|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Amid complaints of cases dragging on for more than a year, the Mountain View Rental Housing Committee began brainstorming ways to speed up its petition process.
Petitions are intended as a way for tenants or landlords to request a special adjustment for rents on apartments covered under the city’s rent-control measure. The process unfolds much like a trial — and like the justice system, it faces a similar sluggishness.
So far, there have been 14 petitions submitted by landlords, half of which have been either decided, settled or withdrawn. Another four cases are still being adjudicated.
Of the remaining three, one was thrown out for being incomplete and two cases are involved in drawn-out appeals. Petitions for rent increases filed by the owners of a 105-unit apartment building at 141 Del Medio Ave. and an 11-unit apartment property at 184 Centre St. were both filed about a year ago, but they remain in the appeal process.
Speaking to the Rental Housing Committee at their Oct. 22 meeting, Elizabeth Lindsay, the owner of the Del Medio apartments, said she would be precluded from raising her rents this year if the case wasn’t settled soon.
“By the time we get a decision and I give notice, I’ll be well above $175,000 out of pocket and not given a fair rate of return,” she said to the committee. “There’s nothing to tell what the landlord’s recourse is. This is only for the tenants.”
There have been more than 30 petitions filed by tenants; however, many of those are for individual units in the same apartment complex.
City staff suggested tightening the timeline for when additional evidence can be submitted to each case, and some management expenses under a certain amount could also be presumed to be factual without documentation.
Since the meeting was a study session, any formal changes must be made at a future meeting.
There is nothing fair about Measure V.
It was drawn up by the tenant activists group, aka: Lenny Siegel, who deliberately wrote the language to totally sr##w the landlord.
Repeal Measure V then start over and have a fair process for both sides.
The landlords and their lap-dogs will have another shot at killing rent control in 2020 but just can’t wait. Money is being lost. Rents could be DOUBLE in a “free” market. Meanwhile, they want the rent control board (“Rental Housing Committee”) to process applications for sky-high rent increases without further delay. Tenants may soon find out they stayed home (didn’t vote) and thereby “elected” more of the wrong politicians to the Mountain View City Council. Get ready to get priced out of Mountain View.
My observation:
In order for ANY petition both Tenant and Landlord, the intake process must REQUIRE that ALL necessary documentation be validated and completed BEFORE any hearing. The petition should not be active until this is completed. THUS the office workers MUST be trained in order to be able to SCREEN for the completeness. Thus the process will move forward quickly once scheduled and heard.
In order for ANY decision to be made by the RHC regarding appeal, if there is NO PROOF or EVIDENCE presented by the RHC members, NO DECSION CAN BE MADE. WHY? Because currently all decisions are not supported by ANY EVIDENCE. The standards of this kind of adjudication REQUIRES that EVIDENCE to support the actions whether they be AFFIRMATION, REMAND, or OVERULE without EVIDENCE to support it are CATEGORICALLY ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS. The current process simply does not establish any legitimacy regarding the current decisions in either way regarding Tenants nor Landlords.
IF I am DRAFTED into being a member of the RHC, I WILL REQUIRE THE ABOVE.
BUT I AM NOT GOING TO APPLY UNLESS THE CITY, OR THE CITY COUNCIL MAKES A STATEMENT SAYING THAT I SHOULD BE A RHC BOARD MEMBER.
TBM,
Thank you for graciously offering your services to be a member of RHC.
Considering your less then stellar record as to the fairness and truthfulness I think you would be an unmitigated disaster.
No chance that someone with the right state of mind would even consider you.
“The habit of excessive writing, of explaining, amplifying, and reiterating, of letter making and pamphleteering, forms a morbid symptom of known as ‘graphomania’. Some men may overload their natural tendency to write, but a certain class of lunatics use nearly all their mental activities in this occupation, to the endless annoyance of their friends, relatives and physicians”.
New York Times, September 27, 1896
In response to @bm you said:
“The habit of excessive writing, of explaining, amplifying, and reiterating, of letter making and pamphleteering, forms a morbid symptom of known as ‘graphomania’. Some men may overload their natural tendency to write, but a certain class of lunatics use nearly all their mental activities in this occupation, to the endless annoyance of their friends, relatives and physicians”.
New York Times, September 27, 1896”
But if you do any research, the term “graphomania” does not exist in the DSM 5. This is obviously a VERY outdated quote. In fact it was a political quote, lets look at it accurately(https://drmarkgriffiths.wordpress.com/tag/scribomania/):
““The identification of a disease contracted by children whose sight and general health were thought to be affected by too much writing labelled “graphomania”. More importantly for the topic under investigation, writing was perceived by clinicians as the privileged means to gain access to the mental states of atypical individuals, including geniuses (see for instance the study on the handwriting of Leonardo de Vinci), criminals, and those affected by a medical condition. This led to numerous studies on the writing of patients affected by various pathologies including dementia, epilepsy and Parkinson”
ONE OF THE FIRST USES OF THE WORD ‘GRAPHOMANIA’ IN A WIDER PUBLIC CONTEXT, WAS IN THE NEW YORK TIMES (SEPTEMBER 27, 1896) IN AN ARTICLE ABOUT US DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE WILLIAM JENNINGS BRYAN (UNDER THE TITLE ‘BRYAN’S MENTAL CONDITION’). The article noted that:
“The habit of excessive writing, of explaining, amplifying, and reiterating, of letter making and pamphleteering, forms a morbid symptom of known as ‘graphomania’. Some men may overload their natural tendency to write, but a certain class of lunatics use nearly all their mental activities in this occupation, to the endless annoyance of their friends, relatives and physicians”.
In a psychiatric context, graphomania refers to a morbid mental condition that manifests itself in written ramblings and confused statements. Much of the written content is meaningless nonsense and is also referred to as graphorrhea. Graphomania in a non-psychiatric context concerns the urge or need to write to excess (and not necessarily in a professional context). This is certainly something I can relate to.”
Unless you can locate the page in the DSM 5 that can support your character assassination, that’s all what it is.
Also, interesting that you do not dispute anything I discussed.
This was just another personal attack.
ekim, you should check your numbers. Prop 10 is winning in Mountain View at last count. Not looking good for the Sneaky Repeal in 2020. I wonder how many pallets of money the landlords will set on fire like their backing of John Inks.
ekim, you didn’t read what I wrote. Prop 10 won in Mountain View. Tenants rights groups have had and will have no problem getting votes in Mountain View, which is where the landlords will be futilely shoveling money for their Sneaky Repeal. Much like the chosen candidate of landlords, John Inks, getting dead last.
Kinda confused. Wasn’t Prop 10 a statewide ballot? That lost by a landslide?
Yes, but the voters in Mountain View were in favor of it, and ekim thinks that it getting a majority of votes in the city of Mountain View will bode well for landlords to push through their Sneaky Repeal. He should take a look at the how well Inks did, too.