Put a SOLD sign on this city council.

Dogmatic lawyers and desperate tenants (and as you can see, even some Voice commenters) insist on portraying any opposition to artificially limited rents as coming from "landlords." That unexamined assumption pervades the propaganda piece above. Either they're blind to, or they do know but won't dare acknowledge, the opposition from many of us non-landlords (and, yes, even renters), who know a little more about rent control and its side effects than its advocates ever admit. Maintaining the fiction that opposition can only come from ("greedy") landlords is necessary to their dogma.

"All but two council members repeatedly refused to consider. . . rent stabilization. . ." Is it just possible that most council members know a little more about this subject than the editorial above, and know (for reasons you'll never hear from Mountain View Tenants Coalition) that rent "stabilization" is objectionable not just to "landlords" but because it is logically WRONG?

The reality that these Orwellian narrators from MVTC can't admit is that no law ever "stabilizes" a rental property's market value. Laws try to enforce an artificial price for something that remains WORTH more on the market because many people want it. Therefore, the problem that got us here (high demand for scarce supply) isn't solved at all, it's avoided, exacerbated, and shows up in other ways -- as for example Daniel Debolt would learn to his enlightenment if he ever had to (as I've had to!) move and find another place in a rent-controlled market.

If people talking that talk are serious about rent "stabilization," let them commit to true objective fairness: require renters to continue paying the same (stable!) rent, even when the market value drops below what they were paying. As happened when the dot-com boom ended, and as will continue to happen periodically.

[Portion removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]
Tell us how rent control works in Los Gatos.

Rent Stabilization Can Backfire:

The majority of the MVCity Council have the insight not to favor rent stabilization measures because of the unintended consequences for the housing market in MV. Such measures reduce the inventory of older, lower priced apartments. The middle class is effectively pushed right out of the housing business. They do not have the savings for upkeep and major repair of older buildings. There is high overhead, like the roof overhead, e.g., re-plumbing or rewiring a whole building, replacing damaged flooring, etc., has to be dealt with in the moment without red tape delays or obstacles to hiring contractors who offer the best price for the job and can begin immediately. To mandate exact numbers in the rental income pushes the envelope of what small owners can bear. And these small owners, the "moms & pops" of the rent market, are historically charging way below market. They actually are acquainted with their tenants and don't have the heart to even charge market price, much less to be unfair to them. (1bdrm in my old building go for $1125/mo. with a 2 yr. lease!) They like long term tenants for their predictability. Any form of rent control targets these little guys, but none of the big guys, like "Madera" charging $8000.00/mo. for a 2 bdrm apt. 'cuz it's new. Anything built since 1994 can charge what they want and increase by any amount they want. As the little guys are priced out of the market, new is all we will have here in a fully gentrified MV.

Councilman John McAlister spoke in council from his own real experience on the overhead involved in running a small business. It is not just one's mortgage, but so much more. A tricky, fluctuating rent cap based on the Consumers Price Index can especially scare the low priced landlords right out ot the market. The cap (possibly trending downward as costs climb, and definitely restricting as major expenditures arise), plus little or no capitol on hand, plus higher amounts of upkeep required on older buildings, is the perfect trifecta for making small landlords withdraw from the market. All their worries are resolved if they can just take the big money and sell out to Prometeus, et al, who immediately scrape, rebuild, and gouge on the new rents for the new stack and pack building. That is the worst kind of displacement.

We've seen this in other cities. As rent control in San Jose became tougher, older buildings are increasingly thinning out. Recent example: "The Reserve," a large, pleasant apartment complex with many green spaces and home to hundreds of families: Gone. Everyone displaced.

As this selling out and scraping really takes off, a charter amendment cannot be modified whatsoever to remedy the situation until a subsequent, costly election. Much can be lost by then. This is why our City Council prefers a modifiable city ordinance, not because they are devious and adversarial as the MVTC is implying. They see the need to save the older apartment buildings to offer a range in rental prices!