Mountain View voters strongly rejecting Measure D in early results | March 6, 2020 | Mountain View Voice | Mountain View Online |

Mountain View Voice

News - March 6, 2020

Mountain View voters strongly rejecting Measure D in early results

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

by Kevin Forestieri

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

This story contains 697 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 Kevin Forestieri at [email protected]

Comments

Posted by Gary
a resident of Sylvan Park
on Mar 6, 2020 at 1:04 am

The next story from pro-landlord councilmembers will be that they cannot adopt rent control at mobilehome parks because Measure V (aka the CSFRA) supersedes other local laws concerning rents or evictions. But a judge has ruled that Measure V does not apply to mobilehome parks (at least in the absence of a contrary determination by the 5-member appointed Rental Housing Committee). While a mobilehome park owner can and surely will challenge any control of space rents on one basis or another, the actual situation is that Measure V does not apply and could not supersede (preclude) an ordinance regulating space rents. As to the "sneaky repeal" of Measure V headed for the November ballot, that initiative may well be invalid as internally deceptive and, in any event, will likely be rejected by voters. The proposed repeal should help tenant-rights advocates gain two seats on the City Council.


Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Castro City
on Mar 6, 2020 at 2:44 pm

In response to Gary you said:

“The next story from pro-landlord councilmembers will be that they cannot adopt rent control at mobilehome parks because Measure V (aka the CSFRA) supersedes other local laws concerning rents or evictions.”

Of course that is not the ENTIRE truth, it supercedes any actions providing LESS protection to those covered by the CSFRA, that is them intentionally LIEING again. You said:

“But a judge has ruled that Measure V does not apply to mobilehome parks (at least in the absence of a contrary determination by the 5-member appointed Rental Housing Committee).”

Again that is still up in the air, it is currently under appeal. On top of that, the lawyers for the RHC actually determinied that as far as the land rented for a mobile home, CSFRA was INCLUSIVE. What occurred was the RHC headed by the anti rent control Tom Means and co chaired by an anti rent control Vanessa Honey, and with cooperation of Max Grunewald ignored that advice. I was there during that session. You said:

“While a mobilehome park owner can and surely will challenge any control of space rents on one basis or another, the actual situation is that Measure V does not apply and could not supersede (preclude) an ordinance regulating space rents.”

Gary, I think you just said something you didn’t intend to. You just said that a city ordinance can supersede the City Charter. I think it is the other way around given the city Council discretion is limited to anything amended to the city Charter Don’t you remember the City Charter says:

Section 506. - Powers vested in the council.

All powers of the city, EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN THIS CHARTER, shall be vested in the council, and said council may establish the method by which any of such powers may be exercised.”

Thus the City Charter can dictate that as long as any special rules are established and adopted by the voters into the City Charter, the City Council is not allowed to act in any way to impair those rights, or better, they cannot by ordinance prevent those rights from being effective. I think you may have made a small mistake. You said:

“As to the "sneaky repeal" of Measure V headed for the November ballot, that initiative may well be invalid as internally deceptive and, in any event, will likely be rejected by voters.”

You think, a 2 to 1 rejection of that ballot measure LIGHT or COMPROMSE failed miserably. You said:

“The proposed repeal should help tenant-rights advocates gain two seats on the City Council.”

Maybe more given that if we can get more candidates to be on the ballot that will vow to expand tenant rights to the maximum allowed under the law. We know that 2 of these City Council members cannot run again so 2 are lost already. We just have to make sure only the ones that have a proven record or have no ties to those that proposed Measure D get elected.


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

Email:


Post a comment

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

Stay informed.

Get the day's top headlines from Mountain View Online sent to your inbox in the Express newsletter.