The rent mediation ordinance and the accompanying urgency (45-day) ordinance presented by the City Attorney fail to protect tenants from eviction in lieu of rent increases. As written, the ordinances would allow landlords to evict tenants before asking for any higher rent, Landlords would then simply rent to new tenants at any rent level the market would bear. I have emailed the City Council proposing language that, if adopted, would forestall such a disaster.

Please don't confuse your readers with "mediation" and "arbitration." In mediation, as practiced by the trained volunteer mediators of the Mountain View Mediation program, the mediators assist the landlords or managers and the tenants to discuss the issues with each other. All get to speak openly and freely to express their views and feelings to each other, in a safe setting where what is said and written is confidential unless they agree to disclose it. The mediators assist the parties in creating their own resolutions that will work for them. So, the decisions and outcomes are those of the parties. By contrast, arbitrators listen to the parties and then make a decision that is binding upon them, whether they like it or not.

The ordinance presented provides for a right to demand mediation if the rent increase is over a percentage (to be determined) followed by a right to binding arbitration if mediation does not resolve the matter. There are three major issues: (1) will the Council vote to include binding arbitration as a last resort, (2) what factors may be considered in arbitration and (3) will landlords be allowed to skirt any and all restrictions by simply evicting existing tenants and renting to new tenants. There is both a main ordinance and a temporary (urgency) ordinance up for consideration. Mediation not followed by available binding arbitration rarely produces a settlement in cities that have tried rent mediation alone.

Make arbitration the MANDATORY LAST STEP, then try to mediate a solution. The " carrot vs stick " works very well to force a mediation.

Write the law so that eviction notices START the arbitration process so the existing renters can use the arbitration process.

To prospective and existing landlords : If YOU do not like these terms, then YOU leave!

Council should introduce a rule requiring attendees to demonstrate their city of residence, if they want to demonstrate on a position as audience members. With issues like this one, there's a history of organized groups deliberately packing the audience seats with people from other towns for the purpose of exaggerating their "community" support.

So here is what happened Tuesday night (for those who care): Only one Councilmember (Lenny Siegal) advocated the "teeth" of binding arbitration as a last step available in the event of a (further) rent increase over a percentage to be establised. After other Councilmembers (who had been endorsed as candidates by a landlord group ambiguously named "Housing Council") voiced opposition to any direct limitation on residential rent increases, this year's "mayor" (Pat Showalter) stated vaguely that the City Council was missing the opportunity to do more. The City Council then voted 5-2 in an evident attempt (at least by Assembly candidate Michael Kasperzak) to LOOK GOOD instead of doing any good. Specifically, Kasperzak proposed and the City Council majority voted to establish a 7.2% annual increase as the most an affected landlord could raise the rent in a 12-month period without triggering a new right by an affected tenant to demand mediation potentially leading to non-binding arbitration. The reason this modest extra barrier to rent raises will not help renters is that the City Attorney (Jannie Quinn) and the City Council failed and refused to add a few words to the RETALIATION portion of the ordinance presented to protect tenants from receiving EVICTION NOTICES instead of RENT INCREASE NOTICES. As a result, a landlord in Mountain View will be able to skirt the whole process by evicting existing tenants and renting to brand new tenants. As such, and precisely as I warned starting last November, the ordinance is a FRAUD and a DISASTER in the making. It is one thing to maintain, as did Councilmember John Inks, that you are against any direct rent control. It is another matter to pretend to help renters and vote to inspire and permit widespread eviction.

Due to repeated violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are automatically removed. Why?

A renting resident of Mt. View, I have applied for the Rental Dispute Resolution program due to an increase in my yearly lease of 10% and my application has been accepted. The apartment complex's management also failed to provide me with notification of the dispute resolution program and my rights under the ordinance. They have also neglected their duties in maintenance causing serious safety and health concerns, as well as reduced hours of pool/spa operation without adjusting the rent accordingly. I am eager to discuss this with other Mt. View residents who are similarly affected - this could be the bellwether case that determines how effective the ordinance will be in the future.

Since you have now actually exercised a tenant right under the ordinance, you have some technical protection against retaliatory eviction; however, why would the landlord back off the rent increase? Your only hope is that the landlord will not want bad publicity with rent control on the November 8 ballot. After that election, if the rent control measure does not pass, watch rents go much higher. Low and middle-income tenants will be largely gone in a year- replaced by newcomers who will pay more but still get nothing fixed.

Gary, you are correct, although the management cannot rescind their lease renewal offer, they could still decide not to lower the rent increase - in fact the person in charge of leasing finally called me to confirm that according to her they can go less than 10% - two days AFTER I filed for mediation and 6 days after I requested a negotiation. Since then they've provided a new renewal lease agreement with THE SAME 10% increase, but this time with the required information about the mediation process and an extended period for me to sign, presumably to allow the mediation process to be completed. I'll continue to update here as things progress,

*correction - leasing officer called to say they CAN NOT go lower than 10%.

I would like to point out that there where dozens of posts deleted from this thread that started 3 months ago and those removed posts where against this rent control, then all of a sudden a "Leon" comes on here and makes his post. Coincidence?

There are many more stories about "funny coincidences" from this site when the topic of rent control comes up, but if I was to post all of them, they would be instantly deleted again.

There was also another thread about a month ago, again about rent control, where a new post and a previous one in favor of rent control received 400 likes in 2 seconds, and when someone made a post about that funny accounting their post was deleted.

The Voice and it's advocates will be posting many stories to suggest that there is a major problem in our city. Provide all the facts to the story and then let people decide. They collected 7000 signatures for rent control, they should easily provide 2000 detailed stories of names, addresses, rent amounts before and after any increases.

Leon, you say that you are eager to talk to other Mtn. View residents about this, post your property address here and let me contact the managers for their side of the story.

@the Thruth - you think Brookside Park Apartments management will freely tell you my previous year's rent? And what would their current, ever higher rents for a vacant apartment tell you about the two annual 10% increases I've received last year and this year? I posted here as soon as I found out about the mediation and was accepted to the process - to connect to others in a similar situation.
You sound like a paid troll, so I'll call your bluff - I expect a full report from you after your call to the management. Did you want their number too?

@Leon- Let me help you out as to who the paid troll is.

You make a post here 3 1/2 months after this thread has been dead, then dozens of posts gets deleted so you can have cleared all of the anti rent control posts from the community.If I did not know better, in my opinion this is something the employees of the Voice has a habit of doing. So on it's face I do not believe you.

You also have the dark outside shadowy group who put up the money, $4.00 per signature for the rent control initiative, for the signature gathers. Not one story from the Voice about that.

Then you had another bay area paper write the story of the current and or former member of the Voice working for this outside group gathering signatures for rent control. Voice never mentioned that until people posted that info on this site.

If your story is true, that is why mediation has been set up. You are not saying any of the details that would involve cases like this, all you are doing is making one sided statements that may or may not be true. But for sure it is your intention to stir up hate against a group of people.

In mediation both sides will have a say, you do not know or have said if they have any major expenses coming. The city council has had to put off several projects, like sidewalks, because bids came back 50% higher than the city budgeted.

Also, you do not impress me that you are the type of person who was selling his car worth $10,000 and someone came along and said I do not care what the market value is, I am going to give you $7,000 and I do not care what you think. I can just picture your reaction to being forced to take the $7,000
That is what this rent control is doing. There is no difference.

Just to correct a few misconceptions on this thread:
1. One post on this thread was deleted. It was a brief post made in March that was removed at the request of the poster when he realized his statement was incorrect, as I recall.
2. No member of the Voice staff is involved in the rent control or any other campaign. A former staff writer joined the renters group a year after he resigned from the Voice.
3. Posts on Town Square are only removed or edited if they violate the terms of use, or if the person who made the post requests that it be taken down.

Andrea, this is correct only to the extent that they "violate the terms of use" in which case it is incredibly subjective. I have had posts deleted that were in no way more offensive or objectionable than previous posters however mine were deleted (I can only assume because they weren't to the moderators liking). In the future should this happen again, may I email you directly and ask that you review?

Frankly I believe the Voice IS very subjective and slants a tremendous amount of their "reporting" to be sympathetic to their particular views. Many posters have recommended that you do counter-stories on rent control, bus lanes etc and we have yet to see any. You would certainly garner more support and respect if you were to do this as has been suggested many times.

I think the Voice does a fine job. The Voice has a very difficult task in that they are a small community paper that is struggling in this internet age of free content.

It makes it even more difficult when they are expected to publish "counter-stories" that are simply opinion and not based on fact. The bus lanes were proven to provide a great increase in service on El Camino at a very small decrease in automobile speed. So, the only way to publish a "counter-story" is to allow a guest writer to lie. Or, as they are want to do in this forum, simply flood us with hyperbole and unsupportable theories.

Or with rent control, there is no proof that even strong rent control (which is not proposed for MV) decimates the livability of a city. In fact, there is a ton of evidence to the contrary in our very own community! By the way, there is nothing to stop you from writing an opinion piece (as opposed to a fact-based article) and submitting it. If it is well written, I'm sure it will be published!

The Voice welcomes letters to the editor or guest opinions on any topic of local interest by members of the Mountain View community. They may be sent to rbatti@mv-voice.com.

@Andrea Gemmet,

You have not answered any previous questions from another post. I will copy and paste those here with the link. I have seen many instances of censorship from this website. If the Voice does not want to answer questions, they erase,delete, and lock threads. You have completely removed posts by me, not deleted but erased, so I know that it happens. I have provided that post below. I keep all hard copies from the threads here. Link,
Web Link

Andrea, your organization is not one that provides facts from both sides of an issue then lets residents decide issues, instead, you have an agenda and you push it thru no matter what. I will wager you that you do not have the guts to leave my post up and investigate these issues.


Posted by Andrea Gemmet
Mountain View Voice Editor
on Jun 3, 2016 at 2:53 pm
Andrea Gemmet is a registered user.
I'd like to quickly clear up a couple of misconceptions in this thread.

1. Voice staff members are not allowed to comment anonymously on Town Square threads. If an editor or reporter makes a comment, it will be under his or her own name.

2. It is against our policy for any member of the newsroom staff to participate in political or advocacy groups in areas we cover. Daniel DeBolt has not been employed by the Voice for over a year. He recently has taken a volunteer position with the Tenants' Coalition, which, as private citizen, he is free to do.
Report Objectionable Content
Email Town Square Moderator

53 people like this
Posted by MTN VIEW Resident
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jun 3, 2016 at 5:44 pm
@Andrea Grommet,

I am glad that you have posted here to address the community's concern.

However, your non answers to questions posted here have not been answered.

Will you commit to total transparency from your organization?

Will you state what city all involved with the paper, live in?

Do you have an employee named Angel S. and is it appropriate that he locks a thread if the posts do not go his way? Will you also have a rule that states any employee posting on the web site will state that he is an employee of the paper?

Why has there been no coverage from the Voice regarding what is needed and costs from running an apartment business? The paper has been extremely biased and one sided. Your paper is pro rent control.

Your paper has asked council to make more laws so elections can be more transparent, will your paper do the same? Or will the Voice stay out of politics and stop endorsing candidates and measures?

Will you be open and state any conflicts of interest in stories?

Why has there been no stories as to who these people are calling themselves the Mountain View Tenants Coalition, and where are they getting the money from. You would do this if this group was spending money against one of the papers candidates that got endorsed from you.

These are just some inconsistencies from your paper. Since you are very involved with the political scene in our city, it is important for transparency that you start to address these issue's.


On 6/15/2016 at 12.45pm. I posted the information below onto the thread at the Voice titled,

"Rent-control measure expected to go to voters in November" The powers that be at the Voice, removed my post.

These people at the Voice, calling themselves a news organization should no longer be trusted by any resident of Mountain View. When the media starts to use censorship to end debate, the people should be afraid. Below is what I posted earlier today.

This is a third request, as the first one posted on 6/2/16 has not been answered.


I CALL ON THE MOUNTAIN VIEW VOICE TO ENACT IT'S OWN TRANSPARENCY RULES FOR THE BENEFIT OF MOUNTAIN VIEW RESIDENTS, FOR ALL ISSUES POLITICAL.


There is no bigger "Shadowy Group" than the Mountain View Voice paper.
Could it be their intention to install a "Publishers Council and or Publishers Candidates?

The city council has passed a set of new disclosure rules for elections, and candidates. The Voice should adopt similar rules themselves if they continue to be actively involved in writing editorials telling the council how they should vote, what new ordinances are needed, and telling voters how they should vote.

The Voice is the single most powerful, influential media print in our city. Their candidates that they endorse are mostly approved by voters who have no information about the people at the Voice. As residents in our city, we need to have information as to who the people are in the Voice so we can make an informed decision.
Their free, one sided stories, that they give to their candidates and or agenda, is no different than outside groups spending their own money on mailers, yet council did not address this. This is not free speech but politico speech with the intent to have power in government.

1- The publisher and editors, Bill Johnson, Andrea Gemmet and Associate Editor Renee Batti, need to state what city and state they live in.
They also need to state what committees-boards-organization that they are on, or advise to, past and present. They should similarly comply with the new requirements that the city passed and list their donors.
In all articles that they write in the Voice, at the bottom of it should be clearly stated any conflict of interest in that story, for current and past persons involved with the paper.

2- All reporters should state what city they live in. State what committees-boards-organization that they are on, or advise to, past and present.
All articles they write should state any conflict of interest.

3-Ballot measures and candidates that the Voice supports and asks residents to vote for, opposing point of view on those measures and candidates should have their view and closing statement stated as well, on the same page at the same time.

4-Any Voice employee who logs onto the Voice website and makes any comments in any of the threads, that they shall only use their real name for the screen name and state that they are an employee of the paper.

The residents of our community needs full transparency from everyone involved that affects our community. The Voice has been the least transparent to date, and it is time for that to be corrected.

Why should we give any credibility to the Voice, for issues that they say we need to vote on, if the editorial board does not live in our city?

The Voice has already shown how dishonest they are with the current issue of rent control. They have never done a story on the other side, which is the business side of the rental business.

The Voice has not done one story on who the group called the"Mountain View Tenants Coalition" is.
They have not mentioned that there are staff and or former staff from the Voice paper working for this group. The Silicon Valley Business Journal has mentioned this.

They have not done any reporting as to how many people from the Mountain View Day Worker Center make up this MVTC group.

They also have not stated any disclosures on any of these stories regarding if any of the reporters are involved in any conflict of interest.

They have not run any stories on where this group is getting the money needed to pay the signature gathers the $4 per signature, or to mention the outside-faith based groups pushing this issue.

The Voice, and their activist candidates only want to know if any money comes in from any type of real estate group so that they could automatically call them names and discredit them.

The community needs to know all of the truth.

@VOICE,
Instead of censoring and deleting peoples post about this subject, either answer these questions, or admit you are an activist on this issue and will not cover this issue fairly? That is a question to you!

Link here,
Web Link

Uploaded: Mon, Jun 13, 2016, 2:26 pm
Tenants' group to submit signatures for rent-cap measure
Mountain View Tenants Coalition reports collecting about 7,100 signatures to put initiative on November ballot.
+ 172 people like this
Posted by NoTrustInTheVoice
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jun 13, 2016 at 10:17 pm

NoTrustInTheVoice is a registered user.
This is a second request, as the first one posted on 6/2/16 has not been answered.


I CALL ON THE MOUNTAIN VIEW VOICE TO ENACT IT'S OWN TRANSPARENCY RULES FOR THE BENEFIT OF MOUNTAIN VIEW RESIDENTS, FOR ALL ISSUES POLITICAL.


There is no bigger "Shadowy Group" than the Mountain View Voice paper.
Is it the editors intention to install a "publishers council?"
The city council has passed a set of new disclosure rules for elections, and candidates. The Voice should adopt similar rules themselves if they continue to be actively involved in writing editorials telling the council how they should vote, what new ordinances are needed, and telling voters how they should vote.

The Voice is the single most powerful, influential media print in our city. Their candidates that they endorse are mostly approved by voters who have no information about the people at the Voice. As residents in our city, we need to have information as to who the people are in the Voice so we can make an informed decision.
Their free, one sided stories, that they give to their candidates and or agenda, is no different than outside groups spending their own money on mailers, yet council did not address this. This is not free speech but politico speech with the intent to have power in government.

1- The publisher and editors, Bill Johnson, Andrea Gemmet and Associate Editor Renee Batti, need to state what city and state they live in.
They also need to state what committees-boards-organization that they are on, or advise to, past and present. They should similarly comply with the new requirements that the city passed and list their donors.
In all articles that they write in the Voice, at the bottom of it should be clearly stated any conflict of interest in that story, for current and past persons involved with the paper.

2- All reporters should state what city they live in. State what committees-boards-organization that they are on, or advise to, past and present.
All articles they write should state any conflict of interest.

3-Ballot measures and candidates that the Voice supports and asks residents to vote for, opposing point of view on those measures and candidates should have their view and closing statement stated as well, on the same page at the same time.

4-Any Voice employee who logs onto the Voice website and makes any comments in any of the threads, that they shall only use their real name for the screen name and state that they are an employee of the paper.

The residents of our community needs full transparency from everyone involved that affects our community. The Voice has been the least transparent to date, and it is time for that to be corrected.

Why should we give any credibility to the Voice, for issues that they say we need to vote on, if the editorial board does not live in our city?

The Voice has already shown how dishonest they are with the current issue of rent control. They have never done a story on the other side, which is the business side of the rental business.

The Voice has not done one story on who the group called the"Mountain View Tenants Coalition" is.
They have not mentioned that there are staff and or former staff from the Voice paper working for this group. The Silicon Valley Business Journal has mentioned this.

They have not done any reporting as to how many people from the Mountain View Day Worker Center make up this MVTC group.

They also have not stated any disclosures on any of these stories regarding if any of the reporters are involved in any conflict of interest.

They have not run any stories on where this group is getting the money needed to pay the signature gathers the $4 per signature, or to mention the outside-faith based groups pushing this issue,as they did in the late 1990's.

The Voice, and their activist candidates only want to know if any money comes in from any type of real estate group so that they could automatically call them names and discredit them.

The community needs to know all of the truth.
Report Objectionable Content
Email Town Square Moderator

+ 194 people like this
Posted by Agree with you!
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jun 13, 2016 at 11:14 pm
Agree with you, the Voice has been totally dishonest.

Just look at the story they wrote, "Tenants group to submit signatures for rent-cap measure"

What a lie, this whole story is about the new 5 panel rent board that will have power to make new laws. The voters will not have the power to vote them out or change these new laws if we do not like them. These powers should only be with the city council, those who we vote on directly. It will be just like San Francisco where you will not be able to evict anyone for any reason, including if the property owner wanted to move in any family into a unit. The rent board in S.F routinely denies property owners this right by saying that they have ulterior motives.

If this group wanted new laws, they should have stated that now, but they know if they did it now it would not pass in November. There are numerous laws that already protects Tenants,as an example landlords can not keep security deposits without a legal reason. Tenants can go to small claims court and Sue for treble damages. This is already law.

If council member Lenny Siegel had his first rent control measure pass in 1982 the city today would more resemble East Palo Alto than the vibrant city we have today.

There is a reason why people do not want to move to East Palo Alto, East San Jose, San Leandro, Alameda, Oakland and even San Francisco is the number one city in all of United States for property crimes. All these cities have rent control.

Everyone also needs to remember that this rent control will not apply to single family homes, condominiums, town homes, duplex's or granny units, and apartment complexes built in 1994 and later.

Get ready for a drastically different image for ALL of Mountain View if this passes. Think about the other rent control cities in the bay area, this will effect all property owners.
Report Objectionable Content
Email Town Square Moderator

+ 15 people like this
Posted by I'll likely vote no
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jun 14, 2016 at 7:04 am
I'm open to other options besides rent control; I've seen it work against cities in the past and don't want MV to be added to that list.
Report Objectionable Content
Email Town Square Moderator

+ 166 people like this
Posted by I Will Vote No
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jun 14, 2016 at 7:45 am
I will vote no for sure!

Get ready for all the hit pieces that will be coming out from the Voice, going after anyone from the other side, and to write one emotional story after another, and none of them will be fact checked for any truth, just repeat the same lines that the proponents say as the Voice is part of this group.
Report Objectionable Content
Email Town Square Moderator

+ 171 people like this
Posted by Take back MV, ignore the Voice
a resident of Rex Manor
on Jun 14, 2016 at 8:00 am
@NoTrustInTheVoice

Thank you for standing up for Mountain View. I have felt this way for a while now. I constantly feel I'm being manipulated by The Voice. With regard to elections and editorials, I've started doing the exact opposite of whatever they suggest. I am so certain this is how we have the current city council that we do. Most people didn't read up on the candidates and just voted for what the Voice recommended, thinking the Voice has the best in mind for Mountain View.

Does anyone in leadership at the Voice even LIVE in Mountain View??? If not, then why are we even listening to them??? They probably live in Atherton or Woodside and will NEVER have to actually live with any of the policies the support!

I am so worried that Donald Trump style politics have befallen Mountain View. All because someone keeps making a claim doesn't make it true. I hope our city can reject this style of politics. The constant barrage against the MV-Voice is like the many claims Trump makes against others without substantiated proof.

The facts are that the California apartment owners paid for ads labeled as "Neighborhood Empowerment Coalition."
That's a fact. They have engaged in a purposeful politics to mislead MV voters, and voters in other parts of the Santa Clara County.

All the allegations made against the MV Voice and the Mountain View Tenants Coalition (which is just that, a Mountain View Tenants Coalition) are just that, allegations.

Comparing a hard record of lies and anonymous online allegations, I have to reason that that some of these attacks against the MV-Voice and pro-rental control commentaries are orchestrated to appear like "neighbors" just as the "Neighborhood Empowerment Coalition" was created to appear like neighbors.

I hope I am wrong. If you don't like rent control, don't vote for it. That's your right. If you can't vote in MV, you still have the right to fight rent control, but do it through honest direct speech, not claims meant to confuse local voters.

There are many good reasons to question the merits rent control, stick to that. Attacking the credibility of those you disagree with is below our fine city.

Oh, I am indeed a resident of MV and Trump politics have no place in this discussion. And my implications are not allegations, they are facts as presented by several posters here. To imply this publication has no bias is insane, all media outlets have bias. MSNBS totally liberal, FOX totally conservative. As long as readers realize the bias they can judge the "facts" on those merits. But again, to imply MV Voice has no bias is insane. You can see this in the comment by @Difficult Task.....form his perspective any comment against the Voice is"a lie, hyperbole, unsubstantiated". He's so unable to see another side, he's dangerous.

I have had many, many discussions with many, many neighbors and many, many MV friends; almost all are most vehemently against rent control. And we are making sure, spreading the word,most absolutely that we do not CONFUSE voters, rather we EDUCATE them on the full ramifications of your intentions.

You will see. The vote will tell. It is indeed not only our, but everyone's, right.

Rents are a touchy subject, when it comes to a home, personal feelings often fog rational decisions. What renters tend to forget is, no one is forcing you to use their business / services. When the price of one good increases, the rational consumer simply buys a substitute. If there were an increase in the price of Coca Cola, there would be an increase in demand for Pepsi.

What about the rights of the business owners? Should we infringe on their rights and control their prices because of supply and demand? Does anyone cry foul because Google / Alphabet Stock is over 1000% since they went public 12 or so years ago? And yet here we are.

If you don't like the business or services you are receiving, then move. Simple.

Wow.. 38 "likes" in 35 minutes since you posted. How amazing that there are so many people watching the comments here at this time of evening.

Or...you are the same poster who continues to fight for the 'rights' of the rent-gouging landlords by bumping up the like count through programmatically....

Besides the fraudulent 'likes', your argument would only hold water if the market was truly free. It's not. The supply is being restricted artificially through zoning laws that go well beyond any safety rationale. With the supply being severely throttled for the benefits of the landlords (keeps rent/profit high), shouldn't there be a similar, balancing "unfairness" to regulate price growth? Or should the unfairness be one-sided...only the landlords should benefit?

First post.

You sound entitled. You're entitled to move too.

If we residents vote for the rent control ordinance, then it is YOU who must move. That will prove that you and your fellow Trump supporters are not welcome.

Bye!