Town Square

Post a New Topic

Rental committee prepares $2.5M budget

Original post made on Oct 13, 2017

The costs of Mountain View's experiment with rent control now has a clear price tag -- about $160 annually for almost every apartment in town.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Friday, October 13, 2017, 10:05 AM

Comments (44)

Posted by Bob
a resident of Bailey Park
on Oct 13, 2017 at 11:45 am

This is great! More bureaucrats and lawyers to pay for.

I guess it wasn't enough that Landlords had to pay the city for business licenses and fire inspections every year?

Now they get to pay for being regulated from earning a fair return on their investment.

Wow, I Just sold my 18 apartments and got out of Mountain View with my cool $8,000,000 in profit before the Stanford Lib Lawyers got me.

My units are going to be torn down and expensive $1.7 million row houses will replace the existing affordable apartments.

I can't wait to see where this whole thing is headed!!


Posted by LOL
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Oct 13, 2017 at 12:19 pm

Weird, Bob, I haven't seen that project come up for review. I must have just missed it, not a chance you're just making stuff up on the Internet.


Posted by Bob
a resident of Bailey Park
on Oct 13, 2017 at 12:47 pm

The reason you haven't seen it is because there are 3 additional adjacent properties with another Apartment building and triplex and duplex(more affordable apartments going bye,bye) involved that will be closing later combining another 1 acre to increase the profitability to the developer by increasing the homes built.
Hows that for an answer..?? Maybe it's true, maybe not??


Posted by LOL
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Oct 13, 2017 at 1:15 pm

Seems likely not true. But, in case it is, thank you for telling us in advance so we can urge council to require high-density, affordable housing when the redevelopment comes up for review.


Posted by Repeal Rent Control
a resident of North Whisman
on Oct 13, 2017 at 2:37 pm

Repeal Rent Control is a registered user.

A $2.5M budget is kinda laughable. $160/yr per unit is only the beginning. That modest fee will easily produce a significant operating deficit for year one. These fools seated as the RHC just spent $30,000.00 on an abandoned legal matter which didn't even make it to court. Like Trump, they just voted in an executive order to screw Mt. View landlords out of another $6M in fair rate of return income and stuck them with the legal bill. Incompetence much?

San Francisco's annual Rent Board budget is $8,000,000.00 (170,000 units) and Berkeley's is $5,125,000.00 (19,000 units). So Mt. View is only about half way to their realized FRBB (Fully Realized Bureaucratic Boondoggle). These are enormous bureaucracies and Mt. View's will surely follow suit. There is a base cost to running any rent control board. Mt. View's will parallel Berkeley in almost every respect; similar ordinance, similar unit count, and everything else associated with the rent control industrial complex.

Berkeley's annual landlord unit registration fee is $270. Mt. View's will easily reach that level in the next 2-3 years. As fewer and fewer Costa-Hawkins controlled units avoid the wrecking ball, the bloated Rental Housing Committee operation will be spreading their $5M budget over fewer and fewer units. Good luck Mt. View.


Posted by Bob
a resident of Bailey Park
on Oct 13, 2017 at 4:42 pm

Repeal Rent Control,

You got it! I give you an "A"

These people don't get it and are clueless because of their anger against Landlords. They expect instant gratification without all the sweat.

This rent control law will lead this City into a bureaucratic quagmire with class warfare as the premise of their position. Their agenda of affordable housing is lost.

Does anyone know where anger leads? Nowhere but an abyss of absolute insanity.

I have worked hard as a landlord in Mountain View to provide safe, clean and affordable housing to the people of Mountain View for 35years. I can say this with complete confidence and have no regrets but what I have seen makes me turn and pull my money from those I have given opportunities of housing.

You, new generation of entitlement punks will now make it without my investments in you. Your on your own and guess what, I'm not alone in this disgust.

Good luck, and I hope you make it.





Posted by LOL
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Oct 13, 2017 at 4:50 pm

No, Bob, please don't go. We'll never be able to survive without you.

It's cute that you turn your tail and run once you start losing the "class war" you've been waging for decades.


Posted by Longview
a resident of another community
on Oct 13, 2017 at 4:57 pm

Longview is a registered user.

Perhaps in a few years Costa Hawkins will be repealed, and Mountain View or any city could choose to exempt new units from rent control for only say 5 years, after which they would be subject to rent stabilization like older units. This would help remove the incentive for demolition, since new rental units would soon be subject to rent control. Of course the best outcome is for more properties to be purchased and managed by non-profit housing developers, who focus on community needs rather than profit.


Posted by Bob
a resident of Bailey Park
on Oct 13, 2017 at 5:15 pm

LOL,

I hope the best for you and all of those that felt somehow cheated by landlords.

I have no position there as of November 30th because I have moved my money out of there and am relieved. You and your like are in charge and that's cool with me as long as my investments aren't under the flag of socialism.


Posted by LOL
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Oct 13, 2017 at 5:24 pm

Bob, please come back. I've learned my lesson, I didn't want your investments to fall under the flag of socialism. We'll never be able to replace you, you were an integral part of our community.


Posted by Keep Fighting
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Oct 13, 2017 at 5:30 pm

To all supporters and beneficiaries of rent control in Mountain View:

One of the most selfless community leaders around, who has contributed his immense talents pro bono, who was a driving force behind the successful campaign for measure V, is only $298 away from his just reward, so please help him if you are able to. We will need to continue the fight against overpriced rents and for the rights of tenants in Mountain View. Si Se Puede!

Web Link

Muchos Gracias


Posted by Bob
a resident of Bailey Park
on Oct 13, 2017 at 7:09 pm

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]


Posted by LOL
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Oct 13, 2017 at 7:18 pm

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]


Posted by swissik
a resident of another community
on Oct 13, 2017 at 7:49 pm

I have no dog in this hunt, but I am a fiend for comments and letters to the editor, no matter the subject. If I had to guess who LOL is I would say an individual who probably makes a nice living off of the misery of those who can't afford to live in MV. Perhaps working for one of the many lucrative non-profits that proliferate in this area, to "help" people. I've said my piece.


Posted by LOL
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Oct 13, 2017 at 9:00 pm

Actually, swissik, if you really want to know, I'm the person who bought Bob's property. But instead of rowhouses, I'm going to build a 20-story high-rise with an abundance of affordable, medium-income, and luxury housing. We all need to do what we can to help this city.


Posted by Seriously?
a resident of Monta Loma
on Oct 13, 2017 at 10:47 pm

Really. A GoFundMe to help "pay" for someone who "gave selflessly" of his time to fight for rent control? Gave up his job to pursue this agenda. Really? Seriously?

Sigh. This is when I step out and say "I'm done with people making poor choices. I feel no regret or responsibility to help people who make POOR CHOICES.

Enough already.


Posted by LOL
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Oct 13, 2017 at 11:00 pm

Don't worry, Seriously, we actually take care of each other. See how it's already funded? The real question that should be biting you is: would there be any people who would want to help you?


Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Oct 14, 2017 at 3:02 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

WARNING LONG ONE BUT GOOD

There is a serious problem with the CSFRA budget, the City is requiring the RHC to reimburse it for the $200,000.00 legal costs of defending the CSFRA Constitutional Challenge. This simply is wrong for the following reasons:

FIRST, the Constitutional Challenge in court was a “Vexatious litigation“ itself as defined by:

“Vexatious litigation

Vexatious litigation is legal action which is brought, regardless of its merits, SOLELY TO HARASS OR SUBDUE AN ADVERSARY. It may take the form of a PRIMARY FRIVOLOUS LAWSUIT OR MAY BE THE REPETITIVE, burdensome, and unwarranted filing of meritless motions in a matter which is otherwise a meritorious cause of action. FILING VEXATIOUS LITIGATION IS CONSIDERED AN ABUSE OF THE JUDICIAL PROCESS AND MAY RESULT IN SANCTIONS AGAINST THE OFFENDER.”( Web Link

The fact was the CAA and its intervenors used claims identically in 4 legal actions, they consist of the Richmond TRO action, the Mountain View TRO action, the Richmond Preliminary Injunction action, and finally the Mountain View Preliminary Injunction action.

“A single action, even a frivolous one, is usually not enough to raise a litigant to the level of being declared vexatious. RATHER, A PATTERN OF FRIVOLOUS LEGAL ACTIONS IS TYPICALLY REQUIRED TO RISE TO THE LEVEL OF VEXATIOUS. REPEATED AND SEVERE INSTANCES BY A SINGLE LAWYER OR FIRM CAN RESULT IN EVENTUAL DISBARMENT.”(same web site)

In this case it has been established that even if Mountain View was subject to only 2 actions, the pattern was identical to the ones made in Richmond, thus the Richmond actions are deemed to apply in the same manner to the City of Mountain View.

“SOME JURISDICTIONS HAVE A LIST OF VEXATIOUS LITIGANTS: PEOPLE WHO HAVE REPEATEDLY ABUSED THE LEGAL SYSTEM. Because lawyers could be disbarred for participating in this abuse of the legal process, vexatious litigants are often unable to retain legal counsel, and such litigants therefore represent themselves in court. THOSE ON THE VEXATIOUS LITIGANT LIST ARE USUALLY EITHER FORBIDDEN FROM ANY FURTHER LEGAL ACTION, OR ARE REQUIRED TO OBTAIN PRIOR PERMISSION FROM A SENIOR JUDGE BEFORE TAKING ANY LEGAL ACTION. The process by which a person is added to the list varies among jurisdictions. In liberal democratic jurisdictions, declaring someone a vexatious litigant is considered to be a serious measure and rarely occurs, as judges and officials are reluctant to curtail a person's access to the courts.”(same web site)

It could be argued that the CAA attorney must face not only reimbursement, but perhaps losing their license to practice law in the state of California because of their actions.

Second, the actions decided by THE CITY ATTORNEY and THE CITY COUNCIL, were NOT AUTHORIZED BY THE RHC are the DIRECT CAUSE of those expenses. Thus any expenses involved cannot be passed onto the RHC in any way. Only where the RHC had in fact ordered the CITY ATTORNEY to take the actions iit did can that be a valid course of action.

Third, attempting to force those that did not challenge the CSFRA in court to pay for the legal costs of such a malicious and frivolous laws suit onto ALL LANDLORDS of the City of Mountain View is simply wrong. Even I cannot accept that. This cost must be reimbursed by only the parties in the malicious and frivolous laws suit. In fact the law entitles the City to get reimburse by the plaintiffs of the case if you read this:

“Tort Liability

THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT HAS RECOGNIZED THAT STATUTORY SANCTIONS PROVIDE "THE MOST PROMISING REMEDIES" FOR CURBING FRIVOLOUS LITIGATION; HOWEVER, TORT LIABILITY CAN ALSO ARISE FROM A MALICIOUSLY INSTITUTED LAWSUIT. IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR MALICIOUS PROSECUTION, A PLAINTIFF MUST SHOW THAT THE PRIOR ACTION WAS BROUGHT (1) BY DEFENDANT, AND LEGALLY TERMINATED IN PLAINTIFF'S FAVOR; (2) WITHOUT PROBABLE CAUSE; AND (3) WITH MALICE. Defendant's subjective belief in the legal merits of the claim and the extent of defendant's investigation and research is only relevant to the question of malice. "PROBABLE CAUSE" REQUIRES A TRIAL COURT DETERMINATION AS TO WHETHER, ON THE BASIS OF FACTS KNOWN TO THE DEFENDANT, A REASONABLE ATTORNEY WOULD HAVE THOUGHT THE INSTITUTION OF THE PRIOR ACTION WAS OBJECTIVELY REASONABLE. SEE SHELDON APPEL CO. V. ALBERT & OLIKER (1989) 47 CAL.3D 863, 254 CAL.RPTR. 336, 765 P.2D 498. However, if there are no "disputed facts concerning the record in the underlying action ... the [defendant] attorney's knowledge is entirely irrelevant." Hufstedler, Kaus & Ettinger v. Superior Court (Mann) (2nd Dist. 1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 55, 49 Cal.Rptr.2d 551.”(Web Link

First, In this case the courts ruled in favor of the City of Mountain View and the defendant intervenors. Second, In this case the Richmond rejection of the TRO and the Preliminary Injunction with declaration of lacking probable cause prior to the Santa Clara Court actions are proof there was NO PROBABLE CAUSE. Third, the only burden the City has is to prove malice which is defined as: “Malice is a legal term referring to a party's intention to do injury to another party. Malice is either expressed or implied. Malice is expressed when there is manifested a deliberate intention unlawfully to take away the life of a human being.” (Web Link That seems to be very applicable here.

“An action for malicious prosecution may arise in retaliation for the pursuit of actions with malice and without probable cause. IN CROWLEY V. KATLEMAN (1994) 8 CAL.4TH 666, 8 CAL.4TH 1236B, 34 CAL.RPTR.2D 386, 881 P.2D 1083, THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT HELD THAT AN ACTION CHARGING MULTIPLE GROUNDS OF LIABILITY WHERE AT LEAST ONE OF THOSE ACTIONS WAS ASSERTED WITH MALICE AND WITHOUT PROBABLE CAUSE WILL GIVE RISE TO A VALID CLAIM FOR MALICIOUS PROSECUTION. IT FURTHER HELD THAT THE COURT'S POWER TO IMPOSE SANCTIONS FOR FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT (THEN PURSUANT TO CIV. PROC. CODE � 128.5) IS NOT A SUBSTITUTE FOR A MALICIOUS PROSECUTION ACTION. A PLAINTIFF WHO PLEADS AND PROVES A CASE OF MALICIOUS PROSECUTION MAY RECOVER ATTORNEY FEES, LITIGATION COSTS, AND, IF JUSTIFIED, A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION FOR INJURY TO HIS REPUTATION AND EMOTIONAL DISTRESS.”( Web Link)

So it appears that only the plaintiffs in the case should bear the legal costs incurred by the city. The City Attorney and the City Council surely should be aware of this. Thus, their only remedy for this cost they incurred is to file for legal fees reimbursement against the plaintiffs of the Santa Clara Constitutional Court Challenge. THE RHC MUST AMEND THEIR BUDGET AND LINE ITEM VETO THE COSTS BEING FORCED UPON IT BY THE CITY ATTORNEY AND CITY COUNCIL.


Posted by @LOL
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Oct 14, 2017 at 4:15 pm

LOL, if you had anything constructive to contribute, you've lost your chance. You are making a mockery out of those of us who favor rent control, with your sarcasm and ignorant comments. We can't progress with any positives for rent control when you make us look like idiots, so just stop and let the adults deal with this.


Posted by Name hidden
a resident of Old Mountain View

on Oct 14, 2017 at 4:55 pm

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


Posted by Not LOL
a resident of Monta Loma
on Oct 14, 2017 at 4:57 pm

I'm not LOL, but maybe @LOL can inform us all about some of the positives about rent control? Seems like LOL is the only one posting in favor of it, and I do enjoy their mocking of Bob.


Posted by YIMBY
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Oct 14, 2017 at 5:06 pm

Same positives as Prop 13. I thought we were all onboard making sure we don't kick Grandma out onto the street? Well, what if Grandma rents?

If the landlords and other homeowners think that rent control is so bad, then let's get rid of it AND Prop 13.


Posted by Bob
a resident of Bailey Park
on Oct 14, 2017 at 9:31 pm

LOL, Not LOL an Yimby,

You all are hilarious in regards to your analysis of the issue and you have no idea of the firestorm rent control has caused in your community
.
If there was no problem implementing it, there would be no discussion of it yet it keeps coming up.

Most of the Landlords I know of that are impacted by this measure V are silent but are plotting their next move as I did. I'm out of there and I know they're trying to figure out how their getting out of there too.

This is the community you live in. Is this what you wanted.. living on the edge, wondering when your building is bulldozed?

Measure V created a business environment that no businessman wants to be in. Would you want to have millions of your dollars tied up in a business that is regulated like this? Be honest and think about it.

If you owned stock and the city said you can only make as much as the cost of living with no future of getting ahead but you have to work to run it, would you?

This is the what they face and you can laugh at me all you want but it will not change the course of what's to come.


Posted by Lisa
a resident of Gemello
on Oct 14, 2017 at 9:42 pm

The money is moving. Money, unlike property, is very portable. You no longer have a vote. Adios.


Posted by Not LOL
a resident of Monta Loma
on Oct 15, 2017 at 12:13 am

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]


Posted by Lisa
a resident of Gemello
on Oct 15, 2017 at 8:47 am

Actually I see it as a relativity simple business decision, and you seem to see it as a good vs evil. Not sure why, but who cares.
Have a nice day.


Posted by Not LOL
a resident of Monta Loma
on Oct 15, 2017 at 10:24 am

And there it is, Lisa, precisely why Measure V passed. You see no moral element to displacing people from their homes, to gouging them on rent. A family being kicked out onto the street is just a "simple business decision" to you, and you don't even care. This is why the people of Mountain View banded together to protect our most vulnerable.


Posted by Anke
a resident of North Whisman
on Oct 15, 2017 at 11:22 am

Well said, @Not LOL.

Although the "simple business decision" aspect of it still looms before us.
"This is why the people of Mountain View banded together to protect our most vulnerable."
Make that *attempted* to protect our most vulnerable (which now is anyone making less than around $140k/yr). We've traded fear of losing our homes to huge yearly rent increases for losing them to redevelopment.


Posted by Lisa
a resident of Gemello
on Oct 15, 2017 at 1:58 pm

Anke,
Since under $140,000 is the new standard, then I am one of your "most vulnerable". Please send me a check to help pay my rent.


Posted by Bob
a resident of Bailey Park
on Oct 15, 2017 at 7:19 pm

Lisa,

You won't need it, the bulldozer is on the way.

By the way,you can't even buy 2 sticks of gum and a bag of cheetos and have enough leftover for rent unless you make a 140k/year after taxes.

I don't get Libs that want big taxes and big government. Alls you're doing is supporting Washington bureaucrats fancy cars, houses and flying around in expensive planes with $20,000 bar tabs.

Maybe Trump will fix all that before he finishes his 8 year term. Thank god for middle America!!


Posted by Steven Nelson
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Oct 16, 2017 at 9:03 am

"maybe Trump will fix all that" :) :) sure! Another regressive tax (at $160 per rental unit)? Come on, as far back as 2004 the Economist was writing about US state taxes turning the slightly progressive US tax structure into a regressive structure.

Per Square Foot of rental property is a flat tax rate that at least has a semblance of "progressive tax". [those of higher wealth or income pay more]

So, rather than a 700 SQF single bedroom, or 400 SQF studio contributing the EXACT SAME REVENUE as a 3 bedroom unit (The Avalon Towers on El Camino), make the rental building owner pay according to the size of the building SQF. This number is easily available from the County Assessors Office, and will not be nearly as expensive to get and calculate for the Tax Bill.

Micro-apartments (Chris Chiang etc.) should not carry as large a revenue burden as MACRO-apartments. Or is regressive local taxation OK with this community in this context?


Posted by Steven Nelson
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Oct 16, 2017 at 9:09 am

@Businessman - In the context of parliamentary (legal) government procedure the rent control committee may not "veto" anything from the city staff or city council. They may "amend by striking" any line item in their adopted budget. Adopted means voted on and approved by a majority vote of the committee.

Thank you for your cut-and-paste from the California Statues.


Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Oct 16, 2017 at 5:19 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

In response to Steven Nelson you said:”@Businessman - In the context of parliamentary (legal) government procedure the rent control committee may not "veto" anything from the city staff or city council. They may "amend by striking" any line item in their adopted budget. Adopted means voted on and approved by a majority vote of the committee.”

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, I NEVER CLAIMED TO BE AN EXPERT!

I HOPE THE RHC DOES AMEND THE BUDGET IN THE NEXT MEETING!

IT SEEMS UNFAIR THAT THE PLAINTIFFS IN THE LAWSUIT (THE CALIFORNIA APARTMENT ASSOCIATION, ALAMO WALKER VENTURES LLC, DEL MEDIO INVESTORS, AND LINDSAY PROPERTIES LLC.) FORCE THE REST OF THE LANDLORDS TO PAY THE BILL!

THE RHC MUST REFUSE TO PLAY THIS GAME!

THE RHC MUST REFUSE TO PENALIZE THOSE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE COST OF THESE PLAINTIFFS!


Posted by Citizen84
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Oct 16, 2017 at 8:46 pm

Citizen84 is a registered user.

Socialism always works wonders!

Right until the time when apparatchiks run out of other people's money.


Posted by Name hidden
a resident of Bailey Park

on Oct 16, 2017 at 8:55 pm

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


Posted by Bob
a resident of Bailey Park
on Oct 16, 2017 at 9:06 pm

The RHC or the DNC, RNC or whatever you wanna call them will spend other people's money every time and then borrow more from the city coffers.

If there is a need they will throw other people's money at it.

Get ready, this is just the beginning of what's to come.

The Rent control law costs will mushroom this into a very expensive experiment of social justice focused on the inequalities and create vast bureaucracies to balance the needs of the 98% at the costs of the wealthy before it blows up.

I saw this movie before. It had a bad ending.


Posted by Robyn
a resident of another community
on Oct 17, 2017 at 2:38 pm

All of this will be moot when interest rates go up and people cannot pay their debts, mortgages and other leveraged real estate loans. Then we will see lost jobs, defaults and a mess like they have in the middle of Sunnyvale,ie., all those incomplete apartments or condos on Mathilda in the shopping center. No doubt that is costing the residents of Sunnyvale.


Posted by Name hidden
a resident of Bailey Park

on Oct 18, 2017 at 5:25 pm

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


Posted by Bob
a resident of another community
on Oct 18, 2017 at 5:34 pm

Robyn,

That's what I expect too.

When it all drops, I'LL swoop in like the greedy Landlord and suck it up paying cash at 40% of its cost only to resell it in 2024 for full price again to the very schmucks that hate me and voted for rent control.

Meanwhile I'LL get tax advantages from depreciation and tax relief from Trump and leave it to my Trust fund Children with no estate tax! GO TRUMP, LETS DO THIS!!


Posted by Not LOL
a resident of Monta Loma
on Oct 18, 2017 at 6:09 pm

Ok, Bob is just a pro-rent control plant, right? Funny how none of the landlords here disavow him. If you don't want him to be the poster-boy for the next initiative strengthening Measure V, you might want to get ahead of that...


Posted by Bob
a resident of another community
on Oct 18, 2017 at 6:33 pm

LOL,
I didn't start this, the rent control law did and I learn to adapt to your new rules to only prosper from your moves.
No Landlord is bold enough to support me in public but is making all the same moves I do.
The question is, who's the hunter and who's the hunted now in our new jungle?


Posted by Not LOL
a resident of Monta Loma
on Oct 18, 2017 at 7:04 pm

Bob, I'm not LOL as my username clearly states.

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]


Posted by Bob
a resident of another community
on Oct 18, 2017 at 7:58 pm

I'm not here to humor anyone. I left Mom's basement years ago and painted apartments in 4 plex's on Helen Avenue for her in Sunnyvale when you were in diapers.

Yes, I carried truckloads of tenants debris out of apartments and crawled on my knees cleaning tenants apartments for decades.

We grew and bought apartments all over the bay area in the 70's and 80's.

Now I'm an owner not only in apartments but shopping centers, retail and office centers and triple net property all over America.

[Portion removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]

I saw this movie before.


Posted by Not LOL
a resident of Monta Loma
on Oct 18, 2017 at 8:22 pm

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]


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

Email:


Post a comment

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

Stay informed.

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

Sutter and PAMF — protect your patients from coronavirus — not just your employees
By Diana Diamond | 42 comments | 3,874 views

Rozmary Kitchen's weekly sandwich pop-ups return to The Midwife and the Baker
By The Peninsula Foodist | 1 comment | 3,746 views

Is Watching Porn Considered to be Cheating?
By Chandrama Anderson | 11 comments | 2,976 views

What can you do with your EV battery?
By Sherry Listgarten | 7 comments | 2,777 views

Sugar – Bigger Sinner Than Wine?
By Laura Stec | 6 comments | 1,813 views