Letters to the editor: Measure D, Foothill-De Anza measures, Rishi Kumar | Town Square | Mountain View Online |

Town Square

Post a New Topic

Letters to the editor: Measure D, Foothill-De Anza measures, Rishi Kumar

Original post made on Feb 16, 2020

Letters to the editor in the Feb. 14 edition on the City Council rent control Measure D, Foothill-De Anza Community College District measures G and H and the California 18th Congressional District race.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Sunday, February 16, 2020, 8:49 AM

Comments (33)

52 people like this
Posted by Alice
a resident of Blossom Valley
on Feb 16, 2020 at 11:56 am

Yes on D.

The current rent control law in Mountain View, Measure V. Was written by an outside activist group who targeted several cities that had a large population of renters.
Link here,
Web Link

That campaign was from an outside group, and where all the money came from to do that, we still do not know. It was easily several hundred thousand dollars. They conducted 2 public polling that we know of, not cheap to do.


P.S
The B Man will respond shortly.
He is a renter who had a legal dispute with his landlord. The BM said the owner was basically stupid for over paying for the rental property that the BM lives in.

The BM has never owned a property.

Never went to a bank to get a recourse loan to buy a business.

Never ran a business.

Never started a business.

He just wants to do everything he can that will hurt his landlord, hence all the copy and paste, constant post spamming from him.


4 people like this
Posted by We Pay you Enough
a resident of North Whisman
on Feb 16, 2020 at 12:22 pm

Web Link

Yeah Measure V was so sketchy, that's why it was funded by millions of dollars in corporate interest money. Oh wait, no it wasn't, that was the opponent's. The above link shows the depths they sank to try to stop this voter-approved measure.


15 people like this
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Castro City
on Feb 16, 2020 at 12:25 pm

The most important reason is the lie written in the last mailing it said:

"Limits rent increases to 4% per year."

This is a LIE the text of the LIE specifically is this:

The original rent increases regulated states:

(b) Rent Increases Regulated. No Landlord shall increase Rent for a Covered Rental Unit except as authorized by this Article. Rent increases shall be limited to those imposed pursuant to Section 1707 (Annual General Adjustment) and, Section 1710(a) (Petition for Upward Adjustment-Fair Rate of Return). A Landlord may set the initial Rent for a new tenancy pursuant to Section 1708 (Initial Rents for New Tenancies).

The New Text regarding Measure D states:

“(b) Rent Increases Regulated. No Landlord shall increase Rent for a Covered Rental Unit except as authorized by this Article. Rent increases shall be limited to those imposed pursuant to Section 1707 (Annual General Adjustment) , Section l 710(a) (Petition for Upward Adjustment-Fair Rate of Return), AND SECTION 1710(E) (INCREASES FOR SPECIFIED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS). A Landlord may set the initial Rent for a new tenancy pursuant to Section 1708 (Initial Rents for New Tenancies).

That additional provision (AND SECTION 1710(E) (INCREASES FOR SPECIFIED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS) gives the landlords the ability to raise the rents at whatever rates they can claim will be passed to the existing tenants. Another LIE is the claim stating:

“Make apartments safer and energy efficient”

The fact is that if they are not safe nor energy efficient, they would be in possible violation of inhabitability and energy efficiency standards required under state laws. Measure D is not necessary nor needed to ensure that the apartments are safe and energy efficient in any way. Another LIE states:

“Protects taxpayers by preventing an unelected commission from paying itself a salary.”

THIS IS WRONG because any salary would have to come from the rental fees collected under the CSFRA. The only funds that the RHC has access to come from those fees. The REALITY is that the LANDLORDS do not want to pay a salary to those who regulate them. ANOTHER LIE is this one:

“Giving the City Council the opportunity to expand renter protections to mobile home residents”

NOTHING IN THE CSFRA PROHIBITS THE RHC NOR THE CITY COUNCIL FROM PROVIDING THESE PROTECTIONS. Measure D is not necessary to provide this.

FINALLY the ULTIMATE POWER TAKEOVER OF THE CSFRA STATES:

It removes the independence of the RHC and makes it subject to the City Council

Just look at the original provision:

(k)Integrity and Autonomy of Committee.

The Committee shall be an integral part of the government of the City, BUT SHALL EXERCISE ITS POWERS AND DUTIES UNDER THIS ARTICLE INDEPENDENT FROM THE CITY COUNCIL, CITY MANAGER, AND CITY ATTORNEY, EXCEPT BY REQUEST OF THE COMMITTEE. The Committee may request the services of the City Attorney, who shall provide them pursuant to the lawful duties of the office in Article 711 of the City Charter. In the period between the effective date of this Article and the appointment of the initial members of the Committee, the City shall take whatever steps necessary to perform the duties of the Committee and implement the purposes of this Article.

HERE is the AMEDNDMENT part of Measure D:

(k) Integrity and Autonomy of Committee.

(2) ill The Committee shall be an integral part of the government of the City, The Committee is not a separate legal entity, the Committee may carry out its purposes with City employees, third party contractors, or any combination of the two, and ,ay request services of the City Attorney, who shall provide them pursuant to the lawful duties of the office in article 711 of the City Charter.

NOTICE THE LANGUAGE REMOVED WHICH WAS:

“BUT SHALL EXERCISE ITS POWERS AND DUTIES UNDER THIS ARTICLE INDEPENDENT FROM THE CITY COUNCIL, CITY MANAGER, AND CITY ATTORNEY, EXCEPT BY REQUEST OF THE COMMITTEE”

The City Council is in fact taking over the RHC in this ballot measure. The Citizens never wanted the City Council to have any influence over the RHC.

Finally there is the provision allowing for NON CITIZENS of Mountain View to have a vote on matters involving a Mountain View Citizens rights. Simply put NO WAY. Critics said the CSFRA was designed by Non residents. BUT IT WAS APPROVED BY THE CITIZENS OF MOUNTAIN VIEW AND NOT BY NON CITIZEN VOTERS.

Again such lies. And this mailing had the endorsements of Margaret Abe Koga, Chris Clark, Lisa Matichak and John McAllister.

THEY WANT TO TAKE OVER THE CSFRA


4 people like this
Posted by We Pay you Enough
a resident of North Whisman
on Feb 16, 2020 at 12:26 pm

And wow, reading some comments by landlords who basically are saying:

1. We purchased property that was super expensive.

2. We didn't do any research on this multi-million investment (upkeep costs, rent control law in effect, etc)

3. Because of our incompetent investment decision, renters need to pay more.

.....wat


21 people like this
Posted by Please explain
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Feb 16, 2020 at 12:58 pm

Why is it that under our city rent control law, that the landlord alone has to pay the fee 100% to run that bureaucracy?. With other cities that fee is split 50-50 between landlord and tenant.

Why is it, under our rent control law, that the law does not allow the mortgage interest to be counted as a business expense? The landlord has to pay it, yet it is not allowed to be calculated as business expense and to ultimately figure what is an allowable profit under the law.

Those are just a few questions I have, so much is unfair about the way this law came to be. Nothing was done so it could be fair to those landlords who are good, and kept the rents low. They are the ones I feel sorry for.


14 people like this
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Castro City
on Feb 16, 2020 at 1:20 pm

Response to Please explain you said:

“Why is it that under our city rent control law, that the landlord alone has to pay the fee 100% to run that bureaucracy?. With other cities that fee is split 50-50 between landlord and tenant.”

When the Measure V and W ere on the ballots, the landlords could have worked with the City Citizens and negotiated that. But instead the landlords and the city council chose not to do so. If the landlords had the wisdom, they would have agreed to such a deal before the election. But instead they insulted and ridiculed the city voters, and they in kind chose to enact the CSFRA. So who is to blame here? I really looks like that doesn’t fall on the City Citizens. You said:

“Why is it, under our rent control law, that the law does not allow the mortgage interest to be counted as a business expense? The landlord has to pay it, yet it is not allowed to be calculated as business expense and to ultimately figure what is an allowable profit under the law.”

Again, look above and also there is no “allowable profit” in the CSFRA. You are not addressing that the rule is “fair rate of return”. That is not a allowable profit, it is whatever profit can be achieved given what the decisions made by the property owners in choosing the price to buy the property and how well it is managed to maximize profit. For example, having gas heaters properly inspected and maintained on a 2 year basis can reduce the cost of a breakdown which can cost much more and must be done immediately. Cially where they can cause CO poisoning. The people running these properties do not take proactive action, they expect passive profits to be guaranteed by the tenant or the city, county, state or the feds. That is CORPORATE WELFARE. And you know it. You said:

“Those are just a few questions I have, so much is unfair about the way this law came to be. Nothing was done so it could be fair to those landlords who are good, and kept the rents low. They are the ones I feel sorry for.”

Those that did so were efficient, and the rent control laws should have no impact on them, unless you are wanting them to sell their property as an investment instead of being what it is which is housing.


12 people like this
Posted by Herb Masterson
a resident of another community
on Feb 16, 2020 at 1:24 pm

Hopefully Measure D passes because without it we'll see more losses of affordable housing as property owners exit the rental business and do Ellis Act conversions. We've already seen three of these in Mountain View. Measure V was well-meaning, but poorly thought out.

"We Pay you Enough" doesn't understand that the property owners purchased their properties before there was any rent control law.

In any case, with AB1482 now in effect, there is a statewide rent cap that property owners can live with, with a reasonable limit on yearly rent increases of 5% + CPI.


6 people like this
Posted by Herb Masterson
a resident of another community
on Feb 16, 2020 at 1:29 pm

Everyone is in favor of education. But local measures G & H are the completely wrong approach to funding regional educational institutions.

If Foothill and De Anza Colleges were regular community colleges, with a large percentage of students coming from the FHDA district, then G & H would be reasonable, though inequitable, funding measures for the district.

Unfortunately, these two tax measures will only exacerbate the difficulties that the Foothill and De Anza College students face.

It is true that community colleges are both a good investment and a good value. They enable local students to attend college at very low cost while living at home. Students are able to save money and then transfer to a four-year institution.

Community colleges were never intended to become regional institutions where students travel long distances to attend. There are 115 community colleges in California, but many have multiple campuses in order to be accessible to even more local residents.

There’s nothing inherently wrong with a community college becoming so desirable that it becomes a regional institution, attracting mainly students from out of the area. But Measures G & H send a terrible message to the State, one that encourages the State to continue to provide inadequate funding to destination community colleges while expecting local residents to pick up the slack.

The State should be providing increased funding to community colleges. The funding should be coming from statewide income taxes, sales taxes, and property taxes. Extra efforts should be made to bring other community colleges up to the same standard of educational excellence as Foothill and De Anza. This would eliminate the need for students to travel long distances to Foothill and De Anza, and enable them to live at home without the problems of food insecurity and homelessness.

It is not sustainable for Foothill and De Anza to have so many out-of-the-area students with so little affordable housing available. There is sufficient land at Foothill and De Anza for student housing by getting rid of the surface parking lots and building parking garages for commuting students. The State should fund housing for more community colleges, including De Anza, if the mission of the Community Colleges is changing.

Student housing can be financed with loans that are paid back with the revenue from rent. That’s how CSUs and UCs finance new housing. But no one should ever think that on-campus housing is necessarily low cost housing, as anyone that’s sent their children to a CSU or UC is well aware, it’s often more costly than sharing an apartment.

We live in a state which is one of the leading economic and cultural capitals of the world. We can certainly afford to have the State fund a world-class educational system.

Say yes to a more equitable and robust community college system on March 3, by voting No on G and H.


13 people like this
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Castro City
on Feb 16, 2020 at 1:45 pm

In response to Herb Masterson you said:

“Hopefully Measure D passes because without it we'll see more losses of affordable housing as property owners exit the rental business and do Ellis Act conversions. We've already seen three of these in Mountain View. Measure V was well-meaning, but poorly thought out.”

It was very well thought out, it was just that the CAA and the City Council thought they didn’t need to negotiate a better policy. They got stuck with the one that the people choose. You are in no position to tell the City Citizens they were “poorly thought out”. They were given no choice. You said:

“We Pay you Enough" doesn't understand that the property owners purchased their properties before there was any rent control law.”

The RISK of rent control on those properties were always there. In fact if the Costa Hawkins Repeal gets voted for, it will expand that risk to more properties. Why do you think it was not a possible risk of the investment in the first place? Simply put, that should have always been part of the calculus of determining the risk and value of their purchases. But they did not do that. Why do you think I never made such an investment? I saw the bigger picture called the “Porters 5 Forces Model” of markets, and saw that these investors like they did in 2003-2006 set themselves up for a major loss. You said:

“In any case, with AB1482 now in effect, there is a statewide rent cap that property owners can live with, with a reasonable limit on yearly rent increases of 5% + CPI.”

AND WHY SHOULD WE SETTLE FOR LESS WHEN WE CAN GET MORE. WHY SHOULD WE GIVE UP HARD FOUGHT RIGHTS IN MOUNTAIN VIEW? THAT WAS A BAD EXAMPLE OF WHY WE SHOULD JUST GIVE UP.


12 people like this
Posted by Herb Masterson
a resident of another community
on Feb 16, 2020 at 3:56 pm

If we want rent control to succeed, without more Ellis Act conversions, we need to pass Measure D. It's vitally important to look at the big picture when it comes to rent control.

Rent control is subsidized housing that is not income-qualified. But as we have seen, private property owners are not necessarily going to continue to subsidize housing forever.

Confiscatory rent control laws will have the opposite effect of what rent control is intended to accomplish─the loss of affordable housing and its conversion to market-rate for-sale housing.

Market-rate for-sale housing does have its benefits. The new construction is reassessed to current market value so property tax revenue increases. Parcel tax revenue goes way up since each for-sale unit pays separate parcel taxes as opposed to a multi-unit rental building that pays only one parcel tax. Schools benefit from both the higher tax revenue and the lower average student load. But low-income renters end up being displaced.

If you want to prevent displacement and gentrification then vote yes on D. If it fails, look for more Ellis Act conversions of rent-controlled property.


12 people like this
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Castro City
on Feb 16, 2020 at 4:34 pm

In response to Herb Masterson you said:

“If we want rent control to succeed, without more Ellis Act conversions, we need to pass Measure D. It's vitally important to look at the big picture when it comes to rent control.”

WHAT evidence do you have to say this? You are simply making up any excuse to make a claim that Measure D will help the City of Mountain View. There is no proof at all to establishe that Ellis act converstions will occur given SB330 will not allow that. You also said:

“Rent control is subsidized housing that is not income-qualified. But as we have seen, private property owners are not necessarily going to continue to subsidize housing forever.”

They are free to sell out but it will not CONVERT housing as long as SB330 or any other similar laws will not allow destruction of the units. The CURRENT owners are free to leave, but they can’t TAKE the buildings away with them. Even if they get purchased by public no-for-profit agencies. You are just frustrated that the CURRENT owners got stuck with a losing situation because they believed people making claims, just like the ones you are making. You said:

“Confiscatory rent control laws will have the opposite effect of what rent control is intended to accomplish─the loss of affordable housing and its conversion to market-rate for-sale housing.”

THERE IS NO CONFICATION GOING ON HERE. THIS IS NOTHING BUT A LIE. You said:

“Market-rate for-sale housing does have its benefits. The new construction is reassessed to current market value so property tax revenue increases. Parcel tax revenue goes way up since each for-sale unit pays separate parcel taxes as opposed to a multi-unit rental building that pays only one parcel tax. Schools benefit from both the higher tax revenue and the lower average student load. But low-income renters end up being displaced.”

Again you are making such a false claim. Single Family Homes take up more space that we do not actually have. If you replace multifamily units with SFH, there will be even less units. This creates the housing shortage we have in the first place. Most importantly, if jobs are currently using contractors and not employees like the 50% workers in Google, then no one can buy a home. They cannot rely on any full-time employment in the area. THAT is why until ALL employers cease using temporary workers, you cannot claim the only housing that should exist is owned homes. You said:

“If you want to prevent displacement and gentrification then vote yes on D. If it fails, look for more Ellis Act conversions of rent-controlled property.”

Again you really have no evidence to establish this. There is no research regarding Measure D that takes into account the CURRENT state of all CURRENT laws. All you’re doing is trying to make your beliefs into reality based on false premises. You remind me of Elizabeth Holmes who currently trying to defend herself for fraud regarding Theranos. The rule you’re using really doesn’t work in the valley “fake it till you make it”

NOTE NO ON D


12 people like this
Posted by Herb Masterson
a resident of another community
on Feb 16, 2020 at 4:46 pm

"The Business Man" doesn't understand SB330.

SB 330 merely requires that any housing development project that proposes to tear down existing housing must build at least as much housing. It does NOT require that rent-controlled rental units be replaced with rent-controlled rental units.

Replacing 100 rent-controlled apartments with 100 or more condominiums is not difficult. You can go higher than the typical two story apartments that you see all over Mountain View.

It's not just a hypothetical situation. We've already seen three of these Ellis Act conversion occur in Mountain View. The only benefit of SB330 is that a project like Rock Street Apartments would have to replace the 20 lost rental units with 20 for-sale units, not 15 units as was approved.

The bottom line is that Measure D will PROTECT affordable rental housing from being lost. If you want to preserve diversity in Mountain View, and not have it become a City of rich tech workers in $1.5 million townhomes and condos, then vote Yes on D.


11 people like this
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Castro City
on Feb 16, 2020 at 5:02 pm

In response to by Herb Masterson you said:

“SB 330 merely requires that any housing development project that proposes to tear down existing housing must build at least as much housing. It does NOT require that rent-controlled rental units be replaced with rent-controlled rental units.

Herb, you really do not understand the relevant part of SB330 thatxstates:

““But for Mountain View, the most consequential section of SB 330 was buried deep in the bill. The new law also prohibits cities from approving new housing developments that would raze rent-controlled or affordable housing -- that is, unless an equal number of new units are rebuilt for tenants at the same price.”

What does the “SAME PRICE” do you not understand? Simply put you are not understanding reality in that aspect. So when you said:

“Replacing 100 rent-controlled apartments with 100 or more condominiums is not difficult. You can go higher than the typical two story apartments that you see all over Mountain View.”

TRUE AS LONG AS THE PRICES STAY THE SAME AS THEY WERE< YOU CANNOT CHARGE HIGHER THAN THE AFFORDABLE OR RENT CONTROLLED UNITS THAT EXISTED THERE. Please do so more reading. You said:

“It's not just a hypothetical situation. We've already seen three of these Ellis Act conversion occur in Mountain View. The only benefit of SB330 is that a project like Rock Street Apartments would have to replace the 20 lost rental units with 20 for-sale units, not 15 units as was approved.”

BUT THEY WIL HAVE TO BE SOLD AT THE OLD PRICES. YOU DO NOT WANT INVESTORS TO BE AWARE OF IT. You said:

“The bottom line is that Measure D will PROTECT affordable rental housing from being lost. If you want to preserve diversity in Mountain View, and not have it become a City of rich tech workers in $1.5 million townhomes and condos, then vote Yes on D.”

Again what proof do you have to propose this? I asked for some but instead you went on a tangent. The fact is that PRICE CONTROLS are going to stay regarding any new units built on that land if it contained rent controlled or affordable housing units.

Do you really think people will build new buildings if the prices cannot be raised to the level they want for a return on investment?


35 people like this
Posted by Injustice
a resident of Jackson Park
on Feb 16, 2020 at 6:06 pm

With all the new state rent control laws for tenants, laws preventing buildings from being torn down, our local rent control law should be repealed.

Business owners/property owners no longer have anything that resembles property rights/business rights, that everyone else has.

It is time to repeal Measure V and let the state rent control laws apply to everyone in Mountain View.


8 people like this
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Castro City
on Feb 16, 2020 at 6:45 pm

Privacy & Property Rights
Image - privacy-and-property-rights-600x360.png

The Fourth Amendment protects Americans from “unreasonable searches and seizures” by the government. But the Supreme Court's interpretation of “unreasonable” has varied over time. Some searches require warrants, but others do not. In general, the Fourth Amendment protects a person and their property from searches by the government wherever there is a “reasonable expectation of privacy.” For instance, trash that is still inside a person's home is protected; trash sitting beside the street curb for pickup is not. In the age of the Internet, where so much personal information is shared over social media such as Facebook and Twitter, some people argue that privacy has become a myth. After the 9-11 attacks, Congress passed laws making it easier for the government to use such information when investigating terrorism.

The Fifth Amendment protects the right to private property in two ways. First, it states that a person may not be deprived of property by the government without “due process of law,” or fair procedures. In addition, it sets limits on the traditional practice of eminent domain, such as when the government takes private property to build a public road. Under the Fifth Amendment, such takings must be for a “public use” and require “just compensation” at market value for the property seized. But in Kelo v. City of New London (2005), the Supreme Court interpreted public use broadly to include a “public purpose” of economic development that might directly benefit private parties. In response, many state legislatures passed laws limiting the scope of eminent domain for public use.


11 people like this
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Feb 16, 2020 at 6:46 pm

In response to Injustice you said:

“With all the new state rent control laws for tenants, laws preventing buildings from being torn down, our local rent control law should be repealed.”

WHY it is better for the City Citizens. We voted for these rights, and we should fight to keep them. You said:

“Business owners/property owners no longer have anything that resembles property rights/business rights, that everyone else has.”

Again here we go again with the MYTH of property rights in the U.S. They really don’t exist, please read the following reality:

“Privacy & Property Rights

The Fourth Amendment protects Americans from “unreasonable searches and seizures” by the government. But the Supreme Court's interpretation of “unreasonable” has varied over time. Some searches require warrants, but others do not. In general, the Fourth Amendment protects a person and their property from searches by the government wherever there is a “reasonable expectation of privacy.” For instance, trash that is still inside a person's home is protected; trash sitting beside the street curb for pickup is not. In the age of the Internet, where so much personal information is shared over social media such as Facebook and Twitter, some people argue that privacy has become a myth. After the 9-11 attacks, Congress passed laws making it easier for the government to use such information when investigating terrorism.

The Fifth Amendment protects the right to private property in two ways. First, it states that a person may not be deprived of property by the government without “due process of law,” or fair procedures. In addition, it sets limits on the traditional practice of eminent domain, such as when the government takes private property to build a public road. Under the Fifth Amendment, such takings must be for a “public use” and require “just compensation” at market value for the property seized. But in Kelo v. City of New London (2005), the Supreme Court interpreted public use broadly to include a “public purpose” of economic development that might directly benefit private parties. In response, many state legislatures passed laws limiting the scope of eminent domain for public use.”

NOTHING IN THESE PARAGRAPHS CREATE ANY SPECIAL RIGHTS OTHER THAN FAIR PROCEDURES ARE TO BE PRACTICED AND DUE PROCESS HAS TO BE OBSERVED. In fact there is NO PRIVATE PROERTY ANY PLACE THAT HAS PROPERTY TAXES.

IF YOU FAIL TO PAY THEM YOU LOSE THE PROPERTY. THUS THE PROPERTY IS PUBLIC OWNED AND CONTROLLED. ONLY REVISIONIST HISTORIANS TRY TO SAY THAT THE FOUNDING FATHERS WANTED THAT KIND OF POLICY. THIS IS THE SAME POLICY THAT CREATED THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION BECAUSE ALL COLONIES WERE PRIVATELY OWNED AND THE COLONISTS HAD NO RIGHTS WHEN THE SIGNED TO MOVE TO THE NEW WORLD.

As far as Business Rights goes, market regulations which are established by public policy or ballot measures are a natural part of any market.

You cannot build a car without making it prove it is a safe vehicle, you cannot sell orange juice if it is not orange juice, etc.

No, there is no such thing as any market free of regulations and standards. You are just trying to make it sound like that it is an unfair business.

Simply put, it is fair, if you don’t want to be in the business than you can use your Ellis Act rights and sell out. No one made you get into this business, you chose to do so with the rule of caveat emptor. If you failed to understand the way it works and you lose money, you only have yourself to take responsibility of it. So when you said:

“It is time to repeal Measure V and let the state rent control laws apply to everyone in Mountain View.”

NO IT IS NOT, EVERY CITY CITIZEN HAS THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO ESTABLSIH LOCAL PUBLIC POLICY> IF THE STATES LAWS ARE NOT GOOD ENOUGH, THE CITY CITIZENS CAN MAKE BETTER ONES.


9 people like this
Posted by Injustice
a resident of Jackson Park
on Feb 16, 2020 at 8:10 pm

@The Business Man,

You said, the landlords would not do what you wanted them to do, so we did it ourselves. 2 wrongs do not make it right.

Both sides are partisans on this issue. You are close minded and can not see what is fair and right. It has gone on long enough.

We need the middle, open minded people in our city to step up and say, things have changed, we have another option now for renters protection, it is the new State Laws.

We should not allow anyone's rights to be so trampled on as to what has happened to the landlords in our city.

Homeowners need to understand that our abusive local rent control will have a long term, negative effect on the entire city.

The city council should put a full repeal of Measure V on the ballot.


11 people like this
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Castro City
on Feb 16, 2020 at 8:53 pm

In response to Injustice you said:

“You said, the landlords would not do what you wanted them to do, so we did it ourselves. 2 wrongs do not make it right.”

These are not wrongs, they are rights. The landlords had the rigt to not negotiate. That was their choice. Then they ridiculed and insulted the voters. Then the voters passed the CSFRA. Then the City Council acted as agents of the CAA by the following actions:

FIRST, they agreed to a temporary restraining order freezing the CSFRA while the CAA challenged the law in court. This was not within their discretion, they swore an oath to uphold the City Charter, and the Charter did not allow this action. In fact the City Charter prohibits the City Council to act CONTRARY to the City Chart it says so right here:

“Section 506. - Powers vested in the council.

All powers of the city, EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN THIS CHARTER, shall be vested in the council, and said council may establish the method by which any of such powers may be exercised.”

So when the City Charter preempted the City Council, the City Council did everything it could to deny the rights of the CSFRA to its citizens.

SECOND, the City Attorney was instructed NOT to defend the CSFRA in court requiring intervention by the Stanford Community Law Center.

THIRD, when the case was dropped by the CAA, the City Council and the RHC did not want to enforce the rent roll back on the proper date of December 26, 2016.

FOURTH, the City Council colluded with the apartment owners to fast track removal of rent controlled units. Thus forcing the STATE to invoke a BAN of removal of rent controlled or affordable housing. Thus taking that action away from the City Council.

FIFTH, the City Council DEMANDED reimbursement of the first year’s funds to start the RHC in only 1 year. They knew it was going to drive up the startup cost. Thus providing opposition to complain that the rental housing fees were too high. They could have made it a 5 year repayment plan instead, but they did want to help out of town investors to put their argument against CSFRA.

So should the citizens of Mountain View believe the deception being perpetrated by the City Council and the City Landlords? I do not think so. You then said:

“Both sides are partisans on this issue. You are close minded and can not see what is fair and right. It has gone on long enough.”

Unfortunately the definition of what “fair and right” is depends on your interests. Clearly yours is in the financial interests of the landlords and the return of power to the city council. The unfortunate reality is that the Citizens needed to achieve a position of strength just to get the City Council and the Landlords to consider negotiations. But so far the only thing the CAA and the City Council has done has challenged the CSFRA in court and lost. So the CAA was seeking to use the courts to overturn the voters, it failed. Then you said:

“We need the middle, open minded people in our city to step up and say, things have changed, we have another option now for renters protection, it is the new State Laws.”

Measure D is not a middle ground, it takes the independence of the RHC away, it allows out of city people to make official decisions regarding city citizens who have financial interests in the outcomes. So Measure D is no middle ground, it is a gutting of existing rights of the Citizens of Mountain View. You said:

“We should not allow anyone's rights to be so trampled on as to what has happened to the landlords in our city.”

No ones rights were trampled on, the petition process makes it fair and has due process. The facts are however that the “investor” landlords had unrealistic expectations on Return On Investment, and relied on REAL ESTATE sales people to be their INVESTMENT ADVISORS. BIG MISTAKES. They simply were able to convince people to overspend on the properties because they had a 6% commission interest on the sales price. My new landlord bought the building with 10 basic units for $5 Million when it was assessed by the County to be worth $1.15 M. So that rea estate agent rather than getting a commission for $69,000, he managed to raise it to $300,000. That was not the fault of the City of Mountain View, nor use residing in the building during purchase, that was the mistake of the buyer. Why should we pay the price for that kind of mistake? You said:

“Homeowners need to understand that our abusive local rent control will have a long term, negative effect on the entire city.”

Not correct, the reason why the CSFRA passed was because the homeowners supported it. They realized the insanity of the way the housing market was being manipulated and exploited by the apartment owners of Mountain View.

And until the City Council starts providing more apartments and not trying to gouge their own citizens, the citizens should reject any attempts of the City Council to modify their legal rights.


1 person likes this
Posted by Time for New Talent! Rishi has my vote
a resident of Sylvan Park
on Feb 17, 2020 at 3:01 pm

Just like most of the candidates shooting for POTUS , at 77 Anna Eshoo is pushing 80, time for new talent, these people need to step aside, we do not need Octogenarians running the country. I am voting for Rishi Kumar, very smart guy. To be honest did not know much about him until recently, but I am impressed. As Mayor Pete says, time for a new generation of leadership.


6 people like this
Posted by Supporting Our Kids
a resident of another community
on Feb 17, 2020 at 4:54 pm

I agree with Julie Sartwell. Let’s choose to have well-functioning, local community colleges that enhance our community and provide good support to youth in this increasingly difficult world. Generations of Californians before us enjoyed low college tuition and fabulous educational opportunities — which helped us build built a great California. Please support Measures G and H!!!


3 people like this
Posted by Herb Masterson
a resident of another community
on Feb 17, 2020 at 6:35 pm

Injustice wrote "Homeowners need to understand that our abusive local rent control will have a long term, negative effect on the entire city."

Actually, it's not homeowners that need to understand this, it's renters. Measure D is just a minor tweak to rent control to try to address the unsustainable part of Measure V. It's very hard to explain to a renter why the property owner should be allowed to raise rent 4% a year versus 3% a year. It makes no sense to the renter until their landlord decides that they no longer want to be in the rental business and do an Ellis Act conversion.

It's also quite unfair that properties built after 1995 are exempt from rent control yet the owners enjoy the same Proposition 13 tax benefits as the owners of older buildings. I thought that 2018's Proposition 10 was a good idea, but it went down to defeat by a huge margin, 59% to 41%. They are trying again in November 2020, but I doubt if it'll change the results much, especially since rents are now slowly coming down in most of the state and we have such a housing surplus in California, and because AB1482 already sets a statewide rent cap and it applies even to newer properties.


12 people like this
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Castro City
on Feb 17, 2020 at 7:39 pm

In response to Herb Masterson you said:

“Actually, it's not homeowners that need to understand this, it's renters. Measure D is just a minor tweak to rent control to try to address the unsustainable part of Measure V.”

THAT IS NOT TRUE IT TOTALLY TAKE THE INDEPENDENCE OF THE RHC AWAY AND GIVES THE CITY COUNCIL COMPLETE CONTROL OVER IT AND GIVE NON-CITY RESIDENTS POWER OVER THE LIVES OF THOSE LIVING IN MOUNTAIN VIEW ALSO THE CITY COUNCIL PREVENTS THE PUBLIC FROM KNOWING IT BECAUSE IT PROHIBITED THE FULL TEXT DISCLOSURE IN THE VOTING BALLOT INFORMATION PACKAGE:

PROOF:

Just look at the original provision insie the CSFRA as published by the city website (Web Link) it states:

(k)Integrity and Autonomy of Committee.

The Committee shall be an integral part of the government of the City, BUT SHALL EXERCISE ITS POWERS AND DUTIES UNDER THIS ARTICLE INDEPENDENT FROM THE CITY COUNCIL, CITY MANAGER, AND CITY ATTORNEY, EXCEPT BY REQUEST OF THE COMMITTEE. The Committee may request the services of the City Attorney, who shall provide them pursuant to the lawful duties of the office in Article 711 of the City Charter. In the period between the effective date of this Article and the appointment of the initial members of the Committee, the City shall take whatever steps necessary to perform the duties of the Committee and implement the purposes of this Article.

HERE is the AMEDNDMENT part of Measure D published online at (Web Link) :

(k) Integrity and Autonomy of Committee.

(2) ill The Committee shall be an integral part of the government of the City, The Committee is not a separate legal entity, the Committee may carry out its purposes with City employees, third party contractors, or any combination of the two, and ,ay request services of the City Attorney, who shall provide them pursuant to the lawful duties of the office in article 711 of the City Charter.

NOTICE THE LANGUAGE REMOVED WHICH WAS:

“BUT SHALL EXERCISE ITS POWERS AND DUTIES UNDER THIS ARTICLE INDEPENDENT FROM THE CITY COUNCIL, CITY MANAGER, AND CITY ATTORNEY, EXCEPT BY REQUEST OF THE COMMITTEE”

The City Council is in fact taking over the RHC in this ballot measure. The Citizens never wanted the City Council to have any influence over the RHC. THIS IS NOT A MINOR TWEAK, THE CITY COUNCIL WILL CONTROL THE RHC.

MEASURE D WILL ALLOW NON RESIDENTS OF MOUNTAIN VIEW JUDICIAL POWER OVER CITY CITITZENS OF MOUNTAIN VIEW. REMEMBER THE CSFRA DOES NOT STATE THERE MUST BE 2 MEMBERS THAT ARE OWN OR MANAGE ANY RENTAL PROPERTY, OR THAT ARE REALTORS OR DEVELOPERS. IT ONLY STTES THERE CAN BE NO MORE THAN 2. THE ORIGINAL TEXT CAN BE FOUND HERE(Web Link) and it states:

“Composition. There shall be in the City of Mountain View an appointed Rental Housing Committee comprised of Mountain View residents as set forth in this Section. The Committee shall consist of five (5) Committee members appointed by the City Council, and an alternate Committee member. The alternate Committee member shall be permitted to attend all Committee meetings and to speak, but not be authorized to vote unless a regular member of the Committee is absent at that meeting or is recused from voting on an agenda item. THERE SHALL BE NO MORE THAN TWO (2) MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE THAT OWN OR MANAGE ANY RENTAL PROPERTY, OR THAT ARE REALTORS OR DEVELOPERS. Anyone nominated to this Committee must be in compliance with this Article and all other local, state and federal laws regulating the provision of housing. Annually, the Committee shall elect one of its members to serve as chairperson.:

The changes Measure D proposes from the original text here:

“Section 1709. - Rental housing committee. (b)

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

Measure D’s Changes are:

(b) Eligibility, Appointment, and Removal. Committee members shall be appointed by the City Council at a public meeting, AND SHALL BE SUBJECT TO REMOVAL BY MOTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTED BY AT LEAST FOUR AFFIRMATIVE VOTES. Applicants for membership on the Committee shall submit an application to the City Council. IF THE CITY COUNCIL DETERMINES THAT IT HAS NOT RECEIVED ADEQUATE QUALIFYING APPLICATIONS FROM MOUNTAIN VIEW RESIDENTS FOR ANY VACANT POSITION, THEN THE CITY COUNCIL MAY APPOINT AN OTHERWISE ELIGIBLE PERSON WHO IS NOT A MOUNTAIN VIEW RESIDENT TO THE COMMITTEE SO LONG AS THE PERSON MAINTAINS AN OWNERSHIP OR TRUSTEESHIP INTEREST IN. OR MANAGES. ONE OR MORE COVERED RENTAL UNITS. PROVIDED THE LIMITATION ON THE NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS WHO OWN OR MANAGE ANY RENTAL PROPERTY. OR WHO ARE REALTORS OR DEVELOPERS IN SECTION 1709(A) SHALL CONTINUE TO APPLY. The application shall include a statement under penalty of perjury of the applicant's interests and dealings in real property, including but not limited to, ownership, trusteeship, sale, or management, and investment in and association with partnerships, corporations, joint ventures, and syndicates engaged in ownership, sale, or management of real property during the three years immediately prior to the applicant's application. This documentation shall be made available to the public.

First there is the new line saying:

“AND SHALL BE SUBJECT TO REMOVAL BY MOTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTED BY AT LEAST FOUR AFFIRMATIVE VOTES”

This means the City Council is threatening the “independent RHC member with being thrown out for any reason.

Also :

“IF THE CITY COUNCIL DETERMINES THAT IT HAS NOT RECEIVED ADEQUATE QUALIFYING APPLICATIONS FROM MOUNTAIN VIEW RESIDENTS FOR ANY VACANT POSITION, THEN THE CITY COUNCIL MAY APPOINT AN OTHERWISE ELIGIBLE PERSON WHO IS NOT A MOUNTAIN VIEW RESIDENT TO THE COMMITTEE SO LONG AS THE PERSON MAINTAINS AN OWNERSHIP OR TRUSTEESHIP INTEREST IN. OR MANAGES. ONE OR MORE COVERED RENTAL UNITS. PROVIDED THE LIMITATION ON THE NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS WHO OWN OR MANAGE ANY RENTAL PROPERTY. OR WHO ARE REALTORS OR DEVELOPERS IN SECTION 1709(A) SHALL CONTINUE TO APPLY’

Again the City Council is incorrect in thinking that the CSFRA requires at Least 2 members that are THERE SHALL BE NO MORE THAN TWO (2) MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE THAT OWN OR MANAGE ANY RENTAL PROPERTY, OR THAT ARE REALTORS OR DEVELOPERS. THIS IS A LIE AND IT DOES NOT REQUIRE THERE BE 2 MEMBERS SATISFYING THAT CRITERIA, ONLY THAT A MAXIMUM OF 2 CAN BE.

THE CITY COUNCIL WANTS TO TAKE OVER THE CSFRA

THE CITY CANNOT LET THEM. You said:

“It's very hard to explain to a renter why the property owner should be allowed to raise rent 4% a year versus 3% a year. It makes no sense to the renter until their landlord decides that they no longer want to be in the rental business and do an Ellis Act conversion.”

Ellis Act sell yes, conversion NO based on SB330, I already pointed out the price cottrols will have to be applied to any new units. You said:

“It's also quite unfair that properties built after 1995 are exempt from rent control yet the owners enjoy the same Proposition 13 tax benefits as the owners of older buildings. I thought that 2018's Proposition 10 was a good idea, but it went down to defeat by a huge margin, 59% to 41%. They are trying again in November 2020, but I doubt if it'll change the results much, especially since rents are now slowly coming down in most of the state and we have such a housing surplus in California, and because AB1482 already sets a statewide rent cap and it applies even to newer properties.”

We shall see.


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Castro City
on Feb 18, 2020 at 11:25 am

In response Herb Masterson you said:

“t's also quite unfair that properties built after 1995 are exempt from rent control yet the owners enjoy the same Proposition 13 tax benefits as the owners of older buildings. I thought that 2018's Proposition 10 was a good idea, but it went down to defeat by a huge margin, 59% to 41%. “

I agree, this was unconstitutional from the beginning. You said:

“They are trying again in November 2020, but I doubt if it'll change the results much, especially since rents are now slowly coming down in most of the state and we have such a housing surplus in California, and because AB1482 already sets a statewide rent cap and it applies even to newer properties.”

WHAT SURPLUS OF HOUSING ALL REPORTS INDICATE WE NEED AS MUCH AS 3.5 MILLION NEW UNITS?

WE HAVE A CRITICAL HOUSIG SHORTAGE AS REPORTED HERE “Why housing costs so much in California and why it may only get worse” in the San Francisco Business Times:

(Web Link)

WAS THERE 3.5 MILLION UNITS BUILT SINCE 2018?

WHERE ARE YOU GETTING THE INFORMATION THAT THERE IS A HOUSING SURPLUS?


Like this comment
Posted by Herb Masterson
a resident of another community
on Feb 18, 2020 at 4:58 pm

Oh no, "The Business Man" has fallen for the "big lie." The 3.5 million number has always been bogus. It came from a McKinsey "study" that used the housing per capita numbers of New York and extrapolated those numbers to California. Politicians that take big bucks from developers, real-estate interests, and construction unions have latched onto the 3.5 million number.

California’s Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) has said that 1.1 million units are needed, and these can be easily achieved if the RHNA entitlements granted to property owners to each city were actually constructed. But developers are hesitant to build right now because of the glut of high-cost luxury housing. When they don't build the luxury housing then cities don't get the BMR units that are part of those projects, nor do they receive any in-lieu fees for affordable housing projects.

"The Business Man" can begin his education at these web sites:
Web Link
Web Link

But the bottom line is that confisicatory rent control makes things worse for renters, not better. Read the report from Stanford at Web Link


2 people like this
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Castro City
on Feb 18, 2020 at 10:10 pm

In response to Herb Masterson you said:

“Oh no, "The Business Man" has fallen for the "big lie." The 3.5 million number has always been bogus. It came from a McKinsey "study" that used the housing per capita numbers of New York and extrapolated those numbers to California. Politicians that take big bucks from developers, real-estate interests, and construction unions have latched onto the 3.5 million number.”

Again, I told you in another discussion group that the criticism made by their “Livable California” is completely wrong. WHY, Because it compares California to Texas land resources. That is absolutely crazy. California has 163,696 mi² of land, and in Santa Clara County there is 1,304 mi². But 50% of Santa Clara County is Mountains. The Commercial land use is over 60% in the County. There is as much as 15% land use for Public Infrastructure and Use.

Texas has 268,597 mi², and the majority of it is unused and is fully usable because it is flat. Texas has as much as 60% more land resources. So before you go on about the so called LIE, you should not base your comparison on Texas. New York was the best fit comparison given the proportion of usable land is similar to California and you know it. And in effect the premise of the Stanford study was not sound.

The “Meeting the Twain” is nothing but a blog, the author is a Sunnyvale City Council member, his profile reads:

“A 25-year resident of Sunnyvale, a Viet Nam Vet (USN - USS Carronade), family man with 2 sons in public colleges in CA. Soccer coach, basketball coach, hiker, blogger. Former software engineer with several publications. B.Sc. Physics, MA Math - UW-Madison. Years tutoring math to inner-city and native-American kids. Worked in the EPA on auto emissions controls. Taught in public high schools.”

So he has no education in Civil Engineering. No expertise in Economics say for using formulas, but no research to show it. Why bring up a person with no expertise in the subject other than to mislead the readers. The readers are not told about his background in the website, I got it from another one he published found here (Web Link)

You went on to say:

“California’s Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) has said that 1.1 million units are needed, and these can be easily achieved if the RHNA entitlements granted to property owners to each city were actually constructed.”

Property Owners are not entitled to anything. The RHNA “entitlements” do not even exist. Where did you get that idea? If you look at the RHNA website found here (Web Link) The fact is you are wanting the Government to pay for your business so you can take the profits. You said:

“But developers are hesitant to build right now because of the glut of high-cost luxury housing. When they don't build the luxury housing then cities don't get the BMR units that are part of those projects, nor do they receive any in-lieu fees for affordable housing projects.”

But the needs are for basic to moderate housing, and you and your kind DICTATE you will not build that kind. Yes there is a surplus of HIGH-COST housing, but whose fault is that? The private housing sectors fault for deciding that they will leave that to the “market”. BUT the COLLECTIVE market chose to never address that demand. And NOW WE HAVE A HOUSING CRISIS CREATED BY THE PRIVATE HOUSING SECTOR. You surely cannot expect the government to bail out “HIGH-COST” or “LUXURY” housing that was built do you?

WHAT YOU WANT IS CORPORATE WELFARE TO CREATE A GUARANTEED PROFIT FOR PRIVATE INVESTORS. THE U.S. DOESN’T DO THAT.



Like this comment
Posted by Herb Masterson
a resident of another community
on Feb 18, 2020 at 11:56 pm

Affordable housing has to be subsidized. Whether the subsidies come from government, charitable organizations, or from property owners via rent control, it’s all subsidized housing.

Developers are not going to build affordable housing because there is no profit in doing so. The idea that a luxury housing development would isubsidize a percentage of BMR housing was great in the past, when developers would do anything to get a project approved, but now we have a glut of luxury housing and developers don’t want to build their luxury projects.

Rent control is the least desirable type of subsidized housing. It is not income qualified. It encourages property owners to do Ellis Act conversions creating displacement. When rent control is inevitable then the maximum rent increase needs to be reasonable to discourage the property owners from cashing out. The state rent cap of 5%+CPI is too high. San Jose’s 5% limit is reasonable. Measure D’s 4% is a bit too low, but itt’s better than what we have with Measure V.


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Castro City
on Feb 19, 2020 at 1:18 am

In response to Herb Masterson you said:

“Affordable housing has to be subsidized. Whether the subsidies come from government, charitable organizations, or from property owners via rent control, it’s all subsidized housing.”

Rent Control is NOT Subsidized housing, it is the power of the customer using political action as a price control on the market. You never read the story of “Porters 5 Forces Model on markets did you is states found on investopeadia here (Web Link):

“Porter's five forces are:

1. Competition in the industry

2. Potential of new entrants into the industry

3. Power of suppliers

4. Power of customers

5. Threat of substitute products

Lets explore the Power of customers, it is defined as:

“Power of Customers

The ability that customers have to drive prices lower or their level of power is one of the five forces. It is affected by how many buyers or customers a company has, how significant each customer is, and how much it would cost a company to find new customers or markets for its output. A SMALLER AND MORE POWERFUL CLIENT BASE MEANS THAT EACH CUSTOMER HAS MORE POWER TO NEGOTIATE FOR LOWER PRICES AND BETTER DEALS. A COMPANY THAT HAS MANY, SMALLER, INDEPENDENT CUSTOMERS WILL HAVE AN EASIER TIME CHARGING HIGHER PRICES TO INCREASE PROFITABILITY.”

In this case the Californians are not allowing landlords to make them “independent” customers, they realize that they are all in the same situation. Thus by use of political action they are refusing to play into that game and creating a large customer power to force prices down through public policy. THAT IS NOT SUBSIDIZATION. It is a natural part of the market. Landlords and Developers are going to have to get used to it. You simply refuse to understand this. You said:

“Developers are not going to build affordable housing because there is no profit in doing so. The idea that a luxury housing development would subsidize a percentage of BMR housing was great in the past, when developers would do anything to get a project approved, but now we have a glut of luxury housing and developers don’t want to build their luxury projects.”

Again, is that the fault of the public for this kind of crazy market approach. The developers failed to understand by creating such a lop-sided distribution of units, they were setting themselves up for disaster. They expected an infinite number of luxury customers, but that wasn’t reality. They all did that job too well and found out they overbuilt for the wrong market. That simply is not the fault of the public and those developers are simply going to have to either convert those luxury units down, or never have them be occupied. Why are you trying to shift the blame to the public? You said:

“Rent control is the least desirable type of subsidized housing.”

IT IS NOT SUBSIDIZED HOUSING. You said:

“It is not income qualified.”

IT DOESN’T MATTER, THE PRIVATE HOUSING SECTOR DUG IT’S OWN GRAVE BY NOT BUILDING FOR A WIDER CUSTOMER BASE. You said:

“It encourages property owners to do Ellis Act conversions creating displacement.”

CONVERSIONS TO WHAT IN THE TIME OF SB330. THEY CANNOT CONVERT TO OTHER HOUSING UNLESS IT RETAINS THE AFFORDABLILTY OF THE ORIGINAL UNITS. You said:

“When rent control is inevitable then the maximum rent increase needs to be reasonable to discourage the property owners from cashing out.”

NO IT DOES NOT, LET THE CURRENT OWNERS LEAVE BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO ABILITY TO OPERATE EFFICIENTLY OR THEY DICTATE THEY GET LARGER PROFITS ON A LOW PROFIT PRODUCT, HOUSING. You said:

“The state rent cap of 5%+CPI is too high. San Jose’s 5% limit is reasonable. Measure D’s 4% is a bit too low, but itt’s better than what we have with Measure V.”

THAT IS SIMPLY YOUR OPINION, OTHERS WOULD CLEARLY DISAGREE WITH YOU.


Like this comment
Posted by Herb Masterson
a resident of another community
on Feb 19, 2020 at 8:36 am

An excellent article about rent control from the progressive Brookings Institute:
Web Link

Bottom line: it's about the worst type of subsidized housing.


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Castro City
on Feb 19, 2020 at 9:24 am

In response to Herb Masterson you said:

“An excellent article about rent control from the progressive Brookings Institute:”

THAT RESEARCH IS OUT OF DATE. IT WAS PUBLISHED IN 2018 PRIOR TO THE NEW CALIFORNIA LAWS THAT MAKES THEIR RESEARCH NOT APPLICABLE NOW.

IT DOES NOT ACCOUNT FOR THE FOLLOWING CHANGES IN HOUSING STATE LAWS:

SB 330 – Housing Crisis Act of 2019, AB 1763 – Planning and zoning: density bonuses: affordable housing, AB 1485 – Housing development: streamlining, AB 1483 – Housing data: collection and reporting, AB 101 – Housing Development and Financing 2019-20 Budget Act, AB 1560 – CEQA: transportation: major transit stop, SB 744 – Planning and zoning: CEQA: permanent supportive housing, AB 1197 – CEQA: exemption: City of Los Angeles: Supportive Housing and Emergency Shelters, AB 1482 – Tenant Protection Act of 2019, AB 1110 – Rent increases: noticing, SB 329 – Discrimination: housing: source of income, SB 18 – Keep Californians Housed Act, AB 68 – Land use: accessory dwelling units, AB 881 – Accessory dwelling units, SB 13 – Accessory dwelling units, AB 587 – Accessory dwelling units: sale or separate conveyances, AB 670 – Common interest developments: accessory dwelling units, AB 671 – Accessory dwelling units: incentives, AB 1486 – Surplus Land, SB 6 – Residential development: available land, AB 1255 – Surplus public land: inventory, AB 1487 – San Francisco Bay Area Regional Housing Finance Act, SB 751 – Joint powers authority: San Gabriel Valley Regional Housing Trust, AB 116 – Local government, SB 128 – Public contracts: Best Value Construction Contracting for Counties Pilot Program, AB 695 – Community college facilities: design-build contracts, AB 1768 – Prevailing wage: public works, SB 197 – Department of Transportation: retention proceeds, AB 1919 Limitations on Post-Disaster Price Increases, AB 2219 Third Party Payments, AB 2598 Fines and Penalties for Building and Safety Code Infractions, AB 3041 Real Estate Transfer Fee, SB 721 Balcony Inspections, SB 745 Water Conserving Plumbing Fixture Replacement (2014), SB 954 Mediation Confidentiality Disclosures, SB 1194 Lodging Disclosure of Personal Information, AB 686 Affirmatively Further Fair Housing, AB 2132 Building Permit Fees for Disability Accommodations, AB 1919 Limitations on Post-Disaster Price Increases, AB 3066 Mobile Home Residency Law Protection Act, SB 46 Enforcement of Mobile Home Parks Act, SB 1078 Mobilehome Assistance Center,

SIMPLY PUT NONE OF THESE EXISTED WHEN THIS RESEARCH WAS DONE, THUS THESE HAVE DIRECT IMPACT ON THE POSSIBLE CONCLUSIONS MADE IN THEIR RESEARCH, IT IS USELESS NOW.

Again, I reiterate, humans act irrationally, they overbuilt luxury housing in California and now blame everyone else that they aren’t making the money they wanted. Simply put you are grasping at anything you can to justify your point of view and not really accepting reality. That the private housing sector set itself up for a major change in its market. The CUSTOMERS are taking over and the suppliers are not prepared for it. Again you said:

“Bottom line: it's about the worst type of subsidized housing.”

IT IS NOT SUBSIDIZED HOUSING, YOU JUST WANT TO CALL IT THAT.


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Castro City
on Feb 19, 2020 at 6:47 pm

Herb Masterson let’s do a simple experiment regarding housing in California.

You said the original plans were to say provide as much as 25% BMR housing on all new project, though all of them were luxury housing. This you have to state they are “ABOVE MODERATE” housing units.

That means your team has been building 75% of new housing being “ABOVE MODERATE” cost and price and only 25% Moderate or Below.

HERE is the real FAILURE of the PLAN. Typical housing needs will be able to be plotted in a normal bell curve defined HERE (Web Link) where the Median price is considered a MODERATE quality and cost housing.

And that you can take into account 1 standard deviation to cover the Moderate housing component of the market. In a standard bell curve 1 standard deviation will cover 34.1% of the available product.

Realize the LUXURY units are ABOVE Moderate, which means you are building units that are only expected to comprise of the following math:

The +1 to Median Standard Deviation will contain 34.1% of the products in the market

The -1 To Median Standard Deviation will contain 34.1% of the products in the market.

The Low Income housing will comprise of the -2 to -1 Standard Deviation will contain 13.6% of products in the market

The Very Low Income Housing will be -2.5 to -2 Standard Deviation will contain about 2.1% of the products in the market

The Extremely Low income will cover the bottom to -2.5 Standard Deviation which contains .1% of the product market.

Now if the PRIVATE Sector had understood this, it would have known that the maximum production of LUXURY housing should be 100% - (34.1% + 34.1% +13.6 % + 2.1% + .1%) which would mean nor more 16% of all housing should have been built to avoid a surplus of High Cost Housing.

75%-16% is a 59% excess of production. Why didn’t the PRIVATE sector know this? They KNEW it but attempts to manipulate the housing market by intentional misappropriation of resources. That is not the Governments fault because the Private sector demanded this result.

When will this industry take the responsibility for this mess?


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Castro City
on Feb 20, 2020 at 11:23 am

Now lets really get REAL here:

The City Citizens rights regarding the CITY can only be defined by the City Charter as argued by many CHARTER CITY advocates who wanted to say that state laws regarding property development do not apply to CHARTER CITIES.

OK So that means a Citizens Rights have to be declared in the City Charter, given that a CHARTER CITY is not a part of CALIFORNIA.

I grew up in Massachusetts and know what CHARTER CITIES are, they a Corporations where all people living in them are simply their “subjects”.

That is why the SONS OF LIBERTY eventually revolted.

WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?

The City Charter has to declare what a Citizens rights are, or they have none.

I looked at the City Charter and they never provided rights within the City Charter it simply said:

“Section 200. - Generally.

The city shall have the power to make and enforce all laws and regulations in respect to municipal affairs, SUBJECT ONLY TO SUCH RESTRICTIONS AND LIMITATIONS AS MAY BE PROVIDED IN THIS CHARTER AND IN THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. It shall also have the power to exercise any and all rights, powers and privileges heretofore or hereafter established, granted or prescribed by any law of the state, by this Charter, or by other lawful authority, or which a municipal corporation might or could exercise under the Constitution and laws of the State of California. The enumeration in this Charter of any particular power shall not be held to be exclusive of, or any limitation upon, this general grant of power.

It in effect never recognized what rights a citizen has within it. That was intentional given that it is a PRIVATE COPRORATION.

What it DOES say is this:

Section 102. - Rights and Liabilities.

The City of Mountain View SHALL REMAIN VESTED WITH, AND CONTINUE TO HAVE, HOLD AND ENJOY, ALL PROPERTY, RIGHTS OF PROPERTY AND RIGHTS OF ACTION OF EVERY NATURE AND DESCRIPTION NOW PERTAINING TO THIS MUNICIPALITY, AND IS HEREBY DECLARED TO BE THE SUCCESSOR OF THE SAME. IT SHALL BE SUBJECT TO ALL THE LIABILITIES THAT NOW EXIST AGAINST THIS MUNICIPALITY.

What defines the Municipality?

To me that means all the land that the City claims within its borders. That is because CHARTER CITY advocates claim they have exclusive rights to control their borders, not just their buildings or assets. This was the claim made by Huntington Beach against the State of California.

WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?

It in fact means that no one in Mountain View owns any private property at all. The fact is that when property is purchased in the City of Mountain View, the City has ownership of that land. Which means that the City must become a petitioner regarding and rent adjustments. Why, because they have a “vested” interest in the property.

ANOTHER REASON WHY THE CITY COUNCIL HATES THE CSFRA INDEPENDENCE AND WANT TO TAKE OVER THE CSFRA. BECAUSE THEIR ATTORNEY FOUND OUT THEY HAVE TO BE SUBJECT TO THE CSFRA GIVEN THE CITY CHARTER.


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Castro City
on Feb 20, 2020 at 6:26 pm

Now lets really get REAL here:

Section 102. - Rights and Liabilities.

The City of Mountain View SHALL REMAIN VESTED WITH, AND CONTINUE TO HAVE, HOLD AND ENJOY, ALL PROPERTY, RIGHTS OF PROPERTY AND RIGHTS OF ACTION OF EVERY NATURE AND DESCRIPTION NOW PERTAINING TO THIS MUNICIPALITY, AND IS HEREBY DECLARED TO BE THE SUCCESSOR OF THE SAME. IT SHALL BE SUBJECT TO ALL THE LIABILITIES THAT NOW EXIST AGAINST THIS MUNICIPALITY.

What defines the Municipality?

To me that means all the land that the City claims within its borders. That is because CHARTER CITY advocates claim they have exclusive rights to control their borders, not just their buildings or assets. This was the claim made by Huntington Beach against the State of California.

WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?

It could apply to all Intellectual Property that is created or owned by those who has property in Mountain View given the terms were SHALL REMAIN VESTED WITH, AND CONTINUE TO HAVE, HOLD AND ENJOY, ALL PROPERTY… OF EVERY NATURE AND DESCRIPTION NOW PERTAINING TO THIS MUNICIPALITY.

This could be argued that Google could be owned by the City and all of the intellectual properties that Googles offices were used to develop. This is SERIOUS.

And with regards to past petitions processed by the RHC, they may be invalid given that the City of Mountain view DID NOT SIGN the petition paperwork. They are required under the CSFRA to be signors of the petitions given that the City has “vested” ownership of the properties. Looks like there was a serious problem with the way the City manages its affairs.

ANOTHER REASON WHY THE CITY COUNCIL HATES THE CSFRA INDEPENDENCE AND WANT TO TAKE OVER THE CSFRA. BECAUSE THEIR ATTORNEY FOUND OUT THEY HAVE TO BE SUBJECT TO THE CSFRA GIVEN THE CITY CHARTER.


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Castro City
on Feb 21, 2020 at 5:53 pm

Again lets go through the lies provided in the latest flyer left at my apartment:

Annual Rent Limits, claims under current law that CSFRA Allows rent increases up to 5% and Measure D Limits annual rent increases to 4%. THIS IS A BIG LIE, because ONLY is the CPI resulted in a 5% increase does the CSFRA raise rents 5%. However, Measure D makes a static permanent 4% increase in rent.

Taxpayer Protections, Current Law says the RHC can pay itself a salary. YES THAT IS CORRECT, BUT IT CAN ONLY BE PAID BY FEES PAID INTO THE CSFRA, NOT TAXPAYERS, So Measure D is not necessary, and is used to PREVENT paying people doing work for the City of Mountain View, forcing them to be working without pay., is that fair? THIS IS A BIG LIE

Apartment Safety, Current Law the say landlords must go through a petition for rent increases, and Measure D “supports” landlords making proper safety work on property. But that is simply required to be done no matter what. Why should landlords be given default permission to raise rents without a hearing? Simply put the landlords must make sure their units are safe. THIS IS A BIG LIE

Environmental Responsibility, Current Law DOES NOT PREVENT LANDLORD to invest in “environmentally friendly improvements. This is a BIG LIE, Measure D does not ensure that landlords will perform this work at all, if it REQUIRED it, I would support it.

Protections from High Rent Increases, Current Law caps increases at 10% for certain improvements ONLY after landlord gets city approval. Measure D CHANGES the rules so that landlords can implement Capital Improvements without approval of the City and pass the costs to the tenants involuntarily until the tenants petition the RHC. This is a BIG LIE.

Mobile home Protections, current law says it is unclear if mobile homes residents get any protect from excess rent and the situation was “fought” in court. The FACT is the CASE is still in APPEAL, the decision hasn’t been formalized. THIS IS A BIG LIE. Measure D claims it allows the City to provide mobile homes protections. “ALLOWS” yes, but REALLY IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN and MEASURE D IN FACT DISALLOWS PROTECTION FOR MOBILE HOMES IN THE CITY CHARTER.

AGAIN FINALLY THEY DO NOT TELL YOU THEY ARE TRYING TO TAKE CONTROL OF THE CSFRA BY DECLARING EXPLICIT CONTROL OVER IT.

WY VOTE FOR THIS?


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

Email:


Post a comment

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

Get fact-based reporting on the COVID-19 crisis sent to your inbox daily.

'Buck's will never die.' After 29 years, owners pass longtime Woodside favorite to their sons
By Elena Kadvany | 5 comments | 5,473 views

Kids and sugar: A cautionary tale
By Sherry Listgarten | 8 comments | 3,060 views

Do peaceful protests do any good? How about the more violent ones?
By Diana Diamond | 9 comments | 1,962 views

Traffic Lights for the Whole Family
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 810 views