Town Square

Post a New Topic

Council eyes tweaks to rent control

Original post made on Jul 25, 2019

Amid plans to draft a 2020 ballot measure, the Mountain View City Council will likely seek greater influence over the city's rent control law, particularly a provision giving them the ability to make changes.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Thursday, July 25, 2019, 10:09 AM

Comments (52)

10 people like this
Posted by Gary
a resident of Sylvan Park
on Jul 25, 2019 at 2:46 pm

As I stated at the subcommittee meeting, the city staff report included the CUTE TRICK of proposing a ballot measure that would remove rent control from the City Charter and make it a mere ordinance the pro-landlord City Council could amend or repeal. That appears to be Councilmember Chris Clark's plan. We shall see.


50 people like this
Posted by Member
a resident of North Whisman
on Jul 25, 2019 at 2:49 pm

More and more wasted time money and effort on a self inflicted problem. Rent control should have never been allowed, it has been one of the dumbest ideas ever. Now all apartments are being gutted to get out of RC. Those who voted for it basically voted to put themselves out on the streets.

So now we got a growing homeless problem because we voted to create more homeless

Way to go!


Like this comment
Posted by MV resident
a resident of Sylvan Park
on Jul 25, 2019 at 3:09 pm

MV resident is a registered user.

[Post removed.]


4 people like this
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jul 25, 2019 at 4:30 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

In response to Member you said:

“More and more wasted time money and effort on a self inflicted problem.”

Who inflicted this problem? Definitely not the tenants, they paid overpriced prices on apartments that were being price gouged for years. The owners DICTATED that they raise prices on apartments that weren’t even improved one bit. My example, a fool bought my apartment building worth $1.15M for $4.95M and then raised the rents to those of use already there by $900 when not one improvement was even performed. So please, do not assume the City caused this crisis. The OWNERS did. You said:

“Rent control should have never been allowed, it has been one of the dumbest ideas ever.”

And what alternative have any owners of apartments provided to provide more affordable units? NOTHING. That is the answer. They claim that if there were no regulations and enough incentives there would be more housing. But after 1995 Costa Hawkins, it got worse. City’s like Seattle tried to provide incentives, that doesn’t work either. Unsafe housing and safe living environments cannot be the cause because if you want to provide that, then people are going to be in danger. So until you provide a solid alternative, like a contract with the City to provide at least 1,800 new affordable units in 5 years, the known lack of units based on the Bay Area Government Associoation reports, you are not achieving anything. You said:

“Now all apartments are being gutted to get out of RC.”

Except that after Jan 1, 2019 the no net loss laws will not allow the City to remove affordable units unless they are replaced within 6 months. So far not one has been actually built. Thus the City will be restricted from approving any more housing projects until it makes up for the lack of affordable units in the City. There were some that got approval prior to Jan 1, 2019, but now the City must comply with this law before moving forward. You said:

“Those who voted for it basically voted to put themselves out on the streets.”

That is simply not correct given that the new no net loss will require any apartments being removed to have an equal amount of affordable unitsd built to take their place. And if the apartments are replaced with new ones, the original tenants have first access to the new units at the same price they pay today. And also the Tenant Relocation funds will assist them in housing during the construction. You are simply not understanding the big picture. You said:

“So now we got a growing homeless problem because we voted to create more homeless”

Again, what solutions did these owners provide? NONE. Was CSFRA supposed to solve the homeless issue. NOT REALLY. It is a community stabilization program limited to the older units, and that was all it was promoted to do. Until the state Costa Hawkins Act is repealed so that the CSFRA will be allowed to apply to all units. Then you can claim the CSFRA is the CAUSE of increased homelessness. NO STUDY at this time DEMONSTRATES that your opinion is VALID SCIENTIFICALLY.


8 people like this
Posted by SRB
a resident of St. Francis Acres
on Jul 25, 2019 at 5:30 pm

SRB is a registered user.

@Gary

Good catch

Moving Measure V out of the charter and at the whim of a historically pro-landlord would be a "sneaky" Trojan Horse.

City Council had tried that trick before with Measure W which had promised just cause protections via a separate ordinance.... only to renege on them before the election: see: Web Link

We also witnessed the 180 done by the City Council on cannabis retail.... right after an election where cannabis was not discussed in any of the candidate forum...


Fool me once....


15 people like this
Posted by Michael Rosenstein
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jul 25, 2019 at 7:06 pm

The bigger picture now is what is happening in New York state.
The radical left state government went overboard with new rent control regulations and federal suit to dismantle it has been filed.
It actually stands pretty good chance of succeeding, considaring how far the regulation went and what is going to be the composition of SCOTUS in few years when the suit reaches that level.
Now, it seems like the Trump another 4 years is a pretty sure thing, there will be 1 or 2 more new justices appointed.
Wouldn't worry to much what is going to happen in MV at this point.


9 people like this
Posted by Mike Rosenblum
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jul 25, 2019 at 7:16 pm

Link to the suit
Web Link


2 people like this
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jul 25, 2019 at 10:05 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

In response to Michael Rosenstein you said:

“The bigger picture now is what is happening in New York state.

The radical left state government went overboard with new rent control regulations and federal suit to dismantle it has been filed.”

I read the case you linked. It is almost identical to the case brought to the Supreme Court in the past found here (Web Link), That case went nowhere, and the U.S. Supreme Court rejected even reviewing the case. Adding the same 2 numbers say 2+2 will always be four. Your simply going to get the same result. You claimed:

“It actually stands pretty good chance of succeeding, considaring how far the regulation went and what is going to be the composition of SCOTUS in few years when the suit reaches that level.”

However the case made in the information you provided has been presented to courts over and over again. These courts have dismissed the claims made in the pleading that was presented in this story repetitively. Again, the standards are as long as there is a shortage of affordable housing at the levels we have today, it is a condition that will disqualify the takings arguments that have been presented in the past. We have had a significantly conservative court even in 2012. If these justices are going to follow the constitutional standards as any real conservative court judge does, what difference would justify any different result? You said:

“Now, it seems like the Trump another 4 years is a pretty sure thing, there will be 1 or 2 more new justices appointed.”

What difference will that make when conservative justices have rejected these arguments in the U.S. Supreme Court? So far, the U.S. Supreme Court has done nothing to support this idea, in fact it has ruled the opposite. You said:

“Wouldn't worry to much what is going to happen in MV at this point.”

Until the deficit of affordable housing is solved, you simply are not going to get any different court case decisions. The case you presented is more of a political publication than a legal pleading. And many claims are simply untrue as it is stated here:

“193. “That government can scarcely be deemed to be free, where the rights of property are left solely dependent upon the will of a legislative body, without any restraint. The fundamental maxims of a free government seem to require, that the rights of personal liberty and private property should be held sacred.” Wilkinson v. Leland, 27 U.S. 627, 657 (1829) (Story, J.). Through the RSL, Defendants are violating this fundamental principle, depriving New York City property owners of their fundamental property rights, including their rights to exclude others from their property, and to possess, use and dispose of that property.”

First, there fundamental property rights are not violated, they still own the property. There are many laws that control the exclusion of people from being tenants of any apartment. Are you saying Non-discrimination laws are a taking in this argument? What in the new law prohibits possession of the property? It looks like the law does not take that action. Does the law specifically remove a property owners right to use that property? It does not appear to do that. Does the law prevent disposal of the property> It does not appear to do that either.

“194. A government-sanctioned physical invasion of private property is a per se taking requiring compensation. The category of per se takings is not limited to physical seizure of property by the government; it also encompasses government-mandated placement of an object or a person on private property (e.g., Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 419, 435–36 (1982))”

This is not an accurate reference, the actual ruling is “The government has engaged in a taking and must pay fair compensation if it authorizes a permanent physical occupation of private property, even when it is a small area and does not greatly affect the owner's economic interests.” (Web Link) But since rental agreements are made with the condition of possible “month-to-month”, that means that the person paying the rent is entitled to reside in the unit as long as the lawful rent is paid. The Government didn’t authorize this permanent physical occupation, the landlord did so by making said agreement. So that is patently untrue. It stated:

“ access easements of indefinite duration (Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 (1994))”

Again the case did not reflect that claim it actually stated “A permit given to a property owner in exchange for conveying property to the local government must be roughly proportional in terms of benefits and burdens.” (Web Link) In this case no handover to the government takes place. This is not an accurate citation. It stated:

“ and even flyovers that appropriate airspace (United States v. Causby, 328 U.S. 256 (1946)).”

You take that case way out of realistic context the case stated “This destroyed the use of the property as a chicken farm and caused loss of sleep, nervousness, and fright on the part of respondents.”. (Web Link) So this lawsuit doesn’t even have any relevance in the lawsuit filed. It states:

“The Supreme Court has held specifically that granting a “permanent and continuous right to pass to and fro’” over private property is a “permanent physical occupation.” Nollan v. Cal. Coastal Comm’n, 483 U.S. 825, 831–32 (1987)”

Again another case where the argument is misleading, the case actually stated “A government agency cannot impose a condition when approving a private property owner's permit unless it has an essential nexus connecting it to a legitimate state interest.” (Web Link) In this case New York is not removing the private property owner’s permit. Only regulating the transactions regarding the business they are in.

And this is just a start, I am not a good attorney, a good attorney will tear this case apart.


25 people like this
Posted by Mickey Rosenberg
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jul 26, 2019 at 8:08 am

TBM,
Your argument is similar to the one you made before Prop 10.
You argued that Californians always voted for rent control therefore Prop 10 would surely pass.
You were wrong, Prop 10 went to far and was overwhelmingly rejected by voters.
Same thing here, New York regulations went way to far and outcome of the litigation will most likely be different than in the past, in part due to the composition of the SCOTUS.
In fact, there very recent decision, allowing for the first time to bring taking claims by the local governments directly to federal courts indicates the change in Supreme Court approach to these issues and its willingness to override the precedents.
I do not have crystal ball but it never looked so good for the property rights thanks in part to the stupidity of the far left NY government.


2 people like this
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jul 26, 2019 at 10:30 am

The Business Man is a registered user.

In response to Mickey Rosenberg You said:

“Your argument is similar to the one you made before Prop 10.”

Prop 10 was a ballot measure, NOT a LAWSUIT. You went on to say:

“You argued that Californians always voted for rent control therefore Prop 10 would surely pass.”

I did make an argument for Prop 10, te voters made their decision based of misleading advertisements made by the opposition. You said:

“You were wrong, Prop 10 went to far and was overwhelmingly rejected by voters.”

Again a BALLOT measure is not a lawsuit. The Courts cannot be influenced by anything but the legal merits of the case. You said:

“Same thing here, New York regulations went way to far and outcome of the litigation will most likely be different than in the past, in part due to the composition of the SCOTUS.”

But you still haven’t PROVEN that the lawsuit you referenced is going to succeed at all. It is a legal complaint and until the court makes a decision, it is simply a document filed with the court. The COURTS cannot base their decisions on their POLITICAL interests, and so far real CONSERVATIVE courts have not done so. You said:

“In fact, there very recent decision, allowing for the first time to bring taking claims by the local governments directly to federal courts indicates the change in Supreme Court approach to these issues and its willingness to override the precedents.”

That does not mean that the courts will grant the legal decision, only that it can be argued in court. You’re jumping the gun here. You said:

“I do not have crystal ball but it never looked so good for the property rights thanks in part to the stupidity of the far left NY government.”

So far you still haven’t proven that market regulations are a “taking” as argued in the pleading. The U.S> Supreme Court already made decisions stating that it is NOT. In the case of Pennel V. San Jose found here (Web Link). This Court in 1988 was not a liberal court in any way, it was considered a significantly conservative court. The fact is that so far no EVIDENCE is proving the political opinion you are making here.

And more recently there was the case of Rancho De Calistoga v. City of Calistoga in 2015, which the Courts rejected this claim completely, the case is found here (Web Link).

Now there are perhaps hundreds of authors making arguments that states these courts are wrong, but so far every time these arguments get heard, the courts show good cause to reject those arguments

Again you are perpetuating the idea that private property ownership dictates the country. On many occasions I pointed out that this country was not founded on that premise in any way. It was based on the fact that the people living in this land at the time signed away all their rights as citizens of Britain. As “Colonists” they signed a contract to be indentured workers for the Crown and its “Corporations”.

When Britain exploited that agreement, the Colonists were lucky to have an ocean separating Britain from the U.S. and that the U.S. got assistance from Germany and France. The REVOLUTION was to establish the Declaration of Independence which only stated that “Life, Liberty, and the PURSUIT of Happiness” is a right. Realize that it is a PURSUIT and NOT GUARRANTIED.

Our constitution only guaranties that land TAKEN by the government must be compensated. It does not establish any constitutional protects of VALUE of the land if you read the 5th Amendment. So as long as there is a housing crisis in the U.S. the courts are going to reluctantly allow any government action rationally related to solving that problem.

The Due Process standard here is very broad regarding allowing market regulations to be enforced.

The Constitution has no function to “PROTECT” wealth, or provide “GUARRANTIES” that one will be profitable. NOT EVEN THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION STATES THAT EITHER.

A “FAIR” rate of return does not mean making money, it is determined by the actions taken and the wisdom of the ones choosing to act. In fact most courts won’t even consider that a person when buying or owning a property is “PROTECTED” by any constitution regarding the possibility of losing a great deal of money in that action.

What you have here are people trying to put the blame of their failures to be profitable on those who are not required to protect these investments. No government has that responsibility unless you want to be in a socialist economic systems. Are you suggesting we switch to it?


8 people like this
Posted by Michael Rosencky
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jul 27, 2019 at 9:00 am

TBM,
Could you elaborate on your last sentence and provide an example of socialist economic system which is required (as you state above) to provide protection of profits for private investors.
Help me, I seem to be totally lost here.


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Castro City
on Jul 27, 2019 at 12:50 pm

Socialistic economies in effect provide insurance from losses. The government provides the suppliers subsidies and payments so that the businesses can never operate at a loss.

Thus, socialism is the only way that a business is insured to not operate at a loss. Thus they are never at risk of going out of business. If they do make a profit, it is regulated so that it does not exceed the scientific economic rates that will result in disproportional impact on all suppliers.

In other words, one cannot drive others out of business in the socialist model Capitalism in the real form encourages business outperforming other to the extent that the competetion is driven out of business.

Thus they are protected regarding making a profit. But they are capped regarding HOW MUCH profit they can earn. This is the sacrifice for a governmental protected business under socialism.

Capitalism prohibited this kind of governmental intervention. So you cannot have the benefits of socialism at the same time have the risk of loss that goes with the equal possible profits.

If you want upregulated profits, you cannot ask the government to intervene to protect profits. Does this give you a good enough explanation?


17 people like this
Posted by Mike Rose
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jul 28, 2019 at 8:53 am

TBM,
You totally made up this BS explanation, nothing new here.


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jul 28, 2019 at 10:05 am

The Business Man is a registered user.

In response to Mike Rose who said:

“You totally made up this BS explanation, nothing new here.”

Please do your homework like I did here(Web Link)

“What Exactly is a Socialist Economy?

One of the traditional arguments for a free market economy is that it provides businesses with a tangible incentive to offer goods and services that people want. That is, firms that successfully respond to the needs of the consumer get rewarded with higher profits.

Nevertheless, some economists and political philosophers have contended that the capitalist model is inherently flawed. SUCH A SYSTEM, THEY SAY, NECESSARILY CREATES CLEAR WINNERS AND LOSERS. BECAUSE THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION ARE IN PRIVATE HANDS, THOSE WHO OWN THEM NOT ONLY ACCUMULATE A DISPROPORTIONATE SHARE OF WEALTH BUT HAVE THE POWER TO SUPPRESS THE RIGHTS OF THOSE THEY EMPLOY.”

Does this sound like the situation we live in today regarding housing in the U.S.? It goes on to say:

What Exactly Is A Socialist Economy?

This idea of class conflict lies at the heart of socialism. Its most prominent voice, Karl Marx, believed low-income workers, faced with these injustices, would inevitably revolt against the wealthy bourgeoisie. In its place, he envisioned a society where government – or the workers themselves – owned and controlled industry.

In contrast to capitalism, socialists believe shared ownership of resources and central planning offer a more equitable distribution of goods and services. IN SHORT, THEY HOLD THAT WORKERS WHO CONTRIBUTE TO ECONOMIC OUTPUT SHOULD EXPECT A COMMENSURATE REWARD. THIS SENTIMENT IS CRYSTALLIZED IN THE SOCIALIST SLOGAN: “FROM EACH ACCORDING TO THEIR ABILITY, TO EACH ACCORDING TO THEIR NEED.”

Again, the current situation now is that there is no commensurate reward in the U.S. Wages are not growing at the rate of inflation for more than 30 years. But the increased productivity of the workforce at minimum has quadrupled. It goes on to say:

“Socialism in Practice

In a capitalist economy, the market determines prices through the laws of supply and demand. For example, when demand for coffee increases, a profit-seeking business will boost prices to increase its profit. IF AT THE SAME TIME, SOCIETY’S APPETITE FOR TEA DIMINISHES, GROWERS WILL FACE LOWER PRICES, AND AGGREGATE PRODUCTION WILL DECLINE. IN THE LONG RUN, SOME SUPPLIERS MAY EVEN EXIT THE BUSINESS. BECAUSE CONSUMERS AND SUPPLIERS NEGOTIATE A NEW “MARKET-CLEARING PRICE” FOR THESE GOODS, THE QUANTITY PRODUCED MORE OR LESS MATCHES THE PUBLIC’S NEEDS. “

However when private owners conspire to create a chronic shortage by not supplying enough inventory to meet needs, this is the classic price manipulation we see today. Where hundreds of housing units are left off the market by the private sector to inflate the values of the ones on the market. Or worse forcing people to pay for units that are not what they want, but they cannot get them because they are provided only higher prices units. My example, a state that sells only 93 octane gas at the 93 octane price. It goes on to say.

“Under a true socialist system, it’s the government’s role to determine output and pricing levels. The challenge is synchronizing these decisions with the needs of consumers. SOCIALIST ECONOMISTS SUCH AS OSKAR LANGE HAVE ARGUED THAT, BY RESPONDING TO INVENTORY LEVELS, CENTRAL PLANNERS CAN AVOID MAJOR PRODUCTION INEFFICIENCIES. SO WHEN STORES EXPERIENCE A SURPLUS OF TEA, IT SIGNALS THE NEED TO CUT PRICES, AND VICE VERSA.”

Does this sound familiar? The fact is there is no desire to build enough affordable housing because it will have a proportionate price reduction on existing units. It goes on to say:

“One of the critiques of socialism is that, even if government officials can adjust prices, the lack of competition between different producers reduces the incentive to do so. OPPONENTS ALSO SUGGEST THAT PUBLIC CONTROL OF PRODUCTION NECESSARILY CREATES AN UNWIELDY, INEFFICIENT BUREAUCRACY. The same central planning committee could, in theory, BE IN CHARGE OF PRICING THOUSANDS OF PRODUCTS, MAKING IT EXTREMELY DIFFICULT TO REACT TO MARKET CUES PROMPTLY.”

And WHAT proof is there that the Capitalistic model is succeeding in that effort, the housing crisis has been building since the 1980s. In fact since 1995, the state of California has provided the private sector infinite opportunities for profit. But did they build enough housing? NO THEY DIDN’T. So you have to provide something more than an offhand comment to prove your point. It goes on to say:

“One Idea, Multiple Forms

The word “socialism” is perhaps most associated with countries such as the former Soviet Union and China under Mao Zedong, along with present-day Cuba and North Korea. These economies conjure the idea of totalitarian leaders and public ownership of virtually all productive resources.

HOWEVER, OTHER PARTS OF THE WORLD SOMETIMES USE THE SAME TERM TO DESCRIBE VERY DIFFERENT SYSTEMS. FOR INSTANCE, THE MAIN SCANDINAVIAN ECONOMIES – SWEDEN, DENMARK, NORWAY, AND FINLAND – ARE OFTEN REFERRED TO AS “SOCIAL DEMOCRACIES” OR SIMPLY “SOCIALIST.” BUT RATHER THAN THE GOVERNMENT RUNNING THE ENTIRE ECONOMY, SUCH COUNTRIES BALANCE MARKET COMPETITION WITH ROBUST SOCIAL SAFETY NETS. THAT MEANS NEARLY UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE AND LAWS THAT RIGOROUSLY PROTECT WORKER RIGHTS.

EVEN IN DECIDEDLY CAPITALIST COUNTRIES SUCH AS THE UNITED STATES, SOME SERVICES ARE THOUGHT TOO IMPORTANT TO LEAVE TO THE MARKETPLACE ALONE. CONSEQUENTLY, THE GOVERNMENT PROVIDES UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS, SOCIAL SECURITY AND HEALTH INSURANCE FOR SENIORS AND LOW-INCOME EARNERS. IT’S ALSO THE MAIN PROVIDER OF ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION.

When one looks at European-style socialism – with democratically elected leaders and a private ownership of most industries – the results are quite different. DESPITE THEIR RELATIVELY HIGH TAXES, NORWAY, FINLAND, AND SWITZERLAND ARE THREE OF THE TOP FOUR MOST PROSPEROUS NATIONS, OUTRANKED ONLY BY NEW ZEALAND ACCORDING TO THE 2016 LEGATUM PROSPERITY INDEX. ALL FOUR ARE NEAR THE TOP OF THE GLOBAL DEVELOPMENT LISTS WHEN IT COMES TO INNOVATION AND COMPETITIVENESS. WHILE IN CERTAIN RESPECTS THESE COUNTRIES HAVE MOVED FARTHER TO THE RIGHT IN RECENT YEARS, SOME ARGUE THAT SCANDINAVIA IS PROOF THAT A LARGE WELFARE STATE AND ECONOMIC SUCCESS ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. “

And in fact the happiest countries have socialist markets seen here:

“2019 World Happiness Report[edit]( Web Link)

The ranked countries went like this: 1.Finland (7.769), 2. Denmark (7.600), 3. Norway (7.554), 4. Iceland (7.494), 5. Netherlands (7.488), 6. Switzerland (7.480), 7. Sweden (7.343), 8. New Zealand (7.307), 9. Canada (7.278), 10. Austria (7.246), 11. Australia (7.228), 12. Costa Rica (7.167), 13. Israel (7.139), 14. Luxembourg (7.090), 15. United Kingdom (7.054), 16. Ireland (7.021), 17. Germany (6.985), 18. Belgium (6.923), 19. United States (6.892)

The 2018 iteration was released on 20 March and focused on the relation between happiness and migration. As per 2019 Happiness Report, Finland is the happiest country in the world,[23] with Finland, Denmark, Norway, Iceland, and the Netherlands holding the next top positions. The World Happiness Report 2018 ranks 156 countries by their happiness levels, and 117 countries by the happiness of their immigrants. The main focus of this year's report, in addition to its usual ranking of the levels and changes in happiness around the world, is on migration within and between countries. The overall rankings of country happiness are based on the pooled results from Gallup World Poll surveys from 2015–2017, and show both change and stability. Four countries have held the top spot in the last four reports: Denmark, Switzerland, Norway and now Finland. All the top countries tend to have high values for all six of the key variables that have been found to support well-being: income, healthy life expectancy, social support, freedom, trust and generosity. Among the top countries, differences are small enough that year-to-year changes in the rankings are to be expected.

In fact the U.S. ranked only 19 on the list and all other nations above it have socialistic market models governing a great deal of their markets.

And these countries have profitable businesses. They share the profits to their workers instead of using it as a weapon to make their works feel insecure by providing the least earnings possible for their efforts. Surely you cannot deny that this is the business model in the U.S.

So Mike, before you try to make an off handed comment, please do your homework and provide some kind of educated information that we all want to hear from you?


10 people like this
Posted by Mike Rose
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jul 28, 2019 at 11:36 am

TBM,
I am going to disprove your point of view using your method.
1. I am going to copy and paste irrelevant stuff:
"Two-headed calf named 'Chance' born in Washington County, Tenn."
2. I am going to proclaim now that it proves my point and disproves yours.
Voila!!!!!!


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jul 28, 2019 at 12:42 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

Mike Rose you said:

"I am going to disprove your point of view using your method.
1. I am going to copy and paste irrelevant stuff:
"Two-headed calf named 'Chance' born in Washington County, Tenn.""

Yes YOU did copy and paste irrelevant stuff. But your posting requested some kind of explanation as to how I could make the claim that socialism does not destroy profit. I explained how it can actually ensure some profit. You just don't like it when you make personal attacks and they are responded with objectively sourced information, like Investopedia (Web Link), which was one of my resourced if you bothered to click it. So please understand you’re making a claim that something was irrelevant when it was directly on point, and you requested it by making the comment you posted. Sorry. You said:

"2. I am going to proclaim now that it proves my point and disproves yours.
Voila!!!!!!"

I like the term you used "PROCLAIM". IT almost gives the indication that you are either a person of royalty, a person that is a judge, or some other person with formal authority over others.

From what I can see here, you have none of these attributes.

I on the other hand do not proclaim anything. I just state an opposing point of view using objective independent resources. So far you have not done that, yet.

Please help us understand what logic you employ and evidence you have to make such PROCLAIMATIONS?


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Castro City
on Aug 4, 2019 at 11:40 am

Well it looks like the state is about to put price controls on all units. AB 1482 will cap all rent increases to bo more than 10 %. About time. And this also requires just cause eviction.

This looks like it will be passed.

It only lasts until 2023.

My Hope's are it will pass. Because every tenant should have equal protection in the state.


11 people like this
Posted by Mike Rose
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Aug 6, 2019 at 10:55 am

TBM,
Again, you were wrong with prop10 predictions you are wrong now.
The AB 1482 has virtually zero chance of passing in its current form.
It was doomed on the Assembly floor in June but Chiu saved it reaching compromise with CAR.
CAR then removed its opposition and it passed narrowly on Assembly floor.
While in Senate committee Chiu in a sneaky way attached the Just Cause to it ( which failed on itself earlier in Assembly), reneging on deal with CAR.
Now CAR is opposing strongly the amended bill, and Chiu does not have enough votes on the Assembly floor without CAR support.
This bill must be voted again in Assembly due to amendments.
So, don't celebrate to early.


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Aug 6, 2019 at 4:54 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

In response to mike Rose you said:

“Again, you were wrong with prop10 predictions you are wrong now.”

I did not make any predictions, I just said everyone should be given equal protections regarding price gouging in rent and unjust cause evictions. You said”

“The AB 1482 has virtually zero chance of passing in its current form.”

If you look at this page (Web Link), there are only 4 votes left, all in the CA Senate. Not many steps left at all. The Senate is comprised of 29 Democrats and 11 Republicans. Thus only 21 votes are needed to pass this bill. So your claim saying:

“It was doomed on the Assembly floor in June but Chiu saved it reaching compromise with CAR.”

That may be true but it still will have significant change in the housing market in the state. You said:

“CAR then removed its opposition and it passed narrowly on Assembly floor.”

Lets look at the history (Web Link) the First vote on record had it pass 6 yeas, 1 nay, and 1 abstain. The Second vote was 12 votes yea, 4 nay, and 2 abstain, The Third vote it had 43 yeas, 31 nays, and 6 abstain. If there are 80 member so it passed by a 53% pro, 39% negative breakdown a difference of 14% or 12 vote difference. Is that narrowly passing, even with the 6 non votes being added to nays, it would have a 6 vote difference. Which is a 7.5% difference. You said:

“While in Senate committee Chiu in a sneaky way attached the Just Cause to it ( which failed on itself earlier in Assembly), reneging on deal with CAR.”

Nothing sneaky about it. And if some citizens have just cause eviction all citizens are deserving just cause eviction. You said:

“Now CAR is opposing strongly the amended bill, and Chiu does not have enough votes on the Assembly floor without CAR support.”

Maybe true. You said:

“This bill must be voted again in Assembly due to amendments.”

Not from this website information (Web Link) It clearly indicates that is not necessary, unless the Senate bill is significantly different. From what I read, it is not. You said:

“So, don't celebrate to early.”

Not Celebrating at All. Just observing the bill and its progress.


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Aug 7, 2019 at 7:15 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

Mike Rose I have a question:

What legitimate interest does a Real Estate agent have regarding the business of renting apartments?

Since the California Association of Realtors are NOT in the business of being landlords.

Or is it that they are in a conspiracy to inflate prices so that tenants are overpaying for housing?

It looks like the CAR is saying that rent control impairs home ownership. You can see that article right here (Web Link). REALLY?

Rent Control does not impact home ownership at all.

One who does not want to own a home should not be forced to do so simply because the price to rent is higher than owning a home. That is the game being played here. The CAR is conspiring with the CAA to in effect inflate rents to such a level, that it costs the same as owning a home.

And the CAR works professionally to oppose rent controls found here (Web Link)

In fact, the CAR pays people to act as their advocates as discussed in this paragraph:

"Use IMPAC. To help defray your costs, you should consider using local IMPAC funds and consider applying to the State IMPAC Trustees for additional funding.

Please see State and Local IMPAC to find out more."

IMPAC appears to be the IMPAC Companies, a mortgaging group. Web Link. It has the history of benefiting from the Housing Crisis of 2007 because it sold Mortgage Backed Securities starting in 1995 to 2007. It became a realty auction house to take foreclosed real estate and make a profit from those who lost their homes from 2008-2010.

So that is why the CAA and the CAR are working together, they both are working together to inflate property values. Thus they both get the benefit of price gouging in the total housing market.



1 person likes this
Posted by Gary
a resident of Sylvan Park
on Aug 8, 2019 at 6:27 pm

I see online that the next subcommittee meeting is Tuesday evening August 12. The first meeting was in a small conference room next to the Council chambers (City Hall, second floor). Some folks were left to listen from the adjacent hallway. This next meeting should be moved to Council chambers.


Like this comment
Posted by Gary
a resident of Sylvan Park
on Aug 8, 2019 at 6:31 pm

Correction. The next meeting is August 19 at 7p.m.


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Aug 8, 2019 at 10:13 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

Gary,

Thank you.

FYI, the Governor endorses AB 1482 seen here (Web Link)

Specifically:

"“I’m hopeful … that I will get on my desk in the very near term a rent cap bill because it is long overdue in the state of California,” Newsom said at a Wednesday event in Los Angeles unveiling new funding to protect renters from evictions.

Assembly Bill 1482 from Assemblyman David Chiu (D-San Francisco), which is pending in the state Legislature, would limit annual rent increases statewide to 7% plus inflation for the next three years. It would also, over the same period, prevent landlords from evicting their tenants without first providing a reason. The bill would not apply to apartments built within the last decade and, in most cases, to single-family home rentals.

The governor said he wanted to see stricter controls for tenants placed in the bill."

This seems to make it more likely that there will be price controls set by state laws for most apartments in Mountain View, there is an exception for buildings less than 10 units and built within the last 10 years. But most larger complexes in Mountain View will not be excempt.

My hopes are there will be systemic strobger protections passed unitl the private sector gets it's act together and solve the lack of affordable housing. They made a promise in 1995 that they would solve the problem in getting Costa Hawkins passed in the State Government. They said that as long as there was no rent control, the market would solve the problem. This is proven to be a false claim. So they are reponsible to remedy the mess they made


5 people like this
Posted by Michael rosenstein
a resident of Martens-Carmelita
on Aug 9, 2019 at 2:36 pm

Well, the normal order of things is that the legislature initiates and passes the bill first (both houses) and then the governor signs it or vetos it.
The Newsom's wishes are irrelevant and can only be interpreted as an attempt to apply pressure on lawmakers.
But lawmakers have more important entity to be concerned about than Newsom,
the voters.
They soundly rejected the last attempt to expand rent control (prop 10) in the 2018 election cycle.
Interestingly enough there is an attempt to place Prop10.2 on the 2020 ballot by the same Weinstein and Co, despite the overwhelming 2018 defeat.
According to Weinstein's sponsored poll ( by A/B consulting that no one has heard of before) all of a sudden 70% of voters suppose to strongly support Prop 10.2.
This poll is clearly a fraud, conducted in desperate attempt to bully the property owners to submission.
Did not work 2 years ago, will not work now.


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Aug 9, 2019 at 3:15 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

In response to Michael rosenstein you said:

“Well, the normal order of things is that the legislature initiates and passes the bill first (both houses) and then the governor signs it or vetos it.”

YES, there is no evidence to demonstrate that AB1482 will fail, quite the contrary. You said:

“The Newsom's wishes are irrelevant and can only be interpreted as an attempt to apply pressure on lawmakers.”

The is called a baby bully pulpit being the Governor. In fact, this really means that the governor is NOT going to veto this bill. You said:

“But lawmakers have more important entity to be concerned about than Newsom, the voters.”

Since these representatives are providing relief to the majority of the voters, I would think that they are not doing anything but providing themselves with a greater chance of being reelected. What information do you have that voting for this legislation is a threat to their reelection? You said:

“They soundly rejected the last attempt to expand rent control (prop 10) in the 2018 election cycle.”

Again, there was frankly a lot of lies being used in the political campaign for Proposition 10. In this case popularity is not the issue, it is the legislative process which is completely different. You said:

“Interestingly enough there is an attempt to place Prop10.2 on the 2020 ballot by the same Weinstein and Co, despite the overwhelming 2018 defeat.

According to Weinstein's sponsored poll ( by A/B consulting that no one has heard of before) all of a sudden 70% of voters suppose to strongly support Prop 10.2.

This poll is clearly a fraud, conducted in desperate attempt to bully the property owners to submission.

Did not work 2 years ago, will not work now.”

I think that the legislature is likely to take action before any election.

Just understand that many voters probably learned after the election how much they were deceived by the political advertising and the skewing of the language used by the State to prevent the voters from overriding their authority. I am not making any predictions, but it looks like the State laws are going to increasingly either compel those trying to make quick bucks in the industry to leave. Or those who really are in for the “long haul” will be working to finally provide the housing promised with regards to Costa Hawkins.


3 people like this
Posted by Mickey Rosencky
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Aug 9, 2019 at 6:43 pm

TBM,
You are wrong again, there is plenty of evidence that AB1482 will fail in its current form.
1. The sponsor and author Chiu realized in June of 2019 that he does not have enough votes on the Assembly floor to pass AB1482 in its original form.
2. He subsequently realized they in order to have sufficient number of votes he must obtain removal of CAR opposition.
3. He conceded on duration of the law (2 years and on increasing cap from 5 to 7 % plus CPI.)
With removal of CAR opposition the bill passed on Assembly floor and was send to Senate.
4. While in Senate Chiu sneaked Just Cause into the bill.
Remember, Statewide Just Cause bill was introduced in the Assembly on its own by Bonta and failed miserably there.
5. While the now amended bill still has to survive Senate
Appropriations Committee vote and Senate Floor vote, it will have to go back to Assembly for the final vote.
6. Once CAR learned about Just Cause they reasserted their opposition and we are back to the beginnings where Chiu is lacking votes on Assembly Floor.
You clearly are not following this legislation in detail, and come to wrong conclusions reading only bits and pieces.
I vividly remember you proclaiming that Half Moon Bay has rent control, after you encountered some old and irrelevant article few months ago.


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Aug 9, 2019 at 7:42 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

In response to Mickey Rosencky you said:

“You are wrong again, there is plenty of evidence that AB1482 will fail in its current form.”

I am not saying it will pass, I just want it to pass. In so far as you repeated the same claims under you numbered statements 1-6.

If you read the page I linked it is the Bill tracker page from California Legislative Info page right here (Web Link). You claimed:

“You clearly are not following this legislation in detail, and come to wrong conclusions reading only bits and pieces.”

Please do what you claimed? I already demonstrated that you misquoted the history, probably because you were referring to an article posted by a commercial property company called 36 North Property web page and is part of a company called Salinas Property Management Company Specializing in Residential & Commercial (Web Link) This is also presented by the California Apartment Association posted here (Web Link). You are not yet referencing any reputable news source and only making political claims. I provided an accurate history right here:

Let’s look at the history (Web Link) the First vote on record had it pass 6 yeas, 1 nay, and 1 abstain. The Second vote was 12 votes yea, 4 nay, and 2 abstain, The Third vote it had 43 yeas, 31 nays, and 6 abstain. If there are 80 member so it passed by a 53% pro, 39% negative breakdown a difference of 14% or 12 vote difference. Is that narrowly passing, even with the 6 non votes being added to nays, it would have a 6 vote difference? Which is a 7.5% difference. Granted it needed 41+ votes to pass. But now that the Governor is endorsing it, and he openly will sign it, many legislators will be less likely to vote against it if it comes up again and the Assembly has 61 democrats. At least the democrats have to have the backbone to do what is necessary for the citizens of California, and not investors that are likely not even residents of the state. You said:

“I vividly remember you proclaiming that Half Moon Bay has rent control, after you encountered some old and irrelevant article few months ago.”

I have no memory of discussing Half Moon Bay. There was a comment written by Posted by Repeal Rent Control and David, in the news article titled “Editorial: Tom Means should resign from Rental Housing Committee” in the Mountain View Voice found here (Web Link). You clearly made an error here. My comment never addressed that topic.

I am not making any predictions, but I am in favor of this bill passing.


7 people like this
Posted by Michael Rosenberg
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Aug 21, 2019 at 5:19 am

As correctly predicted by Mike Rose and incorrectly by TBM the statewide rent control bill AB 1482 is in serious trouble.
It was placed yesterday in suspense file by senate appropriations committee.
The vote was 5 yes and 2 abstentions.
With only couple of weeks remaining in legislative session the chances are it is dead.


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Castro City
on Aug 21, 2019 at 7:37 am

In response to Mike Rose/Rosenberg:

That is the current state of affairs, however the EXISTING laws SB50 and SB35 are much more impactful. Even though Cities are "RESISTING" the laws like Huntington Beach and Cupertino. Cupertino however has caved in

Cupertino WAS intending to not comply with SB35 regarding the Vallco Project, a mixed use land project.

But the state sent a letter describing that by doing so they were violating affordability requirements.

The new news is that Cupertino has changed its position and will comply with SB35, the key information is this:

“(B) The development is subject to a requirement mandating a minimum percentage of below market rate housing based on one of the following:

(i) The locality did not submit its latest production report to the department by the time period required by Section 65400, or that production report reflects that there were fewer units of above moderate-income housing approved than were required for the regional housing needs assessment cycle for that reporting period. In addition, if the project contains more than 10 units of housing, the project seeking approval dedicates a minimum of 10 percent of the total number of units to housing affordable to households making below 80 percent of the area median income. If the locality has adopted a local ordinance that requires that greater than 10 percent of the units be dedicated to housing affordable to households making below 80 percent of the area median income, that zoning ordinance applies.

(ii) The locality did not submit its latest production report to the department by the time period required by Section 65400, or that production report reflects that there were fewer units of housing affordable to households making below 80 percent of the area median income that were issued building permits than were required for the regional housing needs assessment cycle for that reporting period, AND THE PROJECT SEEKING APPROVAL DEDICATES 50 PERCENT OF THE TOTAL NUMBER OF UNITS TO HOUSING AFFORDABLE TO HOUSEHOLDS MAKING BELOW 80 PERCENT OF THE AREA MEDIAN INCOME, UNLESS THE LOCALITY HAS ADOPTED A LOCAL ORDINANCE THAT REQUIRES THAT GREATER THAN 50 PERCENT OF THE UNITS BE DEDICATED TO HOUSING AFFORDABLE TO HOUSEHOLDS MAKING BELOW 80 PERCENT OF THE AREA MEDIAN INCOME, IN WHICH CASE THAT ORDINANCE APPLIES.”

Thus it appears that the STATE rent control is in effect. The news did say that a private group called the Friends for a Better Cupertino is going to sue to block this action. But the situation will be determined on the “legal: standing to sue. To have standing you must:

“The term standing to sue in California basically means the right to relief in court. In order for a party to have standing to sue in California they must be the “real party in interest” with respect to the claims sued upon.”

What is “real party in interest”? it is:

“In California law, when a case goes up on writ of mandate (California's version of mandamus) the appellant goes first in the case caption on appeal as the petitioner, and the superior court becomes the respondent. The true opponent is then listed below those names as the "real party in interest". This is how a number of famous California cases like Burnham v. Superior Court of California (1990) ended up with such unusual names.”

The Burnham case involved transient residents and the applicability of laws on them. Not at all related to this situation. It provides no applicability of “real party in interest”. It goes on to say:

“When a trustee is a party to a lawsuit, the real party in interest is the beneficiary of the trust. In the United States, Rule 17 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure expressly provides that trustees are the real party in interest when it is necessary to sue on behalf of the estate. A beneficiary may sue under these circumstances only when the trustee refuses or neglects to bring suit.”

There is no Trustees here, this is a private 501(c) group that has no ownership of the City of Cupertino or the land that the Vallco project is on. It provides no applicability of “real party in interest”. It goes on to say:

“When funds belonging to a party are held on account, but not necessarily in trust, by a financial institution (e.g., a bank checking account is garnished by a third party who claims a valid unpaid debt) the bank is typically sued as nominal defendant. Of course, the real party in interest is the owner of the account, who has an absolute right to intervene and protect his assets.”

Again there are no funds held in this case. It appears that this group has no “real party in interest” required to establish standing.

This lawsuit is not going to achieve anything but force the City of Cupertino to spend money on a case the plaintiff cannot win.

This SHOULD make a GREAT EXAMPLE regarding the current Google project. Has the City provided the required progress reports to the state? It would appear that this law will force affordability units as much as 50% of them to those earning up to 80% of the area median income. MOUNTAIN VIEW SHOULD BE LEARNING.

In effect, the current laws are already "STRONGER" than AB 1482, but the Cities and the People do not know it. 2 laws SB50 and SB35 bot require affordable housing "SET ASIDES" in all projects.


10 people like this
Posted by Mickey Rosenstein
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Aug 21, 2019 at 3:13 pm

TBM,
You misinformed the public in your last rant again.
You said :
"....however the EXISTING laws SB50 and SB35 ..."
SB 50 is not existing law.
It was placed in suspense file in the senate and is likely dead.
Therefore your lengthy rant based on that assumption is totally irrelevant, as usual.


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Aug 21, 2019 at 4:37 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

In response to Mickey Rosenstein you said:

“SB 50 is not existing law. “

YES I AM SO SORRY MY MISTAKE

MY corrected bills and now laws are:

SB35 as I pointed out states:

““(B) The development is subject to a requirement mandating a minimum percentage of below market rate housing based on one of the following:

(i) The locality did not submit its latest production report to the department by the time period required by Section 65400, or that production report reflects that there were fewer units of above moderate-income housing approved than were required for the regional housing needs assessment cycle for that reporting period. In addition, if the project contains more than 10 units of housing, the project seeking approval dedicates a minimum of 10 percent of the total number of units to housing affordable to households making below 80 percent of the area median income. If the locality has adopted a local ordinance that requires that greater than 10 percent of the units be dedicated to housing affordable to households making below 80 percent of the area median income, that zoning ordinance applies.

(ii) The locality did not submit its latest production report to the department by the time period required by Section 65400, or that production report reflects that there were fewer units of housing affordable to households making below 80 percent of the area median income that were issued building permits than were required for the regional housing needs assessment cycle for that reporting period, AND THE PROJECT SEEKING APPROVAL DEDICATES 50 PERCENT OF THE TOTAL NUMBER OF UNITS TO HOUSING AFFORDABLE TO HOUSEHOLDS MAKING BELOW 80 PERCENT OF THE AREA MEDIAN INCOME, UNLESS THE LOCALITY HAS ADOPTED A LOCAL ORDINANCE THAT REQUIRES THAT GREATER THAN 50 PERCENT OF THE UNITS BE DEDICATED TO HOUSING AFFORDABLE TO HOUSEHOLDS MAKING BELOW 80 PERCENT OF THE AREA MEDIAN INCOME, IN WHICH CASE THAT ORDINANCE APPLIES.”

The other LAW is SB 540 Which states:

“(3) At least 30 PERCENT OF THE TOTAL UNITS CONSTRUCTED OR SUBSTANTIALLY REHABILITATED IN THE ZONE WILL BE SOLD OR RENTED TO PERSONS AND FAMILIES OF MODERATE INCOME, as defined by Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code, or persons and families of middle income, as defined in Section 65008; AT LEAST 15 PERCENT OF THE TOTAL UNITS CONSTRUCTED OR SUBSTANTIALLY REHABILITATED IN THE ZONE WILL BE SOLD OR RENTED TO LOWER INCOME HOUSEHOLDS, as defined by Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code; and AT LEAST 5 PERCENT OF THE TOTAL UNITS CONSTRUCTED OR SUBSTANTIALLY REHABILITATED IN THE ZONE WILL BE RESTRICTED FOR A TERM OF 55 YEARS FOR VERY LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLDS, as defined by Section 50105 of the Health and Safety Code. NO MORE THAN 50 PERCENT OF THE TOTAL UNITS CONSTRUCTED OR SUBSTANTIALLY REHABILITATED IN THE ZONE SHALL BE SOLD OR RENTED TO PERSONS AND FAMILIES OF ABOVE MODERATE INCOME.

The developer shall provide sufficient legal commitments to ensure continued availability of units for very low, low- moderate-, or middle-income households in accordance with the provisions of this subdivision FOR 55 YEARS FOR RENTAL UNITS AND 45 YEARS FOR OWNER-OCCUPIED UNITS.”

I AGREE I MADE A MISTAKE, BUT YOU OVERSTATE YOUR CLAIM BY SAYING:

“Therefore your lengthy rant based on that assumption is totally irrelevant, as usual.”

I admit my error, but it still played out that 2 EXISTING laws dictate the INCLUSION of LONG TERM PRICE CONTROLS.

So please address the fact that the state is dictating that affordable housing must be made available.

And please provide proof that the City of Mountain View is in COMPLIABCE with the state laws?


10 people like this
Posted by Randy Guelph
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Aug 24, 2019 at 10:39 am

It says so much about the character of landlords that landlord "Mike Rose" has been banned repeatedly, antagonizes other posters here, and is now posting under obvious variations of their username in clear defiance of the rules. To them, rules only apply to their tenants, and the only thing that binds the landlord is what they can get away with, regulations or not.


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Aug 27, 2019 at 10:56 am

The Business Man is a registered user.

In response to Mickey Rosencky you said previously:

“You are wrong again, there is plenty of evidence that AB1482 will fail in its current form.”

VERY recently the AARP amongst others are NOW actively supporting price control and market regulations seen here (Web Link)

Talking about a VERY powerful voting group regarding the state of CA. This could be the pivot point to open the doors to have this legislation get reactivated. The specific information stated:

“I brought up David Chiu’s AB 1482 (statewide rent caps and just cause eviction) and Nancy Skinner’s SB 330 (expedites housing approval and prevents downzoning) which the Rossmoor activists also knew nothing about. Yet these activists are in a district with a swing Democrat on both measures.

Housing activists trying to pass state measures need more organizing and outreach. California is a challenging state due to its size, which is why I have seen the legislative leadership as playing an outsized role (See “Democratic Leaders Fail California“). But YIMBY activists have gotten engaged in the South Bay and are making a difference. The movement needs to expand its visibility to all districts where high housing costs show the need for reform.

If California is ever going to pass a version of SB 50 and begin building the housing the state desperately needs, seniors must be part of the coalition. I left Rossmoor encouraged that, with the right outreach, this can happen.”

We may in fact see these bills be reborn and acted upon given that either party cannot afford to not work with Senior Citizens and their groups.


5 people like this
Posted by Misha Rosenzweiger
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Aug 27, 2019 at 4:31 pm

You are grasping straws TBM.
The fact is that AB 1482 needs CAR and CAA support to pass.
No chance, as I mentioned , in its current form.
However there is a possibility of statewide rent control bill passing if some changes are made:
1. The JC eviction wwould have to apply to tenancies at least 24 months old.
2. Up to 20 year old properties would have to be exempt.
3. All properties covered by AB 1482 would have to be immune to any stricter local regulations.
4. Vacancy decontrol remains in force.
And some other clarifications.
We will see what happens on Friday.


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Aug 27, 2019 at 4:34 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

Misha:

What about the landlords that were just arrested for threatening a teants with no legal basis to do so?

I hate to say this but this was coming for years.

People like Curt Conroy has been calling anyone in support of rent control thieves and in some cases worse. The same was said of Elizabeth Lindsey.

The owners of these rental properties have been ratcheting up the hostility against tenants by making their opinions very clear. Anyone seeking legal protections under the law in their view are criminals, and so the landlords are entitled to act in any way they wish to impose their will on a tenant.

The facts are tenants have never threatened any landlord as far as I can see. They sought out the proper process to get legal protections under the laws and nothing more. But contrast that to the threats made by landlords during the Measure V campaign and voting, and as soon as the election was clear, invoking evictions for no cause after the election.

So far I cannot see that these people had the proper paperwork that entitled them to evict. Otherwise they would not have been arrested.

And did these people get any advice from anyone. Were they perhaps members of the California Apartment Association? Did the CAA have any hand in the planning of this action? What would have happened if these people were undocumented? To me this is possibly a tip of an iceberg regarding clearly unethical if not illegal business practices.


5 people like this
Posted by Ekim Esor
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Aug 28, 2019 at 9:05 am

TBM,
I agree with your posting in the other tread in which you admit to being a very confused individual.
For one inexcusable behavior of a bad landlords I can find 10 of bad tenants.
Here is just one:
Web Link
Tenant killed his landlord in cold blood in Oakland.
Any mention in the MVV or other fake news media outlets?
Where were tenants organizations condemning this?


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Aug 28, 2019 at 9:16 am

The Business Man is a registered user.

In response to Ekim Esor you said:

“I agree with your posting in the other tread in which you admit to being a very confused individual.”

Nice try you didn’t answer any of the questions I asked above. You said:

“For one inexcusable behavior of a bad landlords I can find 10 of bad tenants.”

You are going to have to present a significant sample study to prove that point, just picking out as many as 3 stories doesn’t indicate that you have “10 bad tenants” I am asking a study be done to determine the proportion of bad landlords versus good ones. I have no argument to do the same for the tenants. But again nice try. You still haven’t got a scientific statistical study, only anecdotal stories. You presented this story
(Web Link)

But you failed to indicate the serious problems the landlord was subjecting to the tenant ass reported here:

“Frank Spillman, 94, COMPLAINED FOR YEARS ABOUT HOW HIS LANDLORD WAS HARASSING HIM, neighbors say. With a few choice curse words, Spillman RAILED ABOUT HOW KULBUSHAN GUPTA WOULD DEMAND THAT HE CLEAN THE YARD, RAKE THE LEAVES AND KEEP THE OAKLAND PROPERTY NEAT.

SPILLMAN WORRIED CONSTANTLY THAT GUPTA, 64, PLANNED TO EVICT HIM AND EVEN VOICED SUSPICIONS THAT GUPTA HAD POISONED HIS BELOVED CHICKENS - THE ONES THAT GAVE HIM EGGS - BECAUSE THE LANDLORD WAS UPSET ABOUT THEIR DROPPINGs.

The enmity between the two men erupted in violence shortly before 7:30 p.m. Thursday when Spillman, who has hearing problems, walks with a cane and kept a .22-caliber weapon with him for protection, shot and killed Gupta when the landlord visited his home in the Fruitvale district, police said.”

To me you are trying to take the story out of context, or just taking advantage of a poorly worded headline. I still want some Information and I will repeat it:

WHERE IS THE CALIFORNIA APARTMENT ASSOSCIATIONS CONDEMNATION OF THIS ACTION?

They proclaim they promote ethical business practices. It is on their website here (Web Link)

"What we believe

CAA recognizes its ethical duties to the communities we serve and insists on upholding the utmost integrity in the multifamily housing field. Our Code of Ethics guides our dealings with all people, and we encourage all rental-housing professionals to abide it."

WHAT IN THE CODE OF ETHICS THEY PROMOTE ENDORSES THIS BEHAVIOR?

WHERE IS CURT CONROY REGARDING THIS ACTION? WHAT DOES HE SAY REGARDING WHETHER THIS WAS A GOOD COURSE OF ACTION?

People said "“I don’t buy it."

Follow up reports indicated that the tenants were only late by one month. There is no evidence to signify they were a "bad" tenant. Simply put, this case indicates that the "mom and pops" landlords are prone to taking actions that are not appropriate. They do not follow the proper procedures. I want an investigation as to whether these people have a history of violating the laws and procedures.

WHEN ARE THE CAA GOING TO GO ON THE RECORD TO SAY THIS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE BUSINESS PRACTICES?


9 people like this
Posted by Ekim Esor
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Aug 28, 2019 at 9:34 am

[Post removed due to user being banned for repeated violations of terms of use; trolling]


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Aug 28, 2019 at 9:59 am

The Business Man is a registered user.

[Post removed due to responding to a banned user]


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Aug 28, 2019 at 3:38 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

With regards to the issue we discussed here, the situation regarding the illegal acts by the landlord in the recent news. Here are the most damning parts of the story:

Many landlord proponents on this medium seem to indicate that they are entitled to take any action they wish as long as the tenant doesn't have any protection from practices that are illegal.

The story indicates that this might have been their first months rent after they just moced in.

But more importantly there was an attempt to bait and switch in this case because the story indicated:

“THE SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE REPORTED THAT THE FAMILY HAD MOVED OUT FROM NORTH CAROLINA ABOUT A MONTH AGO FOR A JOB OFFER AND INITIALLY STAYED IN A DIFFERENT AIRBNB RENTAL OWNED BY SAINI, WHO LATER SET THEM UP AT THE ROCK STREET APARTMENT WHEN THE JOB FELL THROUGH.

THE FAMILY SAID THEY HAD A VERBAL AGREEMENT WITH SAINI TO PAY $3,900 A MONTH IN RENT,

BUT THEY LATER NOTICED THAT THEIR LEASE ACTUALLY STIPULATED $10,000 PER MONTH, ACCORDING TO MEDIA REPORTS. By last week, SAINI REPORTEDLY BEGAN SENDING THREATENING MESSAGES WARNING THEY NEEDED TO IMMEDIATELY PAY OR LEAVE.

So it looks like this landlord in effect was scamming these people. Making an agreement without due documentation and then radically changing the terms, inflating the rent $6,100 a whopping 256% increase with no notification.

Measure V is not the problem here. This was a group that was breaking so many rules and procedures it is hard to count.


1 person likes this
Posted by M.R
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Aug 30, 2019 at 2:38 pm

State wide rent control and just cause bill AB1482 cleared the senate appropriations committee 5 to 2.
But is not going immediately to the Senate floor for a vote.
It was moved to the rules committee.
What that means is that the negotiations are ongoing and additional time was needed for it to be amended, assuming the compromise will be reached.


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Aug 31, 2019 at 10:55 am

The Business Man is a registered user.

In response to M.R. you said:

“State wide rent control and just cause bill AB1482 cleared the senate appropriations committee 5 to 2.

But is not going immediately to the Senate floor for a vote.

It was moved to the rules committee.

What that means is that the negotiations are ongoing and additional time was needed for it to be amended, assuming the compromise will be reached.”

THE COMPROMISE WAS REACHED AFTER YOUR COMMENT SEEN HERE (Web Link)

“California Gov. Gavin Newsom and top Democrats announced Friday evening that they have reached an agreement to place limits on how much landlords can increase a tenant’s rent each year.

The compromise offers a stronger path forward for Assembly Bill 1482, which cleared a key budget committee earlier on Friday.

ACCORDING TO NEWSOM’S OFFICE, THE PROPOSED DEAL WOULD CAP ANNUAL RENT INCREASES AT 5 PERCENT PLUS INFLATION. IT WOULD BE IN EFFECT THROUGH 2030, THOUGH IT WOULDN’T APPLY TO HOUSING BUILT IN THE LAST 15 YEARS. THAT 15-YEAR THRESHOLD IS A ROLLING DEADLINE, ACCORDING TO NEWSOM’S OFFICE. The existing bill from Assemblyman David Chiu, D-San Francisco, called for a 7 percent cap plus inflation for just three years.”

This news came out after your recent post.

It would appear that it is on track now to become law. So only buildings built after 2004 would not have such controls. But it would slowly creep up to those buildings built prior to 2014. And that is dependent on if the legislature does NOT extend the end of term date prior to 2030.

So I would be more patient regarding making any predictions. I have made my mistakes in the past myself. But this was also predictable because Newsom indicated he wanted this legal protection and endorsed it weeks ago.


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Sep 1, 2019 at 10:31 am

The Business Man is a registered user.

LET’S NOT FORGET WHAT THE CITY COUNCIL DID REGARDING THE CITIZENS RIGHTS UNDER THE LAW:

Once Measure V was certified on Decemeber 13, 2016 the City Council ordered the City Attorney to agree to not enforce the CSFRA on December 22, 2016. This was a VIOLATION of the law and the charter.

Then the City Council put the RHC into debt by accepting the claims that the landlords were going to file hundreds of petitions once the CSFRA was in effect.

By exploiting the language of the CSFRA, the City Council in effect made the RHC in debt of over $1 Million before it even started. AND it demanded it be repaid in 1 year.

How many petitions were filed since then? 50 in 2018, and 18 in 2017, so there were 70 petitions. But the RHC was told they needed to create funding for at least 100 petitions. This grossly inflated the budget base on a threat by landlords.

Finally, the City Council believed the false idea that “private property rights” are protected under the U.S. and California Constitution. That was severely overstated. The U.S. Constitution only requires that when the land is taken that a fair compensation be provided. THAT DOES NOT MEAN YOU CAN ARBITRARILY CLAIM ANY VALUE FOR THE LAND. The California Constitution states that land owners are entitled to a “fair rate of return”. AGAIN, THAT IS NOT A GUARRANTEED PROFIT AND IN A LOT OF CASES IN THE CALIFORNIA COURTS THEY HAVE STATED THIS EXPLICITLY.

The private property right advocates state the U.S. was founded on private property rights. I hate to say this but that is wrong.

The U.S. Rebellion against Great Britain occurred when the colonists discovered they AGREED to relinquish British Citizenship when they were HIRED by the crown to build the colonies in North America.

The British treated their EMPLOYEES fairly until there was a serious debt cause by the wars Britain got into during the 1700s.

So they taxed the Colonies in order to balance the books, the STAMP and TEA Taxes. Then the British troops came into Boston and the rest and started enforcing the work contract with Britain. That was the birth of the “Sons of Liberty” which eventually gave birth to the first continental congress, which wrote the Declaration of Independence.

In effect the U.S. was born of those refusing to accept the work terms they agreed with in the beginning. The U.S. had the protection of the Atlantic Ocean, if we were in Europe, we would not have succeeded.

So the premise of anyone claiming private property rights in the U.S. simply are talking fiction.

Finally regarding the current situation I will keep on asking these questions:

WHEN WILL CURT CONROY GO ON THE RECORD TO CONDEMN THE CURRENT CRIMINAL ACTIONS OF THE RECENT LANDLORD?

WHEN WILL JOHN INKS GO ON THE RECORD TO CONDEMN THE CURRENT CRIMINAL ACTIONS OF THE RECENT LANDLORD?

WHEN WILL MEASUREVTOOCOSTLY GO ON THE RECORD TO CONDEMN THE CURRENT CRIMINAL ACTIONS OF THE RECENT LANDLORD?

WHEN WILL JOSHUA HOWARD AND THE CAA GO ON THE RECORD TO CONDEMN THE CURRENT CRIMINAL ACTIONS OF THE RECENT LANDLORD?

WHEN WILL THE MOUNAIN VIEW RHC GO ON THE RECORD TO CONDEMN THE CURRENT CRIMINAL ACTIONS OF THE RECENT LANDLORD?

WHEN WILL THE MOUNTAIN VIEW CITY COUNCIL GO ON THE RECORD TO CONDEMN THE CURRENT CRIMINAL ACTIONS OF THE RECENT LANDLORD?

WHY WON’T ANYONE ABOVE TALK?


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Sep 7, 2019 at 7:57 am

The Business Man is a registered user.

THERE MUST BE AN INVESTIGATION REGARDING VANESSA HONEY ARGUING AGAINST TENANT RELOCATION ASSISTANCE WHILE BEING A MEMBER OF THE RHC IN MOUNTAIN VIEW THE EVIDECE CAN BE FOUND HERE REGARDING THE CITY OF MENLO PARK MINUTES FROM FEBRUARY 12, 2019(Web Link) I will ist those involved in Mountain View in this record right here:

Interim Housing and Economic Development Manager Clay Curtin and Assistant City Attorney Cara
Silver made the presentation.

Curt Conroy spoke against the ordinance.

Vanessa Honey believes that this is a rent control ordinance.

Heather Serk spoke against the proposed ordinance.

John Inks spoke against rent control and spoke on the Mountain View rent control policy.

Joshua Howard spoke against the ordinance.”

NOTICE SHE WAS SUPPORTING THE MEMBERS IDENTIFIED WITH MEASUREVTOOCOSTLY AND THE CAA. THIS IS CONDUCT CONTRARY TO HER DUTIES AS A MEMBER OF THE RHC. THIS IS A CLEAR INDICATION OF BIAS ON BEHALF OF A QUASIJUDICIARY OFFICER. THUS SHE IS DISQUALIFIED FOR BEING A RHC MEMBER. THE SAME CONDUCT THAT GOT TOM MEANS TO RESIGN FROM THE RHC. ANY VOTES SHE CAST AS A MEMBER OF THE RHC MUST BE VOIDED.


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Sep 8, 2019 at 9:05 am

The Business Man is a registered user.

It looks like the Ellis Act is on its way to be repealed.

AB1399 is closing loopholes in it so that unit withdrawl will have to be genuine and permenant. Seen here (Web Link) :

"AB 1399 clarifies the Ellis Act by setting one withdrawal date for a property; by clarifying that the date on which the accommodations are deemed to have been withdrawn from the rental market is the date on which the final tenancy among all tenants is terminated, and clarifies that owners may not pay prior tenants liquidated damages in lieu of offering them the opportunity to re-rent their former unit."

Thus there is no revolving door regarding "going out of business" and "rentry into the business" This will prevent the trick of taking units off the market until the prices are at the level the owners want to put it back on the market.

This is just step one, as long as abuses of the Ellis Act occur, the legislature will destroy that practice UNTIL the housing market builds enough housing to equalize the demand and the supply.

This applies to everyone in the state.


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Sep 8, 2019 at 9:05 am

The Business Man is a registered user.

THERE MUST BE AN INVESTIGATION REGARDING VANESSA HONEY ARGUING AGAINST RENT CONTROL WHILE BEING A MEMBER OF THE RHC IN MOUNTAIN VIEW THE EVIDENCE CAN BE FOUND HERE REGARDING THE CITY OF MENLO PARK MINUTES FROM FEBRUARY 12, 2019(Web Link) I will ist those involved in Mountain View in this record right here:

Interim Housing and Economic Development Manager Clay Curtin and Assistant City Attorney Cara
Silver made the presentation.

Curt Conroy spoke against the ordinance.

Vanessa Honey believes that this is a rent control ordinance.

Heather Serk spoke against the proposed ordinance.

John Inks spoke against rent control and spoke on the Mountain View rent control policy.

Joshua Howard spoke against the ordinance.”

NOTICE SHE WAS SUPPORTING THE MEMBERS IDENTIFIED WITH MEASUREVTOOCOSTLY AND THE CAA. THIS IS CONDUCT CONTRARY TO HER DUTIES AS A MEMBER OF THE RHC. THIS IS A CLEAR INDICATION OF BIAS ON BEHALF OF A QUASIJUDICIARY OFFICER. THUS SHE IS DISQUALIFIED FOR BEING A RHC MEMBER. THE SAME CONDUCT THAT GOT TOM MEANS TO RESIGN FROM THE RHC. ANY VOTES SHE CAST AS A MEMBER OF THE RHC MUST BE VOIDED.

Just a follow up:

VANESSA HONEY TESTIFIED AS A MEMBER OF THE RHC AND DID NOT CLARIFY THAT SHE WAS NOT SPEAKING AS AN INDIVIDUAL. SHE IN EFFECT TESTIFIED AS A RHC COMMITTEE MEMBER AND REPRESENTED THE CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW, THIS CAN BE SEEN HERE (Web Link) DURING CITY COUNCIL ON FEB. 12, 2019 AT TIME MARK 1:16:30 to 1:17:55.

THIS WAS UNBELIEVABLE. WHAT AUTHORITY DID SHE HAVE TO REPRESENT THE MOUNTAIN VIEW RHC IN TESTIMONY TO ANOTHER CITY?

THIS CONDUCT IS A VIOLATION OF HER REQUIRED CONDUCT WHILE SITTING ON THE RHC!


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Sep 8, 2019 at 7:11 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

JOHN INKS TESTIFIED TO MOUTNAIN VIEW SAYING THE FOLLOWING FOUND HERE (Web Link) AT 1:54:15

John Inks brought up the American Economic Association. ( ). This is a good resource for information but they are now in a situation where all research done prior to 2012 had been established as invalid. WHY,? Because after the film “Inside Job” the AEA was forced to disclose that there was conflict of interest in the research they presented and established requirements for disclosure. John Inks by not even disclosing what research he was referencing opens up the problem of validity of the research

John Inks brought up that the Foundation of Economic Education. (Web Link) It is not an accredited educational institution, but simply a private think tank, and their first objective is to “FEE will be the movement leader in knowing our customer”. Thus their results are designed to support anyong that hires them to perform any research, thus not scientifically valid.

John Inks brought up the Multi Family Housing Council. (Web Link ). It is NOT an accredited educational instition, but simply a private think tank, and their first objective is to “NMHC is the place where the leaders of the apartment industry come together to guide their future success. With the industry’s most prominent and creative leaders at the helm, NMHC provides a forum for insight, advocacy and action that enable both members and the communities they build to thrive.” Thus their results are designed to support anyone within their community and is not scientifically valid

John Inks criticized the court’s rulings regarding the Constitutional status. The Courts did say that rental property is a risky business and there is no guaranty or entitlement to a minimum profit in the court history. That is correct.

But John Inks claimed that the judge said Mountain View needs rent control to meet its housing goals. THIS IS A COMPLETE LIE.

The Decision was:

“The motions are DENIED. Measure V was an initiative passed by the voters of Mountain View. The court is required to resolve any reasonable doubts in favor of this measure. Brosnahan v. Brown ( 1982) 32 Cal.3d 236. 241. Plaintiff and Plaintiff lntervenors have brought a facial challenge to this measure. THEIR BURDEN IS TO DEMONSTRATE THAT MEASURE V POSES A TOTAL AND FATAL CONFLICT WITH APPLICABLE LAW, OR AT A MINIMUM, CANNOT BE LAWFULLY IMPLEMENTED IN THE VAST MAJORITY OF CASES. THEY HAVE NOT MET THIS BURDEN. AS SUCH, PLAINTIFF AND PLAINTIFF INTERVENOR CANNOT DEMONSTRATE A LIKELIHOOD OF SUCCESS ON THE MERITS.”

The plaintiffs FAILED to provide the required BURDEN OF PROOF. The Court did say:

“The moving parties have not offered persuasive evidence that they will suffer irreparable harm. Their arguments rely on speculation as to how the measure will be implemented. Instead, the balance of harm weighs in favor of the measure. WITHOUT THE PROTECTIONS AFFORDED BY THE MEASURE, SOME RESIDENTS OF MOUNTAIN VIEW FACE EXCESSIVE RENTS AND ARBITRARY EVICTIONS, AND THE CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW WILL BE HANDICAPPED IN ITS EFFORT TO COMPLY WITH A STATE-MANDATED PLAN TO ADDRESS HOUSING NEEDS. In contrast THE LANDLORDS ARE ALLOWED A FAIR AND REASONABLE RETURN ON THEIR INVESTMENT.”

The Court did NOT say Mountain View NEEDED RENT CONTROL TO ACHIEVE MANADATORY AFFORDABLE HOUSING. It said without rent control, it would be HANDICAPPED because the increased affordability achieved by CSFRA reduced the lack of affordable housing in Mountain View. WHY DID JOHN INKS LIE ABOUT THE DECISION? It went on to say:

“Plaintiff has given the court a summary of its 58 challenges to Measure V in addition to its formal briefs. The Plaintiff Intervenors have cited a multitude of challenges in their briefs. The City of Mountain View and the Tenant-Intervenors have countered these challenges with their own analysis of the facts and law. ALL OF THESE POINTS HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED. At this stage of the proceedings the court does not plan to undertake a written legal analysis of each and every contention or defense raised by the parties.”

So the court did provide due process and applied the legal standards that so far the plaintiffs accepted. They DID NOT appeal the decision. THEY WITHDREW THEIR COMPLAINT. The Court said:

“The court has evaluated which parties are likely to ultimately prevail in this action. The court has evaluated the interim harm to the parties depending upon whether a preliminary injunction is granted or denied. The court has also evaluated what is most likely to preserve the status quo pending trial. The ultimate goal of any test to be used in deciding whether preliminary injunction should issue is to minimize the harm which an erroneous decision may cause. White v. Davis (2003) 30 Cal.4th 528, 554. THE CONCLUSION IS THAT A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AS PRAYED FOR WOULD NOT BE IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE.”

It looks like John Inks claims he is the ultimate authority and should override the court. This does not seem to be a realistic understanding of the real situation.


2 people like this
Posted by Randy Guelph
a resident of Cuernavaca
on Sep 13, 2019 at 7:24 pm

Randy Guelph is a registered user.

Mike, do you have any updates about AB 1482? I haven't been following it, but since you stopped posting I have to assume your predictions were correct and it is dead in the water.


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Sep 14, 2019 at 9:46 am

The Business Man is a registered user.

All I can say is this:

The STATE is taking control over rent control in the STATE. In effect the City Council will simply have to employ rent control from the STATE laws. This situation will cover more units in the City.

The apartments not covered under CSFRA because of the exemption of units built after 1995, Single Family Units, Duplexes, Triplexes, Quadraplexes, and buildings with less than Four Units. This was generous given the new AB 1482. This law will cover all housing units built up to 2005. The Landlords owning more than 10 housing units in the STATE are subject to AB 1482. Thus any units in Mountain View if owned by any Landlord or Company that has more than 10 units in the STATE are subject to this law. AND there is no provision for a petition for a rent increase

The City will have NO POWER to override this either. It should in fact demonstrate that now the supporters of the CSFRA will go to the ballot to extend the protections given this new state law to cover this housing elements. This carves out an exception of Costa Hawkins because the STATE has declared these units are not protected under STATE laws anymore. And the Equal Protection provisions of the STATE Constitution will not allow Costa Hawkins to protect the new housing elements covered under AB 1482.

There is revisions in place to close loopholes in the Ellis Act as well. It may have not passed this year. But it will eventually if the private housing sector doesn't establish significant improvement in the housing crisis.

Ironically, Donald Trump is going to come to the bay area and criticize the state for not providing affordable housing.

BUT the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT privatizes housing starting in 1965 and has not provided any funding toward affordable housing for more than 20 years. WHY? Because the private sector proclaimed it could do a better job, and the FEDERAL government believed it.

THE STATE government was told the same thing from the private sector in order to pass the Costa Hawkins act in 1995. THUS the state cut funding for affordable housing projects accordingly. THAT was a total failure.

This is setting up the Mountain View Housing Coalition for a new Ballot Charter Amemendment to EXPAND the CSFRA.

NOW the pendulum is going to swing so that the STATE will charge the private housing sector for the costs of PUBLIC housing projects. The state is entitled to it because of the false promises made under Costa Hawkins AND the subsidies paid to the private sector housing market that cost the STATE, COUNTIES, and CITIES millions of dollars.

This was the biggest SCAM ever perpetrated on the public started in 1965. And thus there will be an equally intense backlash for the private sectors failures. The market regulations will increase until the private sector performs the expertise they promised since 1995 in the state of California.


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Sep 15, 2019 at 1:11 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

Just something to think about regarding those who argue for “private property rights”:

“Apparently contaminated soil downtown is perfectly okay and taking property rights from property owners is the right thing to do versus a development project that ensures a toxic clean up and new opportunities for the city of Mountain View.”

I understand the frustration. But the idea of “property rights” was the foundation of the catastrophic situation that Mountain View faces today.

The “property owners” of so many companies dumped so much pollution into the soil that it “creeped” outside the property “they owned” and became a public land problem.

I lived through this in my home town back in Massachusetts. Dow Chemical dumped toxins onto their “private property” which eventually spread to miles around.

The idea that “property rights from property owners” is simply NOT REAL. Unless you will segment the soil for all “private property” as much as a mile below the surface to prevent pollutants dumped on their land from spreading. The same goes for airborne pollutants.

Just understand this fact, if there is absolute private property rights regarding private owners, than there can be NO property taxes. You cannot tax another person’s exclusive property. But it is a simple fact that all property is taxed except for Public Property and perhaps Religious Owned Land. That in effect means that the “private owners” do NOT have exclusive ownership of the land. Their land is in fact still publically owned and the “private owner” pays a rent to operate on it. If they fail to do so, their “private property” is taken.

So we have clearly a mistake in the belief that private land actually exists. What private property rights believers need to do is amend the U.S. Constitution and the states Constitutions so that “property taxes” are prohibited to ESTABLISH the there is such thing as “private property rights”.


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Sep 15, 2019 at 8:32 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.


Curt Conroy raised an interesting argument recently, at the Rental Housing Committee meeting in August, regarding how the state of Massachusetts also banned rent control in 1994. However, what he did not mention was it was the birth of a housing crisis in Massachusetts.

This is really what Curt Conroy is all about. Taking advantage of information that suits him. But not understanding the real facts.

The reality is that Massachusetts is going the same direction as California. Because of the housing crisis that exists there. You can read up on it by seeing this information from a Curbed Boston article (Web Link).

IN EFFECT, THE SAME PROMISE WAS MADE TO THE CITIZENS OF MASSACHUSETTS THAT WITHOUT RENT CONTROL THERE WOULD BE AN INCREASE IN HOUSING.

THIS DID NOT HAPPEN. IT WAS THE SAME FAILURE AS COSTA HAWKINS.

Curt Conroy should do much better homework in the future. He brought up a test case that proves him wrong regarding the fact that the private sector DOES NOT provide efficient housing supply, and in effect it makes the situation worse.


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Sep 17, 2019 at 5:49 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

So here’s an update for Mountain View:

The Governor is about to sign AB 1399 which closes a loophole in the Ellis Act specifically:

September 5, 2019 -- A Santa Monica lawmaker's bill that attempts to close loopholes in the Ellis Act was approved by the California Assembly Wednesday and is expected to be signed by the Governor into law.

AB 1399, sponsored by Assemblymember Richard Bloom, places conditions and restrictions on landlords who evict tenants in order to exit the rental market under the 1985 Ellis Act.

Under the bill, owners who remove their units under the Ellis Act can no longer pay the displaced tenants "liquidated damages in lieu of offering them the opportunity to re-rent their former unit," Bloom's office said.

Currently, they can offer the tenants the equivalent of as much as six months rent.

In addition, the bill clarifies that "the date on which the accommodations are deemed to have been withdrawn from the rental market is the date on which the final tenancy among all tenants is terminated."

The Ellis Act was a reaction to the passage of rent control by voters in Santa Monica and a dozen other California communities where many small landlords were struggling under restrictive rent caps.

The law gives rental property owners the right to exit the rental housing market under certain conditions and restrictions.

They include a requirement to notify tenants 120 days prior to withdrawing a unit, with a longer one-year notification requirement for tenants who are disabled or older than 62.

Bloom says landlords are subverting the Ellis Act by using it to "often withdraw individual units from the rental market and return them in a piecemeal manner to avoid the Act's restrictions and to evade rent control."

Since its enactment, the Ellis Act has been used to withdraw 3,042 units from the the Santa Monica market, according to a 2017 report by the Santa Monica Rent Control Board.

Bloom estimates that the Los Angeles area has lost more than 20,000 rent-controlled units since 2001, “with tens of thousands of tenants evicted in the process.”

On top of that there is the upcoming AB 1482. It looks like the market regulations are going to systemically tighten on the private housing market.


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

Stay informed

Get daily headlines sent straight to your inbox.

Facing high kitchen turnover, Los Altos' The Post revamps majority of its menu
By Elena Kadvany | 8 comments | 3,423 views

Disposing of Disposables
By Sherry Listgarten | 24 comments | 3,050 views

Differentiating Grief from Clinical Depression
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 1,095 views