Council to send rent control back to voters | April 12, 2019 | Mountain View Voice | Mountain View Online |

Mountain View Voice

News - April 12, 2019

Council to send rent control back to voters

Landlord- and council-backed measures aim for 2020 ballot

by Mark Noack

Rent control may be enshrined in Mountain View's charter, but its future is uncertain.

This story contains 630 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

Email Mark Noack at mnoack@mv-voice.com

Comments

3 people like this
Posted by sfcanative
a resident of Whisman Station
on Apr 17, 2019 at 1:18 pm

sfcanative is a registered user.

It's a connundrum. Many MV homeowners (aka voters) favor the redevelopment of older apartment buildings. What's not to love about a 1500 sq. ft. rowhouse going for $1.5M when your 50 year old house only appreciates further? Homeownership also helps stabilize a community more than transient tenants coming and going from the four corners of the earth.

Add to that the majority profile of MV voters who rent. They're unlikely to favor a repeal of rent control and just cause eviction or some other landlord instigated ballot measure to curtail its enforcement.

Meanwhile the city allows more and more commercial development which continues to bring even more people to the area, further exasperating an already untenable situation.


6 people like this
Posted by Gary
a resident of Sylvan Park
on Apr 17, 2019 at 2:40 pm

When I saw this story online, I emailed the City Council suggesting the City determine the effect of vacancy decontrol on the income of affected landlords. Under Measure V, as required by state law, landlords may increase tbe rent to market on lawful turnover. For example, if rents at a 10-unit apartment complex were $3,000 per unit per moth ($30,000 per month total) under rent control but the market rent (charged new tenants) had risen to $4,000 per month on 3 of the units, the average rent received would be one-tenth of $33,000 per month - a 10% increase (beyond any increase otherwise allowed by Measure V). Decontrol is important in evaluating whether landlords should receive still more in rent. On the other hand, in the unlikely event that the City Council (majority) is not just trying to get landlords more in rent, an evaluation of vacancy decontrol would not be needed right away. We may see what Councilmembers are up to on April 23. I also emailed the City Council (on 2-20-2019) suggesting that the "sneaky repeal" of Measure V proposed by the landlords'initiative charter anendment could well be invalid as internally deceptive under a case I cited. So it could be that landlords are seeking a City Council proposed charter amendment as their back-up plan.


18 people like this
Posted by Randy Guelph
a resident of Cuernavaca
on Apr 17, 2019 at 4:00 pm

We shouldn't be that surprised, since Margaret Abe-Koga filmed a deceptive ad for the sneaky repeal, touting her title as City Councilmember, against the City Council Code of Conduct, in order to give it that extra gravitas. This just goes to show she really has no sense of shame.


56 people like this
Posted by Mark
a resident of Blossom Valley
on Apr 17, 2019 at 6:21 pm

There is nothing fair about Measure V.

It was drawn up by these outside activist groups, who members where Lenny Siegel and Job Lopez.

They wrote that measure to totally screw the landlord, there is nothing fair about it.

Measure V does not allow the cost of new appliances, sinks, cabinets, tiles, bathtub, etc, as a business expense.

Measure V does not allow the mortgage interest on a loan as a business expense, deduction.

Measure V does not allow the full cost of a management firm, which almost all of them charge 10%, Measure V only allows up to 6%.

Measure V does not allow any improvements that are done on the property, to be allowed as a business expense.

Measure V only allows 1 owner or relative who owns at least 50% of the property to do an owner move in eviction, and if one relative already lives on the property, then no further owner move in eviction is allowed.

In almost all rent control cities, those costs to run that rent control bureaucracy are split 50% with the tenant and landlord. Under Measure V, 100% of that cost is billed to the landlord.

Only under Measure V do you have a different set of accounting rules for ONLY apartments. No other business is forced into these accounting standards, and it is totally different than what the rules are for the IRS.

With every city that has rent control, you have fewer rent control units today than you did when rent control first came in effect.

We are seeing what is happening in our city, it was expected and many people where warning what would happen if rent control passed.

You will have many more buildings being razed and redeveloped as rental owners no longer wish to remain in business.

These Tenants activist groups are going bananas now that these rental owners are selling these buildings and they are being razed. They are calling for even more property rights to be taken away from these private individuals, calling for bans on redevelop, and a razing moratorium.

These tenant group said all our problems would be solved if we pass measure V, but they are still not happy and want to take away even more rights from these property owners.

I do not support any more fees, restrictions, moratoriums, etc, on these properties. Let them be redeveloped.

I will support any form of repeal, and I strongly support these property owners right to go out of business and sell their property to anyone they chose to.




12 people like this
Posted by Randy Guelph
a resident of Cuernavaca
on Apr 17, 2019 at 6:27 pm

Wow, you folks really will sink to some depths: "It was drawn up by these outside activist groups, who members where [sic]" and then proceed to name two long-time residents? Cognitive dissonance much?

Mark, it's clear you yourself don't actually live in Mountain View, and are simply here pushing the CAA line. At least be honest.


54 people like this
Posted by Mark
a resident of Blossom Valley
on Apr 17, 2019 at 7:10 pm

Stick to the facts Randy. If you do not know what you are talking about, consider something else to do with your time.

Look at these outside activist groups that are going to the city council today, trying everything they can to take even more rights away from these private property owners, who is standing next to them, Lenny Siegel and Job Lopez.

Most of these groups are non profits and their financial records show that they have a lot of money in the bank. One group that was made public last fall had $4 million dollars in the bank.

How nice it would be if the Voice where a real news paper and finally do a story on all these people.

For the record, I am a long time resident of our city, and I have nothing to do with with CAA.

That is just a diversion tactic you like to do.

Job Lopez, is a member of our community, a disgraced one, and a member of the so called Mountain View Tenants Coalition.


18 people like this
Posted by Randy Guelph
a resident of Cuernavaca
on Apr 17, 2019 at 8:04 pm

Come on, Mark, no explanation for how an "outsider" group has only long-time residents? Not that I expect any better from folks like you and Abe-Koga, as you are willing and able to lie when it suits your interests.


43 people like this
Posted by Mark
a resident of Blossom Valley
on Apr 17, 2019 at 9:07 pm

@Randy,
Who has publicly came out and said she is the main author of Measure V?
Janet Brody.
She does not live in Mountain View.

Go and educate yourself, but oh wait, I am sure you already know who these people are. You just wont admit it. It is better to distract-deflect when you do not have the facts on your side.

Here is some nice reading of Job Lopez.
"Rent control activist gets probation for vandalizing campaign sign"
Web Link

and
"Job Lopez was arrested outside the Video Cassette Outlet adult bookstore on suspicion of soliciting sex from a male undercover officer."
Web Link


2 people like this
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Apr 17, 2019 at 9:25 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

Unbelievable,

Nothing but character assasination by the opposition of rent control.

False statemants made by Margaret Abi Koga can be documented from the video on the MeasureVTooCostly website.

In the end Mark really demostrates nothing but a sortched earth plan, if he can't get what he wants, he will burn it down.


42 people like this
Posted by Mark
a resident of Blossom Valley
on Apr 18, 2019 at 4:26 pm

@BM,
When the photo's first came out of Job Lopez, trespassing, stealing and writing nasty language on the political opponent signs of 30 year friend Lenny Siegel, you where the one who repeatedly said it is not Lopez and he should fight it. He is now guilty as charged in a court of law. The Voice never once wrote that story.

Any reasonable and honest person who clearly looked at that photo clearly said it was Lopez, except for you. In fact, you even said it was probably supporters from Ink's campaign as they would get the sympathy vote for doing it.

So you where wrong.

I did not throw any log onto any fire, and I did not light any match.

Discussing public information is good disinfectant, regardless which side you are on.


12 people like this
Posted by Randy Guelph
a resident of Cuernavaca
on Apr 18, 2019 at 5:08 pm

Care to tell us who you are, then, "Mark"? I'll guarantee your name ain't Mark, and that you've posted here under other names. Let's disinfect you, or does that only apply to others?


34 people like this
Posted by Mark
a resident of Blossom Valley
on Apr 18, 2019 at 6:26 pm

Longtime Mountain View resident here, who hates people who tries to take away private property rights from anyone.

Care to share with us a list of names who wrote and funded the Measure V initiative and campaign?

I would like to know where the $200,000 came from to do several public polling, who paid for the professional signature gathers that was used for a time, and everything else that went along with it.

I will guarantee you that these so called "Mountain View Tenants Coalition"
people, that most of that "Group" do not belong to our city. This group just changed its name and tried to do this same thing in Southern California cities.

And again with you, deflect-distract. Discussions are not allowed if they go against your narrative.


12 people like this
Posted by Randy Guelph
a resident of Cuernavaca
on Apr 18, 2019 at 6:30 pm

Nice to see that all your talk about "deflect-distract" is simply projection. Unless you'd like to "disinfect" yourself for us, I'll point out that you didn't deny having posted here under different names.


15 people like this
Posted by Who cares
a resident of Monta Loma
on Apr 18, 2019 at 6:36 pm

Who cares what name someone’s posting under when they’re pointing out facts? Especially when this is an anonymous board anyway! “Mark” presents facts and I for one am glad to see these facts continue to be promoted and held firm.


10 people like this
Posted by Randy Guelph
a resident of Cuernavaca
on Apr 18, 2019 at 6:41 pm

Please, he only posts "facts" for those folks that already want to believe "rent control bad" and will indulge in personal attacks on various community members. His contention that the Mountain View Tenants Coalition changed its name and operates in Southern California (?) is a completely fabricated like, for example.


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Apr 18, 2019 at 6:48 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

In response to Mark, you said:

“I would like to know where the $200,000 came from to do several public polling, who paid for the professional signature gathers that was used for a time, and everything else that went along with it.”

I will guarantee you that these so called "Mountain View Tenants Coalition" people, that most of that "Group" do not belong to our city. This group just changed its name and tried to do this same thing in Southern California cities.”

I believe you are talking about the LANDLORD initiative, if you read the following from a previous MV Voice article (Web Link) titled “Landlord group spent $260,000 on ballot measure”. You have made a serious mistake in argument. You also said:

“When the photo's first came out of Job Lopez, trespassing, stealing and writing nasty language on the political opponent signs of 30 year friend Lenny Siegel, you where the one who repeatedly said it is not Lopez and he should fight it. He is now guilty as charged in a court of law. The Voice never once wrote that story.”

Again you are wrong about that if you read the article (Web Link) titled “Community activist cited for vandalizing campaign sign”

I already demonstrated that that course of action was not appropriate. I was only saying he should seek a fair court hearing to determine his responsibility. The fact that he plead No contest, in court as sited here (Web Link) thus was not “Guilty” and if you read the following:


“Pleading no contest or nolo contendere means you ADMIT NO GUILT FOR THE CRIME, but the court CAN DETERMINE THE PUNISHMENT. The judge will hold a conversation with the defendant to ensure s/he understands the plea and the possible punishment. THIS GIVES THE DEFENDANT AN OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND WHY S/HE IS PLEADING NO CONTEST INSTEAD OF GUILTY OR NOT GUILTY. Through this conversation, the judge gains a better perspective on the situation. THE DEFENDANT HAS SOME POSSIBILITY OF GETTING A LESS HARSH SENTENCE THAN MIGHT BE HANDED DOWN AFTER A JURY TRIAL.” (Web Link)

But like yourself, he still has a First Amendment right to express his political position. But since I have now demonstrated that statements you have made are inaccurate, I would expect some kind of reflection before you go on any further.


26 people like this
Posted by Mark
a resident of Blossom Valley
on Apr 18, 2019 at 6:53 pm

@Randy,
You said, "will indulge in personal attacks on various community members."

No, you are mistaking me for that other outstanding community member, with the screen name "LOL"

Why don't you ask Lenny Siegel, who met with that group of activist that came to mountain View from Southern California last year to protest over "High Rents" in their city and wanted help. The Voice covered that story here.


10 people like this
Posted by Randy Guelph
a resident of Cuernavaca
on Apr 18, 2019 at 6:58 pm

Everyone can clearly see your anger with certain community members and your constant attempts to personally denigrate them. That you pretend not to do it certainly speaks volumes about your integrity.

Nothing to substantiate your lie that the Mountain View Tenants Coalition has changed its name and is now operating in Southern California? Sounds like more "deflect-distract" from you.


Like this comment
Posted by Gary
a resident of Sylvan Park
on Apr 18, 2019 at 10:26 pm

Thanks for asking. The case I cited to the City Council of a local initiative removed from the ballot as internally deceptive is San Francisco 49ers v. Nishioka (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 637 based on California Elections Code section 18600. So, that may explain why some Councilmembers want to consider placing their own proposed changes to Measure V on a 2020 ballot. But we may know more at the Council meeting on April 23.


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Apr 19, 2019 at 8:20 am

The Business Man is a registered user.

In response to Gary you said:

“Thanks for asking. The case I cited to the City Council of a local initiative removed from the ballot as internally deceptive is San Francisco 49ers v. Nishioka (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 637 based on California Elections Code section 18600. So, that may explain why some Councilmembers want to consider placing their own proposed changes to Measure V on a 2020 ballot. But we may know more at the Council meeting on April 23.”

WOW, GREAT RESEARCH.

You found the kryptonite because that case is exactly on the point of the Landlords ballot initiative. It was patently deceptive, and the methods used as long as we can have them eye-witnessed by the outsourced signature gatherers, including the withdrawal forms submitted to the City, should allow a court to block the City Council from placing the ballot measure from even being on the ballot.

In effect, the money spent and efforts performed by John Inks simply was just burned cash regarding MeasureVTooCostly and the ballot measure submitted to the City.


12 people like this
Posted by nihilist
a resident of Sylvan Park
on Apr 19, 2019 at 8:53 am

I was against rent control, although I am not a landlord.
But seeing how the old ugly buildings are torn down and new upscale homes are built, I have to admit I was wrong.
Rent control makes our city nicer. I would make the rent control provisions even more restrictive to encourage the landlords to sell.


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Apr 20, 2019 at 8:08 am

The Business Man is a registered user.

In response to nihilist you said:

“I was against rent control, although I am not a landlord.

But seeing how the old ugly buildings are torn down and new upscale homes are built, I have to admit I was wrong.

Rent control makes our city nicer. I would make the rent control provisions even more restrictive to encourage the landlords to sell.”

However that is now going to be a problem. Under new state laws called “No NET-LOSS”, the affordable units being removed by any project must be replaced by an equal amount of units in the City within 6 months of the project approval of the City. If the City fails to so, the residents of the affordable units can go to state court to have the project stopped because the City will violate the new law enforceable since Jan 1 2019. Here is the law:

“65863. (a) Each city, county, or city and county shall ensure that its housing element inventory described in paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583 or its housing element program to make sites available pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (c) of Section 65583 can accommodate, at all times throughout the planning period, ITS REMAINING UNMET SHARE OF THE REGIONAL HOUSING NEED ALLOCATED PURSUANT TO SECTION 65584, except as provided in paragraph (2) of subdivision (c). AT NO TIME, EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH (2) OF SUBDIVISION (C), SHALL A CITY, COUNTY, OR CITY AND COUNTY BY ADMINISTRATIVE, QUASI-JUDICIAL, LEGISLATIVE, OR OTHER ACTION PERMIT OR CAUSE ITS INVENTORY OF SITES IDENTIFIED IN THE HOUSING ELEMENT TO BE INSUFFICIENT TO MEET ITS REMAINING UNMET SHARE OF THE REGIONAL HOUSING NEED FOR LOWER AND MODERATE-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS.”

Here is some real information from the Association of Bay Area Governments.

The 2007-2014 housing report stated that:

Mountain View had a need of Very Low housing of 571 but only had 237 which reached 42%, Low Income Housing 388 but only had 28 which reached 7%, Moderate Income housing of 488 but only had 4 which reached 1%, Above Moderate housing of 1,152 but had 2,387 or reached 207% of the needs.

Compare with current record:

Mountain View had a need of Very Low Income Housing of 814 but has only provided 120 which reached 15%, Low Income housing of 492 but has only provided 135 which reached 27%, Moderate income housing of 527 but provided no additional housing which reached 0%, and Above Moderate housing of 1,093 but has 2,004 which reached 183%.

That would seem to apply directly to the City of Mountain View. Since this project is not in any way addressing the affordable housing unmet needs of the City. It also applies that:

(b) (1) No city, county, or city and county shall, by administrative, quasi-judicial, legislative, or other action, REDUCE, OR REQUIRE OR PERMIT THE REDUCTION OF, THE RESIDENTIAL DENSITY FOR ANY PARCEL TO, OR ALLOW DEVELOPMENT OF ANY PARCEL AT, A LOWER RESIDENTIAL DENSITY, AS DEFINED IN PARAGRAPHS (1) AND (2) OF SUBDIVISION (G), UNLESS THE CITY, COUNTY, OR CITY AND COUNTY MAKES WRITTEN FINDINGS SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF BOTH OF THE FOLLOWING:

(A) THE REDUCTION IS CONSISTENT WITH THE ADOPTED GENERAL PLAN, INCLUDING THE HOUSING ELEMENT.

(B) The remaining sites identified in the housing element are adequate to meet the requirements of Section 65583.2 AND TO ACCOMMODATE THE JURISDICTION’S SHARE OF THE REGIONAL HOUSING NEED PURSUANT TO SECTION 65584. The finding shall include A QUANTIFICATION OF THE REMAINING UNMET NEED FOR THE JURISDICTION’S SHARE OF THE REGIONAL HOUSING NEED AT EACH INCOME LEVEL AND THE REMAINING CAPACITY OF SITES IDENTIFIED IN THE HOUSING ELEMENT TO ACCOMMODATE THAT NEED BY INCOME LEVEL.”

The City has not even provided such information. The plan is completely lacking this requirement under the state laws. You simply do not address that this is specifically required from the City. It also went on to say:

(2) If a city, county, or city and county, by administrative, quasi-judicial, legislative, or other action, ALLOWS DEVELOPMENT OF ANY PARCEL WITH FEWER UNITS BY INCOME CATEGORY THAN IDENTIFIED IN THE JURISDICTION’S HOUSING ELEMENT FOR THAT PARCEL, THE CITY, COUNTY, OR CITY AND COUNTY SHALL MAKE A WRITTEN FINDING SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AS TO WHETHER OR NOT REMAINING SITES IDENTIFIED IN THE HOUSING ELEMENT ARE ADEQUATE TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 65583.2 AND TO ACCOMMODATE THE JURISDICTION’S SHARE OF THE REGIONAL HOUSING NEED PURSUANT TO SECTION 65584. The finding shall include A QUANTIFICATION OF THE REMAINING UNMET NEED FOR THE JURISDICTION’S SHARE OF THE REGIONAL HOUSING NEED AT EACH INCOME LEVEL AND THE REMAINING CAPACITY OF SITES IDENTIFIED IN THE HOUSING ELEMENT TO ACCOMMODATE THAT NEED BY INCOME LEVEL. “

Again this was not provided by the City in any way. The City must document how the loss of the affordable housing units are to be replaced in the City in order to move forward. Without such allocation in a “parallel” project, this project is in violation of the state laws. It goes on to say:

“(c) (1) If a reduction in residential density for any parcel would result in the remaining sites in the housing element not being adequate to meet the requirements of Section 65583.2 and to accommodate the jurisdiction’s share of the regional housing need pursuant to Section 65584, THE JURISDICTION MAY REDUCE THE DENSITY ON THAT PARCEL IF IT IDENTIFIES SUFFICIENT ADDITIONAL, ADEQUATE, AND AVAILABLE SITES WITH AN EQUAL OR GREATER RESIDENTIAL DENSITY IN THE JURISDICTION SO THAT THERE IS NO NET LOSS OF RESIDENTIAL UNIT CAPACITY.”

The City has not even bothered to address this legal requirement as well. So the City is in further violation of the state laws. Unless the City again provides a “parallel” project that will replace the affordable units being eliminated by this new plan. It goes on to say:

“(2) If the approval of a development project results in fewer units by income category than identified in the jurisdiction’s housing element for that parcel and the jurisdiction does not find that the remaining sites in the housing element are adequate to accommodate the jurisdiction’s share of the regional housing need by income level, THE JURISDICTION SHALL WITHIN 180 DAYS IDENTIFY AND MAKE AVAILABLE ADDITIONAL ADEQUATE SITES TO ACCOMMODATE THE JURISDICTION’S SHARE OF THE REGIONAL HOUSING NEED BY INCOME LEVEL. NOTHING IN THIS SECTION SHALL AUTHORIZE A CITY, COUNTY, OR CITY AND COUNTY TO DISAPPROVE A HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ON THE BASIS THAT APPROVAL OF THE HOUSING PROJECT WOULD REQUIRE COMPLIANCE WITH THIS PARAGRAPH.”

If the City does not provide replacement of the affordable housing units to be built in 6 months, the approval of this project is illegal. Of course the city has no plans moving forward to address the replacement of the lost affordable housing units. Thus the City will violate this provision of the law. It went on to say:

(d) THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS SECTION SHALL BE IN ADDITION TO ANY OTHER LAW THAT MAY RESTRICT OR LIMIT THE REDUCTION OF RESIDENTIAL DENSITY.

(e) This section requires that a city, county, or city and county be solely responsible for compliance with this section, unless a project applicant requests in his or her initial application, as submitted, a density that would result in the remaining sites in the housing element not being adequate to accommodate the jurisdiction’s share of the regional housing need pursuant to Section 65584. IN THAT CASE, THE CITY, COUNTY, OR CITY AND COUNTY MAY REQUIRE THE PROJECT APPLICANT TO COMPLY WITH THIS SECTION. THE SUBMISSION OF AN APPLICATION FOR PURPOSES OF THIS SUBDIVISION DOES NOT DEPEND ON THE APPLICATION BEING DEEMED COMPLETE OR BEING ACCEPTED BY THE CITY, COUNTY, OR CITY AND COUNTY.”

Yes that means that the City was given some latitude as to whether the plan will comply with the law. But a resident can and should take action in place of the City to ensure their 14th Amendment rights and California equal protection of the STATE laws are provided. In that case, the complaint should be filed with the STATE courts and NOT the County Courts. The County has a record of not enforcing state laws adequately, look at the TRO that was enforces regarding the CSFRA when later the court determined that there was no legal basis to challenge it and eventually revoked it.

And the City cannot outsource affordable units under the law. In effect the City is already barred from removing affordable housing and the courts can stop the City from moving forward on those plans.


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.

Register now