If you want to lower rents, you need to build more housing. There is NO other solution. I couldn't care less about the plight of the rent controlled landlords, but rent control does the exact opposite of what you want. Rent control just means more people will be able to stay in mountain view despite no increase in housing supply. Rent control will increase demand and costs for everyone trying to move into or around Mountain View. You can not create effective laws that work against the market. Laws have to work with the market like requiring affordable housing and infrastructure upgrades to be built with all new housing. Repeat after me, if you want lower rents, you need to build more housing. Seriously, if you want to lower rents, you need to build more housing.

I agree with the first poster's FIRST SENTENCE. (and last TWO sentences) When I was in another community, I was a landlord of a duplex. You try to make a profit, in my case over 20 years. After a while I could start to cover the mortgage, insurance, and utilities from the rent! I kept the place in high occupancy - by slightly undercharging the market, and by keeping in good long-term tenants at Below-Market-Rate.

After a 20 year investment (and lots of between-renter cleaning and painting and minor improvements, $5K for a roof anyone) - I made a bundle by selling (top of the market a dozen years ago). When I myself have been a renter - I was not at all interested in a 20-year investment. That rental of mine tied up a bunch of my growing wealth for two decades! Long term - retired before 60 in large part because I took the rental sale capital gain, paid >$80,00 in federal taxes on it, and "paid off"f MY Family Home mortgage.

I still support Measure V and good old (as in wise) LUCAS for council. go figure

There is nothing fair about measure V.

This will harm the small Mom and Pop people who run these small businesses. It does not affect the newer, 1995 buildings and newer, they are exempt. Those are mostly the corporate owned large properties that have the very high rents.

All these fake post about "landlords" who support this measure are not true. The faith based groups that funded this measure are the ones who are posting these phony posts.

The un-elected 5 panel rent board will have the sole power to make new laws, not the council who the people vote for. For that reason alone people should vote this down.

The Voice paper has not covered one story from a landlords position showing the costs that these businesses has, but it has been posted here in different threads from an individual. It clearly shows that they are not making large profits at all.

The Palo Alto paper has written more about this than the Voice. They stated that there will be a lawsuit brought against the city if measure V passes, and the city tax payers will have to pay the attorney's fee to defend it.

It you support rent control, vote no on V,
and yes on W.

I will vote no on both as property rights are a core American value that we protect and respect in this country.

Rent control has a negative effect on all residents and property owners and our city.

Look, when rent control does not apply to anything constructed NEW, nor to anything constructed since 1995, it's not really rent control! It won't have these economic effects. If anything, it will spur new construction, which will then be exempt. It won't result in a Reduction in construction, that's for sure. Why should it, when new construction is exempted?

All these Mom and Pop's don't need to worry. To an extent this is closing the barn door after the horse escaped. But look, maybe there are some ponies still in the barn. It will help make a smoother transition for people caught in a terrible squeeze with ridiculous rent increases just continuing on and on. It's not even going to roll back rents to 2 years ago before these crazy increases really took off. But at least it will put a modest limit on future such increases. Keep in mind, that when we have the coming recesssion, these landlords will still accrue the right to notch up rents at least 3% for each year even when rents are going down. They can save that up and apply the increases in the future. It won't be rent control keeping them from notching them up in the recession!

Gladys said: "The Voice paper has not covered one story from a landlords position showing the costs that these businesses has, but it has been posted here in different threads from an individual. It clearly shows that they are not making large profits at all."

You will notice that the landlord you are referring to is no longer commenting on the Town Square website. She indirectly confessed to property tax evasion and her only defense was that "I wiorked hard for the property". This is exactly what is wrong with the rent control debate. These landlords are squeezing us dry and then turning around and saying they are doing us a favor.

Anytime you read something from one of these landlords, their shills or the ideological right winger, it's best to assume everything is a lie. Remember when George Bush promised to fix the economy by lowering taxes on the wealthy. A total lie, but the conservatives ate it up. Same situation here.

@Gladys, I think it hurst your argument to use rhetoric and personal insults to try to get your point across. I would have liked to see a more fact based reasoned argument.

I am a renter against rent control because it does nothing to address the underlying issue; the fact that the rapid expansion of office spaces throughout the peninsula and the massive influx of highly paid high tech workers into the area has led to a rapid rise in rents.

Six or 7 years ago, when the local economy was in worse shape, rents were going down because there was not as much demand and people were leaving the area in search of opportunities elsewhere. I can't recall anyone demanding that the property owners be compensated for their losses at that time. The point is that this is an issue of supply and demand and the real solution is to limit or put a freeze on new or expanding office spaces.

Here is a list of the 10 cities with the highest rents in the US ( Web Link ):


San Francisco
New York
Boston
San Jose
Oakland
Washington, D.C
Chicago
Los Angeles
Miami
Seattle


and here is a list of cities with rent control ( www.landlord.com/rent_control_laws_by_state.htm )

San Francisco
New York
San Jose
Oakland
Washington D.C
Los Angeles


Notice any similarity between the two lists? The fact is that landlords are being cast as the bad guys for a problem that was created when cities went wild approving office spaces. If we apply reason over rhetoric, then the only solution is to radically slow or eliminate office growth until the area has a chance to absorb all the new residents.


Jim Neal
Old Mountain View

Jim. Your argument is illogical. Blaming high rents on rent control is like blaming rainy weather on umbrellas. The reason rent control laws get passed is because rents become unreasonably high.

It's great to provide suggestions on how to lower rents overall through increased supply, but lets provide some umbrellas until the storm has passed.

@@Gladys,

No, you are blatantly telling a false story. There are several, real landlords, that have for the past year providing real facts, and one did a fairly detailed profit and loss statement for people to see.

The problem has been that when a thread turns so against the arguments from the proponents of rent control, that thread gets locked, posts erased and people "landlords" get banned by the Voice. Then you have the associate editor come on here and make false statements about those individuals. Just like you are doing to discredit a landlords from "tax evasion" Kindly post a link to that thread.

Fact is the market has already started the recession. Look at the posts on Craigslist, over 300 listings for Mtn.View when a normal market would have about 70 listings. Look at the prices coming down over $100 in the last few months, and look at all the move in bonuses that is being offered to get people to move in.

We do not need measure V here in Mtn.View
It is solely written by the extreme advocates of Tenants rights with an eye towards taking away rights from property owners. The San Francisco rent board denied a landlords the right to evict a drug dealer, then the tenants sued the landlord for not providing a safe place to live. Measure V will duplicate these same laws that S.F has. We do not need that here.

Just to clarify, Town Square threads get restricted or closed for one of several reasons, including attacks by spammers (which happens more than you'd think) or persistent violations of our Terms of Use. The purpose of Town Square is to foster a broad, respectful discussion and exchange of ideas. When the rest of the commenters leave because the thread is nothing but name-calling and attacks between a couple of posters, it gets closed.

Logic - I very clearly DID NOT blame the high rents on rent control. If you re-read what I said, I very clearly blamed it on the City Councils' rapid fire approval of Office spaces. I also pointed out that rent control is not a viable solution, which is NOT the same as saying it is the problem.

If rent control is the solution then why are 6 out of the ten most expensive cities to live in those with Rent control? San Francisco has rent control before I moved here in 1989 and it is number one on the list! Obviously it's not working.




Jim Neal
Old Mountain View

I am sad for everyone who has been led to believe that rent control will solve all their problems and allow them to stay in what is one of the most desirable places in America, actually one of the most desirable in the World, at rates sub-standard than the market will bear.

It is sad that a very misguided idealism is giving many people false hope.
It is sad that someone/group is promoting an agenda that takes from investors, those who have made personal risk.
It is sad that there is an attitude of "I want, therefore I should have" with NO basic sense or understanding of economics, long-term effects.
It is sad that those fighting for rent control don't realize the very thing you're fighting for is going to decimate and wipe out those very few units that may still be affordable and just create more super-expensive units.

I am sad for an entire generation(s) who feels they have the right to determine what someone who took risks, made investments, should make just so THEY can stay and live wherever they choose to live.

Someone earlier asked why this only applies to units built before 1995. Here's why. Not long after SF inacted rent control it quickly became apparent that investors began to pull out of the area; why invest and build when you're not going to be able to make a profit? Fortunately people realized the negative effects of developers pulling out, people saw that and enacted the Costa-Hawkins. So no property built after 1995 will be aff cited by Measure V/W. And no property built prior to that should either.

If you're a homeowner thinking oh, this is only fair, these people who have lived here for years are getting pushed out, they deserve a break, help with rent. I have one thing to say. Reach down, look deep and say honestly, truthfully....are you willing to give up the $ you've built in equity? If you sold your house today, are you willing to step up and give a portion to renters? Because if you're not, then you have no right expecting landlords to do the same and you have no right to vote for either V or W. Think about it. Reach deep here into your honest conscience. Because if you vote yes to either then you should be just as willing to give equally of your own benefit.

VOTE NO ON BOTH V AND W

I've been thinking about this and have one more thing to add. Those of you so angry that you're unable to afford the rent in MV, maybe you should be glad that you live in one of the most beautiful places in the world. You who are so upset that you may have to move 15 miles away for a more affordable place, maybe be happy that you don't have to commute hours as some do. Those of you so bitter that you can't live exactly where you want, perhaps be appreciative that you live in a safe, clean area, not one where bombs are flying overhead, that doesn't have clean water or sanitation.

We are, each and every one of us, incredibly fortunate for what we do have here.