Landlords take Measure V to court | Town Square | Mountain View Online |

Town Square

Post a New Topic

Landlords take Measure V to court

Original post made on Dec 21, 2016

Two days from being enacted, Mountain View's voter-approved rent-control law, Measure V, is being challenged and potentially halted by a lawsuit by landlord advocates.


Read the full story here Web Link posted Wednesday, December 21, 2016, 4:52 PM

Comments (110)

13 people like this
Posted by The Truth
a resident of North Whisman
on Dec 21, 2016 at 5:18 pm

The Truth is a registered user.


From the SCC County of Santa Clara website, It's On!



Case Information




16CV304253 | California Apartment Association vs City of Mountain View





Case Number
16CV304253


Court
Superior Court of Santa Clara - Civil


File Date
12/21/2016



Case Type
Other Complaint (Not Spec) Unlimited (42)


Case Status
Active






Party




Plaintiff
California Apartment Association





Active Attorneys




Lead Attorney

Pahl, Stephen D.

Retained

Work Phone
408-286-5100


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Defendant
City of Mountain View








Events and Hearings




12/21/2016 Civil Case Cover Sheet




12/21/2016 Complaint (Unlimited) (Fee Applies)




12/21/2016 Summons: Issued/Filed




12/21/2016 Proof of Service: Summons DLR (Civil)




04/18/2017 Conference: Case Management 


Judicial Officer
Elfving, William J

Hearing Time
2:15 PM


169 people like this
Posted by Wishful thinking
a resident of Rex Manor
on Dec 21, 2016 at 9:56 pm

I doubt it will do any good, but I would sure be happy if it was repealed. Such a ridiculous law.


16 people like this
Posted by Frank Richards
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Dec 21, 2016 at 11:29 pm

Frank Richards is a registered user.

"Wishful thinking," like I said in the other Measure V thread, this is an important lesson for all of us as to what happens when problems in our community are left unaddressed. We've had more than enough time to address the housing crisis, but we ignored it for far too long while rents skyrocketed. The best we can hope for now is to address the housing crisis so that Measure V becomes irrelevant.


23 people like this
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Dec 22, 2016 at 5:23 am

The Business Man is a registered user.

What disturbs me in the situation is that since the City Constitution was changed, and the City Council and the City Attorney is choosing not to represent the citizens of Mountain View regarding the restraining order.

Under the California and US. Constitution, the City cannot pick and choose what selectively the City Charter. In fact if you read the following:

CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE

Mission Statement
To provide legal services and counsel to the City, including City Council, boards, commissions, and City officers and employees; and participate as a member of the management team in support of City departments.

About Us
The City Attorney is appointed by the City Council as the Attorney for the City and legal advisor to the City Council.

The City Attorney hires subordinate attorneys to assist in the discharge of assigned responsibilities. The City Attorney's Office defends and prosecutes or retains counsel to defend and prosecute all civil actions and proceedings to which the City is a party and prosecutes all criminal actions involving the City Code. City Code Enforcement is under the direct supervision of the Assistant City Attorney. Staff is responsible for enforcing the City Code provisions relating to zoning, neighborhood preservation, and vehicles on private property.

The City Attorney's Office represents and advises the Council, boards, commissions, departments, and all City officials in matters of law and necessary drafts of legal documents, ordinances, resolutions, contracts, and other documents pertaining to the City's business.

The Office is also responsible for providing legal services in connection with the Shoreline Regional Park (North Bayshore), Downtown Parking District, and Downtown Revitalization Authority.(Web Link)


THe most important part that the City Attorney is violating is:

The City Attorney's Office defends and prosecutes or retains counsel to DEFEND AND PROSECUTE ALL CIVIL ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS to which the City is a party and prosecutes all criminal actions involving the City Code. City Code Enforcement is under the direct supervision of the Assistant City Attorney.

In this case the defendant in the case filed is the City of Mountain View, thus the City Attorney is required under the law and the California Equal Protection Clause and the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment requirement of equal enforcement of the Laws.

Proof of this is right here:

16CV304253 | California Apartment Association vs City of Mountain View

Court
Superior Court of Santa Clara - Civil
File Date
12/21/2016
Case Type
Other Complaint (Not Spec) Unlimited (42)
Case Status
Active

By refusing to defend the Mountain View Citizens, the City Attorney will in fact be committing an act that can result in disciplinary action with the California Bar because the text from the City's own website obligates the City Attorney to defend the City regarding its Charter.

The City Attorney can be argued as committing Attorney Misconduct under Rule 8.4 which states:

Rule 8.4 of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct contains the following statements on attorney misconduct:

It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:

(a) Violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another;
(b) Commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects;
(c) Engage in conduct involving dishonesty, Fraud, deceit or misrepresentation;
(d) Engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice;
(e) State or imply an ability to influence improperly a government agency or official;
(f) Knowingly assist a judge or judicial officer in conduct that is a violation of applicable rules of judicial conduct or other law. (Web Link)

Most specifically since the City Attorney has represented that they are obligated to "The City Attorney's Office defends and prosecutes or retains counsel to DEFEND AND PROSECUTE ALL CIVIL ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS to which the City is a party and prosecutes all criminal actions involving the City Code. City Code Enforcement is under the direct supervision of the Assistant City Attorney. "

And this attorney chooses to not act on that obligation, this is clear conduct involving dishonesty, Fraud, deceit or misrepresentation. This is not a trivial matter because the california laws state:

1. Tortious Misrepresentation

In tort law, three types of misrepresentation are actionable27—willful, negligent, and innocent.28 Liability in tort for misrepresentation is further distinguished according to whether the resulting harm is economic or physical.29 Although the tort of misrepresentation usually involves an interest in being free from economic loss due to the false statements of another person,30 there can also be liability for non-economic losses, such as physical injury or emotional distress.31 Consequently, a person harmed by another’s deceit can seek legal redress in a civil case for pecuniary or physical damage by relying on a tort32 cause of action for misrepresentation.33 The standard of liability depends upon whether the misrepresentation was fraudulent, negligent, or innocent.

The citizens of Mountain View relay on the declarations made on the City website, and if the website is in fact not accurate that would be a false statement that encourages citizens to act where significant harm resulted. But it would appear in it's face to be completely accurate and the course of action the City is taking is a violation of the legal requirements of the City Attorney as state on their website to act due to the fact that the City is the defendant in this case.

I am surprised that this attorney would choose to act in such an unprofessional manner.


67 people like this
Posted by The Truth
a resident of North Whisman
on Dec 22, 2016 at 7:44 am

The Truth is a registered user.

The Council and City Attorney by choosing not to defend Measure V are looking out for the best interest of the City which is their true responsibility. The expense of litigation plus the consumption of City Staff time is not worth the cost when measure V benefits a select few at the expense of everyone else.

Everyone else will have to suffer with increased rents, decreased tax revenues and the general deterioration of our community.

Measure V can't be described as the will of the people when 47% of the people voted against it and the people that benefit from it (and voted for it) are paying nothing for it..

Once its disastrous outcome is realized, enough people should wake up to repeal it in 2018 if the current effort by CAA can't squash it. Thank goodness for the efforts of organizations like the CAA and the Pacific Law Alliance to keep American capitalism alive, looking forward also to a US Supreme Court that will likely address the travesty that is rent comtrol once and for all, if V is claimed to be the will to of the people in Mountain View, then so is the admistration of President Elect Trump.

Yes, it can be done.

Si, Se Puede!


15 people like this
Posted by Charlie
a resident of Monta Loma
on Dec 22, 2016 at 8:15 am

@the business man - I saw nowhere stating that the city attorney will not be defending the suit. All I see in the article is that they're not defending the order to delay taking effect until after the litigation is complete. That seems like an effective strategy for allocating the resources they have.


8 people like this
Posted by mvresident2002
a resident of Monta Loma
on Dec 22, 2016 at 10:38 am

mvresident2002 is a registered user.

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]


17 people like this
Posted by george drysdale
a resident of another community
on Dec 22, 2016 at 10:41 am

This is shaping up to be the number one lesson plan in economics. Rent control is the most studied subject in economics. The Mountain View city council is courageous unlike the craven Palo Alto city council regarding the Buena Vista trailer park. Silicon Valley might lead in taking out rent control in California then New York and on to Stockholm where there are also price controls on rentals. George Drysdale a social studies teacher


42 people like this
Posted by Let The Insanity Begin
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Dec 22, 2016 at 10:52 am

@The Business Man: The Act is NOT part of the City Charter as of yet. That's the point of the restraining order. The city attorney has no duty to defend the Act since it is not yet part of the City Charter. Simply put, the Act is a poorly written and impossible to implement document, many parts cobbled together haphazardly and verbatim from the Berkeley rent control ordinance. Since the City of Mountain View can not provide a Rental Housing Committee or Hearing Officers by 12/23/16 (latest guess is late February or March), the Act would immediately become a taking of property without due process (5th Amendment to the US Constitution). There is no way for a landlord (or tenant for that matter) to petition for relief as GUARANTEED in the Act since there are no rules, regulations, housing registration mechanism, petition forms or staff in place to deal with implementing any aspect of the Act. It is therefore an unenforceable document which the City would be well served to avoid having in their Charter until the multitude of conflicting language and inability to implement it legal (if any) Sections is straightened out.

Two quick examples of the endless problems with the Act:

The Act removes every City of Mountain View ordinance dealing with rents or evictions if those ordinances were put there by the City Council [Sec. 1717(a)]. This includes the "Right to Lease" and "Relocation Assistance" ordinances. Thousands of MV tenants are currently occupying apartments under legally binding lease agreements IMPOSED by the City of Mountain View.

At lease 10 of the 19 legally required "findings" recited at the beginning of the Article misled the public during the petition and election process.

The entire Act is superseded by a landlord's "guaranteed right" [Section 1711(m)] to a fair rate of return which can be awarded at any time, even retroactively, and has no upward limit on a rent increase [Section 1707(e)].

The Mountain View Tenants Coalition would probably be better served suing the attorneys who help them draft this absurd document for gross negligence and malpractice.


20 people like this
Posted by mike rose
a resident of another community
on Dec 22, 2016 at 10:55 am

mike rose is a registered user.

First I have to make a disclaimer that I am not a lawyer and may be wrong, but did some reading on the legal issues relevant in this case, and would like to throw it in for discussion.
I think CAA has pretty good chances proving unconstitutional taking without just compensation in case of Measure V.
First of all, the taking does need to be total, partial taking is considered legally unconstitutional taking, also requiring "just compensation", when property use is limited (not totally eliminated) by government act.
Supreme Court added the consideration of INVESTMENT-BACKED EXPECTATION to taking theory.
Basically it states that Landowner expectations MUST be protected constitutionally if they are investment-backed.
This doctrine protects a landowner from a CHANGE IN LAND USE REGULATIONS if he makes substantial expenditures on development project in good faith reliance on government act. Most courts affirm this right if the landowner acts in reliance on a building permit.
The expectation is created by the issuance of a building permit, and is investment-backed by the landowner's good faith reliance expenditures.
To make it simple, unconstitutional taking by the government without just compensation occurs when change in regulations (rent control) occurs after the landowner incurred cost associated with property development (erecting rental property) relying on the building permit and regulations existing at that time.
It is my personal opinion that the SCOTUS is itching to get a case like this, to once and for all eradicate rent control in US.
In 2012 Harmon case raised hopes for SCOTUS review of the rent control constitutionality. In this case the 2nd Circuit Court of appeals blew over the Harmons case claiming that they bought the rent controlled property AFTER the rent regulation was in place, therefore he should have relied on the regulations that existed at the time they made their expenditures.
Nevertheless the SCOTUS expressed interest, and asked for additional briefs. At the end it decided not to take the case, without giving a reason.Web Link
This initial interest and more favorable legal circumstances referenced above as to Measure V, may induce the SCOTUS to revisit the issue in the near future, if California courts rulings are unfavorable to landowners.
Ironically, tenants organizing Measure V may bring not only their own demise, but also other rent control jurisdictions nationwide.


48 people like this
Posted by The Truth
a resident of North Whisman
on Dec 22, 2016 at 11:33 am

The Truth is a registered user.

That is one tasty potential outcome suggested by Mike Rose, complete poetic justice to those who would overreach by taking more than they needed to. Measure V is definitely not constructed in an air tight manner, that is what you get for pro bono legal services rooted more in emotion and ideaology than reality.

We all agree there is a housing shortage in MV, but the tenants coalition using that as a prop to deprive a subset of property owners of their rights to line their own pockets is plain Un-American.

God bless the USA!


18 people like this
Posted by mvresident2002
a resident of Monta Loma
on Dec 22, 2016 at 11:38 am

mvresident2002 is a registered user.

I'd suggest you not take legal advice from Mike Rose. The most likely outcome will be that the courts will uphold Measure V's rent stabilization, but I'll let you have your fun in the interim. Once it's upheld, though, it's going to be delightful to see you all eat crow. I expect that the comments on the articles about Measure V will drop off rapidly, however :)


14 people like this
Posted by The Truth
a resident of North Whisman
on Dec 22, 2016 at 12:07 pm

The Truth is a registered user.

Even when the kangaroo California courts inevitably uphold some or all of V, the CAA and its members won't go away, the City Council won't go away and the incoming President elect will change the makeup of the SCOTUS in favor of traditional American business values and work ethic. America did not get to where it is in its brief history by taking rights and property away from its most productive citizens. [Portion removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]


12 people like this
Posted by mvresident2002
a resident of Monta Loma
on Dec 22, 2016 at 12:27 pm

mvresident2002 is a registered user.

Again, I'd not take legal advice from Mike Rose, and you've bought in to the fantasy of the Supreme Court overturning rent stabilization. [Portion removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]


24 people like this
Posted by The Truth
a resident of North Whisman
on Dec 22, 2016 at 12:40 pm

The Truth is a registered user.

Crow can be quite delicious Web Link
No matter what happens (nobody can predict the future) most property owners will be fine as the skills acquired to reach the station they are at in life are redeployable and cannot be taken away, unfortunately it won't be in Mountain View.


8 people like this
Posted by Person
a resident of Willowgate
on Dec 22, 2016 at 1:29 pm

1) I wonder what it would be like if the adults left the personal insults out of the posts, and stuck to the topic?

2) When/where is the protest?


4 people like this
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Dec 22, 2016 at 1:38 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

The Truth,

As Ronald Reagan would say, there you go again.

You take great liberties in not providing an accurate picture. Yes the ENFORCABLILTY provision of Measure V is delayed until Dec. 23. But that does not mean the law does not exist.

Accurate Timeline:

Nov. 8th the election took place

Dec. 8th the votes were certified by the Santa Clara Registrar of Voters.

BUT Dec. 13th the City Council certified the election results that meant that the City Council entered the charter amendment on THAT day. There was an enforceability delay yes, but the measure was adopted explicitly on that day and thus on that day the City of Mountain View officially included the measure as law. That is when the constitutional requirement of equal enforcement of the laws became an obligation to the city.

Given that fact, the City has not complied with the requirement to defend the entire law. The city cannot pick and choose what charters, laws, or “parts” of law it will defend. Even if a law has a “sevThe Truth,

As Ronald Reagan would say, there you go again.

You take great liberties in not providing an accurate picture. Yes the ENFORCABLILTY provision of Measure V is delayed until Dec. 23. But that does not mean the law does not exist.

Accurate Timeline:

Nov. 8th the election took place

Dec. 8th the votes were certified by the Santa Clara Registrar of Voters.

BUT Dec. 13th the City Council certified the election results that meant that the City Council entered the charter amendment on THAT day. There was an enforceability delay yes, but the measure was adopted explicitly and thus on that day the City of Mountain View officially included the measure as law. That is when the constitutional requirement of equal enforcement of the laws became an obligation to the city.

Given that fact, the City has not complied with the requirement to defend the entire law. The city cannot pick and choose what charters, laws, or “parts” of law it will defend. Even if a law has a “severability” clause, the City cannot partially defend a law on the books based on that.

Antonin Scalia said it clear, you must act on the entirety of the law, or the law becomes invalid because it is not enforced in it’s entirety. Selective enforcement or defense of a charter, law or part of either is a capricious and arbitrary act which is forbidden in the US based on the California and US Constitution. The City of Mountain View clearly know it.

So if the City Attorney did not argue against the restraining order regarding roll-back, the court order is invalid. The Citizens of Mountain View were provided defective representation in the court when the City Attorney only partially defended Measure V in court. This is cause for immediate reversal, and should be pursued.

This raises serious questions on whether the Attorney had committed attorney misconduct in this case because of making misrepresentation in court.
Even if a charter or law contains a "severability” clause, the City cannot partially defend a law on the books based on that, it must defend it until a court rules that such part of the law is unconstitutional.

The City cannot make judicial decisions on it's own because the City Council nor the City Attorney are Judges. Only judges can make that determination as to whether a law is constitutional as a jurisdictional matter

Antonin Scalia said it clear, you must act on the entirety of the law, or the law becomes invalid because it is not enforced in it’s entirety. Selective enforcement or defense of a charter, law or part of either is a capricious and arbitrary act which is forbidden in the US based on the California and US Constitution. The City of Mountain View clearly know it.

So if the City Attorney did not argue against the restraining order regarding roll-back, the court order is invalid. The Citizens of Mountain View were provided defective representation in the court when the City Attorney only partially defended Measure V in court. This is cause for immediate reversal, and should be pursued. This raises serious questions on whether the Attorney had committed attorney misconduct in this case because of making misrepresentation in court.

And as a interesting note, since the court order was made today Dec. 22nd, it may become invalid because the enforceability of the charter did not begin until tomorrow. A peremptory restraining order is valid only if there is clear evidence that the charter or law is unconstitutional and the determination of "Irreparable Harm" will occur if the charter or laws is enforced. Since Market value is not constant, and the real estate market is very efficient in self-correction. Any delay of a restraining order will not cause "Irreparable Harm", the market will self-correct after the law is determined unconstitutional or not.

Only if the CAA is declaring that a landlord must sell a property immediately could it be argued that harm is occurring. How many landlords are trying to get out of Mountain View? How fast can a property be sold? Most negotiations can take as much as 3 months, and negotiations are not being impaired by Measure V. The property owner has complete freedom to do with their property what they want regarding transfer of ownership.
of


3 people like this
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Dec 22, 2016 at 1:42 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

sorry for fragmentation in the previous post


18 people like this
Posted by Gary
a resident of Sylvan Park
on Dec 22, 2016 at 1:57 pm

Gary is a registered user.

I see that the City Attorney signed a stipulation on December 21 that the Court temporarily restrain the start of the rent control law but not the City Council's urgency ordinance. There is no telling whether the judge read anything but the agreement. And the danger going forward is that the City, with six of seven councilmembers and the city manager against the rent control law, will not defend the charter amendment seriously or at all. As such, other interested parties should sue. I will not get into the details on how to do that here.


3 people like this
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Dec 22, 2016 at 2:28 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

The city council has proven to not understand that they are not in a position to make a determination regarding the "Constitutionality" of anything. I agree that the City has opened itself to severe problems in court by overstepping it's authority in not complying with the Charter as of Dec 13th.

I would like to see the explanation that the City of Mountain View must provide to it's citizens regarding its efforts to in effect attack it's own citizens.

It reminds me of the Time Machine, the City Council are Morlocks and the Citizens are Eloi.

THey are ready to eat the citizens at any time.



16 people like this
Posted by Martin Omander
a resident of Rex Manor
on Dec 22, 2016 at 3:14 pm

Frank Richards has it right. We need to address the root problem, which is that there is far more demand than supply of housing in our beautiful city. This is increasing rents and mortgages to harmful levels. We can either reduce demand (unclear how) or increase supply (allow builders to build).

In my humble opinion, Measure V and the accompanying lawsuit are sideshows that will have little impact beyond distracting us from solving the real problem.


22 people like this
Posted by Too much greed
a resident of Shoreline West
on Dec 22, 2016 at 3:22 pm

So, tenants were unhappy that landlords were being greedy (according to the pro-V side). They write a measure that doesn't just stop rents from increasing, but actually goes backward in time to set rates. I voted against V because I felt the tenants were being too greed in the opposite direction. Will be interesting to see how this plays out.

I agree with Martin - let's solve the root problem: we need more housing at a variety of price points. Mountain View is being a great leader at this so far. I'm proud of our council.


8 people like this
Posted by Reality
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Dec 22, 2016 at 4:09 pm

A simple "litmus test" question to be answered is, "Would white supremacist groups be more or less opposed to Measure V than the general population." Once this is ascertained, it is clear the direction this city should be moving to.

To be absolutely clear, we should support polices that hate groups oppose.


11 people like this
Posted by Steve
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Dec 22, 2016 at 4:34 pm

A simple "litmus test" question to be answered is, "Would leftist anti-American groups be more or less opposed to Measure V than the general population." Once this is ascertained, it is clear the direction this city should be moving to.

To be absolutely clear, we should support polices that hate groups oppose.


46 people like this
Posted by Mt. View Neighbor
a resident of North Whisman
on Dec 22, 2016 at 4:49 pm

Nice to hear all the legal predictions. I'm still devastated for those property owners who invested their life savings, waited two decades for the property to have a positive cash flow, only to have their delayed profitability cancelled and passed on to greedy tenants who have a higher annual income than the property they live in. This isn't wealthy people who own these older buildings, it's your neighbor.


10 people like this
Posted by mike rose
a resident of another community
on Dec 22, 2016 at 4:50 pm

mike rose is a registered user.

To all of the commenters that indicate increasing of the housing supply as a solution now:
You are out of touch with reality.
This dog won't hunt any more.
Passing of rent control is NOT supply neutral. It has an adverse, chilling and irreversible effect on housing supply. Look at all the other cities with rent control.
Passing of rent control essentially GUARANTEES that no private developer with the right mind will ever want to put his money at risk and build here.
Who will build then? Maybe government - public housing projects. Good luck with that!!!!


12 people like this
Posted by mvresident2002
a resident of Monta Loma
on Dec 22, 2016 at 5:07 pm

mvresident2002 is a registered user.

Again, no one take Mike Rose's advice, legal or otherwise. If he lived here, he'd know that any new construction will not have rent stabilization, so adding more housing is a great solution to our problems. He's completely ignorant of Measure V and our wonderful city!


30 people like this
Posted by Mike Rose
a resident of another community
on Dec 22, 2016 at 5:25 pm

... new construction will have no rent stabilization....
Really? Is there a guarantee? Or the costa Hawkins could be overturned by statewide initiative?
There is push for overturning happening now already. It is not a matter of if but when.
California is becoming more progressive (communist) by hour.
What right minded developer would risk all of his money in this environment?


5 people like this
Posted by mvresident2002
a resident of Monta Loma
on Dec 22, 2016 at 5:33 pm

mvresident2002 is a registered user.

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]


17 people like this
Posted by The Truth
a resident of North Whisman
on Dec 22, 2016 at 5:44 pm

The Truth is a registered user.

mvresident2002 seems threatened by any reasonable view that differs from his/her own.

New development requires some % of units to be set aside for below market rate so that plus no assurance something communist like measure V happens = invest elsewhere.

Meanwhile rents go up for everyone except a special protected class who are beneficiaries of circumstance. How can there be no means or illegal alien status test to determine eligibility for government mandated benefits? Aliens without authorization to live here permanently should not receive this benefit nor should people with means to pay market rate.

How is it fair that these benefits are paid for only by a subset of property owners? These property owners could not have known the use of their property would be taken from them without just compensation.

This is why a legal challenge has merit and legs to go to the SCOTUS.


55 people like this
Posted by Mike Rose
a resident of another community
on Dec 22, 2016 at 5:57 pm

Mvresident2002,
I just checked under my bed and you weren't there.


7 people like this
Posted by mvresident2002
a resident of Monta Loma
on Dec 22, 2016 at 5:57 pm

mvresident2002 is a registered user.

Nope, I just have low tolerance for bad arguments. Every investor knows they're exposed to regulatory risk, sometimes you're wrong and you need to roll with the punches. All we know for certain is that the regulation has only just Begun.

And here the conservatives go again, trying to divide up everyone against each other to distract from the people who are gouging them.


54 people like this
Posted by Reality Check
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Dec 22, 2016 at 5:58 pm

@mvresident2002: Right! New construction is unaffected by certain Sections of the Stabilization Act--namely rent control. Adding more housing has had zero effect on solving the housing problem in Mountain View or surrounding communities. All it has done is introduce $2,000 studios, $3,000 one bedrooms and $4,500 two bedrooms. How is that a solution for people living under 80% of the area median income?

Measure V is nothing short of economic discrimination against a class of people, most of whom have made notable financial sacrifices to provide Mountain View's most affordable housing. Costa-Hawkins assures big developers that the burden of affordable housing will always be placed on the little guy rather than them.

The Supreme Court has ruled that homelessness, poverty and shelter for the poor is the responsibility of the entire community, not a certain class of people who happen own building s built before February, 1995.


4 people like this
Posted by mvresident2002
a resident of Monta Loma
on Dec 22, 2016 at 6:07 pm

mvresident2002 is a registered user.

How many times do people need to point out that housing is a good like any other? Increasing the supply of it will lower the price. We have too little supply now, so the wealthy amongst us bid up the prices.


7 people like this
Posted by Mike Rose
a resident of another community
on Dec 22, 2016 at 6:15 pm

For the n-th time. No mew supply will come with rent control in city charter, period.


6 people like this
Posted by Discrimination
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Dec 22, 2016 at 6:39 pm

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment/off-topic]


22 people like this
Posted by Costa-Hawkins
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Dec 22, 2016 at 7:23 pm

The bigger picture is this albatross of a State law (Costa-Hawkins) which assures developers that they can build unaffordable housing all they want and never worry about rent control ever impinging on their profits. Sacramento lobbyists and their lobbyists are ever-present whenever a suggestion comes up about updating Costa-Hawkins.

I own a 4-plex. My neighbor across the street also owns a 4-plex. My neighbors 4-plex was built and occupied in March, 1995. Mine was built and occupied in September 1994. Why am I subjected to rent control while his property across the street isn't?

Simple. Economic discrimination. Taking of property without due process or compensation. Identical buildings, built six months apart and mine is now worth 25% less than his under Measure V. Where's the equality in that?




13 people like this
Posted by Mike Rose
a resident of another community
on Dec 22, 2016 at 8:32 pm

The solution is not to overturn Costa Hawkins but to eliminate rent control.
Costa Hawkins allows for vacancy decontrol at least. So you won't be stuck with controlled low rent when your tenants move out. You can reset the rent to market at that point. Costa Hawkins is GOOD in rent controlled environment.


8 people like this
Posted by mvresident2002
a resident of Monta Loma
on Dec 22, 2016 at 8:40 pm

mvresident2002 is a registered user.

Mike, rent stabilization isn't going to be going away. The solution to the problems is to build more housing to make it irrelevant. We as a community decided that we would protect our renters from predatory landlords, since they proved they wouldn't restrain themselves. The only way out of this for property owners is to make housing prices fall.


6 people like this
Posted by Mike Tose
a resident of another community
on Dec 22, 2016 at 9:50 pm

@mvresideny2002
Trust me, rent control will be history once Measure V reaches or alikes reach US Supreme Court next time.
It has been a total unconstitutional failure so far.
There have not been one positive thing that came out of this and it never will. It has been a failed social experiment everywhere.
So stop your insane urge to steal and get therapy.


10 people like this
Posted by mvresident2002
a resident of Monta Loma
on Dec 22, 2016 at 9:58 pm

mvresident2002 is a registered user.

Mike "Tose" ? Are you a new Mike, the same as mike rose and Mike Rose?

Your advice throughout the thread has ranged from misleading to outright incorrect. I am a landlord and will be affected by Measure V, so I'm stealing from myself, I guess? I've taken care of my tenants and have never gouged them, and still have managed to do great here. It's possible to live an ethical and successful life, more should try it.

But please, continue to insist that Trump will save you. Once this is all thrown out, you're going to tuck your tail and go back to whatever other local papers you troll. We'll never see you again, and our community will be all the better. You're still going to have rent conttol, though.


12 people like this
Posted by Nah
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Dec 22, 2016 at 10:00 pm

Rent control ordinances have been proven constitutional over and over again. To argue otherwise is to demonstrate ones ignorance.

It was known in advance that the ordinance would be out on hold while a legal challenge occurred. When slavery was abolished in the US, there were similar court challenges. Thank goodness we moved past that dark chapter in American History. Rent controls will prevail in time!


4 people like this
Posted by Angel S.
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Dec 23, 2016 at 12:31 am

Angel S. is a registered user.

Seems people against Measure V are racists, classists, Trump supporters in their majority... Their comments and behavior reminiscent of a kid throwing a tantrum when asked to share... shameful and pitiful.

Let's remember:

1) Rent control is not about "living wherever you want". It's about allowing people to live where they ALREADY live and have put years of work and effort to help create OUR community.

2) Rent control is not "stealing". Landlords keep their property and continue getting paid rent.

3) It isn't unconstitutional. Rent control has been deemed constitutional in Federal Court.

4) Measure V and its backers aren't "communist". Everything about Measure V has followed our democratic process.

There are many more points to be made to bring to light the ignorance or malice on some of the commenters here... But what's the point? Seems like most of them have either monetary gain at stake and won't listen to reason. They have way too much time and resources to spend hours commenting and trolling people here. It's futile to try to have a reasonable discussion with them. "Capitalism", "Free market", "Supply and demand", "Communists", "Trump"... those are their mantras... While the majority of us are too busy working to pay their unreasonable rent increases. It's obviously not working for our community.

Btw "the truth"... not "si se puede". YA SE PUDO. If you want to do something wrong and mock people in our community, at least do it right... You should sell your property to the City and go make "Yuge, great investments on Trump steaks, or go get a degree from "Trump's University". Now, that's the wrong thing to do, mocking you, but done right.


66 people like this
Posted by Interested
a resident of Martens-Carmelita
on Dec 23, 2016 at 1:16 am

California, Maryland, New Jersey and New York have rent control ("rent stabilization" is the less offensive word - but nobody is fooled by word-play). The other states outright prohibit rent control, or simply don't have it.

Measure V was poorly crafted and over-reaching. The crafters of this measure have handed the courts exactly what they were looking for to defeat rent control once and for all. Unfortunately, there is no easy solution for people who want to live in a certain style in a certain city. In reality, we can only work hard, have families we can afford, and live within our means.

I'm sure there are a few greedy landlords, but I honestly believe they are in the minority in Mountain View. The fact is that this city is becoming more and more gentrified, something that often happens when a city runs out of land for housing, but continues to attract residents. We aren't an island - there are cities within a decent driving distance with much more affordable rents. Confiscating another's investment is simply not going to work. It has NEVER worked - no matter how many times some of the posters here insist this time it will. We only see investors going to other cities to build, or local investors converting apartments to condos and selling them - reducing available rents even further. The anger, on both sides, is unfortunate and counter-productive. Now the courts will decide.

The proponents of Measure V will have to defend their measure, which was not even passed by a majority of our residents. The Council had a rational approach, but the Measure V people thought they could get something for nothing.... and they will be now left with nothing.

I am truly sorry if someone cannot have what they want, just because they want it - but life doesn't work that way.


4 people like this
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Dec 23, 2016 at 4:30 am

The Business Man is a registered user.

What I have learned so far:

I have copy of the CAA complaint filed in the Santa Clara court. The document did not contain any legal precedence or evidence to support all of the issues raised to the court. It appears to only contain rhetoric that the CAA has stated multiple times.

I have also discovered what California Courts can do regarding issuing a “Restraining Order” under the law. That research states:

California Code of Civil Procedure Section 527

(a) A preliminary injunction may be granted at any time before judgment upon a verified complaint, or upon affidavits if the complaint in the one case, or the affidavits in the other, show satisfactorily that sufficient grounds exist therefor.  No preliminary injunction shall be granted without notice to the opposing party.

(b) A temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction, or both, may be granted in a class action, in which one or more of the parties sues or defends for the benefit of numerous parties upon the same grounds as in other actions, whether or not the class has been certified.

(c) No temporary restraining order shall be granted without notice to the opposing party, unless both of the following requirements are satisfied:

(1) It appears from facts shown by affidavit or by the verified complaint that great or irreparable injury will result to the applicant before the matter can be heard on notice. (Web Link)

However, the court complaint did not in fact demonstrate that it appears from facts shown by affidavit or by the verified complaint that great or irreparable injury will result to the applicant before the matter can be heard on notice. No demonstrated injury or damage was at all demonstrated in the complaint at all.

Also :

(d) In case a temporary restraining order is granted without notice in the contingency specified in subdivision (c):

(1) The matter shall be made returnable on an order requiring cause to be shown why a preliminary injunction should not be granted, on the earliest day that the business of the court will admit of, but not later than 15 days or, if good cause appears to the court, 22 days from the date the temporary restraining order is issued.

(2) The party who obtained the temporary restraining order shall, within five days from the date the temporary restraining order is issued or two days prior to the hearing, whichever is earlier, serve on the opposing party a copy of the complaint if not previously served, the order to show cause stating the date, time, and place of the hearing, any affidavits to be used in the application, and a copy of the points and authorities in support of the application.  The court may for good cause, on motion of the applicant or on its own motion, shorten the time required by this paragraph for service on the opposing party.

(3) When the matter first comes up for hearing, if the party who obtained the temporary restraining order is not ready to proceed, or if the party has failed to effect service as required by paragraph (2), the court shall dissolve the temporary restraining order.

(4) The opposing party is entitled to one continuance for a reasonable period of not less than 15 days or any shorter period requested by the opposing party, to enable the opposing party to meet the application for a preliminary injunction.  If the opposing party obtains a continuance under this paragraph, the temporary restraining order shall remain in effect until the date of the continued hearing. (Web Link)

The way I see it, the City of Mountain View can and must immediately request a continuance because the City and the Citizens are entitled to it under section 4. . If the City does not, this is a clear act of attorney misconduct.

Also on January 22, the City must return to the court because under section 1. And the court must have a hearing on that date. If the City does not do this it will be another act of attorney misconduct.

The CAA must have provided the City of Mountain View a copy of the complaint 2 days prior to the court hearing for the issuance of the restraining order under Section 2. But given that the Case was filed only 24 hours earlier, it would appear that this would violate section 2. Section 2 required that he party who obtained the temporary restraining order shall, within five days from the date the temporary restraining order is issued or two days prior to the hearing, whichever is earlier,… The simple fact is that the court heard the case only 24 hours after the case was filed and the CAA was required to wait at least 48 hours after such time before the hearing could in fact take place. This would mean that the restraining order could in fact be considered void. The city attorney should have been aware of this and the City was simply entitled to have the notice provided at least 48 hours after the case filing and no sooner. This was a clear case of attorney misconduct.

Now when the case returns on January 22 if the CAA is not prepared to argue their case, this would require the court to lift the restraining order under section 3. The CAA must argue their case at that time. Because if the CAA aren’t prepared section 3 clearly states the City is entitled to the order being lifted. If the City doesn’t act to secure this it is attorney misconduct.

I have more to discuss but will wait for the public to digest this information.


9 people like this
Posted by The Truth
a resident of North Whisman
on Dec 23, 2016 at 7:25 am

The Truth is a registered user.

Mountain View residents have already experienced a wave of hostility from people who feel "emboldened" following the passage of Measure V.

It's a scary environment right now, To stay silent is to agree with this; to not act is a form of action.


10 people like this
Posted by Emboldened residents
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Dec 23, 2016 at 8:10 am

Poor landlords and their recently "emboldened tenants". Before Measure V, when a tenant dares to report a problem to the landlord such as broken plumbing or a faulty appliance, they would be ignored. Worse, the landlord would get mad and issue a large rent increase!

Rentals are not a typical "good or service." People LIVE in these things and protections under the law are important. Let's rejoice in the "emboldened" tenants and hope that the City can successfully fight against the shady practices of CAA! Measure V was passed by a majority of voters--the Council better get fully behind it or resign!


18 people like this
Posted by Ignatius
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Dec 23, 2016 at 9:06 am

1. Housing is precisely another "good or service". It is a commodity that is exchanged for something of value. It's how economics works.

2. "Shady practices of CAA". Please elucidate. As far as I can tell, their political expenditures must be reported to the state and their lawsuit is a matter of public record. The system, rightly, insists on transparency. The city has a right to fight the lawsuit. Just as CAA had a right to file it. It's how our legal system works.

3. The individual councilmembers are free to do as they please or support/oppose what they want. Elections are regularly held to gauge whether or not a legislator still has a mandate from those he or she represents. It's how democracy works.


30 people like this
Posted by Just stop
a resident of Rex Manor
on Dec 23, 2016 at 10:07 am

Oh, Angel, just stop. Really. There are many reasons why people are against rent control. I'm against rent control and I'm Mexican and certainly not racist. When you say crazy things like that you turn rational people even more against your cause.

Rent control is destructive to communities, and it is the taking of property. Landlords still tecnically own the property, but are so inhibited by what they can do with it that they often are forced to sell because they make negative income.

I'm against rent control because it has been proven to not be effective in helping the people who need it most. Yes, that's right. It allows people like you to feel like you have helped, but you have not. You have helped a very small number of people - a good number of whom are making over $300,000 a year working in high tech and don't need subsidized housing, but you've hurt many more, including low and middle income families who would like to move here in the future or who need to move from their place for some reason and will never find vacancy for another one. You have also hurt the many middle income landlords renting older properties, while PRometheus and the very wealthy landlords go completely untouched.

All you've done is create arbitrary winners and losers, with no alignment to income or who needs the help. Congratulations for nothing.

Building more, natually afforfable housing like apartments is the only real way to help, but now your Cree has created a distraction of money and resources for the city, delaying pushing forward what would actually help.


7 people like this
Posted by @just stop
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Dec 23, 2016 at 10:21 am

Take your own advice and Just Stop! Rent control is hardly "taking of property". I do agree that there are many stated reasons for opposing rent control, BUT the underlying motivation is often based on unfair discriminatory philosophies. The other dominating one is greed.

Most voters support rent control. My suggestion is to move away to some place that supports the right wing credo of building lots of prisons to employ their undereducated supporters.


16 people like this
Posted by The Truth
a resident of North Whisman
on Dec 23, 2016 at 10:36 am

The Truth is a registered user.

How is it that anyone who rationally opposes rent control and similar legislation are accused of being uneducated, racist, elitist etc?

On top of this, all we hear are anecdotal stories about people being evicted, discriminated against etc. Although it is certain some of this has occurred (not just in Mountain View), it is not the norm and not acceptable to society, this is well documented, this behavior should not be painted as regular and accepted.

If you have been experienced unfairness or discrimination from an employer, landlord or whoever, freedom allows you to seek a better situation or fight back without harming other innocent people.

The way V was written, it harms innocent people, collateral damage Juliet Brodie deems acceptable. Now that is an elitist mindset.


20 people like this
Posted by mvresident2003
a resident of Monta Loma
on Dec 23, 2016 at 10:46 am

mvresident2003 is a registered user.

So typical to deflect from the truth by implying bigotry, racism etc. Where EVER has racism or bigotry come into this discussion except by proponents of rent control? Typical.

Angel, Just Stop has said it best. Your good intentions are very misplaced and the reasoning you use and the implication that those of us who understand sound economics are racist and bigots just serves to further separate us from your cause. I don't know if you've been fed a stream of misinformation by a group with ill intentions or if you just truly choose not to face the facts but unequivocally, rent control does more overall damage than good. As Just Stop said, you may be helping a few people here in the short term but the long term PROVEN implications are not good for any of us in the community.

It's just a shame that you're unable to look past the immediate and yourself and think instead for the long term for everyone.


13 people like this
Posted by The Truth
a resident of North Whisman
on Dec 23, 2016 at 11:01 am

The Truth is a registered user.

Angel S. applied for a seat on the rental committee. Good luck with that when the Council is well aware of your views and divisive rhetoric. Between yourself and the mouthpiece of the tenant's coalition dropping the F-bombs at Council meetings and not apologizing for it, will not help your cause and make their choices easy.


13 people like this
Posted by Just stop
a resident of Rex Manor
on Dec 23, 2016 at 12:06 pm

@Just stop

The difference is that I'm not calling people racists and Trump supporters simply because they disagree with me on one issue. People are not so simple that they can uniformly be grouped like that. There are many valid reasons to not agree with rent contol. People who feel that way are not racists. There are also many good intentions behind rent contol, people who support rent control are not communists.

Stop all the ridiculous generalizations. The only way to solve the problems we face is by listening to each other, not drawing lines and creating sides. Unforuntely, this whole Measure V discussion as done little but create sides. I wish it would stop so we can get down to solving this problem with real solutions that will actually a dress the problem.


Posted by Name hidden
a resident of Old Mountain View

on Dec 23, 2016 at 12:29 pm

Due to repeated violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are automatically removed. Why?


10 people like this
Posted by mvresident2002
a resident of Monta Loma
on Dec 23, 2016 at 12:49 pm

mvresident2002 is a registered user.

Measure V passing is the natural outcome of landowners not caring for their neighbors. Everyone lamenting about losing out "their investment" didn't care about people's actual lives that were negatively affected when they could no longer afford to live here. Landowners pushed the people too far, and now they're going to show just how much they care about their communities by having their trade group sue the city to waste more of our tax money.

Any landowner that's a member of CAA should be ashamed, since they've shown that they only care about lining their pockets and not about what's best for our city.


13 people like this
Posted by The Truth
a resident of North Whisman
on Dec 23, 2016 at 1:03 pm

The Truth is a registered user.

mvresident2002, since you are an expert landlord balancing the requirement to generate a fair return while maintaining high moral and charitable standards, please educate the unwashed CAA members on how to achieve your level of superiority.


12 people like this
Posted by mvresident2002
a resident of Monta Loma
on Dec 23, 2016 at 1:06 pm

mvresident2002 is a registered user.

I'd be happy to help, The Truth! If you point me to some of your properties, I can look into the neighborhoods and perhaps give you a few Pearls of wisdom. Each lot requires its own touch.


6 people like this
Posted by The Truth
a resident of North Whisman
on Dec 23, 2016 at 1:37 pm

The Truth is a registered user.

mvresident2002, As an example, let's use the Moseley properties in the Whisman neighborhood on 529 Taylor CT. and similar. He is an outspoken CAA member in Mountain View, as a CAA member myself, I don't appreciate his tone or the way others may think he may be representative of the rest of us. Back in the day when I first moved to Silicon Valley, I applied to rent one of his units (Boynton San Jose) and was so put off by the condition and the management attitude, I looked elsewhere, solved my problem as a renter without needing an amendment to a city charter or anything like that and found a great landlord to do business with.


8 people like this
Posted by mvresident2002
a resident of Monta Loma
on Dec 23, 2016 at 1:47 pm

mvresident2002 is a registered user.

I only give out advice to people who ask for it, in order to make sure that people don't just take advantage. Shocking, I know, a landlord taking advantage of someone! If you want advice on your own properties, I'm happy to help, but I'm not going to just help out a landlord who has made no indication they want to change their ways.


6 people like this
Posted by The Truth
a resident of North Whisman
on Dec 23, 2016 at 2:07 pm

The Truth is a registered user.

Nah, I'm good. Was already compliant with V as the compound annual growth rate of my increases were below CPI for bay area, have never used the no cause eviction device, there is no need to if you do things right, happy with the present rate of return, but not the future valuation of the property, nobody can help with that. Would have been nice to have the higher valuation to borrow against for other investments outside of bay area. Mountain View is part of the portfolio (all eggs not in same basket) so this one will be down, the others will be up. Part of the frustration from some of the CAA members is they had too much of their assets concentrated in Mountain View, that is not good from a investment theory perspective and now in practice it is truly disastrous for them. I am a CAA member, what I don't like is being compelled to do something when I have done nothing wrong myself, live and learn. Could have bought in Palo Alto but chose Mountain View, was ignorant on the political dynamics at the time. Live and learn, won't make that mistake again.


13 people like this
Posted by mvresident2002
a resident of Monta Loma
on Dec 23, 2016 at 2:16 pm

mvresident2002 is a registered user.

See, you know what to do already.

If you lobbied your CAA members to be better members of their communities, Measure V wouldn't have passed. Instead, they wasted a ton of your money on an impotent "No on V" campaign. Now they're going to waste even more CAA and taxpayer money on a lawsuit that's going to go nowhere.

Don't worry about choosing Mountain View over Palo Alto, though, rent stabilization will make its way there soon too, especially since they don't want to relieve skyrocketing rents either.


3 people like this
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Dec 24, 2016 at 4:18 am

The Business Man is a registered user.

Hello everyone, another FYI regarding new research in this situation.

The stipulation signed by the City Attorney is invalid. How you might ask? Good question and I have a simple answer.

The City Attorney is responsible to represent 2 totally different adverse interests in the case, the City Attorney must equally advocate for BOTH the City Council AND the citizens of the City Mountain view. This is legally defined as a conflict of interest or repsentation of adverse interest. Both are not allowed.

A conflict of interest exists because the City Council has expressed objection to Rent Control, which is their right to do, and I am not arguing that they are required defend it. But the Citizens of Mountain View overruled their objection in the successful passage of Measure V certified and adopted on Dec 13th, which established a constitutional requirement for the City Council to comply with. These 2 are diametrically opposite and adverse legal interests.

Now by stipulating to the restraining order in court the City Attorney has committed attorney misconduct as defined as:

Attorney misconduct

Attorney misconduct is unethical or illegal conduct by an attorney.

Attorney Misconduct may include: conflict of interest, over billing, refusing to represent a client for political or professional motives, false or misleading statements, hiding evidence, abandoning a client, failing to disclose all relevant facts, arguing a position while neglecting to disclose prior law which might counter the argument, and in some instances having sex with a client.( Web Link)

The definition of conflict of interest is:

Conflict of interest

A conflict of interest (COI) is a situation in which a person or organization is involved in multiple interests, financial or otherwise, one of which could possibly corrupt the motivation or decision-making of that individual or organization.

The presence of a conflict of interest is independent of the occurrence of impropriety. Therefore, a conflict of interest can be discovered and voluntarily defused before any corruption occurs. A conflict of interest exists if the circumstances are reasonably believed (on the basis of past experience and objective evidence) to create a risk that a decision may be unduly influenced by other, secondary interests, and not on whether a particular individual is actually influenced by a secondary interest.

A widely used definition is: "A conflict of interest is a set of circumstances that creates a risk that professional judgement or actions regarding a primary interest will be unduly influenced by a secondary interest."[1] Primary interest refers to the principal goals of the profession or activity, such as the protection of clients, the health of patients, the integrity of research, and the duties of public office. Secondary interest includes personal benefit and is not limited to only financial gain but also such motives as the desire for professional advancement, or the wish to do favours for family and friends. These secondary interests are not treated as wrong in and of themselves, but become objectionable when they are believed to have greater weight than the primary interests. Conflict of interest rules in the public sphere mainly focus on financial relationships since they are relatively more objective, fungible, and quantifiable, and usually involve the political, legal, and medical fields.( Web Link)
(
The state of California Bar Association established that an attorney cannot be in compliance with the Code of Conduct where1 attorney is obligated to represent adverse interests as defined here:

CURRENT RULES

Rule 3-310 Avoiding the Representation of Adverse Interests

(C) A member shall not, without the informed written consent of each client:

(1) ACCEPT REPRESENTATION OF MORE THAN ONE CLIENT IN A MATTER IN WHICH THE INTERESTS OF THE CLIENTS POTENTIALLY CONFLICT; OR

(2) ACCEPT OR CONTINUE REPRESENTATION OF MORE THAN ONE CLIENT IN A MATTER IN WHICH THE INTERESTS OF THE CLIENTS ACTUALLY CONFLICT; OR

(3) REPRESENT A CLIENT IN A MATTER AND AT THE SAME TIME IN A SEPARATE MATTER ACCEPT AS A CLIENT A PERSON OR ENTITY WHOSE INTEREST IN THE FIRST MATTER IS ADVERSE TO THE CLIENT IN THE FIRST MATTER.( Web Link)

What does this mean?

FIRST, the signed stipulation is void because it is in direct violation of the California Bar Code of Conduct representation of adverse interests and and Conflict of interest

SECOND, the City Attorney has 3 actions it must choose to do in order to prevent disciplinary action by the Bar or committing attorney misconduct.

The first choice is to continue representing the City Council, BUT another independent attorney will represent the Citizens of Mountain View AND no stipulation can be signed or enforced without both attorney’s signing agreement. This would also require the City to pay for the independent representative.

The second choice is to continue representing the Citizens of Mountain View BUT another independent attorney will represent the City Council AND no stipulation can be signed or enforced without both attorney’s signing agreement. This would also require the City to pay for the independent representative.

The Third option is that the City Attorney recuse itself entirely and the City of Mountain View will be required to hire 2 independent attorney’s to represent the City Council and the Citizens of the Citizens of Mountain View in Court.

The Final option is to have the City Council instruct the City Attorney that it shall not oppose the interests of the citizens of the City of Mountain View, fully defend the Measure V without exception, and that the stipulation be withdrawn and a continuance of the restraining order be ordered.

If none of this is done, there will be severe consequences imposed on the City Attorney’s ability to practice law, most likely a suspension of the law license or worse disbarment.

I am surprised the City Attorney did not understand the severity of the misconduct occurring here.


27 people like this
Posted by mvresident2003
a resident of Monta Loma
on Dec 24, 2016 at 8:55 am

mvresident2003 is a registered user.

@mvresident2002 Not only will PA rents not reverse, they will continue to rise as dictated by the market. The major difference here is that the PA City Council doesn't roll over for every developer and has maintained a fairly good semblance of the character of the city. They also were smart enough not to let the % of renters exceed homeowners.

So don't think it's going to happen in PA, they have used much better sense than our council here in Mountain View who frankly have started the deterioration of what was once a nice community.


19 people like this
Posted by mvresident2002
a resident of Monta Loma
on Dec 24, 2016 at 9:18 am

mvresident2002 is a registered user.

There it is. The usually thinly-veiled distaste for renters comes out for everyone to see. Your dislike for your neighbors really is sad, but this divisiveness is why Measure V passed.


36 people like this
Posted by mvresident2003
a resident of Monta Loma
on Dec 24, 2016 at 10:23 am

mvresident2003 is a registered user.

I don't have a distaste for renters, I was one for many, many years. I do however have a distaste for you who feel you can take things from others just because you want to. And that is exactly what this is, you want to live in a certain area, you can't afford it, so you expect others to pay for it.

Pure and simple. You want, you take.


23 people like this
Posted by mvresident2002
a resident of Monta Loma
on Dec 24, 2016 at 10:45 am

mvresident2002 is a registered user.

Yeah, you're so full of love for your neighbors, it's coming across loud and clear. May God bless you.


Posted by Name hidden
a resident of Monta Loma

on Dec 24, 2016 at 11:51 am

Due to repeated violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are automatically removed. Why?


5 people like this
Posted by the_punnisher
a resident of North Whisman
on Dec 24, 2016 at 7:24 pm

the_punnisher is a registered user.

Attorney Misconduct may include: conflict of interest, over billing, refusing to represent a client for political or professional motives, false or misleading statements, hiding evidence, abandoning a client, failing to disclose all relevant facts, arguing a position while neglecting to disclose prior law which might counter the argument, and in some instances having sex with a client.( Web Link)

It looks like the last statement applies here; The people of Mountain View are the ones being screwed by the Lawyer AND the City Council. ( tongue firmly in cheek ). The only people getting rich are the lawyers who will behave like sharks once one of their fellow lawyers gets wounded. I'd hate to be the City Attorney right now....Mtn. View may have its first illegal alien jumping the border into Mexico or Canada....


13 people like this
Posted by mvresident2002
a resident of Monta Loma
on Dec 24, 2016 at 7:35 pm

mvresident2002 is a registered user.

Ahhh, yes, the_punnisher, those famous Mountain-View-Canada and Mountain View-Mexico borders...


4 people like this
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Dec 24, 2016 at 9:28 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

The Truth,

I am very sorry for the delay, but I wanted to express significant respect to you.

Please understand that I believe you are of a minority of the members of the CAA that not only claims to be ethical, but I can see you ARE ethical in your practice.

It hurts to see that some are being impacted by collateral damage due to the nature of this situation. I will admit I applied to be a board member for the CSFRA. I did it because I want to advocate for those like yourself as much as I can. I never claimed that all members of the CAA are unethical business people.

I expressed in my application that I take the potential power of that role very seriously, and if I am chosen, I will promise that my decisions are fair, all I need is just a little evidence of fair treatment on behalf of a property owner, then I will try to establish a solution that will benefit the parties.

My belief is if the board does it's job well, most situations will be win-win for all concerned. The reality is I cannot be perfect, but I will try my best. Please understand that there might be some situations that will result in the tenant or the landlord cannot be satisfied.

My closing of this message is:

I am only trying to ensure that established public policies are complied with.

I truly hate the fact that this situation in Mountain View got to such a bad state.

There is a lot of responsibility to go around, my understanding is this:

The City Council are not educated in both short and long term civil development, in fact from what I last looked I saw that no one on the council has any training in this area, this has resulted in the loss of good short and long term plans regarding the "design" of Mountain View.

The motivation for apartment development to not address the full spectrum of apartment resources from basic accommodations to luxury has left affordable housing to be at a loss. The higher percentage of potential retained earnings in luxury and large scale apartments is a strong motivator.

The fact that there is a misconception that every person in the City of Mountain View earns a 6 figure income has led prospective investors to think that the values of the apartment investments are higher than what they are. This has resulted in investor paying too much for their investments and being oversold as to what the expected return on investment will be. That is a real complex problem that compounds the situation.

This needs to be addressed at the state level regarding the ability to get compensated for misleading property assessments or establishing that if the appraisal is not sound, the appraiser and other parties whom have before knowledge of such problem and benefited from it be accountable.

Thus investor is LESS vulnerable than how they are now. Apartment property buyers ARE being exploited, AND this IS wrong.

I hope this proves that my approach clearly is not based on a "Liberal" or "Conservative" mentality, but one that is trying to correct the situation for the benefit of everyone.



41 people like this
Posted by mvresident2003
a resident of Monta Loma
on Dec 24, 2016 at 10:49 pm

mvresident2003 is a registered user.

So here I am after a wonderful but long day checking last minute emails and then this. MVresident2002, you are so out of line, so presumptive, so self-assured, so WRONG. You assume anyone who doesn't agree with you is an awful person, uncaring etc etc etc. Because someone doesn't bow down to your aggressive, narrow-minded, one-sided stance they are horrible.

I spent the day delivering gifts to those in need, something I look forward to every year and even more so this year as I was able to include my eldest child this time. We then went to candlelight service and I've just gotten my kids tucked in bed and finished cleaning up from our dinner and getting ready for tomorrow.

You accuse me of being uncaring. You are rude and presumptive. In all my dialogue I have kept to my strongly held views that rent control is not the right thing for renters or homeowners, it's not right for the community as a whole. I have not accused you or pointed fingers at you personally but YOU have been the one doing so. I have presented FACTS. I have presented statistical information. You rely on heartstrings and emotion and while that is a lovely way to look at life it's not realistic. I truly feel there are better, long-lasting policies that can help more people.

God bless to you and yours.


25 people like this
Posted by mvresident2002
a resident of Monta Loma
on Dec 24, 2016 at 11:30 pm

mvresident2002 is a registered user.

Yes, your "better, long-lasting policies" of limiting the number of renters here and telling anyone who isn't wealthy enough that they have no right to live here. So caring, so concerned for your neighbors. "Whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me."

Take a realistic look at your positions and tell us that they contain any empathy for people in a position worse off than you. Perhaps this isn't what's in your heart, but we can only see what you write. Look back through what you've written and see if there are any other conclusions to be drawn. If you don't think the writings are an accurate portrayal of what's in your heart, step back and try to understand why you've written them.


4 people like this
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Dec 26, 2016 at 2:57 am

The Business Man is a registered user.

The City Council of Mountain View can be said to be violating the federal law in their active participation ordering the City Attorney to stipulate to the current restraining order. How can this be?

The Mountain View Tenants Coalition (MVTC)sought advice and successfully used their constitutional rights by properly following all procedures in the process of bringing the Community Stabilization and Fair Rent Act (CSFRA) on the ballot. This was not easy because there are many steps that had to be complied with. But most importantly the MVTC participated in clearly constitutional acts, expressly the First amendment that guarantees the right to political expression without the threat of punitive action by the state. In this case the state is the City Council of Mountain View.

However, since the CSFRA passing, the City has taken aggressive steps to thwart implementation of this law. The City Council can be argued as conspiring to deny one from their constitutional rights or conspiracy to interfere with civil rights. Conspiring to deny one from their constitutional rights is defined under federal law as 18 U.S. Code § 241 - Conspiracy against rights. This is defined as:

If TWO OR MORE PERSONS conspire to INJURE, OPPRESS, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment OF ANY RIGHT OR PRIVILEGE SECURED TO HIM BY THE CONSTITUTION OR LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES, OR BECAUSE OF HIS HAVING SO EXERCISED THE SAME; or

If TWO OR MORE PERSONS go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—

They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 696; Pub. L. 90–284, title I, § 103(a), Apr. 11, 1968, 82 Stat. 75; Pub. L. 100–690, title VII, § 7018(a), (b)(1), Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4396; Pub. L. 103–322, title VI, § 60006(a), title XXXII, §§ 320103(a), 320201(a), title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 1970, 2109, 2113, 2147; Pub. L. 104–294, title VI, §§ 604(b)(14)(A), 607(a), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3507, 3511.)( Web Link)

In this case there is a right secured at this time because the CSFRA was adopted on Dec. 13th of 2016, prior to the civil action that was filed on Dec. 21st. When the City Council prevented the City Attorney from filing a continuance, which was required under California law to be provided to the City. At least 6 persons acted in collaboration to violate the federal law.

Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights is defined under 42 U.S. Code § 1985 and that law states:

(1) Preventing officer from performing duties

If TWO OR MORE PERSONS in any State or Territory CONSPIRE TO PREVENT, BY FORCE, INTIMIDATION, OR THREAT, any person from accepting or holding any office, trust, or place of confidence under the United States, OR FROM DISCHARGING ANY DUTIES THEREOF; OR TO INDUCE BY LIKE MEANS ANY OFFICER OF THE UNITED STATES TO LEAVE ANY STATE, DISTRICT, OR PLACE, WHERE HIS DUTIES AS AN OFFICER ARE REQUIRED TO BE PERFORMED, or to injure him in his person or property on account of his lawful discharge of the duties of his office, or while engaged in the lawful discharge thereof, or to injure his property so as to molest, interrupt, hinder, or impede him in the discharge of his official duties;

3) Depriving persons of rights or privileges

If TWO OR MORE PERSONS IN ANY STATE or Territory conspire or go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another, FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEPRIVING, EITHER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, ANY PERSON OR CLASS OF PERSONS OF THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS, OR OF EQUAL PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES UNDER THE LAWS; or for the purpose of preventing or hindering the constituted authorities of any State or Territory from giving or securing to all persons within such State or Territory the equal protection of the laws; or if two or more persons conspire to prevent by force, intimidation, or threat, any citizen who is lawfully entitled to vote, from giving his support or advocacy in a legal manner, toward or in favor of the election of any lawfully qualified person as an elector for President or Vice President, or as a Member of Congress of the United States; or to injure any citizen in person or property on account of such support or advocacy; IN ANY CASE OF CONSPIRACY SET FORTH IN THIS SECTION, IF ONE OR MORE PERSONS ENGAGED THEREIN DO, OR CAUSE TO BE DONE, ANY ACT IN FURTHERANCE OF THE OBJECT OF SUCH CONSPIRACY, WHEREBY ANOTHER IS INJURED IN HIS PERSON OR PROPERTY, OR DEPRIVED OF HAVING AND EXERCISING ANY RIGHT OR PRIVILEGE OF A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES, THE PARTY SO INJURED OR DEPRIVED MAY HAVE AN ACTION FOR THE RECOVERY OF DAMAGES OCCASIONED BY SUCH INJURY OR DEPRIVATION, AGAINST ANY ONE OR MORE OF THE CONSPIRATORS.( Web Link)

These 2 situations seem to be describing what the City Council of Mountain View has done by interfering the City Attorney to selectively enforce or defend the CSFRA. At the very least once the City Council ordered stipulation regarding the restraining order. The City Council is flirting with being imprisoned, or each City Councilperson could be held fiscally liable for all losses incurred by those being deprived their equal enforcement of the law, in this case the CSFRA.

I am simply amazed that the City Council does not take care to prevent significant errors in judgement. Unfortunately, it appears that our city leadership has some very significant weakness in understanding what course of action it must take when taking office. Even if the City Council objects to any portion of the Charter or a City Ordinance, the City Council is restricted to 2 courses of action:

With regards to a Charter issue, the only legal recourse is to successfully overturn it via ballot initiative. They have no jurisdictional authority to selectively follow the Charter in any way, and by not faithfully following it runs into the potential of violating federal law.

With regard to a City Ordinance, they have the jurisdiction to make any changes through the proper practice of parliamentary action. That is clearly in their power.

Does the City Council want to be potentially investigated or prosecuted by the Federal Prosecutor? Even if the president is Donald Trump that does not establish that the Department of Justice may not prosecute these crimes. So do not expect that there is a get out of jail free card in the deck.


Posted by Name hidden
a resident of Monta Loma

on Dec 26, 2016 at 10:33 am

Due to repeated violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are automatically removed. Why?


4 people like this
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Dec 26, 2016 at 12:13 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

Another observation I felt I needed to express

I remember when Proposition 8 passed which excluded same-sex couples from being legally married. It was a voter initiative that modified the State Constitution, just like Measure V did in Mountain View.

However, unlike Measure V the courts would not prevent irreparable harm being done to either same-sex couples or their children. In fact the court declared it unconstitutional, “On August 4, 2010, U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn Walker overturned Proposition 8, stating it is "...unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause because no compelling state interest justifies denying same-sex couples the fundamental right to marry."[208].

But even that decision was not in effect until all legal challenges were completed. The first challenge, “On February 7, 2012, a three-judge panel on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a 2–1 majority opinion affirming the judgment in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, which declared Proposition 8 unconstitutional, saying it violated the Equal Protection Clause. The opinion, written by Judge Stephen Reinhardt and joined by Judge Michael Hawkins, states that Proposition 8 did nothing more than lessen the status and dignity of gays and lesbians, and classify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples.[219] “

But even then the decision was not in effect because,” On February 21, 2012, proponents requested to have to the case reviewed en banc by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.[227] If granted, en banc review could have taken a year or more, which would have delayed possible U.S. Supreme Court review.[227] Pending the appeal, a stay was continued, barring any marriages from taking place.[228] On June 5, 2012, the full Ninth Circuit refused to rehear the case; the stay would remain in place pending final action by the Supreme Court.[229]

But even then Propostion 8 was still in effect, only after, “The Supreme Court issued a 5–4 decision on June 26, 2013.[235] Chief Justice Roberts wrote for the majority, and was joined by Justices Ginsburg, Kagan, Breyer, and Scalia.[235] Justices Kennedy, Sotomayor, Alito, and Thomas were in the minority.[236] The Court found the proponents did not have standing to appeal in federal court. To have standing, they "must have suffered an injury in fact, thus giving [them] a sufficiently concrete interest in the outcome of the issue in dispute."[11] Because no injury had been shown, the appeal to the Ninth Circuit should have been dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. (This only applied to the Ninth Circuit and Supreme Court cases.) The Court returned the case to the Ninth Circuit with instructions to dismiss the appeal. This left the district court's ruling overturning Proposition 8 as the final ruling in the case. Because the appeal was decided on the question of standing, the Supreme Court did not examine nor rule on whether or not in their view Proposition 8 had violated the U.S. Constitution.

This means that any voter initiative Charter Amendment or Constitutional Amendment must be complied with until all legal challenges have been exhausted.

My question is, in what way is the CAA provided more protection under the U.S. or California Constitution that would support the recent court action?

Same –sex couples and their children were denied more than 1000 benefits because those benefits required the couples to be married, and not just a civil union. They waited 5 years until the court finally completed its work. The CAA cannot claim they are any different, nor can they be treated differently, by the court. This would be in effect declaring that the CAA has more constitutional rights than the citizens harmed during litigation of Proposition 8.

Simple enough, the CAA must wait until the decision in court is made. The City Attorney cannot make any judicial determinations under the law. The City Council cannot make any judicial determinations under the law. The City Attorney clearly should have discussed that by stipulating to a patently illegal restraining order would be a violation of the Proposition 8 legal history to the City Council. But the City Council simply is too interested in protecting the interests of the CAA and in effect ordered the City Attorney to violate the California Bar Regulations.

Can some explain it to me how the CAA is different from Same-Sex couples in this situation?


4 people like this
Posted by Angel S.
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Dec 26, 2016 at 12:38 pm

Angel S. is a registered user.

@ the business man

Thank you for your knowledge, and for sharing it. I'm learning a lot from you. May love, peace, power and respect follow you everywhere.


3 people like this
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Dec 26, 2016 at 10:41 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

I just hope that someone in the following groups:

Law Foundation of Silicon Valley: 408-280-2424,
Bay Area Legal Aid: 408-850-7066,
Asian Law Alliance: 408-287-9710,
Project Sentinel: 650-282-2514

Will now file a request for stay of the restraining order in Federal Court. Given the information I provided and the almost identical situation where:

1) A voter Initiative Amended the City Constitution

2) A Challenge was filed in a court claiming unconstitutionality.

3) It appears that the City will not represent the people in court.

4) This is in violation of history in these circumstances, the State Attorney General did not argue for the plaintiffs in the Proposition 8 case, they did not argue for Proposition 8, what they did if I remember correctly is only file an Amicus Curiae Brief in favor of the Plaintiffs.

What is an Amicus Curiae Brief? It is defined as:

Amicus Curiae. Latin for "friend of the court." Frequently, a person or group who is not a party to a lawsuit, but has a strong interest in the matter, will petition the court for permission to submit a brief in the action with the intent of influencing the court's decision.

So one option that would be appropriate for the City Council in order to avoid the possibility of being held in violation of either 18 U.S. Code § 241 or 42 U.S. Code § 1985 is to have the City Attorney fully defend the entire CSFRA. The City Council will be free to file an Amicus Curiae Brief because that is an appropriate act that would not potentially leave them vulnerable to violating the federal laws.

There should be no issue for the Federal Court to order the City to comply with the CSFRA until such time that the courts have exhausted all pending constitutional challenges.

This should be done immediately, because in fact irreparable harm is happening because one's City Constitutional right is being taken away right now and it has been done without justification and in violation of the California Bar regulations by the City Attorney.



(1) Preventing officer from performing duties

If TWO OR MORE PERSONS in any State or Territory CONSPIRE TO PREVENT, BY FORCE, INTIMIDATION, OR THREAT, any person from accepting or holding any office, trust, or place of confidence under the United States, OR FROM DISCHARGING ANY DUTIES THEREOF; OR TO INDUCE BY LIKE MEANS ANY OFFICER OF THE UNITED STATES TO LEAVE ANY STATE, DISTRICT, OR PLACE, WHERE HIS DUTIES AS AN OFFICER ARE REQUIRED TO BE PERFORMED, or to injure him in his person or property on account of his lawful discharge of the duties of his office, or while engaged in the lawful discharge thereof, or to injure his property so as to molest, interrupt, hinder, or impede him in the discharge of his official duties;

3) Depriving persons of rights or privileges


3 people like this
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Dec 26, 2016 at 10:43 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

Sorry for the trailing text ignore it.


Posted by Name hidden
a resident of Monta Loma

on Dec 27, 2016 at 11:12 am

Due to repeated violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are automatically removed. Why?


3 people like this
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Dec 27, 2016 at 2:33 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

Another bit of research I have done.

Now, I am not an attorney, I am just doing research. I cannot show all web links due to restrictions of the website, so some are omitted, but can be found by “Google” them.

Did the Santa Clara Court fail to uphold the legal requirements that are necessary to order a restraining order? The information does indicate that the court made a serious error. Here is the legal definition of a Restraining Order:

“A command of the court issued upon the filing of an application for an Injunction, PROHIBITING THE DEFENDANT FROM PERFORMING A THREATENED ACT until a hearing on the application can be held.

A restraining order is an official command issued by a court to refrain from certain activity. Restraining orders are sought by plaintiffs in a wide variety of instances for the same reason: the plaintiff wishes to prevent the defendant from doing something that he or she has threatened. RESTRAINING ORDERS ARE USED IN A VARIETY OF CONTEXTS, INCLUDING EMPLOYMENT DISPUTES, COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT, AND CASES OF HARASSMENT, DOMESTIC ABUSE, AND STALKING. All restraining orders begin with an application to the court, which decides the merits of the request by using a traditional test. Limited in their duration and effect, restraining orders are distinguished from the more lasting form of court intervention called an injunction. Generally they are sought as a form of immediate relief while a plaintiff pursues a permanent injunction.

A court submits a request for a restraining order to one of several tests. These tests vary slightly across different jurisdictions, but generally they involve the analysis of four separate factors: (1) WHETHER THE MOVING PARTY WILL SUFFER IRREPARABLE INJURY IF THE RELIEF IS NOT GRANTED; (2) WHETHER THE MOVING PARTY IS LIKELY TO SUCCEED ON THE MERITS OF THE CASE; (3) WHETHER THE OPPOSING PARTY WILL BE HARMED MORE THAN THE MOVING PARTY IS HELPED; AND (4) WHETHER GRANTING THE RELIEF IS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST.”( Web Link)

We must stop here and this post will only address the first part which is:

(1) WHETHER THE MOVING PARTY WILL SUFFER IRREPARABLE INJURY IF THE RELIEF IS NOT GRANTED;

The first question is has the CAA submitted the required evidence to support that the CAA will suffer irreparable harm. This is commonly described as standing. Given the fact that the CAA is not a landowner or landlord but a trade organization, this would indicate that they have no standing in the first place. The CAA itself does not lose any value as an organization, thus they have no standing to complain to the court. The Landlords do but NOT THE CAA. But more importantly, the court must have proof of injury by presentation of evidence to move further. However the only document in the record is the original pleading. Is a pleading proof or evidence? The answer to that is no because a pleading is defined as:

The formal presentation of claims and defenses by parties to a lawsuit. THE SPECIFIC PAPERS BY WHICH THE ALLEGATIONS OF PARTIES TO A LAWSUIT ARE PRESENTED IN PROPER FORM; specifically the complaint of a plaintiff and the answer of a defendant plus any additional responses to those papers that are authorized by law.( Web Link)

So if a pleading can only contain allegations, the pleading alone is not proof or evidence of harm. In fact Allegation is defined as:

“n. a statement of claimed fact contained in a complaint (a written pleading filed to begin a lawsuit), a criminal charge, or an affirmative defense (part of the written answer to a complaint). UNTIL EACH STATEMENT IS PROVED IT IS ONLY AN ALLEGATION. SOME ALLEGATIONS ARE MADE "ON INFORMATION AND BELIEF" IF THE PERSON MAKING THE STATEMENT IS NOT SURE OF A FACT. (SEE: COMPLAINT):”( Web Link)

So an allegation is not proof or evidence. For an allegation to be actionable in court it must be proved, and the definition of proof is:

“n. CONFIRMATION OF A FACT BY EVIDENCE. IN A COURT TRIAL PROOF IS WHAT THE TRIER OF THE FACT (JURY OR JUDGE WITHOUT A JURY) NEEDS TO BECOME SATISFIED THE EVIDENCE SHOWS BY "A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE" IN CIVIL (NON-CRIMINAL) CASES AND "BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT" IN CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS. However, each alleged fact must be proved separately, as must all the facts necessary to reach a judgment for the plaintiff (the person filing a lawsuit) or for the prosecution (the "people" or "state" represented by the prosecutor). THE DEFENDANTS IN BOTH CIVIL SUITS AND CRIMINAL TRIALS NEED NOT PROVIDE ABSOLUTE "PROOF" OF NON-RESPONSIBILITY (IN A CIVIL CASE) OR INNOCENCE IN A CRIMINAL CASE, SINCE THE BURDEN IS ON THE PLAINTIFF OR PROSECUTION TO PROVE THEIR CASES (OR PROVE THE PERSON GUILTY). (See: preponderance of the evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt)”( Web Link)

So when it comes to a court in a civil matter like this one, the CAA is required to establish the preponderance of evidence that their claim that Measure V is unconstitutional. But the Pleading does not contain any proof only allegations. Proof is made up with evidence which is defined as:

“n. every type of proof legally presented at trial (allowed by the judge) which is intended to convince the judge and/or jury of alleged facts material to the case. It can include oral testimony of witnesses, including experts on technical matters, documents, public records, objects, photographs, and depositions (testimony under oath taken before trial). It also includes so-called "circumstantial evidence" which is intended to create belief by showing surrounding circumstances which logically lead to a conclusion of fact. COMMENTS AND ARGUMENTS BY THE ATTORNEYS, STATEMENTS BY THE JUDGE, AND ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS WHICH THE JUDGE HAS RULED OBJECTIONABLE ARE NOT EVIDENCE. CHARTS, MAPS AND MODELS WHICH ARE USED TO DEMONSTRATE OR EXPLAIN MATTERS ARE NOT EVIDENCE THEMSELVES, BUT TESTIMONY BASED UPON SUCH ITEMS AND MARKS ON SUCH MATERIAL MAY BE EVIDENCE. EVIDENCE MUST SURVIVE OBJECTIONS OF OPPOSING ATTORNEYS THAT IT IS IRRELEVANT, IMMATERIAL, VIOLATES RULES AGAINST "HEARSAY" (STATEMENTS BY A PARTY NOT IN COURT), AND/OR OTHER TECHNICALITIES. (See: circumstantial evidence, hearsay, demonstrative evidence, object, relevancy, deposition)”( Web Link)

So can the pleading be argued to provide any evidence? It appears not.

So can the pleading be argued to present proof to the court? It appears not.

So can the pleading contain allegations made that are grounds to issue any restraining order? It appears not.

So can the pleading on its own be justification of issuing a restraining order? It appears not.

How did the City Council of Mountain View not understand that the CAA had no legal standing to make any complaint in the court? In order for the CAA to make any pleading, it would first have to get a class action certified through a court determination that they are a legal class before presenting any requests to the court. What is the City Council of Mountain View thinking?

In fact the CAA could be argued as making a false allegation which is defined as:

“An accusation that is contrary to fact or truth is a false accusation. To accuse means to make a charge of wrongdoing against another. Accusation can be a formal charge of criminal wrong doing, like the accusation that is presented to a court or magistrate having jurisdiction to inquire into the alleged crime. It can also be an informal statement that a person has engaged in an illegal or immoral act.” Google Search

Given the fact that the CAA had no standing to complain in any court, this action is clearly a false allegation, and the CAA must be justly dealt with according to the law.

I will do some research on the consequences of filing a frivolous lawsuit where one had no standing.


3 people like this
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Dec 27, 2016 at 3:56 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

Follow up Part 2

Now, I am not an attorney, I am just doing research. I cannot show all web links due to restrictions of the website, so some are omitted, but can be found by “Google” them.

Did the Santa Clara Court fail to uphold the legal requirements that are necessary to order a restraining order? The information does indicate that the court made a serious error. Here is the legal definition of a Restraining Order:

“A command of the court issued upon the filing of an application for an Injunction, PROHIBITING THE DEFENDANT FROM PERFORMING A THREATENED ACT until a hearing on the application can be held.

A restraining order is an official command issued by a court to refrain from certain activity. Restraining orders are sought by plaintiffs in a wide variety of instances for the same reason: the plaintiff wishes to prevent the defendant from doing something that he or she has threatened. RESTRAINING ORDERS ARE USED IN A VARIETY OF CONTEXTS, INCLUDING EMPLOYMENT DISPUTES, COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT, AND CASES OF HARASSMENT, DOMESTIC ABUSE, AND STALKING. All restraining orders begin with an application to the court, which decides the merits of the request by using a traditional test. Limited in their duration and effect, restraining orders are distinguished from the more lasting form of court intervention called an injunction. Generally they are sought as a form of immediate relief while a plaintiff pursues a permanent injunction.

A court submits a request for a restraining order to one of several tests. These tests vary slightly across different jurisdictions, but generally they involve the analysis of four separate factors: (1) WHETHER THE MOVING PARTY WILL SUFFER IRREPARABLE INJURY IF THE RELIEF IS NOT GRANTED; (2) WHETHER THE MOVING PARTY IS LIKELY TO SUCCEED ON THE MERITS OF THE CASE; (3) WHETHER THE OPPOSING PARTY WILL BE HARMED MORE THAN THE MOVING PARTY IS HELPED; AND (4) WHETHER GRANTING THE RELIEF IS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST.”( Web Link)

We must stop here and this post will only address the second part which is:

(2) WHETHER THE MOVING PARTY IS LIKELY TO SUCCEED ON THE MERITS OF THE CASE;

The second question is has the CAA submitted the required evidence to support that the CAA enough to establish that the CAA will likely succeed in the court case? I will not repeat the definitions but I will discuss the current facts regarding the “likelihood” of prevailing in the court case.

The CAA did not provide any case precedence in the pleading that in fact showed that any previous litigation confirmed the validity of the complaint, this fails to satisfy the requirement that the CAA is likely to prevail in the current case.

The CAA did not provide any evidence to substantiate their proof of complaint which does not provide required basis that the CAA is likely to prevailing in the current case.

The CAA did not demonstrate any proof of validity of the complaint. The CAA did contain allegations but allegations are not grounds to establish likelihood of prevailing in the current case. In order to be granted a restraining order the prerequisite was not satisfied, the CAA has not demonstrated likelihood of prevailing in the current case.

The CAA current pleading on its own does not satisfy the requirement that the CAA demonstrated likelihood of prevailing in the current case.

The court requires by a burden of proof for the plaintiff to prevail, in this case the CAA, to even consider a restraining order to such a level that the court has a reasonable basis that the plaintiff satisfied the legal threshold of the burden of proof. However, no proof is present at all. Can this be considered evidence of bias on behalf of the court? This question needs further research, I am not addressing it here at this time.

However, given the fact that the U.S. Supreme court has in fact stated that the establishment of rent control. Many people and I have presented the fact that this is the truth in the past to the public.

California courts have established that and rent roll backs are constitutional, the California Courts stated so in cases that many others and I have presented to the public.

However the record indicates that that the court ignored it or was not presented that information by the City Attorney. This can raise some very serious question whether Procedural or Substantial Due Process has been violated.

The Simple fact is the combination of the lack of any basis that the CAA is likely to prevail in the case, and that the City Attorney did not present or discuss that requirement would make such a restraining order unenforceable and could be considered a violation of Procedural and Substantive Due Process.

This act can be used to substantiate a violation of Federal law by either the City Attorney, or the City Council or both for failing to present this information to the court.

Why didn’t the City Attorney present this to the court? Could this be an indicator of the possibility that this attorney is not competent to represent the City of Mountain View? This raises another serious dilemma for the City because the City is required to have competent legal representation for its citizens, and failure to do so could be grounds for a nasty litigation.


5 people like this
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Dec 27, 2016 at 4:26 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

Follow up Part 3

Now, I am not an attorney, I am just doing research. I cannot show all web links due to restrictions of the website, so some are omitted, but can be found by “Google” them.

Did the Santa Clara Court fail to uphold the legal requirements that are necessary to order a restraining order? The information does indicate that the court made a serious error. Here is the legal definition of a Restraining Order:

“A command of the court issued upon the filing of an application for an Injunction, PROHIBITING THE DEFENDANT FROM PERFORMING A THREATENED ACT until a hearing on the application can be held.

A restraining order is an official command issued by a court to refrain from certain activity. Restraining orders are sought by plaintiffs in a wide variety of instances for the same reason: the plaintiff wishes to prevent the defendant from doing something that he or she has threatened. RESTRAINING ORDERS ARE USED IN A VARIETY OF CONTEXTS, INCLUDING EMPLOYMENT DISPUTES, COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT, AND CASES OF HARASSMENT, DOMESTIC ABUSE, AND STALKING. All restraining orders begin with an application to the court, which decides the merits of the request by using a traditional test. Limited in their duration and effect, restraining orders are distinguished from the more lasting form of court intervention called an injunction. Generally they are sought as a form of immediate relief while a plaintiff pursues a permanent injunction.

A court submits a request for a restraining order to one of several tests. These tests vary slightly across different jurisdictions, but generally they involve the analysis of four separate factors: (1) WHETHER THE MOVING PARTY WILL SUFFER IRREPARABLE INJURY IF THE RELIEF IS NOT GRANTED; (2) WHETHER THE MOVING PARTY IS LIKELY TO SUCCEED ON THE MERITS OF THE CASE; (3) WHETHER THE OPPOSING PARTY WILL BE HARMED MORE THAN THE MOVING PARTY IS HELPED; AND (4) WHETHER GRANTING THE RELIEF IS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST.”( Web Link)

We must stop here and this post will only address the second part which is:

(3) WHETHER THE OPPOSING PARTY WILL BE HARMED MORE THAN THE MOVING PARTY IS HELPED;

The third question is whether the court failed to balance the request for the restraining order regarding the negative impact it would have on the citizens of Mountain View.

I will not reiterate the definitions but here are some conclusions that are very apparent in this case:

The CAA did not provide any evidence that the CAA restraining order would NOT more negatively impact the Citizens of Mountain View. The City Attorney did not represent to the Court that this is required for a restraining order to be valid. This raises serious legal ethic or regulatory failure to perform the duty of the City Attorney.

The CAA did not demonstrate any proof that the CAA restraining order would NOT more negatively impact the Citizens of Mountain View. The City Attorney did not represent to the Court that this is required for a restraining order to be valid. This raises serious legal ethic or regulatory failure to perform the duty of the City Attorney.

The CAA did not demonstrate the allegations alone enables the CAA to get a restraining order that would NOT more negatively impact the Citizens of Mountain View. The City Attorney did not represent to the Court that this is required for a restraining order to be valid. This raises serious legal ethic or regulatory failure to perform the duty of the City Attorney.

The CAA current pleading on its own does not does enables the CAA to get a restraining order that would NOT more negatively impact the Citizens of Mountain View. The City Attorney did not represent to the Court that this is required for a restraining order to be valid. . This raises serious legal ethic or regulatory failure to perform the duty of the City Attorney.

The City attorney failure to present the disproportionate impact of such an order on the Citizens of Mountain View again indicates the lack of competency on behalf of the City Attorney. The California law is clear that if for example the restraining order can predictably result in homelessness if it is issued, then there is definite more harm imposed on the citizens of Mountain View than compliance with the law. That provision regarding that the restraining order cannot unduly punish the opposing interest in court would be violated and such restraining order would be invalid.

I ask what is the City Council of Mountain View thinking? I am not a lawyer, yet I discover very serious problems with the behaviors of the City Attorney and City Council that are significantly severe. As I keep demonstrating through objective observation, one can only conclude there is significant hostility being perpetrated on the City of Mountain View citizens by their own City Council.

Unfortunately, the City Council is simply demonstrating a lack of competence to deal with their responsibility of office. But except for recall or impeachment of office, there is little that the citizens can do except to file a legal complaint against the City.

Which is worse for the City Council? Being the defendant in a legal case where the Plaintiff is NOT a citizen of the City of Mountain View? Or being a defendant where the plaintiffs are the citizens of the City of Mountain View? I know that either are bad, but the City Council did not take the steps to establish a compromise in the current situation and instead exaggerated the problem in their actions. Thus we have this situation. Who do they represent is their choice, but to further the interests of those who are not citizens of the City is a bad choice.


3 people like this
Posted by the_punnisher
a resident of North Whisman
on Dec 27, 2016 at 4:27 pm

the_punnisher is a registered user.

The only comment I have: Define the difference between a state and a State. That capitalization is important and some people may not know the difference.

You are doing this information job well. I see no reason for you not to be chosen for the tasks at hand.
DATA can be true or false; no other ways to " spin " or play with it. To me, withholding Data is the same as LYING about data. That is something we all must guard against. Good Luck!


3 people like this
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Dec 27, 2016 at 6:53 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

Follow up Part 4

Now, I am not an attorney, I am just doing research. I cannot show all web links due to restrictions of the website, so some are omitted, but can be found by “Google” them.

Did the Santa Clara Court fail to uphold the legal requirements that are necessary to order a restraining order? The information does indicate that the court made a serious error. Here is the legal definition of a Restraining Order:

“A command of the court issued upon the filing of an application for an Injunction, PROHIBITING THE DEFENDANT FROM PERFORMING A THREATENED ACT until a hearing on the application can be held.

A restraining order is an official command issued by a court to refrain from certain activity. Restraining orders are sought by plaintiffs in a wide variety of instances for the same reason: the plaintiff wishes to prevent the defendant from doing something that he or she has threatened. RESTRAINING ORDERS ARE USED IN A VARIETY OF CONTEXTS, INCLUDING EMPLOYMENT DISPUTES, COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT, AND CASES OF HARASSMENT, DOMESTIC ABUSE, AND STALKING. All restraining orders begin with an application to the court, which decides the merits of the request by using a traditional test. Limited in their duration and effect, restraining orders are distinguished from the more lasting form of court intervention called an injunction. Generally they are sought as a form of immediate relief while a plaintiff pursues a permanent injunction.

A court submits a request for a restraining order to one of several tests. These tests vary slightly across different jurisdictions, but generally they involve the analysis of four separate factors: (1) WHETHER THE MOVING PARTY WILL SUFFER IRREPARABLE INJURY IF THE RELIEF IS NOT GRANTED; (2) WHETHER THE MOVING PARTY IS LIKELY TO SUCCEED ON THE MERITS OF THE CASE; (3) WHETHER THE OPPOSING PARTY WILL BE HARMED MORE THAN THE MOVING PARTY IS HELPED; AND (4) WHETHER GRANTING THE RELIEF IS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST.”( Web Link)

We must stop here and this post will only address the fourth part which is:

(4) WHETHER GRANTING THE RELIEF IS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST.”

This area gets very interesting but first I will address the specific CAA complaint. Again I will not reiterate the definitions regarding pleading, allegation, proof or evidence but state the following conclusions.

The CAA did not provide any evidence that the restraining order was to promote the public interest. In fact the restraining order only promoted the private interest of the members of the CAA. The City Attorney did not represent to the Court that evidence of a public interest was required for a restraining order to be valid. This raises serious legal ethic or regulatory failure to perform the duty of the City Attorney.

The CAA did not demonstrate any proof that the CAA restraining order would promote a public interest, it only promoted a private interest of the members of the CAA. The City Attorney did not require the satisfaction that said restraining order was beneficial to the public is required for a restraining order to be valid. This raises serious legal ethic or regulatory failure to perform the duty of the City Attorney.

The CAA did not demonstrate the allegations alone established that it was for the benefit of the public, its only benefit was for the members of the CAA. The City Attorney did not represent to the Court that the public interest was required for a restraining order to be valid. This raises serious legal ethic or regulatory failure to perform the duty of the City Attorney.

The CAA current pleading on its own does not does establish that the restraining order was asked for the public interest, it was solely for the benefit of members of the CAA. The City Attorney did not represent to the Court that for a restraining order be valid it is required to benefit the public for a restraining order to be valid. This raises serious legal ethic or regulatory failure to perform the duty of the City Attorney.

The City attorney failure to present to the court that the restraining order was NOT in the benefit of the Citizens of Mountain View again indicates the lack of competency on behalf of the City Attorney. The California law is clear that if for example the restraining order can predictably result in homelessness if it is issued, this is not for benefit of a public interest. This raises serious legal ethic or regulatory failure to perform the duty of the City Attorney.

To explain that the court went beyond its power let’s look at this:

“Public interest factors and concerns can also support the granting of a preliminary injunction. In People ex rel. Van De Kamp v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 65 it was held that the Court has "greater power to fashion equitable relief in defense of the public interest than it has when only private interests are involved."66 THUS, PUBLIC INTEREST FACTORS CAN TIP THE SCALES IN FAVOR OF GRANTING A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION JUST AS THEY MAY IN FAVOR OF DENYING INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF.”( Web Link)

This case is in the 9h Circuit, the California Federal Jurisdiction. If I read this correctly the statement indicates that a private interest is subordinate to the public interest. The CAA is not a public agency nor does it represent the public, it only represents the members of the organization.

One important note, not ALL apartment owners or landlords ARE members of the CAA because it can cost at least $500 just to access information on the CAA website. This organization can only be legally determined as a “Private” interest, but the law and the courts clearly state that the “Public “ interests supersede the interests of the “Private” interests.

Again, I ask what is the City Council of Mountain View thinking? I am not a lawyer, yet I discover very serious problems with the behaviors of the City Attorney and City Council that are significantly severe. As I keep demonstrating through objective observation, one can only conclude there is significant hostility being perpetrated on the City of Mountain View citizens by their own City Council. The City Council cannot advocate or make accommodations for a private interest, this is under the Federal, State, City Charter, and the City Council Code of Conduct. This is also true regarding the court.

Unfortunately, the City Council is simply demonstrating a lack of competence to deal with their responsibility of office. It appears that the City Council is simply unable to understand the established actions they are required to perform. But except for recall or impeachment of office, there is little that the citizens can do except to file a legal complaint against the City.

Which is worse for the City Council? Being the defendant in a legal case where the Plaintiff is NOT a citizen of the City of Mountain View? Or being a defendant where the plaintiffs are the citizens of the City of Mountain View? I know that either are bad, but the City Council did not take the steps to establish a compromise in the current situation and instead exaggerated the problem in their actions. Thus we have this situation. Who do they represent is their choice, but to further the interests of those who are not citizens of the City is a bad choice.


7 people like this
Posted by mike rose
a resident of another community
on Dec 27, 2016 at 7:16 pm

mike rose is a registered user.

The short answer to your mile long and sort of senseless rant is that the supreme " public interest" is a preservation of constitutional rights of citizens, the clear violation of which this lawsuit alleges.
Keep it short Business Man, I know you are impressed with the perception of your superior legal knowledge, but you just an "armchair laughable lawyer"


4 people like this
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Dec 27, 2016 at 8:38 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

Mike, Rose

I already just demonstrated that a private interest under the constitution is subordinate to the public interest, especially involving restraining orders. If a private interest is in conflict to a public one, the restraining order cannot be issued. But I still need you to understand that the CAA has no standing to argue in court at all.

You don't seem to realize that under the law, the CAA has no standing. Standing is defined as:

In law, standing or locus standi is the term for the ability of a party to demonstrate to the court sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party's participation in the case. Standing exists from one of three causes: (Web Link))

In the United States, the current doctrine is that a person cannot bring a suit challenging the constitutionality of a law unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that he/she/it is or will "imminently" be harmed by the law. Otherwise, the court will rule that the plaintiff "lacks standing" to bring the suit, and will dismiss the case without considering the merits of the claim of unconstitutionality. To have a court declare a law unconstitutional, there must be a valid reason for the lawsuit. The party suing must have something to lose in order to sue unless it has automatic standing by action of law.

In what way did Measure V harm the CAA? The CAA is not harmed because it is a “Trade” organization, they have no ownership of the properties of its members. What did the CAA lose in the passage of Measure V? Nothing. The only loss that I can observe is reputation, no monetary loss can be determined to impact the CAA directly. Thus the CAA has no standing.

Here are some examples where a plaintiff could have standing specifically, let’s look at them:

1. The party is directly subject to an adverse effect by the statute or action in question, and the harm suffered will continue unless the court grants relief in the form of damages or a finding that the law either does not apply to the party or that the law is void or can be nullified. This is called the "something to lose" doctrine, in which the party has standing because they directly will be harmed by the conditions for which they are asking the court for relief.

The CAA is not directly subject to the adverse result of Measure V. The CAA is NOT adversely impacted at all. The CAA cannot demonstrate any damage it will suffer based on enactment of Measure V because it does not itself own properties in Mountain View. Thus the lawsuit is required to be dismissed.

2. The party is not directly harmed by the conditions by which they are petitioning the court for relief but asks for it because the harm involved has some reasonable relation to their situation, and the continued existence of the harm may affect others who might not be able to ask a court for relief. In the United States, this is the grounds for asking for a law to be struck down as violating the First Amendment, because while the plaintiff might not be directly affected, the law might so adversely affect others that one might never know what was not done or created by those who fear they would become subject to the law – the so-called "chilling effects" doctrine.

In this case, the CAA has no standing because of 2 reasons.

The first part is that Measure V’s impact on the apartment owners or landlords is not reasonably related to the successful function of the performance of the CAA. Isn’t the CAA only in existence to advocate for apartment owners or landlords regarding politics, advocating for apartment owners and landlords in litigation, educating landlords and tenants regarding the public policies in effect, or provide public education involving the legal practice of apartment renting. None of these have been impaired by passage of Measure V. Thus the first requirement was not satisfied. THe CAA has no grounds or standing to be in the court in the first place.

The Second part requires that the existence of Measure V will harm those who cannot defend themselves in court. But Measure V does not impair anyone from pursuing their right in court, nor are the apartment owners or landlords unfairly prevented from pursuing legal action at all. There is no legally recognizable impairment made under Measure V that impairs an apartment owner or landlord to seek out legal redress on their own. And most importantly the CAA only represents its members, which spend at least $500 to just get access to the CAA website. Those members clearly have resources financially to seek out legal representation on their own and file a complaint because they are directly impacted. That would not satisfy the legal basis for the CAA to file a lawsuit because their members have the legal means to redress in court themselves.

3. The party is granted automatic standing by act of law.[1] Under some environmental laws in the United States, a party may sue someone causing pollution to certain waterways without a federal permit, even if the party suing is not harmed by the pollution being generated. The law allows them to receive attorney's fees if they substantially prevail in the action. In some U.S. states, a person who believes a book, film or other work of art is obscene may sue in their own name to have the work banned directly without having to ask a District Attorney to do so.

In this case the CAA do not have automatic standing under the law. This is because the situation is not a question of environmental laws. Nor is Measure V involving any obscenity doctrine. Thus there is NO AUTOMATIC STANDING.

Thus the CAA has no legal standing, the courts actions are invalid because the CAA has no standing

Thus the Complaint is clearly void, but most importantly, if you do not have a legitimate answers regarding my questions I asked in the previous postings, You are not interested in perceiving the complete picture. I do respect your point of view however, you have the right to argue your point of view


6 people like this
Posted by mike rose
a resident of another community
on Dec 27, 2016 at 10:02 pm

mike rose is a registered user.

Business Man,
Stop spreading this silly misinformation.
Every person with average IQ can check quickly that US Supreme Court established that association has legal standing to sue on behalf of its members. So negating this and all your other "lawyering" is silly and childish .
I hope they will not consider you for the rent board.


8 people like this
Posted by Randy Guelph
a resident of Cuernavaca
on Dec 27, 2016 at 10:55 pm

Randy Guelph is a registered user.

Mike,

The Business Man's legal advice has been at least as good as yours, considering you've been floating some fever-dream fantasy that involves Trump packing the Supreme Court with automata solely focused on overturning that scourge of rent stabilization.

Pot, meet kettle.


3 people like this
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Dec 27, 2016 at 11:06 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

Mike Rose,

I will be happy to concede your point, but first you need to demonstrate the following:

"Every person with average IQ can check quickly that US Supreme Court established that association has legal standing to sue on behalf of its members. So negating this and all your other "lawyering" is silly and childish ."

However, before I wrote my notes, I did extensive research to establish if my point was false. I googled the CAA and lawsuits. Here is the results: Web Link

I found no cases that were filed by the CAA in any court. I did find this information:

"CAA’s Argument Against Rent Control Goes to U.S. Supreme Court

The California Apartment Association (CAA’s) Legal Fund has filed a second brief asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review a lower court ruling in the case of GUGGENHEIM V. CITY OF GOLETA Although this particular case deals with mobile home rent control, the recent lower court ruling against the property owner could set a precedent that allows cities throughout California to revisit the issue of rent control for all rental housing....

CAA HAS SUBMITTED THE AMICUS BRIEF TO ASSIST THE COURT IN UNDERSTANDING THE FAR-REACHING PUBLIC POLICY EFFECTS OF GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF RENTS AND THE INVALIDITY OF RENT CONTROL MEASURES."

(The above text is taken directly from the amicus brief prepared by the law offices of Pahl and McCay, CAA’s legal counsel)(Web Link)

This document states that the plaintiff is the GUGGENHEIM the plaintiff is NOT THE CAA. it filed a friend of the court document, but it clearly does not state that the Court accepted that the CAA had standing in the case.

There was also this information:

"CAA Files Brief in U.S. Supreme Court to End Mandated Life-Long Tenancies

The California Apartment Association (CAA) has filed a brief in the U.S. Supreme Court case of MORTIMER HOWARD TRUST VS. PARK VILLAGE APARTMENTS TENANTS ASSOCIATION.

Specifically, this case involves a group of low-income, elderly tenants of a former project-based federally subsidized Section 8 housing complex. The tenants argue that federal law gives them a right to remain in the complex and to pay a portion of their rent by using federally funded "enhanced vouchers." Defendant, Mortimer Howard Trust of Oakland, who owns the housing complex, argues that the tenants have no right to remain in the complex or to use the vouchers to pay their rent. Defendants further contend that even if the tenants have the right to remain in the complex and to pay a portion of their rent relying on the vouchers, a court cannot compel the property owner to enter into a contract with the local housing authority that would require them to provide a certain level of service to tenants of the complex.

This case is an appeal from the Ninth Circuit Court, which interpreted federal law as granting existing eligible low-income tenants the right to remain indefinitely in formerly federally subsidized housing, paying only 30 percent of their adjusted gross income even after the subsidy contracts have expired. The decision essentially grants a life estate with minimal conditions on the existing tenants, regardless of the desires of the rental property owner.(Web Link)

Again this is an amicus brief, the Plaintiff in this case is MORTIMER HOWARD TRUST and plaintiff is NOT THE CAA.

This would appear to indicate that the CAA has never been a plaintiff in a case before any court in it's history.

I hate to ask, but who is distributing what could be argued as misinformation?

Again I respect your point of view, but you need to do a much better job in disproving my information, or properly researching to make sure your statements are accurate. Otherwise you are bringing extreme discredit to your position.



3 people like this
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Dec 27, 2016 at 11:12 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

And a quick follow up, the CAA knows it cannot argue as a plaintiff in a court case.

Proof of this is that when these briefs were filed, if they could have been the plaintiff they would have been. THe Federal Court though would have dismissed any case if it was filed by the CAA themselves.

The only legal practice regarding legal action that the CAA can do is file Amicus Briefs, but the CAA made a seriously terrible mistake to try to take action on it's own. Because only the owners of the properties have standing in the courts.




3 people like this
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Dec 28, 2016 at 1:51 am

The Business Man is a registered user.

Mike Rose,

Another follow up

It turned out that the U.S. Supreme Court turned down the request for even considering the case of Guggenheim v. City of Goleta Petition. The petition which the CAA submitted an amicus brief was denied certiorari on May 16, 2011.( Web Link) Certiorari is the term used when the Supreme Court will certify or reject the legal decision made by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

It also turned out that the U.S. Supreme Court turned down the request for even considering the case of Mortimer Howard Trust v. Park Village Apartment Tenants Association. The petition which the CAA submitted an amicus brief was denied certiorari denied on November 28, 2011.( Web Link). Certiorari is the term used when the Supreme Court will certify or reject the legal decision made by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

My web links provide the entire history of the cases and how they all rejected the claim that rent control measures are violations of the U.S. Constitution “Takings” clause.

Measure V, was designed to be in complete compliance with the Federal Constitutions requirements based on the legal histories of these cases. Thus if Santa Clara County were to even consider the case, these court precedence would in fact pre-determine that any decision to rule Measure V is unconstitutional, would simply be overturned in the federal court.

What is the definition of insanity?

THE DEFINITION OF INSANITY IS DOING THE SAME THING OVER AND OVER AGAIN AND EXPECTING DIFFERENT RESULTS - Albert Einstein.

It would appear that the CAA has a nasty record of failure in front of the Federal Courts as a whole given that it seems every case it tries to support fails badly. It appears that the legal advocates working for the CAA have a losing record and or the CAA simply refuses to accept reality.

Why does the apartment owners or landlords work with such a group that appears to not be effective, or worse not dealing with reality?

Simply stating the same error over and over again doesn’t make the error disappear, it simply means that one is adamantly opposed to learning from a mistake.

Please Mike, take some time to reflect on my information, that’s all I ask? I do not expect you to ever agree, but please express the same respect I deliver to you? I respect you and I have in many of my previous posts expressed that this situation is a very bad one for everyone.

Especially those who were convinced that properties they bought were more valuable then what they were. Unfortunately California law and the California Government has seen fit to not take any corrective action to protect these investors.

However, for those investor to try to leverage their loss on those that did not receive any of financial ill-gotten gains, the renters, in my belief is totally unjustified.

The CAA should act to correct the legal mess so that property investors can hold those who in a sense stole from them, the real estate agents and appraisers, to be required to compensate them for their false representations of value. The individuals are the cause of the problem, which are not renters who lived in the apartments prior to any change of ownership, should be held legally accountable. In fact, unless you can demonstrate in any way that the renters contributed in any way to this illegal process, please do not even consider that a renter is responsible for the decision made to buy any property?

Why do property owners expect that this is a reasonable business practice? It is not. Because of this, the property owners have an unrealistic expectation. In fact, what this is, is a subjugation of people that never did anything to deserve this treatment.

Just think, I have 2 B.S. in Business Administration from an Accredited Business School, can you at least understand that my comments are not “Socialist” but a real understanding of the big picture?


5 people like this
Posted by mike rose
a resident of another community
on Dec 28, 2016 at 10:30 am

mike rose is a registered user.

Business Man,
There is really no reason for you to try to reinvent the wheel.
This is a settled matter already. Use your time more productively, maybe try to find a job with these high credentials you have mentioned. You DO NOT UNDERSTAND LEGAL ISSUES, so please save your self indulging comments for yourself. Just because you use Latin phrases, and then try to translate them to the "uneducated" masses, does not mean that you make any sense.
You are highly biased against landlords and CAA and should not be selected to the Board.
Here is a very good explanation of legal standing of association (any t, not CAA only)to sue.



Standing of Association to Sue


An organization has standing to sue if it meets U.S. Const. art. III’s standing requirements. An organization can establish standing to bring suit under two theories. The first is an organizational theory which enables an organization to bring suit on its own behalf. The second is a representational theory which allows an organization to sue on behalf of its members.[i]

The U.S. Supreme Court has set out three requirements for an associational plaintiff to have standing under U.S. Const. art. III to sue on behalf of its members: (1) its members must have standing to sue on their own; (2) the interests he/she seeks to protect must be germane to the organization’s purpose; and (3) neither the claim asserted nor the relief requested may require the participation of individual members in the lawsuit.[ii] Such associational standing requires that at least some members would have standing to sue in their own right. The first two factors are required by the Constitution and the third is a judicially self imposed limit on the exercise of federal jurisdiction that Congress may remove by statute.

Organizations are entitled to sue on their own behalf for injuries they have sustained. To do so, the organization must meet the same standing test that applies to individuals by showing actual or threatened injury in fact that is fairly traceable to the alleged illegal action and likely to be redressed by a favorable court decision.[iii] An organizational plaintiff may have standing to sue on its own behalf to vindicate whatever rights and immunities the association itself may enjoy or, under certain conditions, to sue on behalf of its members to assert members’ individual rights. In those cases where an organization is suing on its own behalf, it must establish concrete and demonstrable injury to the organization’s activities resulting in a subsequent drain on the organization’s resources and not make just a broad claim that the organization’s social interests have been setback. Indeed, the organization must allege defined and actual damage to organization’s interests by the challenged action .[iv]

In cases where the fact and extent of injury requires individualized proof in order to support the cause of action such as a suit for damages for financial injury, associations do not have a standing. Therefore, an association has standing to seek a declaration, injunction, or some other form of prospective relief on behalf of its members and does not enjoy standing to seek damages for monetary injuries peculiar to individual members.

Moreover, if the outcome of the litigation creates serious conflicts of interest, associational standing is inappropriate. A serious conflict of interest arises in the following circumstances: (i) an association seeks standing to directly sue some of its own members,(ii) where the suit, if successful, would be directly detrimental to the interests of some of its members. In addition, if a successful suit would harm some member’s interests, the litigation is not germane to the association’s purposes.

[i] Goldstein v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 278 F. Supp. 2d 766 (E.D. Va. 2003)

[ii] N.J. Prot. & Advocacy, Inc. v. Davy, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22749 (D.N.J. Sept. 30, 2005)

[iii] Irish Lesbian & Gay Org. v. Giuliani, 143 F.3d 638 (2d Cir. N.Y. 1998)

[iv] Ctr. for Law & Educ. v. United States Dep’t of Educ., 315 F. Supp. 2d 15 (D.D.C. 2004)


3 people like this
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Dec 28, 2016 at 12:14 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

Mike Rose

You stated:

“The U.S. Supreme Court has set out three requirements for an associational plaintiff to have standing under U.S. Const. art. III to sue on behalf of its members: (1) its members must have standing to sue on their own; (2) the interests he/she seeks to protect must be germane to the organization’s purpose; and (3) neither the claim asserted nor the relief requested may require the participation of individual members in the lawsuit.[ii] Such associational standing requires that at least some members would have standing to sue in their own right. The first two factors are required by the Constitution and the third is a judicially self imposed limit on the exercise of federal jurisdiction that Congress may remove by statute.”

I will address part 1, its members must have standing to sue on their own; the CAA represents the entire membership of the CAA, and it would be required to argue to the court that the entire membership is being harmed as a whole and not just part of it. In this case the CAA is only representing a very tiny minority of their membership in this case. Yes section [ii] states that the CAA can represent for a minority, but this would require that those challenging the law would be listed as a plaintiff in the case. This has not occurred here. I am certain that Mountain View apartment owner or landlords refuse to file in court because the consequence will be that the potential customers will see those openly hostile to tenants. This would indicate that part 1 was not satisfied and thus the CAA would have no standing.

Now part 2, the interests he/she seeks to protect must be germane to the organization’s purpose , the purpose of the CAA has been described as:

About CAA(Web Link)

“The California Apartment Association is the nation’s largest statewide trade group representing owners, investors, developers, managers and suppliers of rental homes and apartment communities. Our staff — based in Sacramento and with strategic hubs throughout California — includes experts in rental housing law, legal analysts, state and local lobbyists, member-service representatives and media-outreach specialists. For more than 75 years, CAA has served rental home and apartment owners and managers through tireless work in public affairs, education and customer service.”

This part indicates that the CAA has a purpose of public affairs, education and customer service, since when challenging the constitutionality equates to being germane to this purpose. The CAA purpose has been defined in such a way by their own words as to exclude the CAA as having a germane purpose to represent the apartment owners or landlords of the city of Mountain View regarding Measure V.

“We represent the ethical members of the rental housing industry in all aspects of government affairs within the state of California, and we provide information, products and services which contribute to the success of their businesses.”

Again the public disclosure described here does not include a germane purpose for the CAA to represent the apartment owners or landlords of Mountain View in court because court action is beyond the scope of information, products and services that contribute to the success of their business.

What we achieve

“Whether in city halls — or under the dome of the state Capitol — we have a proven track record of defeating onerous proposals that threaten the rental housing industry. We remind policymakers of our vital role our members serve in providing homes to the state’s workforce, providing lawmakers with key insights as they frame key decisions. We provide members with up-to-date information on new and pending legislation, keeping our members abreast of California’s complex web of laws and regulations. We help you navigate legal issues, master risk management and put best business practices in place. We help you better serve your customers and grow your business.”

In what way did Measure V interfere or impair the CAA from performing this function. In fact this seems to be proven to be successfully performed even though Measure V had passed. The CAA could be argued given this information that they are constrained from filing court complaints because their purpose is to “We remind policymakers of our vital role our members serve in providing homes to the state’s workforce, providing lawmakers with key insights as they frame key decisions.” Thus Measure V is not a challenge to the germane purpose of the trade group.

The CAA website also states Web Link)

Membership Benefits

We fight daily for the rental property industry in the state Capitol, city halls and county courthouses.

This statement appears to support the claim that it might be a germane purpose of the CAA to argue cases in court. But, does this statement established that the CAA can challenge constitutionality of laws in the courts. It appears that this statement is very vague, it could be argued that the CAA’s germane purpose is to enforce the EXISTING laws with regards to the business of apartments. But given that the CAA has declared previously that its purpose is to “public affairs, education and customer service,”. There is no formal disclosure that the CAA’s purpose is to challenge the laws specifically. In fact that would contradict in the following text on the same page:

“Our website contains information that helps you stay informed and in compliance with California rental housing laws. Use our knowledge base to search for the latest forms, white papers, issues and insights and Frequently Asked Questions.”

This portion does not in fact state the purpose of the CAA is to challenge laws for constitutionality, but to ensure compliance with California rental housing law. In that regard of course the same would follow for any County or City rental laws or regulations. That statement seems to contradict the actions at this time, the CAA purpose is not to challenge the laws, but to provide advice as to prevent violation of the laws.

In conclusion, it would appear regarding part 2 of this text, the CAA has not satisfied the requirement to proceed in the courts in this case.

As far as part 3 (3) neither the claim asserted nor the relief requested may require the participation of individual members in the lawsuit.

Since no apartment owner nor landlord are listed in the case as plaintiffs, it would appear that this rule the Supreme Court established has not been satisfied. I am certain that no apartment owner or landlord will file a case in court because it will publically established an inherent hostility toward potential tenants.

You also stated:

“ORGANIZATIONS ARE ENTITLED TO SUE ON THEIR OWN BEHALF FOR INJURIES THEY HAVE SUSTAINED. TO DO SO, THE ORGANIZATION MUST MEET THE SAME STANDING TEST THAT APPLIES TO INDIVIDUALS BY SHOWING ACTUAL OR THREATENED INJURY IN FACT THAT IS FAIRLY TRACEABLE TO THE ALLEGED ILLEGAL ACTION AND LIKELY TO BE REDRESSED BY A FAVORABLE COURT DECISION.[iii] An organizational plaintiff may have standing to sue on its own behalf to vindicate whatever rights and immunities the association itself may enjoy or, under certain conditions, to sue on behalf of its members to assert members’ individual rights. IN THOSE CASES WHERE AN ORGANIZATION IS SUING ON ITS OWN BEHALF, IT MUST ESTABLISH CONCRETE AND DEMONSTRABLE INJURY TO THE ORGANIZATION’S ACTIVITIES RESULTING IN A SUBSEQUENT DRAIN ON THE ORGANIZATION’S RESOURCES AND NOT MAKE JUST A BROAD CLAIM THAT THE ORGANIZATION’S SOCIAL INTERESTS HAVE BEEN SETBACK. INDEED, THE ORGANIZATION MUST ALLEGE DEFINED AND ACTUAL DAMAGE TO ORGANIZATION’S INTERESTS BY THE CHALLENGED ACTION .[iv]”

In previous posts I have already demonstrated the CAA has not been directly injured by enforcement of Measure V which would contradict the requirement that: “ORGANIZATIONS ARE ENTITLED TO SUE ON THEIR OWN BEHALF FOR INJURIES THEY HAVE SUSTAINED. TO DO SO, THE ORGANIZATION MUST MEET THE SAME STANDING TEST THAT APPLIES TO INDIVIDUALS BY SHOWING ACTUAL OR THREATENED INJURY IN FACT THAT IS FAIRLY TRACEABLE TO THE ALLEGED ILLEGAL ACTION AND LIKELY TO BE REDRESSED BY A FAVORABLE COURT DECISION….”

In what way has the CAA itself been injured, the text you provided seems to argue that the CAA must demonstrate that “IN THOSE CASES WHERE AN ORGANIZATION IS SUING ON ITS OWN BEHALF, ESTABLISH CONCRETE AND DEMONSTRABLE INJURY TO THE ORGANIZATION’S ACTIVITIES RESULTING IN A SUBSEQUENT DRAIN ON THE ORGANIZATION’S RESOURCES…” However in no place in the pleading or in the discussion publically has the CAA stated how it has been injured by Measure V. My previous posts have already explained that the CAA has not been injured to the extent that would provide standing for a legal complaint.

Also the text stated “AND NOT MAKE JUST A BROAD CLAIM THAT THE ORGANIZATION’S SOCIAL INTERESTS HAVE BEEN SETBACK. INDEED, THE ORGANIZATION MUST ALLEGE DEFINED AND ACTUAL DAMAGE TO ORGANIZATION’S INTERESTS BY THE CHALLENGED ACTION.” But this is exactly the argument being made by the CAA in the current case. Again, I already demonstrated that the CAA cannot demonstrate direct injury to it because of the existence of Measure V. So this text you found in fact does not support any standing for the CAA.

You do not seem to understand the research you use.


5 people like this
Posted by mike rose
a resident of another community
on Dec 28, 2016 at 12:27 pm

mike rose is a registered user.

Your earlier quote should be self applied to yourself and to all proponents of rent control which has a proven and undisputed record of failure:

What is the definition of insanity?

THE DEFINITION OF INSANITY IS DOING THE SAME THING OVER AND OVER AGAIN AND EXPECTING DIFFERENT RESULTS - Albert Einstein.


BTW your explanations are pure BS.


3 people like this
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Dec 28, 2016 at 1:26 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

Mike Rose,

I never claimed you do not have a right to your belief, nor showed you any disrespect.

I simply address your point of view with a counter argument. That is my right to do.

We both are using our right under the 1st amendment to free speech.

I address the issues you bring up that might indicate some error on my part, and I simply expect you to do the same, I am not going to make this personal because it is too important to do so.

I still hate the fact that a compromise was not agreed to before the Measure was passed, it was simply an unavoidable problem because those who could have found a better solution refused to cooperate.

Oh well.


3 people like this
Posted by Randy Guelph
a resident of Cuernavaca
on Dec 28, 2016 at 1:27 pm

Randy Guelph is a registered user.

Mike, you've over and over demonstrated you barely understand rent stabilization, let alone rent stabilization in Mountain View as implemented by Measure V.

What's your timeframe for the Trump appointments to the Supreme Court that are going to overturn rent stabilization?


3 people like this
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Dec 28, 2016 at 2:07 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

Randy

Even though I agree with you, let's stick with the discussion topic.

Mike has a right to his opinion, we cannot force him to agree with us.

My hope is that by simply addressing his questions, further proves that the Measure was an appropriate act, is in fact constitutional, and that the CAA has made a serious mistake in its beliefs that it had standing to argue the constitutionality of the law.

And maybe, if we keep our discussion positive, and Mike has a reasonable mind and decides to reconsider his information, who knows, he can revise his point of view at any time. This is another right he has and we cannot force it down his proverbial throat.

I hope this is significant proof that Mike does have my respect, and motivates Mike to reconsider.




6 people like this
Posted by mike rose
a resident of another community
on Dec 28, 2016 at 5:56 pm

mike rose is a registered user.

Randy,
Few years for SCOTUS but it may not be needed. I think CAA is presenting a very good case. We will see.
But I know rent control lovers believe otherwise. Good Luck.


3 people like this
Posted by Randy Guelph
a resident of Cuernavaca
on Dec 28, 2016 at 6:12 pm

Randy Guelph is a registered user.

Only a few years? Is he going to force justices to retire or just pack the court? I'm really excited to hear how this fantasy plays out in your head.

Rent stabilization has been held up in California over and over again, yet somehow, this time, CAA has a "very good case" against a standard rent stabilization act? Come on. Facts, logic, and history get you a long way to understanding the world.

Seriously, try to use some small amount of logic and reasoning to understand what is likely to happen, rather than just what you desperately want to happen.


6 people like this
Posted by mike rose
a resident of another community
on Dec 28, 2016 at 6:58 pm

mike rose is a registered user.

Randy, it is not that simple unfortunately. If it was, CAA would not waste their resources.
I can make just few brief points here.
One is that the fact of partial regulatory taking has been recognized relatively recently by CA courts and US Supreme Court.
This is going to be at play here.
Unfortunately this issue has not been definitely sorted out by courts and remains subject to interpretation hence my hint to SCOTUS.
The unconstitutional partial regulatory taking claim has relatively short statue of limitations ( I think state and cities uis 90 days and federal 1 year)
This is why Cities with long existing rent controls cannot bring this issue up now. But MV can and remains to be seen what is going to happen. At the time SFO Berkeley enacted their controls this partial regulatory taking was not recognized as taking requiring compensation.
I am sure Business Man will counter this as he counters all positive developments and prospects against rent control


3 people like this
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Dec 28, 2016 at 7:14 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

Mike,

I have discussed so much in this thread that I think it is time to call it a day. I don't want to be considered as monopolizing on the subject. I just hope that the courts and the city eventually will follow the laws as I described.

You and I disagree, but that doesn't mean I need to keep arguing with you.

You may continue perpetually to bring up different arguments. That is your right.

However, it looks like we have in essence exhausted the subject, my information is posted and I stand by it.

I still haven't been answered from the City Attorney nor the City Council, why they chose to not follow the laws regarding the restraining order, standing, and the required continuing enforcement of Measure V because it was required until the courts have completed all proceedings. Especially when Proposition 8 was in effect even when the courts ruled it unconstitutional for 5 years.

The CAA cannot have more rights than Same-Sex Couples under the constitution, but Same-Sex couples were prevented from Marriage until the Supreme Court finally closed the case in 2013. Measure V must be enforced the same way right now, because there is no distinguishing difference between the cases.

The same must be done with the CAA in this case.


3 people like this
Posted by mike rose
a resident of another community
on Dec 28, 2016 at 8:33 pm

mike rose is a registered user.

And it very well may be . Temporary restraining order is NOT an injunction.


3 people like this
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Dec 28, 2016 at 8:35 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

Mike,

I hope we can set a good example. I would if I knew you personally call you a friend.

Good friends don't often agree, but they learn from each other that way.


3 people like this
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Dec 29, 2016 at 3:37 am

The Business Man is a registered user.

I could not sleep so I did some work again.

I want to address Mike Rose and the accurate issue of what partial takings are and does it apply to Mountain View and Measure V. I found the following text and will address it point by point:

Web Link

“According to the Kavanau court, in order to determine whether a particular regulation that does not result in a physical invasion and does not deprive the property owner of all economic use of the property nonetheless constitutes a taking, a reviewing court must evaluate the regulation in light of a long list of factors.

“The three most important factors are (1) the economic impact of the regulation on the claimant,”

As far as factor 1, can the CAA claim that Measure V had an economic impact on the CAA? This can be said as not possible because the CAA does not own properties in Mountain View. As far as members of CAA who do, I bring up that the Graham v. Bank of America case that demonstrated that property appraisals are only opinions, not statements of value, so if these values go down due to Measure V, it is irreverent and cannot be the basis of an economic loss.

“Factor (2) the extent to which the regulation has infringed on reasonable investment-backed expectations, and “

As far a factor 2, can the CAA demonstrate that Measure V has infringed on reasonable investment-backed expectations? When I read what is the definition of the term “reasonable investment-backed expectations, the legal article found here (Web Link)
Specifically this document states:

B. "Investment-Backed"

1. Reasonable Return vs. Speculation

The second component of the reasonable investment-backed expectations analysis, whether the expectations are "investment-backed," (178) has spawned much commentary from both courts and legal critics. The problem seems to have originated within the Penn Central opinion itself. Justice Brennan carefully distinguished mere profitability or the most optimal use of property from seeking to obtain a "reasonable return" on the investment. (179) This has been characterized as the "speculator exception," referring to a speculator interested in the profitability of land as opposed to others who will theoretically be satisfied with a reasonable return on their property investment. (180) Consequently, since the Penn Central decision, courts have been confused and conflicted over the proper interpretation of this distinction.

Professor Mandelker notes the limitations placed on the expectations taking factor by Justice Brennan. Professor Mandelker attributes the Courts' refusal to protect speculation to the "social undesirability" of land speculation. (181) One definition distinguishes land investment from land speculation by characterizing the former as holding land to earn a profit on activities conducted on the land during the holding period, and the latter as holding land to earn a profit on its capital appreciation when it is sold.(182) This approach limits application of the investment-backed expectations factor by circumscribing the type of expectations a court will consider investment-backed.(83) THE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT THE MERE PURCHASE OF LAND DOES NOT MAKE AN EXPECTATION INVESTMENT-BACKED; THE ONLY EXPECTATION THE LAW RECOGNIZES IS THE EXPECTATION THAT REGULATION WILL NOT RESTRICT THE USE OF LAND SO MUCH SO THAT NO REASONABLE USE REMAINS.(184) Recall that a taking does not occur so long as a landowner's primary expectations in the use of his land are not frustrated.(185) Limiting expectations to those which attempt to earn a profit on activities conducted on the land seems to fit squarely within this notion of reasonableness.

PROFESSOR MANDELKER, HOWEVER, NOTES THAT THERE ARE SERIOUS DIFFICULTIES WITH THIS APPROACH TO DETERMINING WHETHER A PURCHASER BOUGHT THE LAND FOR INVESTMENT OR SPECULATION. Not only is an analysis of motive required, but a court must also consider whether the motive has changed over time. (186) By contrast, whether an investment is reasonable is considered only in reference to the time at which the investment was made.(87) CONCEIVABLY, ONE WHO PURCHASES LAND SPECULATIVELY BUT WHO LATER DECIDES TO PROFIT FROM THE USE OF THE LAND, COULD BE DENIED COMPENSATION FOR A TAKING BECAUSE HIS MOTIVE CHANGED FROM THAT OF A SPECULATOR TO THAT OF A DEVELOPER. (188) At the same time, an owner whose investment is found to be reasonable when made before the enactment of a governmental regulation will be compensated for a taking, while the same investment made after the governmental regulation would be deemed unreasonable. IN MANY CASES, COURTS HAVE FOCUSED ON THE "REASONABLE" FACTOR IN THEIR APPLICATION OF THIS TEST,(189) ONLY APPLYING THE SPECULATOR EXCEPTION TO THE "INVESTMENT-BACKED" FACTOR WHEN IT IS CLEAR THAT THE LANDOWNER IS ATTEMPTING TO EXPLOIT THE LAND TO RECEIVE A CAPITAL GAIN.(190)

Footnotes:
(178). Penn Cent. Transp. Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104, 124 (1978).
(179). Id. at 136.
(180). Michelman, supra note 21, at 1223 ("A decision not to compensate is not unfair as long as the disappointed claimant ought to be able to appreciate how such decisions might fit into a consistent practice. . ").
(181). Mandelker, Is There a Taking?, supra note 4, at 19.
(182). Id. at 21 (citing L HEALY & J. SHORT, THE MARKET FOR RURAL LAND 65 (1982)).
(183). MANDELKER, LAND USE LAW, supra note 3, § 2.18.
(184). Id.
(185). Id.
(186). Mandelker, Is There a Taking?, supra note 4, at 21.
(187). Peterson, supra note 27, at 1322.
(188). See Mandelker, Is There A Taking?, supra note 4, at 21.
(189). In a number of cases, courts appear to decide the issue solely upon examination of the reasonableness of the expectations involved. E.g., Nollan v. California Coastal Comm'n, 483 U.S. 825 (1987); Hodel v. Irving, 481 U.S. 704, 715 (1987); Connolly v. Pension Benefit Guar. Corp., 475 U.S. 211, 226-27 (1986); Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co., 467 U.S. 986, 1011 (1984).
(190). E.g., Keystone Bituminous Coal Ass'n v. DeBenedictis, 480 U.S. 470, 495-96 (1987); Southview Assocs. Ltd. v. Bongartz, 980 F.2d 84,94 (1992); Lakeview Dev. Corp. v. City of South Lake Tahoe, 915 F.2d 1290, 1300 (1990); Jentgen v. United States, 657 F.2d 1210, 1213 (1981)

This would indicate that if the current apartment property market is acting on SPECULATION, where properties are only expected to provide cash return upon resale and not be DEVELOPED, then the term reasonable investment-backed expectations does not apply at all. The CAA cannot claim that there exists a reasonable investment-backed expectation at play. So if this is the key element in the current complaint, this is a defective one.

Factor (3) the character of the government action. “

As far as factor 3 the CAA is rearguing a situation that as far as the government action is concerned, this is where the Supreme Court has never claimed that rent control is in fact a taking under the U.S. Constitution.

“Other relevant factors may include Factor (4) whether the regulation interferes with interests that are sufficiently bound up with the reasonable expectations of the claimant to constitute "property" for Fifth Amendment purposes,”

As far as factor 4 the CAA cannot claim that Measure V impacts a reasonable expectations rule only applies to DEVELOPMENT of property and not SPECULATION where property is purchased only to generate cash upon resale. This is not a reasonable expectation under the law.

“Factor (5) whether the regulation affects the existing or traditional use of the property,”

As far as factor 5, the CAA cannot claim that Measure V effects the existing or traditional use of property. Measure V has no jurisdiction on it, that function is performed by a separate process in the City of Mountain View

“Factor (6) the nature of the state's interest in the regulation”

As far as factor 6 the CAA has not established in any way that the City’s interest in the regulation does not satisfy the standard necessary to justify Measure V, in fact it is not discussed at all. Measure V however does clearly describe a reasonable basis for why the Measure regulates the rental market in Mountain View.

“Factor (7) whether the property owner's holding is limited to the specific interest the regulation abrogates or is broader,”

As far as factor 7, The CAA did not demonstrate this issue in the complaint. I do not know enough to make any determination. However the fact that Measure V does not regulate development of the property or changes ownership to a third party on the deed might mean that this factor is irrelevant.

“Factor (8) whether the government is requiring resources to permit or facilitate uniquely public functions,”

As far as factor 8, the CAA has not discussed this regarding Measure V. The Property owners are not compelled to provide any resources regarding what can be defined as a public function, nor is there any claim there is.

“Factor (9) whether the regulation permits the owner to profit and obtain a reasonable return on the investment”

As far as factor 9, the CAA has not demonstrated in it’s complaint what IS the REASONABLE RETURN ON INVESTMENT. The CAA will have to define this and present it to the court for the court to determine it is just. I did a google search and the results are here, and there is no objective standard as to what a reasonable return on investment is (Web Link) The court will have to weigh the methodology of determining the what is reasonable, versus just average, given that properties vary in nature like crazy in Mountain View. The reasonable return on investment range can be from 4% –10%. (Web Link). Measure V allows for as much as 5% for annual rent increases. That would sit in the reasonable return range. Measure V also provides for just cause higher rent increases through a petition with the CSFRA board of the City of Mountain View. Measure V does not state that it is designed to prohibit owner profits or return on investment.

“Factor (10) whether the regulation provides the owner benefits or rights that mitigate the burdens of the regulation, “

As far as factor 10 the CAA has not demonstrated that Measure V does not prevent the CAA from filing for a waiver or adjustment in lawful rent. Thus the CAA cannot claim that Measure V prohibits this action.

“Factor (11) whether the regulation prevents the best use of the land”

As far as factor 11 is concerned, The CAA cannot claim Measure V does prohibit any use of the land, it has no bearing on it at all. Use of land is not determined by Measure V. Thus Measure V cannot impact the CAA in this manner.

“ Factor (12) whether the regulation extinguishes a fundamental attribute of ownership”

As far as factor 12 is concerned the CAA cannot claim that Measure V in fact takes ownership of the property in question. Measure V does not change the deed to the property is still assigned to the apartment owner. Measure V has no impact on what the owner can do regarding the property regarding development, or the freedom to sell it to another party. Development is a separate function in the City of Mountain View. Thus Measure V cannot impact the CAA as defined by this concept.

“ Factor (13) whether the government is demanding the property as a condition for the granting of a permit.

As far as factor 13 is concerned the CAA cannot claim that Measure V demands any property for a permit. This factor appears to be irrelevant.

“The court emphasized that the list is not intended to be comprehensive, nor is it intended to provide a single analytical method for approaching all takings claims. - See more at: Web Link

I hope this does assist the public in the many dimensions of this question.


3 people like this
Posted by mike rose
a resident of another community
on Dec 29, 2016 at 9:25 am

mike rose is a registered user.

Is an expectation of receiving a market price for the property a speculation as you suggest or reasonable expectation?
Kavanau case you quoted is a good one and court found partial taking pcuured there ( you convinientely omitted this important fact). Court found there rent regulations as regulatory taking without just compensation.
So I consider that case a sort of minor testing of the issue. Major one is going to be this one.
And I agree there is a lot subject to interpretation of the courts.


3 people like this
Posted by Randy Guelph
a resident of Cuernavaca
on Dec 29, 2016 at 10:52 am

Randy Guelph is a registered user.

You both realize that neither of you are lawyers and this isn't a courtroom, right? Seriously, what is the point of both of you arguing over case law when it's not your profession and this will have no bearing on anything? Mike, you don't even live here!


3 people like this
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Dec 29, 2016 at 12:50 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

Randy,

I must concede that your observation is correct on many fronts.

One, true I am not a lawyer. Two, this is not a courtroom.

My postings are for the purpose of distributing information relevant to the story, or address concerns raised by a fellow contributor.

But since I have found so much and complicated legal history, I am gravely concerned that a county judge might not be up to the task to properly adjudicate this situation. Especially when the City Attorney and City Council do not even seem to understand the legal issues themselves.

The City Attorney seems to have instead of being one of two samurai in a sword fight, who is in better shape because the others legs are cut, and on the high ground, instead for some reason commits hari kari and kills himself.

The public needs to be provided objective information that clearly indicates that the City Council is attacking the Citizens of Mountain View via the use of interfering with the City Attorney's efforts to defend them.

Or at the very least, I am using my 1st amendment right to express myself.

Have a great day everyone.


3 people like this
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Dec 29, 2016 at 1:34 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

Mike,

it appears your claim that rent control was unconstitutional based on Kavanau v. Santa Monica Rent Control Bd. (1997) is incorrect if you read Web Link

The court said


CHIN, J.-

In this case, we consider the inverse condemnation claim of Earl W. Kavanau, a property owner who prevailed in a prior action against the Santa Monica Rent Control Board (Rent Board) on the ground that the rent control regulations of the City of Santa Monica (the City) violated his right to due process of law. THE COURT OF APPEAL AFFIRMED THE TRIAL COURT'S DISMISSAL ORDER, REJECTING KAVANAU'S INVERSE CONDEMNATION CLAIM BECAUSE HE [16 CAL. 4TH 767] HAD NOT LOST "ALL USE OF HIS PROPERTY." We disagree that a property owner must lose all use of his property in order to have a viable inverse condemnation claim. Nevertheless, we conclude Kavanau is not entitled to maintain an inverse condemnation action, because he may obtain a full and adequate remedy for any interim loss flowing from the due process violation through an adjustment of future rents under the rent regulation process. ACCORDINGLY, WE AFFIRM THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEAL.

The court of appeal stated:

Court of Appeal Decision in Kavanau I

In Kavanau I, the Court of Appeal determined that the Rent Board's application of its 12 percent limit to Kavanau's petition for rent increases was unconstitutional. Though the court did not state whether it found a violation of Kavanau's due process rights or a taking without just compensation, the court applied a due process analysis and relied on our decisions in Calfarm, supra, 48 Cal. 3d 805, Fisher, supra, 37 Cal. 3d 644, and Birkenfeld, supra, 17 Cal. 3d 129, which were all due process cases. (Kavanau I, supra, 19 Cal.App.4th at pp. 734-735.) THUS, WE CONCLUDE THE COURT DID NOT FIND A TAKING.

THe Supreme Court said.

WE QUESTION SOME OF THE COURT OF APPEAL'S REASONING IN KAVANAU I. FOR EXAMPLE, THAT COURT IMPLIED THAT THE STATE AND FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONS REQUIRE APPLICATION OF THE "FAIR RETURN ON INVESTMENT" FORMULA FOR SETTING RENT CEILINGS. (Kavanau I, supra, 19 Cal.App.4th at pp. 733, 735; for a discussion of the fair return on investment formula, see Guidelines, supra, 35 Rutgers L.Rev. at pp. 790-796.) THOUGH WE HAVE USED THE PHRASE "JUST AND REASONABLE RETURN" (BIRKENFELD, SUPRA, 17 CAL.3D AT P. 165), WE HAVE NEVER HELD THAT EITHER THE STATE OR FEDERAL CONSTITUTION REQUIRES APPLICATION OF THE FAIR RETURN ON INVESTMENT FORMULA OR ANY OTHER SPECIFIC FORMULA. (Fisher, supra, 37 [16 Cal. 4th 778] Cal.3d at p. 681 [rejecting argument that Constitution requires application of the circular "fair return on market value" formula]; Carson, supra, 35 Cal.3d at p. 191.)

THe Supreme Courts conclusion was

Conclusion

Kavanau I determined that application of the Rent Board's 12 percent limit on rent increases violated Kavanau's right to due process. THE REMEDY OF FUTURE RENT ADJUSTMENTS AVAILABLE TO KAVANAU UNDER THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE PRECLUDES A FINDING OF A TAKING IN THIS CASE. ACCORDINGLY, WE AFFIRM THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEAL.

In the Majority opinion it was said:

THUS, ONE WHO PERSISTS IN ENGAGING IN A REGULATED ACTIVITY OVER AN EXTENDED PERIOD OF TIME, WHEN WITHDRAWAL FROM THAT ACTIVITY IS AN OPTION, CANNOT LAY AT THE DOORSTEP OF GOVERNMENT REGULATION THE REASON FOR ITS ECONOMIC FAILURE. Government regulation may indeed place some firms in financial jeopardy, but that in itself does not give rise to a constitutional violation when the government does not block the outflow of assets from these no-longer-profitable enterprises. Some features of the rate regulation may be a violation of substantive due process if they cannot be said to be part of a rational regulatory scheme, and these would therefore be subject to invalidation through injunctive and declaratory relief. BUT IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT ONE WHO HAS A RIGHT TO WITHDRAW HIS CAPITAL FROM THE REGULATED ENTERPRISE IN QUESTION MAY PRESS A DAMAGES CLAIM AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT, EITHER A JUST COMPENSATION CLAIM FOR A TAKING OR A STATUTORY CLAIM FOR DAMAGES UNDER SECTION 1983 OF TITLE 42 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE. It appears doubtful therefore that a landlord who is subject to lower-than-reasonable rents, AND HAS THE OPTION OF WITHDRAWING FROM THE RENTAL MARKET, OR RECOUPING HIS PREVIOUS LOSSES PROSPECTIVELY THROUGH A COMPENSATORY RENT ORDER, CAN EVER PRESS SUCH A CLAIM.

Measure V guarantees that the CAA can participate in due process and acquire a compensatory rent order, after a hearing with the City CSFRA board. The county court cannot assume that these hearings are not in compliance with due process "prospectively" because no hearings have in fact taken place yet. The court can only intervene after evidence of the boards actions are violation of due process can the court intervene, because such violation simply has not taken place.

So your claim that the Kavanau case was one of a violation of the takings clause is incorrect. Measure V does in fact provide rent adjustments this does not run afoul to the requirements established in this case.

Mike, it almost looks like your trying to encourage me to present information that clearly does more to support Measure V than argues against it. I think you are actually helping me guide my research, and I thank you very much.

Again, I feel that the City Council and City Attorney knows about this situation and has seen fit to actively attack the City of Mountain View simply because they failed to win Measure W. The City Council made no attempt to hide the fact that it was an enemy of Measure V. This behavior would be consistent with both criminal and civil negative consequences under federal law.

Mike, if the situation was reversed, and you knew that those responsible for representing you were actively opposing your welfare, you would act in the same way.



3 people like this
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jan 3, 2017 at 1:39 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

SO here is an update:

I have officially withdrawn my application for CSFRA board.

But I have also made a formal complaint against the City Council and City Attorney for 4 actions that invalidate their conduct and the stipulation signed regarding the restraining order. I also made it clear that the complaint be made public.

Too bad, I am used to being required to act within multiple codes of conduct, establishing not only provable fairness but clearing demonstrating the appearance of fairness as well.

My work has had me in control of some of the most sensitive and exploitable environments and tools one can have, but I prove worthy of acting ethically, and responsibly.

I am certified as trustworthy by the US Government by being awarded the privilege of a Security Clearance and proven my integrity and validity of that decision on so many occasions.

The City of Mountain View and the CAA both lost a very valuable resource.


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

Email:


Post a comment

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

Get fact-based reporting on the COVID-19 crisis sent to your inbox daily.

Palo Alto's Mayfield Bakery & Cafe permanently closes after 11-year run
By Elena Kadvany | 18 comments | 15,220 views

City staff is running Palo Alto
By Diana Diamond | 26 comments | 3,260 views

Couples: Are you Committed to your Vows or Dysfunction?
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 1,613 views

Kids and sugar: A cautionary tale
By Sherry Listgarten | 3 comments | 1,607 views