Country’s biggest apartment owners group joins campaign for Measure D

Thank you, “Business Man,” for (1) posting a comment short enough that I could pay attention; and (2) registering your position “NO ONE EXCEPT MOUNTAIN VIEW CITIZENS CAN BE PART OF THE MOUNTAIN VIEW GOVERNMENT OR THE RHC.”

You have therefore taken a firm stand against the current rent-control ordinance (the earlier Measure V), “written by an outside activist group who not only targeted Mtn. View, but other cities” as a comment put it on a related article.

Mayor Abe-Koga was quite right to cite flaws in an ordinance “written behind closed doors by a small group of renters and concerned citizens without public input.”

And, no: Despite what you will very likely jump to assume as usual, I have *no* connection to any real-estate interests and *no* connection with landlording. For those who don’t understand elementary market economics: You hardly need be a landlord to acknowledge the wretched side effects of rent control. Suppressing the symptom (rather than curing the underlying disease of unprecedented demand growth due to by a very few employers) has never been a medically effective therapy.

In response to humble observer you said:

“You have therefore taken a firm stand against the current rent-control ordinance (the earlier Measure V), “written by an outside activist group who not only targeted Mtn. View, but other cities” as a comment put it on a related article.”

You are so wrong about ONE KEY POINT. THE VOTERS APPROVED MEASURE V. You are trying to make it look like they tricked the city council to approve the measure. You are trying to mislead the public into thinking it was passed in secret. The VOTERS chose to enact it. The Landlords and Investors ridiculed it and expected it not to pass. Then they tried to challenge the law in court. The Court told them that they had no constitutional protection regarding it. IF THE LANDLORDS NEGOTIATED BEFORE THE VOTE IT WOULD HAVE NOT PASSED. THEY INSTEAD INSULTED THE PUBLIC OVER AND OVER AGAIN. You said:

“Mayor Abe-Koga was quite right to cite flaws in an ordinance “written behind closed doors by a small group of renters and concerned citizens without public input.”

AGAIN, THE VOTERS CHOSE TO PASS IT, IT WAS GIVEN A FAIR CONSIDERATION FROM THE VOTERS. YOU ARE TRYING TO REWRITE HISTORY. You said:

“And, no: Despite what you will very likely jump to assume as usual, I have *no* connection to any real-estate interests and *no* connection with landlording. For those who don’t understand elementary market economics: You hardly need be a landlord to acknowledge the wretched side effects of rent control. Suppressing the symptom (rather than curing the underlying disease of unprecedented demand growth due to by a very few employers) has never been a medically effective therapy.”

However, ALL economic studies that currently indicate the OPINION of the economics research only uses past research that has yet to be revalidated after the 2012 revisions of the American Economist Association. THAT revision was required due to the fact that the previous research was tainted because it was paid for and performed by consultants that had conflicts of interest.

So far NO NEW RESEARCH has been done. You are trying to manipulate the City by misinformation.

Simply Put MARGARET ABE KOGA is WRONG. The people voted for Measure V with full disclosure of the process. There were as much as 50 meetings the public participated in regarding it. But if we listened to you, we would be told that it was done in a “STAR CHAMBER”.

Good work, “No on D” folks! You’ve done so well making the case against Measure D that the landlords are now opening their wallets to try to save it from failing on the merits with the community. The landlords will always have more money than the community to push their position. Hopefully, Lt. Col. Vindman was correct that in the US, right [still] matters.

Did you even read your own link?

“Leveraging new data tracking individuals’ migration, we find rent control increased renters’ probabilities of staying at their addresses by nearly 20%.”

“Using a dynamic, neighborhood choice model, we find rent control offered large benefits to covered tenants.”

And that’s from the conservative Stanford Business School! Unless you’re mistaken about the goals of rent control, this seems obvious. Rent control is meant to stabilize and protect communities from gouging. If you want to lower rents city-wide at the same time, make sure the city has enough homes. These policies together protect what makes a city great: the people.

I live in an apartment building that is over 50 years old. It is the bottom of the barrel and my meager lodging measures in at under 600 square feet. My rent is $2200 a month and I am pretty sure this is one of the lowest rents in the area. Rent prices have gone so high it is ridiculous. It doesn’t offer any amenities and the upkeep is just enough to keep it legal. Why on earth would anyone vote to allow Mountain View landlords to increase rents? I’m usually opposed to much regulation in these types of scenarios and believe in a free market soceity, but the shortage of affordable housing in Mountain View has reached an epidemic level. When a small home can easily reach over $1.5 million, purchasing isn’t an option for most. If Measure D passes, it will be a detriment to a wide range of income earners in Mountain View.

In response to The Successful Businessman you said:

“Business dude, my sole point was to correct your assertion that “. . . no new research has been done.” Clearly, new research has been done, whether peer reviewed or not.”

HOWEVER, your lack of understanding the situation is a serious issue.

The fact is that that research was done prior to passage of SB330 along with as much as 12 new laws enacted since then.

These laws have a direct impact on any “predictions” made by these economists. In effect it rendered their research useless.

Remember also, my father was a doctor in chemistry, a REAL science. Why is it REAL? Because it can through scientific measurement and experimentation create an undisputed CAUSE and EFFECT. Economics is a “SOCIAL SCIENCE” The practice understands thate they cannot “PROVE” cause and effect or predict future events. In fact it was published in an article “What Are Some of the Limitations and Drawbacks of Economics as a Field?” published in the INVESTOPEDIA on Updated Sep 13, 2018 (https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/030215/what-are-some-limitations-and-drawbacks-economics-field.asp) and it stated:

“Economics is a social science that examines how people produce, distribute, and consume goods and services. This means that much of the field is based on human behavior, WHICH CAN BE SOMEWHAT IRRATIONAL AND UNPREDICTABLE. For this reason, IT’S A SCIENCE WITH CERTAIN INHERENT LIMITATIONS THAT PREVENT ITS PRACTITIONER – ECONOMISTS, THAT IS – FROM BEING ABLE TO PREDICT MARKETS’ PERFORMANCE ACCURATELY AND KNOW EXACTLY HOW CERTAIN POLICIES WILL AFFECT DIFFERENT SECTORS AND ECONOMIES.

Also, THE FIELD OF ECONOMICS SUFFERS FROM THE PROBLEM OF NON-REPLICABILITY. It is impossible to precisely recreate market conditions or predict an outcome based on how markets have behaved in the past under similar circumstances. UNLIKE THE HARD SCIENCES, WHERE RESEARCHERS ARE ABLE TO ISOLATE CERTAIN VARIABLES AND FIGURE OUT DIRECT RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN CAUSE AND EFFECT, THERE IS NO WAY TO ISOLATE ANY VARIABLE IN THE WORLD OF ECONOMICS COMPLETELY. The markets are simply too large, too intertwined and too influenced by human behavior to act in any way that is 100% predictable. IN FACT, THERE ARE SO MANY VARIABLES INVOLVED THAT IT IS EVEN IMPOSSIBLE TO IDENTIFY ALL THE FACTORS IN PLAY IN THE FIRST PLACE.

THE LIMITATIONS OF ECONOMICS BECOME ESPECIALLY PROBLEMATIC IN NORMATIVE ECONOMICS, WHICH INVOLVES RECOMMENDATIONS ABOUT HOW THINGS OUGHT TO BE AND WHAT TYPES OF POLICIES A GOVERNMENT SHOULD IMPLEMENT IN ORDER TO IMPROVE A NATION’S ECONOMY. Different economists come to completely different conclusions about what kind of regulations and controls should be applied to various markets and exactly what outcomes will result. WHILE THEY CAN POINT TO DATA, HISTORICAL PRECEDENCE, AND OTHER FACTS TO SUPPORT THEIR ARGUMENTS, THERE IS NO WAY TO GUARANTEE THAT THEY ARE RIGHT.

BECAUSE THE FIELD OF ECONOMICS CANNOT PROVIDE CONCRETE CONCLUSIONS, IT IS SUSCEPTIBLE TO CRITICISM FROM A VARIETY OF SOURCES, AS IS THE CASE WITH POLITICAL ECONOMICS. Politicians often use normative economics to argue for certain policy changes that support their own agendas. THEY PRESENT THEIR BELIEFS AND HYPOTHESES TO THE PUBLIC AS IRREFUTABLE FACTS WHEN, IN ACTUALITY, THERE IS NO WAY TO VERIFY THE VALIDITY OF THEIR IDEAS, EXCEPT TO PUT THEM INTO PRACTICE AND EVALUATE THE RESULTS.

Economics was born out of the idea that human beings could study the nature of wealth in order to better the world, but it is a problematic area of inquiry. WHILE POSITIVE ECONOMICS CAN HELP PEOPLE UNDERSTAND WHAT IS CURRENTLY HAPPENING, IT IS MUCH MORE DIFFICULT TO USE SIMILAR MODES OF THINKING TO PREDICT THE FUTURE AND INFLUENCE POLICIES TO ENSURE OVERALL IMPROVEMENTS. Even longstanding theories that are considered essential aspects of economics sometimes contradict one another. ULTIMATELY, ECONOMISTS HAVE TO CHOOSE TO SUBSCRIBE TO A PARTICULAR SCHOOL OF THOUGHT THAT BEST ALIGNS WITH THEIR BELIEFS. These opposing viewpoints can cause controversies and only add to the limitations of economics in actually solving financial problems.”

So, please understand that even the best work done in economics can in fact only result in a self-validating opinion. In effect it is a means to promote a “BELIEF” structure and not actually prove them. Meaning that you can have “groups” of economists create a circular validation loop, where one uses another to prove their opinion. But that cannot in effect be the basis of REAL science.

In effect any proposed changes, on top of those already changed after the prior research was published or presented, has in effect been invalidated “scientifically” and thus you cannot use it again for the basis of another argument.

Economists must perform their “experiments” and present them accurately on each NEW article.

Otherwise, it is just a waste of money and paper.

The research cited by Stanford economists above appeared in the AER, the alleged standard for BM.

So BM cites the AEA but doesn’t know it’s own journal. American Economic Review.

Only thing rent control is good for is to restrict more new apartments. Those who say landlords are rich are as ignorant as the law is communist. Think about it, you put restrictions on what people can charge for a rental unit, the less investors will want to invest in apartments. If the govt wants to control rent, i suggest it build it’s one apartments and control rent, not burden others when the economy is the best control for rent.

In response to VOTE YES you said:

“Only thing rent control is good for is to restrict more new apartments.”

NO it does not. In fact SB330 will prevent the loss of them for at least 5 years. The fact is that the CURRENT operators in the market hate the idea of having to compete to build. Currently they do not because the market has no real competition at all. It exploits the market shortages it created starting in 1970. You also said:

“Those who say landlords are rich are as ignorant as the law is communist.”

I would like you to prove otherwise. My current landlord overspent by a factor of 350% to buy my old 10 unit building with no amenities fro $5 Million. Does that sound like a poor investor? You said:

“Think about it, you put restrictions on what people can charge for a rental unit, the less investors will want to invest in apartments.”

That depends on the concept of “INVESTMENT”? If you mean long term housing development, that hasn’t been happenoing in California since 1970. If your talking about people trying to get rich quick by “FLIPPING” or “MARKET EXPLOITATION” that is not the proper definition of “INVESTMENT”. This is just a smokescreen. You said:

“If the govt wants to control rent, i suggest it build it’s one apartments and control rent, not burden others when the economy is the best control for rent.”

Please look at the history of rent control in the U.S> It has been used even by the Federal Government here is just one part of one resource that discusses this history:from Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent_control_in_the_United_States) :

History

In the United States during World War I, rents were “controlled” through a combination of public pressure and the efforts of local anti-rent-profiteering committees. Between 1919 and 1924, a number of cities and states adopted rent- and eviction-control laws. Modern rent controls were first adopted in response to WWII-era shortages, or following Richard Nixon’s 1971 wage and price controls. They remain in effect or have been reintroduced in some cities with large tenant populations, such as New York City, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Washington, D.C., and Oakland, California. Many smaller communities also have rent control — notably the California cities of Santa Monica, Berkeley, and West Hollywood[10] — along with many small towns in New Jersey. In the early 1990s, rent control in some cities, such as Boston and Cambridge, Massachusetts, was ended by state referenda.[11] When Cambridge banned rent control, the city realized a 20% increase in new development and an increase in property values, according to a study by the MIT Center for Real Estate.[12]”

And this article from the Cornell Law review “Aspects of Federal Rent Control” Written by John F. McArthy, (https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1506&context=clr) the same “ANTI-COMMUNIST” Senator which simply states it is appropriate for this kind of market regulation it goes on to say :

“ASPECTS OF FEDERAL RENT CONTROL

JOHN F. MCCARTHY

Generally, the necessity for some type of residential rent control is conceded. Likewise, the desirability of continued control for some time after the war, at least until new construction has effected a near normal renting market, is accepted.’ With real estate the basis for much of our wealth, federal control of residential rents is a restriction of primary importance.

At the same time, many lawyers, confronted by the numerous wartime laws and regulations, often have not had the opportunity to become familiar with rent control. This article seeks to give certain general information about the program and to discuss some problems which, in the writer’s experience, sometimes have been puzzling. More specifically, after a general review of the applicable statute and reulations, this article will discuss the constitutional bases for federal control of residential rents; compliance with the applicable statutory requirement concerning general fairness and equity of regulations; review of regulations and orders issued thereunder, including satisfaction of the requirements for due process in such proceedings.

THE APPLICABLE STATUTE-THE EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT OF 1942, As AMENDED

The Emergency Price Control Act of 1942, as variously amended, 2 established the Office of Price Administration and provides for an Administrator thereof. Sections 2 (b) and 2 (d) of the Act direct the designation of so-called defense rental areas, viz., areas where defense activities have resulted or threaten to result in increases in rents for housing accommodations inconsistent with the purposes of the Act, and the issuance of regulations or orders concerning such accommodations within those areas establishing maximum rents, restricting evictions of tenants, and regulating or prohibiting speculative or manipulative renting or leasing practices. The sections contain’various standards to guide the Administrator in issuing regulations or orders.3 Among other things, he is directed, so far as practicable, to ascertain and give due consideration to rents on a date, not earlier than April 1, 1940, which do not reflect increases inconsistent with the purposes of the Act, and to make adjustments for relevant factors of general applicability, including property taxes and other costs. The regulations must be generally fair and equitable. Thus it will be seen that federal control of residential rents is not geographically universal, but is restricted to defense rental areas. However, at the present time, most populous areas have been subjected to control.4
The Act also establishes elaborate procedures for review of regulations and orders, which will be discussed in further detail later, and provides several sanctions to enforce compliance, a matter not within the scope of this article.i”

The Article also states:

“CONSTITUTIONALITY

The United States Supreme Court has decided that the war powers conferred on the Congress by the Constitution amply sustain the right to control residential rents as expressed by The Emergency Price Control Act of 1942, as amended. 10 The Court might have reached the same result on the basis of the monetary powers of the Constitution.” The validity of continued federal control of residential rents, even for some period after the termination of the war, can be sustained by reference to the same powers.12

The present day application of the war powers conferred on the Congress course, obvious. The use of those powers to uphold continued control for some period after the termination of the war is, at first, perhaps less clear, but equally sound. For some period after the war, because of the shortages of materials and labor caused thereby, there will remain an acute housing shortage, with the danger of sharply rising rents and post war inflation and collapse. It will be remembered that after World War I; and as a result of conditions caused thereby, there came a great price and rent rise with the collapse of the late 20’s. Under the war powers, the Congress has the right to legislate concerning evils which have resulted from the conflict, and, to that end, continue its control of residential rents. As stated in Stewart v. Kahn,13 “In the latter case the (war) power is not limited to victories in the field and dispersion of the insurgent forces. It carries with it inherently the power to guard against the immediate renewal of the conflict, and to remedy the evils which have arisen from its rise and progress. . . . It would be a strange result if . . . Congress, which had the power to wage war and suppress the insurrection, had no power to remedy such an evil, which is one of its consequences.” 14 To the same effect are Hamilton v. Kentucky Distilleries Co.’ 5 and Ruppert v. Caffey.16

The application of the monetary powers’ conferred on the Congress by the Constitution is found on the basis that from those powers the Congress has the right to maintain a sound and stable currency. That is inherent in the constitutional power “to coin money and regulate the value thereof.” Likewise it is the basis of the powers “to lay and collect taxes” and “to borrow money ‘on the credit of the United States.” Obviously, a rent rise will contribute to a general inflation and a correlative decrease in the value of the dollar. That may mean a debasement of the national currency and considerable difficulty in laying and collecting taxes and borrowing money. Under the monetary powers, the Congress has the right to continue its control of residential rents to aid in preventing those results. As was said in Veazie Bank v. Fenno,17 involving a tax on state bank notes, admittedly to drive them from circulation, “Having thus in the exercise of undisputed constitutional powers undertaken to provide a currency for the whole country, it cannot be questioned, that Congress may, constitutionally, secure the benefit of it to the people by appropriate legislation. To this end, Conby the Constitution to sustain the right to control residential rents is, of

And finally:

“GENERAL FAIRNESS AND EQUITY OF REGULATIONS

As has been seen, the Emergency Price Control Act, in Section 2 (b) thereof, requires that regulations for the control of residential rents, issued by the Administrator, be generally fair and equitable. That requirement has raised several troublesome questions. Among them are what comparative time periods are to be used and whether specific groups among landlords are to be treated separately.

It now seems settled that by the requirement under discussion, current returns to landlords must compare not unfavorably with returns for some pre-war year which did not reflect changes in rents inconsistent with the purposes of the Act, probably 1939.21 The period of original construction or the time of purchase is rejected as probably abnormal, viz., a period of inflation or of degression. If, on the other hand, without compulsion, for the returns of 1939, landlords were willing to own and rent their properties, then regulations which afford them similar returns cannot be generally unfair or inequitable. At least such has been the reasoning of the courts.

In Spaeth v. Brown 22 the Emergency Court of Appeals pointed out, “Congress clearly authorized the Administrator to stabilize rents at the level at which they stood in the particular area in question on the most recent date which did not reflect increases resulting from defense activities. It did not intend that all rent control should be suspended until rentals reached the higher levels of an earlier generation.”2′ In Madison Park Corporation v. Bowles2 the same court concluded, from the legislative history of the Act, that Congress intended “to permit business a yield or profit sufficient for its sustenance in a state of efficiency and for reasonable development and expansion” and that this objective “usually will be obtained by permitting profits which the industry was willing to accept prior to defense activities.’ ’26 Currently, in 315 West 97th Street Realty Co. v. Bowles2 6 the Court approved the cases just cited and said, “The complainants’ second contention is that the regulation is not generally fair and equitable because it prevents landlords from realizing the profits which they normally enjoyed before the impact of defense activities. The Administrator concedes the appropriateness of this test of the Validity of the regulation and indeed urges that it is the only practicable way to measure the fairness of the return which landlords will realize on their investment. This Court has upon several occasions given tacit approval to such a test…. The test of the historical return has been applied by the Administrator in price control also. By the use of the socalled industry earnings standard he has permitted price increases in order to compensate for those cost increases which an industry could not absorb without impairment of its normal peacetime earnings …. It may well be that in earlier decades landlords did receive rates of return in excess of that enjoyed in 1939 …. 1939 was the last full calendar year which could be described as a peacetime year. It, therefore, appears to be the logical year to use for comparison. By 1940, the war in Europe had begun to show its effects in the economy of the United States, so that it would not be accurate to describe it as a normal peacetime year.”

It further seems settled that the regulations, to be generally fair and equitable, need not afford such returns to each individual landlord. 27 On the contrary, the Office of Price Administration contends that it is sufficient that, in any defense rental area, average returns of all landlords subject to a regulation, taken as a whole, be not unfavorable. As against that, in 315 West 97th Street Realty Co. v. Bowles, just discussed, the Emergency Court of Appeals has held that the regulations must be fair and equitable to each typical, distinguishable segment of housing accommodations. It said, “Although it is true, as a general rule, that a regulation must be judged by its effect on the industry as a whole, there may be occasions when a typical segment of the industry may call for distinctive treatment. . . . Upon, the same principle, the validity of the regulation here in question (for housing for the New York City Defense Rental Area) must be determined separately with respect to its effect upon each of the three distinct groups (housing renting under $30 per month, from $30 to $99.99 per month, and $100 or over) into which the rental housing accommodations of the New York City Defense Rental Area are found to fall.” In view of the different sections and accommodations within each area and the different factors affecting each, there is considerable logic to the Court’s position. However, such a result will place a tremendous added burden on the administrator of the program.”

SO NO MORE RED BAITING ON THE SUBJECT.

@Business Man – You have EXCEEDED the readability limit! Please – three full screens-worth of text starts to become ‘a position paper’ and not a commentary. (and I most always like your drift)

Please, Please, Please (pretty please with sugar or honey on it) ONE PAGE self-imposed Limit.
please?

I understand my post was long.

But I needed to demonstrate the content of the report I read so as to ensure that my point was made.

The incredible attempts to claim that the market regulations are “socialist” or “communist” has gotten to me.

I just want this train of thought to get put into the station for good.

In response to Humble observeryou said:

“Steve Nelson: Thanks for trying, but he still Doesn’t Get It. He has never Gotten It, despite many people trying valiantly to explain, as you did above.”

I have tried to avoid long research. But when others pass off assumptions as facts, I cannot let that slide. The fact is that many do not like getting their comments invalidated. You said:

“Every effort to reveal to “BM” that gross length completely turns readers off — a basic rule of writing — and in itself mostly negates the effect of his words, brings some rationalizing defensive response about wanting to “explain” (translation: I Still Don’t Get It).”

I may be guilty of a normal human defense mechanism. But that also does’t disprove the information I present to the readers. The facts are many here simply do not like getting their comments analyzed to see if they are true. You said:

“After all of this history, I believe BM is unable to discern any difference between writing to readers (which demands considering their perspective too) and writing just to himself.”

I do not even attempt to “tell anyone to stop discussing” like you and others do constantly. I respect that you all have the right to express yourselves. But you just don’t like it when others do anything to research your claims.

For example I am going to demonstrate how chemistry has proven how Salt Water can become Salt Crystals and Water Vapor. The Chemical Formula of Salt Water is NaCl + H2O = NaClO (sodium hypochlorite )+ H2. H20 is a neutral PH solution but when Salt is added it makes it Acidic.

Make makes NaCl is an ionic attraction between the Na element and the Cl element. When added to water the bipolar H atoms and O atoms also have typically a covalent bond. But the positive and negative atomic charges of Na and Cl breaks the covalent bonds and creates a new ionic compound.

But that also has to do with equilibrium, if there is a surplus of H20, then there cannot be any possibility of the formula reversing changing the NaCl0 and H2 back into H20 and NaCl. But where there is a surplus of NaCl in the solution, the Na and Cl charges will reattract them to each other and the resulting lack of NaCl binding with the O in H2O will cause the charges of H2 and O to reform their covalent bond.

Now can Economics as a science do the same? Can it prove by experiments that on direct factor above all others causes a specific effect. The fact is even the Economics community doesn’t make that claim.

For example the book Inside Job discusses how economists wrote glowing predictions of the health of the Icelandic 3 banks. Freidric S. Mishkin wrote a study the claimed how solid the economic health of Iceland was called Financial Stability in Iceland.

It was paid for the Iceland CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, a private organization just like the CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE in the U.S. These are private trade groups and not governmental agencies.

Especially on particular report that was written right before they all went bankrupt. This researcher tried to rewrite history by placing in his resume the tile of the article being Financial Instability in Iceland, and was caught on it.

We Need More Housing, Not More Rent Control,

Am I missing something here? TBM gets a job for ~$120K-$150K. He pays ~$1500.00 for his rent controlled apartment. He’s never leaving.
What is that? 15% of his salary to live in Mountain View? TBM is the poster child for “what’s wrong with rent control”. Are we making landlords assume the responsibility of a government agency to subsidize housing for the 6 figure crowd? Clearly, the system is broken. Only the lucky few that were in place prior to rent control benefit, regardless of income.

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. Rent control will not build any additional rent controlled apartments.

I hate it when people try to hide their true intentions

Lets use another scene from A Bugs Life it goes like this:

“[Hopper (LANDLORDS) has just drowned three dissenting grasshoppers in a pile of seeds]

Hopper (LANDLORDS): You let one ant (CITIZEN) stand up to us (LANDLORDS), then they all (CITIZEN) might stand up! Those puny little ants (CITIZEN) outnumber us (LANDLORDS) a hundred to one and if they (CITIZEN) ever figure that out there goes our way of life(LANDLORDS)! It’s not about food, it’s about keeping those ants (CITIZEN) in line. That’s why we’re going back(LANDLORDS)! Does anybody else wanna stay?

[grasshoppers shocked – all the grasshoppers “rev up” their wings]

Molt : [motioning a fellow grasshopper] He’s quite the motivational speaker, isn’t he?

Hopper : Let’s ride!