Sounds like big money and dirty tricks to me....

All the mailer did was accurately quote from the Legislative Analyst's appraisal of rent-control policies generally. They apply *exactly* to Measure V and similar efforts -- which is obvious, if you read the material. You don't even need the Legislative Analyst's office to tell you those basic realities if you know anything at all about economics:

Artificially forcing prices of rentals below what the market is willing to pay does, in fact (I've experienced all this, as a RENTER:) increase competition for the increasingly rare vacancies; lead to new, unpredictable criteria by landlords selecting renters ("likely to the benefit of more affluent renters," the Analyst's office puts it); NOT benefit the lower wage earners relentlessly cited as "intended" beneficiaries of Measure V; and lead to an overall decline of the community's housing stock. These are sheer basic market realities, they've been demonstrated for centuries, and they don't go away because someone doesn't like them, or employs variously imaginative rhetoric to try to spin or belittle comments like mine here.

I'm not an have never been a landlord. The Measure-V people, ideological blinders firmly in place, don't CARE about the well-known side effects of rent control. Now they cry "foul play," when embarassing facts they'd prefer to suppress appear in an authoritative, impartial source. (Where is the Voice in all this, by the way? Where is the economic common sense? Where is the editorial outreach for Guest Opinions by RENTERS who oppose rent controls because they know the dark side? Several such people have posted Town-Square comments to past articles.)

This measure V is not really rent control because it allows for a generous increase in rents over the years. If anything, it's too generous, but that's the nature of compromise. It won't lead to a dwindling supply because the main source of new supply is new construction, and due to state law, this won't affect new supply at all. It won't even
affect anything built in the last 20 years.

We're in a situation where the supply of rental housing needs to change anyway, because most of the buildings were built 50-60 years ago and they are outmoded. No amount of remodeling can fix them up. They're not land-efficient in this era. They're going to end up being torn down and replace by something in a modern design which builds up more and gets greater density. Measure V is useful to smooth out the shock on the market that this transition will otherwise cause.

So it's not like anything called rent control in any other place, where the apartments that were regulated were in buildings with more land density. It just works out that
the only apartments that are already somewhat dense are exempt from the change in the charter. No one has been building 2 story apartment buildings in Mountain View for over 30 years.

Measure V is rent control since it regulates the price. It may be more flexible than previous rent control ordinances but it is still rent control. Once you take away the exchange rigths from the buyer and seller you violate their human rights to control their lives. Measure V will also not allow a landowner to upgrade his units and receive a fair return if the units are already at code level. In other words, measure V guarantees low quality rental units .


For those small businesses that support this measure, you are the next target . Price controls on your business to make sure you don't raise prices too much.

Measure V specifically allows landlords a fair rate of return. Anyone who says otherwise either has not read the measure or is outright lying.

The special interests against Measure V have been exposed. They are piling in hundreds of thousands of dollars to inundate the city with misinformation flyers. Even worse, they are paying people to pose as residents here and on Nextdoor! Shameful.

"Measure V specifically allows landlords a fair rate of return."

While technically true, it is the unelected board , not the landlord that determines and approves what is a fair rate of return. Also there are many cost items that are excluded from this calculation.

A fair return relates to an owner's original investment, property improvements, and mortgage schedule. This DIFFERS FOR EVERY LANDLORD!

That's why putting in place a one size fits all annual cap on rents is absurdly unreasonable. While it may not be catastrophic to an owner who's fully paid off their loan, it's a death sentence to someone who may be below water on an investment.

You should read measure v. It states that landlords can request above normal increases to assure a fair return. This measure is actually TOO FAIR!

Who are any of you to determine what's a fair return? How is it any of your business or why should you have ANY say whatsoever in what a landlord receives?

You did not take the risk.
You did not put out the cash for purchase.
You did not make the investment.

You have no risk, you should have no say so.
You have nothing invested, you should have no say so.
You make no investment? You should have no say so.

Do you even realize how petty, how entitled, how "I want so I should get" your posts are?

You really missed your era, chap -- you would have been a natural during the Gilded Age, when business ran this country for its own benefit, and the nation suffered as a result.

Maybe it's time that you realize that businesses can NOT have it their own way, all day, every day.

"Who are any of you to determine what's a fair return? How is it any of your business?"

I am a resident of MV.
I am a voter.
Because this is AMERICA, we have the right to set rules and regulations. Don't like Measure V? Then vote against it.

If it passes, then why not just move away? You don't have the right to dictate what rules we should live by here. This is America, remember? There is nothing preventing you from leaving.

Can request is not the same as can do. I have read the measure and it does not allow several other factors to be considered as a fair rate of return. As stated above a fair rate of return can differ for every landlord. As to use of force to comply, apparently some are ok w force against others but t not themselves.

Hmmm..."a fair rate of return can differ for every landlord...".

That's true! Many of the landlords in MV think that "fair" is to raise rents by 20-50 percent or higher! The problem is that this raise greatly impacts the people living there. It's not just raising the price of a cup of coffee. A home is fundamentally different.

This is similar to the minimum wage. As a People, we have decided that paying people $5/day is wrong. It negatively impacts the people involved and the community at large. Every "economic theory" objection to rent control could also apply to the minimum wage, yet nobody seriously promotes the sunsettjng of that law.

Rent control and expansion of thr minimum wage will improve this community.

It is very clear that the talking points from the proponents of rent control are now using the phrase "fair return". This language has to be put in any rent control language so as to pretend that you are not intentionally putting these landlords out of business, as courts have previously stated.

Let's look at the last recession we had in our valley. From 2002 thru 2009 most landlords did not make any profit because of falling rents and high vacancy's. It was double digits losses for many for those 7 years. Many landlords lost their property and had to file for bankruptcy protection.

If you average 10% loss for each of 7 years, then market recovers and this rent control kicks in to say what, fair return is 2% a year? How is that fair, how can you get the money back for what you lost those 7 years trying to keep the property. How can you save enough money to get you thru the next recession? How can you save any money to do any upkeep or improvements?

The answer is you can not.

There is nothing fair about Measure V, it has never had one public debate where both sides debate it, nor does the public know what's in it as the Voice is burying that part of it, until it's to late and it passes. This was written behind closed doors that did not have any one there that represents landlords or a business expert. If it passes, no one can change it, not even the city council. That is why the super majority of the council is against it.

This "Mike" character keeps repeating the same vague or irrelevant arguments. Now, his (or her) new fact-of-the-day is, "

"Let's look at the last recession we had in our valley. From 2002 thru 2009 most landlords did not make any profit because of falling rents and high vacancy's. It was double digits losses for many for those 7 years. Many landlords lost their property and had to file for bankruptcy protection."

Where is the proof that "most landlords did not make any profit"? Or "Many landlords lost their property and had to file for bankruptcy protection"?

These landlord association shills are ridiculous. If the above was actually true in MV, they would have provided a list of names, address and financial statements. It's a fiction. It's a lie.

There were a lot of casualties of the recession caused by the political conservative strategy of trickle-down and deregulation. Far more renters were hurt in MV, then landlords. Let's not follow the right-wing strategy AGAIN like lemmings and vote down rent stabilization.

Most residents in MV clearly want some sort of rent control. It's a shame that the council did not pass something significant while they had the chance.

@ shill,

You have to know the facts from both sides of an issue before you can begin to address the problem. Your statement about what landlords went thru in the last recession, not knowing the losses incurred or the fact that many lost their properties just shows how ill informed you are, and you do not even care to look into it. Your rent control measure clearly spells this fact out, that it is completely one sided written by the extreme groups in the area who hate all for profit businesses. This is just the start as they have already said that they will be going after the businesses next.

As a example, your measure calls for a majority "tenant" rent board members, and a minority "landlord" members. And guess who can appoint the "landlords members"? Not the landlords or apartment association, but people like Lenny Siegel who has wanted rent control in this city for 35 years and was voted down twice already. Do you think this is fair to landlords? I do not.

In 2001, the start of our first recession, was caused by the DotCom bubble. Not conservatives.

In 2008 we had the mortgage sub prime melt down. Which the Democrats in Washington was calling everybody who wanted to reform this as "racist"
Today, Obama has re-started this program again and last I heard, he is not a conservative.

One thing I will agree with you on, and that is following down the path of other rent control cities in the bay area, we should not repeat these same mistakes as 99% of these cities are worse off today than they where before they passed rent control.

Mike [Portion removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]
has not presented a single authoritative fact. At best, it is opinion; at worst it is purposeful lies.

Let's look at "Mike's" last point. He/she claims that the rent board will be appointed with extremists that will bankrupt all the landlords. He blames Lenny Siegel. Unfortunately, for Mike, he has forgotten that the council is against rent control. That's why they put forth the sabotaging Measure W. If Measure V is passed, guess who appoints the rent board? The council!

The council can appoint both landlords AND tenants that oppose rent control and there is nothing anyone can do about it. The board would liberally approve anything the landlord wants. The good news is that there would be a lot more visibility into how greedy many of the landlords are and how poorly they maintain the safety and sanitation of their properties.

These are all facts and not opinion. Voting for Measure V!

If anything, Mike is the only one recently who has put forth any fact. You who keep calling him a shill have only called him names and been derogatory as I'm absolutely certain you will be of me (not for the first time). Neither Mike nor I have made derogative comments, only presented facts. And I'm confident that readers can and will see that.

VOTE NO ON MEASURE V & W

It seems that few have read the text of the rent control measure. It is not blanket rent control. The landlord cannot double the rent on a tenant, but can still raise it a regulsted manner. Intelligent, responsible and compassionate landlords will have no problem following the new rules.

I can understand why MV landlords don't like Measure V. It will force the landlords to repair and maintain their properties. Today, the tenants are so afraid to report serious safety violations, because many apartment managers will then simply raise the rent in response. Under the proposed rules, tenants can take their complaint to the board and get some help. They can do this without being punished.

Let's put all the facts on the table:

The Real Estate industry has been getting away with selling all properties in Mountain View at way over values. But it is the landlord investors that made the major mistake at not negotiating the prices down to the real values. This was done because they simply expect the rentors to pay for the mortgages the landlord's negotiated. Of course this is a bad business practice for 3 reasons:

Reason 1, the real estate industry has no legal requirement to disclose actual market value of the property, they a legally protected for any accountability in the process, the laws are designed so that the purchaser must do their homework so as to prevent overspending for the purchase of any real estate property. That means the purchaser is solely responsible for their decision and cannot flip the cost over to a non-negotiated party of the purchase.

Reason 2, since the rentors do not benefit or are not liable for the purchase of the property, they are not liable to the purchaser for any costs regarding the property purchase. The fact that it became a common practice encourages market values to "bubble" because there is no market controls preventing price inflation for the property, and in turn the property owners "expect" that they are not fiscally responsible for their decisions. In business this is passing the cost to a party who is not legally liable for the cost of the investment. Which is simply the worst business practice that eventually will cause a property value bubble to burst resulting in severe social costs to the city of Mountain View if no action is taken to prevent it.

Reaaon 3, Real Estate property investment profits are not based on cash flows in the real world. It is based in the "capitalized improvement" of the property and the tax benefits based on property appreciation. However because the properties are over-priced, and the investors have failed to ascertain this, they left themselves open to property devaluation when they bought the property in the first place. In a free-market, the investors are responsible for their actions, even though they did so by deception from a third party, the real estate business. The landlords try to socializ their poor decisions on the people not liable for their actions to prevent themselves from bearing the "moral hazard" of poor decisions they made.

Measure V is needed to provide the market to correct itself and stabilize the citizens of Mountain View, without it, the City will eventually bear the burden of mass exodus by both citizens and corporations because the "High-Tech" industry does not need to do business in Mountain View, inf fact most "High-Tech" companies do all of their work in other places in the U.S. and the offices here are meare store fronts, or administrative. These are the easiest to relocate in as short as 6 months. No city government should negotiate with them for benefits to locate here because they will relocate, it is a matter of time.

In Conclusion, the Landlords in being simply terrible business people expect that everyone else pays for their bad choices. THe City of Mountain View citizens simply figured out how corrupt the City Council was and designed a better solution in Measure V.

Measure V is a Horrific measure that deserves a No Vote.

My family owns a 5 plex, Mother and Father, sister and me.
We each have a 25% ownership interest in the property.

My sister lives in another state, she has a son and daughter.
The son wants to go to Santa Clara University next year.
The year after that, the daughter wants to go to Palmer College.
We have already been talking that they will be living at our 5 plex.

We want them to live in the only unit that has a 2 bedroom.
Under this new law, if it passes, we will not have any legal right to move in any family member, if it is occupied.
You will have to have a 50% ownership interest first, and then go ask permission first from the rent board.

Each of us has a 25% interest, we have no legal right to do this as you first need a 50% interest!
How can this be even legal.

How can any of you justify this!

How can anyone support a council member or a candidate, that supports this measure.

We will just be continuing with these divisive acts against minority groups in our city if we send divisive candidates into the position of city council members.

Our city used to be a tolerant one. Our councils represented everyone, fairly an equally.

Now we have become like Washington and brought that nasty politics to our city, we no longer look at people and guarantee that everyone has all the same rights as others, but now it is about group politics to see who can we take rights away from to give to others.

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]

[Portion removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]


If measure V is the utopia that you all are making it out to be, why are you not telling people what ALL is in it, all 27 pages.

I warned you before, if anybody is going to deny the statements that are the facts of measure V, I will post all 27 pages of it here.

Below is copied and pasted from page 9 and 10 of Measure V the actual language that says an owner must have 50% ownership interest before they can have a family member move in, and if you read section (B) it furthers stipulates that if a family member already lives there, then you can not do any evictions for family move in.


(7) Owner Move-In. The Landlord seeks, after providing written notice to the Tenant pursuant to state law, to recover possession of the Rental Unit in good faith for use and occupancy as a Primary Residence by the Landlord, or the Landlord’s spouse, domestic partner, children, parents or grandparents.
(A) As used in this Subsection “Landlord,” shall only include a Landlord that is a natural person and has at least a fifty percent (50%) recorded ownership interest in the Property.

(B) No eviction may take place under this Subsection if the same Landlord or enumerated relative already occupies a unit on the Property, or if a vacancy already exists on the Property. At all times a Landlord may request a reasonable accommodation if the Landlord or enumerated relative is Disabled and another unit in Mountain View is necessary to accommodate the person’s disability.


Here are just some more important items that the Voice did not mention about measure V.

1-This new 5 panel rent board can not have more than 2 real estate or landlord advocates, and must be a 3 member tenant advocate board.

2-This new rent board will be totally independent from our current city government. They will be an entire government body with all the power within our current governmental system.The city council and city attorney, and everyone else will have no say or control over what they do. There is no recall provision to remove these people or if we do not like the new laws that they will make. The only option to repeal new laws they make will to constantly raise money and put them on the ballot.

3-This new rent board has unlimited access to the general funds for what ever reason they choose. Measure V gives them this power. Any new laws they pass, and gets challenged in a lawsuit, they can take as much money they need from the general fund to defend the lawsuit.

4-Measure V is not about capping rents, it is about taking away rights from property owners. As an example, written in Measure V is language that states a landlord can not evict a tenant from a property for a family move in, like son or mother, unless that owner owns at least 50% interest in the property, then that family member has to live there for at least 36 months or be subject to penalties.

I expect the proponent's of this measure to come out and deny these as they are hoping to sneak all what's in it, past voters. If they start this here, I will re-post an even more detailed response with more about what's in Measure V with the actual language in the measure.

I ask everyone to pass this on to everyone you can so they will know the truth.

Vote No on Measure V.

This measure had no public review, it was written by outside groups behind closed doors, who have yet to be named. With no one from the business side present so as to get their point across.We do not know where all the money came to fund this, like the $7 paid for each signature gathered.

The Voice has been a pure advocate for this measure, has never run one story who the outside groups are that wrote and funded this. They have not done ONE story that showed any expenses that a landlord has, or has run ANY story that showed their side of the story. They also have not demonstrated how Mtn.View will be any different from other rent control cities, regarding blighted neighborhoods and increased crime, because these other city have the same exact language that Measure V has, the outcome will be no different.

I agree with everything Mike says.

Also, global warming is a power grab.

1+1=3!

@ D Trump,

To further my point about honesty, care to post a copy of your driver's license Donald?

The Voice is wanting to end debate on this subject, as they have been doing for the past year when a thread goes against them on rent control.

No reason to lock it up to registered users, or to bury it many pages back with phony sport stories.
This is a civil discussion.

This is a major decision that voters will be deciding and they need to know the truth. If measure V passes, you can never change the city back to what it was before rent control. Look at East Palo Alto, Hayward, San Leandro, East San Jose, etc.

Let's keep this at the top.

The Non biased Daily Post newspaper, which covers from Mtn. View to Millbrae, and has no conflict of interest, like people on the payroll working for the rent control group,
Has recommended a No vote on measure V and W.

The super majority of candidates running for city council oppose measure V.

The majority of current council members oppose measure V.

Before the negative comments start, let me ask you if you truly believe a council or candidate member can be bought for a $500 contribution from the apartment association, as one city council member has pointed out by asking this from the rent control proponents.