Just read that at the council meeting where the Burlingame City Council formally placed a similar measure on the ballot, the Burlingame council also decided to write the ballot statement argument AGAINST passage of the measure.

Will our council do the same (or at least have the discussion)? It would take some courage. Heck, they could do it against both measures!

The 2nd proposal not tying rent increases to the CPI is a smoke and mirrors way for the city council to prevent the CPI ballot measure from a public vote.

The city drafted proposal demands "arbitration" for solving rent disputes. BUT according to research in 98% of arbitration decisions the business party wins. What's wrong with that picture?

Too many council members are terrified the CPI measure would pass and their landlord supporters would stop being supporters. So the council will approve the sly city designed measure and dismiss the CPI measure.

Mark my words. This process is BS.

Not everybody must live in Mountain View. I understand moving is not an easy task, but it is not an impossible task. Mountain View is not a university town where students do not have alternatives and must live there. People should consider alternatives instead of forcing landlords hands to stop maintenance and upkeep. Hopefully, city council understands this.

It seems that the Tenants Coalition proposal is a draconian measure, mostly because it is very difficult to modify, as it will require another referendum. I think the Tenants Coalition is unreasonable in its demands. No, I do not have a house to rent in Mountain View.

I think people are forgetting that the proposed rent control proposal is not so draconian:

1) Ir only affects rentals built after 1994. It also doesn't touch anything less than a 4-plex. So all the tens of thousands of units being planned will NOT be subject to rent control, so the rents can have unlimited increases at the landlord's discretion.

2) There is "wiggle room" to allow increases higher than CPI. A board is appointed to make those decisions.

3) Here is the BIG ONE: THE RENT CONTROL BOARD IS APPOINTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL! So, if the council is worried that the board will never allow increases above CPI, then they can appoint a landlord-friendly board. In fact, they can appoint people that are anti-rent control themselves!

So, it looks like this ordinance will not decimate our local economy. Most units will not be covered, so the affluent will not have to compete with their less fortunate neighbors for a place to live. And the city council is free to appoint a board that allows large rent increases anyway. The result is that we will have a DIVERSITY of housing and our city's diversity is why I choose to live here.

Those older than 1994 units are the ones that need more maintenance and upkeep and shouldn't be hindered by rent control any more than any property should.

Do not be fooled. This is just opening a crack to a larger push for overall rent control.

Vote NO

The City Council's "alternative" measure will almost certainly contain one or two giant loopholes that render it useless: (1) like the non-binding rent increase arbitration ordinance already adopted, it will permit preemptive evictions (instead of rent increases) or (2) it may be amended or repealed by the landlord-endorsed City Council majority anytime after any adoption in the November election. But we shall see.

I have posted this reference material in a previous thread, but I am re-posting because I believe it's topical and informative, and we would all be well served to try and find solid - unbiased - information regarding rent control...and it IS out there. I believe it is up to us as residents of the community to educate ourselves about the issue because, honestly, we're not getting enough of the complete story HERE to be able to make a properly informed decision about this issue.


**For anyone interested in doing some research on the subject of rent control, The Urban Institute published an interesting article about the subject in 2013 is worth reading. (The Urban Institute is generally pretty neutral - perhaps a more liberal leaning - policy think tank. The article also contains links to reference/source articles which are also interesting. Web Link

In summary the Urban Institute article says,

"The conclusion seems to be that rent stabilization doesn’t do a good job of protecting its intended beneficiaries—poor or vulnerable renters—because the targeting of the benefits is very haphazard. A study of rent stabilization in Cambridge, for example, concluded that “the poor, the elderly, and families—the three major groups targeted for benefits of rent control—were no more likely to be found in controlled than uncontrolled units.” And, as noted earlier, those in uncontrolled units tend to pay higher rents, so they are actually hurt by rent control.

Given the current research, there seems to be little one can say in favor of rent control. What, then, should be done to help renters obtain affordable, decent housing? A better approach may be adopting policies that encourage the production of more diverse types of housing (different densities, tenure types, unit sizes, etc.), implementing strong regulations and practices to ensure housing quality and to protect tenants from abuses; and providing targeted, direct subsidies to people who need help paying their rents."

Pretty silly post about some generalization regarding rent control in some form somewhere else. Tell us about the rent control laws in San Jose and Los Gatos. How has they worked to save tenants from being priced out the each city?

How HAVE those laws worked (or not) to save tenants from being priced out of each city (San Jose and Los Gatos)?

Parcel taxes, water, sewer, garbage rates increase every year. Hidden fees and taxes creep on every bill residents pay. Everyone is paying more for everything, from child care to health care.
How can the city discriminate against one class of landlord? If they choose to, they should apply their same logic to Castro Street landlords. A hamburger and a beer costs $20. Where is the outrage?

The majority of MV Council members are being prudent to oppose rent control measures because rent control measure BACKFIRE. A locked-in charter amendment can remove a lot of older, more afforded housing before even the MVTC can effect changes in it to save older housing from giving way to new high rent stuff.

It's just what the big developers want: Grab up all the land when cheap housing hasn't a way to survive a declining CPI cap on their rent levels while their repair costs climb, resulting in consolidated big housing projects that go for really high rents. Rent control insures a highly gentrified MV with no range in rental prices any more.

Look at "The Reserve." Rent control in SJ was the tipping point for the owners to solve all their problems with the older, but still nice complex that housed hundreds of families. They sold out and now it's to be scraped. All these families are now homeless.

I am not as informed about how rent control works, so how do I know if it's going to be a good thing or bad? I work in the clerical field meaning while I'm not making minimum wage, to date - as a single person - I am unable to afford a place to rent here in mountain view (I live W/my mother and help her w/the rent of her mobile home), not even the efficiency apartments. One of my mother's friends who owns a home, says that tech companies are buying up homes in her neighborhood (probably to renovate and rent to their employees as affordable housing for them) though she turned them down. I can only see it from my own limited perspective as I also do not have a business degree, but it seems two fold - affordable housing for those of us not in the Tech industry - meaning those who are in 'service jobs' such as clerical, food service, etc - and keeping living cost even enough to encourage people in the tech industry to rent from the area affordably without said company buying up housing around the area just so their employees can stay in the area and leaving less opportunity for those who live in the city to find a place to rent or (if one can afford to) buy their home. It's a two edged sword. Affordable housing (without having to sacrifice normal living expenses to pay rent) for those of us who make less than 60,000 (or perhaps above that? Not sure) and giving companies' employees an alternative to living in company 'housing' which will leave less housing for others who live in the city to look for.

Again, my apologies if the view is uninformed, because I am not really up on housing issues from a law point of view or otherwise, but merely one of the faceless masses who barely get by living here in mountain view.

I forgot to add perhaps giving incentives to people who are landlords (have places to let out for rent) to make it affordable would be a better idea. You know, the 'reward good behavior' idea?

Just my thought. ^.^

How about a roomy, well kept one bedroom with a quiet, verdant backyard for $1125/mo. and locked in on a two year lease? That's the deal on Park Drive, Victor Way, and Carmelitia by Nob Hill Supermarket, and Ednamary by Office Max, all one block off ECR, and older so they'll be sold off and scraped soon for max profits of the big developers who set rents at the sky! I'll be homeless.

You might as well call the science of economics why there should be no rent (price) controls. Rent control is the number one topic in economics, the prime example. Rent control has been a disaster in California. The internet: The catastrophe in Capitola and the great Santa Cruz land swindle along with many, many articles on the internet and the first chapter of basic economics text books. Fortunately, Silicon Valley has the best educated electorate perhaps in history with a major in economics. How will the politician behave? George Drysdale, a social studies teacher

@George. Tell us how rent control has worked for decades in San Jose and Los Gatos.

In San Jose what you see with mobile home parks is damage to the community amounting to millions of dollars a year. Mobile home parks are a temporary form of housing used after World War II to alleviate a housing shortage. Now mobile homes in San Jose are selling for many times their actual value. They do not belong in earthquake prone California at all. The story goes on and on. It is not the poor who get rent controlled units (only 8% are poor) but those who can hang on best. The mayor of New York for instance. Those receiving rent control become economic parasites as other must make up the difference for their price fixed rents. Now you see why rent control is the star attraction in economic classes around the world. George Drysdale a social studies teacher

@Gary,

Feel free read the linked article posted up thread from the Urban Institute - in it's entirety - as well as the linked reference material within the article. The article was pretty clear in it's findings.

Below is one of reference articles found linked within the Urban Institute article. This is an often cited scholarly research paper.

It's this type of research that we should be reading and educating ourselves about. This is not theoretical, it is the real world empirical data and conclusions -- gathered and reported by as neutral (as I could find) scholarly folks.

Link to research paper, Web Link

Rent Control: Do Economists Agree?

Snipped from page 33 of 40 - Summary Assessment of the Findings -

"My review of the rent-control literature indexed by EconLit (or cited by such indexed articles) finds that economic research quite consistently and predominantly frowns on rent control. My findings cover both theoretical and empirical research on many dimensions of the issue, including housing availability, maintenance and housing quality, rental rates, political and administrative costs, and redistribution. As Navarro (1985) notes, “the economics profession has reached a rare consensus: Rent control creates many more problems than it solves” (90). I see the literature as supporting the point of view that there are few long-run winners from the policy, that it is an example of the **transitional gains trap.

If rent-control is such a “no-brainer,” why bother to scrutinize the literature? The cluster of restrictions persists in roughly 140 jurisdictions in the united States as of 2001. As hazlett (1982) notes, “economists have been notoriously thorough in convincing themselves of the destructive effects of rent control and notoriously inept at convincing anyone else” (278). Better understanding of the issue might help correct the error, prevent other governments from falling into it, and promote an understanding among more than just economists. Also, better understanding is an end in itself."



**TRANSITIONAL GAINS TRAP = As summarized by well known economist and law professor Gordon Tullock, and published in The Bell Journal of Economics, Web Link

"Many government programs which appear to be designed to help some particular industry or group do not seem to be succeeding. The explanation offered here is that the program, when inaugurated, generated transitional gains for the individuals or companies in the industry, but that these have been fully capitalized, with the result that the people in the industry now are doing no better than normal. On the other hand, the termination of the particular scheme would, in general, lead to large losses for the entrenched interests."

@Carol, quite simply, if you can't afford to live here then you need to look somewhere else. I know that sounds harsh and it truly is sad and "not fair". But nothing is guaranteed in life.

As many have stated, the service workers are being priced out. So either the market will correct itself and businesses will pay higher wages so their workers can live locally, or business will pay somewhat the same, try to make their profits, workers will come from other areas and life will go on.

Frankly I'm betting on the latter. As long as there are higher wage earners who can afford higher rates the costs will go up. And either you can afford to stay in the game or you can't. It's life. Some make it, some don't. It's not always fair.

Rent control has nothing to do with economics. It's all politics. Nonetheless 44 states have outlawed rent control. When I lifted rent controls in Capitola I used the carrot and stick approach. Politicians how can you be so stupid as to flunk out of high school economics and also I have an initiative (Santa Cruz Property Rights Initiative) ready to go (on the internet use all three search engines). Now I'm "educating" San Jose's city council. If big Silicon Valley San Jose throws rent controls on mobile home parks out that should take down rent control in California as the dominoes fall. What is need is a social studies teacher to get the point across. George Drysdale spreads the enlightenment.

@Relax...

All your 3 point were incorrect:

1) Rent control affects apartments built BEFORE 1994, not after as you stated. And it affects anything bigger than a duplex, not bigger than a triplex, as you said.

2) You're making a big assumption: There's no guarantee of any wiggle room on the CPI cap. And here's a thought: When the market levels (as it did locally this Spring) or drops, which housing provider would ever dare drop their rents when getting to raise them back up again is so restricted?

3) The city council does NOT select the rent control board. Majority control of it by the tenants' group is built in.

@Gary-

How does rent control affect San Jose? Here's how:

San Jose City Council recently slightly tightened their rent control laws, not as tight as the CPI cap proposed for MV, but no surprise: Landlords are selling out in San Jose. I'll give you just one example of the aftermath of SJ's action: "The Reserve," an older, nice complex of many apt. buildings, spread out at different angles so they don't invade each other's privacy, with nice lawns & trees between the various buildings, and home to hundreds of families: The owners no longer need to struggle to maintain and repair the place on too tight funds when they can just sell it and take the money and run. So they did. And all those people are HOMELESS because when the owners of older buildings give up, the huge developers buy them out, scrape & rebuild expensive new stack & pack with rents & rent hikes as high as they desire! Rent controls BACKFIRE and, in short order, housing gets entirely gentrified.

It would be far better for Mountain View to have reconstruction at high rents than old huts at high rents. But whether an existing or new owner may tear down and rebuild is partly up to the city government. And while most of the current city council might favor new highrise apartments everywhere, the group of four elected this November may not. You certainly have a point that rent control would not be enough. New city councilmembers are needed.

@Not Fair We're hanging in there *shrugs* It helps, mom's mobile home is paid off, so paying the lot rent isn't as bad, so for now, we're ok. Should time come to consider otherwise, I'd already had thoughts to that.

I do want to say thank you to everyone who is posting, I actually enjoy seeing others' thoughts and opinions. It's rather enlightening. I really appreciate it. ^.^ You guys are awesome!

An I.Q. test? Here's what's being said in high school and economics 101 classes. The government should not set prices. This is what happened in the Soviet Union and it crashed as we know. San Jose's city council is going to have to change it's mind about setting prices on rents or flunk out of high school (west side). Cities especially with the water issue are going to have to be built with greater density as has always happened. It's not the structures in real estate economics it's the land prices. Silicon Valley's rents are being bid up by an invasion of well educated brainy people who also make good money. All mobile home parks in Silicon Valley will be replaced by high density apartment houses so that this brainy group of people can be house more "affordably". Property taxes will be increased by an incredible 50 times on such developments. Silicon Valley governments have a gun at their heads. George Drysdale a social studies teacher

@ Gary point taken, many mobile home parks have had their land sold (i.e. the one in Palo Alto) and I do get what you are saying (hence my suggestion there should be incentives for landowner/landlords to have more affordable housing) but in my honest opinion, I also think as long as mobile homes do exist and people are able to afford buying them (as they are definitely less than regular homes in the area) it gives some the ability to have a 'home' in the area. It's a little piece of the 'American Dream' made a little more affordable. Given one still pays the lot rent, but it's a little more affordable over time (i.e. once the mobile home is paid off) than say, a single bedroom apartment.

Though in the long run, that 'dream' is an illusion because the land can be sold off when one least expects it. I'm a realist; I love the area I live in, I have a stable job that I love and allows me to help my mother pay the rent on her mobile home, however as much as I am comfortable in the area, it is possible that eventually, I will wind up moving elsewhere. For now, I enjoy and am grateful for what I do currently have while keeping a eye out to possible future needs.

@George. Appreciate your input. In high school economics (101) students learn about prices stemming from supply and demand? Is that what you teach? How about the government decisions that give rise to supply and demand? If and when you get into the rental housing business, George, you might learn (and add to your course work) that there are lots of laws that affect the profitability of the investment and how you may treat persons seeking or renting a housing unit. You might take into account, if you operate rental housing, that you are dealing with real persons and the only places they call home. You are not fully "free" in that business, or in civilized society more generally, to do whatever you like with your real or personal property. But the tradeoff is that without civilized society, sometimes called "civil society," you could have no "property" of any kind.

Oops sorry, in previous comment I meant @ George. My apologies.

@ Gary my apologies, I'm still a bit tired this morning, I meant to say @George in the post right before yours.

It is sad to hear these comments, particularly from Relax, Not Fair, and Gary hoping for loopholes in the rent control laws that may pass. Either these people have no conscious or have no real stake in the rent control push. There are still plenty of people who were born and raised in Mountain View (what used to be a beautiful town) who can no longer afford to live here due to the City Council’s blatant disregard for Mountain View’s residents’ concerns, wants and needs. Mountain View companies are hiring H-1 visa employees with the tale of these employees being “smarter” than locals. Really? What an absurd statement, when we have students who graduated from Stanford University, Santa Clara University, UC Berkeley, etc. living in Mountain View.

And, where are the people who are willing to do the low paying jobs in Mountain View supposed to come from? Since Not Fair believes everyone who can’t afford to live in M.V. need to move out to an area they can afford, who are going to do the jobs they perform…such as teachers, housekeeping, restaurant workers, county workers, assistants, sales associates, etc. ? This is backwards; the people who make money at the new, shiny companies need to purchase their home out of town or rent out of town, not the underpaid workers in Mountain View.

Rent Control offered up by the Mountain View City Council is yet another wrong ‘reading’ by the Council of what the MV residents want. Why is it ok for new landlords who have benefited from the unnecessary destruction of older buildings made into ridiculously expensive housing to not be affected by this rent control push? How can the people who do the jobs mentioned in the above paragraph afford those ridiculous rents? These new landlords are making their ‘millions’ from charging overpriced rents. Why is the City Council punishing older building landlords, who charge reasonable rents, with the push for rent control? We do not need rent control. We need a City Council who will listen and act in accordance with the residents of Mountain View.

STOP the Mountain View City Council from passing any rent control laws, measures, and ordinances. STOP the Mountain View City Council from continuing to Manhattanize Mountain View. STOP the Mountain View City Council from only serving their own agendas and the ‘out-of-towners’ (developers, investors, etc.)

So the CAT IS NOW OUT OF THE BAG. The "alternative" measure the City Council (majority of 4) is proposing next Tuesday night is a binding arbitration ordinance that cannot legally be adopted by a vote of the people. By law, only an ordinance proposed through the initiative process may be adopted by voters. Otherwise, voters may consider either adopting a proposed city charter provision or a strictly advisory measure.

The big landlords know that the City Council's proposal is a sham designed to draw votes from the rent control (charter amendment) initiative headed for the November ballot. Now you know too.

Gary. There are other places people can live. It so happens that Silicon Valley is the Manhattan of the west where rents are extremely high. Should everybody be allowed to live in Atherton? Government can no where afford to be able to afford to offset gentrification. Cynically politicians say they can help and even enact price (rent) controls with devastating effects. George Drysdale

Note that this fake character, "George Drysdale", has been posting the same garbage across other websites.

He claims that all economists agree that rent control is a bad idea. ALL economists. Yet, that is simply not true. Thousands do not hold that opinion. Since he is incorrect on that basic fact, it is safe to assume the rest of his writing is garbage.

But even if what he writes is true, that's ok economists would believe that rent control devestates communities, that is simply not the case in MV. By state law, rent control would only apply to older rentals. That is a small percent of what we have now. And, a big AND, it won't apply to any new housing!!!

So, how can rent control devastate MV? It can't. It won't cause MV to fall like the "Soviet Union". What it WILL do is to provide some stability to renters in some of the lower priced units.

But, but, but what about the contention that rent controlled units would not be slick, fancy and have all the amenities? Well, guess who PAYS for those amenities? THE RENTERS!!!! Not every renter wants those amenities (how many actually USE the pool?). So by preventing the landlords from raising the rent by double-digits, we will have apartments with more modest amenities, but with happy long term MV residents.

The 50-era right wing voter will continue to argue for Reagans supply-side economics, Bush's wars and brilliant tax cut on the wealthy. They will continue to argue that the '07 economic collapse and the 9/11 attack was unrelated to the Republicsn party controlling the presidency during those events. Now they are coming out of the woodworks to complain about rent control. Wake up! The barbarians are at the gates!

Rent control is the right thing to do.

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]

@Gary-
"It would be far better for Mountain View to have reconstruction at high rents than old huts at high rents."

Terribly wrong. Certainly not a "hut!" My apartment building is much better than the new stack & pack: Rooms are spacious, it is single story with no or only one shared wall between units, walk-in closets, granite or marble counter tops, vaulted beam ceilings, located on a cul-de-sac so it's very very quiet, and convenient just 1 block off Castro Street, and each unit has off-street parking plus a garage, and all utilities are included in the rent, and is so beautiful we have had tenants hold their wedding ceremonies in the building's flower gardens by the koi pond, etc., and all this for $1000/mo. for 1 bedroom and $1300 for 2 bedrooms. Sure beats the $8000/mo, for a stacked up 2 bedroom by the tracks!

But whether an existing or new owner may tear down and rebuild is partly up to the city government.

Totally untrue. Council Council has standing approval of 6 story new construction, with no further approval by them, at all larger intersections along ERC. And why would they weigh in on smaller projects? I think you're imagining things, especially that the very displacement we hope to remedy won't happen as rent controls strangle the older buildings from affording the maintenance that keeps them desirable thereby enticing their owners to bail. Then the new horribly expensive stuff will replace them and all of MV will be gentrified. Where will all MV's teachers, firemen, hospital staff, service workers, et al, go then?

Thanks Linda. But the next City Council need not maintain the new zoning along El Camino and most of the affected apartments are not along El Camino. Threatening to tear down older apartments will not likely beat the initiative. Nor will a competing ballot measure that it is even within the authority of the City Council. There is no such thing in the law as voter-enacted ordinances except as proposed by initiative petition. The City Council's fake competing measure would likely be removed from the ballot by the Superior Court. You might suggest that the fab-4 Councilmembers behind the competing measure make it a charter amendment - which the Council is authorized to place on the ballot.

Why don't we learn from cities nearby??
Web Link

What percentage of renters are really affected by these ballot measures?
How many landlords of pre 1979 buildings will sell out to Prometheus or Greystar immediately to watch their small multiplex replaced with high density apartments at high rents?

Too many questions and no obvious solution to our rental shortage of affordable units.

For the past decade MV City Council did not initiate the construction of enough housing for low income families. We are now faced with the results of that trend. We are a developers dream city: no strings attached, build as much as possible, charge rents as high as possible.

Are these ballot measures really helping?

Gary-

Any zoning change from MVCCouncil will be in the direction of higher density, not less.

Affordable older apartments aren't just on the streets parallel and near to el Camino, like Lathan, Park, Victor, Carmelita, Ednamary, etc., etc. They are many places, such as on and nearby Calderon, Mountain View Avenue, Lane Avenue, Phyllis Avenue, Middlefield Road, Old Middlefield Road, all along California Street, and the huge complex near the corner of South Castro and Miramonte (with a pool and gardens and about 100 families!). That's to name a few.

Just Wondering-

To answer your queries, all of the older housing, like the small fraction of it listed above, makes the percentage of MV residents affected by the ballot measures a mighty significant number! The older construction is where service workers, etc., are living in MV, plus the mobile home parks, all of which must not be regulated into non-existence! These folks are the most vulnerable. The ballot measures won't really help, but they will really hurt. And, yes, that which is sold off is totally scraped and something new & tall goes there in place of it. I've been observing this ongoing pattern all around me in MV.

Beware: Vote NO on both rent control measures going on the November ballot. Please! I don't want to be homeless or many others like me. Not all of us can move away from MV. I need to be very near my medical team at PAMF in MV or risk my life. Many of us have more than jobs and/or families here. We have our lives here.

Linda, we don't believe a word you write. Families are being kicked out right and left by landlords of the older properties to make way for residents who can afford 3k/mo or higher rents. You have offered zero proof or documentation showing that your residents are paying 1k a month for a "spacious" apartment.

Families are being kicked out right and left by landlords of the older properties to make way for residents who can afford 3k/mo or higher rents. This is verifiable fact. We need rules in place that would prevent the rents from being jacked up sky-high at the whim of the landlords.

To all the fake economic scientists out there: Have you noticed that the existing controls on housing supply is the number one cause of unaffordable rents? No? Well, please do study the issue more closely. Those caps are far more economically devastating on the lower income people than the so-called city-wide devastation rent control is supposed to cause.

Until the cities in the Bay Area eliminate their SUPPLY CONTROLS on housing, it makes perfect sense to enact PRICE CONTROLS.

Hey Linda, I do not know who will be elected to the four Council seats on the November ballot and whether they will want more or less office space and high density housing. In fact, I have not heard that anyone has even filed a nomunating petition to run yet. The filing deadline is August 12 unless extended by 5 days because an eligible incumbent fails to file for a second term (McAlister or Clark). Those two might have second thoughts about seeking a second term after what happens Tuesday night (August 9).

@ Disbelief
I am glad I do not own property in MV. Why would landlords have to pay the price for the economic upswing in our city? Our City has not kept up with housing for low income residence.
Am I going to the city council in Atherton and ask them to put a price cap on their property prices? I would love to have an acre there with a pool house....
Gentrification is a universal problem, MV should look at other cities and their solutions before hastily putting measures on the ballot.

@Disbelief-

I'll prove to you that my building is cheap and nice with a tour of it if you will step out from behind your pen name Introduce yourself to me at the city council meeting tomorrow night. I stand behind what I say. You can ask the tenants where I live about how much they each pay and see for yourself their beautiful units.

We like the idea that Kasperzak presented in council a while ago suggesting a "good and bad landlord list" so people can see in advance whom to avoid renting from. People will be better able to choose wisely to avoid some of the horror stories we've all heard lately. My apartment complex is definitely one among many with good ratings that have their owners presently talking about quitting the business if all they get for it is a government strong arm. More apartment complexes have gone up for sale on my street in the last few months than over the last few decades. My neighboring friends are soon to be gone, with where they lived sold out from under them.

I've been looking at other cities and seen rent control legislation bring about the exact opposite outcome than intended. That is why it is illegal in 44 states! Get a clue everyone!

For those of you who think rent control is going to give you your free lunch - you are so WRONG. Try living under rent control a while and see what a nightmare it is. Your neighbor might want to move, but instead can make money by subletting his apartment to someone else for a hiked up rent - and HE keeps the profit. You never know who your next neighbor will be from week to week. People cannot get a low rent apartment because anyone who wants to move, just rather sublets it! Oh - an please don't claim some part of the legislation prohibits this. Good luck enforcing that - the REALITY is that it's nearly impossible to enforce. Building owners have costs (garbage, landscaping, water, taxes, etc.) increase all the time, and if it is not reimbursed through increased rents, they will stop upgrading and maintaining apartments. You end up with blighted areas just like parts of Berkeley, East Palo Alto and San Francisco.
This is not theoretical for me. I LIVED under this nightmare. You cannot force property owners to rent to you at the price YOU demand. It makes about as much sense as demanding Safeway give you food at the price you prefer or Macy's lower their prices so you can buy expensive items more cheaply. I want a new MAC computer - maybe I should demand APPLE lower the price so I can afford it? Maybe throwing a tantrum will get me what I want?
What you want is illogical and would be laughable if it wasn't so ridiculous. The most unbiased information you can find on rent control shows it is always eventually a complete failure. Grow up everyone, and pay for what you want. If you cannot afford something, and you're working hard and doing your best, you might have to settle for less. That's how REAL life works.

I read the Daily Post every so often (we get them at PAMF) and a few months back there was this article about the council voting on providing a safe parking lot for those living out of their car. What struck me is one of those homeless who attended the meeting commented that they already had a job but could not afford to rent anything; That what the council should focus on is affordable housing.

I've been watching the commented opinions offered here (sometimes forcefully and passionately and other times with seeming little invested emotion) trying to get a bead on exactly just how rent control works - I would like to be a little more informed if I'm going to add a vote to anything - because, I wasn't the best student at political science or economics when I was in college. I am trying my hardest to understand. So, exactly does rent control work or is supposed to work?

From the little I've gathered (and forgive the simplistic analogy, I'm a bit of a simple person who is trying to improve her understanding a little) it's kind of like the 'cap' on salaries for sports players, only instead of 'capping' salaries, it's putting a limit to how much rent can be reasonably charged. Yet, by the same token, landowners/lords have upkeep cost to maintain the rented property, so the rent has to be priced accordingly. So how do they balance this? I mean if it's too high for those who do work in service jobs, how do they entice people to rent if it's beyond their financial means? The purpose for gentrifying an area is to attract people to live here, but not everyone is going to in the tech or IT industry and those businesses that need workers to serve the jobs to cater to those same tech and IT employees, such as restaurants and bookstores can't buy property like these companies to rent to their employees. I mean a good example is businesses that have also been chased out of the area like Book Buyers. Where is the balance?

[Portion removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]


The ballot initiative is not what economists consider strong rent control. It merely slows down the rapid escalations in rent. Landlords will be able to not only maintain, but IMPROVE their properties...AND get the right to increase rent to do so.

[Portion removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]

@Jordan-

You have very incorrect assumptions.

Proposed rent control measures may not be "considered strong" rent control, but can still do a lot of damage to the housing market in prompting sales of existing housing. And as rents will be allowed to increase only by a percentage of what they currently are, the very lowest rents are kept the lowest, whereas those over charging are rewarded each year with being allowed to make much greater increases! There has to be a better formula.

Any landlord who kept their rents modest will forever be punished for never being greedy in the first place. These are usually the little guys who have been renters themselves and therefore are more compassionate. The proposed measures forever penalize them, the best of the "good landlords." They are locked in at the the bottom, after years of never charging enough to save up for a major repair. They end up priced out of business, or in anticipation of that, they sell out before the property falls apart from deferred maintenance.

Opposition to rent controls is not part of any political party! For example, everyone living in and running my affordable, beautiful building is a staunch democrat. None of us see any good coming from laws on rent levels. What we do see is an end to our building if such laws are passed.

Anything but a "No" vote on rent control will be coming back to bite you.

@MVWoman

Well said!!!

Linda Curtis continues to tell us what a wonderful landlord she is and how MV ought to run its city. She posts that she is a resident of Cuesta Park, but as we all know, she actually lives in Los Altos!

I am so sick and tired of these wealthy out-of-town landlords telling us, the people who actually LIVE here, what to do. This is our city, not yours.

This reminds me how Los Alto residents stormed into our City Council chambers DEMANDING that we expand our play fields for organized sports like Little League. You see, these NIMBY's refuse to use their own park space for more fields, so expect us to.

Enough is enough. We need rent stabilization in order to keep these outsiders from robbing our neighbors blind.

@True resident-

You have cut and pasted that identical post at least 3 times already, despite my invitation to you to visit my building, inquire of the tenants how little they pay, and have it proven that it's all true. You rather just keep saying it. Is that your kind of lazy fun?

Doesn't matter: Hundreds of people know it is true. I've lived in MV 48 years, have been working hard as a housing provider in MV for 40 years, have always lived only in an apartment myself, and have always worked a full time job in addition to being a landlord so that I would actually make something to live on instead of just breaking even on my rental property.

[Post removed; don't make claims that are not supported by fact]

@True Resident, you don't think it is possible for 2 people to share the same name? SMDH Just stop.

Web Link

@ True Resident; sigh

Truly, stop. You're just making yourself look bad.

I don't know where Linda Curtis lives and I don't care. More importantly is that even if everything she says is true (that she provides extremely low rent in the area), she doesn't represent most landlords in this area. If everybody did what she claims to do, then we wouldn't need rent control.

Unfortunately, I have to agree with the above resident who pointed out that if she doesn't intend to raise her rents sky-high, then why is she complaining about rent control? Something is awfully fishy there...

Fascinating that all of you are posting opinions as if they were fact, and none of you seem to have any idea of the economic and situational complexity involved. It is true that some businesses can no longer hire workers (even well paid ones such as car mechanics) because the workers won't drive the long distances from affordable housing. It is also true that landlords need to maintain and upgrade their properties. It is not true that landlords need the huge percentage increases we have seen over the last ten or twenty years to do so. It is true that free enterprise is messy. It is also true that we do not have free enterprise untrammeled by non-economic forces (government). So why don't you all try to figure out how to live together comfortably and stop the BS. (or better yet, why not stop having babies.)

Even if you think it will cause some kind of harm or difficulty financially to landlords to be limited to rate of inflation rent increases, that does not rule out the need for rent control. The situation is inflicting even greater pain on renters. This just helps to spread the pain around. For years, landlords have had free reign, and the best argument some can come up with is that they haven't been charging market rates all along. Well, that's life. Some have been charging market rates and making out like bandits. By limited future increases, this keeps them from further profiteering over a difficult situation. They have no incentive to support more housing. It helps their rental rates and their property values if housing is not added.

One consequence cites is that some older buildings might be redeveloped into more units than before. Gasp! Would that be so terrible, regardless of the rental rates?

@Desperate Measures for Desperate Times-

If you think rent control is necessary, why don't you advocate for a rent control mechanism that
1) Includes apartments build since1995
2) Includes rent for trailor park spaces
3) Bases the allowable rent increase on how above or below fair market value an apartment is, instead of on a percentage formula that will forever reward the greedy landlords with higher increases and punish the good landlords with much lower annual rent increase, since the same percentage of lower # is always lower than a percentage of a higher # (plus will hurt those already being overcharged even more!)

That's why a charter amendment is very dangerous: It locks in one formula when there are formulas that are much more beneficial to tenants and the housing market investors.

Why was my post removed about the number of states that prohibit/preempt or outright have no rent control? Only FIVE STATES allow rent control in our entire 51.
I even gave the weblink to show this factual information:

Web Link

Rent control has been made illegal in a majority of states - ask yourself why? You cannot legislate away someone else's hard work just because YOU want a bargain. This is confiscation of private property and is a pretty dangerous and slippery slope.
It's obvious the articles in the MV Voice are biased in favor of rent control - but to remove calm and factual posts just because your stand is threatened by these facts - is pretty lame.

The self-proclaimed hero of the low rent tenant has apparently been trying to sell her building for FIVE MILLION DOLLARS! She denies this in another thread, yet her own words published by the Voice proves her words a lie:

"Curtis says she is having trouble going forward with her plan to sell the apartments to get a mortgage on a new place to live because her property's value has plummeted.
"I lost $2 million by just sitting here doing nothing," she mused. "

Wow. If she lied about this, what else did she lie about? It's very typical for corporate landlords to lie in order to maximize profits at the expense of the hard working residents of MV, but to represent ones self as someone who cares while secretly plotting to dump her property is mind boggling. What do you think the new owner will do? Triple the rent and/or evict. Probably evict, because the building is in desperate need of an upgrade.

Shame, shame and shame!

Wow,cit sure is easy for you people to spend someone else's money. The audacity and gall of your comments is astounding. You have ZERO skin in the game and yet you feel you have the right to determine what someone who has taken risks and chances should get back on their investment.

Appalling.

@More landlord quotes-
Don't assume you know what was said by a mere part of something quoted out of context. No lie at all. Noack & I were conversing about what would happen if I can no longer pay my debts, etc, under rent control restrictions. I did not say I had a plan to sell. I actually said I didn't see selling out as a option because where could I live when all monies from the sale wouldn't even cover all the debt I've incurred, etc. It wouldn't work for me to plan to sell and yet I'm told I "should" sell if I'm just getting in a deeper hole. But looking into that alternative for curiosity sake (to see if the nay sayers were right) has shown me how much less it is now worth than two years ago. They were right. It really gripes the heck out of me to know that pushy realitors were right about rent control and that "I lost $2M just sitting there doing nothing, nothing to harm or cheapen the building in any way, but entirely the opposite! I had been told to sell repeatedly when I saw rent control looming. I didn't think city council was in favor of it, so I never worried about it or, as some did: raise the rents to prepare for it as I was advised to" and as I know nearly all MV landlords did, to carry them into the future of not being able to raise when something costly pops up, and also so they could start higher and forever stay higher due to rent increases being based on a %. "It really feels like I'm in a trap for not having raised my rents to market rate long ago." Others who were charging more already went even higher in the face of rent control. "Looming rent control did cause the largest rent increases ever, but It never occurred to me that anyone or any group would get this on the ballot" because our city council saw it's pitfalls and didn't want to.

I knew when the tenant's coalition was collecting signatures for it that they would definitely get it on the ballot, so I might as well set that quote straight too.

I went on to tell him how ruthlessly I'd been harrassed by realitors from out of the area in the last two years. They were over-eager to grab top commission on selling my place when it's sale price was at it's highest = yet undiminished by rent control. So why would I sell now, when it has dropped, when I didn't want to then?

Even a dear tenant told me I oughta sell, seeing that I am very likely unable to keep going, but, again, where would I live? And I wouldn't dare risk exposing my great group of tenants to the winds of the market = eviction, demolition, stack&pack none of them could afford.

Thank you for clarifying that your intention was not to sell out and send your tenants into the streets. Good news! From your claim that you have "lost" two million dollars and your new assertion about not moving, rent control will not effect you. It only affects landlords that are flipping properties to large developed or just gouging tenants with sky high rents.

Now you can explain why this property that you purchased in 2009 is only assessed at $200,000 according to the Santa Clara Tax Assessor. It seems that a multi-million dollar property ought to be paying its fair share to schools and city infrastructure. Why can you not explain?

Hey "@Linda Curtis": You've got it wrong. Rent control will make it impossible for me to continue on. It locks those in, like me, that have rents too low to stay in business, from ever catching up. In 15 years I could come up from my current one third of market rents to almost half market. Trapped in a loser. Only selling is logical in the face of what rent controls brings for me, the dream landlord with a bigger heart than a business brain. Same goes for all those landlords like me. I hope not to have to give up and sell, but with all the new expenses time is bringing, such as increased repairs and maint., new fees added like the one to support this proposed new government body, penalties for my tenants' water useage, etc., and having to hire lots more employees around here to cover the labor I have always done but no longer can as I get older, it will lose even more money. As a retiree I can no longer cover the overhead here with the wages I brought in from emloyment elsewhere. This place has never paid me any wages or salary. Yet with the help I hire, I take pride in the fact that I always paid $15 or $20/hour because I have real experience with how hard the work around here is. As I increasingly become less able to continue to do hard labor, I will have to stop offering this as a rental. More employees means more jobs, that's always good, but it also means higher overhead on a place that has shown an overall loss each year for eight straight years. So check that out and see for yourself since you are posing to know so much about me. As to your supposed figures on what my buildibg is assessed at, since when do you even know where I live? Perhaps you think you do, so come on over for a visit and let's talk face to face without you hiding behind your borrowed poison pen names. I'll tell you plenty more valid reasons to VOTE NO on rent control. I advise everyone to save the really cheap housing with defeating both rent control measures.

Linda, your assessment numbers are a matter of public record. I tell you what. I'll buy your property at the current taxable assessment registered at the Santa Clars Tax Aessor's office. Hahahah!

It's obvious that your property was not re-assessed when your purchased the property. You have not yet denied that you are paying taxes on a couple hundred thousand vs the millions it should have been assessed at. You are the reason our schools are underfunded and why the housing supply is restricted.

So, same old troll under so many names: trust your sources on the incorrect figure you state, you're still wrong every time you say it. And whatever figure you think tells it all, it doesn't. You failed to factor in to it the 35+ years of hard work that I never got paid for here that was credited towards my purchase price, also the approximate value of the mountain of materials that I paid for over the years to immensely improve the building and the grounds. Add to all that the closing costs, and the hundreds of thousands that attorneys charged me to get my price significantly reduced for all that I had done here for so many years. Then add on the high rate of interest I'm still paying for purchasing this property on credit and for the attorney services I retained on credit. And also don't forget the down payment I made on this property over forty years ago, as well as some very worthy figure for taking such a huge risk to make a beautiful place for people to live affordably. So what you say means nothing, but what you really are doing is diverting people from the real issue here which bears more discussion: Rent control, and especially the many disastrous unintended consequences that go along with it.

My indebtedness, plus rent control coupled with service providers paying their employees a higher minimum rate of pay that they pass on to me, is a bad combination. Most rent control formulas endeavor to never do BOTH at the same time: hike the minimum wage and set rent controls into place. Definitely a formula for a synergistic effect that will surprise and harm us all.

Nothing for me to worry about? I've been so below market for so long, I don't see how much longer I can continue to run this place as a public service for the tenants. So criticize away. It's all just to detour the conversion to your one issue with me instead of letting the real thinkers carry on.

So please continue, MVWoman, Haluko, Just Wondering, George Drysdale, Not Relaxed, and all the others real thinkers AGAINST rent control for so many good reasons!

Vote NO on rent control. There are much better and broader ways to insure a range of housing prices without targeting and eventually eliminating the best deals currently going.

Linda. What I've observed is that you repeatedly use your own situation as example as to why rent control is bad. You do this publicly here and in front of the city council. Press interviews also make your situation public.

It seems that people have caught on to the contradictory statements you have made and are calling you on it. That's fair to question your testimony, isn't it?

I am not contradicting myself and to imagine such, and waste time on it, is merely a detour aay from the issue at hand: Rent control. That should be any intelligrnt human's concern, not me.

Those home owners leaving MV better sell your homes before rent control because it lowers your property value just as it lowers the property value of apts. so they can more easily be bought up and coverted to other uses. The city gets greater tax base each time this happens, but we have less homes for people, especially the lower priced homes that new comers wish will be replaced with anything as long as it is (temporarily) new and shiny. Uses other than housing are more attractive to developers in cities with rent control. Look into this and prove it to yourself. It's a well documented fact.

You are absolutely right. Rent control is TREMENDOUSLY damaging to property values for many reasons, among them the slums that develop when properties cannot be kept up because apartment owners cannot afford to do it. Now the trolls (who claim making apartment owners subsidize them with lower than market rent) will begin their nasty posts that apartment owners are greedy. My suggestion? People should work hard and live within their means (maybe not have so many children for starters?) and live where you can afford. I am just amazed at the people who think they have a right to live where THEY want, and that other people should subsidize them so they can!
I feel for the people like firefighters, teachers, etc that want to live locally, but Sunnyvale and San Jose, has much cheaper rents and perhaps that's a better option. After all, most all of us live in a city other than where we work. Everyone has an ideal, but real life is not always ideal.
Rent control will damage homeowners property values, will actually reduce the available housing, and is absolutely NOT guaranteed to give people what they want. Rent controlled units are often snapped up by people doing well financially - there is NO guarantee that the needy will even get a chance. Then these units are sublet for extremely high prices on the private market and the original renter keeps the profit.
I am amazed that people are actually being duped into thinking rent control helps ANYONE! Vote NO ON BOTH.

Every single statement made by @no is incorrect.

Look at all the rent controlled cities and note that in every single case, rent controlled properties have INCREASED in value since the specific rent control was set.

Not that MV will have rent control. It's weaker than any other rent control program I've ever seen...

@@No

You raised many absolutely valid points. Review of each issue you raised caused by rent control can be confirmed easily. There are certainly experts in the field who have studied these outcomes. Talk to any of the major reality firms, for example. They are experts in the market and study it. They know what increases and decreases real estate prices.

And you've got another good point about everyone's (ego trip of) having kids. What ever happened to ZERO POPULATION GROWTH? We must HIRE LOCALLY also. Both efforts will mitigate the crowding around here which is wrecking everything.

@Wrong- You sure are!

SO Vote NO on BOTH measures V & W !!!