[Post removed due to promoting a website]

Something is rotten in Mountain View. Council "solutions" for renters are not in the realm of really caring about their hardships. Exactly how much money did each council member accept from any of the realtors or property owners during the most recent campaign.
It's transparently a slanted playing ground and they cannot disquise it.

Turning MV into an elite home owners only welcome community is a nightmare idea. But that's where we are headed.

Of course, my home market value has gone up 300% since I bought it in 2000 and so I suppose I should stay silent but somehow I find the madness something I do not subscribe to.

it is unlikely this council will ever act in any substantial way to alleviate the rental crisis----either because of ideology (free market rules) , or paralysis by analysis (fear of unintended consequences) or inability to identify with the suffering in the community (despite protestations to the contrary) --- thank you to lenny and pat for caring

I've touted the Mountain View Council over the years as a thoughtful, sensible organization. I haven't always agreed with the decisions it makes, but at least there seemed to be sound reasons for those decisions. On the renter front, however, I find its unwillingness to act to be almost tragic. Council members are, to be very specific, not doing their job. They are not stepping up to a very real community challenge, and as a result, are segmenting renters into a class of citizens for whom they do not need to advocate. I know this is not true of every council member, but once a group decision is made, the individual opinion becomes beside the point. It's very sad. I've lost a lot of the respect I used to have.

[Post removed due to promoting a website]

I pointed out in a weekend email to the City Council that the city could not legally require a 90-day notice under a 1987 Court of Appeal case named Tri-County Apt Asso. v City of Mountain View, but I suspect the city attorney had already found the case as no 90-day notice was proposed in the urgency ordinance on tonight's agenda. That ordinance would require that (some) landlords offer leases of six or twelve months. The ordinance being urgent must be temporary and would expire next year. Unless the leases were required to limit the rent that could be charged for the lease term, landlords could and many would only offer leases with sky-high rents. That is part of what I suggested in my weekend email to the city council.
More tonight.

Cities sometimes have more stringent requirements than State laws. The State sometimes has more stringent requirements than Federal laws. I think the City Attorney is a rental property owner.

Here is a note I drafted to he City Council yesterday. I did not send it because not one of them responded to a message I sent last week after the Study Session urging them to,take bold action and not be bound by the problems or failures in other California cities:

"Today's Wall Street Journal examines the effect of hi-tech on home prices and rental rates in our community. Nothing we didn't already know but a rigorous study. It adds to our community discussion by noting that other high-tech areas like Phoenix and Seattle experience less price disruption because there's more available room for expansion. It notes that policy makers (you) have not attended to housing supply while approving vast increases in office space, thereby exacerbating the problem.

Important points for those who claim to be free market adherents and say that no one has a right to live here. Here, we value our open spaces and have done more than most to protect them for all to enjoy. This limits the opportunity for sprawl, like in Phoenix or Seattle, but demands a different housing solution -- like smart high density infill close to efficient public transit.

Here we also value our total community -- teachers, police and fire people, Veteran Hospital employees and low wage but long time residents who staff local business, clean our houses and tend to our yards. We value the cultural diversity they bring as they live out the American Dream and want their children to succeed in our schools.

There was no more telling / contrasting public comment at the Study Session than those of the recently married Google employee and the long time resident and slip renter of the North Bayshore "mobile" home park. One, a newer resident, did not like but could afford market rent changes, the other will be driven away by the same price change after years as an employee at the Veteran's Hospital. I may be conflating situations but the point is the same.

I was fortunate to witness unprecedented change in China in the early 80's and again in Eastern Europe, especially Russia, a few years later. It was clear that command economies killed innovation and led to miserable products and conditions. Unbridled markets have reduced Russia to an oligarchy and its Czarist past. China is similar with huge inequality. But arguing that smart public policy is akin to these failed economies is willful ignorance.

I am proud to live here in a free regulated market that hosts the worlds most innovative companies. I don't fear growth or disruptive companies / concepts.

I fear ideology and complacent public servants. You have a huge challenge as every entrepreneur does and I urge you to apply your smarts to new solutions that keep our community whole.

I have huge respect for and have contributed as much as I can to the extremely well run Community Services Agency. Just giving them more funds to provide emergency relief won't begin to solve our problem. It is like funding a proxy war and you cannot escape your responsibility by simply throwing more money at CSA.

I also have huge respect for the Brins, Pages, Zuckerbergs, and Jobs of our world and all who preceded them. Your challenge is to be almost as smart in public policy."

I drove through California Ave yesterday and wondered what if all the apartments lining the streets are four, six stories instead of just two? That would substantially increase the housing supply.

Maybe MV can not only change the height restrictions but also give developers incentive to build higher, like San Jose does.

However I'd caution not to build rental units. Rental units do not provide enough tax base for parcel tax, which is the main instrument for local property taxation.

Build high-rise condos. They are affordable. They also provide more parcel tax.

Late Tuesday night, the City Council delayed taking action to put together a package of itens that may actually help renters from sky-high rent increases and evictions to clear the way for new renters with money to burn. True to his ideology, Libertarian Councilmember John Inks was against any action. But the housing market is rigged - not free - and some steps are justified in this context. Figure landlord groups will fight tooth and nail against virtually any requirement or restriction, but unless I am just plain gullible, it now looks that a majority of the City Council wants to do something careful but significant. We shall see in the next month leading to the first meeting in December.

I'm encouraged by many of the positive comments above, there's definitely something said for the people who believe in some form of rent relief, but more importantly understand the crisis this City finds itself in. Recurring words: greed, approved developments, traffic impacts, trailer encampments out of control, homelessness, sky-rocketing rents...Who has authority over this City.

I'm all for fair treatment of tenants. Landlords should treat people the way they would like to be treated, but please don't ruin Mountain View by actually passing rent control. That will only make the problem worse as even more people try to move in to Mountain View from others cities to try to snag a rent controlled apartment.

Rent control will only have the desired effect if it is a regional solution. City by city won't work. Mountain View will not be the leader, but rather will be left holding the bag.

Raise rents now before they put caps on.

Cupertino is developing this "commercial hotspot"
right at freeway 280 access and near Apple's Homestead/Prunderidge construction.

Main Street Cupertino with Cupertino Mayor Rod Sinks:
Web Link
Notice that other than the parking garage, all other buildings
have small number of floors (at most 4 -- mostly 2) and done with
abundant aesthetics.

MV in contrast wants to build 5 and 7 story buildings with abandon.
Traffic congestion is being ignored. I can see Cupertino becoming
a more desirable city in the Silicon Valley with adequately planned
infrastructure.

Please watch the video.

Just noticed another article in the Voice says council has decided to raise the minimum wage. That's probably good news, but considering that, do we also need rent relief on top of that? I was thinking one or the other, certainly to start. Try one (rent relief or increase minimum wage) then give it some time to see how things are going before trying anything else. Doing both at the same time seems like too many changes (with possible adverse consequences) at once.

If the citizens of Mountain View have a true objective to have an economically diverse society they need to stop putting the blame and accountability on the landlords and instead hold themselves accountable. They should tax every citizen living in the city and create more subsidized housing. You can't ask a fraction of the citizens to subsidize a fraction of another.

You could raise the minimum wage to $20+/hr and you still couldn't afford Mountain View.

Any remnants of old Mountain View are soon to be gone.

(actually the Moffett Blvd neighborhood - not offered)
If the free market is to prevail, then there are two options:
1) Tell Google they cannot expand and LinkedIn that they cannot be in Mountain View, we don't have room to house their employees.
2) We must build 15,000 living units along our El Camino growth corridor and 5,000 studio units in North Bayshore in less than 5 years.
These options will flatten out the demand and temper rent/cost increases.
Global Warning requires that we maintain a 1.0 job/housing ratio here and in all our neighboring cities to keep the emissions down or we will loose 80 percent of our water supply sometime during the next decade. PERIOD!!!
(I'm only mother natures messenger boy; that's a warning!)

No renter protections but the homeless can live on our streets at no cost? That seems to make some greedy sort of non-sense.

In the short term it's a zero-sum game. If we want to have enough housing to accommodate the rapid influx of spoiled entitled Googlers into our city (and maybe we really don't), it is crucial to kick out as many poor renters as quickly as possible and allow those properties to be redeveloped into market-rate units. 90-day grace periods and other such nonsense only delays the inevitable.

In the long term maybe we do want higher density buildings. It comes with its own sets of pros and cons. But the results won't be seen for a few years so construction isn't going to "combat the local rental crisis."

Where do those who believe we should have rent relief or subsidized housing think the money will come from? Landlords will raise the rent for the rest of their tenants or the city will find funds or both will happen. Either way the people who are able to pay their rent will be asked to pay for those in need. This will only result in more people not being able to afford to live here. It is sad that our housing situation is so inflated and our wages not on the same track. The free market will pop its bubble again and we will all suffer from the next recession. We can no longer let the few who have the most money run our world. We're all in this together and the wealthy won't benefit if they don't give back in some way. We all lose from the economic imbalance that is making the divide between the rich and poor even greater. Stay active in politics, vote on the issues and let your elected officials know how you feel. I'm lucky enough to be able to leave this area soon and I won't miss the sorry state of this area.

If passing rent control in Mountain View would solve all your problems, why did you move here and not to other cities that have rent control, like San Jose, East Palo Alto, San Francisco. Our schools are iffy,Cupertino and Palo Alto have the best schools, no reason to keep kids here.If you cannot afford the rents, no reason to live here.The majority of people that I have been listening to have not been born here or raised here, I am talking about adults, but have been here a relatively short time. Just go and move to one of those other cities and all of your problems will be over. It is really that simple!

Tired of listening to these whiners, and to people who only want to divide us up into groups.Grow up and stop trying to take away other peoples rights so you would have more. Life is about making good choices.

"We're all in this together and the wealthy won't benefit if they don't give back in some way."

Like the 68% the top 10% pay in taxes? Does that count?

The low income people qualify for $40,000 worth of subsidies, annually. They get food stamps, free health care, housing vouchers-Sec.8, free cell phone-Google Obama phones if you do not believe that, and free internet from Comcast.
If they have kids they get a check mailed to them by the Fed. Gov. for earned income tax credit, 1-kid gets about a $3,000, 2-kids $5,000, 3-kids $6,000.

All this money comes from people who pays the taxes in this country. To say that they do not contribute or need to do more is ridicules.