesn’t account for supply and demand. At the very best, it helps a few existing renters by keeping their rents artificially low. It does so by locking down existing stock, leaving new renters scrambling for what little is left.
On a more fundamental level, this is a state power grab for our homes disguised as a humanitarian measure. It does nothing to change the housing situation. It will allow cities more power over your home, your condo or duplex, no matter when you bought it or what you do with it. Even if you decide to AirBnB it or rent out a room, repealing this will leave you vulnerable to rent control laws.
You would think the supposed “fat cats” who oppose this proposition would be well placed to finance its defeat.
However, their funds are being eclipsed by its supporters. The wealthiest foundations and most powerful political brokers in our state are all organized behind this proposition.
Eric Garcetti [Mayor of Los Angeles] was instrumental in getting this initiative on the November ballot.
This proposition will collapse the small housing market – and that’s the intention. By making small operations untenable, big developers can buy people out, raze their modest holdings, and replace them with the behemoths we’ve been seeing all over town.
It’s all part of an agenda by the biggest developers and the most established Democrats to consolidate the economy into the hands of a privileged few.
Keep in mind this proposition isn’t coming at us in a vacuum. State Legislators have already been busy trying to repeal Prop 13, which restricts property tax hikes.
If this proposition passes, guaranteed Prop 13 will be next on the chopping block. Other measures abound that make it increasingly harder for small owners to operate in this state. In the end, only those with deep warchests and political connections will be able to own property in California.
I implore you to keep your eyes open this election season. A lot of big money is floating around pretending to be the champion of working people.
Beware of politicians bearing gifts: Vote NO on Prop. 10 if you want to save your home.


Like this comment
Posted by LOL
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Oct 15, 2018 at 7:11 am

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language.]
[Poster banned due to repeated violations of terms of use]


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Oct 15, 2018 at 8:21 am

The Business Man is a registered user.

In response to mike rose you said:

“Now, that TBM was a personal attack, so I have to assume you and LOL completely run out of the arguments to support your radical ideology.”

WRONG, I POINT OUT THAT MIKE ROSE IS A FAKE NAME, YOU ARE NOT MIKE ROSE BUT ANOTHER USING IT TO AS A MASK. THAT IS NOT PERSONAL IT IS SIMPLY A FACT. You said:

“It feels like you guys are almost crying in desperation.”

JUST ANOTHER ATTEMPT OF DENIAL AND TRANSFERRENCE, A DEFENSE MECHANISM WHEN CONFRONTED WITH ADVERSE REALITY You said:

“I am a real person, exactly as I described myself above.”

BUT YOU DO NOT AUTHENTICATE YOURSELF. YOU USE A FAKE NAME. WHY SHOULD BE BELIEVE ONE THAT IN FACT LIES REGARDING THEIR IDENTITY? You said:

“Are you naive enough that I would disclose my name just to have violent ANTIFA mob at my door steps.”

IF YOUR ARGUMENT WAS VALID YOU ARE IN NO FEAR OF ANY PROTESTS. PROTESTS ARE LEGAL AS LONG AS NO THREATS OR INTIMINDATION ARE USED. THE LANDLORDS ONLY STRATEGY IS TO USE THREATS AND INTIMINDATION. You said:

“You should know this, in MV, the supporters of Measure V to costly, had to resort to hiring the paid signature gatherers, because the volunteers were constantly harassed by radical tenant mob, while trying to collect signatures.”

YOU WILL HAVE TO SHOW PROOF OF THIS. NO YOU USED PROFESSIONAL GATHERERS BECAUSE YOU COULD NOT GET VOLUNTEERS. UNLIKE MEASURE V WHICH ONLY LESS THAN 10% OF THE SIGNATURES WERE GAINED BY PROFESSIONAL GATHERERS AS REPORTED BY THE MOUNTAIN VIEW VOICE. NO THESE PEOPLE BEHIND THIS MEASURE USED PROFESSIONAL SIGNATURE GATHERERS BECAUSE THEY WANTED A MEAND TO PERHAPS CHEAT LIKE THEY DID IN PACIFICA. I WANT THE REGISTRAR OF VOTERS TO SCAN THE SIGNAUTURES AND USE SIGNATURE PROFILING SOFTWARE TO DETERMINE IF THE SIGNAUTURES SHOW THAT THEY WERE SIGNED BY THE SAME PEOPLE WITH DIFFERENT NAMES. IF THAT IS FOUND THOSE SIGNATURES ARE FORGED. You said:

“This enticement to violence is not a secret. It comes from the highest ranks of the left. Just few days ago from former Obama's AG said: " When they go low (speaking of political opposition) KICK THEM".”

NO, YOU CANNOT CLAIM THAT YOU’RE BEING THREATENED WITH VIOLENCE. IN FACT, DURING AN EVENT IN MOUNTAIN VIEW CITY HALL, WHAT APPEARED TO BE A PAID BODYGUARD FOR ELIZABETH LINDSEY THREATENED ME WHEN ALL I DID WAS HOLD UP A SIGN. You said:

“Unfortunately this is the reality of opposing the liberal ideology today.”

AND LIKE THE CHARLOTTSVILLE MURDER WAS DONE BY A LIBERAL? YOU ARE SIMPLY TRYING TO TRANSFERR THE SINS OF THE “CONSERVATIVE” MOVEMENT TO THOSE THAT HAVE NOT COMMITTED VIOLENCE. JUST LIKE ANYONE OF PRIVELEGE WHEN POLITICALLY CHALLENGED, YOU CLAIM YOU ARE THE VICTIM. WE YOU AND YOUR KIND HAVE EXPLOITED THE CUSTOMERS SO MUCH THEY WORK TO FIND A LEGAL REMEDY, NOTHING MORE.


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

Stay informed

Get daily headlines sent straight to your inbox.

 

PRICE INCREASES MONDAY

On Friday, October 11, join us at the Palo Alto Baylands for a 5K walk, 5K run, 10K run or half marathon! All proceeds benefit local nonprofits serving children and families.