I appreciate Linda's points - but the measure proposed by the four councilmembers will not help anyone and is plainly designed just to draw votes away from (and thereby defeat) the initiative. The competing measure does not appear to even be authorized by law and may be removed from the ballot by court order. If the measure remains on the ballot and is approved by voters and becomes law, it would enable some apartment tenants to dispute some rent increases but only if the tenants are NOT SIMPLY EVICTED FIRST. The measure allows PREEMPTIVE EVICTIONS to get rid of existing tenants and make room for new tenants at market-rate rents. It is the same trick these landlord-endorsed city councilmembers played with their earlier non-binding arbitration ordinance and it may well lead to passage of the initiative.

Well stated and well done Linda. Rent control does nothing but punish those who have taken the risk and invested in rental property. If enacted will there also be price controls on utilities, maintenance costs and taxes? Of course not.

VOTE NO ON ANY/ALL RENT CONTROL.

Linda Curtis is no saint for the under privileged.

I like what was posted on another thread:

"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. "

Definition of greed
ɡrēd/
noun
intense and selfish desire for something

Particularly for those things that you cannot afford. There's another word for this desire for property that you cannot afford. It's called being SPOILED

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]

Oh, I'm not going anywhere, I saved way too long and sacrificed way too much to get into MV. I'll leave when I can't afford to live here anymore, probably when I retire. Although that won't be until I'm well into my 70's as I can't see that I'll have enough to support myself thru the rest of my life unless I work until then at least.

But then again, I'm planning on all this in order to support myself, I'm not looking for others to pay for me.

"Oh, I'm not going anywhere, I saved way too long and sacrificed way too much to get into MV."

And other people, who have lived in Mountain View FAR longer than you have, should be driven out because of the types of you. Right?

"I'm not looking for others to pay for me."

They already have -- by way of escalating rents and housing costs.

YOU are the type that is at the heart of the problems we have here. And until there is a way to have types like you leave this area, it will only get worse.

Not sure how much Ms. Curtis puts back into her buildings, but I can tell you that even with no rent limits here in the Del Medio Avenue and Del Medio Court areas, these out of town owners do VERY little. Besides basic landscaping and cleanup, these 1950 and 60's buildings built for Moffett Field service families have seen barely a coat of paint in the last 15 years. I can't even imagine how much more dilapidated these structures would get if this ballot were to pass.

@DMoore-

I now realize I've put way too much back into my building since the free market (basic to capitalism) can cease to apply here at any moment. Starting this Spring, the market already began to correct itself, and we should just let it, without either piece of new legislation, so we can avoid the backfire we're going to get with rent control. Read my entire piece in the Viewpoint: I covered only one reason rent control backfires, but there are definitely more unexpected consequences, and some that are expected as well, if you study economics. So: Vote NO on BOTH.

@Greed-

I purchased this building just before the dot com bubble burst. Paid top dollar. Taxes have shown nothing but a loss each year since then. I and my husband have worked full time all our lives, and sometimes more than one job each, and we've put all into this building, plus doing all the work that it needs done on a regular basis, plus extra stuff (like fixing $36000 dollars of damage that one tenant caused). Lots of labor. But it's beautiful: Our wedding was held in the garden courtyard that we landscaped with luscious flowering trees and plants. We have invited anyone not hiding behind a pen name to visit and confirm what I've said. We just thought someday our sweat equity would pay off and we could someday retire from our jobs and be able to hire people to help us here. But none of that will be possible with either rent control measure. We can hardly even keep up with this place while still working our jobs, much less save up for needed future repairs. Time to go out of business and delete one really great place with really great low rents. Nobody wins.

@Gary-

Don't you remember the city council meeting about rent control? You made the same comment at that meeting, and the City Attorney told you that you were incorrect because MV has a city charter. What you said applies only to cities without a city charter. So since this measure will remain on the ballot, it can offer an alternative that will damage the housing market slightly less, as the city council members intended when they drafted it. They did that to help renters!