Measure V
_________

Rent increase allowed. 2% to 5%
-
Just cause evictions. yes
-
Rent reductions for
decrease in service. yes
-
Who settles disputes. Rent Board
-
Retaliation language. Yes
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Measure W
_________

Rent increase allowed. 0% to 5%
-
Just Cause evictions. Yes
-
Rent reductions for
decrease in service. Yes
-
Who settles disputes. Professional arbitrator, will be binding.
-
Retaliation language. Yes
-
-
I re-posted from above. For some reason it gets shuffled when I click submit.

So how much is Prometheus paying you to spam these boards anyways?

Nobody is paying me a penny. I have lived in Mtn. View for 47 years, I have seen what rent control has done to other bay area cities. I do not want Mtn.View to turn into these cities.

What the Voice and the proponents of measure V are doing amounts to fraud. You are hiding the truth about what is in measure V. You are upset with me because I am pointing it out. If you do not like the language, you should have not wrote it in measure V.

You should not be, or anyone for that matter, be objecting to bringing to people's attention to what is in measure V.

The article
is long, measure V is over 20 pages long. Above is only a small portion.

It you do not want to read what's in measure V,

Vote No on V.

Mike has either not read or has not understood Measure V. He thinks raises are capped at 5pct when actually the landlord can get 10pct! It's right there in black and white for all to see! Now watch Mike try to wriggle out of this....

Notice that he and his landlord cronies still have not found a single study showing how Measure V's rent stabilization will cause devastation on the community. Now watch how he tries to wriggle out of this one too!

It's clear to everyone that the opposition to Measure V is organized, well funded, but not especially competent. Really shows how Measure V is the way to go.

Vote Yes on V!

@vvv,

Section 1707, page 13,
(D) Banking of Unimplemented Annual General Adjustments,

The first paragraph basically says that landlords who do not do rent increases each year can bank those amounts to a later year. Then continues and says "Any such subsequent rent increase shall be subject to the limitations of this section, including the 10% in subsection (e) herein. The committee may issue rules and regulations that modify, restrict, or prohibit the ability of landlords to impose accumulated increases upon finding that banking of annual general adjustments cause undue hardship on tenants,"

(E) 10% Annual Rent Increase Limit.
"The overall rent increase in any twelve month period shall not exceed 10% of the rent charged to tenant."

Your claim is " the landlord can get 10%"

You are being deliberately misleading to people. Landlord can only get 10% in one year, if he has not been raising the rents at all for several years, it's called banking. And the committee has the right to change that rule. It's right there in black and white for everyone to see.

Now that I answered your point, will people here watch you distract and call me names just so you can avoid answering and explaining why the language in measure V, is in there?

Read the points in the article above and answer here.

This whole fiasco is unreal. How did it even get so far? Oh yeah, I remember, the rent control pushers paid $7 per signature so they could get enough to push this on the ballot.

As all the facts and statistics have proven, rent control will not benefit tenants or our community.

VOTE NO

I'm absolutely amazed at your courage. To stand alone in a vast ocean of exploited renters while writing such provably false propaganda. You should really put your full name and address on your writings!

Measure V clearly states that annual increases of even MORE than 10 percent is possible. Landlord needs to re-roof? The cost of this necessary capital improvement could be accounted for in the annual rent increase. The measure is not unreasonable. The goal is not to bankrupt the apartment owners, but to stop the price gouging on rent.

And still we note that they have not found a single study showing how Measure V's rent stabilization would cause devastation in the community. How embarrassing for he and his landlord brethren.

Mike is right. The proponents are all blowing smoke. The other blogs answered the questions about previous studies of similar ordinances and another article pointed out all of the problems of the SF ordinance, which is very similar to Measure V . To say there is no empirical evidence showing the damage of Measure V is silly since the measure has not been voted on yet. There cant be damage yet because it still has to be voted on. But as these studies show, Measure V which contains the same components as rent control measures in other cities, they have caused damage in terms of restricting supply and reducing the rental stock of rent controlled units.

Mike is right. The proponents need to tell us why the same components of Measure V will not harm Mtn View, even though they have been shown to harm other cities.

"Mike" has yet to provide a single study, white paper, essay or even a haiku providing a direct link between Measure V and studies showing economic devastation in communities. His whole logic disaster is that rent control causes poverty, rather than poverty necessitating the implementation of rent control.

I wonder if he thinks that a horse and buggy is actually a buggy pushing a horse? Do umbrellas cause it to rain? Apparently, these are "invalid analogies" because it illustrates his flawed interpretation of rent control consequences.

Even his criticisms of the ordinance are easily dismissed by a simple reading. First he claimed that measure v allows a max 5pft annual increase. When pointed out his error, he then admits that 10pct is possible but only with "banked" increases. Again, he's wrong. There is actually NO LIMIT to the increases if they are needed to support needed improvements. (Actually, there is a whole list of reasons how a rental increase can be higher than his so-called 5pct, then 10pct. One has to actually READ the measure though)

@"Mike is wrong"

I started this post to show people what's in it.

I did a summary of the language and stated it's page and section. It is a long post, but measure V is even longer, over 20 pages.

I also posted a reply to your "10%" rent increase. I know all you want to do is discredit everyone who does not agree with you, right or wrong. I posted the section for the banking provisions, you can not do 10% rent increases each and every year from that provision. You are wrong with what you are trying to suggest to people.

It is clear you do not understand the language.

Another misinformation from you, repairs and improvement's are 2 different things. You are throwing them around as they are one and the same.

Roof is a repair, not improvement. That is a pass thru.

Painting the exterior of the building, new windows, new landscape, etc, these are all improvements and are not allowed for pass thru. No owner will be doing any improvement's to their property if measure V passes.

Read page 18 (3) Fair rate return-factors excluded
(A) (C) (E)
This will be the single biggest blow to the mom & pop businesses to survive.
The debt service will Not be allowed for pass thru.
That is outrageous as the Dept service accounts for 60% of the rental income for many people, in a good rental market.

This will also be the last time I address the issue of, providing any "white paper" to prove rent control will damage a city.

The burden of prove is on the people who wrote measure V. They are asking for a nuclear option to change the city charter amendment.

People do not want to live in rent controlled cities, like East Palo Alto, East San Jose, Hayward, San Leandro, Oakland, etc.
Enough said. You want to bring that same kind of mess to Mtn.View, No Thanks.

The residents have a right to ask why certain things have been written in the measure, but your side disagrees with that. You need to explain them, not me.

I would like to see the "white paper" that shows the justification for a new law that denies a property owner the right to have a family move in eviction, as I have clearly spelled out in the story. Read the article for full context on this matter.

Vote No on V
It's a power grab
Bad for Mtn.View

Apparently the opponents don't understand the silliness of their own argument. It's impossible to have a direct link to the damage caused by measureV , since the ordinance has not been voted on yet. I can't say it any clearer. Measure V has the same components of previous rent control measure which have clearly been shown to be damaging to the rental market.

If you can't accept this, fine, but don't say it's not true or doesn't address the implications of Measure V.

Turn Mountain View into a city like SF? It's not rent control doing that, it's the
decision to add millions of square feet of new office space to compete with SF that did that. Are you sure you don't have your cause and effect backwards?

Or East Palo Alto? You think Rent Control caused that mess? You think there
were loads of new apartments being built there like Mountain View now has?

We need Measure V as a bridge to the future, to prevent profiteering as a side effect of the new apartment construction which still couldn't possibly keep up with the
demand from all the new office space. THAT was the mistake. Measure V is a necessary fix for the short term to cope with the explosion of workers who provide little revenue to the city unless they live in the city, but there's not room for them.

@ "Mike wake up"

Can you provide any "white papers" to support your allegation that measure V is a bridge to the future?

For you to suggest that only the people who wrote measure V are smarter than the rest of us, that they know better, you need to get them out of hiding and tell us all the names of the people involved with writing and funding the measure.

Let the record also show that these people have not, will not answer any question about about the language in measure V. Just distractions.

Vote No on measure V
It's a power grab
It's wrong for Mtn.View

@mike wake up

Your comment "to prevent profiteering" says it all.

Hit send too quickly. Meant to say "God forbid a business (i.e. Landlord) expect to receive a profit." The nerve of them!

This is all very confusing. The text of the measure is very convincing and seems very well thought out. On the other hand, it seems that there are some people who are very passionate opposing the new regulations. So passionate that I just can't make sense of it.

If the opposition can find just one single flaw within the Measure and explain it in both brief and coherent terms, it would be most helpful in making my decision.

Thank you.

@"On the fence"

What "text of the measure" are you referring to?

Did you read the 20 some pages of measure V?

I summarized a number of issue's in the article here. If you feel that there are no "flaws" that is your right.

In 2008 the voters in this state voted to ban same sex marriage to gays. Just because the majority group can vote to take away rights from a minority group, does not make it right. Measure V is no different.


If the community has a housing problem, then the entire community should share the responsibility to solve it, but not on the back of a minority group.

I did read Measure v but not w. You wrote a lot against v but it's very difficult to make sense of what you said. Sometimes one writes something that makes sense only to themselves. Can't you just provide one problem with v and maybe spend a few minutes making the writing understandable? I think it would go a long way to making your point. The text of measure v is very well written, so as it stands now, I think the case for v has the advantage.

@"on the fence"

O.K I will play along.
You say that it is well written. I agree that it is, from the perspective of taking over a business owners right to manage and plan for the various up and down cycles that they go thru. To managing the right to evict trouble makers, and should a dispute happen, then an impartial judge should decide the case, not the rent board.

I gave 6 specifics points in the article above, pick two and spell out what is so well written out about it. Please refer to the actual section in the 20 some pages of measure V to support your statements.

Be serious with your response, or I will move on.

@On the fence, what is it that's been spelled out repeatedly that you're not getting or understanding?

Problem 1). Measure V is a charter amendment, totally independent of our City Council, majority run by tenants and under no checks and balances of our elected officials.
NO TO V

Problem 2). Measure V doesn't allow improvements to a property to be passed along to tenants, therefore discouraging property improvements.....this leads to slums and run-down properties.
I prefer to live in a community that is well maintained and well kept. NO TO V

Problem 3). Measure V does not allow for "just cause evictions" which makes it extremely difficult to evict criminals, drug dealers, etc
I prefer to live in a safe community, one without break-ins and fear of walking down the street. NO TO V

Problem 4). Measure V does not allow for owner move-in. The OWNER, the one who put equity and money into the purchase of property, is not able to move their own family into a unit!!!
I prefer to live in a community that values a certain level of risk, that values investment. NO TO V

You ask for one flaw within Measure V, here's 4 and these are just the main ones, not even the nitty gritty, harder to understand ones. What is it about any of those do you not understand?

Measure V punishes investors. Why do you think the State disallowed rent control for units built after 1995? Because back then they saw that no investor would come in to an area with rent control! Why would anyone start a business when a random group of people with absolutely no vested interest get to tell them what they can and cannot make from said investment?

VOTE NO ON V & W

Thank you for that analysis. For me, there are some appealing things about Measure V, but why I can't vote for it comes down to my belief that general funds of the city are for all residents. Measure V requires the city to pay for this new branch of government (one not elected by residents and with no checks and balances) with no idea of a budget. Because that money isn't part of the budget now, it will have to be taken from road repairs, traffic updates, public safety and even aid to affordable housing builds and those living in vehicles. The city will have to reduce both services and staff to afford this new committee. Then, the committee promises to become self-funded at a later time by creating enough penalities against property owners to do so - whateve that goal dollar amount will be. That says to me that the main purpose of the committee isn't to serve or protect people; its purpose is to create itself and maintain its presence. Essentially, it will be stealing needed funds from the rest of the residents to exist then fundraising for itself afterward. How does that put people in need first?

@OnTheFence, you haven't responded, hopefully you understand why V @ W are so harmful to our community. So very glad you asked and now can see very clearly that a NO on both is the right thing.

VOTE NO ON V & W

@ "mvresident2003"

I was hoping "on the fence" would come back so we could further this discussion.

I had my suspension's that he was a proponent of measure V, and just planting here that it is written very well without pointing out said language so as to discuss it.

Tell everyone you know about this, email the link to everyone. Print it out, hand it out!

No on V
It is a power grab
Wrong for Mtn.View

I thought so too Mike, the post was written with a "fake innocent" tone, I could tell they were stirring up things by trying imply it's a great plan. Fortunately you're getting really solid, factual information out to everyone, just hope people are passing the word along. My concern is that on the surface this Measure pulls on people's heartstrings or their mis-guided moral compass to use another's words. And if people don't take the time and educate themselves I worry they'll be fooled into thinking this will be good for those who are being misplaced.

I know my tone has been harsh sometimes but I truly do care about those who can't afford to live here any longer. It's really tough and hard when something like this happens (I know, I've been there). But rent control is not the solution. It's not going to magically lower rates and make MV affordable. If anything Measure V will encourage those older properties owners to sell and then newer, smaller, more expensive units will be built. im truly sorry for all these people who have worked so very hard, who have been fed what is basically a lie and who will come out of this with nothing more, if not coming out with even less than what they have now. If measure V passes it truly is a loss for all of us except the developers.

Sorry. I got really busy and forgot about this. I really just want ONE issue with V that is a problem. With all due respect, wading through a list of badly described or possibly wildly incorrect issues is non-productive. Can't you just pick the #1 issue that is well thought out and described?

Also. I'm offended by Mvresident2003. He or she all but called me stupid. I know this is an election year, but can't we remain civil?

@ "On the fence",

As I stated in my previous post, pick one of the six topics that I posted, then you tell me what you said was well written in measure V about it. You said you read all 20 some pages of it, please state what you like about the way it was written and what's in it.

Your reply to me, in regards to my posts as,
"a list of badly described or possibly wildly incorrect issue is non productive"

Maybe you are the one person in a hundred thousand that says yes when he means no, says go when you mean stop, and up is down.

If you want to discredit me and the specific items with the specific page and section in measure V that I posted, go ahead and copy and paste that same text here and let people decide for themself's.

We will see then who will be wildly incorrect or badly described.

Unbelievable! This is so typical of the anti-V landlords and their shills. A very simple request to provide one single problem with the measure and they can't even do that. Sigh...

Let me try. I will pick one from mvresident2003's list (at least he tried!) and if it turns out to be wrong, then we can assume that ALL of the opposition points are wrong. Otherwise, why wouldn't they provide just ONE???!!!

"Measure V is a charter amendment, totally independent of our City Council, majority run by tenants and under no checks and balances of our elected officials."

Let's break this down and do a fact check:
"Measure V is a charter amendment"
TRUE! Score One (+1) for Team Anti-V.

"totally independent of our City Council"
FALSE! The rent board would be APPOINTED by the City Council. That's hardly "totally independent". Score (+1) For Team V!

"majority run by tenants"
FALSE! The majority is not "run" by anyone. The measure states that the majority cannot be a landlord or a developer. That does not mean that the majority MUST be "tenants". They can be homeowners, too! Score (+1) For Team V!

"under no checks and balances of our elected officials."
FALSE! If the City Council or other elected officials in the county, state or at the federal level has a problem with the activities of the board, they can leverage the courts to make changes. Score (+1) For Team V!

Let's tally up the score. We have 1 point for Team Anti-V and 3 for Team V. In other words, Issue #1 provided by the Anti-V folks is MOSTLY WRONG.

Given that their very first issue is almost completely wrong, it can be assumed that the rest of their issues are wrong as well. It is obvious that Measure V is in the right and the opposition has not a single point in their favor.

Voting Yes for V! It's good for MV! It's the right thing to do.

@ "@Mike"

The only thing right about you, and the outside group that wrote and funded Measure V is your dishonesty. We are still waiting for you to provide the names of these people who wrote it and where all this money came from, it must be near $200,000. You can not even make two posts in a row without using the same name, as you just did.

All your side has said to people is that it caps rents and has just cause evictions. What your side is doing is a power grab from taking over a private business and a power grab from within our city government. You are wanting to sneak this thru the public without them knowing what all is in it.

I have never seen someone try so hard to draw a straight line out of a pretzel. There is a old saying that you never get in an argument with a fool because you soon won't know which one was the fool.

This new rent board will have NO city council member or ANY one else that can govern over them. They are totally independent with full access to the general fund, and yes it must be a tenant advocate majority board. They put much language in measure V to screen out the landlord advocate side, but not so much for the tenant advocate side.
I am so happy for you that the rent board will have to commit a federal crime so the federal government can come in and hold them accountable. We as residents can not hold them accountable.
As voters, we do not vote for the board, we can not vote them out either.We have no rights to say no to the laws that they pass or to the amount of money they spend from the general fund. And measure V does Not provide for any recall provisions, and language that they wrote that says they are completely independent even from the city council, could easily see this matter go to court should council decide to try to remove a board member and the rent board can hire an independent attorney to defend them and take money from the general fund to pay the bills. We never had any board like this in our city, with this much independence and power.

I am still waiting to hear from your side why you feel that a family member from an owner, with their property is such a threat to the community that you had to write a law that would restrict-ban these owner move in evictions.

The Daily Post newspaper who has no conflicts with employees working for this pro rent control group has said no to both V and W. The super majority of current city council and city council candidates has said no to V.

Have a good evening "On the fence".

Vote No
It's a power grab
Wrong for Mtn.View

Still waiting for the landlord-funded opposition to answer the most basic of questions:

The opposition position is that Measure V will destroy MV. Please provide a study, a white paper or SOMETHING that proves this.

If they cannot provide this very basic information, they are obviously on the wrong side of Truth.

What is very clear from reading (and understanding) Measure V, Is that it will provide relief to THOUSANDS of MV residents. Absolutely no study is needed for this most obvious fact. Your position is tenuous st best. The anti-V real position is to allow landlords to gouge their residents, evict them at will and fail to keep the properties safe and sanitary. This is absolutely true. Nobody honest can dispute it.

Measure V will pass. Come to the side of goodness and vote Yes!

"The opposition position is that Measure V will destroy MV. Please provide a study, a white paper or SOMETHING that proves this. "

Of course this is completely false and the poster knows it. Previous posters have provided web sites that list several studies showing how rent control measures from other cities using the same language as Measure V have negatively impacted the stock of rent controlled units and that they do not help the poor.

Still waiting for the landlord-funded opposition to answer the most basic of questions:

The opposition position is that Measure V will destroy MV. Please provide a study, a white paper or SOMETHING that proves this. If this has been provided before (it hasn't), it should be trivial to provide just ONE example.

If they cannot provide this very basic information, they are obviously on the wrong side of Truth.

What is very clear from reading (and understanding) Measure V, Is that it will provide relief to THOUSANDS of MV residents. Absolutely no study is needed for this most obvious fact. Your position is tenuous st best. The anti-V real position is to allow landlords to gouge their residents, evict them at will and fail to keep the properties safe and sanitary. This is absolutely true. Nobody honest can dispute it.

Measure V will pass. Come to the side of goodness and vote Yes!

So this is a copy of a previous poster . Maybe the proponents do not know how to access this material, but it's very clear on how rent control that employs measure V components are very harmful to the rental market.

Here's an article on SF rent control . Very revealing about rent controlled housing stock and the income of tenants in rent controlled units

Web Link

The link below is a survey article that summarizes first and second generation rent controlled policies.

Web Link

Unfortunately the links did not copy but are lister under the blog on measure V in another article

Here they are again

Web Link

Web Link

All the Pro-V rent control posters can say is "prove to us how our ill-thought, one-sided, we-get-to-tell-landlords-how-much-to-charge measure is going to ruin your City". That's all they can keep saying, as you can see for repeats posts over and over again, the same "prove to us how we will ruin your City"

I don't need to prove to you how you will ruin our City and frankly none of us want to "test" it with Measure V, that's one test I truly don't want to even run the slightest risk of failing.

VOTE NO ON V & W

Bumping to keep top of page

Someone actually provided some support for the theory that the passage of Measure V will cause economic devastation in MV.

As I suspected, there is no substance behind the claim that Measure V would create significant problems in our community. Let’s examine the documents provided by the anti-tenant coalition:

—
1. New York Times article: Web Link

San Francisco has a strong rent control ordinance—far stronger than Measure V, yet read this excerpt taken from the article:

“The cone of silence was evident Monday when a parade of economists and housing experts testified at a board of supervisors committee meeting about the city’s housing situation. Each presentation showed that housing had become increasingly unaffordable in recent years, pricing out people at every income level — except the wealthy.
Yet not one expert mentioned rent control’s impact on the market.”

This is a very important point. With all the testimony of economists at this hearing, rent control was not considered a factor significant enough to mention! High rental prices is directly tied to insufficient supply. NOT RENT CONTROL! Don’t you think if rent control played a big part in high rents, that one the esteemed professional economists testifying would have mentioned it?

—
2. This is a document written by Blair Jenkins with a Bachelor of Arts in Economics. (It was published by Econ Journal Watch, the same publication that published this little ditty: Web Link The article rejects the notion that same-sex marriage is not harmful. )

Here’s the link to the article about rent control: Web Link
It’s important to read the full document. Oh, and have a reasonable understanding of it. Once this is done, the inescapable conclusion is that MV’s form of rent control is devoid of many of the theoretical problems written by economists.

For example, “Some other forms of second generation controls are designed to punish
landlords for allowing rent controlled units to deteriorate. Olsen (1988) summarizes the intentions of such rent controls: It is easy to show that, if the reward for upgrading and the penalty for downgrading a unit are sufficiently large, the apartment will be better maintained under rent control. (Olsen 1988, 298)”
or…
“Basic economic theory would suggest that rent controls will induce landlords to reduce the maintenance of controlled units. With lower rental rates and excess demand, why should a landlord maintain a $1000-value property for which she can only collect $750? She might as well skimp and let it deteriorate to a $750 value. This basic logic is affirmed by many economists, but of course reality is more complicated, and there are models in which positive maintenance effects are found.”

The models they refer have features of Measure V.

So, you see, even with evidence submitted by the Measure V opposition, it is trivial to demonstrate that their case is weak. What is an absolute definite truth is that the passage of Measure V will provide relief to the thousands (10’s of thousands actually) that are currently living under the threat of arbitrary eviction. People with families, nurses, first responders, school teachers and, yes, highly paid tech workers. Hopefully, supply will be addressed by the next City Council, but in the meantime, something must be done.

Voting Yes for V, because the facts support it.

It's nice to cherry pick some points in the article. You forgot to mention the fact that those in rent control units had just as high of incomes and also the point that the number of rent controlled units were declining every year. The SF rent control law has many of the same features as Measure V . You also failed to mention why the SF law is so much stronger, since the article doesn't mention all of the components of the law.

The survey article covers a lot of empirical papers. The main conclusion is that they are all harmful. No where does any of the research claim rent control has no impact and will help a lot of people like you claim. Can you cite a paper published in a serious economic jounal that will support that claims you make about measure W? Of course not because it's pure speculation and not actual definite truth as you state.

The burden of proof is on proponents to back up their claims with empirical research, not speculation. The opponents have mounds of empirical research supporting the negative impacts of rent control.

@ "Finally",

O.K
I believe you, no really I do!
You never where dishonest with any of your alleged claims, you always told the truth, and you only used 12 different names everytime you made a post.

You where always truthful when you replied to people's questions about the language that's in measure V. Oh no wait that was not you.

You posted the text of measure V that you claimed was in measure V to discredit people here who are against measure V, Oh wait, that was not you.

You posted all the "white paper" that said that measure V was a bridge to the future. Oh wait, that was not you.

You posted all the names of the people who made up this outside group of people who are smarter than the rest of us ordinary residents in Mtn. View so we could judge their character and their back ground to determine if they are really that smart.
Oh wait, that was not you.

You also published where all this outside dark money that came into our city to the signature gathers who got paid $7 per signature. Oh wait. That was not you.

But you did provide the white paper that explained why in measure V is language that restricts-bans owners of a rental property to do a family-eviction move in. Oh, wait, that was not you.

You have also clearly demonstrated by providing all these white papers that absolutely proves that East San Jose, San Leandro, Hayward, Oakland, East Palo Alto, and even San Francisco, which is the number 1 city in all of United States for property crime, that all these rent control cities are so desirable to live in that they have a waiting list to get in. Oh, no wait you did not do that.

There is one common denominator here with all these cities and it is rent control cities. People do not want to live there.

There are no evictions going on, just to raise rents. This has been debunked. The city council, at one of its meeting was asking people to come forward and let the council see them. None came forward. You are just doing everything you can to smear landlords and to get sympathy from people so they would vote for this take over of our city government.

One last time. It is your side that is doing the nuclear option by doing a charter amendment. With all the flaws in it, the only way to start to correct it will be with more ballot measures. It is your side that has to prove to the public, both what's in it and why things are in it. Your side is refusing to discuss it, and you are committing fraud on our city by trying to sneak this 20 some page measure past voters.

You know, reflecting back on what you said, I changed my mind. You really do not know what you are talking about.

Never mind, have a good evening.

Vote No
It's a power grab
Wrong for Mtn.View

P.S

We should take a poll here and ask people if they think we will ever get any answers to the questions from my post above.

Still waiting.

Vote No
It's a power grab
Wrong for Mtn.View

It's a shame that "Mike" has resorted to name calling. This is typical of his political party. Trump is always yelling that there is a media conspiracy (like "Mike's" unfounded claims about MV Voice). I guess when people smarten up, people like "Mike" get frustrated and go a bit nuts.

What is this "nuclear option" that Mike talks about. A nuclear detonation would kill everyone in the vicinity. Is that really what Measure V will do?

Chicago has a higher crime rate than MV. They also don't have rent control. By your logic, our crime rate will go up if we don't have rent control. See how ridiculous you sound?

Doesn't matter. Measure V will pass. Too many smart people live here now.

Since you brought up the Voice, how do you explain the dozen's of post that you have been making, multiple times on the same thread using different names and yet if anyone else did it, their post would be erased, what is your secret?

That is a question and within the rules so my post should not be erased.

One last question, is your name Angel S.?

That is a question.

@rude.

Sigh.

All the Pro-V rent control posters can say is "prove to us how our ill-thought, one-sided, we-get-to-tell-landlords-how-much-to-charge measure is going to ruin your City". That's all they can keep saying, as you can see for repeats posts over and over again, the same "prove to us how we will ruin your City"

I don't need to prove to you how you will ruin our City and frankly none of us want to "test" it with Measure V, that's one test I truly don't want to even run the slightest risk of failing.

VOTE NO ON V & W

This thread is to important to lock up.

Let's keep the conversation going.

To defeat these measures, it will have to be an all out group effort. Email, social media, talk to freinds and neighbors. Tell the what is in it.

If this passes, it will be too late to change it or fix it. The city will turn into other rent controlled cities like East Palo Alto, East San Jose, Hayward, San Leandro, Oakland, etc.

Vote No
It's a power grab
Wrong for Mtn.View

Bump this up so people can read about measure V.

Spread the word, tell your friends.

Vote No
It's a power grab
Wrong for Mtn.View

Inform your friends what is actually in these measures.

Read all of the 40 some pages of the measures V and W.

Do not read just the voter ballot pamphlet as all the bad stuff is not in it.

Vote No
It's a power grab
Wrong for MTN.View

We have some serious ballot measures that will change the future of our city if passed.

It is vitally important that everyone read and understand all 40 sum pages of V and W. The voters pamphlet does not contain the controversial parts of these measures. Like the provision that will be a new law that would deny-restrict landlords the right to do family eviction move ins. Why would family members living on property that they own be such a threat to the community that we need a new law to regulate this.

Please, if you do not read all of it and understand it, do not vote for them.

These 2 measures do not apply to 1995 and newer apartments, condos, town homes, single family homes, and duplex's. They are EXEMPT from any rent control.

It will take another ballot measure to make any changes in V, which would be highly unlikely to ever happen.

Remember that V will create a new UN-elected, unaccountable 5 panel rent board that will be totally independent from the city council, city attorney and city manager. The people can not recall them or vote them out. They will have the full power to draw money from the general funds and they will have the power to write new laws. No one has any power over this new government bureaucratic agency to change what they do or to reverse any new law that they will write. Any lawsuits that should arise from this measure, tax payers will pay the bill to defend it.

IMHO, if you support rent control,
Vote No on V
Yes on W

We have a vibrant community where people actually want to come to and live in. Lets not gamble on the future when we already know the outcome for cities that already have rent control.

I will be voting No on both.
These measures are harmful to cities.