Guest opinion: Measure D undermines rent control

@Pat Showalter,

People still remember how you and Lenny Siegel are so out of touch with the people of Moutain View. Both of you were kicked out of office.

You both have cost the city tax payers millions of dollars, and now a lawsuit over the illegal RV’s polluting our water ways and Bay, which you turned your back on and refused to enforce the current laws.

You have no idea of what is right and wrong, we do not want tent cities to be next, which is what we will get if you and Lenny Siegel gets voted back in this November.

Vote the opposite of what Siegel-Showalther and the Voice says.
That’s what is best for our city.

In response to Steve you said:

“If it is bad for rent control then I’m all for it. Rent control is a terrible idea!”

On what scientific basis do you have to say that.

Realize economics is not a real science, it is a social one, and there is no applicable scientific study to prove your point.

Applicable science means any testing done with the CURRENT economic state of the new STATE laws enforced since January 1, 2020.

Investopeadia clearly distinguishes that economic science is nothing but a process where opinions are made. THer are no methods to determine a scientific “cause and effect”. If you read the article called “What Are Some of the Limitations and Drawbacks of Economics as a Field?”(https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/030215/what-are-some-limitations-and-drawbacks-economics-field.asp). Unfortunately you have a lot of people using any economics writers opinion to claim it is a fact, or that it is “proven”. The simple fact is that they use previous research using those that agree with their theories to justify their own opinion. That creates a circular reasoning failure because no real science actually proves the original opinion.

This is defined as (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning):

“Circular reasoning

Circular reasoning (Latin: circulus in probando, “circle in proving”;[1] also known as circular logic) is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with.[2] The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. Circular reasoning is not a formal logical fallacy but a pragmatic defect in an argument whereby the premises are just as much in need of proof or evidence as the conclusion, and as a consequence the argument fails to persuade. Other ways to express this are that there is no reason to accept the premises unless one already believes the conclusion, or that the premises provide no independent ground or evidence for the conclusion.[3] Begging the question is closely related to circular reasoning, and in modern usage the two generally refer to the same thing.[4]

Circular reasoning is often of the form: “A is true because B is true; B is true because A is true.” Circularity can be difficult to detect if it involves a longer chain of propositions. Academic Douglas N. Walton used the following example of a fallacious circular argument:

Wellington is in New Zealand.

Therefore, Wellington is in New Zealand.[5]

He notes that, although the argument is deductively valid, it cannot prove that Wellington is in New Zealand because it contains no evidence that is distinct from the conclusion. The context – that of an argument – means that the proposition does not meet the requirement of proving the statement; thus, it is a fallacy. He proposes that the context of a dialogue determines whether a circular argument is fallacious: if it forms part of an argument, then it is.[5] Citing Cederblom and Paulsen 1986:109, Hugh G. Gauch observes that non-logical facts can be difficult to capture formally”

SIMPLY PUT, WHEN REAL SCIENCE STUDIES THE CURRENT SITUATION YOU MIGHT HAVE AN AGRUMENT.

And let’s not hear the story that it is interfering with the “free” market.

Porters Five Forces on markets allows for the power of customers to drive prices down in any way. As long as they are unified and use any allowable method to do so. That is the essence of “rent control”, the customers get together and use their power to influence the market regulations.

Unfortunately if the suppliers will not voluntarily lower prices, it is allowed to have other methods in the free market.

This IS the FREE market and the way it works. It is not “SOCIALISM” or other types of market.

In response to Pat Pekary you said:

“I’m 78 living in a senior mobile home park and voting YES on measure D! Measure D limits rent increases to 4%; it doesn’t say they necessarily will be 4 %.”

If you READ Measure D it modifies the original CSFRA the following ways:

The Original text says:

Section 1707. Rent Increases Pursuant to Annual General Adjustment.

(a) Annual General Adjustment. NO LATER THAN JUNE 30TH EACH YEAR, THE COMMITTEE SHALL ANNOUNCE THE AMOUNT OF THE ANNUAL GENERAL ADJUSTMENT, WHICH SHALL BE EFFECTIVE AS OF SEPTEMBER 1ST OF THAT YEAR. The Annual General Adjustment is the percentage by which the Rent for existing tenancies in Covered Rental Units may be increased each year, subject to the limitations of this Article.”

The MODIFIED TEXT based on MEASURE D states:

Section 1707. Rent Increases Pursuant to Annual General Adjustment.

(a) Annual General Adjustment. The Annual General Adjustment is the percentage by which the Rent for existing tenancies in Covered Rental Units may be increased each year, subject to the limitations of this Article.”

NOTICE THE REMOVEAL OF THE TEXT: NO LATER THAN JUNE 30TH EACH YEAR, THE COMMITTEE SHALL ANNOUNCE THE AMOUNT OF THE ANNUAL GENERAL ADJUSTMENT, WHICH SHALL BE EFFECTIVE AS OF SEPTEMBER 1ST OF THAT YEAR. THIS MEANS THE RHC CANNOT MAKE ANY DECISION REGARDING THE AGA UNDER MEASURE D AT ALL. THE ORIGNINAL CSFRA SAYS:

“(1)The Annual General Adjustment shall be equal to one hundred PERCENT (100%) OF THE PERCENTAGE INCREASE IN THE CONSUMER PRICE INDEX (ALL URBAN CONSUMERS, SAN FRANCISCO-OAKLAND-SAN JOSE REGION, OR ANY SUCCESSOR DESIGNATION OF THAT INDEX THAT MAY LATER BE ADOPTED BY THE U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS) AS REPORTED AND PUBLISHED BY THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS, FOR THE TWELVE-MONTH PERIOD ENDING AS OF MARCH OF THE CURRENT YEAR. THE ANNUAL GENERAL ADJUSTMENT SHALL BE ROUNDED TO THE NEAREST ONE-TENTH OF A PERCENT.”

MEASURE D MODIFIES IT TO READ:

“The Annual General Adjustment shall be equal to one hundred four percent ( 4%) to be effective on September 1, 2020.”

Notice the removal of this text:

“PERCENT (100%) OF THE PERCENTAGE INCREASE IN THE CONSUMER PRICE INDEX (ALL URBAN CONSUMERS, SAN FRANCISCO-OAKLAND-SAN JOSE REGION, OR ANY SUCCESSOR DESIGNATION OF THAT INDEX THAT MAY LATER BE ADOPTED BY THE U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS) AS REPORTED AND PUBLISHED BY THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS, FOR THE TWELVE-MONTH PERIOD ENDING AS OF MARCH OF THE CURRENT YEAR. THE ANNUAL GENERAL ADJUSTMENT SHALL BE ROUNDED TO THE NEAREST ONE-TENTH OF A PERCENT.”

SO YOUR STATEMENT IS SIMPLY INCORRECT AND YOU SHOULD HAVE KNOWN IT. You Said:

“Measure D also limits the amount of money the rent control committee, which is not our city council, can be paid by our taxes and sets standards for their behavior.”

THEY CANNOT GET PAID BY TAXPAYER MONEY ONLY BY THE FEESW COLLECTED BY THE LANDLORDS, YOU ARE NOT CORRECT IN YOUR STATEMENT. You said:

“My husband grew up in Santa Monica and watched rent control deteriorate his home town.”

WHAT PROOF DO YOU HAVE TO DECLARE THIS, THIS IS ONLY AN OPINION AND YOU ARE IN NO PLACE TO DECLARE THIS AS FACT. You said:

“Landlords converted apartments to condos and other land use, and when several years of litigation prevented conversions to condos or townhouses many landlords stopped making improvements and even basically maintaining their properties.”

BY MAKING THAT DECISION THE PRIVATE OWNERS RUINED THE CITY AND NOT THE CITY ITSELF OR THE GOVERNMENT. You said:

“They no longer painted, hired gardeners, repaired appliances, replaced carpets, etc.”

THAT IS NOT THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CITY TO DO. THAT CANNOT BE AN EXCUSE FOR PRIVATE OWNERS CHOSINBG TO SELF-DESTRUYCT THEIR PROPERTIES. You said:

“The owner of our park has improved and maintained our park’s utilities, swimming pool, roads, and private wifi tower while keeping rents reasonable.”

AS OF RIGHT NOW, MEASURE D HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH A MOBILE HOME PARK OR ITS MANAGEMENT. THIS IS IN THE COURTS AT THIS TIME THOUGH You said:

“If owners of mobile parks can’t pass improvements on to renters they will have no incentive to make it a nice place for seniors to live.”

THAT IS NOT THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CITY, THAT IS A CHOICE MADE BY THE PRIVATE OWNERS< IF THEY CHOSE TO SELF-DESTRUCT, THAT IS THEIR CHOICE, THE CITY DOESN’T FORCE THEM TO DO ANYTHING. You said:

“If owners decide it doesn’t make business sense to own and manage a mobile home park they could sell the land to a developer, and we’d lose all the equity in our homes and have trouble buying land nearby so we could move our homes. Vote YES on D!”

SB330 PREVENTS REMOVAL OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING BY STATE LAW. YOU SIMPLY ARE NOT UNDERSTANDING THAT THE STATE NOW REQUIRES THAT AFFORDABLE HOUSING AVAILABILITY MUST REMAIN AT THE SAME LEVELS TODAY AT LEAST UNTIL 2025.

THE VOTERS HAVE TO BE AWARE OF THIS. SO MUCH DECEPTION.

Pat and Lenny both lost their seats. Why does Voice continue to give them a platform rather than our ELECTED representatives.

Wow. The View posts a “Guest Opinion”. Others respond with their “opinion”. Then someone who dislikes the those “opinions” berates them (in a non civil manner, SHOUTING to get their points across) and demands “facts”; something the original “opinion” is in short supply. (There’s lots of “conclusions” based on expected results, but no real facts.)

So vote the way you want: based on your experience with how well the city governments you lived in before actually “implemented” the laws they drafted with all their intended loopholes and specific nonmentioning of things that are hey knew would be contested.

@CA Native – that’s just The Business Man. He perceives himself as an expert on everything and rambles on and on and on with his nonsense. Most of just scroll past his comments when we see his name.

In response to Steve you said:

“TBM apparently is no fan of economics. It seems he’s an anti-social scientist.”

I am a big fan of economic science, when it is scientific. But as Investopedia points out its limitations in the article called “What Are Some of the Limitations and Drawbacks of Economics as a Field?” found here (https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/030215/what-are-some-limitations-and-drawbacks-economics-field.asp) I understand its significant limitations.

Also when the science itself is rife with corruption enough as demonstrated in this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5msVl3oZl4U) where an “Expert” had to reverse his statements, but after he admitted he used skewed information provided the banks he was told to study. The Banks that were members of the Iceland Chamber of Commerce who paid him to write the research. He didn’t bother to get independent verification about the information the banks gave him.

At the same time the video seen here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-uDtvqJL7A) shows the head of the Columbia College of Economics head caught having a conflict of interest, and responding quite unprofessionally. When the economic scientists are caught, they simply will try to say, “You just don’t understand economics”, or “Who are you to question my expertise”, or do what this person did on video.

I am just the messenger here. And I am simply pointing out the behaviors and the history regarding the practice of economic science. Where there is good research, I will recognize it. But where is the current research regarding the current laws of California as of January 1, 2020, and the impact on the housing market? So far there is none.

Is this “Anti-Social”? That is up to you and the readers opinions. The reality is that it can be demonstrated that most economics research suffers from “Circular Reasoning” based on a circle of authors acting to validate their like-minded researchers.

In the really scary part about the situation is that these people who were the navigators of the Titanic disaster of The Great Recession instead of having to account for their actions were rewarded instead.

When good research is performed, please present it to me and I will have an open mind regarding it. But make sure it is timely and it does not refer to any older research, because that research is now not applicable to the current situation.

But simply don’t use the general idea that my observations are contrary to “economics” under these circumstances.

In response to Amazed you said:

“Sooner or later this publication’s ownership will realize that someone who compulsively over-posts, trying to shout down every differing viewpoint with tirades about reality-as-he’d-like-it-to-be, who thinks ALL CAPS is an acceptable substitute for bold or italic characters for “emphasis” (against 40 years of netiquette conventions), who daily fails to understand written communication from the reader’s perspective (the only one that matters), is a net liability to this enterprise and needs banning, at long last. Just as with “D—– D——-,” “P—- C– C—,” “—,” and the various others who habitually abused this forum as a personal soap-box. (Watch him continue to compulsively do so, until that happens.)”

Instead of providing any research as requested, or producing any discussion on the topic, this poster in effect wants the webpage to censor someone that does do research. I never promote that anyones rights to post be threatened. I encourage discussion, just that I also wil produce information where such discussion is not true.

If everyone is allowed to make a discussion, then no one can argued as to monopolize on it. Again if you have a point to make, please do? At least I explained my error, and apologized already. Regarding the All Caps issue. 40 years of netiquette conventions you said? I think you overstated that claim. However I will adjust my behavior with the following standards from the website (“https://newrepublic.com/article/117390/netiquette-capitalization-how-caps-became-code-yelling)

“there seem to be some conventions developing in the use of various emphasizers. There are three kinds of emphasis in use, in order of popularity:

1) using CAPITAL LETTERS to make words look “louder”,

2) using *asterisks* to put sparklers around emphasized words, and

3) s p a c i n g words o u t, possibly accompanied by 1) or 2).”

So instead of trying to be educational you wanted to “shut down” a contributing commenter and in effect intrude on others first amendment rights. Obviously you really are threatened by someone who does homework. You said:

“Yes, everyone skips over those long belabored rationalizations. But the need to do so impairs the appeal of the page to readers, therefore its value to advertisers, which is the bottom line, the ultima ratio.”

So you’re claiming I am going to hurt the paper because “advertisers” will pull their “advertising” from the paper if the paper doesn’t censor me? Now that sounds like a threat to the paper from an anonymous source. Maybe this would make a great news story. In any case, you are correct, people can simply skip my comments, and I do not have any problem with it. But does this really matter? What really matters is that people like yourself continue to attack anyone with a point of view that is different and do so with character assassination. I wish the readers should take that into consideration here.

Labeling TBM a scientist is quite generous. I don’t think he has a job since he’s an advocate for free everything for people that don’t work (at the expense of people that do work) so he likely rides the wagon rather than pulls it. I’d say anti-social communist is more descriptive. And he just doesn’t seem to get that nobody wants to read his 10 paragraph diatribes of rambling on god knows what (since I don’t read his stuff I don’t know what he’s saying but his diatribes are ever present so I agree with Amazed that his posts are so offputting that it causes many to close the article).

@TBM. Dear sir, anytime (IMO) that you post longer than a display-page worth of text, you start to loose most of us. I would say, even your comrades-in-arms. So, please keep your essays to ONE PAGE. (emphasis added)

Pat Showalter is a good example of what I might now term ‘the 5%’ in American politics. As an elected official, she started to see some of the social problems – that have beset this city, even as it prospered via Google / LinkIn etc. When I had her attend a meeting with people in the neighborhood of an MVWSD owned site, that might have been possible ‘teacher/school workforce housing’ she was (IMO) ALL IN on the basic concept. She spoke to people there, about why she saw ‘the general need’, BUT Showalter also has ‘an engineer’ mentality side to her. We both recognized, that a SAVE COOPERPARK.org would probably spring up in that area. Maybe with good reason. So she and I backed off.

I am so glad, that she has started to use her analytical mind – to explain and publicly support ‘the compassionate mind’ side of these very dense Public Policy issues.

Thank you Pat.

Steven Nelson, retired MVWSD Trustee

And “TBM” is the type of person you see passionately defending rent control.

No sense of responsibility for its endlessly-demonstrated downsides (– maybe even no awareness of them).

No apparent sense of the limitations of his own knowledge.

No apparent sense whatever of how economics works.

Probably votes for Bernie (another who knows very little about working for a living, having apparently first begun doing so only in middle age, running for mayor, and been nothing but a professional politician ever since; and who is very big on “free everything,” to be somehow paid for, probably by those who do actually work for a living).

When attitudes like those lead eventually to someone like Trump becoming president, why not, for once, instead of blaming everyone you can think of (plus The Russians), try, for a change, looking for the fundamental source of your complaints in a mirror.

Amazing,

Pat You have turned your back on the hard working tax paying citizens of Mountain View . You and Lenny had your own agenda and it cost you the election . Not that Alison Hicks is any better . Now the city is being sued for the dumping of human waste into the creeks and storm drains . Who will have to pay that cost the taxpayers not the RV dwellers . We deserve better Do not vote for Lenny and if Pat runs her either enough all ready . Vote in November to enforce the RV ban . The city has had years to deal with this problem and have failed if they had a real job they would be fired .

In response to Joe Fleming you said:

“Hmm, Showalter lost her re-election bid based on the poor job she did on the Council, including Measure V.”

Pat Showalter did nothing regarding Measure V, in fact she put Measure W on the ballot and it lost. All she did is follow the City Charter where others actually violated the City Charter by trying to contribute to those that opposed Measure V and lost themselves. You also said:

“It’s great to be compassionate to those residents that are housing insecure, but rent control is the wrong answer, and all the housing experts agree on this fact.”

All the “experts” you describe derived funds and are paid consultants from the private housing sector. And again WHERE IS THE CURRENT SCIENCE TO PROVE YOUR ARGUMENT? There is none because all prior research doesn’t apply anymore because the circumstances back then in 2018 even doesn’t exist today. Remember the 12+ new state laws that now prohibit removal of affordable housing and requires that cities provide more affordable housing in the new projects. You said:

“Rent control doesn’t require that the tenants be low-income residents. Instead, landlords are providing housing subsidies to many residents that don’t really require them. “

Here we go again with someone misusing the idea of subsidies. How many times do I have to show proof that is not true. Let me replay the song one more time:

AGAIN THE BROKEN RECORD OF RENT CONTROL IS SUBSIDIZED HOUSING. WHAT IS THE DEFINITION OF A SUBSIDY FROM MERRIAM WEBSTER DICTIONARY (Web Link)

“a grant or gift of money: such as:

a: a sum of money formerly granted by the British Parliament to the crown and raised by special taxation

b: money granted by one state to another

c: a grant by a government to a private person or company to assist an enterprise deemed advantageous to the public,”

SIMPLY PUT YOU ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT ANY SUBSIDIES HERE. STOP TRYING TO RENT CONTROL INTO SOMETHING IT IS NOT.

AGAIN I WILL REPEAT: RENT CONTROL IS THE BARGAINING POWER OF THE BUYERS TO DRIVE A MARKET VALUE CORRECTION. IT IS NOT SUBSIDIZED HOUSING AT ALL. THAT IS NOTHING BUT A LIE. THE PORTERS 5 FORCES MODEL OF MARKETS FROM THE HARVARD BUSINESS SCHOOL SEEN HERE (https://www.isc.hbs.edu/strategy/business-strategy/pages/the-five-forces.aspx) MODEL BARGAINING POWER OF BUYERS ALLOWS FOR THIS METHOD OF PRICE CORRECTION. THAT’S ALL IT IS. THE SITUATION IS THAT WHEN THE BUYERS GET TOGETHER THEY CAN FORCE PRICES TO DROP. PLEASE STOP DECEIVING THE PUBLIC? You said:

“What we need are more developer-subsidized Below Market Rate housing units, and more government-subsidized low-income housing projects. How long will owners of rental buildings continue to subsidize housing?”

When these people convinced the state in 1995 to pass Costa Hawkins based on the idea that without rent control adequate housing would be built KNOWING that they really could not do that. They were given more than 20 years to achieve it and FAILED. Subsidizing housing doesn’t work. In fact that has been proven because that WAS the existing model prior to the new housing laws and our charter since 2016. In effect the Federal Government once promised subsidies for housing and never provided fund, the state and county and cities are doing the same. Please demonstrate where this has succeeded in the U.S. where that market is similar to ours? You said:

“And Measure D doesn’t do away with rent control, in fact it makes it much fairer for everyone.”

Measure V is VERY fair already, it’s just that it requires disclosure of poor business practices during the petition process and these owners hate have to hear how poorly they managed their businesses. They want to keep it secret. In fact in most decisions made by hearing officers, they demonstrate the poor management of rental housing in Mountain View more than anything. You said:

“It lowers the maximum annual rent increase but allows for property owners to pass on the cost of repairs.”

NO IT DOES NOT IT CREATES A STATIC ANNUAL RENT INCREASE OF 4% IF YOU READ THE MEASURE D TEXT STATING:

MEASURE D MODIFIES CSFRA IT TO READ:

“The Annual General Adjustment SHALL BE EQUAL TO FOUR PERCENT ( 4%) to be effective on September 1, 2020.”

This use of the word “SHALL” is a MANDATORY ACT. Under LEGAL STANDARDS DEFINED IN BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY HERE (https://thelawdictionary.org/shall/):

“As used in statutes and similar instruments, this word is generally IMPERATIVE OR MANDATORY; but it may be construed as merely permissive or directory, (as equivalent to “may,”) to carry out the legislative intention and In cases WHERE NO RIGHT OR BENEFIT TO ANY ONE DEPENDS ON ITS BEING TAKEN IN THE IMPERATIVE SENSE, and where NO PUBLIC OR PRIVATE RIGHT IS IMPAIRED BY ITS INTERPRETATION IN THE OTHER SENSE. Also, as against the government, “shall” is to be construed as “may,” unless a contrary intention is manifest. See Wheeler v. Chicago, 24 111. 105, 76 Am. Dec. 736; People v. Chicago Sanitary Dist., 184 111. 597, 56 N. E. 9.”.:;: Madison v. Daley (C. C.) 58 Fed. 753; Cairo & F. R. Co. v. Ilecht, 95 U. S. 170, 24 L. Ed. 423. SHAM PLEA. See PLEA. SHARE 1082 SHERIFF”

If the text said MAY, then you would be correct BUT THAT IS NOT THIS CASE. So the CPI is completely erased from the CSFRA. The RHC has NO DISCRETION AT ALL. You said:

“Without the latter it’s even more likely that a property owner will decide to exit the rental business and do an Ellis Act conversion.”

YES they CAN sell their property, BUT under SB330, no affordable units can be “converted” unless they are “affordable” to those who already lived there at the same price. Why are people trying to ignore that new law all the time? You said:

“People really need to learn to look at the big picture when it comes to rent control.”

The “PEOPLE” now know that with good cooperation and teamwork, the bargaining power of the buyer can dictate the prices in a market, which is the essence of rent control, it is not a subsidy.

Joe Fleming is spot-on. All the studies on rent control in California prove that it raises average rents while benefiting many residents that would never qualify for any other type of subsidized housing.

The reasons rent control has that effect have been studied for decades and are indisputable.

1. Owners of rent-controlled properties exiting the rental market by doing TIC or condo conversions, which increases the percentage of Costa-Hawkins protected units and decreases the number of rent-controlled units.

2. Owners of ADUs using them as short-term rentals instead of long-term rentals.

3. Owners of ADUs leaving them empty.

4. Property owners not building additional new rental projects, fearing the repeal of Costa-Hawkins.

The other effect of rent control is the gradual deterioration of the rental stick because owners can’t afford to do proper repairs.

Measure D is very well thought out. It lowers the maximum rent increase to a still reasonable 4% but it allows owners to appeal for larger increases for necessary repairs. It’s like how HOAs can do special assessments to cover repairs that are too expensive to pay for with tge monthly HOA fees

The bottom line is that while rent-controlled is the worst variety of subsidized housing, at least Neasure D makes it slightly less bad for everyone involved.

Thank you Paltize for a clear and succinct explanation. I’m in the situation of living in a deteriorating rental complex that I’m sure will be torn down in the next couple of years in order for the owner to stop losing money. I’d be happy to pay a little more rent to have her be able to afford to do necessary repairs and upgrades.

4% is reasonable considering how low my rent is. If the building is torn down and replaced by high-cost luxury housing then we’ll have to leave. It’s also true that it really isn’t right for property owners to be forced to subsidize housing.

In response to Yuriko Zaranatello you said:

“Thank you Paltize for a clear and succinct explanation. I’m in the situation of living in a deteriorating rental complex that I’m sure will be torn down in the next couple of years in order for the owner to stop losing money. I’d be happy to pay a little more rent to have her be able to afford to do necessary repairs and upgrades.”

First, what you neglecting to disclose is that you are probably an INVESTOR in this business. Second, you are making a prediction based on no actual independently verifiable information. I.E. what apartment building do you live in, and what proof it is deteriorating. This is nothing but a trick being played on the people of Mountain View. You said:

“4% is reasonable considering how low my rent is.”

Please disclose your rent then and who the apartment owner is? You said:

“If the building is torn down and replaced by high-cost luxury housing then we’ll have to leave. It’s also true that it really isn’t right for property owners to be forced to subsidize housing.”

SB330 PROHIBITS REMOVAL OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND REQUIRES IT BE PRESERVED OR REPLACED IN ANY NEW PROJECT. AGAIN RENT CONTROL IS NOT SUBISIDIZED HOUSING. THIS IS A BIG LIE

In response to Paltize you said:

“Instead of Measure D why not a ballot measure that mandates an annual 4% rent decrease?”

If the bargaining power of buyers is that strong, SO BE IT. That is a free market force. Simply put, don’t make claims that it is not where I have provided Harvard Business School material to prove my point. If the bargaining power of the sellers is that weak, or that the value of the product you sell is not what its worth being sold today, that is called a MARKET CORRECTION. Which is what we are dealing with today. You said:

“If we expect owners of apartment buildings to be responsible for subsidizing housing for everyone, regardless of income level, let’s take the logical next step. We can just ignore what all the experts say about rent control.”

Again, where is the EXPERT’S research regarding the CURRENT STATE of the market TODAY? There is none. WHY? Because any research done NOW will likely indicate that stronger market regulations eliminating LOOPHOLES like SB330 will result in POSITIVE market improvements. NO, you just want to rely on corrupted biased researchers past work. You said:

“In 20 years or so the rent will be $0, then we can pass another ballot measure that requires that landlords pay tenants to stay. Let’s take subsidized housing by property owners to its logical conclusion!”

Now you’re trying to use Reductio ad absurdum (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum) as an argument for Measure D and it is defined as:

“In logic, reductio ad absurdum (Latin for “reduction to absurdity”), also known as argumentum ad absurdum (Latin for “argument to absurdity”), apagogical arguments, negation introduction or the appeal to extremes, is a form of argument that attempts to establish a claim by showing that the opposite scenario would lead to absurdity or contradiction.[1][2] It can be used to disprove a statement by showing that it would inevitably lead to a ridiculous, absurd, or impractical conclusion,[3] or to prove a statement by showing that if it were false, then the result would be absurd or impossible.[4][5] Traced back to classical Greek philosophy in Aristotle’s Prior Analytics[5] (Greek: ἡ εἰς τὸ ἀδύνατον ἀπόδειξις, lit. ‘demonstration to the impossible’, 62b), this technique has been used throughout history in both formal mathematical and philosophical reasoning, as well as in debate.[6]

The “absurd” conclusion of a reductio ad absurdum argument can take a range of forms, as these examples show:

The Earth cannot be flat; otherwise, we would find people falling off the edge.

There is no smallest positive rational number because, if there were, then it could be divided by two to get a smaller one.

The first example argues that denial of the premise would result in a ridiculous conclusion, against the evidence of our senses. The second example is a mathematical proof by contradiction (also known as an indirect proof[7]), which argues that the denial of the premise would result in a logical contradiction (there is a “smallest” number and yet there is a number smaller than it).[8]

Further it is demonstrated that :

“Logical fallacy

In common speech,[2] a reductio ad absurdum is also often deployed in a manner which results in a logical fallacy, in a similar manner to the slippery slope fallacy.[7] The fallacious nature of this deployment of the argument lies in the assumption that in order for something to be true, it must be true in all circumstances. For example, the assertion that if a reduction in working hours results in an increase in productivity[14] then working no hours would result in the highest productivity. The fallacious nature of this argument lies in the assumption that the relationship between working hours and productivity is entirely linear.”

Simply put, that was nothing but another TRICK trying to make a point with grossly poor reasoning. When confronted with the truth you try to change the narrative. And oh by the way THANKS for proving that Measure D IS A STATIC RENT INCREASE. You just acknowledged it.

I grew up behind the “iron curtain” and moved to a country which is dominated by free market – at least I hope. Renter for most of my life – but I am convinced that rent control has to be rather loose. The same people who want strict rent control will later complain about insufficient housing capacity.

Voting YES on D as I see it as a reasonable compromise.

(Otherwise found the amount of mailers – both pro and against – suspicious and disgusting).

In response to Rent control limits supply you said:

“Joe Fleming is correct in his analysis. All of the serious research does not support rent control.”

What research can you demonstrate was done by anyone where they had no conflict of interest? The fact is that all previous research done before 2012 when it required disclosure because that research is proven to be tainted.

Also when the science itself is rife with corruption enough as demonstrated in this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5msVl3oZl4U) where an “Expert” had to reverse his statements, but after he admitted he used skewed information provided the banks he was told to study. The Banks that were members of the Iceland Chamber of Commerce who paid him to write the research. He didn’t bother to get independent verification about the information the banks gave him.

At the same time the video seen here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-uDtvqJL7A) shows the head of the Columbia College of Economics head caught having a conflict of interest, and responding quite unprofessionally. When the economic scientists are caught, they simply will try to say, “You just don’t understand economics”, or “Who are you to question my expertise”, or do what this person did on video.

In the really scary part about the situation is that these people who were the navigators of the Titanic disaster of The Great Recession instead of having to account for their actions were rewarded instead.

When good research is performed, please present it to us and we will have an open mind regarding it. But make sure it is timely and it does not refer to any older research, because that research is now not applicable to the current situation. And that it was free from corruption.

But simply don’t use the general idea that my observations are contrary to “economics” under these circumstances. The fact is that there is NO RESEARCH being performed at this time. WHY? Because these “scientists” know that as regulation remove “loopholes” in market regulations, the results will force them to admit they were wrong. So when you said:

“In fact a survey of economists reveals that almost 90 percent agree RC restricts supply. The other 10% are socialists. Just kidding. To say that research is dated is silly when all of the research over a long period has pointed out the flaws. While RC laws have changed over time, they still restrict the market from setting rents resulting in a restricted supply.”

BUT WE HAVE NO CURRENT CLEAN RESEARCH TODAY, WHERE IS IT?

Enough with TBM and the 6 figure rent control club.

We Need More Housing, not More Rent Control, Vote YES on D.

Rent control is the embodiment of “too good to be true” legislation that mesmerizes the politically disenchanted at first but makes them even more frustrated once the consequences of these policies set in. How city and state officials can arbitrarily focus on a group of investors, in this case landlords, to take on the role of a government entity to subsidize current tenants at their own expense is beyond reason. TBM is the poster child for what is wrong with rent control. Are we really forcing landlords to provide housing to those that make over $100k? TBM said he makes $125K, His $1500.00 per month rent is only 15% of his income. We should all be so lucky when the CSFRA was passed.

What will work? More housing,less rent control.

1. Section 8 vouchers work for those that would qualify.
.. TBM would not qualify because he makes too much money, so obviously he’s “all in” for rent control along with any other current tenant that would not qualify for vouchers based on income. Who are we really trying to help? People have to qualify for BMR apartments.. TBM and the rest of the 6 figure crowd will never leave their rent controlled apartments. Rent controlled apartments will never be available for those looking for housing. In fact rent control reduces the numbers of apartments available.

2. Cities, counties and the state donating land for BMR housing works.

3. Cities relaxing zoning and fast tracking approval process works.

4. Mountain View, Santa Clara county and Gavin putting real money behind getting homes built works.

I’m sure we are all happy TBM “got his”. Everyone else not so much.

In response to Enough, Yes on D You said:

“We Need More Housing, not More Rent Control, Vote YES on D.”

YES ON D DOEW NOT MAKE MORE HOUSING AND YOU KNOW THAT You said:

“Rent control is the embodiment of “too good to be true” legislation that mesmerizes the politically disenchanted at first but makes them even more frustrated once the consequences of these policies set in. How city and state officials can arbitrarily focus on a group of investors, in this case landlords, to take on the role of a government entity to subsidize current tenants at their own expense is beyond reason.”

THE CAA AND THE CAR DID THAT THEMSELVES BY CONVINCING THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA TO PASS COSTA HAWKINS AND DEFUND PUBLIC HOUSING PROJECTS, YOU KNOW THAT You said:

“TBM is the poster child for what is wrong with rent control. Are we really forcing landlords to provide housing to those that make over $100k? TBM said he makes $125K, His $1500.00 per month rent is only 15% of his income. We should all be so lucky when the CSFRA was passed.”

WHY NOT LET EVERYONE PAY THE RIGHT PRICE FOR HOUSING. I AM ALL FOR REQUIRING THAT ONLY 15% OF INCOME SHOULD BE ALLOWED FOR HOUSING COSTS IN CALIFORNIA FOR EVERYBODY.

You said:

“What will work? More housing,less rent control.

1. Section 8 vouchers work for those that would qualify.”

THAT DOES NOT WORK. THE COUNTY DOESN’T EVEN ACCEPT APPLICATIONS FOR THE WAITING LIST EVEN WHERE THERE ARE PEOPE QUALIFED TO RECEIVE THOSE VOUCHERS. IN FACT WHEN SECTION 8 WAS PASSED IN THE U.S. IT WAS SUPPOSED TO DO 2 THINGS. THE FIRST IS THE VOUCHERS, THE SECOND WAS TO PROVIDE “INCENTIVES” and “FUNDING” TO PRIVATE BUILDERS AND PROVIDERS TO CREATE AFFORDABLE HOUSING. IT DID NOT WORK. BUT YOU KNEW THAT ALREADY You said:

“2. Cities, counties and the state donating land for BMR housing works.”

WHAT FREE SPACE DOES EXITS TO ACHIEVE THIS? THE REALITY IS THER IS NONE. AND THAT PRIVATE BUILDERS DRIVE UP THE COST OF THIS LAND BYUSING THE CURRENT HOUSING CRITICAL SHRTAGE. THUS THAT IS NOT POSSIBLE AND YOU KNOW THAT. You said:

“3. Cities relaxing zoning and fast tracking approval process works.”

THE STATE LAWS ALREADY DO THAT, BUT THE CITIES ARE COMPAINING ABOUT IT. THEY IN FACT REQUIRE THE STATE TO GO TO COURT TO FORCE THEM TO DO SO. AGAIN YOU KNEW THAT. You said:

“4. Mountain View, Santa Clara county and Gavin putting real money behind getting homes built works.”

I AM FOR THAT AS LONG AS IT IS FUNDED BY “REAL SUBSIDIES” WHERE THE PRIVATE HOUSING SECTOR IS TAXED TO FUND THE PROJECTS. THIS SHOULD NOT COST THE PUBLIC ANY MONEY BECAUSE THE PRIVATE SECTOR CAUSED THE PROBLEM IN THE FIRST PLACE. BY CONVINCING THE FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO GET OUT OF THE HOUSING SITUATION ALTOGETHER. THIS IS A REAL SUBSIDY AS DEFINED IN THE DICTIONARY.

LET’S GIVE EVERYONE OTHER THAN THE MARKET EXPLOITERS A BREAK AND FINALLY STOP TRYING TO DO THE SAME THING OVER AND OVER AGAIN EXPECTING A DIFFERENT RESULT.

In response to Scott Gamble you said:

“Unfortunately, there isn’t enough income-qualified subsidized affordable housing for everyone, but having landlords continue to subsidize housing via rent control is not going to be sustainable for very long without Measure D, and even Measure D is too strict. The loss of rent-controlled housing will also be an impetus for the State to step in with more funding for subsidized housing projects.”

SCOTT, WHY IS THERE NOT ENOUGH INCOME QUALIFIED SUBSIDIZED AFFORDABLE HOUSING? THE PRIVATE HOUSING SECTOR PROMISED TO DO THIS SINCE 1965 WHEN THEY STARTED CONVINCING THE FEDERAL AND STATE GOVERNMENT TO PRIVATIZE THE PUBLIC HOUSING DEVELOPMENT. WHEN THE PRIVATE HOUSING SECTOR SCAMMED THE CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE IN 1995 TO PASS COSTA HAWKINS AND THE ELLIS ACTS? THE PRIVATE SECTOR CLAIMED THAT WITH THE INTRODUCTION OF SECTION 8 THEREI WOULD BE MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING? WHOSE FAULT IS IT? THE PRIVATE SECTOR DID THIS TO THEMSELVES BY MAKING FALSE CLAIMS THAT THE MARKET WILL PROVIDE HOUSING WHERE THEY MANIPUALTED THE MARKET TO THIS EXTREME SITUATION.

SCOTT, PLEASE STOP CALLING RENT CONTROL SUBSIDIZED HOUSING, BECAUSE RENT CONTROL IS NOT SUBSIDIZED HOUSING AT ALL. HOW MANY TIME D I HAVE TO PROPERLY DEFINE IT? You said:

“It would be wonderful if the people that believe that SB330 protects against Ellis Act conversions would actually read the law! It does provide some protections, but not to the level that some people apparently believe.

SB330 does not prohibit Ellis Act conversions if the replacement housing has greater density than what was demolished. You could not tear down an apartment complex with 100 rental units and build a new project with 100 for-sale condominiums. But as long as there are at least 101 condominiums then it’s legal. Using density bonuses, a property owner could easily achieve this, without the need for any rezoning by a city. Since using the density bonus would mean that there would be BMR for-sale units, this would be a benefit, especially since those BMR units would be income-qualified.”

YOU ARE MAKING A MISTAKE, YES, THERE WILL BE MORE UNITS, BUT THE DISPLACED PERSONS AT LEAST IN MOUNTAIN VIEW WILL HAVE FIRST CHOICE OF THEM AND WHETHER IT IS RENT OR OWN THEY WILL PAY THE EXISTING PRICE TEY WERE PAYING. AND THIS WILL BE A MODEL FOR ALL NEW RENT CONTROL LAWS IN THE STATE BECAUSE SB330 KILLS THE ONLY WEAPON THE CAA AND CAR HAS TO IMTIMIDATE VOTERS. You said

“Would a property owner tear down a 100 unit rent-controlled apartment building and build a condo project with 101 units with 15-20% BMR units? Probably, because it would still be far more profitable than owning a rent controlled apartment building. And it’s fair to the property owner–they are making a boatload of money by selling the market-rate units and still not losing money on the BMR units. There are many such condominium complexes already in existence.”

BUT 100 OF THOSE UNITS WILL STILL BE PRICE CONTROLLED, ONLY THE EXCESS UNITS CAN BE SOLD AT MARKET RATE EXCEPT FOR THE 15-20% YOU DISCUSSED. SB330 REQUIRES A 1-TO-1 REPLACEMENT IN THE PROJECT. YOU DIDN’T SEEM TO UNDERSTAND THAT PART. You said:

“Would Measure D prevent such conversions? Probably not, because even market-rate rents have been coming down so eventually we’ll see more conversions even in areas without rent control. But it would at least slightly reduce the incentive to do such conversions and slow them down.”

UNDER THIS SITUATION, I SEE NO PROBLEM WITH CONVERSIONS AS LONG AS SB330 PREVENTS REMOVAL OF PEOPE BY PROVIDING STATE LAW REQUIRED SET ASIDE UNITS FOR THE CURRENT TEANTS BEING ABLE TO EITHER RENT OR BUY AT THE SAME PRICE THEY ALREADY PAY. THE NEW LAW MAKES THIS SO. You said:

“You’re correct if the new housing is rental housing. That was true even before SB330.

You’re incorrect if the new housing is for-sale housing. No property owner of rent-controlled housing is going to tear down rental housing and rebuild rental housing.

Contrary to what some people that have never read SB330 have stated, it is NOT illegal for the owner of a rental building to replace the rental building with new for-sale buildings, if the new buildings are higher density. What happened in Mountain View with the approval of 59 rent-controlled apartments being replaced by 55 market-rate townhouses would not be allowed. But if it were 60 market-rate townhouses, or 60 market-rate condominiums, then it would be okay.”

BUT 59 OF THOSE UNITS WILL BE SOLD OR RENTED AT THE SAME PRICE THEY ARE TODAY BECAUSE THE ORIGINAL TENANTS WILL HAVE FIRST CHOICE. AGAIN LOOK AT THE 1-TO-1 REPLACEMENT REQUIREMENT. IN EFFECT ONLY THE 60TH UNIT IS GOING TO PROVIDE A MARKET RATE RETURN. THE REST WILL HAVE TO BE OFFERED TO EXISTING TENANTS AS THE SAME PRICE THEY PAY TODAY. THE DEVELOPERS ARE PROBABLY NOT GOING TO DO THIS.