Town Square

Post a New Topic

Council will defend Measure V in court

Original post made on Jan 26, 2017

Despite plenty of misgivings, the Mountain View City Council signaled that the city would rally to defend the voter-approved Measure V rent-control package from a lawsuit filed by the California Apartment Association.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Thursday, January 26, 2017, 11:39 AM

Comments (74)

Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jan 26, 2017 at 12:54 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

What the (blank),

This news article stated:

“Those mixed signals from the city left many wondering whether the City Council had the political will to defend Measure V. In the days following the election, at least one council member took an active role to oppose the measure. THEN-COUNCILMAN MIKE KASPERZAK, WHO LEFT OFFICE EARLIER THIS MONTH, FORWARDED EMAILS SUGGESTING POTENTIAL LEGAL ARGUMENTS TO CAA OFFICIALS TO GET THE COURT TO SIGN OFF ON THE RESTRAINING ORDER. The emails were revealed in a Public Records Act request made by local attorney Gary Wesley that were shared with the Voice.

Asked about this by the Voice, KASPERZAK SAID HE ALWAYS OPPOSED MEASURE V, AND HE BELIEVED DELAYING THE MEASURE WAS THE RIGHT COURSE OF ACTION. He said city staff would have struggled to immediately enact the rent-control law and its provision to rollback apartment rents to Oct. 2015 rates. Those problems would be compounded if the law were later halted through an injunction, he said.”

Mike Kasperzak, BELIEVED what he was doing was right? A belief is defined as:

"something that is accepted, considered to be true, or held as an opinion : something believed (an individual's religious or political beliefs); especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group (the beliefs of the Catholic Church)"

A belief is not sufficient grounds in legal matters at all. Mike Kasperzak, in this conduct became an agent of the CAA at the same time being a current city council officer, a clear conflict of interest, and his actions invalidated the previous instructions to the City Attorney. The City Attorney must immediately approach the court and request a continuance and have the restraining order reversed. And have the rent roll-back be active immediately and refunds issued to the Citizens of Mountain View.

No wonder the new city council revised its decision, when the information that Gary Wesley uncovered was to be made public, it lost all justification for its previous action. I feel all citizens of Mountain View should go to court to have their rent reduced and refunded arguing that the restraining order was invalid and was a result of violations of the City Charter and Conduct laws of the state of California.



Posted by Cost
a resident of Cuernavaca
on Jan 26, 2017 at 2:47 pm

I hope MV doesn't spend much of my taxpayer money on this. 53% is not a resounding "yes". And I'd be fairly certain that if people knew rent control would cost the city X$ to defend in court, at least 3% would've voted the other way.


Posted by Common sense
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Jan 26, 2017 at 3:42 pm

To "Cost:" There are quite a few things about rent control that fewer people support (renters included -- I've been there, done that), once they belatedly think it through.

The point that you made is only one such "unintended" consequence, wholly predictable to those not blinded by ideology. It is in the nature of the beast. In my experience with this issue (40 years), not even leftists favor rent controls if they're at all economically sophisticated.


Posted by Emails
a resident of Blossom Valley
on Jan 26, 2017 at 3:59 pm

Can the Voice or Gary Wesley publish the emails from the City Councilmember to the CAA? These are in the public interest.


Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jan 26, 2017 at 4:20 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

Cost,

I understand your point of view, but the measure did pass, and it only needed .1% to be entered into the City Charter. Once in the Charter, it is established law. It was entered into the Charter on Dec 13, 2016.

The simple truth is that Mike Kasperzak was a corrupted official. This gentleman took advantage of his position to further the private interests of the CAA as an agent.

This is clearly a violation of the Political Reform Act of California. And in fact anyone within the City Council supported this action would be also guilty of violating the law.

I know that the CAA simply opposed any regulations regarding apartment practices in CA in general, but at the same time they have to own the fact that it does not satisfy the needs of the state of CA. It is solely responsible for that failure because good business people can smoothly achieve almost anything as long as they know what they are doing.

As much as history shows, the CAA cannot substantiate their arguments, they are baseless allegations because of the current standards of what rent control laws are and how they do not run afoul of the U.S. Constitution. This is simply a desperate act because the CAA has proven to not be as effective as they should be in their efforts.


Posted by Mt. View Neighbor
a resident of North Whisman
on Jan 26, 2017 at 4:34 pm

I have to agree whole heartedly with Curris Conroy. This rent control targets small land owners and threatens their hard work and life savings.

Measure V punishes small landlords, while large landowners enjoy economies of scale and high rents. Measure V seeks to blame small property owners, simply because they are not protected bye existing law. Keep in mind, it's the older buildings that are smaller and are owned by middle income people who contribute sweat equity to make ends meet until the properties become profitable.


Posted by mike rose
a resident of another community
on Jan 26, 2017 at 4:59 pm

mike rose is a registered user.

The Business Man,

You state:
...but at the same time they have to own the fact that it does not satisfy the needs of the state of CA....

If the State of California has a need to be satisfied by imposing regulation on the private property which amounts to regulatory taking, then according to the 5th and 14th amendment and most recent SCOTUS guidelines applicable (Penn Central case 3 prong test) the State MUST pay the just compensation to the property owners.
This is what this lawsuit is about.
It is irrelevant what the lower courts will decide as this case will end up in SCOTUS.


Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jan 26, 2017 at 5:07 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

Mike rose:

Again you attempt to mislead the citizens of Mountain View, you stated:

If the State of California has a need to be satisfied by imposing regulation on the private property which amounts to regulatory taking, then according to the 5th and 14th amendment and most recent SCOTUS guidelines applicable (Penn Central case 3 prong test) the State MUST pay the just compensation to the property owners.

The SCOTUS DOES NOT STATE WHAT YOU CLAIMED IT STATED:

Penn Central[

Perhaps the most important modern case on regulatory takings is the Grand Central Station case. In Penn Central Transp. Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104 (1978) THE COURT DENIED A TAKINGS CLAIM BROUGHT BY THE OWNER OF GRAND CENTRAL TERMINAL Following refusal of New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission to approve plans for construction of 50-story office building over Grand Central Terminal. Penn Central contended that under the New York Historical Preservation Law, it was entitled to derive a net income from Grand Central Terminal, but the city's regulation had forced it into an indefinite deficit condition. The trial court agreed but its decision was reversed on appeal. EVENTUALLY THE U.S. SUPREME COURT HELD THAT: THE OWNERS COULD NOT ESTABLISH A "TAKING" MERELY BY SHOWING THAT THEY HAD BEEN DENIED THE RIGHT TO EXPLOIT THE SUPERADJACENT AIRSPACE, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE REMAINDER OF THE PARCEL; THE FACT THAT THE LAW AFFECTED SOME OWNERS MORE SEVERELY THAN OTHERS DID NOT ITSELF RESULT IN A "TAKING," AND THAT THE LAW DID NOT INTERFERE WITH OWNERS' PRESENT USE OR PREVENT IT FROM REALIZING A REASONABLE RATE OF RETURN ON ITS INVESTMENT, ESPECIALLY SINCE PREEXISTING AIR RIGHTS WERE TRANSFERABLE TO OTHER PARCELS IN THE VICINITY, WHICH ACTED AS A FORM OF COMPENSATION FOR THE CLAIMED TAKING OF AIR RIGHTS.( Web Link)

Why do you keep stating untrue statements?


Posted by mike rose
a resident of another community
on Jan 26, 2017 at 5:30 pm

mike rose is a registered user.

Not false The B M,
Here is copy:
On appeal, the Ninth Circuit applied the three-pronged balancing test set forth in Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104 (1978) (“Penn Central”), to determine whether the rent control ordinance effected a regulatory taking of the plaintiffs’ private property even though its enactment did not physically invade, nor totally eliminate the economic value of, the mobile home park. Under Penn Central, to determine whether a taking has occurred when a regulation diminishes some, but not all, property value, the reviewing court is required to engage in “an essentially ad hoc, factual inquiry” that considers and weighs together: (1) the economic impact of the regulation on the claimant; (2) the extent to which the regulation interferes with the claimant’s investment-backed expectations; and (3) the character of the governmental action. When these factors are weighed together, if it appears on balance that the regulation “forces some people alone to bear public burdens which, in all fairness and justice, should be borne by the public as a whole,” then the reviewing court is permitted to find that the regulation “goes too far” and effects a compensable taking of private property.



Unfortunately in this case the full panel reversed the decision, solely based on the fact that plaintiff bought the property while the RCO was in place already therefore, it ruled, this fact was fatal to establishing the investment backed expectations.
But in MV case this fatal fact cannot and will not be claimed.
So unconstitutionality of rent control should be confirmed easily here.

I point out that this Penn Central vs. New York case 3 prong test is the most current test how the RCO are scrutinized by courts.


Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jan 26, 2017 at 5:40 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

mike rose:

You seem to be citing a case, but what case is it? Your text looks sound but it does not seem to be actually the Penn case but another one. You case discusses the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the Penn case was a New York case which is in the Second Circuit. Please make sure you include your source material, otherwise, one cannot independently verify the accuracy of it.

I would really like to read the case your discussing before I make any further comment.








Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jan 26, 2017 at 5:57 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

mike rose

You are not citing any case, the source of your text is

Web Link

This is not a case citation it is a position article written by the law firm of:

Cox, Castle & Nicholson has a breadth of experience that allows us to practically, yet creatively, take a real estate project from acquisition through development, leasing, and disposition. We specialize in representing market-rate and affordable-housing developers, lenders, investors, joint ventures, landlords, tenants, high net worth individuals, and others with their complex real estate, business, and litigation challenges. With three offices in California, we are committed to handling each legal matter efficiently and economically while providing the finest quality legal services.


You are not citing any particular case decision at all. What you are revisiting is the case of:

United States Court of Appeals,Ninth Circuit.
Daniel GUGGENHEIM; Susan Guggenheim; Maureen H. Pierce, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY OF GOLETA, a municipal corporation, Defendant-Appellee.


No. 06-56306.
Decided: December 22, 2010


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.54

The Guggenheims' equal protection theory is also foreclosed by precedent,55 and would have no force even if it were not, because only a rational basis is needed for this ordinance, and mobile parks differ from most other property in the separation of ownership of the land from the improvements affixed to the land. It is possible that application of the ordinance by the arbitrator will violate substantive or procedural due process requirements, but that remains to be seen, if at all, in an as applied challenge to its application.

AFFIRMED.(Web Link)

Why are you representing information that is not a case decision but simply a legal opinion, it has not been adopted by the court?


Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jan 26, 2017 at 6:13 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

FYI,

Here is the standards of constitutional review:

Questions of constitutionality[edit]

Questions of constitutionality are considered a type of question of law, and thus appellate courts always review lower court decisions that address constitutional issues de novo. However, the term "standard of review" has an additional meaning in the context of reviewing a law for its constitutionality, which concerns how much deference the judiciary should give Congress in determining whether legislation is constitutional. Concerning constitutional questions, three basic standards of review exist: rational basis, intermediate scrutiny, and strict scrutiny. This form of standard of review is sometimes also called the standard or level of scrutiny.

Rational basis

Generally, the Supreme Court judges legislation based on whether it has a reasonable relationship to a legitimate state interest. This is called rational basis review. For example, a statute requiring the licensing of opticians is permissible because it has the legitimate state objective of ensuring the health of consumers, and the licensing statutes are reasonably related to ensuring their health by requiring certain education for opticians. Williamson v. Lee Optical Co., 348 U.S. 483 (1955).

Intermediate scrutiny

Under the Equal Protection Clause, when the law targets a "quasi-suspect" classification, such as gender, the courts apply intermediate scrutiny, which requires the law to be substantially related to an important government interest. It is more strict than rational basis review but less strict than strict scrutiny.

Other forms of intermediate scrutiny are applied in other contexts. For example, under the Free Speech Clause, content-neutral time, place, and manner restrictions on speech are subject to a form of intermediate scrutiny.

Strict scrutiny

If a statute impinges on a fundamental right, such as those listed in the Bill of Rights or the due process rights of the Fourteenth Amendment, then the court will apply strict scrutiny. This means the statute must be "narrowly tailored" to address a "compelling state interest." For example, a statute restricting the amount of funds that a candidate for public office may receive in order to reduce public corruption is unconstitutional because it is overly broad and impinges the right to freedom of speech. It affects not only corrupting individual contributions, but also non-corrupting expenditures from their own personal or family resources, as well as other sources that may not exhibit a corrupting influence. Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976)

The courts will also apply strict scrutiny if the law targets a suspect classification, such as race. For example, there is no fundamental right to be an optician (as explained above), but if the state only requires licenses of African Americans (and not opticians of other races), that double standard would receive strict scrutiny, and would likely be ruled unconstitutional.( Web Link)

Thus the CAA will have to prove that the City of Mountain View Measure V is NOT based on whether it has a reasonable relationship to a legitimate state interest. In this case, Measure V clearly discussed and described the reasonable relationship to a legitimate state interest.

Just FYI


Posted by Zap
a resident of Shoreline West
on Jan 26, 2017 at 6:23 pm

WHEN (not if) the CAA is beaten in court, the court findings of a rent rollback should be RETROACTIVE so as to NOT set a precedent for property owners in other cities in California to file legal action simply to save their pocketbooks from honoring the vote of the citizenry ...


Posted by Zap
a resident of Shoreline West
on Jan 26, 2017 at 6:27 pm

ALSO --- it is about time to rollback Proposition 13 because ONLY homeowners benefit from it TO THE DETRIMENT OF ALL OTHER NON-HOMEOWNERS ... END PROPOSITION 13 and start demanding that PROPERTY OWNERS start paying their fair share of the property taxes that help support our economy ... CALIFORNIA PROPERTY OWNERS HAVE FOR TOO LONG DRANK FROM BOTH SIDES OF THE CUP while complaining that there wasn't enough to drink ...


Posted by 3+ Months of Rollback
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jan 26, 2017 at 7:41 pm

I am a landlord and will enjoy my three+ months of rollback "rebates" at Chez TJ with a plate of foie gras a glass of red wine with a tear in my eye for the poor renters of Mountain View (in pre 1995 buildings only).

Former Councilman Kasperzak: You are a gentleman and a scholar. Please come back for another term when you are eligible to do so good sir.


Posted by mike rose
a resident of another community
on Jan 26, 2017 at 7:48 pm

mike rose is a registered user.

The Business Man,
Yes it is Guggenheim case decided by 9th district.


Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jan 26, 2017 at 8:45 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

mike rose:

just a reminder, that case stated this:

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.

Due process claims can succeed when a rent control ordinance FAILS to substantially further a legitimate government interest.50 THE DISSENT ARGUES THAT THIS ORDINANCE DID NOT ACHIEVE ITS PURPOSE BECAUSE IT FAILS TO CONTROL THE PRICE OF SUBLETS. It is true that the rent control ordinance at issue here does not control the rental price of a mobile home for occupants such as subletters. It controls the rental price of the land on which the mobile home is situated. THIS IS IN KEEPING WITH THE PURPOSE OF THE ORDINANCE, WHICH IS NOT JUST TO LOWER RENTS, BUT TO “ALLEVIATE THE HARDSHIP” TO MOBILE HOME OWNERS CAUSED BY “THE HIGH COST OF MOVING MOBILEHOMES, the potential for damage resulting therefrom, requirements relating to the installation of mobilehomes, including permits, landscaping and site preparation, the lack of alternative homesites for mobilehome residents and the substantial investment of mobilehome owners in such homes.”51 The ordinance protects mobile home owners, not all renters. Such a purpose does not protect mobile home renters from all market increases in the value of occupancy. IT PROTECTS OWNERS OF MOBILE HOMES FROM THE LEVERAGE OWNERS OF THE PADS HAVE, TO COLLECT A PREMIUM REFLECTING THE COST OF MOVING THE MOBILE HOME ON TOP OF THE MARKET VALUE OF USE OF THE LAND. THIS IS A LEGITIMATE GOVERNMENT PURPOSE, RELATED TO BUT DISTINCT FROM LOWERING HOUSING PRICES FOR ALL RENTERS.”( Web Link)

This court in fact demonstrated that whenever a city wants to lower rent costs to renters, it is a legitimate governmental purpose under the law. Only if opponents of rent control can demonstrate with evidence and proof that by doing so is NOT a legitimate government purpose, will rent control be considered unconstitutional.

The SCOTUS did not even review this case and let the decision stand:

Guggenheim v. City of Goleta

Petition for certiorari denied on May 16, 2011

Web Link

What is confusing to the CAA, many lawyers, and many apartment owners at this time is that there are many essays and opinions posted on the internet. A great deal are written by lawyers that in fact have not argued this kind of case at all, just writing a synopsis of history. But what is terrible about the internet is that a great deal are old and out of date. The internet does not purge information that has been revised to be inaccurate. For example, the text you found was posted in 2009. But as you can see the court decisions took place at the end of 2010 and 2011. This law firm should have removed this document when the court made their latest determination.

My field of information security requires that information integrity and accuracy is maintained as due diligence. But the Internet has no mechanism to act to update itself, it just shares information.


Posted by Wake Up Mt. View
a resident of North Whisman
on Jan 26, 2017 at 8:47 pm

The fact that this Rental Housing Committee will have the power to amend the City charter as unelected officials should frighten every resident of Mountain View. We're not talking about regulations and ordinances, we're talking about the City Charter--the constitution of the City of Mountain View.

If it is found by the courts that any part of Measure V is unlawful or unconstitutional, the Rental Housing Committee is empowered to replace that section with something similar that passes muster and withstands a legal challenge. No vote by the citizenry, no affirmation by the City Council. They can amend their document as they see fit. [Section 1709 (l)


Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jan 26, 2017 at 9:06 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

Wake up Mt. View:

from what I read, the Board has no authority to make changes to the charter. This is what I see:

SECTION 1709. RENTAL HOUSING COMMITTEE

(a) Composition. There shall be in the City of Mountain View an appointed Rental Housing Committee comprised of Mountain View residents as set forth in this Section. The Committee shall consist of five (5) Committee members appointed by the City Council, and an alternate Committee member. The alternate Committee member shall be permitted to attend all Committee meetings and to speak, but not be authorized to vote unless a regular member of the Committee is absent at that meeting or is recused from voting on an agenda item. There shall be no more than two (2) members of the Committee that own or manage any rental property, or that are realtors or developers. Anyone nominated to this Committee must be in compliance with this Article and all other local, state and federal laws regulating the provision of housing. Annually, the Committee shall elect one of its members to serve as chairperson.

(b) Eligibility and Appointment. Committee members shall be appointed by the City Council at a public meeting. Applicants for membership on the Committee shall submit an application to the City Council. The application shall include a statement under penalty of perjury of the applicant's interests and dealings in real property, including but not limited to, ownership, trusteeship, sale, or management, and investment in and association with partnerships, corporations, joint ventures, and syndicates engaged in ownership, sale, or management of real property during the three years immediately prior to the applicant’s application. This documentation shall be made available to the public.

(c) Term of Office. Committee Members shall serve terms of four (4) years and may be reappointed for a total of two (2) full terms. Committee member terms shall be staggered. Therefore, initial appointments shall consist of two (2) members with two-year terms, an alternate with a two-year term, and three (3) members with four-year terms.

(d) Powers and Duties. The Committee shall have the following powers and duties:

(1) Set Rents at fair and equitable levels to achieve the purposes of this Article. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Article, the Committee shall have the authority to adopt regulations authorizing Rent increases and/or adjustments required by state or federal law. (2) Establish rules and regulations for administration and enforcement of this Article.

(3) Determine and publicize the Annual General Adjustment pursuant to this Article.

(4) Appoint Hearing Officers to conduct hearings on Petitions for Individual Rent Adjustment pursuant to this Article.

(5) Adjudicate Petitions pursuant to Sections 1710 and 1711 herein and issue decisions with orders for appropriate relief pursuant to this Article.

(6) Administer oaths and affirmations and subpoena witnesses and relevant documents.

(7) Establish a budget for the reasonable and necessary implementation of the provisions of this Article, including without limitation the hiring of necessary staff, and charge fees as set forth herein in an amount sufficient to support that budget.

(8) Administer the withdrawal process for the removal of Rental Units from the rental housing market pursuant to Subsection 1705(a)(8) herein. 15 (9) Hold public hearings.

(10) Conduct studies, surveys, investigations, and hearings, and obtain information to further the purposes of this Article.

(11) Report periodically to the City Council on the status of Covered Rental Units. Reports shall include (a) a summary of the numbers of termination of tenancy notices served pursuant to Section 1705 of this Article, including the bases upon which they were served, (b) a summary of any and all Petitions submitted to and/or decided by a Hearing Officer and/or the Committee pursuant to Sections 1710 and 1711, including the bases on which the Petitions were submitted and the determinations on the Petitions.

(12) Publicize through reasonable and appropriate means the provisions of this Article, including without limitation the rights and responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants.

(13) Establish a schedule of penalties that may be imposed for noncompliance with this Article or with rules and regulations promulgated under this Article.

(14) Pursue civil remedies as provided by this Article in courts of appropriate jurisdiction, subject to City Council approval.

(15) Intervene as an interested party in any litigation brought before a court of appropriate jurisdiction by a Landlord or Tenant with respect to Covered Rental Units, subject to City Council approval.

(16) Any other duties necessary to administer and enforce this Article.

(e) Rules and Regulations. The Committee shall issue and follow such rules and regulations as will further the purposes of the Article.

(f) Meetings. The Committee shall hold regularly scheduled meetings as necessary to ensure the performance of its duties under this Article. All regular and special meetings shall be called and conducted in accordance with state law.

(g) Quorum. Three (3) members shall constitute a quorum for the Committee.

(h) Voting. The affirmative vote of three (3) members of the Committee is required for a decision, including on all motions, regulations, and orders of the Committee.

(i) Vacancies. If a vacancy occurs on the Committee, a person qualified to fill such vacancy shall be appointed by the City Council in accordance with this Article.

(j) Financing. The Committee shall finance its reasonable and necessary expenses, including without limitation engaging any staff as necessary to ensure implementation of this Article, by charging Landlords an annual Rental Housing Fee as set forth herein, in amounts deemed reasonable by the Committee in accordance with applicable law. The Committee is also empowered to request and receive funding when and if necessary from any available source including the City for its reasonable and necessary expenses. 16

(1) Rental Housing Fee. All Landlords shall pay a Rental Housing Fee on an annual basis. The first Committee convened after the effective date of this Article shall determine the amount of the Rental Housing Fee. The amount of the Rental Housing Fee may differ between Rental Units subject to the entirety of this Article and those that are Partially Exempt. The Committee may adjust the amount of the Rental Housing Fee at its discretion to ensure full funding of its reasonable and necessary expenses, in accordance with all applicable law.

(2) City to Advance Initial Funds. During the initial implementation of this Article, the City shall advance all necessary funds to ensure the effective implementation of this Article, until the Committee has collected Rental Housing Fees sufficient to support the implementation of this Article. The City may seek a reimbursement of any advanced funds from the Committee after the Rental Housing Fee has been collected.

(k) Integrity and Autonomy of Committee. The Committee shall be an integral part of the government of the City, but shall exercise its powers and duties under this Article independent from the City Council, City Manager, and City Attorney, except by request of the Committee. The Committee may request the services of the City Attorney, who shall provide them pursuant to the lawful duties of the office in Article 711 of the City Charter. In the period between the effective date of this Article and the appointment of the initial members of the Committee, the City shall take whatever steps necessary to perform the duties of the Committee and implement the purposes of this Article.

(l) Conforming Regulations. If any portion of this Article is declared invalid or unenforceable by decision of a court of competent jurisdiction or rendered invalid or unenforceable by state or federal legislation, the Committee and not the City Council shall have authority to enact replacement regulations consistent with the intent and purpose of the invalidated provision and applicable law. Such replacement regulations shall supersede invalidated or unenforceable provisions of this Article to the extent necessary to resolve any inconsistency. The subject matter of such replacement regulations shall be limited to the matters addressed in this Article."

The rest discusses rent increases and decreases and no power to change the charter.

Who said that Measure V did this?

I think you just got panicked over something that doesn't exist


Posted by asleep
a resident of Monta Loma
on Jan 26, 2017 at 9:09 pm

people aren't going to wake up. The 'feel good, i'm helping people' dream has taken hold and if you don't back it up 100% you are an uncaring, racist horrible person.

people don't want to hear or even try to understand the facts. they have been blinded by the repetitive assault of a mis-guided, uninformed group and an unbelievably biased media. one minor hope is that if enough start pushing back, start asking questions and presenting a more grounded, stable middle-ground viewpoint, perhaps people will realize how far off track things have gotten. it's hard to do that tho when all you see is this super-left viewpoint constantly, day in, day out.

It's sad. it's how we got stuck with Trump and how he'll get elected again if people don't start waking up and thinking common sense, viable solutions instead of these crazy feel-good everybody should get what they want ideas.


Posted by Wake Up Mt. View
a resident of North Whisman
on Jan 26, 2017 at 9:22 pm

What don't you understand about this paragraph? Measure V is a charter amendment as written. Any changes made by the Rental Housing Committee constitute a change to the city charter.

(l) Conforming Regulations. If any portion of this Article is declared invalid or unenforceable by decision of a court of competent jurisdiction or rendered invalid or unenforceable by state or federal legislation, the Committee and not the City Council shall have authority to enact replacement regulations consistent with the intent and purpose of the invalidated provision and applicable law. Such replacement regulations shall supersede invalidated or unenforceable provisions of this Article to the extent necessary to resolve any inconsistency. The subject matter of such replacement regulations shall be limited to the matters addressed in this Article."


Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jan 26, 2017 at 9:38 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

Wake up Mt. View:

THat is what is described as a "Severability" clause. If the State Law, Federal Law, State or Federal Constitution has been determined by any court invalidates any portion of the CSFRA, this part allows that part to be removed without voiding the entire CSFRA.


I agree, that the wording is terrible, but the "Lawyers" love to use confusing language and not a direct simple statement. I understand it only because I took many law courses before I got my Business Degrees.

This section simply prevents the entire CSFRA to be wiped out due to some part being judged in violation of the law or the constitution.




Posted by Wake Up Mt. View
a resident of North Whisman
on Jan 26, 2017 at 9:47 pm

BM

No, it doesn't "simply prevent". It empowers the Rental Housing Committee to REPLACE any sections ruled unlawful or unconstitutional by the court. It also excludes the City Council from any say in the matter.

The wording is not a simple severability clause.

" the Committee and not the City Council shall have authority to enact replacement regulations . . ."

Stop with the Alternative Facts.


Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jan 26, 2017 at 10:03 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

Wake Up:

I may have made a mistake in my interpretation. I am very sorry.

But if you noticed the last statement reads:

The subject matter of such replacement regulations shall be limited to the matters addressed in this Article."

That would mean if the courts still rule that the regulation designated as unconstitutional, it would appear that the board will be able to revise only what is within the CSFRA. And of course any attempt to simply rewrite or reenact the same invalid regulations would simply be quashed by a court order. I am in agreement that this language is still terrible because you can read it in the way you described. But I would think as a practical matter that situation your describing would be the straw that would cause the voters to dismantle Measure V in a follow up vote.

I would think that no one would dare try to do what your describing because the cost of the loss of CSFRA would be way too high. It was so difficult to get to this point. But thank you very much for pointing it out.

Too bad I am not a board member, because I would prevent that kind of serious problem. I was at the City Council Meeting on Tues. and I declared when I spoke, that if for example any property had been materially improved in any way, as a board member I would authorize a rent increase exception to the general rules. That is the purpose of that board. I agree any abuse of power must be prevented, but we haven't heard any case decisions yet.




Posted by mike rose
a resident of another community
on Jan 26, 2017 at 10:14 pm

mike rose is a registered user.

We shall see what is going to happen in Richmond case which is similar and the hearing is tomorrow.
Probably injunction won't be decided tomorrow but it will be argued tomorrow.
The reason that I bring it up is that probably Santa Clara judge will follow this closely.
Richmond RPA henchmen will show up tomorrow in Cory to demonstrate and apply pressure.
Who knows what the outcome will be. The only good thing is that the judge Craddick is a staunch Republican and probably hates communists.


Posted by Relax
a resident of Jackson Park
on Jan 26, 2017 at 10:14 pm

@Wake Up, you're leaving off the most important part of that statement in order to fear-monger: "consistent with the intent and purpose of the invalidated provision and applicable law." If something gets thrown out, the RHC gets to put in a replacement consistent with intent the invalidated portion, but legal.

Is this how low the landlords have to go now? Making up things to scare people? Shame on you.


Posted by Wake Up Mt. View
a resident of North Whisman
on Jan 26, 2017 at 10:26 pm

@Relax

My concern is not a run away Rental Housing Committee. And you assume wrongly that I'm a landlord making things up.

You and everyone else in Mountain View should be very concerned that a body of unelected people have the power and authority to amend the City Charter IN ANY WAY. Moreover, no changes can be made to Measure V without a vote of the citizenry. Therefore Section 1709(l) is complete hogwash and one of a multitude of poorly crafted clauses which a court of competent jurisdiction would surely throw out.


Posted by Relax
a resident of Jackson Park
on Jan 26, 2017 at 10:36 pm

Your concern isn't the RHC, but everyone should be concerned about the RHC?

The simple facts are that they can't change it in any way, only if a portion is thrown out by a court, they are responsible for replacing it with something consistent with the the intent and purpose of the law. You all have lost every other argument about Measure V, so now your last refuge is just to make up problems.


Posted by Protest
a resident of Bailey Park
on Jan 26, 2017 at 10:38 pm

For the love of God, mike, stop talking about Richmond. No one here cares about Richmond or your obsession with imagined communists.


Posted by asleep
a resident of Monta Loma
on Jan 26, 2017 at 10:53 pm

actually, a lot of us care deeply about Richmond. We're quiet but we're interested, we're watching and we are most definitely interested.


Posted by Protest
a resident of Bailey Park
on Jan 26, 2017 at 10:56 pm

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


Posted by mike rose
a resident of another community
on Jan 26, 2017 at 10:57 pm

mike rose is a registered user.


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


Posted by Protest
a resident of Bailey Park
on Jan 26, 2017 at 11:26 pm

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


Posted by Gary
a resident of Sylvan Park
on Jan 27, 2017 at 6:32 am

Gary is a registered user.

The announcement after the closed sesdion was that the City Council had only voted to "file an answer" in the lawsuit - not to defend the measure. Someone prepared to defend the measure better get into the case before the City stipulates to another restraining order - this time a "preliminary injunction" that could last until the City stipulates to a final injunction dispensing with the charter amendment.


Posted by mike rose
a resident of another community
on Jan 27, 2017 at 9:02 am

mike rose is a registered user.

Comrade Protest,
I was just pointing out that these two cases are virtually the same, and Richmond case goes throug the courts first.


Posted by mike rose
a resident of another community
on Jan 27, 2017 at 9:13 am

mike rose is a registered user.

Relax,
The Business Man is known for spreading falsehoods on this forum.
I pinned him down on outright lies several times.
I.e. He stated that federal law prohibits eviction of the tenant for no cause. He also falsely proclaimed that association (CAA) cannot bring legal action on behalf of its members etc.
The usual technique he uses is to copy and paste very long irrrelevant texts and then "draws" the "right" conclusions.
You had a perfect example in your latest argument.
I urge all readers to be very critical of what he has to say and urge him not to spread any more obvious falsehoods.


Posted by Other Side of Richmond Story
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jan 27, 2017 at 10:16 am

It is commendable the SF Chronicle published an objective other side of the coin story to the unintended consequences of rent control. Wonder if the voice would ever do the same?

Web Link


Posted by Populism in CA
a resident of Rex Manor
on Jan 27, 2017 at 10:17 am

Populism is alive and well in California, clearly. The same crazy beliefs that gave us President Trump are the same ones held by the people who supported Measure V. There is no difference. If you want to support Measure V, fine. But don't feel that you are any better, different or more enlighten than Trump supports. Don't resist Trump's efforts to fight against sanctuary cities, build a ridiculous wall, create a Muslim registry. You are all the same. You have no moral ground against them. The Mountain View Voice is your Fox News. You both take from a minority group to give to another entitled, irrational, majority group.


Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jan 27, 2017 at 11:31 am

The Business Man is a registered user.

mike rose,

I am waiting for the Richmond injunction decision at this time.

But you overstate your claims, I did make a mistake regarding the URLTA act, and I conceded that the language in the CSFRA is potentially worded in such a way that it can be read as to allow the Board to make changes in the City Charter. I clearly disclosed this in the past.

If the Richmond case injunction fails, that substantiates all of what I have discussed with regards to the CAA.

you stated:

"The Business Man is known for spreading falsehoods on this forum.
I pinned him down on outright lies several times."

So far you have only proven one mistake regarding the URLTA. However, you of course refuse to acknowledge the inaccuracy of your informations and will not take responsibility for it as well. And I have conceded that the language in the CSFRA is even in my vision very disconcerting.

"I.e. He stated that federal law prohibits eviction of the tenant for no cause. He also falsely proclaimed that association (CAA) cannot bring legal action on behalf of its members etc."

Again, I clearly disclosed my error, I have made it clear that no federal law does exist regarding rent contracts. It appears that the Federal Government simply wishes not to get involved in this matter. And again we are currently waiting on the3 decision of the Richmond court as to whether a injunction will be awarded by the Contra Costa Court. If it is denied, I want to read the rationale of the decision.

"The usual technique he uses is to copy and paste very long irrrelevant texts and then "draws" the "right" conclusions."

Before you make this claim, please demonstrate what information I discussed that in fact proves your complaint. It appears all your tying to do is character attacks and not discussing the information.

"You had a perfect example in your latest argument."

I never simply disregard any issue discussed here, but what I will do is correct any misinformation that is posted here.

"I urge all readers to be very critical of what he has to say and urge him not to spread any more obvious falsehoods."

Again, all I can say is that with regards to the entire history of these discussions I have made my mistakes, one on the URLTA, and another regarding the what I can see is a questionable provision in the CSFRA. But unless you can list every falsehood and prove them to be false, I would strongly urge you to stop attempting character assassination. What your practicing is trying to kill the messenger for the bad news.

I have never made any character complaints against you, and I expect you to treat me with the same respect and dignity.


Posted by mike rose
a resident of another community
on Jan 27, 2017 at 11:41 am

mike rose is a registered user.

The Richmond injunction hearing has been postponed till March 1st at the last minute.
Don' t know any other details yet.


Posted by mike rose
a resident of another community
on Jan 27, 2017 at 11:43 am

mike rose is a registered user.

Correction, postponed to Feb 1st.
Sorry


Posted by mike rose
a resident of another community
on Jan 27, 2017 at 11:44 am

mike rose is a registered user.

The reason given is the judge is in the middle of the trial that did not wrap up.


Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jan 27, 2017 at 11:55 am

The Business Man is a registered user.

mike rose,

Is it me or are these courts playing hot potato?

No one wants to be the first to make a solid decision.

Just like the old proverb of the Pioneers.

“You Can Recognize A Pioneer By The Arrows In His Back.”

This issue is very HOT. And we both know whatever the decisions are, the first judge is going to get slammed by either side.

Don't be surprised if that court delays again.

In fact, this could be an indication that that judge is confronted with a decision that it does not want to make, as you pointed out, the judge may have a political history. But the judge cannot use political beliefs to shape a decision unless the decision has absolutely no relevant case precedent.

But in this case, there are mountains of case precedent regarding inunction standards. Thus the judge is constrained to comply with them based on res juidica.

And we are left holding onto a weak branch over a cliff.


Posted by mike rose
a resident of another community
on Jan 27, 2017 at 12:03 pm

mike rose is a registered user.

I think your hot potato theory is right in general.
No judge wants to decide hot political issue especially when they think is illegal but popular


Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jan 27, 2017 at 12:58 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

mike rose,

you stated:

"I think your hot potato theory is right in general.

No judge wants to decide hot political issue especially when they think is illegal but popular"

But it is the job of a judge only to rule whether an act is illegal or unconstitutional. Are you suggesting that judges will take actions that are illegal? A judge is not an election counter, it is a constitutionally bound arbiture and adjudicator, their job is not to weigh the votes, but the legal standards that are applicable to each case. It would appear that any decision that disagrees with you must be by default illegal?

I am not saying you are wrong, but that would mean that what you just said can be equally applied regarding the current restraining order with Mountain View. You are stating that it was popular for the Santa Clara judge to issue a restraining order instead of being legally acquired. Given the fact that the CA statute has a clear provision stating that the city of Mountain View is entitled to a continuance to answer the restraining order request, but the court did not issue one. That was because of the City Attorney's inability to understand the law, and acted in such an incompetent manner in my opinion. But it is an opinion, so your opinion is just as valid as mine.

Are you also arguing that every court that established the constitutionality of rent control laws are in fact issuing illegal orders? Even the SCOTUS? Please explain it to us? And not by making reference to anything but case law decisions, not politically fueled articles that are out of date, please?




Posted by mike rose
a resident of another community
on Jan 27, 2017 at 2:38 pm

mike rose is a registered user.

This measure will be judged in light of the most recent precedent standards as required.
So repeating that other control laws were upheld for whatever reasons in the past does not preclude this measure from being unconstitutional.
If you look at the most recent cases Guggenheim, the NY case(forgot the name ) that almost made it to the SCOTUS in 2012, you can see they the common reason for adjudicating these cases in favor of rent control was ONLY the fact that the plaintiffs purchased their properties AFTER the RCO was enacted.
Therefore the plaintiffs could not claim, in courts opinion, that their investment backed expectations were violated, and this fact killed their case.
The courts recognize the investment backed expectations to be evaluated in light of the existing laws at the time investment expenditures are made.
Not, as you incorrectly suggested, the criteria is that any business owner should anticipate any regulation at anytime, in that scenario this test would never apply.

The other 2 tests for unconstitutional taking per Penn Central were already recognized by courts in Gunningham case as factors supporting unconstitutional taking w/o compensation ( the economic effect on the landlord test and character of regulation test)
These were not questioned by appeals court.
So really the only test left is the investment backed expectations.
This should be no brainer.


Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jan 27, 2017 at 3:33 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

mike rose,

what you are saying is that if any NEW rent control laws are past, they by default are unconstitutional. That would mean that when any rent control law is passed, it is unconstitutional and thus, in fact no rent control law is constitutional.

I can see where that logic might make sense.

But that is not accepted as a standard regarding the current constitutional basis of rent control, please be patient and read this:

THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT ABANDONED THE PUBLIC EMERGENCY REQUIREMENT IN BIRKENFELD V. CITY OF BERKELEY, (105) which established the standard of judicial review for rent control challenges in California for the next decade. IN BIRKENFELD, A GROUP OF BERKELEY LANDLORDS BROUGHT A CLASS ACTION SUIT CHALLENGING A 1972 CHARTER AMENDMENT THAT REQUIRED THE IMPOSITION OF RESIDENTIAL RENT CONTROL WITHIN THE CITY. (106) THE AMENDMENT ESTABLISHED A RENT CONTROL SCHEME UNDER WHICH BASE RENTS WERE SET AT THE AUGUST 15, 1971. LEVEL AND COULD BE INCREASED ONLY THROUGH INDIVIDUAL RENT ADJUSTMENTS GRANTED BY THE RENT CONTROL BOARD. (107)The landlords argued that rent control, could not be enacted under the city's police powers in the absence of an emergency (108) and that the charter amendment in question was unconstitutionally confiscatory. (109) The court agreed with the plaintiffs on the second claim," (110) BUT UPHELD THE CITY'S POWER TO ENACT A RENT CONTROL ORDINANCE REGARDLESS OF WHETHER AN EMERGENCY EXISTED. (111)

In rejecting the landlords' claim that the city's police powers did not encompass the ability to regulate rents, the court held that, in the absence of conflicting or preemptive state law, a city's police powers are as broad as the state's. (112) Since state law did not preclude the city from imposing rent ceilings, and there was no state rent control statute preempting Berkeley's regulation, the city was free to enact a rent control ordinance. " (103) THE COURT INDICATED THAT IT WOULD SUSTAIN RENT CONTROL LAWS UNDER THE POLICE POWER "UNLESS THE FINDINGS ESTABLISH A COMPLETE ABSENCE OF EVEN A DEBATABLE RATIONAL BASIS FOR THE LEGISLATIVE DETERMINATION ... THAT RENT CONTROL IS A REASONABLE MEANS OF COUNTERACTING HARMS AND DANGERS TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE EMANATING FROM A HOUSING SHORTAGE." (114) The court held that while the ends chosen by the city were constitutionally justified, the means could not survive because the ordinance did not provide landlords with a just and reasonable return on their investment." (105) Birkenfeld suggests that courts viewing rent control as a price control measure focus on the landlords' return on their investments. Questions of noneconomic property rights do not arise. The California Supreme Court clarified a portion of its Birkenfeld holding in Carson Mobile Home Park Owners' Association v. City of Carson. (116) In Carson, plaintiff landlords' association challenged the city's mobile home park rent control ordinance as an unconstitutional taking on the grounds that the regulation, like the charter amendment struck down in Birkenfeld, did not provide for automatic general rent adjustments and employed an individual rent adjustment procedure fraught with delays. (117) In rejecting the plaintiff's argument, the court said that the Carson ordinance's 105-day review period, unlike the Berkeley law, was "carefully tailored to meet the legitimate interests of the ordinance 'without a substantially greater incidence and degree of delay than is practically necessary.' (118) Furthermore, the absence of an automatic general rent adjustment mechanism, while a factor in the striking down of the Berkeley ordinance, did not make the Carson ordinance unconstitutional.(119) THE COURT FOUND THAT GENERAL RENT ADJUSTMENTS ARE NOT CONSTITUTIONALLY REQUIRED, PARTICULARLY WHERE, AS IN CARSON, THE ORDINANCE CAREFULLY TAILORED THE RENT ADJUSTMENTS TO THE NEEDS OF LANDLORDS AND TENANTS. ' (120) California courts have now fully embraced the Birkenfeld/Carson analysis, particularly the just and reasonable return standard as a measure of adequacy of compensation to landlords. The courts explained and expanded the standard in several cases, including Cotati Alliance for Better Housing v. City of Cotati, (121) Palos Verdes Shores Mobile Estates, Ltd. v. City of Los Angeles, (122) and Oceanside Mobile Home Park Owners' Association v. City of Oceanside. (123) FOCUSING ON THE ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF RENT CONTROL, THESE CASES CLARIFIED THAT A JUST AND REASONABLE RETURN UNDER BIRKENFELD REQUIRES THAT THE LANDLORD RECEIVE A FAIR RETURN ON HIS INVESTMENT IN THE PROPERTY, NOT A FAIR RETURN BASED ON THE MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY.(124) Utilizing this return on investment standard, and the deference toward governmental determinations of the need for rent control announced in Birkenfeld, the courts of appeal upheld the rent control ordinances in each of these cases.( Web Link)

Thus if I read this correctly a NEW rent control law is constitutional as long as the return on investment is not based on the “MARKET VALUE” of the property. That makes sense to me because the “MARKET VALUE” of the property is in fact upwardly manipulated by the shortage of resources that are all in the control of the Apartment Industry.

This would mean that the controlling issue is not the cost of purchase of the property that is a “MARKET VALUE” standard. The issue would be what is the cost of operation of the property that EXCLUDES the mortgage cost. That cost is arbitrary and not accepted as a factor in determining a fair return on investment and more importantly was an accepted cost to enter the market, it simply does not count regarding the return on investment formula. Primarily because the tenants of the property do not make the choice to buy the property, that fiscal responsibility lies on the purchaser in the state of CA.

However, no court has ever numerically defined what that rate of return is. No court has ordered that any minimum rate of return be set, probably because the markets are so diverse, setting any standard rate would be an arbitrary act.

Another case that disagrees with your opinion is the SCOTUS in 1988 Pennell v. City of San Jose where 8 of the judges ruled in favor of rent control, one was not in the case. Of those only 2 filed opinions that questioned the entirety of the decision but nonetheless did not completely dissent. In the same legal analysis as above, the case history is:

"In the first U.S. Supreme Court rent control case decided since Hall, Pennell v. City of San Jose,223 the Court upheld the constitutionality of a rent control scheme on familiar due process and equal protection grounds. 224 ALTHOUGH THE OPINION REJECTED AS PREMATURE A HALL-TYPE TAKINGS CLAIM, TWO DISSENTING JUSTICES, JUSTICE O'CONNOR AND JUSTICE SCALIA (AUTHOR OF THE NOLLAN DECISION), FOUND MERIT IN THE TAKINGS CLAIM.225 Justice Scalia's dissent indicates that Hall's analytical framework is in step with a new perspective on land use and takings jurisprudence. 226 While not authoritative, the Pennell dissent, in combination with Hall's analysis, indicates that there is growing judicial interest in enhancing the constitutional protection of private property ownership.

The San Jose rent control ordinance challenged in Pennell was enacted in 1979.227 The ordinance permitted an automatic annual rent increase of up to eight percent, with increases above eight percent subject to the approval of a hearing officer. 228 IN DETERMINING WHETHER AN INCREASE ABOVE THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM WAS REASONABLE, THE HEARING OFFICER COULD CONSIDER A NUMBER OF FACTORS ENUMERATED IN THE ORDINANCE, 229 INCLUDING "TENANT HARDSHIP, '230 which became the focus of the plaintiff's challenge.

The plaintiffs argued that a taking would occur if the hearing officer took tenant hardship into account and reduced the rent below the level established after reviewing the other factors. 231 This taking would be impermissible, they argued, because it would not serve the legitimate public purpose of reducing excessive rents. Instead, the provision would force landlords to shoulder the public burden of subsidizing poor tenants.232 CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST, WRITING FOR THE MAJORITY, DISMISSED THE PLAINTIFFS' CLAIM AS PREMATURE BECAUSE THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THAT THE TENANT HARDSHIP PROVISION HAD EVER BEEN RELIED UPON BY A HEARING OFFICER TO REDUCE A PROPOSED RENT INCREASE. 233 The Court also found the provision to' be permissive, not mandatory; therefore, it did not necessarily lead to a reduction of a proposed increase.234 Finally, the Court rejected the plaintiffs' due process and equal protection claims. 235

Justices Scalia and O'Connor, while agreeing that the tenant hardship provision did not violate due process or equal protection guarantees, 236 disagreed with the majority on the takings issue. The dissent would have addressed the takings issue on the merits. 237 They agreed with the plaintiffs that employment of the tenant hardship factor to reduce what would otherwise be a reasonable rent increase would be inconsistent with the Constitution.238 THE DISSENT CONCLUDED THAT ONCE THE OTHER RENT INCREASE FACTORS WERE APPLIED TO GIVE A LANDLORD A REASONABLE RETURN, THE LANDLORD COULD NO LONGER BE REGARDED AS THE CAUSE OF EXCESSIVE RENTAL RATES OR AS REAPING EXORBITANT PROFITS FROM A HOUSING SHORTAGE. 239 Therefore, if the tenant hardship provision was invoked after a reasonable rent increase was otherwise determined, then the city would be asking landlords to remedy the problem of low income tenants who could not afford even reasonably priced housing. 240 "

Again, the simple fact is no board decision has in fact taken place. The complaint of the CAA is simply immature and since no damages have in fact been suffered, the CAA cannot claim any cause of action. Only when the CAA can demonstrate that unfair or biased rent adjustment decisions have in fact taken place, can the court even consider that a “taking” has occurred.

The simple fact is it is clearly constitutional to create any new rent control lwas or charter amendments. To claim that it is not would be not representing history correctly.


Posted by mike rose
a resident of another community
on Jan 27, 2017 at 4:31 pm

mike rose is a registered user.

It seems like we have to sort some things out first.
1. Do you concede that currently high courts allow for recognition of


Posted by mike rose
a resident of another community
on Jan 27, 2017 at 4:34 pm

mike rose is a registered user.

Unconstitunal regulatory taking even if the economic impact is not total but partial?


Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jan 27, 2017 at 5:11 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

mike rose,

I cannot concede anything, I just point out that the courts do not agree with your claims.

You want the courts to determine that any NEW rent control systems are unconstitutional. But as of this time, that appears to not be the current court determination.

You want to socialize the loss of wealth due to apartment buyers making terrible mistakes regarding overpaying for a property. You want the cost of ownership to be an entitlement that can be required to be paid off by either a tenant or a government sponsored rent assistance. That is totally unreasonable.

The cost of buying a property is simply a standard COST of ENTRY into the MARKET. That is not anyone's else's responsibility nor should there be any transference of liability for the simple transference of ownership. However, if any property improvement is performed, I strongly support any rental rate increase in that situation.

THe courts have clearly stated that the "Market Rate" of property value is not a factor because apartment industry is solely responsible for the current lack of apartments. As long as the shortage of housing exists the courts do not recognize any takings with regards to rent control.

The courts have recognized that a documented lack of housing is sufficient enough for any government to take control of the rental rates in the apartment industry. The government nor the tenants are responsible for the shortage, the apartment industry is. That causes an artificial upward value, in other words market manipulation. The courts have stated that that cannot be a factor in the consideration of a rent adjustment, except where property improvement has been documented.

What landlords have wanted is that the cost of improvements be paid before the improvement has in fact occurred. That is the Cart before the Horse. Unfortunately, those have to be done first. But that means those costs are able to be added as cost of operations. Thus rental adjustment are perfectly allowable and if I were on the Mountain View board, I would vote for an appropriate rent increase.

Please demonstrate some kind of case precedent not reversed on appeal that states that currently high courts allow for recognition of unconstitutional regulatory taking even if the economic impact is not total but partial with regards to rent control? And this cannot include any dissenting opinions because the court decision does not agree with dissenters.

Again many legal writers have argued your point of view, but it appears that no higher court has ever specifically determined that is rent control is unconstitutional and is a taking. The court has typically ruled that a fair return of investment may be required, but that excludes the cost of entry into the apartment market, I.E. the Mortgage payment are excluded as a cost regarding any quantitative assessment of what is the recommendation of the rate of return for a property. That would mean that only the cost of operations, NOT THE COST OF OWNERSHIP, would apply as a appropriate consideration for a rent increase. The boards can simply use this as a example of the rental adjustment:

Say it costs $100,000 to operate a 10 similar unit apartment for 1 year.

That would come to the cost of $10,000. per similar unit per year.

Say the accepted rate of return is 5%, per year

That would mean that the rent would be needing to come to a total of $105,000. per year to achieve it.

That would mean that the similar unit rent requirement would come to $10,500 a year, or $875 a month.

Again, the cost of ownership, the mortgage is a cost of market entry and is negated from this process. It in fact is not a wealth, but cost of market entry and that is it. The fact is that no one coerced or forced anyone to buy the property, it was free will. But this is something that most landlords don't seem to understand. THey want everyone else to pay for any mistakes they make in their choice of action.

By the way, why is Mike Kasperzak not being investigated for corruption, because he was acting as a CAA operative while being a city councilman? I am still confused.




Posted by mike rose
a resident of another community
on Jan 27, 2017 at 5:44 pm

mike rose is a registered user.

If you can't concede anything it Speaks for itself
And further discussion with you is pointless.
Fair people concede fair points.


Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jan 27, 2017 at 8:23 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

mike rose,

in all of our discussion, you have never conceded anything.

You malign me on the internet, and at the same time you call me an unfair person?

These are your own words:

The Business Man is known for spreading falsehoods on this forum.
I pinned him down on outright lies several times.
I.e. He stated that federal law prohibits eviction of the tenant for no cause. He also falsely proclaimed that association (CAA) cannot bring legal action on behalf of its members etc.
The usual technique he uses is to copy and paste very long irrrelevant texts and then "draws" the "right" conclusions.
You had a perfect example in your latest argument.
I urge all readers to be very critical of what he has to say and urge him not to spread any more obvious falsehoods.

You know I have corrected my mistakes. You know I stated that I made a mistake about URLTA and my questions regarding the wording of the regulations issue in Measure V. But now you say:

If you can't concede anything it Speaks for itself
And further discussion with you is pointless.
Fair people concede fair points.

Please identify any point you have actually had to concede anything?

This is what is called "that's like the pot calling the weed green"

In your world, you do not need to stipulate to anything, expect everyone to capitulate to your opinion, and when they don't they are unfair.

It's just too bad there is not a debate we can participate in public, where research is presented on a public screen. I would think that you would have a more difficult time with a live audience.


Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jan 28, 2017 at 2:55 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

mike rose:

As long as you act in a mask, you encourage doubt in me. After you used my first name in posting your comments, you encouraged me to do two things.
The first was to rescind my application to the CSRFA board, which would have probably been more for the benefit of the landlords instead of the renters.

The second was to disclose my identity myself, as to provide anyone to be able to see my identity or my background by simply googling me, or also running any background checks. Even though I did not sign any document providing any consent to it because they are in reality publically available over the internet. If one did, they would discover I have a significantly strong background, even undergoing a security clearance investigation providing me with privileged access, that has never been acted on in either an illegal, immoral, or unethical manner.

But I know why you wish to be anonymous, you know once your identity is disclosed those "tenants" of properties you own or control will find themselves somewhere else to live. Which they have the right to know your business beleifs publically, it cannot be determined a trade secret.

So until you disclose who you are, you are in no position to claim that I am unfair.

As far as Mike Kasperzak, he should be prosecuted for corruption due to the fact he was a CAAS operative while being a sitting councilman. At least he violated the City Council Code of Conduct so bad that it totally invalidated much of the decisions made by the council while he was in office.

I will not reprint the code but simply site its code numbers to keep my comments brief. My specific observation is Mike Kasperzak actively opposed Measure V and Mike Kasperzak acted to propose and initiate Measure W. They have the right to do so. If you read my previous post of the code conduct however, one could conclude that they failed to follow it.

Mike Kasperzak in support of Measure W cannot influence government decisions in which they have a financial interest or where they have an organizational responsibility or a personal relationship that would present a conflict of interest under 3.4.1 of the Code of Conduct. In this case Mike Kasperzak voted to put Measure W on the ballot simply has a personal relationship of some kind with the CAA. On its face that occurred here.

Mike Kasperzak in support of Measure W cannot shall not appear on behalf of the private interests of a third party before the City Council or any board, commission, or committee or proceeding of the City under 3.4.7 of the Code of Conduct. In this case Mike Kasperzak voted to put Measure W on the ballot simply appears to be appearing on behalf of the CAA. On its face that occurred here.

Mike Kasperzak in support of Measure W cannot participate in a government decision in which they have a qualifying financial interest and whether it is reasonably foreseeable that the decision will have a material financial effect on the public official's financial interest, which is distinguishable from the effect the decision will have on the public generally. This would violate 3.4.11.3 of Code of Conduct. In this case Mike Kaperzak voted to put Measure W on the ballot simply can be foreseen as having a financial interest or material impact on their financial interests to support the CAA. On its face that occurred here.

Mike Kasperzak in support of Measure W cannot vote or make any governmental decisions under 3.4.11.3.1 and 3.4.11.3.1.1 of the Code of Conduct. Specifically they are disallowed to Vote, Obligate or commit his or her agency to any course of action, or determine not to act in certain circumstances. The fact that Mike Kasperzak has instructed the City Attorney to NOT advocate for the Citizens of the City of Mountain View seems to be an act in violation of this provision. On its face that occurred here.

Mike Kasperzak in support of Measure W cannot advise or make recommendations to the decision-maker either directly or without significant intervening substantive review by specifically preparing or presenting any report, analysis, or opinion orally or in writing which requires the exercise of judgment on the part of the official and the purpose of which is to influence a governmental decision under 3.4.11.3.1.2. Specifically they are disallowed to advise the City Council or the City Attorney. The fact that Mike Kasperzak has instructed the City Attorney to NOT advocate for the Citizens of the City of Mountain View seems to be an act in violation of this provision. On its face that occurred here

Mike Kapsderzak in support of Measure W cannot participate in influencing any governmental decisions or make appearances or contacts on behalf of a business entity under 3.4.11.3.2. Specifically they are disallowed to appear to be influencing or advocate for any business interest. In this case the CAA. Mike Kasdperzak actively participated in ordering the City Attorney to NOT advocate for the Citizens of the City of Mountain View seems to be an act in violation of this provision. On its face that occurred here

Mike Kasperzak supported Measure W would have to recuse himselfes from voting, or advising, and testify in an open meeting. This did not occur in this case. The failure to do so violated 3.4.11.3.3 of the City Council Code of Conduct. This provision specifically requires that Mike Kasperzak must make an appearance in an open meeting, not represent the City Council, not participate an any votes regarding the issue, and cannot interact with anyone that are members of staff, the City Manager, or City Attorney, or discuss the matter with other Councilmembers. On its face it appears that occurred here.

This would in fact on its face indicate that the course of action taken, since no open meeting in fact occurred in December before the City Council ordered or advised the City Attorney to stipulate to the restraining order, would have made such stipulation a violation of the Code of Conduct. The City Attorney must withdraw the stipulation in court because of this.

In effect, Mike Kasperzak poisoned the integrity of the City Council of Mountain View. Her also totally invalidates the course of action that the City Council ordered the City Attorney to do during the court hearing on Dec. 22. That clearly invalidated the TRO because of the defective legal practice the City Council instructed the City Attorney to act on. Why is this not being discussed in the public?


Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jan 28, 2017 at 8:57 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

Just a follow up,

If you look at this page: Web Link

THere is a clear operational relationship with both Mike Karperzan and John Inks. THe fact that these two were allowed to act as councilmen while at the same time being operatives of the CAA is very disturbing. I hope they never are elected to any office ever again.


Posted by mike rose
a resident of another community
on Jan 29, 2017 at 10:04 am

mike rose is a registered user.

The Business Man,
You state:
".....As long as you act in a mask, you encourage doubt in me. After you used my first name in posting your comments, you encouraged me to do two things.
The first was to rescind my application to the CSRFA board, which would have probably been more for the benefit of the landlords instead of the renters....."

Again, I counted TWO lies in your one sentence.

I clearly recall you decided to withdraw from CSRFA board on another forum, PRIOR to me calling you by your first name and PRIOR to MVV disclosing your first and last name STATING in the article that you decided to withdraw.

The reason you stated for withdrawal is your pro rent control bias, which in your opinion disqualified you from the City Council consideration for CSRFA. That self made statements speaks for itself to the fact how helpful you would have been to the landlords.

So right there two more of your lies and misinformation.

I don't know Mike Kasperzak, but you bashing him in your usual, mile long angry rant mainly for the fact that his position on the rent control was the same as CAA.
In your hypocrisy you do not mention Lenny's ideological associations with tenants organizations. I guess this is ok as long as suits your ideology.

It is time you stop these long and angry rants as well as lies.
Stop indulging yourself in a thought how "fair" you are towards others.
This is simply untrue.




Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jan 29, 2017 at 12:23 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

Mike rose:

Again, until you disclose your true identity, so that those reading your opinions can equally assess your honesty and objectivity, the public is allowed to be very skeptical of your opinions.

You also stated:

“I clearly recall you decided to withdraw from CSRFA board on another forum, PRIOR to me calling you by your first name and PRIOR to MVV disclosing your first and last name STATING in the article that you decided to withdraw.”

Unfortunately, there was a point of time where the Voice deleted a large set of posts in a prior story, so I cannot specifically prove that you addressed me by my first name prior to my withdrawal from the CSFRA Board application.

“I don't know Mike Kasperzak, but you bashing him in your usual, mile long angry rant mainly for the fact that his position on the rent control was the same as CAA.”

The fact is he has participated as a moderator in the latest CAA event that took place in January at the Computer History Museum, I am certain that was a paid event for him. I did not state anything that was not true, and was able to be independently verified by those reading my opinion. Not only that, but he had a strong personal relationship with Project Sentinel, which got a large amount of money given to it to perform useless non-binding mediation regarding renters and landlords by the City of Mountain View. He personally lobbied for this to be done while being a sitting city councilman. That was just a scam to provide free money to his pet project which did not produce any legitimate results at all.

“In your hypocrisy you do not mention Lenny's ideological associations with tenants organizations. I guess this is ok as long as suits your ideology.

With regard to “Lenny”, his opinion and actions are not shaped or influenced by a private for-profit trade organization, he is just doing his job representing all of the city. The MVTC is not a for-profit private organization, it does not just serve its “Members” that pay a fee to join it. It represents all Mountain View renters equally. That is the job of a city councilman and does not conflict with political reform laws or the city council code of conduct. So you cannot reasonably compare the CAA to the MVTC.

“It is time you stop these long and angry rants as well as lies.”

Until you understand that those opposed to you cannot be written off as unfair and liars, you must do a much better job is proving your point of view.

“Stop indulging yourself in a thought how "fair" you are towards others.
This is simply untrue. “

That is your opinion, however, I observe your behavior as a practice of “Astroturfing” and it is defined as:

“Astroturfing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is about the type of advocacy. For the artificial grass, see AstroTurf.

Astroturfing is the practice of MASKING THE SPONSORS OF A MESSAGE OR ORGANIZATION (E.G., POLITICAL, ADVERTISING, RELIGIOUS OR PUBLIC RELATIONS) TO MAKE IT APPEAR AS THOUGH IT ORIGINATES FROM AND IS SUPPORTED BY A GRASSROOTS PARTICIPANT(S). It is a practice intended to give the statements or organizations credibility by withholding information about the source's financial connection. THE TERM ASTROTURFING IS DERIVED FROM ASTROTURF, A BRAND OF SYNTHETIC CARPETING DESIGNED TO RESEMBLE NATURAL GRASS, AS A PLAY ON THE WORD "GRASSROOTS." THE IMPLICATION BEHIND THE USE OF THE TERM IS THAT THERE ARE NO "TRUE" OR "NATURAL" GRASSROOTS, BUT RATHER "FAKE" OR "ARTIFICIAL" SUPPORT, ALTHOUGH SOME ASTROTURFING OPERATIVES DEFEND THE PRACTICE (see Justification below).( Web Link)

This is a very ugly political practice because its sole purpose is DECEPTION. I guess since you choose to remain anonymous, you must be practicing this DECEPTION. Otherwise if you thought your point of view is so valid, justified, and legal, you would have absolutely no rational basis of fear of any reaction from the public that could either impair or threaten to impair your business or yourself.

But I guess you have proven my point for me.


Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jan 29, 2017 at 12:38 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

I should have included this also:

This is part of the wikipedia page:

Techniques[edit]
Use of one or more front groups is one astroturfing technique. These groups typically present themselves as serving the public interest, while actually working on behalf of a corporate or political sponsor.[23]FRONT GROUPS MAY RESIST LEGISLATION AND SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS THAT IS DAMAGING TO THE SPONSOR'S BUSINESS BY EMPHASIZING MINORITY VIEWPOINTS, INSTILLING DOUBT AND PUBLISHING COUNTERCLAIMS BY CORPORATE-SPONSORED EXPERTS.[3] FAKE BLOGS CAN ALSO BE CREATED THAT APPEAR TO BE WRITTEN BY CONSUMERS, WHILE ACTUALLY BEING OPERATED BY A COMMERCIAL OR POLITICAL INTEREST.[24] Some political movements have provided incentives for members of the public to send a letter to the editor at their local paper, often using a copy and paste form letter that is published in dozens of newspapers verbatim.[25]

ANOTHER TECHNIQUE IS THE USE OF SOCKPUPPETS, WHERE A SINGLE PERSON CREATES MULTIPLE IDENTITIES ONLINE TO GIVE THE APPEARANCE OF GRASSROOTS SUPPORT. SOCKPUPPETS MAY POST POSITIVE REVIEWS ABOUT A PRODUCT, ATTACK PARTICIPANTS THAT CRITICIZE THE ORGANIZATION, OR POST NEGATIVE REVIEWS AND COMMENTS ABOUT COMPETITORS, UNDER FAKE IDENTITIES.[15][26] Astroturfing businesses may pay staff based on the number of posts they make that are not flagged by moderators.[21] Persona management software may be used so that each paid poster can manage five to seventy convincing online personas without getting them confused.[22][27]

Pharmaceutical companies may sponsor patient support groups and simultaneously push them to help market their products.[28] Bloggers who receive free products, paid travel or other accommodations may also be considered astroturfing if those gifts are not disclosed to the reader.[29] Analysts could be considered astroturfing, since they often cover their own clients without disclosing their financial connection. To avoid astroturfing, many organizations and press have policies about gifts, accommodations and disclosures.[30]

Does this sound familiar?


Posted by Common sense
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Jan 30, 2017 at 4:50 am

Common sense is a registered user.

Truly amazing to see. Mike Rose nails "Business Man" squarely, for contradictory and disingenuous claims posted here. End of argument.

But rather than just "getting it," the latter proceeds to more multi-screenful ruminations. (Aside: "the Voice delet[ing] a large set of posts in a prior story" is irrelevant -- do you not even save your own record of your own words? And Lenny Siegel's public history of advocating rent controls goes back decades and hardly "represent[s] the whole city." Missed that point as well?)

Over the years, various personalities have come and gone on this forum. Sometimes remembered mainly for their style of posting.


Posted by Randy Guelph
a resident of Cuernavaca
on Jan 30, 2017 at 8:16 am

Randy Guelph is a registered user.

Sure, @Common Sense. Mike Rose, the poster most well-known for unhinged rantings about communists lurking far and wide and being unable to synthesize any new information not in a CAA press release, certainly "nailed" The Business Man.

At least have the integrity to admit that The Business Man is trying to use reason to reach his conclusions, not merely delusions of a communist conspiracy like Mr. Rose.


Posted by mike rose
a resident of another community
on Jan 30, 2017 at 9:12 am

mike rose is a registered user.

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]


Posted by Randy Guelph
a resident of Cuernavaca
on Jan 30, 2017 at 9:51 am

Randy Guelph is a registered user.

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]


Posted by mike rose
a resident of another community
on Jan 30, 2017 at 9:56 am

mike rose is a registered user.

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]


Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jan 30, 2017 at 11:33 am

The Business Man is a registered user.

I hate to state the obvious.

I have disclosed my true identity as Steven Goldstein.

However "mike rose" admits he uses a fake identity in his dialog here.

and Common Sense is obviously a fake identity.

So both are astroturfers as far as the public should be concerned. Their sole purpose is to advocate against Measure V, and do so while hiding their true identity.

mike rose, until we can see a valid history describing your "so-called" oppression in your life, all we can do is "trust" you? At least my discussions use objective history and valid records that establish my point of view. You and your "comrades" simply repeat the same claims using out of date and invalid resources and finally declare anyone with a contradictory point of view is a "liar", "unfair", or any other character attack.

Up until now, I have tolerated the personal attacks you and your friends have made simply because you have the right to state them under the 1st amendment. But that simply means that your finding very little objective information to support your position.

I still am not letting up on Mike Kasperzak. He took advantage of his position in the furtherance of a private interest while being a member of the City Council. I am considering a formal complaint against him to hold him responsible for his duplicitous behavior. He actions in public are totally opposite of his actions in private. The only way he could have gotten into politics is by organizations funding his campaign like the CAA. Thank goodness he is in no position to rig puplic policies for the benefit of a private interest anymore.



Posted by Name hidden
a resident of another community

on Jan 30, 2017 at 12:44 pm

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


Posted by Name hidden
a resident of another community

on Jan 30, 2017 at 1:17 pm

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


Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jan 30, 2017 at 7:01 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

I can think of only one reason why a landlord would post anonymously regarding this subject.

The tenants will move out of the landlords property, AND no one will ever move into it again.

Or worse, if that property owner owns more than just in Mountain View, the apartment owners will lose all potential business at all locations.

This is called a "boycott". It is perfectly legal, and a great market control process. And this is why the apartment owners use a trade organization (the CAA) to act as a proxy. They want the advantage it gives them by providing political lobbying, and legal actions, while remaining secret. This is market deception of the worst kind in my opinion.

I have one specific question, is there any listing of apartment owners that live in Mountain View available. More specifically, do they live in the apartment building or live in their own private home instead. It would be very curious to learn about this.

Just a funny question. I will not be surprised if it turned out to be very small. I do not argue that since their number is very small that their "rights" are not considered. They had their opportunity to sway the City of Mountain View, during the election, but failed. This election process was fair because the landlords spent thousands of dollars with political experts designing campaigns to oppose the measure. The proponents of Measure V did simple hard work by campaigning with practically no money or organized support.

As far the constitutionality of the law, history has cleared the path. There simply is no legal precedent that has stood up to review, to support the claims made by the CAA.

The landlords and the CAA had more than a year to work with the citizens of Mountain View to resolve the housing problem in Mountain View, but chose to be inflexible, and unreasonable regarding their investment expectations. The court will not support them or socialize their losses. Even economists and financial analysts state that any appraisal or economic grading of investment are in fact are nothing but opinions.

They are protected free speech unfortunately under the 1st amendment, thus investors who act on their advice are left to their own consequences. Just watch the movie "Inside Job", the testimony given to congress by the various investment rating firms simply claim that their grading process is not scientific, it is just an opinion, and the law does not hold anyone legally responsible for an opinion.

Thus a significant problem is building up regarding non-commercial multi-family housing as a result. And unfortunately, the last person holding the property is stuck with the problem. Until the legal process will create accountability, but that will not happen.




Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jan 31, 2017 at 11:44 am

The Business Man is a registered user.

As far as the opposition of Rent Control based on economic studies saying it doesn’t work.

The studies of economics are a “social science”

As described here:

1.a : a social science concerned chiefly with description and analysis of the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and servicesb : economic theory, principles, or practices (sound economics)

2.2: economic aspect or significance (the economics of building a new stadium)

3.3: economic conditions (current economics)( Web Link)

There has been a serious problem with social sciences versus science itself as you can read:

Social Science vs Natural Science

Social science and Natural science are two subjects that differ from each other in terms of their subject matter. Social science is any study that is centered on society and its development. In short, it refers to any subject that does not come under the gamut of natural sciences.

Thus, social sciences include a variety of subjects such as anthropology, education, economics, international relations, political science, history, geography, psychology, law, criminology, and the like. Anthropology is a social science that deals with the history of man. Human biology and humanities get covered too by the term anthropology.

Economics is a social science that studies the various theories and problems relating production of goods, distribution of goods and of course the consumption of wealth. Physical geography and human geography are covered by the term geography which is yet another social science. History is a social science that explores into the past human events.

On the other hand, natural sciences are the branches of science that go into the details of the natural world by using scientific methods. It is important to know that natural sciences employ scientific methods to go deep into details regarding natural behavior and natural condition. This is the main difference between social science and natural science.

Sciences such as logic, mathematics, and statistics are called as formal sciences and they too are different from natural sciences. Astronomy, Biology, Earth Science, Physics, Chemistry, Oceanography, Material Science, Earth Science and Atmospheric Science are some of the well-known natural sciences.

It is interesting to note that subjects such as meteorology, hydrology, geophysics and geology also fall under natural sciences since they all involve scientific methods in their approach. These are the differences between the two important terms, namely, social science and natural science.”( Web Link)

Economists are limited to only discussing history, in fact, any economist making predictions is working outside the scope of a social science. They employ theories to justify their prediction, but a theory is just and idea, or an opinion, until it is proven to be sound. The economic community does not question its peers theories as a practice, simply because they do not wish to compete intellectually. They work as a team to promote their collective interest. Thus, no "proof" of the theory is ever demonstrated, it is just assumed to be correct. This practice should not be rewarded by the public because it simply is not based on a scientific method. In fact, if you look at the economic history of the 1970- to today, it can be argued that economists favoring any particular fad of business activity by consensus has caused recessions and economic crises. You look at the S&L collapse, the Dot.Com Bust, and the Global Financial Crisis of 2008, they all were preceded by a flood of economists “verifying” the value and predicted growth of those particular markets.

How can this be, that the same mistake is occurring over and over again? It is because the study of economics is manipulated by funding, financial bias, and personal bias on the part of the economic science community. The current situation has private interests having undue influence on the practice. Thus they are inclined to support any private economic interest associated with the particular economic “scientist".

In the end, the economist becomes nothing but a “sales” representative of the interests that funded, or provided personal or financial assistance to acquire their position of study. As a result economists have become less reliable, there conclusions are less sound, and in the end they motivate people into taking actions that are self-destructive. This is the weakest link in the economic chain, and typically this one breaks and an economic crisis occurs.

The reason why I bring it up? The CAA loves to claim that rent control is not economically sound, and is proven to cause more problems. But given that the studies that are used are funded or performed by those with conflicts of interest, the public should be very skeptical of the conclusions described.



Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jan 31, 2017 at 3:40 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

“Lighthouse Bank vice chairman leads assault on Richmond and Mountain View voters and renters

January 24, 2017

by Lynda Carson

Lighthouse Bank of Santa Cruz

Stephen D. Pahl of the Pahl & McCay law firm, who is also a founding organizer and vice chairman of Lighthouse Bank in Santa Cruz, is directly involved in the assault against Richmond voters and the voters of Mountain View who voted to approve rent control and just cause eviction protections last November.

Lighthouse Bank, according to its website, was founded in October 2007 by approximately 350 local residents, professionals and small business owners. During 2014, Stephen D. Pahl held 91,768 shares of Lighthouse Bank common stock, presently worth around $16 per share, according to the Wall Street Journal.”

I find it really interesting that a bank officer and attorney is acting to defend the CAA. Could it be that he can lose a lot of money when a significant amount of mortgages go into foreclosure? Why did the bank authorize the mortgages in the first place? Didn’t it know how risky they were? Didn’t they know the properties values were over-inflated? Of course Lighthouse bank did, they “banked” on it to make more profit while expecting tenants to pay for the debt. In fact, the entire apartment industry in CA has depended on the over-inflated values as their sole means of making profits, which if it weren't protect 1st amendment opinion, would have resulted in the biggest fraud law suit storm in CA history.

“Stephen D. Pahl of the Pahl & McCay law firm is directly involved in the assault against Richmond voters and the voters of Mountain View who voted to approve rent control and just cause eviction protections last November.

Relationship Science reports that Pahl is also currently an ex-officio member of the board of directors of the California Apartment Association (CAA), and public records reveal that Pahl and his law firm have been making many campaign contributions to the CAA. They also represent the CAA.”

What is his record regarding ethical practices in business?

“Before Lighthouse Bank was created, public records show that Pahl was nailed for failing to report $6,500 in non-employee compensation received in 1990.”

In fact, these lawsuits are in direct retaliation to the public because he hsas adirect financial interest being tightly connected to the CAA:

“Public records reveal that Pahl and his law firm have been making many campaign contributions to the CAA. They also represent the CAA.

Court documents reveal that the law firm of Pahl & McCay and three attorneys, Pahl, Julie Bonnel-Rogers and Karen Kubala McCay, are involved in the attack on the voters in Richmond, and Mountain View.”( Web Link)

The simple truth is that the financial and apartment industry has built a very unstable house of cards that is now starting to fall apart because many city’s are establishing economic policy that prevents the socialization of private debt. This has been the modis operandi of the apartment industry, and it is hooked like a drug, and the withdrawal is enormously painful. Too many investors drank the kool aid.


Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jan 31, 2017 at 3:48 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

Here is more information:

United States Court of Appeals,Ninth Circuit.
Stephen D. PAHL;  Louise A. Pahl, Petitioners-Appellants, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee.


No. 96-70402.
Decided: July 29, 1998

Before:  D.W. NELSON, BOOCHEVER, and REINHARDT, Circuit Judges.

Stephen D. Pahl, Pro se, San Jose, California;  Thomas M. Gosselin, Pahl & Gosselin, San Francisco, California, for petitioners-appellants.

Bruce R. Ellisen and Annette M. Wietecha, United States Department of Justice, Tax Division, Washington, DC, for respondent-appellee.

The Tax Court denied the petition for redetermination of federal income taxes for tax year 1990 filed by Stephen Pahl and his wife, Louise.1  The Tax Court concluded that in 1990 Stephen Pahl was a shareholder in the law firm Niesar, Pahl, Cecchini & Gosselin (the “firm”), a subchapter S corporation, and therefore Pahl should have reported a pro rata share of the law firm's 1990 income on his tax returns.   The Tax Court also determined that Pahl negligently failed to report as income a $6,500 automobile allowance from the firm, and thus is liable for taxes and a 26 U.S.C. § 6662 negligence penalty.  Pahl v. Commissioner, 71 T.C.M. (CCH) 2744, 1996 WL 167967 (1996).   Pahl appeals.

CONCLUSION

The Tax Court did not clearly err in finding that Pahl was a beneficial shareholder of the law corporation, and the provisions of California law cited by Pahl do not preclude Pahl's achieving beneficial shareholder status.   Thus we affirm the tax court's holding that Pahl should have reported a pro rata share of the law firm's 1990 income on his tax returns.   Despite the Tax Court's finding that Pahl did not adequately explain how he accounted for the $6,500 income on his Schedule C, Pahl fails to illuminate this question on appeal.   Thus, we hold the Tax Court did not err in finding that Pahl failed to report $6,500 in non-employee compensation received in 1990.   Finally, the Tax Court did not err in imposing an accuracy-related penalty for negligence;  nor did it abuse its discretion in admitting Ex. “O” into evidence."(Web Link)

So this attorney is known to perpetrate fraud, and it is only because the IRS caught him doing so that this record exists. This lawyer simply has a bad history. I am surprised that any court will consider any arguments fron him.



Posted by Dread Pirate Roberts
a resident of Blossom Valley
on Jan 31, 2017 at 4:29 pm

Dread Pirate Roberts is a registered user.

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]


Posted by The Truth
a resident of North Whisman
on Jan 31, 2017 at 4:39 pm

The Truth is a registered user.

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]


Posted by Frank Richards
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Jan 31, 2017 at 5:04 pm

Frank Richards is a registered user.

@DPR and The Truth,

I guess when you have no arguments, you need to resort to attacking the person. It's really unfortunate, but it goes a long way to show how little argument you have.


Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jan 31, 2017 at 6:28 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

I may be considered incoherent, but I am discussing factual information related to the discussion.

Please provide any proof that what I claim is not a valid point? That is all I ask?

I just point out that the CAA cannot claim for any relief due to their "unclean" hands.

This is defined as:

clean hands doctrine

n. a rule of law that a person coming to court with a lawsuit or petition for a court order must be free from unfair conduct (have "clean hands" or not have done anything wrong) in regard to the subject matter of his/her claim.

This would mean that as far as rent pricing is concerned, the CAA will have to prove it does not act to exploit tenants regarding rent pricing. However, the CAA has worked to help coordinate a market wide price fixing scheme.

This would be a violation of the Anti-trust laws because they have become a central information repository so that all landlords can coordinate to elevate costs of rent on the market. This artificial increase of rent occurs because the suppliers actually coordinated to reduce supplier competition. This is a clear violation of anti-trust laws. The CAA will have to prove this is not occurring in order to move forward.

I eye-witnessed the last CAA sponsored discussion at the Computer History Museum. At that conference it was clear to me that every member of the CAA was acting as a collaborating partner with regard to the CA rental industry. This is not good because this can be proof that the CAA is designed to minimize competition regarding apartments and thus a violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust laws.

This "dirty hands" problem would kill any claim regarding inequity in the courts.


Posted by Name hidden
a resident of Old Mountain View

on Feb 1, 2017 at 8:05 am

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


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 the most important local news stories sent straight to your inbox daily.

Why you may not read this column
By Diana Diamond | 24 comments | 2,311 views

Al Fresco eating: Peninsula cities debate post-pandemic outdoor dining
By The Peninsula Foodist | 5 comments | 2,183 views

Honey bees!
By Sherry Listgarten | 15 comments | 1,898 views

Stay and Play – and Work – in Carmel-by-the-Sea
By Chandrama Anderson | 2 comments | 1,427 views

 

Vote now!

It's time once again to cast your vote for the best places to eat, drink, shop and spend time in Mountain View. Voting is open now through May 23. Watch for the results of our Best Of contest on Friday, July 23.

VOTE HERE