This sums up my feeling quite well but is stated more eloquently that I could have ever said it. I understand the plights of those that can barely (or "almost) get by living in Mtn. View on today's wages but I just believe that both measures as written have some flaws.

We where very fortunate to have Tom Means, and others on the city council during the last recession we had. They did a wonderful job of steering the city thru the most difficult economic times, in my livetime.

People should also read the other thread, here in the Town Square, titled
Voting Information for Measure V.

Measure V is over 20 pages long. Read a summary of what some of the items are that you have not heard about in measure V.

Vote no on measure V.
If you support rent control, vote yes on measure W.

I will vote no on both.

V is a power grab.
Bad for Mtn. View

@Mike Tom Mean's in-depth analysis of the measures was featured in the paper Voice on Friday. His CON measure V piece was never uploaded in the digital version on this website. Just Greg Unangst's PRO measure V made it into the digital version. Very annoying fact. Vote NO on V and W.

@Polomom,

There are a lot of annoying facts about this issue that is deliberately being hidden from the residents.The Voice is part of the cover up.

It will be up to us to copy-paste-printout-handout and email these 2 links to everyone and tell them what's in it. That will be the only way to defeat this.

Pass it on.

Vote No.

In measure V is this language,

"This Article supercedes any ordinance passed by city council covering the area of rents or evictions"

Section 1717. SUPERSEDES. (a) page 22

This new tenant advocate majority rent board will be re-writing the entire ordinance regarding the rents and evictions for the rental market. All previous work done by councils will be erased.

Both V and W would appear to discriminate against a specific class/type of landlord. I appreciate the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing act of 1995, but that's the only reason this type of discrimination is made possible.
Why pick on one type of landlord, all of them or none of them. Harmful exceptions create a fertile ground for discrimination.

Vote No on V
Vote No on W

Of course rent control is the issue. And that is not a taboo.

Always, ALWAYS, consider the main financial and political support of any initiative or Proposition. No matter the spin in the mailers, first consider who are the main proponents of any item on a ballot; that factor will tell you who are the main beneficiaries of the item.

Measure W is designed by the landlords and RE companies and was hand fed to the city council. Council members who accepted big donations from those sources voted to pass it. Mind you, not one resident of MV was given the opportunity to sign up as a backer. It just went on the ballot. Measure W's purpose is to confused the issue and blow smoke in voters' eyes. It pretends to be a solution to the housing dilemma but really it will maintain the status quo.

Measure V is designed by residents of MV. It got on the ballot via a petition signed by the required number of MV residents. I know because I'm one of those who signed the petition. It is not perfect but when have you ever seen a Measure, Initiative or Proposition that was perfect?
Vote for fairness and compassion for our renters.

I'm a home owner so I stand on the independent sidelines of this issue, except it matters to me about how MV deals with our people less lucky than me. We must not pretend to live in a cocoon where these issues don't apply to ourselves; we must choose who we are by choosing our actions. Check your moral compass if you have any doubts.

[Post removed at the request of the poster]

@ "Maher"

Where is your "moral compass" with regards to putting restrictions on a business owner that's so severe that many of them will lose their businesses?

Did you put millions of dollars down of your own money to purchase these rental properties?

Did you co-sign their loans? And list your asset's as collateral so the bank can go after them if the bank has to foreclose on the property?

Did you offer any other measure that would share the cost where everyone will chip in for housing for the truly low income residents?

Or is your moral compass only pointing to other people to pay the bills, as long as you do not have to chip in and contribute yourself. You being physically present and living in Mtn.View V is the problem for driving up home prices and real estate prices, including rentals, too many people not enough space.

That was very generous of you to solve the problem by having a minority group get stuck with the bill because the majority voters can stick it to them.

Tell me, what does your moral compass say about capping rents, but not capping ANY of the expenses that landlords have.

Did you know that under measure V, the Rental increase allowed for the year, does not even cover the annual increases for P.G&E, water, sewer, garbage?

What about all the other costs that comes in every month with these businesses? You obviously have no idea what all is involved with these businesses.

Before you make a reply and say that a landlord can go and ask for increases in rent, read the other threads posted here, and the 20 some pages of measure V, then post said information and then we'll talk some more.

Vote No

Tell all your friends, all of them vote No.

Thanks for this commentary. The lack of basic economics is certainly evident in these measures. They can't pis sibyl do what they're intended to do.

"Tom Means is a former City council member who served as mayor in 2008 and Director of the Council of Economic Eduction at San Jose State University"

He is a highly qualified person to speak out against these rent control measures. He is a member of our community who has served honorable on his two terms as council member.

The super majority of city council candidates, and the super majority of current city council members do not support measure V.

Vote No

Due to repeated violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are automatically removed. Why?

Much information is being withheld from the public. It is so important for the public to know and understand that Measure V is a Charter Amendment, it is the city's equivalent of a Constitutional Amendment. It's the nuclear option. It's very hard to change.


Measure V does not cover 1995 and newer apartments, single family homes, condos, town-homes, row houses or duplexes. They are EXEMPT!.

So the burden of proof is on the supporters of Measure V, not the opponents! They need to explain why the languages below is good for the city. It is not about capping rents, with just cause evictions, as they have been telling people, but a power grab from the city government side and from private businesses.

***I have posted the page and sections of measure V below, some are a summary explanation of the text, but there is far more in there. But I want people to read this, copy it and email it to everyone. The only way to defeat this will be by word of mouth.*** PLEASE COPY-PASTE-PRINTOUT-HANDOUT!

Page 16 (k) Integrity and Autonomy of Committee.
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 to be able to change any new laws they will make. No check and balances. The only option to repeal new laws they make will be to constantly raise money and put them on the ballot or challenge them in court.
============================================================================
Page 15 (j) Financing.
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.
============================================================================
Page 9 + 10 (7) Owner Move-in. (A) (B) (D)
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.
If there is already a family member living on the property, no further owner move in will be permitted.
============================================================================
Page 13 Section 1709. Rental Housing Committee (a)
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. Is this equal or fair?

Page 18 (3) Fair Rate of return - Factors Excluded. (A) (C) (E)
In measure V, in states that "improvements to a property" will not be allowed to have a pass thru to Tenants. Only needed repairs to keep it as is will be allowed for any pass thru.This is the exact language in other rent controlled cities, and why you have and will have neighborhoods deteriorating in our city as well because of this language. No landlord will spend one penny to improve his property when the rent board will not allow any rent pass thru's. For those of you who say it is bad now, wait till all improvements stops and see what happens to neighborhoods then.
The cost of dept service, including principal,interest and fees for any dept obtained after 10/19/15 will not be allowed for any rent pass thru for consideration for "Fair Return".
Income Taxes will not be allowed for consideration for "Fair Return"

There is no business in United States that has these restriction on products or services they provide. To be considered for a truly "Fair Return" you have to take into account dept service, taxes. All businesses have to take these into account to make a profit and stay in business and keep paying the bills.

Page 7 + 8 Just Cause Evictions Protections. (4) Criminal Activity.

"The Tenant has continued, after the Landlord has served the Tenant with a notice to Cease, to be SO DISORDERLY as to destroy the peace, quiet, comfort, or safety of the landlord or other tenants at the property".

Just look at other rent controlled cities and see how they look and the problems they have. SO DISORDERLY is the key word!
East Palo Alto, East San Jose, Hayward, San Leandro, Oakland. San Francisco is the number 1 city in all of United States for property crime, landlords are routinely denied to evict trouble makers there, and this same exact language is in Measure V. It will be up to the rent board to decide to allow any type of eviction, and with a majority tenant rent board, they will deny all evictions, just like S.F does.

These evictions issues should stay in the court system where an impartial judge makes the decisions, not a tenant biased rent board.

This Mike character claims to be the supreme expert on measure v and has been using Town Square as a free advertising vehicle to promolgate false info.

For example, he just wrote, "It will be up to the rent board to decide to allow any type of eviction, and with a majority tenant rent board, they will deny all evictions, just like S.F does."

He keeps claiming that the board would be mostly renters, but the text of Measure V calls out his lie. The only requirement about the composition of the board is that it cannot be dominated by a majority of landlords! They can be homeowners, too! Mike's lie has been pointed out before, yet he continues the barrage of misinformation.

For all the undecided, the fact that the opposition is lying should be enough to convince everyone to support Measure V. If they have the facts on their side, then why lie?

@"Why lie"

Question asked and answered, unlike you, you never answer any questions about measure V, just distractions.

Why do you suppose the moderator has not deleted the dozen's of posts that you have made? under different user names on each post, and are still here! That is against the rules as other people's post have been deleted. What's the secret to get away with doing that?

Have a good evening!

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

Measure V,

Everyone should read it.
If you do not read it and understand it, do not vote for it.
It will be a charter amendment to the city, and will be extremely difficult to change or modify.
That is why a super majority of the city council opposes it, and a super majority of council candidates oppose it.
============================================================================

Vote No
It's a power grab
Wrong for Mtn.View
The rent cap that is allowed does not even cover the annual increases for the utility's.
Water had a 10% increase, Trash had a 10% increase, Sewer had a 17% increase, potential new Composting and recycling service up to 10%.
That does not even cover P.G.&E.

You are not capping anyone's else's expenses that a landlord gets bills from, not one.
============================================================================
It has been proven over and over again. Rent controlled cities, like San Francisco, has fewer rent controlled apartments today than they did when they started rent control. Why, because landlords can not stay in business under rent control and they go out of business.

It totally defeats their arguments to say we have to have rent control to protect family's, when all you are doing is removing these older- most affordable housing stock in the city from the rental market.
============================================================================
This measure had no public review, no Q&A from the public. 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.

Thank you, Mike, and KEEP POSTING. Measure V has gotten tons of free advertising on The Voice. They are quite obviously in Daniel DeBolt's pocket and let him get away with his frantic manipulations. I have asked DeBolt SEVERAL times if he still has any connection with The Voice, but he REFUSES to answer. They let him post under different names, and encourage his fooling of the public. YOU are putting out the truth on this fiasco of a Measure.
If anything comes out of these comments, besides what a fake Measure V is, we now know the Mountain View Voice is truly the mouthpiece for this destructive Measure we thought it was. Nobody reads it anymore, anyway, but it's becoming nothing more than a shill should be the death knell for it.
I am a homeowner in Mountain View (not a landlord) and I do NOT want the degradation of neighborhoods that V could bring. It has no guarantee that those who NEED help in renting would even get the apartments they need. In most rent controlled cities, the lucky few who get a rent controlled apartment NEVER let them go and just sublet them and keep the profits. Rent control brings LESS available controlled rentals. It is a losing proposition all around - for all the reasons you have clearly stated.
All you get in return for your statements - from the V pushers - is anger and vicious reactions. They know you are exposing their faults and fallacies to the public. Now watch - they'll be pouring their predictable hate on my comments as well. They have nothing else.

@ "Shari"

Thank you Shari.

Please get the word out, tell everyone, email, copy and paste, print out some of these posts and hand them out. Email these links to people.

It will be up to people like us to get the word out. If V passes, it will change Mtn.View forever, and not for the good.

I'm sympathetic to those being priced out of MV but cannot and will not support either measure.

I don't have the right to dictate to someone else a cap on their return on investments nor their compensation for labor.

.....neither do you.

We "dictate" a minimum hourly rate paid to employees. Nobody is claiming that the minimum wage law is destroying our economy and is stripping rights away.

It'd entirely fair and just for a community to determine a maximum rent RAISE. Like minimum wages, it has allowed diversity to exist in SF. Don't we believe diversity is a good thing? It's not all about gentrifying MV.

I'm voting Yes on V and W, because I care about diversity.

@ "Supporter"

Taking rights away from anyone is wrong!

Prop 8 passed because the majority in this state voted in 2008 to take away rights from a minority group to do same sex marriages.

Rent control on newer construction was made illegal statewide to benefit the affluent. Most of the state would never vote for rent control because they don't need it. Most of the state is dry, jobless dirt patches, interspersed with water stolen from the rivers. That means no massive price hikes on rents.

The apartment owners used the initiative process to get their way along with a MASSIVE war chest of dark money.

I think if community wants to enact rules that are constitutional, they should be allowed to do so. Being opposed by a bunch of voting districts that are uninterested is not what our founding fathers intended. IMHO.

@Supporter

What on earth are you talking about?

The minimum wage sets just that...a minimum that someone can be paid. We don't, nor should we have a maximum wage nor should we set a cap on what someone can earn in return on their investments.

You DO NOT have the right to dictate that to others.

@ "Resident"

"Rent control on newer construction was made illegal statewide to benefit the affluent".

No you are wrong.

If you do not agree, please post your "white paper".

When rent control started to come into city's across the state, like San Francisco in the 1970's, all new construction for apartments in those cities stopped. When it came to the point where cities where hurting to house the new people moving in to them and could not find housing, the local politicians went to Sacramento and asked them to pass a state law that would exempt new construction for rentals.

Rent control hurts cities. Look at East Palo Alto, East San Jose, etc.

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

It has been argued that the minimum wage increases expense load of businesses, therefore would reduce profitability. Rent control in Measure V and W seek to reduce the INCREASE in rents--not the rent of new tenants. It has also been argued that limiting this increase would reduce the increase of rental business's income and affect profitability. The two issues are the same.

I think both measures are reasonable. When a tenant moves, the rent resets to market. Must be the tenants prime residence. Landlord can raise higher than CPI to make needed improvements. I'll be voting for both.

Nice to see the connection to minimum wages. Both are price controls , though one is a price floor and the other is a price ceiling. Nevertheless, both affect the markets and restrict supply. Both have plenty of empirical work showing the negative impacts. On youth labor employment regard the MW and on the stock of rent controlled housing regarding rent controls.

It has been argued that the minimum wage increases expense load of businesses, therefore would reduce profitability. Rent control in Measure V and W seek to reduce the INCREASE in rents--not the rent of new tenants. It has also been argued that limiting this increase would reduce the increase of rental business's income and affect profitability. The two issues are the same.

Copied and pasted from Mayor of Mtn.View

"The most classic argument against rent control is that it leads to blight. Measure W allows landlords to argue that any improvements could be a legitimate part of the legally required reasonable rate of return and passed through as additional rent increases. Measure V only allows the cost of work needed to keep the property up-to-code for health and safety; landscaping, new appliances or energy-saving insulation would not meet that standard."

Quote from Mayor Showalter
Mayor of Mtn.View

[Post removed due to personal attack]

[Post removed due to personal attack]

[Post removed due to personal attack]

Even if rent control passes in Mountain View it will be overthrown later. It's as sure as death and taxes. The internet has doomed rent control. You don't even have to remember your required economics class in high school. It's quite a shock though. Mt. View a working class city almost overnight becomes upper income.
George Drysdale economics teacher

Still waiting for someone to try and explain, defend all the unanswered questions from the language in these rent control measures.

A prolific poster on rent control has provided a “laundry list” of issues and questions.

Let’s Fact Check them! I have provided verbatim excerpts from the list, followed by a TRUE/FALSE evaluation that hopefully includes and adequate explanation. In most cases, I have provided the relevant excerpt(s) from the text of Measure V, which can be found here: Web Link

Let’s proceed with the fact check:

CLAIM: “1-Evictions for family member move-ins may only happen if the owner has at least 50% of the property.”
EVAL: TRUE! That’s what the text of Measure V states.

CLAIM: “Then that family member has to live there for at least 36 months or be subject to penalties.”
EVAL: FALSE! The family member must in good faith INTEND to move into the property.
SOURCE: “The Landlord or enumerated relative must intend in good faith to move into the Rental Unit within sixty (60) days after the Tenant vacates and to occupy the Rental Unit as a Primary Residence for at least thirty-six (36) consecutive months.”

CLAIM: “Family move-in’s of an owner are not possible.”
EVAL: FALSE! Family members of owners can be moved in if that owner owns at least 50%. “

CLAIM: “No one has yet to explain why a owner of a property is such a threat to the community, and his family members, that they have to make new laws that would prevent family move in's from happening.”
EVAL: FALSE! Family move-ins would only be prevented for owners that have < 50% ownership stake.

CLAIM: “2a- “This new rent board has unlimited access to the general funds for what ever reason they choose.”
EVAL: FALSE! The City provides the rent control board some initial funding, which is then refunded later at the City’s option.
SOURCE: “City to Advance Initial Funds. During the initial implementation of this Article, the City shall advance all necessary funds to ensure the effective implementation of this Article, until the Committee has collected Rental Housing Fees sufficient to support the implementation of this Article. The City may seek a reimbursement of any advanced funds from the Committee after the Rental Housing Fee has been collected.”

CLAIM: “2b-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, etc.”
EVAL: FALSE! Funding comes from the landlords, except for initial funding of the rent board, which may be refunded at the City Council’s option. (Also, the rules they enact are not laws. Laws are enacted by elected officials and the People.)
SOURCE1: “The Committee shall finance its reasonable and necessary expenses, including without limitation engaging any staff as necessary to ensure implementation of this Article, by charging Landlords an annual Rental Housing Fee as set forth herein, in amounts deemed reasonable by the Committee in accordance with applicable law.”
SOURCE2: “The City may seek a reimbursement of any advanced funds from the Committee after the Rental Housing Fee has been collected.”

CLAIM: This new rent board will be totally independent from our current city government. The city council, city attorney, and everyone else will have no say or control over what they do.
EVAL: FALSE!. The rent board is dependent on the City in the following ways:
a) The board is appointed by the City.
b) The board is initially funded by the City.
c) The board cannot enforce an action against a landlord, nor participate in a litigation without approval by the City Council.
SOURCE1: “Pursue civil remedies as provided by this Article in courts of appropriate jurisdiction, subject to City Council approval. “
SOURCE2: “Intervene as an interested party in any litigation brought before a court of appropriate jurisdiction by a Landlord or Tenant with respect to Covered Rental Units, subject to City Council approval. “

CLAIM: “They will be an entire government body with all the power within our current governmental system.”
EVAL: FALSE! There does not exist any verbiage in Measure V that grants “all the power within our current governmental system.”

CLAIM: “There is no recall provision in V to remove these people.”
EVAL: FALSE! Recalls are only performed on elected officials. The rent board is appointed by elected officials—the City Council.

CLAIM: “If we do not like the new laws that they will make the only option to repeal these will be to constantly raise money and put it on the ballot.”
EVAL: FALSE! Measure V would become law if approved by a majority of the voters in MV. The board passes RULES, not laws. If a majority of voters do not like the board after it is formed, then they can pass an initiative.

CLAIM: “This is a new bureaucracy with no oversight.”
EVAL: FALSE! The City Council controls both appointments and authorizes the board’s legal actions.

CLAIM: “4- This new 5 panel rent board can not have more than 2 real estate or landlord advocates, and will be a 3 member tenant advocate board.”
EVAL: FALSE! The measure only requires that at least 3 of the board members not be involved financially in the rental or real estate business. If the board was dominated by landlords, then there’s a very real threat that the rent stabilization goals would be thwarted. In any case, if the City Council so wishes, it may appoint all five members who are politically opposed to rent control, as long as three of the five are not landlords or in the real estate game. Those three could live in houses, rentals, RV, trailers or even a boat. Measure V doesn’t care.

CLAIM: “5- Creates a lengthy process to evict problem tenants. Other landlords in rent controlled cities do not even try to do evictions because they are always denied.”
EVAL: FALSE! In Measure V, the process is simply to notify the rent board that an eviction notice has been served on the tenant. Then, it works exactly like all evictions without rent control, including a landlord initiated court action and assistance from the police to enforce the eviction. What is TRUE is that arbitrary evictions would be curtailed. If the landlord just doesn’t like the tenant for some reason, they can’t just kick them out.

CLAIM: “6a- Repair and Improvements. If you have a oven that needs repair for $300, you can pass that cost thru the rent. If you bought a new oven for $1,200 you can not pass that cost thru the rent, that is an improvement. “
EVAL: TRUE! in the limited case of an oven. Most expensive repairs in a rental would likely be related to a safety or code issue, which could then be passed through to the tenant. Even the oven scenario might be covered, depending on whether the fault created a code or safety issue.

CLAIM: “6b-“That is why you will have no landlord put any money into their property to fix it up, and that is why you have all these areas that have rent control turn into blighted areas.”
EVAL: FALSE! It is unlikely that NO landlords would not keep their properties maintained. It certainly has not happened in San Francisco, where most of the rent control units are reasonably well maintained. Most so-called “blighted” areas in the US are NOT under rent control, so a direct causal relationship is hardly a slam-dunk conclusion. Some studies indicate that rent controlled units may be BETTER maintained as the tenant is happy to have an affordable place to live and will contribute to the maintenance.

CLAIM: “7a- Measure V is a Charter Amendment to the city.”
EVAL: TRUE!

CLAIM: “It's equivalent would be like the U.S Constitution.”
EVAL: FALSE! Here’s the easiest available process to add an amendment to the US Constitution: Step 1: Two thirds of both the HOUSE and the SENATE proposes the amendment. Step 2: The amendment must then be approved by 3/4 of the State Legislatures. To pass or retract a charter amendment simply requires a majority vote by the voting eligible residents of MV.

CLAIM: “It is extremely difficult to change or fix the flaws unless more ballot measures are done.”
EVAL: TRUE! The reason that Measure V is being proposed as a charter amendment, is that the City Council failed to respond adequately to this important issue. If it was easy to change or fix, then the City Council would most likely gut it.

CLAIM: It is the nuclear option to address this issue.
EVAL: FALSE! A nuclear blast would completely destroy a city and make it uninhabitable. Most economists believe that any POTENTIAL for negative issues would come on slowly. However, given that new construction is exempt from rent control, even the most pessimistic of economists would believe that Measure V would flatten MV.

CLAIM: “The public should have been apart of this debate, and had input, they where not included.”
EVAL: FALSE! The whole point of putting this on the ballot is to get the most powerful input the public can give—a Vote! The public has given public feedback to the City Council, which certainly has been read by the authors of Measure V.

CLAIM: “8- Under Measure V, the annual increase allowed will not even cover the annual increases in Water, Sewer, Trash and PG&E.”
EVAL: FALSE! Usually, the tenant pays for PG&E, which is the largest expense. If the other smaller items are substantially raised which significantly and negatively affects the business, then there is a provision in Measure V to pass it along to the tenant.
SOURCE: “Fair Rate of Return – Factors. In making any upward adjustment to the Rent based upon a Landlord’s Petition to ensure a fair rate of return, the Hearing Officer or Committee shall consider relevant factors, including but not limited to, the following: …
(B) Unavoidable increases or any decreases in maintenance and operating expenses;”
…”

CLAIM: “9- The writers of Measure V wrote that should measure V get challenged in court, the tax payers of Mtn.View will pay the legal bill, not the people who actually wrote the measure.”
EVAL: FALSE! The budget for legal defense as well as ALL of the board’s operations would come out of the Rental Housing Fees the landlord would be paying. There is a provision that would allow the board to REQUEST funding from the City, but there is nothing that would REQUIRE the City to approve and fulfill that funding request.
SOURCE1: “The Committee shall finance its reasonable and necessary expenses, including without limitation engaging any staff as necessary to ensure implementation of this Article, by charging Landlords an annual Rental Housing Fee as set forth herein, in amounts deemed reasonable by the Committee in accordance with applicable law.”
SOURCE2: “The Committee is also empowered to request and receive funding when and if necessary from any available source including the City for its reasonable and necessary expenses.

Now, let’s crunch some #’s:

# of Claims: 22
# True: 4 (18%)
# False: 18 (82%)

Result: With 82% of the claims being shown to be False, and only 18% shown to be True, it makes me see how the arguments against Measure V are not very rational. I think those that oppose are philosophically against any form of price controls and/or they are vested financially in rental real estate. Otherwise, there ought to be a substantial and verifiable argument to be made against the proposed Measure by now.

I hope that this was helpful. I am not connected in any way to the Mountain View Tenant Coalition, Daniel Debolt or any other organization involved in tenant rights, landlord rights, real estate, etc… I am simply an informed voter who wanted to provide thoughtful input on this important election issue.

How do these comments apply to the editorial?

What an amazing snow job.

'CLAIM: “There is no recall provision in V to remove these people.”EVAL: FALSE! Recalls are only performed on elected officials.'

[Translation: There IS, in fact, no "recall provision" to remove board members. Nit-picking. Claim was true.]

'CLAIM: “If we do not like the new laws that they will make the only option to repeal these will be to constantly raise money and put it on the ballot.” EVAL: FALSE! . . .The board passes RULES, not laws. If a majority of voters do not like the board after it is formed, then they can pass an initiative.'

[Translation: Put it on the ballot -- which is how you "pass an inititive." As claimed, all True. Imputing artificial significance to Mike's casual word choices ("laws" vs "rules," "recalling" board members vs. elected officials, etc.) in order to ignore their obvious intended meaning, then artificially cry "FALSE," is pretty shallow reasoning. Has someone been reading Orwell? Try pulling those stunts as a student in a serious univesity-level course some time.

'CLAIM: “4- This new 5 panel rent board can not have more than 2 real estate or landlord advocates, and will be a 3 member tenant advocate board.”EVAL: FALSE! The measure only requires that at least 3 of the board members not be involved financially in the rental or real estate business. '

[Translation: Yes, the board cannot have more than 2 real estate or landlord advocates. True, by obvious intended meaning.]

'CLAIM: “5- Creates a lengthy process to evict problem tenants. Other landlords in rent controlled cities do not even try to do evictions because they are always denied.”EVAL: FALSE! '

[Mike had simply reported the practical reality commonly occurring in other rent-controlled towns, which is TRUE -- I've rented in some of them. "Fact Checker" either doesn't know the practical history of US rent control, or does know it, and is being disingenuous.]

'CLAIM: “6b-“That is why you will have no landlord put any money into their property to fix it up, and that is why you have all these areas that have rent control turn into blighted areas.” EVAL: FALSE! . . .Most so-called “blighted” areas in the US are NOT under rent control. . .'

[Wonderful though cheap rhetorical gimmick, a variant of the post-hoc-ergo-propter-hoc fallacies. Most people with cancers are non-smokers; therefore, smoking causes no cancers. Once again, anyone who has experienced rent control with open eyes knows the original claim as TRUE.]

'CLAIM: “It's equivalent would be like the U.S Constitution.”EVAL: FALSE! Here’s the easiest available process to add an amendment to the US Constitution: (blah blah blah)'

[Translation: Again, TRUE. Original poster made an ANALOGY, clear to any reader who isn't determined to misunderstand. Another election is necessary to revise a city charter amendment. Quod erat demonstrandum: "Fact Checker" playing willfully disingenuous word games.]

'CLAIM: “The public should have been apart of this debate, and had input, they where not included.”EVAL: FALSE!. . .'

[Once again, intentionally misrepresenting original poster's intent. The basic claim here -- that MEASURE V ITSELF was drafted behind closed doors WITHOUT participation of the affected public -- is true and irrefutable, so it becomes necessary to play definition games. Claim was TRUE.]

Since the upshot of "Fact Checker's" excercise here was to tally a "score," arguing that criticisms of Measure V are "not very rational" (a claim with a certain irony, after how Fact Checker generated that result!), what puzzles me is why not make up several more fallacious analyses to pad the "score" even better? Since this series of arguments demonstrated no respect for real facts or meanings, the field remains wide open.

@ "Common Sense" aka "Fact Checker"

The rebuttal to your post above has been answered in the other thread titled,
"Rent control opponents raise $1.2M to defeat Bay Area measures"

You are still wrong, no matter how many times you repost these same dishonest posts.

And why are you always doing it under different names?

Vote No
It's a power Grab
Wrong for MTN.

Mike: You mis-read, and your last comment is way off target.

I am not "Fact Checker," to the contrary I was rebutting some of the contrived arguments in "Fact Checker's" belabored comment above.

Please, first read "Fact Checker's" long post, then re-read more carefully my response to it. Then vote NO on rent control in Mountain View -- a "cure" worse than the disease.

You were AGREEING with Mike and he called you out! Lol!!!

He rarely ever reads or understands what others write. I don't know if he is paid by that apartment lobby group that is pushing millions into the Bay Area for their campaign against tenant right, but if not, there certainly is some extreme cognitive dissonance there. Fact Checker did an amazing job responding to Mike's incessant asking if the same questions over and over again. He/she provided the actual words from Measure V, so it sure is hard to take the marketing efforts from the lobbyist firm.

I'm voting for V and W!

@ "Common Sense"

My apologies to you. I made a mistake and included your name in my last post here. I was responding to "Fact Checker" who made 3 identical posts on 3 different threads here, at the same time.

Carry on.

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

[Post removed due to same poster using multiple names]

@ "V"

I honestly do not know how you people sleep at night.

You can not post one item that I made a mistake in, in regards to measure V and W. You do not answer any questions about measure V, I mean honest answers, not spin.

You guys can't handle the truth because you know if the public knew what is in V, it would not pass.

You can keep repeating that the sky is purple, over and over again but people see thru you and know what you are saying is not true.

Have a good evening.

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

oh my goodness. I just in my deepest of hearts, with hope of all dreams, REALLY REALLY REALLY hope the general population are reading these posts and seeing the attitude, demeanor and all-out snottiness of the rent control group. The tone in these posts is self-serving, juvenile, and petty.

And it shows exactly where the rent control proponents are coming from.

@ "@ Fake Mike"

Moderator,

The second post above mine, is not done by me. It was done by someone who has no class. This clearly shows that the proponents of rent control have no moral standing and when the light is being shined on their measure, they revert to their immature primeval mentality.

This is the second time in less than a week that someone used my identity here and posted derogatory remarks.

Last time I reported it, you also erased my post for pointing it out. Do not do it again, people need to know that I did not say this.

Using someone's identity in this post is against the forum rules, you should have the previous IP address and you have this posters IP address. I would like you to publicly state what actions are you going to take against this poster.

[Post removed due to same poster using multiple names]

@"Jane"

What do you think the odds are that you wrote that post, or one of your friends wrote it?

It's pretty obvious that the "fake Mike" wrote the nasty word. "Real Mike" has more class than that. The rent control operatives are being so crude and manipulative - that's all I need to know to VOTE NO on V. If they resort to these immature and shady methods, they obviously have a lot to hide.

And the post above by a fake calling herself "Jane" is most probably by the same poster who uses several names to pretend the pro-V people have a lot of backers.

Real Mike is giving us a lot of facts - the pro-V people are giving us deflection and avoiding the truth about their poorly written measure. I hope V loses, or we'll be spending a lot of tax money to rescind it in another election. By then, a majority of apartments will be converted to expensive condos that those renting probably cannot afford to buy. WHY do people vote against their own best interests???

"WHY do people vote against their own best interests???"

That's a good and serious question. I've thought about it since I experienced rent control, in multiple cities as a RENTER -- but not among the fortunate few who benefitted financially from controlled rents -- and began speaking put publicly against it as a RENTER, 35 years ago. (I'm not, nor have ever been, a landlord.) Any sort of rent control laws* ignore the underlying issue (demand and supply), indeed they exacerbate it (but anyone who understands markets in general would know that anyway). Some renters make out well, some end up screwed (when they find themselves evicted anyway for new construction which -- guess what? -- is exempted from any rent controls, and is pricier besides; why do you think -- Council member Lenny Siegel recently broadcast this info -- housing developers are now LINING UP in an unprecedented volume of early building requests for the City's review process?). Or when the renters need to move for any reason, and learn then that getting out of controlled rentals is rather easier than getting back in. The practical history and downsides of rent control are amply established; anyone seriously interested can educate themselves, and also talk to the many people like me who have practical experience. (At least one current Council candidate, Greg Coladonato, also has such enlightening personal experience with rent control, that's why he rejects it.)

Why, despite all the history, do some renters still support the idea? Mainly, I think they're desperate. The social cricis here from spiking rents is real. When someone can barely pay their monthly expenses, they won't always stop and think dispassionately about what's good for Mountain View in the long run. I also believe City Council missed an opportunity to take some sort of concrete action to help renters (Measure W manifests their too-late realization of that reality -- it embodies steps the same Council initially rejected).

Some homeowners have also supported V, even publicly, as has the (apparently affluent) Council candidate Kacey Carpenter. An author of a Voice pro-V guest opinion piece even identified as a landlord. I believe those are all people who (a) are concerned for today's renters, (b) lack personal experience of rent-controlled towns, and (c) haven't seriously examined, questioned, the idea. It's sold as "compassionate," and many, sadly, accept that on face value.** In the US today, many middle-class people with advanced university degrees don't look beyond their own casual reactions to policy questions. Their criteria for judging a policy option "good" are that they like the sound of it, and take for granted that their own hearts are in the right place. A heart without a brain, though, makes good prey for demagogues.

Also, even many highly "educated" people are weak in economic intuition (it manifests in many other situations too), which otherwise would have would let them work out some of rent control's downsides for themselves. That blind spot also characterizes many pro-V comments I've seen posted online; it lets their writers, without easy conscience, second-guess and dismiss the motives of those arguing against rent control. They never glimpse the truth or sincerity of those arguments.

*About rent "Stabilization:" The specific names used for this class of laws are unimportant; I'm sorry to see the likes of Tom Means spend time on the name game. Anyone much experienced with rent control likely shared my amazement at seeing some Measure V proponents publicly play word games about "control" vs "stabilization," given the history of interchangability of these terms in the US. One town I lived in with draconian rent-control regulations calls its own unaccountable board a "stabilization" board. The choice of term is mere euphemism, trying to soft-peddle a hard stick.

**In the US in the 1930s, Soviet Communism too was sold by advocates as "compassionate." Compare Eugene Lyons's "Assignment in Utopia" (1937), reporting what actually was happening there at the time. While educated and affluent Americans formed supportive organizations and collected money, the paranoid dictator Josef Stalin was busy liquidating en-masse exactly the people within his empire who were the counterparts of those naive Americans.

I am copying this post that came from Sue, in another thread here, topic was rent control and what would happen to them if rent control was passed in our city.

No one has yet to answer her why this is a new law that we need in our city. How can anyone justify taking away rights from a property owner and say that family members are a threat to our community and we will not allow you to evict anyone for a family move in.



Posted by Sue
a resident of North Whisman
on Oct 17, 2016 at 7:35 pm

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.

The ballot should not be used as an Anger Management Tool.
+
We should also be aware that measure V will make a situation worse for other groups of people, and our city as a whole with new issues. Once rent control comes in a city, you will not be able to change it back. Look at the other rent controlled cities and ask why are they so undesirable to live in? We have East Palo Alto right next door to our city.
+
If people want rent control and everything they say is so great about it, why did they not move to a city that already has it? The classic argument is roots or schools in a community, why can they not set down roots and go to schools in those communities? They have capped rents, unjust evictions laws, schools and a community that has rentals just like Mtn.View.There are options in knowing that they have all of the peace of mind in knowing that they can live well there, like the proponents keep saying that rent control provides.
+
I have provided actual page number, sec. number of the measure and actual language in both V and W in different threads now to back up what I have been saying that is in them. I have been attacked for doing that and find it ironic that one poster is calling that information as propaganda when all I been doing is posting the actual language in the measure.
+
I have been asking questions that the public should know about, and should expect answers on. No conversion has ever taken place to discuss these issues with the people who wrote V. We do not even have the most basic information about them, like who are these people, what are there names and where did all the money come to fund this measure. One article in a other local paper wrote it came from an tenant advocacy group out of San Francisco. Why has all this information been Top Secret?
+
This measure is far more than just capping rents and having unjust evictions, this is a new government bureaucracy that will be totally independent from any other city office, like city council, city attorney, city manager, and as residents we can not vote them out or hold them accountable in any way except for another ballot measure. They have unlimited access to the general fund and have no check and balance on them for the use. They have the authority to write new laws that we do not know today what they will be. This is only the start for a very long and divisive fight that will continue in our city.
+
The argument that we need low income for diversity in our city is important, then we need a solution that would involve everyone contributing their fair share to provide a real solution to the problem. We have a $950 million dollar bond on the ballot now to provide low income housing. Lets see what the voters decide. But we need to use a scalpel approach that would provide targeted relieve to very specific people.
+
I found it very disturbing that the St. Joseph church on Hope Street sold their parking lot to a for profit developer to build row houses. This church was involved in collecting signatures for this ballot measure. It is some what hypocritical that this church is in part saying landlords should subsidize renters, regardless of the renters income, and yet they could not provide their land to a non profit low income developer to provide housing for lowThe ballot should not be used as an Anger Management Tool.=
+
We should also be aware that measure V will make a situation worse for other groups of people, and our city as a whole with new issues. Once rent control comes in a city, you will not be able to change it back. Look at the other rent controlled cities and ask why are they so undesirable to live in? We have East Palo Alto right next door to our city.=
+
If people want rent control and everything they say is so great about it, why did they not move to a city that already has it? The classic argument is roots or schools in a community, why can they not set down roots and go to schools in those communities? They have capped rents, unjust evictions laws, schools and a community that has rentals just like Mtn.View.There are options in knowing that they have all of the peace of mind in knowing that they can live well there, like the proponents keep saying that rent control provides.
+
I have provided actual page number, sec. number of the measure and actual language in both V and W in different threads now to back up what I have been saying that is in them. I have been attacked for doing that and find it ironic that one poster is calling that information as propaganda when all I been doing is posting the actual language in the measure.
+
I have been asking questions that the public should know about, and should expect answers on. No conversion has ever taken place to discuss these issues with the people who wrote V. We do not even have the most basic information about them, like who are these people, what are there names and where did all the money come to fund this measure. One article in a other local paper wrote it came from an tenant advocacy group out of San Francisco. Why has all this information been Top Secret?
+
This measure is far more than just capping rents and having unjust evictions, this is a new government bureaucracy that will be totally independent from any other city office, like city council, city attorney, city manager, and as residents we can not vote them out or hold them accountable in any way except for another ballot measure. They have unlimited access to the general fund and have no check and balance on them for the use. They have the authority to write new laws that we do not know today what they will be. This is only the start for a very long and divisive fight that will continue in our city.
+
The argument that we need low income for diversity in our city is important, then we need a solution that would involve everyone contributing their fair share to provide a real solution to the problem. We have a $950 million dollar bond on the ballot now to provide low income housing. Lets see what the voters decide. But we need to use a scalpel approach that would provide targeted relieve to very specific people.
+
I found it very disturbing that the St. Joseph church on Hope Street sold their parking lot to a for profit developer to build row houses. This church was involved in collecting signatures for this ballot measure. It is some what hypocritical that this church is in part saying landlords should subsidize renters, regardless of the renters income, and yet they could not provide their land to a non profit low income developer to provide housing for low income people. No one said one word about that.

Did the Voice even consider putting this story written by Tom Means on the from page of the Voice? It should be right next to the 2 stories that are hit pieces against landlords. That is if you wanted to be fair and let the opinion of the other side be known to the public.

He has been the most qualified person from within our city to speak out against this rent control.

It would only be fair to have this article posted on the front page as well.

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

This story had been erased from the site for the past several hours. I am glad that it is back now.

Now post it in the front page of the Voice.

All these backyard Economists posting their personal observations based on feelings and emotion.

when applying Economic Science, I prefer to use facts, not random posts. Facts like those researched and presented by the NON PARTISAN fiscal and policy advisor of our very own California Legislative Analysts Office.


The Legislative Analysts Office, California's own nonpartisan fiscal and policy advisor says rent control does NOT WORK. Their economic studies and facts PROVE that;

Under rent control;
Rental subsidies go to affluent renters (not those in need)
Overall quality of housing declines
Reduces availability of affordable housing


VOTE NO ON MEASURE V

We are one day away from election day.
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 all the controversial parts of these measures.

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

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

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.

Bump