Bogus info about Measure V. Nice try. It's very fair to all parties involved.

Rents are continuing to increase which is why more and more proposals for apartments continue to come in.

Time to stop caving into the landlords and their paid lobbyists. Measure V will pass.

@ No thanks,

Instead of repeating your false talking points as you always do, care to try to actually point to some facts that support your claims?

1-Fact, rental listings are up 350% from a normal market.

2- Fact, move in bonuses are starting to happen. Up to 6 weeks free rent is being offered in some ads.

3- Fact, rents are already coming down. A property on Latham St. has lowered its prices $200 from its high.

4- Fact, there is no bogus information about measure V in the first post. Detail what they are if you disagree.

With what is happening today in the rental market, your claim that rents are still going up is just laughable.

It would be refreshing to hear the truth from your side and from the Voice.

I own in MV and support a rent stabilization ordinance.

Mike. Your points are unconvincing. You are obviously a landlord. Pointing to individual examples are meaningless. What was the average rent three years ago compared to today? It was much lower. If the rents return to the 3 year ago average, then let's talk.

The link showing a possible rent decrease outside our market is not relevant. Even if it was, the Abodo.com report is not authoritative. Besides receiving all their money from landlords. It does not cover all rentals.

"No Thanks" may have been brief in words, but they are correct.

@ Not a landlord or renter,

There has not been one public review, debate with both sides at the table or article that details the facts about all the effects Measure V has in it, or the effects it will have on the entire city. It was written behilnd closed doors from the extreme advocacy groups that do not like any businesses.

Had the Voice been a real journalist paper there would have been articles written about it, where the money came from, and all the outside groups involved, but instead all you get is constant bashing against landlords for no other reason than being a landlord.

For your information, Mtn. View is in the metro area of San Jose, the "facts" that I stated are for our city, Mtn.View.

How anyone can argue that rents are still going up when some landlords are offering move in bonuses and 6 weeks free rent shows just want a partisan individual you are. The last time this happened in our city was from 2001 thru 2005, the last recession our valley went thru when rents fell 45%

How about you explain how these mom and pop business's are supposed to save any money to get them thru the next recession?

There was not one landlord that went to the city council, or wanted a ballot measure that was asking for a public bailout when they could not pay their bills in any recession period. Many landlords all over the valley lost their property because they could no longer pay their bills or refinance their property in the last recession.

If you are forcing these mom and pop business to comply with a one sided law, by telling them that the new rent board will make the rules now and tell them what they can charge, then show me the portion of the measure that will provide the bailouts to the landlords when they can no longer pay the bills, and show me how you will be the co signer on the loan and guarantee the bank that you will pay the loan when the income is not there to qualify for a refinance.

You side keeps saying that this is fair for landlords, show me specifically what provisions are in it to help pay the bills for landlords when the next recession hits.

All the stuff about 2235 California Avenue misses some of the picture. You'd need to know the annual EARNINGS during the period of ownership to see if the owner lost any money. That property was built in 1964 so it was already getting old by then. If a major capital repair program had been instituted in 2000, that pumps up the asking price for good reason, because maintenance costs would be very low for the next 10 years, especially at the beginning. The property TODAY is assessed at $25 Million and with over 3 acres the land alone is probably worth $30 Million. Back in 2000 it had $2 Million in annual rental income. Even with a high vacancy rate, that would still be a lot back then. Nowadays those 88 apartments probably bring in $4 Million per year in income.

So what's the relevance to rent control? Is the thinking that with 25% vacancies the owner can just pump up the rent by 33% and collect the same rental revenue? I don't think so.

Then there's that adobo statistic that says in one month San Jose FOR THEIR PROPERTIES dropped rent by 12%. Well, you'd need to look at the whole year, and at all the properties. The Adobo figures are not meaningful.

@ Confusing post,

I agree with you, your post is confusing as heck.

Read the story again, 2235 California St. was sold in November 2000 for $17,000,000, this new owner Lost money and could not pay the bills because of falling rents and high vacancies. They had to sell it for $10,000,000, a $7,000,000 LOSS. That new owner had to sell it just a few years later because of the same problem, no cash flow. It was sold in August 2009 for $5,156,000
During this 9 year period 2 different owners lost $12,000,000. That does not count the cash that they put into it to pay the bills until they went broke.

Let me help you out as you do not understand what it is like to run a busness and what you have to do to prepare for the next recession.

Let's say a nurse is working at Stanford hospital making $130,000 a year. Then she gets laid off from work, Recession, she goes thru her savings to pay her bills and her mortgage. She can only find a part time job making a fraction of her salary, High Vacancies and falling rents, then we have a new law that freeze's this salary so she can never get back to her normal salary, Rent Control, then she runs out of money and loses her home.

Landlords in Mountain View would not be offering move in bonuses in a healthy market, that is happening today in our city. The market turned earlier this year and with all the office space for lease signs going up around the area, and as someone who has been here for 50 some years these are the signs that we are headed for a recession very soon.

Keep denying the truth and keep people from knowing the truth, that is all you can do as you do not care what happens to these mom and pop small business owners and the negative effects against our city.

You still have not mentioned what protections are there for landlords when they can not pay their bills, and why have you not capped some of the expenses that landlords have?

Your assumption that "move-in bonuses" prove that the market is in decline is false. Sellers of products and services offer "bonuses", rebates or kickbacks to get more attention to what they are selling. The buyer is lured into signing a lease for more monthly rent than they would normally pay and will most likely stay long enough for the landlord to more than recoup their fake "loss".

The more interest in a property allows the landlord to find tenants that will pay whatever the rent is and stay the longest time. This is basic Landlord 101.

Landlords have all the advantages and renters the least. Time for a change.

The property TODAY is assessed at $25 Million and with over 3 acres the land alone is probably worth $30 Million. Back in 2000 it had $2 Million in annual rental income. Even with a high vacancy rate, that would still be a lot back then. Nowadays those 88 apartments probably bring in $4 Million per year in income.

The 2235 California Street property was purchased in 2000 for $17M. Obviously the buyer overpaid! The landlord before him made a huge killing.

We need to stop speculation where landlords buy properties depending on the ability to raise rents without any limit at all. It just gets them into trouble. Too bad Measure V doesn't address this directly, but indirectly it will help.

@ What,
@ Again,
@ More info,

In a rental market with rising rents, NO ONE LOWERS RENTS OR OFFERS MOVE IN BONUSES AND LISTINGS DO NOT RISE 350%!

Again, you have no idea what your are talking about, you obviously have no business experience but yet you think you are smarter than others who are actually running a business and you have the nerve to force these business owners to do what you want them to do. Put up your money into these properties, then let's see how long you last.

More info, the property at 2235 California St. was one of MANY that was forced to sell or had to file for bankruptcy during that time frame. 1960 California St. was another property that filed for bankruptcy in 2004. This was happening all over the valley. The ANNUAL EARNINGS WAS LESS THAN THE BILLS. THAT IS WHY 2 DIFFERENT OWNERS WENT OUT OF BUSINESS IN 9 YEARS AND LOST A COMBINED $12,000,000
It is irrelevant to bring up how big the property is, or when it was built. It is about cash flow,if the income is not there to pay the bills, a business goes out of business. With rent control you will never be able to get back to a market rent in a normal time to pay the bills and to do upkeep, maintenance and improvements. That is why you have so many troubled and blighted areas in other rent controlled cities.

What gets landlords into trouble is when recession hits, they where not able to save enough cash reserves to pay bills, with falling rents and high vacancies.

This business is risky enough, but you add rent control to this you will have many more mom and pop businesses go out of business.

Look at the financial statement in the story, notice how no one discredits it. Look at it again and if you are fair minded you will see that under the best of times, there is not much profit in these businesses as is.



AGAIN, ALL YOU RENT CONTROL PEOPLE, TELL ME WHAT PROVISIONS OF THIS RENT CONTROL BILL WILL HELP LANDLORDS PAY THEIR BILLS.

TELL ME WHY YOU DID NOT PUT A CAP ON PRICE INCREASES FOR ALL THE OTHER BILLS AND TRADES PEOPLE.

Unbelievable. The shills are at it again. The local political process is so corrupted by the developers and apartment owners/landlords pushing in dark money to hide the truth.

Even this fake story:
"The apartment building at 2235 California St. was sold in November of 2000 for $17,000,000. They then sold it for $10,000,000. Then it was sold on more time in August 2009 for $5,156,000. This is what happens when rents collapse in a recession and landlords could not save enough money to pay the bills in the bad times. With rent control you take away the very important part of running any business, and that is saving enough money to get you thru the bad times."

Doesn't this "Mike" character see the fallacy of this lie?

They claim that the landlord "lost" money in 2000 and 2009, because they couldn't save enough money to "get you thru the bad times". Well, guess what? Mountain View WAS NOT UNDER RENT CONTROL AT THE TIME!!!! So, stop blaming rent control ordinances. You should be blaming greedy and dumb landlords that take out high risk loans to buy properties that they simply cannot afford. You also left out the park where they used the bankruptcy laws to protect their private assets from loss. In other words, they stick the banks, fannie mae, freddie mac, THE TAXPAYERS with failed loan. Thanks landlords!

The more I read from the anti-rent controllers, the landlords, the greedy, the more I realize how important Measure V is. Every single argument they make, simply strengthens the argument for rent control.

By the way, pull up the Santa Clara county's tax assessors records for 2235 California St and quite a different picture is painted. The property is currently assessed at $24,906,000. So, yeah, don't worry about the landlords. They are making a KILLING in real estate. And who pays for that inflated amount? Renters of course!

@ Easily Discredited,

Let me ask you if your are the same poster here, using 7 different fake names. I would also take bets that you do not live in Mtn.View and you work for the outside group that is pushing this agenda in our city.

The 2235 California St. was first posted on this site, in a different thread some 8 months ago, and was faced checked by another poster and provided the MLS link to prove it. Anybody can research it.

Show me one business that can survive if they do not make enough money to pay the bills. You do not care about those people, or you do not know that businesses need to make a profit to stay in business.

For those open minded people, put yourself in the shoes of the example of a nurse I made in my previous post. If you lost your job-income, and could not pay your bills, what would happen to you-your home, car. You would lose them. Now imagine you had a group of people make a new law that everybody at today's salary will have a salary freeze and can only go up @cpi or 2%. If you where at a part time job during a recession working for wages far below your normal pay in a normal market,
how can you ever get back on your feet?

This is what Measure V does to the mom and pop businesses that have these older properties and need the most work and expensive upkeep.

EVERYONE PLEASE NOTICE THAT THESE PEOPLE DO NOT ANSWER ANY QUESTION ABOUT HOW LANDLORDS ARE SUPPOSED TO PAY THEIR BILLS OR ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS WHEN A FINANCIAL STATEMENT IS PRODUCED THAT CLEARLY SHOWS THAT LANDLIRDS ARE NOT GREEDY OR SELFISH. THEY ARE JUST TRYING TO GET BY BOTH IN GOOD TIMES AND BAD TIMES, NO ONE IS THERE TO BAIL THEM OUT IN RECESSIONS.

We get it, Mike. You are shilling for the landlords. Stop repeating the same incorrect info over and over again. Simply quoting anonymous forum users comments as fact weakens your argument. The problem is that you have not presented any authoritative research demonstrating that the type of rent control presented in V would b economically devastating to many in MV.

Hope you are getting well paid!

The math is wrong, it's not a net loss it's a net cash deficit. It's a cash flow thing, not a loss thing. Get a CPA.

@ shill,

I am sure you are getting paid, very well. That Google guy you have working for this measure V gets paid $150,000 a year, with a 10% Christmas bonus that they all get, yet no one says they should give that money up to the lower income people to help pay their housing costs.

Or how about the church on Hope St. who sold their parking lot for millions of dollars to a for profit developer to build row houses. Why did they not donate it to a non profit developer for low income housing. Yes, this is the very same church that provided a location and gathered signatures for the rent control petition. Not one person from the "Tenants group" protested this sale. How is "capitalism" good for them, a non profit who pays no property taxes, or any other taxes, and be bad if a mom and pop wants to run a business.

The sun still rises in the east and sets in the West.The grass is green and the sky is still blue.
You can deny this to, if it furthered your agenda you will.

All your side can do is demonize people, deny facts, and promise utopia to people if your measure passes.

One last inconvenient fact for you, Mtn. View has become a very desirable city where people want to come and live in, unlike the other 99% of rent control cities in the bay area, like East Palo Alto, East San Jose, Hayward, Oakland, San Leandro and San Francisco which is the number 1 city in all of United States for property crime.

Mike is right. TREMENDOUS!

I like how he follows my strategy against Hillary and claim she is "demonizimg" me.

We can make America Grest Again if we follow the great Mike and evict the poor from MV.

Vote for Me!
Vote against Measure V!

It is unfortunate that it is not possible any longer to have a civil discourse. I would much rather see cogent arguments with facts backing them up rather than anonymous attacks and slurs. It helps no one. That having been said, I am of two minds on this issue:


1) I am against it even though I am a renter because I truly believe that in the long run it will be detrimental to all low income renters and will fundamentally change the character of Mountain View to the point where it becomes like San Francisco where you are wither living in a very expensive apartment or on the street. I am very concerned about being priced out of the rental market in Mountain View, but I do not think rent control is the solution. We need to stop building so much office space instead. That is what is driving the demand.


2) On the other hand, if the voters do vote for rent-control, then I hope they vote for Measure V and against Measure W. I am a firm believer that this city needs more direct democracy and a win for Measure V would go a long way towards ensuring that residents have more of a say in how they are governed and more influence (hopefully) in future Council decisions.

One other item of note is that the author of this article did not provide a last name. I would hope that in the future, people will be willing to put their full names with their articles o that people have an idea of how much weight to give to the source of the article.



Jim Neal
Old Mountain View

@ Jim Neal,

Does your "direct democracy" mean mob rules? Because that is what is happening with measure V.
More Tenants than landlords in the city, majority taking away rights from a minority group.

Look at the make up of the rent board, 3 tenant advocate, 2 landlord advocate. Those 2 landlord members will be irrelevant as the 3 tenant members will push thru their agenda. The landlord members will not even be picked by the people who run these businesses. You can not say that this is fair or democracy.

The city is supposed to represent everyone fairly and equally. This measure takes away rights from one group to give to another.

If the community as a whole says that this issue of affordable housing needs to be addressed, then everyone must do their part and pay their fair share to fix it and not shoulder this responsibility on one small group of people.

We had a ballot measure in this state pass that denied gays to be married. Just because the majority want something, does not make it right.

MV Voice, when are you going to print an article presenting the landlord side? If this is such a fair and equitable solution, why has only the tenant side been represented?

THAT In. and of itself should give everyone reason for pause. Why hasn't the landlord position been fully disclosed! Why have all the articles and discussions centered solely on the tenant advocacy groups? Because they don't want the facts presented to the public. Because they want to sweep this under the eyes of voters who vote on emotional heartstrings rather than economic viability.

VOTE NO ON BOTH MEASURE V & W

And one more time.....MVVoice, when can we expect to see an article with fair representation?????

No Mike, Direct democracy is not Mob rule in my book. I thought I was clear about being against the measure. However, I said IF it passes then measure V is my preference since it is what the majority of people in the city will have wanted and voted for.

I also do not believe in the socialist "everyone must pay their fair share" dictum, People choose their own housing and it is up to them to pay for it.

Lastly, I sai that the real problem is too much office. So as long as the city is allowing new office at warp speed, the housing crisis will never be solved.



Jim Neal

Rent Control would have had no ill effect on the landlord that made the bad investment at 2234 California Street back in 2000. He was already unable to raise rents enough to dig himself out of the hole caused by his speculative investment which got caught up in a predictable economic downturn.