Vote No on both...emphatically put an end to this topic (including the mind reading of council motivations).

PS - Council members Clark and McAlister will have to tiptoe around this topic on the election trail...as they're both now on record as supporting a form of rent control.

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

It's a slippery slope when one type of landlord is actively being discriminated against (by voters or city council). Commercial landlords should be taken to task too. From $2NNN to over $6NNN in a few short years. Maybe a coalition to combat $15.00 dollar drinks and $50.00 dollar meals would make sense to include on either proposal. The pain of higher prices is everywhere. Why pick on residential landlords? Cell phone bills have tripled. TV providers have not been kind, daycare is through the roof.

"Politics is the gentle art of getting votes from the poor and campaign funds from the rich, by promising to protect each from the other." Oscar Ameringer.

The outside group that wrote the rent control ordinance wrote in it, that the taxpayers will have to pay the legal bills to defend it in court, should it pass. If this rent control passes, then the new rent control board will have the power to make new laws and the city council can not change it, nor can voters vote these people out. Any laws that they pass will also have the burden of the taxpayers will have to pay the legal bills in court to defend it.

If you support rent control, vote for the city council's version.

Outsiders who want to move here, no matter how much they think they need to, and can pay, have no right to take an apartment away from someone who got here first. Once you move in, you should own it for as long as you want to stay, right? And if you need to make some extra money, you should be able to AirBNB or sub-let the space for as much as you can get.

Landlords who don't like any of this are selfish, bad people, not much better than the ones who cut down on maintenance, or try to harass tenants into leaving. The city needs to hire new inspectors to keep an eye on them, and issue fines. But keep their noses out of who's living in the space -- that's the tenant's business. This is right because "tenants" are not just tenants. "Tenants" are the real, rightful homeowners. Because we were there first.

Where to begin?

"We were there first" describes squatter's rights, not renter's rights.

"The real, rightful homeowners" are the real, rightful homeowners.

"Once you move in, you should own it for as long as you want to stay, right?" No, actually you should stay for as long as the lease you signed says you should stay.

To sign a 12-month lease and then demand that the owner let you stay indefinitely is pretty bold.

To sign a 12-month lease and then try to get the city to pass a law forcing the owner to let you stay indefinitely takes real chutzpah.

@ ShowMeTheData --- Actually, you were not there first, the landlord was there first, and the landlord is the actual homeowner, not you. As for sub-letting your rental unit, if you signed a rental agreement forbidding that, you shall not do it, regardless of however much you feel it is your right to "make some extra money."

It's alright, really. In 10 years, 80-90% of the apartments in MV will have been knocked down and replaced by owner-occupied townhouses, and the rent-control issue will be moot. I plan to sell my single-family home with granny unit within a couple years before the craziness hits that too. Still taking the "long" view after 38 years in MV.

Landlords already are attacking both measures (above). Guess the plan of the politicians on the Council is to split the vote and prevent either measure from getting a majority.

John in MV: Replacing the apartments with condos or townhouses will be the landlord's next trick; that's why we need laws to make that illegal too. And the city needs to hire attorneys to fight the cases. It might cost the taxpayers a lot of money, but worth it for the just cause of defending first-come rights to housing. East Palo Alto has shown us the way: Web Link

Or better yet, cut the landlords out of the loop altogether, like Chicago did with Cabrini Green.

Just like Cabrini Green, indeed. Fantastic troll! I totally fell for it.

Rosenberg sure misses a lot of votes on topics where his position might be uncomfortable.

Many important to any rent control decision:
From: Web Link

"Under state law in California, property that was issued a certificate of occupancy after February 1, 1995 is exempt from rent control. (CC 1954.52.) State law also exempts tenancies for single-family homes, if the tenancy began after January 1, 1996. Also, most cities exempt new construction built after the date of the ordinance, and owner-occupied buildings with four (or sometimes three or two) units. "

This ordinance would not apply to much of the housing that is more desirable. Would it only create a subset of cheaper places that have far more people wanting them than there are apartments? Could it encourage developers to buy and replace older apartments.

John in MV,

We should be so lucky my friend. I would love nothing more than to see the percentage of rental property in MV shrink by an order of magnitude.

Vote no on both proposed initiatives. I should not dictate to someone else a cap on the return on their investments or compensation for their labor.......you shouldn't either.

Capitalists need protections, poor people don't - or so the city council believes.

And on a different topic - what's with knocking down the modest homes in Old Mountain View and replacing them with ridiculous McMansions? Larger houses could be built without the bad taste.

What you're seeing with Mountain View's city council has happened thousands of times throughout history. Price fixing rents to appease a very numerous block of renters. Rent control is the premier study in economics because price controls stop the production of housing causing ever greater shortages. Supply and demand is thwarted. It goes on and on, in order to graduate from high school must pass a class in economics. Most of the city council members must be high school drop outs or flunk outs or just power hungry cynics. Here we go again and again and . . . George Drysdale a social studies teacher

I say to the last 2 commenters: Why is MV City Council your target? They're hands were forced by one sector of MV citizenry despite the majority of councilmembers knowing enough about unintended consequences to reject rent control as ineffectual and even harmful to the market.

It's not just a simple supply and demand situation, since replacing older housing units with newer ones removes affordable housing greatly in excess of what AFFORDABLE housing is built. Doing so increasingly tips the scales toward higher and higher prices. We will end up with more units but so much less affordable housing since none of the new can be rent controlled, and the very few "affordable" units they include to get their projects approved have typically gone to a few lucky folks and also to some real operators who manipulate their way into them (forever) by fabricating their situation. I've met several such reduced priced units recipients in MV. Also the really bottom tier poor do not have the resources, such as a computer, to be abreast of availabilities and to even enter the raffles for a chance at the reduced priced units so many compete for. Hard for anyone actually homeless to even obtain a library card to use a public library computer because they don't already have an address.

Leave the older buildings alone. Don't squeeze them out with rent controls, leading them to be replaced with new high priced stuff. Build the new housing in place of office where the new office was planned to go. We've got more than enough office already.

Important: Vote NO on both rent control measures. Read about one of the ways rent controls backfire, instead of helping, in today's MV Voice's Viewpoint guest opinion statement.

The problem is that Silicon Valley which now includes most of the Bay Area is such a smashing success story. The scientific capitol of the world being invaded by well educated people who make good incomes driving up the price of rentals (who can afford a house anymore). In one of the greatest land swindles in American history rent control on mobile home parks in San Jose has kept off the development market a vast source of land which should go into the development of many, many apartment houses increasing the supply of rentals. Rent control is literally like bombing a city. Older rentals can stand price fixed rents less because they are more expensive to be maintained any many will not withstand the inevitable earthquakes to come so they must be replaced by new structures. If you can't afford to live in the high rent district there are many other locations. George Drysdale

"f you can't afford to live in the high rent district there are many other locations."

And where would THAT be, Mr. Spambot? Los Banos?

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.

Since when did I move to Los Altos? I've been here 40 years working hard. All hardwood floors waxed on my hands and knees, all painting, repairs, heavy yard work including trimming a gigantic deodara with a pole cutter while balancing on the edge of the second story part of the building.

Enough IS enough. We don't need poachers sucking off the labors, risks and investments of others.

Vote NO on any rent control

If the landlords are arguing that it matters to them, then that shows there is a need. Vote in the tenant coalition rent control, not the toady city council one. Give it a try. Nothing else has worked. The city hasn't done anything. It brought this on us by lack of action and poor land use planning. They should have know better than to allow extremely dense office development holding 30,000 new workers.

It's time for some rent control. After all, how bad can it be? None of the arguments against it make any sense. If it were that bad, it would just be changed.

@StopRentProfiteering: You've GOT TO BE KIDDING?? "Give it a try"? "How bad can it be"? "If it were that bad it would just be changed"? NO - this tenant version is draconian and the ONLY way to change the massive destruction it will bring would be waiting for ANOTHER OFFICIAL VOTE. That costs a lot of money and takes a lot of time waiting for the next election cycle - and your landlord could be forced financially to sell to a developer by then - putting you on the street. It's obvious you have no idea what you'd be voting for - and you'd be naive enough to vote against your own best interests.
And @TrueResident: you're sick of out of town landlords telling us what to do? I'm sick of people who have no actual financial investment in their rented apartment bringing forth propositions that damage those who have worked hard to earn enough money to buy and maintain the building where renters are tenants. I don't own any rentals, but I know people who do, and they are usually juggling bills for for those rentals every month - increases in garbage rates, maintaining the building, landscaping, etc. It's not easy - and to attempt to force them to suffer even more is actually confiscation of private property.
I'm very sorry if someone cannot live locally - there is no rational way to force lower rents and not damage those small business people who own the majority of those properties. You will force owners to sell to large developers who will build large expensive buildings and make even MORE people unable to afford them. You cannot legislate stores to sell to you more cheaply - you cannot legislate airlines to sell your a cheaper ticket - you cannot legislate Tesla to make a car you can afford. What makes you think your proposition is anywhere more near reality?
Please think about what you're asking for here. You actually believe you can get and keep a low rent at the expense of someone else's risk and labor and that's fair? Life doesn't work that way - and if you refuse to believe valid history, you're going to learn a VERY hard lesson.
THERE IS NO FREE LUNCH. Vote NO on both propositions.

When the rent is high, investors want to build more properties that is for sure profitable. The supply of the housing unit will increase. The problem is that it take time to get the plan approved by the city, and it takes a long time to build.

Rent control will not help much to increase the supply of the housing. Most renters will not be benefited after the rent control law is passed. People should do some research about the rent control before making the decision.

No rent control!

FORTY SIX OF OUR FIFTY STATES have NO RENT CONTROL and of those 46, THIRTY FIVE STATES OUTRIGHT PROHIBIT IT. That should tell you something about how negatively rent control is viewed in the vast majority of the United States.
It is insane (and actually ILLEGAL in most states) to confiscate another's property in this manner, for your personal profit. It leads to turmoil in housing and GUARANTEES an even greater shortage of affordable housing. Think hard before you decide to shoot yourself in the foot.

Here is the web link showing which states outlaw or allow rent control:
Web Link

I'm sick and tired of those being against rent control likened to Trump supporters, or right wingers, or even Republicans. I'm a card carrying democrat, and also against rent control. The economics of it just don't make sense.

Stop rent profiteering? Are you for real? What other reason would someone be a landlord? It certainly isn't to lose money, or to provide you with a place to live forever. It's an investment, and a way to earn an income.

I don't like seeing people being pushed out of town, but the reality is that no one owes you a place to rent at a price you can afford. It's supply and demand, and right now demand far outweighs supply.

Question for those of you supporting rent control: how do you think it is going to help you? I truly feel sorry for you. The MV Tenants Coalition is giving you very mid-leading hope and information. Here's the true and real story:

If Measure V (rent control) passes in MV, the majority of these small mom and pop landlords are not going to sit on reduced rents with escalating costs for utilities and maintenance. If it passes, I can guarantee many will just cash out on these properties, builders will come in and build those newer, more expensive units and what is the end result?

Those who've been sold a bill of goods by the Tenants Coalition, who are going and asking for lower rents, will be out, rents will be even higher than they are now. Seriously, think about it.

The Tenants Coalition and its promises of rent control is completely misleading.

Think about it. Read again what I wrote above. All that will happen if rent control passes is older units being sold off and smaller, more expensive units being built. True dat.

so interesting
that

the council members vehemently opposed to rent control clark, mc alister, kasperzak (not john inks) voted to place a rent control ordinance on the ballot to compete with the citizens initiative V -- so blatantly hypocritical -- perhaps influenced by campaign contributions as mr clark and mr mc alister are running again for cc -- thus is politics

and that the discussion revolves mostly around the landlords and profits and the housing stock and not about all the families displaced and what is their plight and how can we help them -- what does that say?

there surely must be ways to maintain a housing stock without having a 56% rent increases in the last 5 years --

and who who has visited these flats believes the profits have gone into improving the housing --


russell

@Russell-
John Inks was absent from the council meeting in which the decision was made to formulate a measure that contained a better mechanism of rent control. The council worked really hard on it to craft something that works better to help tenants, while also not shutting down much of a whole segment of the housing market. Those who do not know, or do not understand, the many details will just simple-mindedly villainize those council members who voted for it. They did nothing hypocritical at all, as they were understandably endeavoring to craft something helpful to renters and, at the same time, less damaging to growing housing in MV than the measure they knew was soon to be on the ballot! ("Villains" wouldn't have supported that.)

And it is obviously not for campaign money! Renters who are too broke to pay their rents are not going to DONATE to anyone's campaign! The really big money is all against rent control, duh... Those who assume negative intent reveal a whole lot about themselves, as well as the fact that councilmembers explained why they felt they had to do what they did, despite their negative assessment of the ability of rent control to help those who need it most. (Their housing will get torn down.)

And so council worked on it very hard. It is improved beyond the draconian charter amendment ballot measure, but it still falls short in a few regards.

What BOTH still have very wrong with them is that the annual amount of rent increase is based on a percentage. Thus, the greedy landlords who indeed were carried away raising rents get REWARDED for their greed. The MORE GREEDY THEY WERE, the MORE THEY GET REWARDED! That's because a percentage of a really high figure, which their rents are, is still high, and will mount up each and every year, making that already high rent amount continue to grow significantly.

But the humane, non-greedy landlords who kept their rents low will be FOREVER PUNISHED, as a percentage of the small amount they charge for rent is a very small number and cannot mount up enough, even over several years, to cover the huge expenses apartment buildings are hit with. Tenants do wreck their units in a myriad of ways, and roofs, wiring, plumbing, floors, etc., and sometimes even foundations, all need major repairs or COMPLETE REPLACEMENT. Termites anyone? With a low rent roll, a building owner cannot even borrow enough money to effect the big expenditures that befall them. They have to quit the business while their building still is holding together, as no one will want to invest in an under-market earner with layers of deferred maintenance. The good landlord will come away with a big loss, as his building's upkeep and earning power is what sets the price he can get for it, EVEN IF IT IS JUST TO BE TORN DOWN for something entirely different to be built there instead! Bye, bye forever tenants.

Punishment for only the good landlords teaches everyone to avoid the housing business. OUTCOME: Not only is the cheapest housing in town gone forever, but MV attracts less new housing. Building OFFICE SPACE is where better money is. MORE OUT OF BALANCE! Isn't that what we've tried to stop from happening???