Town Square

Post a New Topic

Mountain View's motto: build, baby, build

Original post made on Dec 30, 2016

In the long-term, City Council members across the board have indicated Mountain View should be able to build its way out of its problems. But the public's demand for quicker relief proved a constant source of tension throughout 2016, best shown by voters' support for rent control in November.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Friday, December 30, 2016, 1:53 PM

Comments (70)

Posted by Member
a resident of Monta Loma
on Dec 30, 2016 at 2:39 pm

'Build Baby Build... for better or worse...'
It's for the worse, much much much worse. I'd support ANY anti growth new Cory council member. Though looks like every single one gets campaign contributions from the developers so it's all 'kickbacks baby kickbacks'....

Stop building, it's alrready way way insane, just like the stupid measure V you have over reacted. Housing is cooling off, rental units already stacking on market and next few years housing prices will come down slightly. So then all these new buildings will create the opposite effect and then we are stuck with more traffic, crime and noise and pollution than ever.

If you are going to build, build quality of life infrastructure for the citizens of Mt. View. Instead we suffer through insane projects being built creating more traffic, e.g. San Antonio Ave only make things even worse in the future. You have royally screwed everyone already and every project you green light is screwing us that much more. Overpaid, incompetent, and blatantly corrupt. Stop freaking building.

Posted by Fed up!
a resident of Shoreline West
on Dec 30, 2016 at 4:16 pm

Just say NO city council!!!!! Residents do not support "build, baby build". Our town I has become a dark cavern of streets lined with unsightly, outrageously priced cookie-cutter apartments, ridiculous amount of traffic, construction, loss of local small businesses replaced by a empty storefronts, housing or new turnover over-priced uninspired establishments, loss of variety in the jobs market due to Google pushing other employers out forcing anyone in MV who doesn't work for them into longer commutes. UGH!!!!!' No. let's for any City Council member who supports this agenda - which sounds like all of them.

Posted by Resident
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Dec 30, 2016 at 4:54 pm

I'm a 20 year resident of Mountain View, and a recent home owner, and I love that we're building, it's the only way to accommodate all the people pouring into the area from elsewhere, but we're doing it in the wrong way! I too hate cookie cutter developments, but those are forced by approval red tape, where it only makes sense to build on large scales like this to amortize red tape cost. I would LOVE to see Mountain View grow more organically, like NYC or even the Alameda. Mountain View's suburb days are clearly over, so I hope we actually end up with a vibrant, dense city, not a dull tech-only one. We need to build until housing and storefronts are affordable again.

Posted by Resident
a resident of Jackson Park
on Dec 30, 2016 at 5:20 pm

Whoa, you really think Mtn View should build like NYC, oh my what a stupid thought. Instead this built built needs to stop, those ugly buildings have nothing common with the neighborhoods they are put in. Just look at the ugly monstrosity next to one story homes on Central. I don't believe that this would happen next to one and two story homes near old Mtn View or Waverly Park or Gemello neighborhoods. Companies come and go, plus let's not forget that this bully of a company pays no sale tax to support this town. Instead their buses ruin our streets since the streets were not build for this heavy type of traffic. If you want NYC move there.

Posted by PA Resident
a resident of another community
on Dec 30, 2016 at 6:00 pm

It isn't just Mountain View, but all up and down the Peninsula as far as I can see - and probably farther afield too.

What really needs to be done is to get oversight on transportation issues and in particular public transit. There is space to build in places like Livermore, Vacaville, Tracey, Morgan Hill, but the ability to get from these places to where the jobs are is a ridiculous state of affairs. We have too many slow buses to nowhere and not enough efficient transportation that gets people where they need to go. We have no shuttles from freeway onramps parking lots to places of employement and no shuttles from Caltrain to business areas (apart from some run by private companies). Why not get the Google gurus who have worked this out for them to work for a Bay Area transit authority? Why do we have so many different transit agencies duplicating and not coordinating their services? Why do they look on public transit for low income people who can't afford to run a car? Why isn't efficient public transit a high priority for the Bay Area?

Posted by Alan L
a resident of Cuernavaca
on Dec 30, 2016 at 6:09 pm

What I continuously (not just here) find appalling is the total absence of calls for population reduction. Go on, folks, it is your RIGHT, by God, to have your kids---all of them. Traffic problems? You did it to yourselves.

Posted by Doug Pearson
a resident of Blossom Valley
on Dec 30, 2016 at 8:42 pm

I am sorry so many people are opposed to building both residences and business places. The only other way I can see to reduce the cost of living in Mountain View is for businesses to lay off workers and for residents to move somewhere else--in droves. This would cause a local recession, probably worse than the 2007-2009 recession when that actually happened. All this building will be very expensive, but the builders are likely to get their money back in sales or rents.

I agree with PA Resident that dramatic improvements in public transit would help. But that would be very expensive and fares are much too low to repay the cost..

I agree with the Mountain View business people who want Castro Street to continue under the railroad and Central Expressway. but that would be very expensive and I doubt that the added business would repay the cost, i.e., I don't think the local business people would gain enough extra business that the increased taxes would pay even the finance charges for that underpass.

Posted by Name hidden
a resident of Monta Loma

on Jan 1, 2017 at 9:21 am

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

Posted by MyOpinion
a resident of Sylvan Park
on Jan 1, 2017 at 9:59 pm

MyOpinion is a registered user.

To call the massive apartment blocks 'residences' is laughable. This is just temp housing for transient tech workers, they will stay for a few years until they can afford a nice residential community (not Mountain View) where they will buy a home and raise a family.

@Alan - to blame the current gridlock on population control makes no sense. This is not about people having too many kids. Tech workers are streaming into Silicon Valley from all over the world, companies like Google (and developers) demand that the City of MV approve high density housing and office complexes to meet the demand. That is what is causing gridlock, it's not about people having too many kids.

Posted by Building
a resident of another community
on Jan 2, 2017 at 1:27 pm

The thing that is most important is to not increase the office density any further! There is existing zoning that
already permits a lot of new construction of business space! DO NOT increase the amount that is allowed
still further. This was the big mistake in North Bayshore. The owners there could already construct 3-4 million
square feet of new office space. So before that even began to happen, the city revised the limits to permit 7 million square feet of new office space, without providing any housing. That is a great area if you are going to build
some of these "non residence" apartment blocks, and Google employees are young and will live just about anywhere. You have to realize that they are mostly hiring foreign citizens coming to the country for college and just graduating! They aren't picky about having a back yard! Give me a break. Now sure, SOME Google hires are paid more and want nicer places, but you know a lot do have to get b on just $100K per year!

Posted by Amelia
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Jan 2, 2017 at 7:32 pm

Mountain View is becoming more and more beautiful. I have watched crappy old buildings get torn down and beautiful ones get built in the last six years.

I'm proud that our city council only approves high quality projects. Palo Alto has a lot of hideous buildings going up. We should be thankful that our folks have a better eye for design than they do.

Posted by IVG
a resident of Rex Manor
on Jan 2, 2017 at 10:30 pm

"Build, baby build"? Hardly. Current development is on track for 1%--2% annual growth in the housing stock. It looks like more than it is because it's clustered around major intersections, where we all get to look at it all the time.

For comparison, Emeryville supported an average annual population growth rate of 3.3% for 45 years. Its population increased more than fourfold between 1970 and 2015.

Posted by Underestimate
a resident of another community
on Jan 3, 2017 at 2:25 am

1-2%? Try 10%. It may have been 1% last year, but there are 3000 new units in the immediate pipeline with another 4000 in the planning stages. It's time. With a population of 80,000, the current number of units is less than 40,000.

Too bad there is so much office space coming online at the same time.

Posted by Steven Nelson
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Jan 3, 2017 at 11:25 am

Thanks IVG of Rex Manor. I understand your #s (but I think Emeryville started out with a very low household as a percent of city ranking (sort of like the :City of Industry" down in the LA area.)

1% - 2 % per year for MV? That numeric seems 'about right'. 2010 US Census for MV shows about 32,000 households (33,881). That was including the unoccupied in Ap 2010 - but let's just 'use that real number' as a current occupied guesstimate (are you following this @Underestinmate?)

"3000 units new units in the immediate pipeline" - OK, but that is not 'per year" (= "annual" that IVG is writing about)
So, the guesstimate math is 3,000 / 32,000 = about 1/11 or 9.4% if "the immediate pipeline" is built in X years.
If the 'pipeline build' occurs over 4-5 years? IVG's estimate of 2% per annum = 10.4% growth over 5 years. [ the math is 1.02 raised to the 5th power ]

QED - the 'planned' growth we are seeing in "the immediate pipeline" is around 2% per year if all the residential projects are built.

Posted by MyOpinion
a resident of Sylvan Park
on Jan 3, 2017 at 1:36 pm

MyOpinion is a registered user.

@DAmeila....Mountain View is 'beautiful'??? I guess beauty is in the eye of the each his own.

Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jan 3, 2017 at 1:42 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.

Posted by Reside
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jan 3, 2017 at 1:57 pm

Just read today's article in the Mercury about the head of SPUR and want his ideas are about the future housing in the Bay Area. I don't think our infrastructure and schools can keep up with those crazy ideas. Slow down all building for a while, and take of the environment. We only live once and are in the process destroying our city.

Posted by MyOpinion
a resident of Sylvan Park
on Jan 3, 2017 at 2:35 pm

MyOpinion is a registered user.

Can someone explain why Ron's Farmhouse is still standing? That is one building that really should be razed, is it tied up in some sort of legal/estate thing? It has been closed for many years, also the site of the old Wagon Wheel at Middlefield/Whisman, what are the plans for that spot? Would be nice to see town homes in that spot but probably will be a multi story building of some sort.

Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jan 3, 2017 at 2:46 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

I just read the Mercury News article.

Boy was it not really newsworthy at all, why did this news report get printed?

No specific questions asked, no specific answers discussed, no course of action proposed.

This was a waste of reporting and this reporter did not ask the right questions at all.

But it is only my opinion, I am not a journalist or a reporter.

Posted by LongTimeResident
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Jan 3, 2017 at 4:02 pm

Why do we have to replace single family homes with blocks of condos and townhomes? I understand the need for more housing, but towns like Los Altos have managed to maintain a semblance of a bedroom community by limiting multi-family housing.

Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jan 3, 2017 at 6:45 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

Well, here is some weird news.

It looks like the Supreme Court open seat wil remain open during the Trump administration.

Sen. Shumer just indicated that the Dems in the Senate will not allow any judge to be placed in the court under the Trump administration.

It is not uncalled for, the GOP refused to fill the seat when Obama was president.

That means any case with the CAA will be decided only at the Court of Appeals. A tie leaves the 9th Circuit Court Decisions stand.

That pretty much destroys any chance of getting the Supreme Court to redesign their previous Rent Control takings decision that was made in the past. THe 9th Circuit has already determined that Rent Control is not unconstitutional.

The CAA must realize that this in a sense kills any hope for the Supreme Court to rule in their favor.

Posted by PeaceOut
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jan 3, 2017 at 7:00 pm

Read up on SB375, that's basically the genesis of our regional planning and local land use policy.

The Mercury News article where the president of SPUR suggested that cities should be penalized for not building enough housing, is really not much different from the carrot & stick mechanisms already in place. Is there really much difference between penalizing a city for not meeting housing targets assigned to them by ABAG and withholding funding for not meeting said housing targets, or otherwise not abiding by a policy goal set into action as a result of SB375 - our regional child named ABAG, the MTC and Plan Bay Area?

How local land use policy has effectively been hijacked...anyone who believes otherwise is kidding themselves.

"Pursuant to the demands of SB 375, the Draft Plan outlines numerous recommended land use policies for local governments within the Bay Area. While SB 375 asserts that such recommendations do not directly force local governments to alter their existing zoning and land use ordinances, the state law "incentives" for towing the line do just that. Pursuant to state law, any municipality or county that fails to adopt land use and zoning plans consistent with the Plan’s recommendations will lose eligibility for any funding through One Bay Area Grant Program (OBAG) as well as its eligibility for other benefits. (Plan at 75 (OBAG funding); Given the tight budgets many cities in California currently labor under, refusing this additional funding could be financially ruinous. Indeed, the Draft Plan concedes at p.75 that "OBAG requires each jurisdiction to adopt policies to support complete streets and planning and zoning policies that are adequate to provide housing at various income levels, as required by the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) process." (This OBAG mandate is strikingly inconsistent with the directive in SB 375 that "[n]othing in this section shall require a city's or county's land use policies and regulations, including its general plan, to be consistent with the regional transportation plan or an alternative planning strategy." (Government Code section 65080(b)(K)."

Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jan 3, 2017 at 7:28 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.


I strongly agree that cities that fail to produce enough housing to accommodate the local needs.

But the scary part is what formula is used to determine how much housing is required? Also, to whom are accountable for such failures to produce the housing? Finally, what is the time constraint that needs to be applied in this bill? And what are the financial liabilities to the ones that wish to hold the cities responsible?

This issue needs to be addressed with specific requirements that are made with enough evidence and proof of concept that it is feasible. If this is not done, one could see that a mountain of litigation will ensue.

I do not claim to have the answer, if I did, we probably would not have any problems here in CA since I have lived here for 8 years.

Posted by MyOpinion
a resident of Sylvan Park
on Jan 3, 2017 at 8:01 pm

MyOpinion is a registered user.

@longtermresident - You will never see a new neighborhood of new single family homes in Moutnain View, land is too expensive, it does not pencil out. For that you need to move to Boise.

Posted by Ron's Farmhouse
a resident of another community
on Jan 3, 2017 at 8:14 pm

There's a project design under review for Ron's Farmhouse and the land behind it on Latham Street. Ron's had a Latham street border too. The project sign is on Latham.

Posted by PeaceOut
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jan 3, 2017 at 8:58 pm

The formula used to determine housing allocation for each city is based on a ratio, e.g. current residents to current number of jobs in the city vs projected number of jobs in X year = Y number of housing units that must be built by target year.

We are about to see a revised/adopted Plan Bay Area 2040 which should be rubber stamped and imposed upon all of us within the next few months. As far as development, our regional plan directs the city to identify locations near transit or infill that can be used as PDA's (priority development areas) and then get them rezoned as PDA's, which Mountain View did, post haste. The PDA designation paves the way for all kinds of development perks, bonus FAR standards and CEQA streamlining, for instance.

As far as I can tell, there have been numerous lawsuits filed with respect to SB375 as well as Plan Bay Area.

All kinds of shiny happy reading here.

Web Link

I just read thru that document (again) and was reminded AGAIN why my decision to by acreage out of state was not a hasty decision.

Posted by MyOpinion
a resident of Sylvan Park
on Jan 3, 2017 at 9:22 pm

MyOpinion is a registered user.

@longtermresident - You will never see a neighborhood of new single family homes in Mountain View, land is too expensive, it does not pencil out. For that you need to move to Boise. Any new construction single family homes in Mountain View are unaffordable spec or custom homes build on existing lots. I also think the propensity of high density housing is related to a jobs/housing balance (and some Fed funding may play into it). There are no jobs in Los Altos, so therefore no need for more housing.

Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jan 3, 2017 at 9:30 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.


As a "Business" person, the idea that one can reliably predict the number of jobs in the future is practically impossible. There are too many variables to deal with. They consist of but not limited to:

Employers are not constrained anymore to any specific locale.

Markets for Goods and Services are not consistent, products and services are made obsolete.

Economic trends are unpredictable, the growth and decline in economics is increasing and does not follow any pattern.

Local governments are not educated or have actual planning skills necessary for such a state-wide dictate or model.

And there are so many others I am sure I can't think of that will impact that situation.

Since these variables are unpredictable, there is no way to ascertain the future needs with any measure or reliability or validity. Thus this legislation is based on such a false premise, it is sure to cause a lot of legal problems.

I simply have a lot of questions that so far cannot be answered.

You can understand my nervousness.

Posted by PeaceOut
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jan 3, 2017 at 10:51 pm

The entire point of ABAG is that it takes the actual planning and control out of the hands of local municipalities (while denying that that has actually happened) and sets policy and planning goals for the region - distributing lesson plans to each city along the way. There is now a regional governing body that basically sets land use policies, and local governments have very little real control over those types of decisions anymore.

As with an government bureaucracy, ABAG has put together a vast set of documents and made them available to all municipalities in order to guide them when preparing their housing element as part of the city's General Mountain View.

Link here for support docs: Web Link

The Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) that Mountain View was assigned when Plan Bay Area was first adopted in 2013 was for 2,926 total units for varying income levels. That allocation was supposed to meet the city's needs from 2014 thru 2022. I think that number has already been blown out of the water, and will be ratcheted WAY up for Plan 2040.

I'm not a fan of cities (or anyone) essentially being stripped autonomy, which I believe a regional planning government composed of appointed officials does. We did not elect any of the people who run ABAG. The people who run ABAG were appointed by elected officials, however that is not the same thing as being elected by the people, directly, and it's certainly not the same thing if we had no idea this body was being formed.

Posted by mvresident2003
a resident of Monta Loma
on Jan 3, 2017 at 11:42 pm

mvresident2003 is a registered user.

See Grand Boulevard Initiative. Web Link

See Agenda 21

If any of you think you have input or influence on anything happening you haven't read enough, or stayed informed enough. The ship has sailed. Development on the Peninsula isn't influenced by the people who live here but but by the big money developers. Period. Rent control.......ha! All those units built prior to 1995 will be torn down and rebuilt with smaller, more expensive unts. Welcome to the new MV.

Shame on all of us for not being more/better informed.

Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jan 4, 2017 at 12:04 am

The Business Man is a registered user.


WOW, your saying that the Mountain View City Council has no ability to deviate from the ABAG planning?

Forgive me for asking because I do not know, what is the goal regarding Lower income renter households paying in excess of 50% for housing (rent and utilities) for housing in the plan?

The ABAG report shows :

Total Households Characteristics Number Percent of Total Households

Total occupied units ( households) 31,035 100%

Total Renter households 18,120 58.4%
Total Owner households 12,915 41.6%

Total lower income (0‐80% of HAMFI) households 9,630 31.0%
Lower income renters (0‐80%) 6,870 22.1%
Lower income owners (0‐80%) 2,760 8.9%
Extremely low income renters (0‐30%) 2,740
Extremely low income owners (0‐30%) 805

Lower income households paying more than 50% 3,985 12.8%
Lower income renter HH severely overpaying 2,865 9.2%
Lower income owner HH severely overpaying 1,120 3.6%

Extremely Low Income (0‐30%) 2,175
ELI Renter HH severely overpaying 1,750 5.6%
ELI Owner HH severely overpaying 425 1.4%
Extremely Low Income (0‐30%) 2,520 8.1%
      Income between 30%‐50% 2,565
      Income between 50% ‐80% 1,610

Income between 30%‐50% 1,350
                                      Income between 50% ‐80% 460

Lower income renter HH overpaying 5,020 16.2%

Lower income owner HH overpaying 1,675 5.4%
             Extremely Low Income (0‐30%) 2,520 8.1%
             Income between 30%‐50% 2,565
             Income between 50% ‐80% 1,610

Lower income renter households paying in excess of 50% for housing (rent and utilities)

Total renter‐occupied units (renter households) 18,120 100%

Total lower income (0‐80% of HAMFI) renter households 6,870 37.9%

Lower income renters paying more than 30%  but less than 50% 2,155 11.9%
            Extremely Low Income (0‐30%) 230
            Income between 30%‐50% 950
            Income between 50% ‐80% 975

Lower income renters paying more than 50% 2,865 15.8%
            Extremely Low Income (0‐30%) 1,750
            Income between 30%‐50% 905
            Income between 50% ‐80% 210

Lower income renters paying more than 30% 5,020 27.7%
            Extremely Low Income (0‐30%) 1,980
            Income between 30%‐50% 1,855
            Income between 50% ‐80% 1,185

This report seems to indicate that the City of Mountain View City Council is aware that the Citizens have been overpaying for rent. Also that 22% of the apartment renters of Mountain View are classified as low or extremely low incomes. That is nearly a quarter of the city.This is significantly high given that we are a High-Tech city. This would be proof that there is no basis to claim that the City consists of only high wage earners. A standard bell curve would expect that if the median income was higher, this number should be a lot smaller.

And out of 22%, 54% or nearly 6 out of 10 lower income earners pay in excess of 30% of their income in rent alone. I thought the goals were that rent rates should account for 30% of a renters income. If the market was offering even close to the inventory necessary to satisfy the need. Even the CAA has claimed that is a fair objective to meet for it's members I believe. It appears very clearly that the Mountain View apartment owners do not agree with that standard.

This seems to be proof that the City of Mountain View fails to comply with the ABAG.

Whatever State and Federal Funds the City gets to achieve the objectives in the ABAG must be withheld until the City gets it's act together. This would mean any grants, subsidies, or tax credits provided for any project in Mountain View.

Posted by noMore
a resident of another community
on Jan 4, 2017 at 12:20 am

I lived in Mountain View for over 30 years. I thought it was my forever home.
I raised my family here, after 25 years my landlord decided to "develope" the property. We moved
Then we moved one year later when our lease went up by 500
Then we moved one year later when our lease went up by 750
Then we moved one year later when our lease went up by 700
Then we moved one year later when our lease went up by 1200
The last move was to an older unit, dingy, ugly rat and bug infested. There was a smell there that just would not go away but we were happy with our "deal" 2950 a month and 259 a month Maintence costs and 50 renters insurance provided by the landlord oh yes 75 a month pet rent so we could keep our cat

In July I found out the rent was going up to 3500 and the Maintence fee was going to 345

I packed up and left the area. We have a beautiful place for under 2k. The people here are much nicer, actually reminded me of Mountain View 20 years ago.

I am not the first to leave, I won't be the last. I am just letting the hangers on know there is hope. There is life after Mountain View. And it is good.

Thank You Agenda 21 and Grand Boulevard Initiative
This undesirable is history

Posted by mvresident2002
a resident of Monta Loma
on Jan 4, 2017 at 8:44 am

mvresident2002 is a registered user.

Have we really gotten to the point where people in (or formerly in) Mountain View are posting conspiracy theories about Agenda 21? What's next, people saying ABAG is the beginning of One World Government?

There are reasonable concerns to be had about growth and housing, but when you start going off the deep end into conspiracy theories, you don't do your side any favors.

Posted by PeaceOut
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jan 4, 2017 at 9:00 am

Sure cities can still do their own planning, as long as what they are planning for incorporates the all of the objectives and the RHNA that was mandated as per ABAG. Once those obligations have all been accounted for in the General Plan, cities are only as restricted by encumbrances of current codes.

People should be aware of the over-arching goal of Plan Bay Area, or One Bay Area, because that's the reality we live in now, and no amount of engaging at a local level is going to effect any real change as far as the massive development we are witnessing presently. We are dealing with a non-elected regional planning body now, and if we want to effect change our real power isn't at the local level, it would take coming together as nine counties, and most probably at the state level to wrest back control of our cities from this non-elected governing body, and put it back in the hands of the individual cities, and counties...where it belongs.

Honestly, I don't see people waking up to this reality for quite some time, if ever...which is why I hedged my bets and purchased acreage out of state a few years ago, when I saw the writing on the wall....not that I didn't try, just that unless or until more people either wake up or begin to care, things will continue on this trajectory. Until then, its a bit like spitting into the wind.

BTW, what do you think drove the city"s 'granny unit' survey and the push to relax long standing city code regarding 'granny units'? It wasn't simply a plea from the people, it was part of ABAG"s infill goal, and adding those units also adds numbers to the RHNA total. Mountain View had to change existing city code in order to do so...hence the dog and pony show.

Posted by Kacey Carpenter
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Jan 4, 2017 at 10:04 am

As a candidate for Mountain View City Council in 2016, I strongly argued that Mountain View (and the entire Bay Area) is at an inflection point or decision point and that there is a need for a "moonshot" approach building upon the innovation and resources in our community (inventors, investors, grass roots, small buisness, families, ...). We need the city to move much faster "Internet time" with telework for workers that can work online, more focus on reducing traffic jams and improving safe paths to schools with shared ride service programs with uber, lyft, and affordable housing for all the community not just the 1%. Unfortunately, the pace is "government time" and again Mountain View city council is one step behind the curve focused on building, building building and needs to focus on affordable housing, smart transportation (end-to-end), safer streets near our schools, .... It's been 4 mayors since Cuesta voted for traffic calming near Springer Elementary and still no speed humps that were approved several years ago....

nevertheless., the resources exist in our community, the question is where is the leadership for the vision to execute a plan for sustainability for the people in mountain view, all of us.

Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jan 4, 2017 at 3:21 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

My biggest concern.

THe City of Mountain View must establish that for any new project to move forward that at minimum 20% of the apartments built must be "standard" residences or the other term is "Below Market Rate" housing. The trend in Mountain View is to only build "Luxury" apartments with so many amenities with additional costs that outprice the 22% lower income population in Mountain View.

If the City Council refuses to do so, this could jeopardize any stat or federal funding assistance for the projects.

This is because this would be considered disparate impact housing discrimination.

Unfortunately, it appears that no one except myself who can be called a tech worker seems to advocate for those less fortunate.

Posted by Name hidden
a resident of Bailey Park

on Jan 4, 2017 at 4:53 pm

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

Posted by mike rose
a resident of another community
on Jan 4, 2017 at 5:40 pm

@The Business Man
I think your joy in response to Sen. Shumer statement that Trump wont be able to install his Supreme Court choices is at best laughable.
Republicans control the Senate and Shumer will not have anything to say, he just trying to appease his constituency playing tough. But he, and Dems do not hold any cards in this game.
And Supreme Court decision may not be even needed in establishing rent control as unconstitutional regulatory taking.
Look at the Guggenheim vs. City of Goleta case.
9th District 3 judge panel declared rent control there as unconstitutional regulatory taking requiring just compensation.
Yes, the full court overturned that decision, citing the fact that Guggenheim purchased the property while rent control was already in place at the time of his purchase, so he could not assert his "investment backed expectations". This is clearly NOT the case with Measure V.

Posted by @mike rose
a resident of Monta Loma
on Jan 4, 2017 at 6:00 pm

[Post removed; stick to the topic and don't attack other posters.]

Posted by Randy Guelph
a resident of Cuernavaca
on Jan 4, 2017 at 7:20 pm

Randy Guelph is a registered user.

You're as wrong here as you have been about Trump packing the Supreme Court, Mike.

Courts have been considering the constitutionality of rent control ordinances under several different theories and across many years and not a single court has found rent control to be a taking, without being overruled by the Supreme Court, that is. This is not all that surprising, for it is wholly appropriate for courts to exercise particular restraint in declaring regulatory takings, given that the text and history of the Fifth Amendment show that the Founders intended to limit only physical takings of property for public use without just compensation.

An honest, historical looks at rent control finds it to constitutional, and this has been upheld repeatedly.

Posted by Mike Rose
a resident of another community
on Jan 4, 2017 at 7:41 pm

Couple of thoughts Ralph,
Your main argument here is that whatever was legal for a long time will always be legal.
Slavery was legal for a long time. Women and minorities could not vote for a long time because it was illegal.
The unconstitutional regulatory takings interpretation by courts has been evolving for many years.
Unfortunately most of the rent control ordinances were passed long, long time ago. The statue of limitation to contest them is very short (1 year federal, state even shorter).
Even if the court interpretations evolved towards accepting partial taking as unconstitutional, nothing could be done because of the statues of limitations.
Now for the first time for many years the door is open. We have new rent controls that CAN be challenged legally under new , evolved court interpretations. Check out the case I cited above and see how it fits with Measure V.
There is no guarantees as California Courts are left leaning, but it would be interesting to see how could they justify negating their earlier established rules and precedent.

Posted by Randy Guelph
a resident of Cuernavaca
on Jan 4, 2017 at 7:49 pm

Randy Guelph is a registered user.

My gosh, rent control is slavery now? Come on, don't use such disgusting hyperbole, it detracts from the content of the argument you're trying to make.

Even Justice Antonin Scalia, a solid supporter of the property rights movement, acknowledged in Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council that "early constitutional theorists did not believe the Takings Clause embraced regulations of property at all."

You're just making this up out of whole cloth because you don't like rent control. Any sort of view that rent control is unconstitutional is judicial activism, plain and simple. Facts and precedent don't support your theory of the Constitution at all.

Posted by Mike Rose
a resident of another community
on Jan 4, 2017 at 8:00 pm

The taking does not have to be physical, you know that.
This is the law as established by US Supreme Court.
The regulatory taking is also established by the same court as unconstitutional.
It could be a TOTAL regulatory taking or partial, which is asserted in the Case of Measure V .
BOTH have been recognized by SCOTUS as unconstitutional regulatory takings which require just compensation. Do you disagree with any of the above?

Posted by Randy Guelph
a resident of Cuernavaca
on Jan 4, 2017 at 8:03 pm

Randy Guelph is a registered user.

Am I to take it that you disagree with Scalia on property rights? Was he too liberal for you? This easily demonstrates just how extreme your position is, and just how poorly supported it is by precedent.

Posted by Mike Rose
a resident of another community
on Jan 4, 2017 at 8:07 pm

If you disagree with any of my statements above, please provide evidence to contrary, don't just try to bully me.

Posted by Randy Guelph
a resident of Cuernavaca
on Jan 4, 2017 at 8:12 pm

Randy Guelph is a registered user.

Since you refuse to address my points, it's clear you have no response and have no interest in actually debating, just in spamming the board with CAA talking points.

What evidence could be presented to you to convince you that rent stabilization is constitutional? As far as I can tell, you started from the belief that it is unconstitutional, and have reverse engineered a contorted legal "argument" to support that position.

For me, if you presented any case where rent control had been thrown out as unconstitutional and it survived appeal, I'd concede you were right.

Posted by Mike Rose
a resident of another community
on Jan 4, 2017 at 8:21 pm

For the 3rd time you dodged my simple question I posed.
Is there a reason for it?

Posted by Randy Guelph
a resident of Cuernavaca
on Jan 4, 2017 at 8:27 pm

Randy Guelph is a registered user.

How many content-free posts in a row are you going to make? I've at least been asking substantive questions and have yet to receive a direct answer from you.

Do you think Antonin Scalia was too liberal on property rights? Do you agree that not a single court has found rent stabilization to be a taking without being overruled by the Supreme Court? Do you agree that the text and history of the Fifth Amendment show that the Founders' intent was meant to apply only to physical takings of property for public use without just compensation?

The fact that you think Scalia was too liberal on property rights should tell everyone reading just how extreme and fringe your legal theories are.

Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jan 4, 2017 at 8:31 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

Mike Rose,

Here you go again, you make a statement that is inaccurate the case decision found here:
Web Link


C. Equal Protection and Due Process Claims

The Guggenheims make two other arguments, that the ordinance denies them substantive due process because it does not assure them a fair return on their investment, and that it denies them equal protection of the law because it treats mobile home park owners differently from other landlords.


[11] WHETHER THE CITY OF GOLETA’S ECONOMIC THEORY FOR RENT CONTROL IS SOUND OR NOT, AND WHETHER RENT CONTROL WILL SERVE THE PURPOSES STATED IN THE ORDINANCE OF PROTECTING TENANTS FROM HOUSING SHORTAGES AND ABUSIVELY HIGH RENTS OR WILL UNDERMINE THOSE PURPOSES, IS NOT FOR US TO DECIDE. We are a court, not a tenure committee, and are bound by precedent establishing that such laws do have a rational basis.52 Students in Economics 101 have for many decades learned that rent control causes the higher rents and scarcity it is meant to alleviate,53 BUT THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE DOES NOT EMPOWER COURTS TO IMPOSE SOUND ECONOMIC PRINCIPLES ON POLITICAL BODIES.5



49__We do not imply that a change in government policy amounts to a taking from the beneficiaries. See Madera Irrigation Dist. v. Hancock, 985 F.2d 1397, 1403 (9th Cir. 1993) (holding that “[r]easonable expectations arising out of past policy but without a basis in cognizable property rights may be honored by prudent politicians, because to do otherwise might be unfair, or because volatility in government policy will reduce its effectiveness in inducing long term changes in behavior. But violation of such expectations cannot give rise to a Fifth Amendment claim.”).

50__Richardson v. City and County of Honolulu, 124 F.3d 1150, 1165 (9th Cir. 1997). 20438 GUGGENHEIM v. CITY OF GOLETA 4

51__Goleta, Cal., Mun. Code § 08.14.010.

52__See Pennell v. City of San Jose, 485 U.S. 1, 13 (1988) (“we have long recognized that a legitimate and rational goal of price or rate regulation is the protection of consumer welfare”); Equity Lifestyle Props., Inc. v. County of San Luis Obispo, 548 F.3d 1184, 1194 (9th Cir. 2008) (“The Supreme Court and this Circuit have upheld rent control laws as rationally related to a legitimate public purpose.”); Carson Harbor Village Ltd. v. City of Carson, 37 F.3d 468, 472 (9th Cir. 1994), overruled on other grounds by WMX Techs. Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir. 1997) (“A generally applicable rent-control ordinance will survive a substantive due process challenge if it is ‘designed to accomplish an objective within the government’s police power, and if a rational relationship existed between the provisions and the purpose of the ordinances.’ ”).

53__See, e.g., William J. Baumol & Alan S. Blinder, ECONOMICS: PRINCIPLES AND POLICY 64-67 (2d ed. 1982).

54__See Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45, 75 (1905) (Holmes, J., dissenting) (“The Fourteenth Amendment does not enact Mr. Herbert Spencer’s Social Statics.”). GUGGENHEIM v. CITY OF GOLETA 20439

Mike has quoted the dissenting court judge opinion, not the actual decision, the dissenting opinion was:

This was the dissenting opinion, but not the court finding:

Takings Clause

Claiming to apply the three-factor test from Penn Central, the en banc majority opinion holds as a matter of law that the Guggenheims cannot establish the mobile home rent control ordinance effects a regulatory taking of its property for public use within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment, as applied to Goleta through the Fourteenth Amendment. The majority’s principal error is its finding, as a matter of law, that the Ordinance could not interfere with the Guggenheims’ “distinct investment-backed expectations” of freeing their land from “rent control.” Maj. Op. at 20434. The majority reaches this conclusion only by adopting a view of the law and of the economic effects of the Goleta ordinance that is static and provides no opportunity for change or innovation. While attractive for its simplicity, such stasis does not reflect the world in which we live, nor the teachings of the Court.

In Penn Central Transportation Company v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104 (1978), the Court set forth the three factors that must be considered in determining whether a regulation effects a taking: (1) the economic impact of the regulation on the claimant; (2) the character of the government’s action; and (3) the extent to which the regulation interferes with the claimant’s investment-backed expectations. Id. at 124. The majority opinion deals only with the last factor, as if Penn Central established a “one-strike-you’re-out” checklist for knocking property owners out of court, rather than a threefactor balancing test in which each factor must be considered. No one factor is “talismanic,” Justice O’Connor said in Palazzolo when she criticized the state supreme court for “elevating what it believed to be ‘[petitioner’s] lack of reasonable investment-backed expectations’ to ‘dispositive status.’ ” Palazzolo, 533 U.S. at 634 (O’Connor, J., concurring). The extent of interference with investment-backed expectations instead “is one factor that points toward the answer to the question whether the application of a particular regulation to particular property ‘goes too far.’ ” Id. (quoting Penn. Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393, 415 (1922)). Since Penn Central requires all factors be considered, that is what I shall do. Each of these factors militates in favor of finding that Goleta’s socalled rent control ordinance (the “Ordinance”) effected a regulatory taking.

Mike, please try your best to make accurate statements?

Posted by Mike Rose
a resident of another community
on Jan 4, 2017 at 8:38 pm

No, yes and on the third questions yes and no.
Although the fifth amendment does not mention specifically regulatory taking , the intention is subject to interpretation.
100 people could disagree.
But now I want you to answer this question.
Does SCOTUS interpretation of the fifth amendment allow for partial regulatory taking under certain conditions as unconstitutional taking requiring compensation?

Posted by Mike Rose
a resident of another community
on Jan 4, 2017 at 8:47 pm

The Business Man,
Your rant again is to long and off subject .
I recommend anyone interested to google Goggenheim vs. city of Goleta to understand simple merits of this case.
No need to read the brain twisting explanations above.GB

Posted by Randy Guelph
a resident of Cuernavaca
on Jan 4, 2017 at 8:57 pm

Randy Guelph is a registered user.

With those answers to the questions, there's no way to have a consistent legal theory that leads to rent stabilization being unconstitutional. You don't think Scalia was too liberal on property rights, and he outright says that the intent was to only cover physical property. You admit that not a single court over the entire history of the United States has held rent stabilization as a taking and survived appeal. With both of these being agreed upon, there's no way someone arguing in good faith would still maintain that rent stabilization is unconstitutional.

Is there anything that could convince you otherwise, or are you just spamming the same nonsense and trying to win on volume?

Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jan 4, 2017 at 9:03 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

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)

(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.

But the following case decisions have established the SCOTUS has never determined rent controls a taking:

Source: Web Link

Yee v. City of Escondido, 503 U.S. 519 (1992)

Mobile home rent-control ordinance, combined with state law forcing mobile home park owner to accept purchasers of mobile homes in park as new tenants

NO PHYSICAL TAKING OCCURRED. Neither state nor local law on its face requires landowner to dedicate his land to mobile home rentals, nor overly limits his ability to terminate such use. Per se rule in Loretto, infra page 9, applies only when permanent physical occupation is coerced. Claim that procedure for changing use of park is overly burdensome is not ripe, since plaintiff has not gone through procedure. Regulatory taking claim is not properly before Court, since not subsumed by questions in petition for certiorari

Pennell v. City of San Jose, 485 U.S. 1 (1988)

Rent control ordinance allowing rent increases of greater than set percentage only after considering economic hardship caused to tenants

NOT RIPE. THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THAT HARDSHIP PROVISION HAD IN FACT EVER BEEN RELIED UPON TO LIMIT A RENT INCREASE. Also, ordinance did not require rent limit in event of tenant hardship, only that hardship be considered.

Bowles v. Willingham, 321 U.S. 503 (1944)

Federal statute authorizing restriction of rents in “defense areas” to levels that are “generally” fair, rather than fair to each landlord

NO TAKING. Impossibility of fixing rents landlord by landlord and existence of war are germane to constitutional issue. Nothing in act requires offering accommodations for rent. Price control may reduce value of property, but that does not mean there is taking.

Mike, please find a SCOTUS case that establishes your claim, I want to learn?


Posted by Mike Rose
a resident of another community
on Jan 4, 2017 at 9:16 pm

Ralph for the 4th time you dodged the question.
You just can't take the truth that is against your radical ideology. I answered your questions. But yo know these answers and Scalia position are of no relevance to the issue here. My question was relevant but I guess inconvenient to answer.
Cmon there is nothing to be afraid of in answering. Just come out, face the reality.

Posted by MyOpinion
a resident of Sylvan Park
on Jan 4, 2017 at 9:37 pm

MyOpinion is a registered user.

Mike, Randy and BusinessMan,

Think you guys need to meet for coffee, the number and length of these posts among you is ridiculous.

Posted by Randy Guelph
a resident of Cuernavaca
on Jan 4, 2017 at 9:40 pm

Randy Guelph is a registered user.

Why on Earth do you keep calling me Ralph?

Sure, Mike, I'm the one with the radical ideology, having the support of both a century of judicial precedent and an originalist interpretation of the Constitution.

Of course there's such a thing as regulatory taking. What's at issue is the fact that rent stabilization has, over and over again, been held to not constitute a taking, which you seem fundamentally incapable of recognizing.

When The Business Man posts legitimate case law for you to read, you simply ignore him without addressing it, since it contains the actual content of the opinions you've been citing which, shockingly, contradict the conclusions you've been claiming they come to.

Posted by Randy Guelph
a resident of Cuernavaca
on Jan 4, 2017 at 9:42 pm

Randy Guelph is a registered user.


Mike doesn't live in California, let alone Mountain View, so coffee would be a bit difficult...

Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jan 4, 2017 at 10:03 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.


WE all have a right to disagree with each other. WE must not let this important forum get abused. This is a privilege, and it can be taken away at any time.

That is why I highly respect all points of view here, even if I don't agree.

All my sincere respect, appreciation, and empathy to you ALL.

Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jan 4, 2017 at 11:07 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.


I submitted a complaint with the City Attorney challenging the Attorney and the City Council regarding 4 substantial failures to abide by California Law, California Bar Regulations, City Council Misconduct, and Legal Precedent.

I also made it clear I wanted it available to the public. Remember there is a meeting next week on the 10th.

Posted by Mike Rose
a resident of another community
on Jan 5, 2017 at 8:29 am

One of most recent regulatory taking cases applied to rent control quote below:
"In Guggenheim v. City of Goleta, 582 F.3d 996 (9th Cir., Sep. 28, 2009), a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the city's mobile home rent control ordinance (RCO) was a regulatory taking.

A sharply divided en banc court vacated the panel opinion, and held that the city's RCO did not work a regulatory taking, because the fact that the Guggenheims purchased their property subject to a rent-control regime was "fatal" to their investment-backed expectations."

The ONLY ONLY ONLY motive for the full 9 th district court to reverse the finding of unconstitutional taking here was the fact that Guggenheim purchased his property WHILE RENT CONTROL WAS IN PLACE.
Otherwise they would have kept the earlier panel ruling that rent control was a regulatory taking.
In case of Measure V clearly rent control was imposed on CAA members AFTER!!!! they made their investment.

C'mon guys this is simple concept, don't be in denial.

Posted by Randy Guelph
a resident of Cuernavaca
on Jan 5, 2017 at 8:47 am

Randy Guelph is a registered user.

Mike, you're really bad at this. What was the "sharply divided" en banc ruling? 8-3. That's not sharply divided.

The Business Man already posted the text of the opinion, which contradicts your summary. Please stop posting misleading and inaccurate assessments, it must be willful at this point. All the en banc review in Guggenheim did was uphold existing precedent for regulatory takings. As I've said over and over again, no court has found rent stabilization to constitute a taking and survived appeal. Pretending that something is true in spite of all evidence doesn't make it so. Take an honest assessment of history and fact.

Posted by Mike Rose
a resident of another community
on Jan 5, 2017 at 9:02 am

No one reads The Business Man lengthy rants.
And 8-3 ruling or unanimous, it does not matter. What matters is the reason why it was reversed, and even you don't question that. This reason does not exist here with Measure L.
And as a "progressive" you should stop looking into the distant past and cite "whatever was, always will be". You should concentrate on the present, future, change..... Things are evolving constantly, that is progress.
Courts are evolving too.
Change is happening, although some maybe disappointed by the results of general election we need to look forward, not back.

Posted by Randy Guelph
a resident of Cuernavaca
on Jan 5, 2017 at 9:21 am

Randy Guelph is a registered user.

Your lack of legal experience is showing yet again, and had you actually read the opinions you love citing secondhand from fringe property rights groups, you might avoid these simple mistakes.

Courts don't say "this is the only reason X is legal, we would have thrown it out otherwise." What they do is find the simplest reason that is consistent with legal theory and precedent, without making judgments on other merits. Again, your interpretation of case law is nonsense driven purely by your dislike of rent stabilization.

Also, what's Measure L? Arguing in Richmond, too?

Posted by MyOpinion
a resident of Sylvan Park
on Jan 5, 2017 at 9:27 am

MyOpinion is a registered user.

@Randy (aka Ralph), Mike, 'Businessman"

If you don't live near each other for coffee share your email addresses and take it offline, many of these comments are not thoughtful or respectful. I guess the Moderator is on vacation.

Posted by Mike Rose
a resident of another community
on Jan 5, 2017 at 12:51 pm

CAA has just started legal challenge against Measure L in Richmond by asking court to impose restraining order on this scheme.
Decision should be tomorrow.

Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jan 5, 2017 at 12:54 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

My Opinion,

I do not argue that in some way I exploit this forum.

But most importantly, I completely deny showing any disrespect or act to denegrate the dignity of others, you surely can see that.

This is a very hot topic and it is easy for some to instigate reactions. However, please describe in what way have I not been thoughtful and respectful? Granted my answers are very long, but I simply document what my information is so that an objective reader can make there own determination.


You are being played with by Mike Rose. I do not take any offense to the baseless conclusions and criticisms from Mike. He has the right to say what he wants. No matter if it may be directly contradicted by history or legal determinations. Mike just has a belief and he has that right. All I can do is demonstrate his information is not correct, and I will continue to do so.

Posted by MyOpinion
a resident of Sylvan Park
on Jan 5, 2017 at 1:05 pm

MyOpinion is a registered user.

I am done, I am not spending one second describing anything. I think everyone has checked out of this discussion except you guys, have a nice day...keep going on this..knock yourself out..not literally.

Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jan 5, 2017 at 1:07 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

Mike Rose,

Any business can have the laws regarding its practice change in mid-stream. This is a part of the risk of participation in business. For example:

Legal changes

The government of the day regularly changes laws in line with its political policies. As a result businesses are continually having to respond to changes in the legal framework.

Examples of legal changes include:

i. The creation of a National Minimum Wage which has recently been extended to under-18's.

ii. The requirement for businesses to cater for disabled people, by building ramps into offices, shops etc.

iii. Providing increasingly tighter protection for consumers to protect them against unscrupulous business practice.

iv. Creating tighter rules on what constitutes fair competition between businesses.
Today British business is increasingly affected by European Union (EU) regulations and directives as well as national laws and requirements.

Read more: Web Link
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution Non-Commercial Share Alike
Follow us: @BizCaseStudies on Twitter | bizcasestudies on Facebook, look at the

It is simple, the rules of the game always change, sometimes it is for the good of the consumer, but sometimes it is for the industry. For example the Digital Millennium Copyright Act expanded intellectual property control in response to the new information age and the ability to electronically duplicate works of art without purchasing it from a "licensed" seller or freely given away. The big example was Napster. Napster even though did not participate in the download or uploading of MP3 files, that was done by the users of the service. They eventually were forced to cease.

I again request, from you, what SCOTUS cases has determined that Measure V is an Unconstitutional taking? I answered your question.

Posted by Mike Rose
a resident of another community
on Jan 5, 2017 at 1:22 pm

The Business Man,

You say: "Any business can have the laws regarding its practice change in mid-stream. This is a part of the risk of participation in business."

1. Not all law changes are constitutional.
2. Are you suggesting that business owner should reasonably anticipate any confiscatory laws at any time, any place in mid-stream?
3.If your answer to the second question is yes, then under what circumstances "consideration of investment backed expectations" would apply?
According to your line of thought, never.
Please don't quote lengthy cases as a response, just describe with your own words.

Posted by Randy Guelph
a resident of Cuernavaca
on Jan 5, 2017 at 1:25 pm

Randy Guelph is a registered user.


I'm pointing out that you can't even keep track of which city and Measure you're arguing about, let alone propose any consistent legal theory supported by facts and evidence. That your "arguments" are completely interchangeable regardless of the content of the Measures shows just how ideologically driven they are, rather than being based in facts.

Many people here have shown you how wrong you are, but you are simply ignoring any evidence presented. One can only conclude that you aren't arguing in good faith.

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


Post a comment

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

Stay informed.

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

Boichik Bagels is opening its newest – and largest – location in Santa Clara this week
By The Peninsula Foodist | 0 comments | 2,608 views

I Do I Don't: How to build a better marriage Page 15
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 1,212 views

By Laura Stec | 13 comments | 1,094 views

Which homes should lose gas service first?
By Sherry Listgarten | 0 comments | 718 views


Support local families in need

Your contribution to the Holiday Fund will go directly to nonprofits supporting local families and children in need. Last year, Voice readers and foundations contributed a total of $84,000.