Six of the 7 members of the Mountain View City Council were screened and endorsed as candidates by fictitiously named landlord groups such as the "Housing Council" and the "Tri-County Apartment Association." They are not going to support any form of rent control. I forwarded the Council information about the rental mediation program in Campbell.

Better if they rent weight control.

"The Mountain View staff report notes that enacting a rent stabilization measure likely wouldn't be cheap, but its cost could be balanced by fees on landlords." So, the city is contemplating enacting a measure that limits property-owner rights, but then it intends to charge the property-owner fees for that pleasure. That doesn't feel right.

Rent control increases rental prices over time, by reducing supply and also by making wasteful uses of space more affordable. I hope it doesn't pass. We need lots more housing, not legislative band aids on a housing crisis.

Apartments build after 1995 are exempt?! So most of the new luxury apartments that Prometheus and others built recently would be exempt? They can continue to charge $5,000 a month for a two bedroom, yet a smaller landlord with a more modest property has to follow all these rules? That's insane! City council, bad deal. Just say no.

If the laws of supply and demand hold true then the plethora of new apartments being built in Mountain View and Palo Alto should drive rents down. This should be the case UNLESS owners decide they'd rather have empty units (and write off the loss) instead of providing housing at (somewhat) reasonable costs.

In the interim the City of Mountain View could discuss providing secure parking for the increasing number of people living in their automobiles / motor homes / trailers. I've watched as more and more sections of roadway are marked "No Parking between the hours of 8:00 pm and 7:00 am." This was done on streets adjacent to bathroom facilities making the situation worse and worse for those unfortunate enough to be left out of the increasing salaries being paid to our tech squadron.

Incidentally, current rents don't account for tech salaries either. In my neighborhood the houses that rent house three or four unrelated people sharing the (large) rent. The result? Cars are everywhere and the traffic continues to worsen. I wish the City Council the best of luck on this tumultuous issue.

James Thurber: "Incidentally, current rents don't account for tech salaries either. In my neighborhood the houses that rent house three or four unrelated people sharing the (large) rent. The result? Cars are everywhere and the traffic continues to worsen."

What? How can that possibly be true??? Clearly someone(s) is not with the program! Haven't you heard...parking is terribly overrated and a poor use of perfectly good land, and certainly not needed for residents of this fair city. Mountain View's new world order consists of all residents (and commuters alike) walking, biking and hopping on BRT as it zooms up and down El Camino Real, presumably while holding hands and singing kumbaya.

#socialengineering #assimilation #resistanceisfeudal #ifyoudontlikeitleave

This is a really tough problem to solve. I managed to buy a home here but the mortgage is outrageous, my family is strapped, and I really don't think I can handle an large increase in taxes.

Not sure how we could pay for the costs associated with subsidized housing. Which I do support in theory but would be hard pressed to pay for in practice.

I know this might not be a view that gets much sympathy but not all of us homeowners are rolling in money. A lot of us put every penny into buying a house and don't have a lot left over.

With all the rising values, the city has prop tax revenues up 12% this year after 8% last year. They sure would no need to raise tax rates in any way.

It will be quite amusing when owners of smaller pre 1995 properties start selling their properties to developers or do condo conversions themselves and sell the units. I know that's what I would do asap.

The net result will be a diminishing supply of lower (relatively) priced rentals. Law of unintended consequences and simple economics

The city needs more housing so why not rezone some neighborhoods and allow homeowners to add-on in-law type housing? The city just spent 2 hours at the last meeting debating a homeowner who is trying to do just that while they had him in limbo on his reconstruction.

There are a lot of long time, even life long, residents in Mountain View who are living house poor in homes they've owned since the 50's. Many struggle to stay because it is "home". Why not revise zoning, lower the permit fees, and even offer these long time owners financing to add a rental unit onto their property? The fixed income long time resident will get a small boost in their monthly income and another available unit will be on the market taking a step closer to balancing the supply and demand that is driving up rents in the first place.

Berkeley, Oakland, Richmond, San Francisco, Hayward and East Palo Alto?

These are now Mountain View's role models? Stay out of the free market economy...you lack the expertise to fully understand the consequences.

My parents built out their corner lot for supporting my father's racing hobby. They have chain link fencing and a tin storage shed for storing yard equipment.
I figure that by turning the garage into living space by using office cubicles, they could house 10 people easily. At $2,000/month per head, they could clear 20 grand/month, easy. That tin shed could house another person, easy. Another warm body @ $2,000/month

Such a deal, MV! [/sarcasm]

@the_punnisher
NP...
at least the city hasn't given up on your block in order for a developer to come in and build adjacent to it. That's the issue my husband and I are facing. We're retired, BTW, and that's the rumor round here. Letting the homeless have an encampment here so our property values decrease for the potential developers. Coming to a neighborhood near you.

make more housing: "The city needs more housing so why not rezone some neighborhoods and allow homeowners to add-on in-law type housing? The city just spent 2 hours at the last meeting debating a homeowner who is trying to do just that while they had him in limbo on his reconstruction."

No, that's not what happened.

That property was ORIGINALLY built with TWO structures on it in 1935, which was not atypical for that neighborhood when it was developed back then. The homeowner was seeking to make repairs/remodel parts of both structures. The city apparently did not realize that there were two structures on this small lot when the homeowner requested the permits, nor on the THREE occasions the city inspectors came out to the property. What? When someone at the city finally realized that there were TWO structures on the property, the city issued the stop work order telling the homeowner that the 2nd structure was an illegal structure, and at one point going so far as accusing the homeowner of having illegally built it - which he did not. The homeowner was then forced to prove to the city that the 2nd structure - in fact - had existed on that lot since the lot was originally built in 1935 via county records and property tax records...even though the city had records demonstrating that the property was originally developed as TWO structures.

There is a LOT more to this convoluted story and why it wound up as a quasi-judicial hearing in front of city council.

You can read an article the kind of summarizes the 2+ hour hearing, here.

Web Link

Or you can watch the hearing on the city's website here:

Web Link

Click item 7.2. The hearing starts at 1 hour and 58 minutes into the council meeting. It was VERY interesting to watch.

The basic problem is in housing demand/supply imbalance coupled with lack of efficient transportation. HW85 used to be at 45mph during rush hours, now it is at 15mhp at best. City council should look for ways to address these two major problems instead of putting solutions that are counter productive and unfair to one special subgroup of property owners.

Rent control or stablization imposes undue penalties on minority and creates incentives for underground subleases of sub-market rent units. Who is going to subsidize the mortgage of the owners? It also creates a regulatory organization that has conflict of interest - much like Berkeley rent control boards. Once created it will never go away.