Town Square

Post a New Topic

City gets to work on new rent control rules

Original post made on Nov 11, 2016

Now that Measure V has passed, Mountain View officials are trying to figure out how to implement a citywide rent-control program, a complicated endeavor that could require creating a new branch of staff at City Hall.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Friday, November 11, 2016, 1:52 PM

Comments (28)

Posted by a neighbor
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Nov 11, 2016 at 2:27 pm

a neighbor is a registered user.

The horse has already been let out of the barn in that tenants have already received no-cause 60-day eviction notices due to the rollback provision. I can empathize with both landlords and tenants as many on both sides seem to be losers in this situation. Something needs to change to make this a win-win for all.


Posted by New staff members?
a resident of Rex Manor
on Nov 11, 2016 at 8:13 pm

So now the city is going to add between 3-15 staff members to manage this program? What a waste. That's a lot of money that could have been spent other places, like improving our struggling schools.


Posted by Incredible
a resident of Cuernavaca
on Nov 11, 2016 at 10:00 pm

I guess our brilliant City Council just assumed Measure V would never pass in a city in which half the populations rents.

Poor planning and preparation on the part of the mayor and the rest of the council. And now you supposedly scramble to take action to protect tenants. Shame on you all. You should all step down and resign.


Posted by Mt. View Neighbot
a resident of North Whisman
on Nov 12, 2016 at 5:46 am

This whole thing Is beyond creepy. Has anyone investigated whether it's even legal? Seems like having the city as an HOA, which is the last thing we need. Waaaay too much big brother!


Posted by Paul
a resident of Martens-Carmelita
on Nov 12, 2016 at 7:43 am

The important expenditure is $22 million to fix Shoreline for Google - at your expense. Renters? Who care - unless they work for Google. See online story.


Posted by Justice Will Be Done
a resident of North Whisman
on Nov 12, 2016 at 12:06 pm

The comments in this article with regard to possible litigation are quite intriguing.

When in the history of the United States has a business or individual who has complied with all Federal, State and Local laws in good faith, been forced to refund future earnings from a retroactive clawback brought forth through technicalities? These technicalities end up depriving these businesses and individuals of legally earned income that was the basis for legitimate business decisions that may cause significant damage to them just as a random robbery would for an uninsured individual or business.

The deficiency here is clearly the City of MV Charter that allows its modification in this manner, where are the controls on managing realistic, legal or reasonable change? Shouldn't the Mayor and City Council address this? If not, could it lead the Tenants Coalition and similar organizations to attempt similar "asset acquisitions" in the future?

To essentially have assets seized despite any violation of the laws of the land is like living under a dictatorship or communism.

The other interesting aspect of this is the legal assistance provided by Stanford, if you read the actual measure V, it is particularly harsh and one sided in favor of the tenants, one might say punitive against landlords. Existing federal housing laws, California laws and local ordinances already gave tenants among the most rights they could have without ownership. Now they have ownership with no liability. It's this level of punitive language that gives the landlords a case and makes litigation inevitable with the public now holding the bag on MV's legal fees and associated costs. Thanks Stanford for your contribution to the community.

It now begs the question, who's the greedy one now?

Get your popcorn ready, this will be quite a show.


Posted by New staff member?
a resident of Rex Manor
on Nov 12, 2016 at 1:47 pm

Since the Day Workers Center was a big supporter of this, I think the city should stop any further funding and support for the Day Worker Center, and use that money instead to fund these additional staff members. Same should go for donations. I will not longer be donating to the Day Worker Center. They will already be taking enough of my money indirectly. They have crossed the line.


Posted by The Donald
a resident of Monta Loma
on Nov 13, 2016 at 9:51 am

The Donald is a registered user.

How to create a social state:

There are 8 levels of control that must be obtained before you are able to create a social state.

The first is the most important.

1) Healthcare — Control healthcare and you control the people---OBAMACARE*****DONE

2) Poverty — Increase the Poverty level as high as possible, poor people are easier to control and will not fight back if you are providing everything for them to live.---DESTROY MIDDLE CLASS BY TAXATION***DONE

3) Debt — Increase the debt to an unsustainable level. That way you are able to increase taxes, and this will produce more poverty.---21 TRILLION****DONE

4) Gun Control — Remove the ability to defend themselves from the Government. That way you are able to create a police state.****DONE

5) Welfare — Take control of every aspect of their lives (Food, Housing, and Income).---MEASURE V***DONE

6) Education — Take control of what people read and listen to — take control of what children learn in school.---POOR SCHOOLS***DONE

7) Religion — Remove the belief in the God from the Government and schools.---PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IN SCHOOL***DONE

8) Class Warfare — Divide the people into the wealthy and the poor. This will cause more discontent and it will be easier to take (Tax) the wealthy with the support of the poor.---DONE

So measure V will divide people into different buildings rather than allow the MARKET to integrate the different classes.
Measure V was intended to create this divide by allowing buildings built after 1995 to increase rents with the market. These are going to be the Google/White collar employee buildings with lavish upgrades.
The buildings built before 1995 are going to be the service peoples housing. Slums but if you have a job at taco bell...you can afford the rent under rent control.
This is the vision of a pre-socialist society. Ain't it GRAND!!!
I would rather pay $15 for a hamburger so everyone can live in Mountain View. That's how a Capitalistic society works.


Posted by Sylvan
a resident of Sylvan Park
on Nov 13, 2016 at 10:25 am

I am hoping a repeal of this rent control measure will be on the ballot for the next election and fair minding people will rise up and get rid of this attack on property rights. Legal action should also be started to stop implementation of rent control. Rent control makes Mountain View seem grim and sad.


Posted by The Donald
a resident of Monta Loma
on Nov 13, 2016 at 12:04 pm

The Donald is a registered user.

Sylvan,
This rent control measure is a long way from being implemented.
They need to find a Board, they need to fund it,they need office and staff, Office Space, equipment, phones, they need to bill the landlords and COLLECT THE MONEY FOR THIS BUREAUCRACY FROM THE LANDLORDS ONLY(UNCONSTITUTIONAL) to run it, they need to fight in court over the illegal parts of measure V(RETROACTIVE RENT ROLLBACK), they need to deal with all those complaints that are already building up and will be a mile high by the time they get going. I predict this will be tied up in court until this is deemed constitutional.
Can't wait to see them enforce this one and that the city is going to have to find the money to get the ball rolling. This going to be expensive and they have to make it work. Bureaucracy is expensive!!


Posted by istercookCan
a resident of Shoreline West
on Nov 14, 2016 at 12:43 pm

Guess it is also a punishment for those who kept their rents reasonable and did not ask for help when times were tough for Landlords!


Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Nov 14, 2016 at 2:35 pm

At 1300 in the Starbucks Coffee Shop, I Eyewitnessed R. Michael
Kasperzak, Jr. Councilmember criticizing the Mountain View voters and seemingly trying to strategized plans with some other individual to implement plans to subvert the new Measure V Charter Amendment. I was out in the open so I could not record them without being easily seen.

I find it very ugly that a person who is swearing to uphold the Mountain View Charter is actively planning to take steps to subvert it. I think it should be brought up in the council meeting at 1000 tomorrow. I cannot be sure to get there because I have a medical appointment.

It is also terrifying that those who are supposed to represent the citizens of Mountain View would speak in such a way in public without realizing that he could be observed by an astute observer. I guess we now know that this person has a clear bias and this should be a disqualifying act for him to assume office.


Posted by The Donald
a resident of Monta Loma
on Nov 14, 2016 at 2:46 pm

The Donald is a registered user.

At least someone on the Council has some kahonies to stand up to this insanely stupid measure and sees the writing on the wall of where this is headed.
Hats off to Mr. Kasperzak.


Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Nov 14, 2016 at 3:40 pm

I understand your feelings Donald, but since the Charter Amendment is now in place, if any council member does not comply with it, they are subject to removal of the council.

The Measure V was designed to operate as an overriding authority over the city council. Unfortunately, the council has no choice but to act in accordance of the measure.

By the way with 81% reporting the measure still has a 6% advantage in the vote, and the numbers are simply not there for the measure to fail. I am keeping track with the Santa Clara Registrar of Voters. So far there is a 1400 vote majority and the last update where 2% more votes reported only 70 votes increased. That would mean that 75/2*19 would count at 713 votes remaining. Even if all the votes were no the measure will pass because subtracting 713 from 1400 still leaves 700.

By the way, I researched the legal issue regarding rent roll-back, and in the case of Dale V. City of Mountain View, where the California appellate court stated that the City of Mountain View (Web Link cannot be held liable to reduction of property values based on city governmental action. It turns out that a property owner in the court's view have no vested interest nor cannot hold the City liable for market value "de-evaluation" based on impact of city government.

I was amazed that the California Apartment Association has bluffed the City into thinking it could hold legal action against it. If this case is true, and it cites many others, the City of Mountain View is free to take any measures regarding rent control without any legal liability to any apartment owner/investor.


Just FYI



Posted by The Donald
a resident of Monta Loma
on Nov 14, 2016 at 4:37 pm

The Donald is a registered user.

The Business man,

The Dale Vs. Mountain View decision was about usage of property. Dale was trying to develop residential on a parcel that the city zoned for agriculture. Its use was and had been a golf course for decades.This is a very different issue than Rent Control and has to do with zoning issues only.

Measure V has to do with Class Discrimination and regulation. These have nothing to do with one another. The 15,000 units that were affected under this oppressive rent control measure will take action against it and it is clear that many parts of it are unconstitutional. Rent roll backs, funding the annual cost to run it on the backs of a select class when this is a community issue, just to name a few.
We will see what happens when this is imposed...going to be interesting.


Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Nov 14, 2016 at 5:38 pm

Donald, you did not read the entire Dale case, it states that:

“They contend that the city's adoption of an amendment to its general plan that restricted the use of their property to "open space" constituted an [55 Cal. App. 3d 105] arbitrary and unconstitutional exercise of the police power, as well as improper "spot zoning," and that without compensation the city has taken and damaged their right to the use and enjoyment of their property in the sum of $1,500,000. We have concluded that there is no merit to any of these contentions, and that the judgment of dismissal must be affirmed.

For their second cause of action for inverse condemnation the Dales realleged the facts as set forth above and further alleged that prior to the amendment to the general plan, the fair market value of the property was $2 million; after the amendment, it was not worth more than $500,000. The Dales have not been paid any compensation and on September 24, 1973, the city rejected their claim for $1.5 million.”

However under California law, there is no actual market value under GRAHAM v. BANK OF AMERICA (Web Link the case stated:

“Statements regarding the appraised value of the property are not actionable fraudulent misrepresentations.   Representations of opinion, particularly involving matters of value, are ordinarily not actionable representations of fact.  (Neu–Visions Sports Inc. v. Soren/McAdam/Bartells (2000) 86 Cal.App.4th 303, 308 (Neu–Visions ) [accountant's opinion of the value of a building not actionable misrepresentation of fact];  Padgett v. Phariss (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 1270, 1284 [opinion of fair market value of property not actionable misrepresentation].)   A representation is an opinion “ ‘if it expresses only (a) the belief of the maker, without certainty, as to the existence of a fact;  or (b) his judgment as to quality, value ․ or other matters of judgment.’  “ (5 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (10th ed.   2005) Torts, § 774, p. 1123.)

Appraisals are “an opinion as to the market value” of a property prepared by a qualified independent appraiser.  (12 C.F.R. §§ 34.42(a), 34.45 (2014);  12 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (10th ed.   2005) Real Property, § 498, p. 576.)   It is an estimate of the price a buyer would be willing to pay and a seller would be willing to accept at a given time based upon market conditions.”

Thus there is no such thing as an actual market value, only what values of opinion that are made by a real estate agent.

The Dale case goes on to say:

“As to the first cause of action for declaratory relief, our Supreme Court in Selby Realty Co. v. City of San Buenaventura, 10 Cal. 3d 110, said at pages 117-118 [109 Cal. Rptr. 799, 514 P.2d 111]: "We cannot discern in the foregoing allegations any concrete dispute between plaintiff and the county which admits of definitive and conclusive judicial relief. The county has taken no action with respect to plaintiff's land except to enact a general plan describing proposed streets, as required by state law. The fact that some of the proposed streets, if ultimately constructed, will cross plaintiff's property gives this plaintiff no greater right to secure a declaration as to the validity of the plan or its effect upon his land than that available to any other citizen whose property is included within the plan. The plan is by its very nature merely tentative and subject to change. Whether eventually any part of plaintiff's land will be taken for a street depends upon unpredictable future events. If the plan is implemented by the county in the future in such manner as actually to affect plaintiff's free use of his property, the validity of the county's action may be challenged at that time. [55 Cal. App. 3d 108]

As to the second cause of action for inverse condemnation, Selby is also dispositive. The court said at pages 120 and 121: "The deleterious consequences of haphazard community growth in this state and the need to prevent further random development are evident to even the most casual observer. The Legislature has attempted to alleviate the problem [55 Cal. App. 3d 109] by authorizing the adoption of long-range plans for orderly progress. Thus, it has provided not only for the adoption of general plans but also regional plans (§ 65060 et seq.), specific plans (§ 65450 et seq.), district plans (§ 66105 et seq.), and a comprehensive plan for the conservation of San Francisco Bay (§ 66650 et seq.). In addition, the voters recently passed an initiative measure providing the mechanism for adoption of plans to preserve and protect the state's coastline. (Pub. Resources Code, § 27000 et seq.)

"If a governmental entity and its responsible officials were held subject to a claim for inverse condemnation merely because a parcel of land was designated for potential public use on one of these several authorized plans, the process of community planning would either grind to a halt, or deteriorate to publication of vacuous generalizations regarding the future use of land. We indulge in no hyperbole to suggest that if every landowner whose property might be affected at some vague and distant future time by any of these legislatively permissible plans was entitled to bring an action in declaratory relief to obtain a judicial declaration as to the validity and potential effect of the plan upon his land, the courts of this state would be inundated with futile litigation. It is clear, under all the circumstances, that plaintiff has not stated a cause of action against the county defendants for either declaratory relief or inverse condemnation."

Also in accord is Navajo Terminals, Inc. v. San Francisco Bay Conservation etc. Com., 46 Cal. App. 3d 1 [120 Cal. Rptr. 108], wherein this court (Division Three) recently held that the adoption of a resolution "fixing and establishing within the shoreline land the boundaries of the water-oriented priority land uses" did not constitute a taking. [10] We are, of course, aware of the modern rule that a taking does not require a physical invasion or direct legal restraint, as an undue restriction may suffice (Candlestick Properties v. San Francisco Bay Conservation, etc. Com., 11 Cal. App. 3d 557, 572 [89 Cal.Rptr. 897]). In Candlestick, supra, this court (Division Three) denied inverse condemnation relief, and at page 572, distinguished two of the foreign cases cited by the Dales, Dooley v. Town Plan and Zoning Com., 151 Conn. 304 [197 A.2d 770] and Morris County Land Improv. Co. v. Township of Parsippany-Troy Hills, 40 N.J. 539 [193 A.2d 232]. Candlestick was cited with approval and followed by our Supreme Court in the "strikingly similar" case of State of California v. Superior Court (Veta) 12 Cal. 3d 237, 252 [115 Cal. Rptr. 497, 524 P.2d 1281]. [55 Cal. App. 3d 110]

Thus the City of Mountain View is immune to Inverse Condemnation under the law. The CAA surely should be aware of it.





Posted by The Donald
a resident of Monta Loma
on Nov 14, 2016 at 6:15 pm

The Donald is a registered user.

Business man,

Your argument regarding immunity for the city of Mountain View is not arguable and I would agree with it as a judicial decision...but, the fact is that Mountain View is going to appoint a housing Commission comprised of 5 individuals that have sole authority to establish its budget, staffing model, fee structure, penalties, rules and regulations and is charged with interpreting and enforcing this law. They are the defendants in this lawsuit that will be filed, not the city.
In the case of Berman v. Downing (1986) Rent rollbacks were in violation of the contract clause under contract law unless the legislative body had declared the existence of an emergency. I didn't hear the city declare an emergency...did you?


Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Nov 14, 2016 at 7:27 pm

Donald,

You made a serious error, that case involves a city ordinance.

the case stated:

Plaintiff owns a building located in West Hollywood. On November 28, 1984, plaintiff and defendants entered into a one-year written lease for an apartment in plaintiff's building, the tenancy to commence on November 28, 1984, at a monthly rental of $700. On November 29, the City of West Hollywood enacted an ordinance establishing a moratorium regulating rents and evictions. The ordinance by its terms expired May 1, 1985, and provided, as relevant, for a rent rollback which limited landlords, starting November 29, to the rent in effect on August 6, 1984.

This is not an ordinance, thus this case has no case precedence.

The Charter Amendment does not need any declaration of emergency. Since the City Council did not pass the current measure as an ordinance, this case has no bearing on the current situation.

But it is amazing that the court did not rule in favor of the plaintiff.

Please make sure you find cases that involve city charters or constitutions?


.


Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Nov 14, 2016 at 7:35 pm

Donald,

You did not read this important part:

Discussion

Plaintiff contends that the West Hollywood ordinance is unconstitutional in that the rent rollback provisions impair contractual obligations in violation of the United States and California Constitutions, and are an arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of the police power. Plaintiff's contentions are without merit on this record. [184 Cal. App. 3d Supp. 4]

We hold, on this record consisting of a stipulation of facts and the language of the West Hollywood Moratorium Ordinance, fn. 1 that the rent rollback provisions of that ordinance are constitutional.

I will stress that in that case the rent roll back is constitutional.

So this case actually doesn't hurt the current measure at all. How can you argue that it established that rent rollbacks are unconsitutional when it say it is.


Posted by The Donald
a resident of Monta Loma
on Nov 14, 2016 at 8:45 pm

The Donald is a registered user.

Mainly on the fact that it doesn't meet one of the criteria: the legislative body had not declared the existence of an emergency.
I know that this is splitting hairs and that we live in a liberal state but the fact is, I believe this will be challenged along with the fees to operate this bureaucracy.
We will see, nobody is an armchair lawyer here and knows the outcome of this measure that even the city council doesn't want.


Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Nov 14, 2016 at 8:59 pm

Donald,

The council didn't want it because it has no power to control it. THe Charter is supreme to the Council. The Council is nothing but a bought agency of the Mountain View Chamber of Commerce.

THe citizens outmaneuvered the council by making it impossible for the council to change the rules that are now in play.

THe Council was terrfyied that there would be an "independent" agency outside their control that would have binding jurisdiction in the rental provisions in Mountain View. As a professional businessman, I see no problem with it unless you're trying to exploit your customers. Discipline and profit are not enemies, but corruption and racketeering are the enemies of disciplined business.

That is what this fight has been all about, but the opposition wants you to forget the exploitation that has been occuring in Mountain View for the past 5 years.

But everyone has a right to their point of view, but not different realities.




Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Nov 14, 2016 at 9:00 pm

Donald,

The council didn't want it because it has no power to control it. THe Charter is supreme to the Council. The Council is nothing but a bought agency of the Mountain View Chamber of Commerce.

THe citizens outmaneuvered the council by making it impossible for the council to change the rules that are now in play.

THe Council was terrfyied that there would be an "independent" agency outside their control that would have binding jurisdiction in the rental provisions in Mountain View. As a professional businessman, I see no problem with it unless you're trying to exploit your customers. Discipline and profit are not enemies, but corruption and racketeering are the enemies of disciplined business.

That is what this fight has been all about, but the opposition wants you to forget the exploitation that has been occurring in Mountain View for the past 5 years.

But everyone has a right to their point of view, but not different realities.




Posted by The Donald
a resident of Monta Loma
on Nov 14, 2016 at 9:26 pm

The Donald is a registered user.

The problem with your analysis is that your defying the free market and the principles of our country with your "I am God and know what's best for you approach".
We have elected officials on that city council and your saying that they aren't capable of knowing what's right. If so, remove them by voting them out.
The fact that you decide what kind of return I deserve is not what our country is about.
If you think I make too much..buy housing and run it. Its a free country. Go buy 5,000 apartments and rent them for $1000.00. You can change the market and make me drop my rents. I didn't get angry when people bought google stock and it went up 1000%. They did it and I didn't...so what. You must have investments? Do I regulate your returns?
Think about it.. we all have choices and do overs are only in fairy tales.



Posted by Joseph E. Davis
a resident of another community
on Nov 14, 2016 at 10:51 pm

Rent control is, always and everywhere, a terrible idea. Mountain View will now bear the consequences of a foolish vote.


Posted by unwilling viewer
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Nov 15, 2016 at 1:19 am

Can you two please get a private room? thanks.


Posted by The Donald
a resident of Monta Loma
on Nov 15, 2016 at 7:30 am

The Donald is a registered user.

Unwilling viewer,

This is a community post and The Business man has the same view point that the majority of voters in Mountain View have. The fact that I don't agree with it is a view that many others have. If the community wants to comment, well then do it but this is a community issue. I don't believe that Business man and I will ever agree on this issue because we have two very different beliefs regarding social responsibilities. He believes that I have a responsibility to subsidize other peoples housing costs and I believe everyone has a responsibility to take care of their own costs.
I believe I have a right to express my view point, thank you.


Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Nov 15, 2016 at 1:25 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

Well, the emergency ordinance passed. Thank you City Council of Mountain View.

In particular, I am obligated to indicate that one member who was initially opposed to it in the hearing changed his mind. I truly believe that Mike Kasperzak did exercise an independent thinking cap and understood what needed to be done given this situation.

I may not see eye to eye with him. But I respect the man and appreciate when he takes actions that he would normally not do.

Again thanks Mountain View City Council


Posted by the_punnisher
a resident of Whisman Station
on Nov 16, 2016 at 10:18 am

the_punnisher is a registered user.

Arguing over legal points while the population suffers. That shows how much anyone cares about REALITY. That is why the rest of the Nation points at the Left Coast and notes the behavior of people who live there....


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.

What to do if you get a noisy Rheem/Ruud heat pump water heater
By Sherry Listgarten | 14 comments | 3,983 views

Do Palo Alto city officials ever, ever have enough money?
By Diana Diamond | 38 comments | 2,721 views

Don't Wait Till Your Child is 42 to Say "I'm Proud of You."
By Chandrama Anderson | 5 comments | 1,886 views

Restaurateur behind pizza favorites Terún and iTalico sets sights on San Carlos
By The Peninsula Foodist | 0 comments | 1,606 views

Travelin’ Solo: Salvation Mountain and East Jesus
By Laura Stec | 0 comments | 1,098 views