Town Square

Post a New Topic

Measure V: Rent-control ordinance faces lawsuit threat

Original post made on Dec 17, 2016

Just days away from implementation, Mountain View's voter-approved rent-control ordinance, Measure V, is in danger of being challenged and potentially halted by a lawsuit expected to be filed next week by landlord advocates.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Friday, December 16, 2016, 5:32 PM

Comments (99)

16 people like this
Posted by george drysdale
a resident of another community
on Dec 17, 2016 at 11:16 am

The Apartment House Association will fail as such cases always have. It is nonetheless good because of its educational ability to alert the electorate. It is certain rent control will fail - this is history. Amazingly it still is around in America, basically in California and New York. What do these states have in common. I think the battle of rent control (good vs. bad) will be the most interesting in Silicon Valley. Lenny Siegel should resign from office because evidently he flunked out of high school economics a required course. Meanwhile, on the internet: rent control and Yahoo and Bing: The End of Rent Control the catastrophe in Capitola etc. George Drysd


28 people like this
Posted by @george
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Dec 17, 2016 at 2:02 pm

Lenny Siegel has done more to help renters than anyone else on the city council. He should be proud, and we should be honored to have him on the council. The other members cynically pushed Measure W to try to kill Measure V, and he stood up to it. You don't even live here, George, so please don't lecture us on what our council members should do.


27 people like this
Posted by mike rose
a resident of another community
on Dec 17, 2016 at 3:18 pm

Let's be clear here. Lenny has done nothing to help renters.
MV housing providers will be the ones who are forced to subsidize tenants and sacrifice their constitutional property rights.
If anyone, they are the ones helping, although not voluntarily.
Rent control in fact is, legitimized by leftist and tenant majority, unconstitutional theft of private property.
I agree with George, there is little hope in California left leaning judges,
but ironically there is a reasonable glimmer of hope for protecting the constitutional property rights in the future, Trump appointed Supreme Court.


15 people like this
Posted by Ale
a resident of Rex Manor
on Dec 17, 2016 at 3:20 pm

Good. Rent control rarely works out and the city's standards of living lower. Now the taxes will be spent on legal fees instead of improving the city.


13 people like this
Posted by @mike rose
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Dec 17, 2016 at 5:12 pm

Another opinion from someone who doesn't live in our city!

Your understanding of the United States Constitution is, let's be honest, a little thin. Even thinner than your knowledge of Lenny's work here in Mountain View prior to and during his tenure on the council. Generally, Californians are a bit more well-versed than you are in what's actually in the Constitution, which is why Trump lost so badly here.

For humor's sake, I'm curious to hear which part of the United States Constitution disallows rent control in the states unconstitutional.


11 people like this
Posted by mike rose
a resident of another community
on Dec 17, 2016 at 5:45 pm

The US Constitution Fifth Amendment states (not for humor's sake) that "... not private property be taken for public use without just compensation..." This is what the rent control precisely is.
14th Amendment extended this to State and local governments.

It seems George you must have missed your civic classes somehow.
However the above "takings clause" has been a subject of interpretation by many courts including SCOTUS.
This is why we the rent control is legal now. But my point was, that the SCOTUS position will likely change when enough of Trump appointees will sit on it.
Will the rent control be made illegal, or just curbed for practical purposes remains to be seen. But it will happen on federal level, it is just a matter of time.





10 people like this
Posted by @mike rose
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Dec 17, 2016 at 6:13 pm

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or personal attack]


3 people like this
Posted by mike rose
a resident of another community
on Dec 17, 2016 at 6:40 pm

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]


10 people like this
Posted by @mike rose
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Dec 17, 2016 at 7:02 pm

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]


3 people like this
Posted by mike rose
a resident of another community
on Dec 17, 2016 at 7:06 pm

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]


3 people like this
Posted by mike rose
a resident of another community
on Dec 17, 2016 at 7:11 pm

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]


11 people like this
Posted by @mike rose
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Dec 17, 2016 at 8:30 pm

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]


15 people like this
Posted by David
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Dec 17, 2016 at 9:47 pm

Hi Mike and George,

Not all MV residents support rent control and can even tolerate your opinions without going off on long diatribes. It makes complete sense if you can't get the best return on your investment to find a way around rent control. Technically I guess rent control hasn't seized your property- you might need reinvent your methods though. You can always convert your apartments to condos. We do need more ownership opportunities in MV. Maybe, you can even rent out some of the condos after the conversion. At some point, you could make more money on the conversion, but the fees involved would be higher.

Best of luck!


17 people like this
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Dec 17, 2016 at 11:20 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

The CAA must file a lawsuit, even a frivolous one.

It is a wounded cornered animal because the citizens of Mountain View found a way to work around the corrupted City Council which does not have the ability to stand up for Mountain View Citizens.

The CAA believes in American Feudalism, those who own the property have an absolute power to privately tax the incomes of the tenants any amount they think they can get away with.

The CAA is a private organization that charges $500 per person a year to be a member of it.

The CAA failure with Measure V is a critical threat to them. The organization proved ineffective in controlling the city of Mountain View. This meant that to their membership (especially those in Mountain View), they could not achieve their claims they make on their own website.

And when the CAA fails in court it will start the death of that organization because no one, (at least no landlord in Mountain View) will be willing to pay $500 a year to receive such poor advice and find themselves left to their own devices.

The CAA simply does not want to work to solve the housing crisis in Mountain View or California, it makes more profit by under-building the housing necessary for the city and state of Ca.

This is the concept of "Supply-Side" economics, where the supply is manipulated because prices are determined by the intersection of the supply providers desired price for the market and the inverse plot of which the market demand will accept the price.

Where the two lines intersect in an analytical chart is typically the market prices for goods or services at proper equilibrium.

But if the supply line is manipulated by lack of resources, this results in higher intersection of the lines. This is the definition of market manipulation.

The CAA has been taking advantage of this situation for more than 2 decades, but Mountain View simply said enough is enough.


14 people like this
Posted by mike rose
a resident of another community
on Dec 18, 2016 at 8:55 am

Over 60% tenants in MV and only 53% voted for passing of Measure V that victory is pretty "thin" by any standards. I take CAA did pretty good job under these circumstances, explaining why the rent control never works.
Only extreme ideologists still believe in this failed concept.
All economists (93%) agree that it is extremely destructive for the cities.

The concept of feudal America is false too. Landlords do not tax anyone. The rent amount and duration of the lease are a voluntary agreement between two parties. Even if these "greedy" landlords had not ask the specific rent amounts beforehand and let prospective tenants bid between themselves, the end result would have been the same.
It is after all the supply and demand issue.
It is also preposterous to accuse CAA of not supporting building of new housing.
One must be totally ignorant not to see CAA sponsored legislature to that effect (just check CAA website).
Unfortunately ideologists will surely remain unconvinced, despite many years of the history, research and statistics.
Like I mentioned before, this damaging and illegal scheme will likely be eradicated with new SCOTUS, but it will take some time.



12 people like this
Posted by @mike rose
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Dec 18, 2016 at 9:57 am

The word you're looking for is "ideologue," not "ideologist." An ideologist is someone who studies ideologies. [Portion removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]

Just because you keep saying rent control is illegal, doesn't make it true. Rent control in the United States has been around since at least the 40s, yet in your fantasy world, it's one or two Supreme Court appointments from being overturned. Keep dreaming, as you said.

And, hey, the vote for Measure V outperformed Donald Trump both in California and nationwide, so that must mean it has a strong mandate.


3 people like this
Posted by mike rose
a resident of another community
on Dec 18, 2016 at 10:08 am

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]


5 people like this
Posted by mike rose
a resident of another community
on Dec 18, 2016 at 11:44 am

Why are you trying in your every response to shut my opposing view up and bully me?
I guess if your kind had their way, we would have similar freedom of speech and press as in Cuba or North Korea.
Just to summarize my perspective as stated in my first response:
I don't think California courts (state and federal 9th district appellate)
will overturn the rent control, as majority of the judges are democratic activists, either elected by majority democratic electorate or appointed by democratic presidents.
There is a chance, I stated, that if enough SCOTUS judges will be replaced by Trump (from the published constitutionalists list), the rent control's constitutionality will be revisited, despite the 40 year old tradition. To what extend? remains to be seen.
It is also my view in light of the fifth amendment that current interpretation of the takings clause is wrong, but it is the law.
Rent control amounts to permanent physical occupation of private property, sanctioned by the government without just compensation. It doesn't need to be more complicated that that.
So stop bullying, ridiculing, you just simply promote legalized stealing.


10 people like this
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Dec 18, 2016 at 3:10 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

Mike Rose omitted a lot of information. THe first statement which is only half the story was this one:

Over 60% tenants in MV and only 53% voted for passing of Measure V that victory is pretty "thin" by any standards.

What was reported was 25% of those tenants were issued oral and written intimidation by their landlords clearly stating that they were being evicted because of the ballot question or if Measure V passed, they would be evicted. Now if that is correct and the CAA was behind it, then the measure would not have passes at all because 75% of 60% is only 45%. This means that if this had been successful, many homeowners must have voted in favor of Measure V in order to have achieved an 8% improvement on the population you described.

THe second half correct statement you made was this one:

It is also preposterous to accuse CAA of not supporting building of new housing.
One must be totally ignorant not to see CAA sponsored legislature to that effect (just check CAA website).

I did my homework on this and every measure proposed with the endorsement of the CAA has at least one or both of the following, a) significant tax breaks or public subsidy of any future development, or b) a restriction of 15% of development to be accessible at below market rates.

I will address the first one, the CAA wants the public to pay for the cost of their private development in every proposal that includes tax incentives, breaks or direct funding to pay for their projects. Thus the CAA members receive all the profits but do not provide for all of the costs of the investment, the public pays for part of it.

The second one is more dangerous, since the statistical majority of apartments are "luxury" because they include many amenities that are not required for "standard" residential units, (pools, gyms, washer/dryer in unit, central heat/cooling, etc), this has caused a dramatic skew in what is a mean or median rent market rate.

In fact as much as 70% of current apartments are luxury. In normal analysis if you use a standard bell curve you should have equal number of units above and below the mean or median. In this case the mean or median should be an apartment which sits somewhere in the middle of a "luxury" and "standard" unit of residence.

If only 15% being below the market rate you are not providing as much as 35% of the population access to any affordable housing at all because of the existing skew on the market at this time.

SO if this is what the CAA considers a fair attempt to help solve the current crisis of California, there needs to be a lot of improvement, because it looks like they simply want to increase the CAA members wealth and not actually address the problem.

Please explain to us what the CAA is actually trying to do to fix the problem?



Unfortunately ideologists will surely remain unconvinced, despite many years of the history, research and statistics.
Like I mentioned before, this damaging and illegal scheme will likely be eradicated with new SCOTUS, but it will take some time.


8 people like this
Posted by mike rose
a resident of another community
on Dec 18, 2016 at 3:36 pm

The Business Man,
Glad to help you out, but whatever I provide will likely not be to your and other socialists satisfaction.
And BTW you contradict yourself by stating that CAA enriches itself from charging high per unit membership fees and than you state that they are against building. Does not make sense.

See below:

AB 2299 (D-Bloom) — Second Units — would make it easier for property owners to construct second units on their property. Sponsored by CAA
CAA support letter to governor

AB 2501 (D-Bloom) — Density Bonuses — would make it faster, easier and more economical for developers to obtain density bonuses in exchange for including affordable housing in the developments. Co-sponsored by CAA

AB 2584 (D-Daly) — Housing Projects: Denial — authorizes organizations such as CAA to bring legal action against a local government that denies housing projects in violation of state law. Sponsored by CAA
CAA support letter to governor

AB 2180 (D-Ting) — Building Permit Process — proposes to expedite the building permit process by shortening the number of days that a local government must take to approve a new housing project. Sponsored by CAA

AB 1934 (D-Santiago) — Zoning Variance: Affordable Housing — would clarify that a local government may issue a density bonus (allowing for more units in a project) to commercial developers when they include affordable housing at or near the commercial development.
CAA support letter to governor

AB 2208 (D-Santiago) — Affordable Housing — would require local governments to identify underutilized land and available air rights on top of existing government-owned building to construct affordable housing for the community.
CAA support letter to governor

SB 1413 (Leno) – School Districts: Employee Housing — would allow a school district to establish and implement programs to address the housing needs of teachers and school district employees who face challenges in securing affordable housing.
CAA support letter to governor

Water conservation

SB 7 (D-Wolk) – Water Meters and Submeters — would require that beginning Jan. 1, 2018, water submeters be installed in new apartment units. It specifically authorizes the imposition of an administrative fee by property owners or third-party billing companies when they read and bill tenants for their water use. It does not change or prohibit the use of ratio utility billing systems (RUBS).
Full story


25 people like this
Posted by Okay boys...
a resident of Monta Loma
on Dec 18, 2016 at 3:39 pm

If Mike Rose and "@mike rose" could exchange email addresses and continue their bashing each other privately, perhaps we could have a productive discussion. You guys have nothing but hate to spew and it's getting tiring.

Not all of us agree on Measure V. Let's wait and see what the courts decide.


5 people like this
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Dec 18, 2016 at 4:18 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

Mike,

Thanks for the information, however, those are not solutions to housing problems.

AB 2299 is just a method for members of the CAA to overrule the local government zoning authority, where does it state that it will provide for "affordable" residential housing?

AB 2501 is just another method for members of the CAA to override the local government authority to control zones and provide financial benefits to private developers. Where does it state it will provide for affordable housing?

AB 2584 is a bill to allow the CAA to sue the local governments where they use their local authority or constitution to determine zoning regulations. Where does it state it will provide any affordable housing?

AB 2180 only reduces the time a local government will have to EITHER approve or deny a new housing project. And enables members of the CAA to litigate when there is a delay. Where does it state that this will provide for affordable housing?

AB 1934 This bill is designed to make it easier to gain a density bonus and to give commercial developers, or members of the CAA, when they include affordable housing at or near the commercial development more public funding. This bill does not define what "Affordable" housing it will actually provide, does it?

AB 2208 This bill will allow for private developers, or members of the CAA to "take" existing government-owned building to construct affordable housing for the community. But that would require the teardown of a public building in order to build the new residential units for the benefit of a private developer. It only "could" provide for more affordable housing, but no formula is included to be complied with to provide real affordable housing. This was a very bad idea.

SB 1413 This bill provides for members of the CAA public subsidy of housing costs for educational employees. It does not increase the actual inventory of affordable housing. In fact it just makes the public pay for the overcharged costs of housing because there is a lack of inventory.

SB 7 This bill does not in fact improve inventory of housing, only provides for adding cost to renters for the access to water in their apartments. Where does it improve the inventory of housing?

Please find some real examples of the CAA that demonstrates that they are actually fixing the problem? These simply show that the CAA is attempting to take advantage of the state of California.


10 people like this
Posted by MyOpinion
a resident of Sylvan Park
on Dec 19, 2016 at 2:44 pm

MyOpinion is a registered user.

@Mike Rose and Mike Rose, agree with previous comment to take it off line, 7 comments (so far) removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language. [Portion removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]


15 people like this
Posted by Dread Pirate Roberts
a resident of Blossom Valley
on Dec 19, 2016 at 3:37 pm

Dread Pirate Roberts is a registered user.

@Business Man -- What exactly is the "housing problem"? That some people are being priced out of Mountain View due to a supply / demand imbalance? Guess what, we don't all get to live exactly where we want to. I'd really love to live in Los Altos Hills, but just can't afford it so I live in Mountain View. Others may not be able to afford Mountain View, so they have to move to Sunnyvale or San Jose. Should we impose price caps on homes in the Hills so people like me can buy a place there? It's not a "housing problem". It's the nature of economics, and artificially constraining rents is essentially the local government directly taking away value from apartment owners. A better solution would be to authorize the development of more apartments to meet the demand. Rents are actually falling in San Francisco because new apartment build out is easing some of that supply / demand imbalance. Rent controls are immoral and cause more problems than they solve. I hope the courts overturn this foolishness...


5 people like this
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Dec 19, 2016 at 3:42 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

Everyone,

The CAA as a practice picks and chooses the target market it wants to sell to by strategic decisions to not provide a complete spectrum of housing alternatives. Its argument on its face is not bad. The CAA has the right to make the most profitable projects it can. But it has inadvertently resulted in a more serious problem. Housing Discrimination.

The Federal Fair Housing Act defines Housing discrimination is the use of discrimination that results in the inability of the following to have equal access to housing, they are: race, religion, national origin, and since 1974, gender; since 1988, the act protects people with disabilities and families with children.

Discrimination can take two forms the first is disparate treatment and the other is disparate impact. The both work independently and have their own requirements to be proven.

Disparate treatment in housing requires that proof be provided to the court that the defendant had intended to discriminate against a person or person included in the federally recognized groups described above. This is very difficult, and does not apply in this case.

Desperate impact however is applicable in this case. How? Desperate Impact requires that even though a business practice on its face is discrimination neutral, it was designed and implemented for a legitimate purpose, it still can be discriminatory if it has a disproportionate impact on one of the federally recognized groups.

This is where the CAA runs into trouble. Even though they have the right to choose what projects and markets it wants to sell to, if the practice in effect restricts or denies any access to housing options to any of the protected groups, this is illegal discrimination.

Many articles have been posted on the internet stating that disparate impact does not apply to housing discrimination. But most of those articles are not correct because the SCOTUS in 2015 clearly established in Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc.

It has been reported that the court stated:

“The court affirmed a Court of Appeals decision in a case in which a nonprofit group, the Inclusive Communities Project, said that the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs had contributed to "segregated housing patterns by allocating too many tax credits to housing in predominantly black inner-city areas and too few in predominantly white suburban neighborhoods."

The 5-4 ruling endorses the notion of citing disparate impact in housing cases, meaning that statistics and other evidence can be used to show decisions and practices have discriminatory effects — without proving that they're the result of discriminatory intentions.”

Thus if the CAA does go to court to argue against Measure V, it will be documenting its own violations of the California and Federal Fair Housing Laws, not matter what argument it may make to the court. I do not believe that the CAA wishes to ensure its own liability to violations of federal and state laws.

The practice known as “cherry picking” your market is tolerable in most business practices, but in the area of employment and housing, the laws have been designed to disallow this practice.

A good business will build for the complete spectrum of housing needs because it will ensure optimal revenue opportunities. Lower quality housing projects cost less to maintain, so one can succeed in having a good return on investment if the owner/manager knows how to do its business well. Thus what legitimate basis is there to not provide equal opportunity to have reasonable housing?


9 people like this
Posted by Dread Pirate Roberts
a resident of Blossom Valley
on Dec 19, 2016 at 4:27 pm

Dread Pirate Roberts is a registered user.

@Business Man -- CAA is a trade group, not a developer. They don't actually invest in, or develop properties. How exactly is CAA's advocacy on behalf of landlords in Mountain View discriminatory either in disparate treatment or disparate impact? I could see how an individual landlord could be found to discriminate in their rental practices, but I think it's a huge stretch to say that CAA filing a lawsuit on behalf of ALL landlords in Mountain View could potentially be discriminatory.


3 people like this
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Dec 19, 2016 at 5:32 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

Dread,

Very good point. I didn't think about that.

However, if the CAA decides to advocate for such practices, doesn't that indicate that the CAA is becoming a conspirator for such practices. Especially given that they are not a 501 C organisation. They are in fact from what I can see a for profit group.

If as an organisation, the CAA profits in any way regarding its members practices, it can find itself an accessory after the fact. Discrimination is a crime in the US.

Now is discrimination a felony? I cannot find what it is defined as regarding is it a misdemeanor or a felony. If it ever has been determined as a felony then the following might apply:


Penal Code 32 PC is the California law that defines what it means to be an accessory after the fact "AATF." You violate this law when you assist a perpetrator after he/she has committed a felony by aiding in his/her escape from arrest, trial, conviction and/or punishment.1

Example

Robert, a drunk driver, runs a red light and causes a deadly accident. Robert then flees on foot when his friend Jamie picks him up. Jamie takes Robert to Jamie's house to hide out. Then...in an effort to delay the officer's DUI investigation (which necessarily involves a strict time line)...Jamie returns to the scene and tells the officers that she doesn't know Robert's whereabouts.

As a result, Jamie is charged with one felony count of being an accessory after the fact and with a related misdemeanor charge of resisting and obstructing a police officer.2(Web Link)

But this law is more damaging:

California's aiding and abetting laws, set forth in Penal Code 31 PC, assign criminal liability to anyone who encourages, facilitates or aids in the commission of a crime.1 Aiding and abetting defendants face the same penalties as people who directly commit the crime.

Penal Code 31 PC (California's aiding and abetting law) reads: "All persons concerned in the commission of a crime, whether it be felony or misdemeanor, and whether they directly commit the act constituting the offense, or aid and abet in its commission, . . . are principals in any crime so committed."

"Aiding and abetting" (also sometimes called "accomplice liability") is not a separate crime.

Rather, it's a legal principle set forth in California's Penal Code that allows the state to prosecute everyone who is "in on" a crime--even if they don't perpetrate the crime directly. (Web Link)

So if the CAA has in fact either assisted or withheld evidence regarding discrimination regarding it's members, the CAA could be held to be a co-conspirator of a crime, and held criminally responsible.

This is a stretch, but technically, it is correct.

This would mean that if the CAA is acting to advocate for a discriminatory act, and it does so in court, and any member has been held as violating the California or Federal Fair Housing laws, the CAA by default becomes guilty of aiding and abetting.

This organisation needs to tread very carefully in this case.


12 people like this
Posted by The Truth
a resident of North Whisman
on Dec 19, 2016 at 9:19 pm

The Truth is a registered user.

The CAA is a trade organization whose mission is to protect and advance the rights of apartment owners. Apartment owners come in all sizes from mom and pop to publicly traded real estate investment trusts. Measure V creates a distinction between pre 1995 construction and after which really makes no sense logically as the pre 1995 buildings have higher operating costs and less amenities. Inherently, they are already low margin and affordable relative to alternatives. The CAA is merely protecting the rights of all property owners who are real business people who have taken a risk and put their capital on the line to provide needed housing solutions. These property owners had been regulated naturally by selection and existing strong pro tenant laws in California as well as Federal Fair Housing laws.
Painting apartment owners as predatory or the CAA as having an agenda other than protecting the rights of its members is merely the means used by an extreme left wing advocacy group to get something for nothing for its members. Silicon Valley and the USA provide extensive educational and advancement opportunities to improve an individual's economic situation. It is truly a shame that the tenant's coalition and its supporters are not addressing the real issue (look in the mirror and pull yourself up by the bootstraps) and continue to cling to the false hope measure V provided them. When the next election comes, we need to Make Mountain View Great Again and repeal measure V. #MMVGA


19 people like this
Posted by Randy Guelph
a resident of Cuernavaca
on Dec 19, 2016 at 9:55 pm

Randy Guelph is a registered user.

Sorry, The Truth, but Measure V was approved by a wider margin than your savior, so it's safely going to be the law of the land for a long time. Perhaps if landlords didn't gouge their tenants and then cynically try to evict them once V passed, the people of this fine city would have more sympathy for them. Alas, they chose poorly, and now have to reap what they've sown.


4 people like this
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Dec 19, 2016 at 10:16 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

The Truth,

I agree with you regarding this statement:

"The CAA is merely protecting the rights of all property owners who are real business people who have taken a risk and put their capital on the line to provide needed housing solutions. These property owners had been regulated naturally by selection and existing strong pro tenant laws in California as well as Federal Fair Housing laws."

In business if you assume a risk, no one coerces another to take a risk. But, if you assume a risk, you cannot use the public or those not involved in the negotiation of that risk, to mitigate risk or the potential loss. This is defined as "Moral Hazard". "Housing" has been treated special because of the history of "American Fuedalism"

You stated:

"Painting apartment owners as predatory or the CAA as having an agenda other than protecting the rights of its members is merely the means used by an extreme left wing advocacy group to get something for nothing for its members."

However, I have not stated that apartment owners are predatory, I have stated that the practices need not be intentionally discriminatory, but if the resulting actions disparately impact as discrimination, that is where the legal line is.

You stated :

"It is truly a shame that the tenant's coalition and its supporters are not addressing the real issue (look in the mirror and pull yourself up by the bootstraps) and continue to cling to the false hope measure V provided them. When the next election comes, we need to Make Mountain View Great Again and repeal measure V. #MMVGA"

When we see sincere action taken by the market by the CAA and Apartment Owners that indicates good faith in providing the community with the resources necessary to address the problem, there can be a lot to achieve.

But the current behavior does not encourage trust in the public. If the CAA files a lawsuit, it will show that there is no room to work cooperatively. At least for now, the CAA should cooperate, thus establishing good cause to reverse Measure V. But by trying to force the measure off the books, this is a clear indicator of hostility.

If you want the public to trust the industry, it must step up and take it's own initiative. By acting in a manner that can be only described as selfish does not provide any basis to encourage those who are in a constant state of fear because of unstable housing and employment. As a tech worker, I cannot get any full-time employment because the labor market in the valley collectively only employs independent contractors which is short term employment. For example 50% of the employees of PayPal are not employees, they are "Alternative Work Force". These workers only work for 6 months at a time typically and do not have any benefits.

This means that the CAA and Apartment Owners have to provide the complete spectrum of housing resources, and since they refuse to act constructively, this will need them to do this on their own long enough to instill good faith.

I strongly wish to see the end of Measure V by constructive action.


7 people like this
Posted by The Truth
a resident of North Whisman
on Dec 20, 2016 at 9:49 am

The Truth is a registered user.

So the "Business Man" reveals his true motivation and his handle is an ironic reference.

"Business Man" stated:

"As a tech worker, I cannot get any full-time employment because the labor market in the valley collectively only employs independent contractors which is short term employment..."

What does your failure to secure full time employment have to do with compelling apartment owners to subsidize your rent? Why can't you use your "Business" skills to market yourself better or start your own consulting business? Unemployment is at an all time low and employers are thrilled to secure employees full time with great benefits, provided the employee has the skills they need to meet their objectives. Contract positions are typically commodity roles that are not valued strategically, public companies have good reasons for contracting non strategic positions (Obama Care for one). What's next, tax payer funded universal basic income?

As I stated in an earlier post, members of the tenant's coalition should look in the mirror and evaluate why they are not where they want to be in their careers/lifestyle and make the necessary adjustments (obtain new skills, work harder than the next guy/gal). It is a tried and true formula in America leading to success.

Make Mountain View Great Again and repeal Measure V!!

#MMVGA


15 people like this
Posted by Randy Guelph
a resident of Cuernavaca
on Dec 20, 2016 at 10:27 am

Randy Guelph is a registered user.

@The Truth, your campaign strategy of insulting your neighbors is unlikely to pay off. You also may find more luck attaching your campaign against Measure V to something more popular in Mountain View than Trump, like Ebola or the California Drought.

The truth of the matter is that rent control is here to stay, so you should get used to it.


6 people like this
Posted by The Truth
a resident of North Whisman
on Dec 20, 2016 at 11:16 am

The Truth is a registered user.

I guess speaking the truth is an insult to some these days, how times have changed, no accountability, must be a fan of 49ers CEO Jed York.

Although measure V may exist in perpetuity and MV will never be great again or meet its once promising full potential, the pre 1995 units won't exist in their current numbers and will be converted or replaced.

Prices for new housing stock will be out of reach for many of the members of the coalition and will again be faced with the reality of either changing their approaches to life to afford the lifestyle they desire or have Brodie and Company try to shake down another group of patriotic, entrepreneurial Americans for a handout.

Repeal measure V, Make Mountain View Great Again!!

#MMVGA


3 people like this
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Dec 20, 2016 at 11:36 am

The Business Man is a registered user.

Randy,

Do not get personal, that is what the Truth wants.

If you notice, I never make personal comments, I simply respond with facts and objective information.

I do not allow misrepresentation, but I do it by illustrating the fault in logic.

Also as much as I possibly can, be constructive. This country needs to stop bickering and playing games and start actually solving problems.

My goals are to be informative and also not take the "left" or "right" position. I do not always succeed but I try.

If you are dealing with those who disagree, you can do so respectfully. Let anyone show disrespect to you, but as long as you take the time to address them with respect, and demonstrate the errors in their argument, you tend to weaken their argument. Especially if the opposition does not reflect or address the information discussed or does not reflect on reality.

The Truth is frustrated because he/she assumes that once a person owns housing, they are to be guaranteed a profit. No business can be assured that. It takes a very smart person to succeed in being profitable. Those who make poor decisions are stuck with the consequences.

Especially when the standard practice of business is to convince others that properties are more valuable than what they really are. The real estate business has been free to do so because there is no such thing as a market value in California. It is a negotiating opinion. Thus the last person who purchases the property is usually stuck with an underwater investment.

I believe that real estate law need refining so that those that are in the market for such properties do not get taken advantage of. I can see that the Truth is frustrated that the real estate market still suffers the flaw that Alan Greenspan discussed at the Capital after the housing bubble in 2007, regarding the efficiency of the free market ability to determine the value of properties.

But the Truth wants to hold those totally not involved in such a unethical business situation to take fiscal responsibility for it.

For example, say the Truth owns shares of a stock, but the business makes a bad investment and turns around and states that the shareholder must pay the business for the loss of the investment, not only just that the share price will drop. That is a perfect example of what the current practice is. The Truth would sue the business because they have no right to penalize a third party.

Does this explain the situation well?



5 people like this
Posted by The Truth
a resident of North Whisman
on Dec 20, 2016 at 12:00 pm

The Truth is a registered user.

No frustration or lack of success on this side of the table my friends.
Even with measure V, my investment in Mountain View pre 1995 housing is firmly in the black with predictable future cash flows to be reinvested. This investment will occur elsewhere in markets that have healthier business climates without well meaning but ineffective government regulations. When the opportunity presents itself to convert my property to something more lucrative and thereby displacing tenants, it shall be done.

Don't forget to submit your applications by 4 pm today to be on the Rental Housing Committee, it could be a constructive use of free time in the absence of full time employment. Web Link


4 people like this
Posted by mike rose
a resident of another community
on Dec 20, 2016 at 12:26 pm

mike rose is a registered user.

The Business Man,
...The Truth is frustrated because he/she assumes that once a person owns housing, they are to be guaranteed a profit. No business can be assured that...
This is trivial and I doubt that The Truth or any reasonable person assumes that. In fact many residential housing providers have negative cash flow or break even and it takes a long time before they see return on their investment. And they are entitled to the "uncapped" return as they take all the risk and no entity caps the downside i.e. earthquake damage, tenant damage, vacancy rate, recession caused lower rents etc.
But the government coming in, and essentially forcing their business to become unprofitable public subsidy, is totally different story.
That amounts to changing of the rules in the middle of the game. Sort of similar to the recent attempt of changing the presidential election rules after the elections.

.....Especially when the standard practice of business is to convince others that properties are more valuable than what they really are. The real estate business has been free to do so because there is no such thing as a market value in California....
This maybe news, but market value is determined by supply and demand. No business is able to convince a reasonable person to pay more than they are willing to pay. This is why most of the real estate transactions today are bidding wars, and the buyers (NOT THE SELLERS) determine the value.
Same applies to rents, if there is no tenants willing to pay, the rental property owners can ask whatever they want to only be stuck with vacancies and mounting losses.
These are basics and I do not understand why it has to be made more complicated than that.
But at the end the voters have spoken and the discussion about pros and cons of rent control is irrelevant.
What the article is about is a legal challenge and constitutionality of the measure is an issue here. Probably the comments should focus on that.


7 people like this
Posted by Frank Richards
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Dec 20, 2016 at 2:03 pm

Frank Richards is a registered user.

To inject some levity into a heated discussion, the issue of the constitutionality of rent control reminds me of this article: Web Link


4 people like this
Posted by mike rose
a resident of another community
on Dec 20, 2016 at 2:35 pm

mike rose is a registered user.

Again, the extremists and weirdoes are on both sides, and lets not focus on that really bad example to ridicule opposing point of view.
Below is a link to the article written by renown legal scholar, referring to the 2012 case which was "almost" taken by the SCOTUS. Unfortunately
after expressing initial interest they decided at the end not to take it up. It was close. How close is it going to be next time? It will come up again... for sure.. and with different justices....
Web Link


6 people like this
Posted by Frank Richards
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Dec 20, 2016 at 2:47 pm

Frank Richards is a registered user.

Mike, the scholar you cited is himself quite an extremist. He's argued that the Civil Rights Act should be repealed, which we can all agree is quite an extreme position!


4 people like this
Posted by mike rose
a resident of another community
on Dec 20, 2016 at 3:02 pm

mike rose is a registered user.

Please keep comments focused and related to the article and points of view on legality, constitutionality of RENT CONTROL in light of Epstein's article.
Critique welcome. But lets not expand this out of control and discuss i.e. Civil Rights Act to another endless discussion.


7 people like this
Posted by Frank Richards
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Dec 20, 2016 at 3:06 pm

Frank Richards is a registered user.

Mike, I was just following your discussion. You dismissed the extremists and weirdos, and then cited Mr. Epstein as an example of a "renown[sic] legal scholar." I simply pointed out that he's an extremist, and as you pointed out, we should treat his advice appropriately.


3 people like this
Posted by mike rose
a resident of another community
on Dec 20, 2016 at 3:11 pm

mike rose is a registered user.

What sentence did you find extreme in this article?


7 people like this
Posted by Mark Noack
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Dec 20, 2016 at 4:18 pm

Mark Noack is a registered user.

Hey all,

Just a quick heads-up that I updated the story with some interesting new information from the city attorney. She says Mountain View is not obligated to defend Measure V, and the City Council could decide to stay out of this fight.

-- Mark


3 people like this
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Dec 20, 2016 at 4:24 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

Richard A. Epstein is a very well known libertarian. I have no arguments regarding his belief that:

On this score, the traditional small-government approach could still work today. The first system of social control is the law of nuisance that prevents landowners from engaging in activities that are offensive to their neighbors, like the emission of filth, noises, and odors. These restrictions are efficient because they imitate standard restrictions always included in all forms of planned-unit developments, whether they be apartment complexes or gated communities. The initial owner of the property knows that his gain from selling or leasing is far greater if all owners are subject to these restrictions than if none are. The owner therefore “internalizes the externalities,” to use a term of art, by picking the optimal set of rules to regulate these risks. There is no conflict between his welfare and that of his buyers. The law of nuisance backstops these rules by protecting outsiders from the combined activities of the new project.

However, if you read this correctly, Richard does not discuss the issue of rental tenants actually being the ones that created property wealth. The formulas used typically to determine property value takes into account the rent received divided by the cost of maintenance multiplied by a return in investment coefficient. But the most important issue this person discusses is not whether anyone lives on the property. What he discusses is the strategy to resell the property to another, not satisfying the needs of a tenant.

This is because he states:

There is no conflict between his welfare and that of his buyers.

Richard also stated this:

The owner therefore “internalizes the externalities,” to use a term of art, by picking the optimal set of rules to regulate these risks.

Speaking as a libertarian, his supreme belief of the self-correction of the market prevents any other options. If the market was self-correcting as effectively as he believes, this conflict would not have gotten so intense. Economists would not have reported that there is such a disparity regarding growth of earnings and growth of rent.

The invisible hand as described by Adam Smith the wealth of nations surely would have resulted in an equal growth of income proportional to the increase in the cost of housing. But economists have been warning that the rate of increase in rent prices completely doesn't match the growth of earnings as described here:

To better understand how rents and affordability have changed over time, Apartment List analyzed Census data from 1960 – 2014. We find that inflation-adjusted rents have risen by 64%, but real household incomes only increased by 18%. The situation was particularly challenging from 2000 – 2010: household incomes actually fell by 7%, while rents rose by 12%. As a result, the share of cost-burdened renters nationwide more than doubled, from 24% in 1960 to 49% in 2014.

These trends are repeated in cities and states across the country. Since 1980, incomes in expensive areas like DC, Boston, and SF have risen rapidly, but rents have increased roughly twice as fast. In Houston, Detroit, and Indianapolis, incomes have actually fallen in real terms, while rents have risen by ~15-25%. The only urban areas where incomes kept pace with rising rents were Austin, Las Vegas, and Phoenix. (Web Link)

Now the Businessman will not argue that this is a problem if one can demonstrate that this cost increase is based on the fact that specific apartments were proportionately improved. But in most cases, there has been no material improvement.

This becomes a house of cards that all it takes is a breeze and a lot of the value of property will simply vanish because it needs to self-correct itself. The magnitude is going to be great given the level of gambling acted on regarding what a person thought their property was worth.

A true libertarian would clearly be able to solve this kind of problem by implementing well thought out plans that are so significantly simple that a high school graduate can find no objection to development. But as Richard said:

The owner therefore “internalizes the externalities,” to use a term of art, by picking the optimal set of rules to regulate these risks.

The rules the owners have made have become so complicated, that it makes it too difficult to efficiently address the housing problems. That was done by the market, not by the government. The market in a libertarian political scheme is the sole responsibility of the issue and must correct the problem, but since this has not happened, this resulted in the current situation in Mountain View.







4 people like this
Posted by mike rose
a resident of another community
on Dec 20, 2016 at 5:02 pm

mike rose is a registered user.

The Business Man,
Reading several of your posts, I have no doubt that you are a very intelligent and thoughtful person. However I seem to lose the line of thought very quickly reading it (maybe it is just me). Take no offense please, but try to keep it shorter and less abstract.


3 people like this
Posted by Frank Richards
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Dec 20, 2016 at 5:14 pm

Frank Richards is a registered user.

Mike, your account says you are a resident of another community. Might I ask where you hail from? And what caused you to take such a sudden interest in our fair city?


3 people like this
Posted by mike rose
a resident of another community
on Dec 20, 2016 at 5:23 pm

mike rose is a registered user.

Lets put it this way. The outcome of the litigation in your City will affect many rent control municipalities in the nation. I am in one of these municipalities. This is the reason I am interested in the discussion as this has nationwide implications.
Hopefully this satisfies your curiosity.


3 people like this
Posted by Frank Richards
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Dec 20, 2016 at 5:33 pm

Frank Richards is a registered user.

So you currently have rent control? Are you a property owner, and how did you come across this? This is kind of a small potatoes issue for our tiny city, so it's interesting to find someone from elsewhere in the nation who noticed this, let alone would take an interest in it.


4 people like this
Posted by mike rose
a resident of another community
on Dec 20, 2016 at 5:38 pm

mike rose is a registered user.

Small potatoes? Tiny City?
C'mon, you are Silicon Valley, the center of the modern world.
What happens there does not stay there. Bad or good....


3 people like this
Posted by Frank Richards
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Dec 20, 2016 at 5:44 pm

Frank Richards is a registered user.

We're much smaller than many of the nearby cities. Small potatoes means it was voted on by <30k people, and the number of buildings affected is quite small.

How did you hear about this? I don't think word-of-mouth is likely to get even to neighboring cities, let alone outside of California. Do you own a rent-controlled building or live in one?


4 people like this
Posted by mike rose
a resident of another community
on Dec 20, 2016 at 5:50 pm

mike rose is a registered user.

Sorry Frank,
It gets to personal and I refuse to be drawn into it. Lets discuss legal issue at hand, the subject of this article, but unfortunately not to many people comment on that.
So many legal cases to be quoted for and against, but nothing....


3 people like this
Posted by Frank Richards
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Dec 20, 2016 at 5:54 pm

Frank Richards is a registered user.

Mike, this is a community space for members of our community. I'm sure you wouldn't appreciate outsiders coming in to your community without introducing themselves, so at least extend us that courtesy by giving us a window into who you are and why we should continue our discussions with you.


5 people like this
Posted by mike rose
a resident of another community
on Dec 20, 2016 at 6:02 pm

mike rose is a registered user.

No it is not,
Community spaces for community members only like i.e. Next Door require residence in community.
This is forum readily available to anyone with access to the internet.
Unfortunately your latest comment is another attempt to shut up free speech and opposing point of view.
Typical


3 people like this
Posted by Frank Richards
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Dec 20, 2016 at 6:30 pm

Frank Richards is a registered user.

Mike, from the Terms of Use you agreed to, "mv-voice.com provides an opportunity for community members to post opinions and other content directly onto the mv-voice.com Website." So we do consider this a community space.

I'm not trying to shut down your speech, I'd just like to get some understanding of your perspective and how you stumbled upon our community. I don't understand why you have to be so aggressive, but generally it's polite to introduce yourself to new people.


4 people like this
Posted by mike rose
a resident of another community
on Dec 20, 2016 at 6:49 pm

mike rose is a registered user.

Yes you are,
In the 10 listed conditions (terms of use) there is no mention of commenters of readers being a MV resident.
Specifically it states: "mv-voice.com is hosted on servers located in California and is intended to be viewed primarily by residents of California".(not MV exclusively)

"providing an opportunity" to MV residents does not mean restricting it to MV residents only.
C'mon stop this silly and baseless personal discussion, this is just deflecting the spotlight from the real LEGAL issues of the article.
If you have something to say as to the merits of the article, please do, but otherwise stop personal attacks and attempts to shut up inconvenient opinions under the pretext of "courtesy".


3 people like this
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Dec 20, 2016 at 6:50 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

Mike,

Thank you very much, we may disagree, but we still need to figure out how to get this problem fixed together somehow.

I do not disrespect or disregard thoughtful people.

I try to be brief but sometimes I have to copy some word.


3 people like this
Posted by Frank Richards
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Dec 20, 2016 at 7:04 pm

Frank Richards is a registered user.

Mike, I'm completely at a loss for why you have to be so aggressive. It helps all of us make progress together by understanding each other's perspectives. I mean this genuinely. Wouldn't you feel the same way if someone outside your community began discussing how to change the way it's run?

Finally, I never made any personal attacks against you, so I deserve an apology for such an accusation.


6 people like this
Posted by mike rose
a resident of another community
on Dec 20, 2016 at 7:34 pm

mike rose is a registered user.

Again, nothing of substance in relation to the article.
I remind that the subject was the legal challenge to MV rent control and not Mike Rose's biography.
Its interesting how some interest groups are trying to dodge the real issue.


4 people like this
Posted by Frank Richards
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Dec 20, 2016 at 7:43 pm

Frank Richards is a registered user.

Mike, I'm not an interest group, I'm a person. Measure V has no impact on me, so I really have no dog in this fight. I'm trying to understand why you feel so passionately about something that isn't in your community, and you seem to have a unique perspective. You don't need to be so combative, we can discuss things in a civil manner.


4 people like this
Posted by mike rose
a resident of another community
on Dec 20, 2016 at 7:45 pm

mike rose is a registered user.

Then discuss it please.


3 people like this
Posted by Frank Richards
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Dec 20, 2016 at 7:56 pm

Frank Richards is a registered user.

Great! Thank you for participating, Mike.

What about Measure V drew you to become so involved in discussing rent stabilization with people in another community? Have you had similar measures locally? Here we've been dealing with skyrocketing rents, and so the tenants had finally been pushed too far. Did something similar happen near you? Or are rents more stable where you are?


3 people like this
Posted by Hope
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Dec 20, 2016 at 7:58 pm

Hope is a registered user.

@mike,
Since you don't like socialism, I invite you to NOT partake in two successful socialist programs. Medicare and Social Security.


5 people like this
Posted by mike rose
a resident of another community
on Dec 20, 2016 at 8:13 pm

mike rose is a registered user.

To Frank: For the last time, your questions are personal and not referring to the subject article ( why cant you get that simple concept of being on the subject?) Unbelievable.... this is simple.
To Hope: Medicare and Social Security are NOT socialist programs.
The beneficiaries actually pay for it all their working years. They are not freebies like subsidized rent. Actually the return on the investment ( monthly ss and Medicare dues) are quite poor.
It is more like an insurance collecting premiums and then paying out benefits.


4 people like this
Posted by mike rose
a resident of another community
on Dec 20, 2016 at 8:22 pm

mike rose is a registered user.

And Hope, while I appreciate your invitation not to join in ss and Medicare, unfortunately this is not an option. For all practical purposes it is obligatory for every US citizen.


3 people like this
Posted by Frank Richards
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Dec 20, 2016 at 8:27 pm

Frank Richards is a registered user.

Mike, I don't think it's fair to dismiss me as not talking about the subject when I clearly am discussing Measure V and rent control, and in the same post talk about Social Security and Medicare. Frankly, my questions have been far more germane to the article. I want to make progress on this topic through mutual understanding. It's a California thing, but that's what happens when you talk to a bunch of Californians.

I'd also like to know what you would like to achieve in this dialogue. I can start with my goals so you can see that I'm genuine. My goal is to understand your perspective on rent stabilization and your experiences that have led you here to this discussion.


5 people like this
Posted by mike rose
a resident of another community
on Dec 20, 2016 at 8:47 pm

mike rose is a registered user.

Remove "you" or "yours" from your discussion we will achieve something after the day of hard work.
For the lack of discussion ON THE SUBJECT I will pose few simple questions to stimulate a discussion ON THE SUBJECT!!!! ( not if RC is politically or socially right, but is it LEGALLY right?)
1. Do you think rent control amounts to government taking of private property for public use without just compensation? Please provide basic arguments for or against.
2. How do you define permanent occupation of private property, when is it constitutional and when is it not?
3. Which areas of Measure V are most vulnerable to legal challenge?
4. Which past court cases are relevant to the Measure V (in support or against)?
5. Rent control vs. US constitution.

All points of view are welcome for discussion and respected. But do not get personal please.


3 people like this
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Dec 20, 2016 at 8:51 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

Everyone,

Please chill out? If anyone insults each other we get nothing done.

I try to set an example, but I am far from perfect.

Because of this, I will already volunteer my apologies to everyone.

Have we got any updates or better yet a copy of the letter that was issued by the CAA for us to read?


3 people like this
Posted by Frank Richards
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Dec 20, 2016 at 8:58 pm

Frank Richards is a registered user.

Mike, the pieces of information that you consider interesting are not the only valid topics of conversation. A lot of us are less interested in the legality, since that will be settled in court without our input, but more interested in how rent stabilization affects people and what causes them to have their opinions on it. This is where your experience and perspective can really help us.

By understanding people's motivations, we can come together to form a basis for solutions that benefit everyone. Measure V is far from perfect, but it was chosen by the people here, and so it is incumbent on us to understand the concerns of both sides. If the people opposed to it won't help us understand their experiences, we can't come to a mutual understanding.


6 people like this
Posted by mike rose
a resident of another community
on Dec 20, 2016 at 9:07 pm

mike rose is a registered user.

It is not up to the people and their understanding and concerns any more. This ship has sailed on Nov 8th and you know it. So don't try these cheap shots please.
The only relevant issue now is the legality of the Measure.
If you do not want to elaborate on this and the subject article it is fine with me.


3 people like this
Posted by Frank Richards
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Dec 20, 2016 at 9:11 pm

Frank Richards is a registered user.

Mike, I'm sorry, I really don't know what you mean. What cheap shots?

There are many relevant issues now. We here in Mountain View have every opportunity to change the charter going forward. This is a democracy. Now is a great time to get mutual understanding, which is why I want to hear about your experience.

You clearly have strong opinions about this, so I want to know what makes you feel the way you do and what brought you here to discuss this with us. I don't understand why you keep thinking that I have some malicious intent.


6 people like this
Posted by mvresident2003
a resident of Monta Loma
on Dec 20, 2016 at 10:04 pm

mvresident2003 is a registered user.

this whole back and forth is quite interesting, especially Frank aka Ralph's continual passive-aggressive stance.

Frank, you say you have no skin in the game but as a purported resident of Cuesta Park I assure you, you do. Rent control will affect this entire community, either as a home owner or as a renter.

Frank, you say you're "not trying to shut down speech", that you're "genuinely interested". I call BS. You refuse to argue/discuss the issues and continue to cloud it with this passive aggressive stance. What does it matter where a poster is fro view if they're discussing relevant content?

It's like you think if you keep saying the same ridiculous thing over and over and over again people will start to believe it. The sad thing is, as uninformed and I'll-read everyone seems to be you probably are right! Then again, from the lack of alternate comments here, I don't think too many are following this thread anyway. Fortunately.








3 people like this
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Dec 20, 2016 at 10:07 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

Everyone,

I need to read the letter issued by the CAA to determine if they have grounds to reverse Measure V.

I can respond to specific issues, but my previous research indicated that Measure V should not be in any trouble.

But I do not know what the CAA is claiming, no one has published the letter and the CAA is withholding the letter from the public.

I feel so deaf, dumb, and blind.


3 people like this
Posted by Frank Richards
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Dec 20, 2016 at 10:23 pm

Frank Richards is a registered user.

MV Resident, sorry, who's Ralph? I also don't know why you're accusing me of being passive-aggressive.

Like I said, I don't think the legality is going to be a productive conversation, since that will be settled in court far away from us simple citizens. It sounds like you have an opinion on rent stabilization. How do you feel about it, and what part of your experience led you to those opinions?


3 people like this
Posted by mike rose
a resident of another community
on Dec 21, 2016 at 8:48 am

mike rose is a registered user.

Very informative article came up today
Web Link


3 people like this
Posted by Frank Richards
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Dec 21, 2016 at 8:56 am

Frank Richards is a registered user.

Mike, what do you find interesting in that article, and how does it pertain to the legality of rent stabilization, which you've said is the only valid topic of conversation?

Are you involved in the New York real estate market, is that why you posted that? Or do you follow New York property law in addition to Mountain View's?


3 people like this
Posted by SRB
a resident of St. Francis Acres
on Dec 21, 2016 at 9:29 am

SRB is a registered user.

@Mark Noack, thanks for the update regarding City Attorney deferring to a City Council's closed session vote for legal answer to this potential lawsuit. Question for you and the Voice, was such a vote taken on Friday 16 and where/when would the results of that vote be announced?


3 people like this
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Dec 21, 2016 at 2:59 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

Will someone please post the CAA letter?

I cannot address the specific issues brought up in a letter I cannot read.

It almost appears that the actual letter is being kept secret, why?

Is there anything in the letter that is considered a trade secret?

Or is it that the claims being made are trivial or worse frivolous?

Or is it that the content of the letter could be used in some way against landlords or the CAA because it brings up questionably illegal practices?

I am so confused.


5 people like this
Posted by The Truth
a resident of North Whisman
on Dec 21, 2016 at 3:27 pm

The Truth is a registered user.

You will see the meritorious legal arguments soon enough as well as the reality of delayed implementation and receipt of ill-gotten gains, specifically, the illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory rent roll back.


5 people like this
Posted by mvresident2003
a resident of Monta Loma
on Dec 21, 2016 at 3:38 pm

mvresident2003 is a registered user.

@The Truth, we can only hope it is found to be thus, it's like a glimmer of hope.

To answer your question Frank, I'm vehemently against rent control. I'm not a landlord here in MV, I'm just a homeowner who feels rent control is wrong, it's a bandaid for a much bigger issue and it has been proven to cause issues. It punishes those who have taken risks and made investments and rewards those who have absolutely no vested interest other than a desire to live in a certain area.

There have been multiple threads on this issue, feel free to go back and read them if you really are interested.


3 people like this
Posted by Frank Richards
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Dec 21, 2016 at 3:42 pm

Frank Richards is a registered user.

MV Resident, as a homeowner, you benefit from subsidies like Proposition 13 and the Mortgage Interest Deduction. Why are those reasonable subsidies but subsidies for renters are wrong? Or are there different subsidies you'd prefer for renters?


5 people like this
Posted by The Truth
a resident of North Whisman
on Dec 21, 2016 at 4:11 pm

The Truth is a registered user.

The way most people see it, Prop 13 and mortgage interest deduction is a reward for people who stick their necks out and assume significant debt and bet on their ability to earn enough money to pay back their debt. This is a good thing for the economy.

A renter taking no risk of owning property (debt,fire,earthquake, flood, other acts of god, vandalism, terrorism, devaluation etc.) receives flexibility as the reward. They can walk away at any time (if not in a term lease, measure V effectively makes everything month to month) with 30 day notice to rent something better, move closer to a higher paying job, they don't need any other help.

Shifting rights of ownership from property owners who have taken significant risk to renters when the renters take no additional risk violates the laws of Economics as well as common sense.

A fairer solution would have been increasing every property owner's property tax in Mountain View and use the proceeds for affordable housing. I wonder how well that would have done in a vote.

Measure V was mainly voted for by tenants who receive benefits for nothing, the fairness issue comes in when it is only the owners of pre 1995 multifamily units that have to pay for this.


3 people like this
Posted by Frank Richards
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Dec 21, 2016 at 4:31 pm

Frank Richards is a registered user.

With Proposition 13 (and its follow-ons), parents and grand-parents can bequeath their property without resetting its assessed value. We'd all agree that the children and grand-children took on no risk for that property, yet they're subsidized all the same.

That very same Proposition 13 that you claim to be a reward to property owners makes sure that your 'fairer solution,' property tax increases, are not a viable solution, in that they can mainly be imposed as parcel taxes and need 2/3 approval. If you're going to lead the charge to overturn Proposition 13, I'll be right there behind you. Property owners rigged the game, and the rest of the state is starting to catch on.


3 people like this
Posted by Hope
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Dec 21, 2016 at 4:32 pm

Hope is a registered user.

@mike I wish the conversation could be changed- Instead of how much tax you pay, how much do you get back in government services?

Most people get back way more then they pay in.

You are wrong about socialism- when citizens get together to act as a community and provide a program for the greater good- that's socialism.

Even the founding fathers believed we needed to take care of each other.

The preamble of the United States Constitution is the following:
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”


3 people like this
Posted by the_punnisher
a resident of North Whisman
on Dec 21, 2016 at 4:38 pm

the_punnisher is a registered user.

I have a stake in this fight; my parents own a house in Mountain View with an apartment next door. A corner lot appraised at$750,000.
I spent much of my teenage years in Mountain View. I figured out 40 years ago THAT I WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO AFFORD BUYING A HOUSE IN MOUNTAIN VIEW! The sad part is that I was already working at AMD at the time.
When I followed my instincts and relocated to WI, I purchased a house only 5 minutes away from Cray Research for $79,000 with the same floor space as the CA home in Mountain View. I now live in Evergreen, CO with an UPPER LEVEL that has the same square feet as the Mountain View house. This house cost me $153,000. I've had similar employment much like the workers paying $3500/month RENT. With that all added, it is no wonder that a rent control issue has passed.
Several off topic but REAL issues:
1)Google is building a Boulder, CO campus. The $3500/month RENTERS can afford to BUY A NEW HOUSE for the same ( or lesser ) amount than the current amount they are paying for rent!
2) I know of a person who telecommutes on the AI Project used in Google Cars. We also just had an automated semi-truck deliver beer from Ft. Collins To Colorado Springs. There is plenty of room to test Google Cars safely.
3 Expecting Trump to do something: As you mentioned LAW in this discussion, how about aiding and abetting the ILLEGAL ALIENS that are in Mountain View? I don't think that you may see much change until that issue is addressed.

People, these issues are the reality that the rest of our nation has and are properly dealt with. My long term view for Mountain View: with these factors added in, rents will be self correcting as the housing demands will finally fall. You are living in interesting times.....


3 people like this
Posted by Frank Richards
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Dec 21, 2016 at 4:52 pm

Frank Richards is a registered user.

the_punnisher, you may get more replies if you take the time to coherently lay out your points and avoid RANDOMLY interspersing ALL CAPS in your TEXT.

I hope you have enjoyed Wisconsin and Colorado. In Mountain View, we're enacting policies to address the housing imbalance, and although progress is generally slow, we'll get there working together as a community. It's unfortunate you felt that you had to leave, but maybe one day you will be able to return.


5 people like this
Posted by mike rose
a resident of another community
on Dec 21, 2016 at 5:14 pm

mike rose is a registered user.

Hope,
No doubt you are very sensitive, idealistic and generous person, caring about the help needing fraction of the community.
I don't have a problem with that.
My problem is that many of these "caring and generous people" want to help only as long as the money doesn't come out of their pocket. In this case they saddle the relatively small group of income property owners (pre 1995 buildings) with the entire cost of running their social experiment (which on the top of things has been a widely proven total failure)
I would gladly participate if this was shared by ALL of the community, not just the people who are perceived (often falsely) to have deep enough pockets.


3 people like this
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Dec 21, 2016 at 5:19 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

Please?

someone said

You will see the meritorious legal arguments soon enough as well as the reality of delayed implementation and receipt of ill-gotten gains, specifically, the illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory rent roll back.

All I ask is what are the arguments, what evidence exists to support the claim that "receipt of ill-gotten gains, specifically, the illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory rent roll back."?


If those arguing this situation have clear and convincing argument and evidence, there is no need to withhold it. In fact this should have been provided to the voter before the election.

Instead all rent control measures were issued identical advertisements making claims that the measure would force "subsidies" to renters and prevent legal eviction. All you have to do is lookup the ads in Youtube, the ad campaign was terrible. they used identical acor and scenes for all measures, and really did not do an effective job at addressing what the CAA and the Landlords positively do to provide a supply of apartment resources.

As long as Measure V does not require a Landlord pay money to a renter, the definition of "subsidize" was not satisfied a subsidy is:

sub·si·dy
ˈsəbsədē/
noun
1.
a sum of money granted by the government or a public body to assist an industry or business so that the price of a commodity or service may remain low or competitive.
"a farm subsidy"
2.
historical
a parliamentary grant to the sovereign for state needs.

also

A subsidy is a benefit given by the government to groups or individuals, usually in the form of a cash payment or a tax reduction. The subsidy is typically given to remove some type of burden, and it is often considered to be in the overall interest of the public.(www.investopedia.com/terms/s/subsidy.asp)


Measure V does not act in any of these definitions. That argument was a very poor claim that is in fact not true. The landlord simply does not pay anyone, yes the price control is there, but a price control is not a subsidy.

The California laws also provide ample legal remedy to landlords regarding the ability to legitimately evict a tenant that has caused property damage, committing a crime on the premises, and or damaging the value of a property enjoyed by fellow tenants of the same property.

The CAA and Landlords failed to show convincing evidence that Measure V was a illegitimate action given the situation.

Please explain and provide proof regarding these claims?


5 people like this
Posted by The Truth
a resident of North Whisman
on Dec 21, 2016 at 5:22 pm

The Truth is a registered user.

Go research the meritorious filing for yourself, it is case# 16CV304253 filed 12/21

Good luck on your application to be on the rental committee.


3 people like this
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Dec 21, 2016 at 5:45 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

The case has been filed, but the information about the claims of the case are not accessible on-line.

Knowing the document is there only means you must go to the court and pay a fee to get a copy of the complaint. This means that the CAA simply does not want to disclose their claims in public.

This seems to indicate that the merit of the complaint might be weak. A clear convincing statement of evidence should be public so that the public is educated as to the error of the masses.

This looks like an attempt to quietly conceal some kind of unsubstantiated complaint. Why not be very open in demonstrating the unjust action that Measure V does?

I guess I could go to the Court tomorrow.


6 people like this
Posted by The Truth
a resident of North Whisman
on Dec 21, 2016 at 5:57 pm

The Truth is a registered user.

You could request a copy from the defendant (City of Mountain View) by contacting the City Attorney or from Juliet Brodie who likely obtained it from the City of MV.

You can also take up the transparency issue with the State of CA, that is how the courts operate, they don't have the systems to capture and display filings in real time.

It is not the obligation of the plaintiff to publicly publish their complaint, they have other fish to fry, namely preventing other innocent people from having their hard earned property taken from them.


3 people like this
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Dec 21, 2016 at 6:46 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

The Truth

Thanks, I will try to do that instead tomorrow.

But you just made a weird statement:

It is not the obligation of the plaintiff to publicly publish their complaint, they have other fish to fry, namely preventing other innocent people from having their hard earned property taken from them.

To prove that a property has been taken, there must be some document issued by the government that formally states that the property is being seized. Otherwise, the property has not been "taken" by anyone.

Remember a property value is not guaranteed to anyone. The fact is that the government is immune to the consequence of inverse condemnation. That is defined as:

Inverse condemnation is a term used in the law to describe a situation in which the government takes private property but fails to pay the compensation required by the 5th Amendment of the Constitution, so the property's owner has to sue to obtain the required just compensation.

But the property has not been taken because there is no seizure of property in this case. Also if you look at Dale v. City of Mountain View
[Civ. No. 35304. Court of Appeals of California, First Appellate District, Division Two. February 6, 1976.]:

J. and F. Dale, the property owners, appeal from a judgment of dismissal entered after the court sustained without leave to amend fn. 1 the general demurrer of the City of Mountain View to Dales' complaint for declaratory relief and inverse condemnation. 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.

My research found:

It is not always clear which regulations constitute takings, and why. The government absolutely must compensate property owners for regulations requiring a physical invasion of private property, even if it is a small invasion. On the other hand, the government generally does not need to compensate for the effects of health and safety regulations or simple changes in the law. See the CRS Annotated Constitution for more details.

Land Use Regulation
Many regulatory takings disputes arise in the context of land use regulation. The Supreme Court does not require government compensation where such regulations "substantially advance[s] legitimate governmental interests," and so long as the regulations do not prevent a property owner from making “economically viable use of his land.” Agins v. City of Tiburon, 447 U.S. 255 (1980).

Public Purpose
In the past, courts narrowly interpreted the Fifth Amendment to only allow the government to seize property for highways, government offices, military bases, and the like. Now, courts more broadly interpret the amendment to allow the government to seize property if doing so will increase the general public welfare, such as when the government uses eminent domain to seize private property to facilitate a private development that will raise the government's tax revenues. See Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S> 469 (2005).

How much Compensation is Just?
Generally, the government must pay the market value of seized property. There are, however, many exceptions. The government need not compensate a property owner for the portion of the property's value created by that government. For example, in United States v. Fuller, 409 U.S. 488 (1973), the Supreme Court held that when the federal government condemned a rancher's grazing land, it did not owe compensation for the portion of the land's value derived from its proximity to adjacent, federally owned grazing land.(Web Link)

In almost every case discussed, the property must be seized. But the property is not seized in Measure V.

Also:

"III. THE DETAILS OF THE FIVE KINDS OF TAKING CLAIMS

A. Per Se/Categorical Takings

These are the total taking situations described above[3] (i.e., no economically beneficial use remains after regulation or the regulation requires government to physically occupy some part, or all of, one’s land). Once a categorical taking is established, the burden shifts to government to establish why the prohibition is constitutional. This requires a showing by government that the prohibition is contemplated under the title to the subject property or that the uses of the property constitute a common law nuisance. Of course, the best defense to these claims is the regulation does not amount to a categorical taking at all; i.e., there is some economically beneficial use of property that remains or that the regulation does not require a physical occupation of property.

One area of confusion is that some courts improperly determine that only those physical invasions that interfere with “substantial interests” in property warrant just compensation. See State of Oregon v. Winters, 170 Or App 118 (2000) in which the Oregon Court of Appeals determined that a temporary road easement taken by the state was not a compensable physical invasion style taking. The court determined a compensable taking is generally defined as any “substantial interference with private property rights.” This is wrong and inconsistent with federal law:
“Our cases establish that even a minimal permanent physical occupation of property requires compensation under the taking Clause.” Palazzolo, supra, citing Loretto, supra 458 U.S. 419, 427 (1982).

VIII. SUMMARY

The law of unconstitutional takings is now, and always has been, complex. Local government attorneys and planners should take a hard look at fact situations in light of recent cases and the aggressive planning programs that may significantly alter settled expectations regarding property investments. There is little room for automatic reactions that any case is, or is not, a taking. Rather, such determinations about whether a particular regulation works a taking, can only be made based on thoughtful analysis and consideration.

Clearly, a property owner cannot be required to give up a constitutional right in exchange for a governmental benefit where the right sacrificed has little or no relationship to the benefit. If government imposes regulations on private property to such an extent that they take all economically beneficial use of property; so interfere with settled expectations so as to constitute a partial taking; or require the application of unconstitutional conditions, then government may impose the regulation, but it must pay the property owner just compensation when it does so."
(Web Link)

In this situation Measure V does not seize any property and it does not impair a property owner of all economic beneficial use of the property is in effect.




4 people like this
Posted by mike rose
a resident of another community
on Dec 21, 2016 at 7:23 pm

mike rose is a registered user.

The Business Man,
You seem to be very knowledgeable person.
Could you explain what this portion of your latest quota mean and is it applicable to Measure V:

"... so interfere with settled expectations so as to constitute a partial taking....";


5 people like this
Posted by mike rose
a resident of another community
on Dec 21, 2016 at 7:43 pm

mike rose is a registered user.

I guess I found the answer and it clearly establishes partial taking subject to just compensation:

...What does a consideration of investment-backed expectations add to
taking theory? Landowner expectations must now be protected if they
are investment-backed. A well-established doctrine in land use law
provides protection for landowner expectations of this type. The estoppel
and vested rights doctrines protect a landowner from a change in
land use regulations if he makes substantial expenditures on a development
project in good faith reliance on a government act.8 Most courts
find an estoppel or a vested right only if the landowner acts in reliance
on a building permit.9 The estoppel and vested rights doctrines are a
clear judicial recognition of investment-backed expectations. The expectation
is created by the issuance of a building permit, and is investment-
backed by the landowner's good faith reliance expenditures....


3 people like this
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Dec 21, 2016 at 8:14 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

The Truth

The wikipedia article that resulted from your phrase in the last post indicated this text:

Since Mahon, we have given some, but not too specific, guidance to courts confronted with deciding whether a particular government action goes too far and effects a regulatory taking. First, we have observed, with certain qualifications, that a regulation which "denies all economically beneficial or productive use of land" will require compensation under the Takings Clause. Agins v. City of Tiburon, 447 U.S. 255 (1980). Where a regulation places limitations on land that fall short of eliminating all economically beneficial use, a taking nonetheless may have occurred, depending on a complex of factors including the regulation's economic effect on the landowner, the extent to which the regulation interferes with reasonable investment-backed expectations, and the character of the government action. Penn Central, supra, at 124, 98 S.Ct. 2646. These inquiries are informed by the purpose of the Takings Clause, which is to prevent the government from "forcing some people alone to bear public burdens which, in all fairness and justice, should be borne by the public as a whole." Armstrong v. United States, 364 U.S. 40 (1960)[3]"(Web Link)

the key phrase is:

reasonable investment-backed expectations,

The problem with this phrase given the case of:

"Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 1, California.

Marvin B. GRAHAM, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., et al., Defendants and Respondents.

D063779

Decided: May 23, 2014 G


Marvin B. Graham borrowed money to purchase a house in 2004.   Approximately seven years later, he defaulted on his loan and received a notice of sale.   Graham filed this action to halt foreclosure proceedings and to cancel the note.   He contends the “defendants' Lending Personnel” 1 made fraudulent misrepresentations or omissions by stating the appraised fair market value of his home in 2004 was “increasing” and that the loan was “good for [him],” while allegedly knowing the appraisal was “outrageously speculative.”   Taking issue with industry-wide mortgage banking practices, Graham seeks to hold the defendants responsible for the decline in his property value as well as the collapse of the real estate market.

Graham appeals a judgment of dismissal after the court sustained a demurrer to his second amended complaint (SAC) without leave to amend.   He contends he sufficiently alleged facts to support his causes of action for fraud and deceit, violations of Business and Professions Code section 17200 2 and declaratory relief.   He also contends it was an abuse of discretion to deny further leave to amend.   We affirm."

This case defended by the Bank of America, established that the law does not recognize that any appraisal made regarding property in the state of California and cannot be cause of legal action.

What is the reasonable investment-backed expectations in California regarding real estate?

This Court case says that there is no reasonable investment backed expectation regarding real estate. That is because all appraisals in California are only opinions or estimations at best. That is because of the following text:

"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."

Given this record, the appraisal value does not qualify as a reasonable investment backed expectation, it is only an estimation. Any person signing a mortgage is not making an investment per se, it is a purchase of property.

It does not qualify as a reasonable investment backed expectation because the opinion of value is not reasonably established, it is arbitrarily determined based on manipulated elements in a variety of formulas, it is just an estimate. It is not a scientific or evidence based determination nor does the purchase contract express any expectation of return on investment.

Only if a non-residential purchase could be negotiated where said reasonable investment backed expectation is agreed to, can a person reasonably expect any return on investment. But this simply does not and could not be an enforceable contract.

Market values in real estate changes, and it would be unreasonable to have the government responsible to back any real estate investment, based on only an opinion or estimated value.

In order for the CAA or Landlord to be qualify under this logic, the law of California must establish that the previous ruling is invalid, that all appraisals are actionable cause of action for anyone. But the Bank of America threw all of the real estate purchasers under the bus in order to protect itself from liability of false appraisals. Complain to the Bank of America.

Do not penalize those who did not convince or coerce anyone to buy any properties. And learn that until the law says so, any estimation is only that, an estimation.


9 people like this
Posted by mike rose
a resident of another community
on Dec 21, 2016 at 8:38 pm

mike rose is a registered user.

Wow, you don't make a distinction between government backed and privately backed reasonable investment backed expectations?
That is a major mistake on your part.
And you are stressing the phrase "reasonable investment based expectations".
I take in your opinion would be unreasonable in 1920, when building was built with a permit, not to expect imposition of government regulations in 2017 such as government sanctioning of permanent occupation of your property without just compensation. That was easy and reasonable to predict then, wasn't it?


10 people like this
Posted by mike rose
a resident of another community
on Dec 21, 2016 at 8:45 pm

mike rose is a registered user.

And then you quote this:

...These inquiries are informed by the purpose of the Takings Clause, which is to prevent the government from "forcing some people alone to bear public burdens which, in all fairness and justice, should be borne by the public as a whole." Armstrong v. United States, 364 U.S. 40 (1960)[3]"(Web Link)...

Which is exactly what Measure V is doing.

I think you just copy and paste articles without understanding them.


9 people like this
Posted by mike rose
a resident of another community
on Dec 21, 2016 at 9:02 pm

mike rose is a registered user.

Appraisal is irrelevant totally here !!!!
It is the change of USE of the property, this is what you, proponents of rent control always claim. You always tie the rent control issue to zoning issues. It is the permanent occupation part, the unjust compensation is inherent to the premise of rent control itself, as it is designed to be a "below market" rental scheme by own admission of the rent control proponents. This is the goal and whole purpose of rent control after all. So the notion that you have to PROVE, by obtaining an appraisal, that rent controlled rents are below market and therefore not "just compensation" is insane.


3 people like this
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Dec 21, 2016 at 9:22 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

The Truth

You state:

Wow, you don't make a distinction between government backed and privately backed reasonable investment backed expectations?

No I do not, the courts have not either. A "Privately" backed investment does not have a special considerations. The Constitution requires equal treatment for both situations. Measure V does not treat government backed investments differently than private.

You stated:

And you are stressing the phrase "reasonable investment based expectations".

Yes I am because the wording of the decision as written is:

Where a regulation places limitations on land that fall short of eliminating all economically beneficial use, a taking nonetheless may have occurred, depending on a complex of factors including the regulation's economic effect on the landowner, the extent to which the regulation interferes with reasonable investment-backed expectations, and the character of the government action. Penn Central, supra, at 124, 98 S.Ct. 2646.

Antonin Scalia states the following:

The seller shall provide:
(a) a survey of the property;
(b) the surveyor’s sworn certificate that the survey is authentic and, to the best of the surveyor’s knowledge, accurate;
(c) a policy of title insurance showing the boundaries of the property;
(d) a plat showing the metes and bounds of the property.

This technique is termed asyndeton, and it is generally considered to convey the same meaning as the syndetic or polysyndetic formulation: It is as though “and” were inserted between the items. But because such a construction could be read as a disjunctive formulation, most drafters avoid it. (Scalia, Antonin; Garner, Bryan A. (2012-07-05). Scalia and Garner's Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts (Kindle Locations 1863-1909). Thomson West. Kindle Edition.)

This simple issue is here is that if there is no taking without the required complete judicial determination that reasonable investment backed expectations in fact exist.

Antonin Scalia is as conservative as they come, he is a strict constitutional interpreter. Until the CAA or Landlord can demonstrate that the real estate market is "investment-backed" meaning that the property is in fact, totally owned by the landlord and not mortgaged, then the CAA or Landlord in fact does not "own" the property. Otherwise, they own a percentage of the property.

For example, say a landlord purchased a property 10 years ago, but the property is on a 30 year mortgage. That would mean that the person would actually only owns 33% of the property, the bank owns the rest. Isn't that the truth?

Real Estate is not investment-backed until the property is fully paid for. Otherwise, this is a credit-backed investment.

This would result in a failure to state any cause of action in the Measure V situation. Because the prerequisite "investment-backing" does not exist.




7 people like this
Posted by The Truth
a resident of North Whisman
on Dec 22, 2016 at 10:47 am

The Truth is a registered user.


The filing is here, transparently posted by the CAA and thankfully temporary justice has beef served today.

God bless America.

Web Link


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

All your news. All in one place. Every day.

Squid ink paella & patatas bravas: Barcelona natives bring Spanish tapas to Palo Alto
By Elena Kadvany | 1 comment | 3,463 views

Lights Out! Foods to Snuggle With in the Dark
By Laura Stec | 0 comments | 1,939 views

Premarital and Couples: The "Right" Way to Eat an Artichoke
By Chandrama Anderson | 1 comment | 1,323 views

What did you learn last week?
By Sherry Listgarten | 3 comments | 777 views

 

Race Results Are In

Thank you for joining us at the 35th annual Moonlight Run & Walk! All proceeds benefit the Palo Alto Weekly Holiday fund, supporting local nonprofits serving children and families.

Click for Race Results