This argument doesn't make sense.

The author alludes (correctly) to the fact that Prop 13 has distorted the real estate market, and that it is an unfair subsidy / handout to homeowners. But there is no leap from this observation to "impose rent control." Rent control would be another unfair subsidy / handout to an interest group. And just like Prop 13, it would exacerbate the housing criss, and not address the real issues, which is the low supply of houses compared to demand.

The correct way to address increasing rents is to build more housing, not to grandfather in 2016 rents for (potentially) decades.

Greg, I'll take your "opinion" seriously when you step up and commit any excess of equity gain on your home back to the renters you support. That's what you're generously asking landlords to do....easy to offer others people money and investment up, little less appealing when it's your own isn't it? You also fail to mention what these same landlords do in the down turns, the busts of the dotcoms, the recent recession.....ready to step up and guarantee landlords an income then? I thought not.

You say the Coalition garnered 7,300 signatures via a "remarkable and Herculean effort" but fail to mention that when they realized they weren't anywhere nearly close enough to getting the minimum required for a ballot vote they started paying $7/signature. This isn't Herculean....its buying votes!!!

VOTE NO ON BOTH V and W

So much false information in this story.

Prop 13 came to pass because of the uncertainty of knowing what your property taxes would be next year, causing many low income homeowners to lose their homes, caused by the out of control spending by our politicians.

It was deliberately designed to be a base of 2% WITH the intended purpose to give power back to the citizens. If there was a project that benefited the community, like schools, roads, hospitals, etc then it would go on the ballot and people could decide if it was worthy enough to raise property taxes.

Now with measure V, in it is language, page 18 (3)
Fair rate return- Factors Excluded (A) (C) (E)
This language specifically states that dept and taxes can not be used to calculate "Fair Rate of return"

What will put many landlords out of business will be that the dept service can not be used to calculate Fair return, or to do any pass thru's to tenants.

Apartment buildings have commercial loans, higher interest rates than residential mortgage's and you can not get permanent financing for these properties for if you want a fixed interest rate you get not go any longer than 10 years then you have to refinance into a new loan.

So tenants can go vote for all the property tax increases they want for roads, schools, etc and not have to pitch in and pay their fair share on this as these items can not be passed on thru rent increases to tenants.

Tenants already have protections, including retaliation, discrimination, security deposit, etc. The court system exists to protect everyone.

Now, the city of mountain View passed this year a series of new laws, including that landlords give the tenant an option to rent in a month to month, or a 6 month lease, or a 12 month lease. Now if a tenant choose a 12 month lease then the rents could not be raised more than the one time.

Another new program is the Rental Housing Dispute Program, where rent increases higher than 7.2% in a 12 month period can go before the mediator. It also covers decrease in services, security deposits, 30 day-60 day notices to vacate, maintenance and repair.

Give this program a chance to see the results. It is far better to get both parties together, talking, than to have rent control come in and change the relationship to one of bitter enemies. That is what rent control would do.

Council has said that this Housing Dispute Program will come back to council with an update in 12 months for an update. They also said they are prepared to act further if necessary.

There is another thread here in the Town Square titled V voting Information for Measure V.

Please take a look at it, then pass it on.

If you support rent control vote Yes in W.
Vote No on V
It's a power grab
Wrong for Mtn.View

It appears to me that respondents Mike and Marcell are 'residents'; not renters.

PLEASE VOTE MEASURE V

Yes, indeed we are residents. Residents with skin in the game, money on the line. People who sacrificed, lived in cheap apartments hour commutes away so we could save and make an investment, purchase a home. I commuted over an hour each way for many years until I saved enough, i didn't ask landlords to drop rent so I could afford it.

I am very comfortable wanting to protect my investment, my Town, from becoming rundown with old unkept apartments.

VOTE NO on BOTH V&W

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.

My problem with V is that it helps a few lucky people, at the expense of others. We should instead figure out ways to help *all* renters. Now that demand is high, we need more supply, that is more housing. Removing arbitrary restrictions, like the ban on housing in North Bayshore, would help a lot.

The law of supply and demand will always be with us, no matter what legislation we create.

I wish there was an easy way to help displaced families suffering from the housing crisis, but I fear that rent control is going to do the following:

-Discourage landlords from renting to families and others who want long-term housing. Why rent to a family under rent control when you can rent to a college student and then turn it over much more often?

-Discourage upkeep and maintenance on old rental properties. There are already several rental houses in my neighborhood that are literally falling to pieces.

-Decrease the tax base and erode support for our schools

@ "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.

This was a story on Town Square that I saw a little while ago and it should be helpful to some to understand that the economic cycle is over and vacancies are rapidly rising move in bonuses are being offered and prices are coming down.

I hope the link works to the www.abodo.com report. They are a firm that lists apartments for rent across the country. If the link does not work, search the title of this post in the Town Square for the original story.


Town Square
****SECOND LARGEST RENT DECREASE IN US - SAN JOSE METRO AREA AT -12%****

Original post made by lenny, Old Mountain View, on Oct 8, 2016
Web Link


"The San Jose metro area has the second biggest RENT DECLINE from August 2016 to September 2016.
A 12% DECLINE in one month!

The rents have started to correct as it has done in every decade. In the 1980's landlord's offered free trips to Hawaii to get units rented. In 2001, the last peak rent period, market rent for a 1 bedroom was $1,500 then fell to $850 in 2003 with 30% vacancy's. Many landlords in the valley lost their property because they did not have the income to pay the bills and filed for bankruptcy.

Look at Craigslist and you will see that landlords have started to offer free rent and move in bonuses, rents are coming down. A normal amount of listings for Mtn. View would be 80, now you see close to 300 listings.

The apartment building at 2235 California St. was sold in November of 2000 for $17,000,000. They then sold it for $10,000,000. Then it was sold on more time in August 2009 for $5,156,000. This is what happens when rents collapse in a recession and landlords could not save enough money to pay the bills in the bad times. With rent control you take away the very important part of running any business, and that is saving enough money to get you thru the bad times.
During this time period you had 2 owners lose a combined $12,000,000. There is no way that these property owners can earn that kind of money back."

Yes, Mountain View is in the San Jose metro area.

Most of the V opposition comments are from landlords and their paid lobbyist. Their talking points are taken out of the No on V mailers, so it's obvious who is pulling the strings.

Notice that they have failed to answer simple questions about their anti-renter position and then act all offended when their arguments are easily torn apart as pure garbage.

Most residents are supportive of rent stabilization, so the frustration of the rent-gouging landlords is understandable. The morally sound landlords are happy with this measure as it will create a level playing field in MV.

"Notice that they have failed to answer simple questions about their anti-renter position and then act all offended when their arguments are easily torn apart as pure garbage."

Nothing like this has occurred. If anything those opposing rent control have made cogent arguments and backed them up with empirical studies. It's the pro side that has resorted to emotive arguments and made personal attacks.

@"Red alert"

No talking points has been used to say what is in measure V. Just the actual language taken from the measure V.

The outside group who wrote this measure has refused to answer any questuons about it. All they do is attack and call others names just for bringing up the actual language of the measure.

I have posted an article on the Town Square titled
"Voting Information for Measure V"
I hope everyone reads it for more information about what's in measure V.

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


No one has yet to explain why a owner of a property is such a treat to the community, and his family members, that they have to make news laws that would prevent family move in's from happening.

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

Discrimination is wrong, no matter the cause. It's not right to single out a class of landlord/building. Picking on pre-1995 buildings and their landlords is like going after the old guy, alone, in the corner of a room, while the young developers (post 1995) sip wine across the room. The 1995 Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act left pre-1995 multi family housing behind. Seems a poor reason for proposition discrimination.

The State Attorney General reminded City Council a few weeks back that city council could not approve an ordinance providing parking permits to only single family homeowners. Multi family housing, Condo's, PUD's, all residents can participate. It's wasn't okay to discriminate against one class of resident.

Rent is too darn high. Obamacare is too darn high, phone and TV is too darn high. Plenty of targets to choose from.

Don't pick on the old guy in the corner just because you can. If rental housing is to be controlled, then it should be applied across the board.
No to both propositions. Head back to the drawing board. There is a better solution out there that doesn't involve discrimination.

The story of Mountain View rents is pretty much like drug companies. Investors are buying up apartment complexes just like Mylan or Turing bought EpiPen or the HIV drug and then increased the drug prices to unaffordable levels. With the rent increases fixed income or retired renters are being forced out of the area. And these investors are acting like they are doing the community a favor. If you want build new building and charge high rents that is perfectly OK, but buying a complex built in 1960 and then increasing the rent 50% or even 100% is just as predatory as Mylan charging $600 for EpiPen, If rent control is the only way, that these landlords will get the message, then so be it.

Dave77, your argument makes no sense and draws a completely false and misleading comparison. The EpiPen is a delivery device for a life saving drug - for which people don't have any real choice. The amount one pays for rent, on the other hand, is a completely personal choice. You can choose where to live, and one thing that should factor into that choice is the cost of housing. Let's go back to reality for a moment and stop pretending that anyone can live anywhere they'd like. Anyone who has moved to the bay area, especially the peninsula, in the last 10 years knew that it was expensive, and would get only more expensive. If you wanted price certainty you could have negotiated a long-term lease. Or live elsewhere. Pretty simple stuff.

"Mike" above said it well - Measure V is nothing more than a power grab by a bunch of opportunistic folks pushing their own financial/political agenda. Let's keep MV from turning into a slum. Vote NO on V and W!

So 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.
============================================================================
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

We all know that markets have cycles, they go up, then they go down. It happened in the 1980's, again in the 1990's, in 2001, and it looks like we are starting the next cycle down. Rents are already falling, vacancies are way up, move in bonuses are being offered for move ins. The period of escalating rents are over, the market is now in reverse.

In every down cycle, rents fall and vacancy's go up.

In the 1980's landlords where offering free microwaves- which was an expensive item back then, and free trips to Hawaii for new tenants.

In 2001 the market rent for a 1 bedroom in Mtn. View was $1500. In 2003 it was $850 with a 30% vacancy factor on top of that.

Apartment owners all over the bay area where struggling to pay their bills. Many lost their properties and had to file for bankruptcy.
You did not have one landlord go to the city council demanding a bailout.

What people do not understand is, these mom and pop landlords can not survive in the next recession with rent control on top of them. These are artificially low rents during a recession and you can not cap these rent increases to CPI and expect these businesses to survive.

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.

If both V and W passes, then measure V will be the law as it is a charter amendment. It will take another 2 years and another ballot measure to fix the flaws.


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


If you support rent control, vote yes on W and
No on V.


I will vote no on both.

The opposition to V is completely wrong on all counts. That is why they are spamming Town Square. If they publish incorrect information over and over again, maybe some will believe it?

Fortunately, there are just too many intelligent residents in MV to fall for this tactic. Measure V should and will pass!

Vote for V!

@ "@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!

I thank Mike for his well researched information, and obvious truth. I have just read all the above comments, and it is tremendously clear that the Measure V people have resorted to nasty and rude language, because their measure is being exposed for the nightmare it is. Mike has quoted directly from Measure V, and the actual words in it make it clear it was poorly written and would be a disaster for Mountain View.

Yet, the V people make sweeping statements - as "V!" does, above - in saying V will give "relief to thousands of MV residents" and voting no would allow "landlords to gouge their residents". They have no actual facts to back up these empty claims - thus are desperately using rhetoric to dupe the voters of MV into voting for this poorly written and extremely damaging measure.

A few current renters would get a subsidy from the MV taxpayers, to help them to stay in their apartments. However, there is NO guarantee these people are financially in need of the subsidy - but MV taxpayers would be giving it to them - at OUR expense - even though there is NO "means" test! We could easily be subsidizing the rent of the wealthy. V is THAT poorly written! This measure also requires additional fees (per apartment unit) from landlords - some of whom are already operating at a loss. You can bet they'd convert their apartment buildings into expensive condos and reduce the rentals available in Mountain View even more. Nobody is in business to LOSE money.

The "rental board" Measure V creates would be a rogue group with NO limits on spending or on their ability to fine even the good landlords (the majority of landlords in MV). This board has the ability to damage the financial stability of our city and they are not even elected by the people. It is truly outrageous.

Yet, the Measure V pushers refuse to answer questions asked of them, and deflect by saying the public is responsible for answers. THEY should be defending their measure and showing FACTS as to why they think it is a good idea. However, the outsiders who wrote this - and back this - have nothing but empty statements for us.
Why won't V advocates answer questions from the taxpayers? They just say Measure V is "great" and "will give relief to thousands" - but there are absolutely NO guarantees it will do what it says, and professional economists (who have examined this measure) tell you it will do the exact opposite.

I prefer to believe professional economists - rather than the Trumpian bluster of the Measure V pushers. I'm voting NO ON V and NO ON W.

Shari--you wrote that "professional economists" (plural) have examined the measure and have concluded that the measure would hurt thousands of renters in MV. Please name the two "professional economists".

As far as I know, only Tom Means has a public statement on the measure and even he could not find anything specific. All he could say was thst "price controls are bad".

It's interesting that you, Shari, dare to invoke the name of Trump AND to associate it with the Measure V proponents. It is clear from this and your other postings, that you are a Trump follower, although I'm sure you will deny it. Look at it this way, which presidential candidate would be more likely to vote no on Measure V? Trump. You, Mike and the other slumlords are advocating Trump's position. Think about it.

Fortunately, the influx of tech talent has raised the average IQ in MV, so Trump's political views will have less and less support here. This is not an insult. Studies have shown a correlation between education and liberalism.

Measure V is the Smart Choice!

I guess I hit a nerve with the poster just above me, huh? Read ANY economist viewpoint on rent control and you'll get nothing but negatives.
I'm not a landlord, nor am I a Trump supporter (the people at the phone bank, where I make calls for Hillary, will be amused by the comments from "Name 2").
Backers of Measure V make a massive mistake if they think we have to be landlords or Republicans to be anti-Measure V. No..... we just believe rent control is bad for EVERYONE. I realize some push this, thinking it's the golden ticket for them personally. Maybe it will be? But it won't help the vast majority of renters and will cost ALL Mountain View taxpayers to support the few who (without any "means" test) may benefit. Renters need more rentals available, not a free subsidy (at taxpayer expense) for the few.
V supporters seem to be reduced to untruths, slander, false challenges and crude words. How pathetic and desperate of them.

The "Pathetic" poster above is aply named. The script from the right-wing landlord and real estate lobby group is so insistent on "means tested". Tell you what...if that is so important to you, why not lobby for the elimination of all tax deductions and credits for anyone making below $50,000? Oh, I see. That's different, huh? You benefit from all the tax loopholes, so you don't want means testing for things that benefit yourself.

In my book, that is both greedy and selfish. I wasn't sure whether to vote for rent control or not, but now I'm convinced. The behavior of the landlord lobby is so reprehensible, that anything they oppose MUST be good for the community.

Thank you. I'm voting for V!

If this wasn't such a serious situation it would almost be comical the extent to which the pro-rent control group is trying to push their agenda. There's obviously a few posters coming in under various names posting the same tired posts that make no sense unlike most of the NO ON V posters who are registered members of our community.

And I'll post here again as I did on another also under my REGISTERED name the same response to V! AkaMeasure V, aka Red Alert etc etc etc:

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 is really a democrat vs republican issue. The Democratic Party has already advised its members to support Measure V and the Republican Party is against it.

I was reading earlier that liberalism and intelligence are strongly correlated, so given the rise in educated and skilled labor in the area, this measure should go thorough. That doesn't mesn that all republicans are dumb--far from it. There's also intelligent people that are greedy. This is not an insult. It is a fact being expressed as respectfully as possible.

Measure V is good for our community. Don't listen to the Republican Party for your information. My god. They nominated Donald Trump!

This is not a party issue. A majority a residents may be democrat, but my demo friends are independent and will vote no on V . Most intelligent people use common sense and have read the studies showing the negative consequences of rent control.

The proponents have failed to put forth arguments why this measure is good for all residents.

@ "Democrat",

What has been proven over and over again, your side, meaning the proponents of rent control, do not know what you are talking about. You will say anything, distract from what is in these rent control measures, and call people names to discredit them if they oppose you.

The Republican party of Santa Clara County, has voted on, and has publicly stated that they have
NO OFFICIAL POSITION on measure V or W.

Before you go around calling people "dumb" and "greedy" know your facts!

Mtn.View will turn into the other cities that have rent control. Like East Palo Alto, East San Jose, Oakland, Hayward, San Leandro, and even San Francisco is the number 1 city in all of United States for property crime. The language that those city's have for rent control is no different than what's before us.

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

lol, are there really any Republicans even in this area? Ha! But in all seriousness, this really isn't a Democtrat/Republican issue. It's an issue of what is right, what is most beneficial to the community as a whole.

And it has been proven over and over in factual, well-presented information; rent control will not fix those issues most important to those who need it. It will not magically lower rents and make them affordable. It will not help those who have been priced out.

VOTE NO ON V & W

The Democratic Party supports Measure V. The Republican Party does not.

It's laughable to see so-called Democrats be against Measure V. I've spoken to these self-professed liberals. They also hate the minimum wage, Obamacare, affordable housing programs and strangely enough, believe that we have too much gun control in CA.

I know it's shameful to be a Republican these days and it's easier to get taken seriously if you say you're a democrat. Actions speak louder than words and it's clear that most of the dolts that are against V are republicans.

@ "Democrat"

I would be a shamed to be part of any group that takes away rights from people. Everyone has the same rights to buy any property, and live where they choose. You have to be a responsible citizen and live within your means.

In 2008 when the majority in this state voted to take away rights from gays to be married. Prop 8 was passed and denied same sex marriage's.

Guess who the majority party was in this state? And it passed. That does not make it right.

Issue's that involve taking rights away from people is wrong, no matter what party you belong to.

Your false information,name calling and insuations about official positions from a political party clearly spells out that you have an agenda that you are pushing and you do not care about the consequences that it will cause to the ENTIRE city.

Have a good evening.

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

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 a 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.

Most of my fellow homeowners will be voting for Prop V. We don't think that it will damage our city and it is obvious that it will immediately help thousands of residents.

@ "Resident"

I do not know what it is with you people. No matter how often you post the same false information in different threads, it is still FALSE!

Residents should understand that this same nonsense language is also in Measure V.


@ "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

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 a 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.

Most of my fellow homeowners will be voting for Prop V. We don't think that it will damage our city and it is obvious that it will immediately help thousands of residents.

@resident. One simple question. Just exactly how is rent control going to help thousands of residents?

Think very carefully now....will it help them to live in units that aren't being upgraded/improved?

Actually, you may be more correct than I thought. If rent control passes you can guarantee the owners of many of these older properties will just sell to new developers who will build small, high density, more expensive units. So yes, that may help residents. Residents looking for newer units who have the money to pay for them.

"Just exactly how is rent control going to help thousands of residents?"

Double digit rent increases on already financially burdened tenants will be rare if Measure V passes. By definition. a rent that is prevented from rising quickly qualifies as "help" to these tenants.

"Think very carefully now....will it help them to live in units that aren't being upgraded/improved?"

Ah, yes. The Great Lie of rent control. Rent Control will turn neighborhoods into slums as the landlords neglect their properties. The assumption is that landlords that charge sky high rent in a hot market will be providing a high level of maintenance and cleaning service.

Well, guess what? It turns out not to be the case. The City of MV recently audited these older apartment buildings and found safety and sanitation violations galore! Apparently, the landlord were spending the increases profit on THEMSELVES instead of increasing their expenses by maintaining their properties properly.

Even worse, if a tenant complains, either the landlord will ignore them or they will fix it, but then send a notice of a rent hike! Tenants live in fear that the power of landlords to arbitrarily evict or hike the rent so keep quiet. Under Measure V, landlords will have those powers restricted.

To answer your question, yes, it helps them!

Very well said!!!

No one denies that RC will help people who live in rent controlled units. The problem as reported in several other cities w RC is that these units eventually will be taken off the market and replaced w newer units. Also who is being helped. The proponents claim these are low income renters, but as others have noted, there is no way to know who already lives in rent controlled units. I talked with a property owner who will be affected by RC and he told me the average annual income of his tenants is $130k. So do these wealthy tenants really deserve rent control?

The opposition position is that Measure V will destroy MV. They should 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. Their opposition position is tenuous at best. The anti-V 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. Vote Yes on V!

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.

The opposition position is that Measure V will destroy MV. They should 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. Their opposition position is tenuous at best. The anti-V 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.

The thing is, if Measure V has any problems it can be changed. It may be hard, but if there is a true rationale then it can be changed. On the other hand if the reason is that landlords want more profit on their ramshackle 1962 building, that's not a good rationale. There's a specific out if the vacant rate ever gets very big. No need to repeal the rules, they allow for relaxed rules in the even of vacancies.

The land is very valuable. That's no reason that some old decrepit building which isn't energy efficient and wastes land should get the benefit of the shortage to jack up the profits.

Greg is right. This Measure V makes a lot of sense and it's compassionate for those privileged to own their homes to support it for those not so privileged.

White paper #1
East Palo Alto

White paper #2
East San Jose

White paper #3
Oakland

White paper #4
Hayward

White paper #5
San Leandro

White paper #6
San Francisco is the number 1 city in all of United States for property crime.

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

Notice that Mike once again has attempted to deceive the residents of MV by pretending to provide evidence that there is economic science behind the assertion that Measure V will destroy our city.

Many voters have asked for a simple white paper, journal article or even a darned essay that would link the components of Measure V to scientific articles concluding those components damaging affects. He (or she) has steadfastly refused claiming that it is perfectly fine to malign Measure V without any substantiation other than personal opinion. ( and name calling)

In Mike's most recent post, he writes:

"White paper #1
East Palo Alto

White paper #2
East San Jose

White paper #3
Oakland

White paper #4
Hayward
..."

But where are the links to the papers!!? Just writing the words "White paper" is not the same as providing a source!

It's clear that Mike and his/her fellow landlord and lobbyist goons are conspiring to cover up the truth. That Measure V WILL NOT damage the community of MV. Instead it will allow its people to flourish.

Let's send a message to Mike and the out-of-town lobby group that this is OUR CITY and not theirs.

Vote Yes on V!

Sad. Sad, sad, sad that this is the best you can putout there in support of V, No facts, nothing but "it's our City and we will tell you how much you can charge us to live here, it's our RIGHT!"

So much information has been given, supported and proven how rent control measures DO NOT WORK. The NON-PARTISAN California Legislative Analyst has repeatedly shown that rent control DOES NOT WORK. The Urban institute has repeated studies, economists, EXPERTS who state that rent control DOES NOT WORK

rent control is not going to magically lower rates. Rent control will not create more affordable housing. Rent control WILL lead to older rundown units. Rent control WILL lead to the demolition of old units so newer, stack and packs can come in with higher rents.

VOTE NO ON V AND W

mvresident2003 [portion removed] makes these sweeping claims that "rent control doesn't work", yet can not provide a single citation to a paper that shows how Measure V specifically would damage the community. All she is doing is regurgitating from the piles of Anti-V propaganda that is piling up on our doorsteps.

You would figure that with all the millions of dollars being spent to fight Measure V, that even just ONE paper would be presented. But, no.... The so-called vast army of economists that are opposed to rent control stand silent....

Lets vote for V and send a message to the landlord that kicking families out on the street is NOT OK!

Vote Yes on V!

what exactly do you call the report that the non partisan OFFICIAL California Legislative Analyst office put out? Are you saying that our own state policy advisors are lying?

These are experts, people who know and understand fiscal policy. I will most certainly take their word.

RENT CONTROL DOES NOT WORK
RENT CONTROL LEADS TO LESS AFFORDABLE HOUSING
RENT CONTROL LEADS TO SLUMS AND RUN-DOWN PROPERTIES

MVresident2003 claims that there is "...report that the non partisan OFFICIAL California Legislative Analyst office put out", yet where is it? Where EXACTLY does it state that Measure V would damage the community? You would think that if the document itself was so damning, that the link would be provided for all to see.

I actually have READ the paper and it is very clear that the assumptions it makes are not relevant to Measure V (or W). For example, it lumps together the expansion of rent control to NEW CONSTRUCTION with adding rent control to the older housing stock. While it is certainly true that doing both would reduce the value proposition on building new rentals, by state law that CANNOT happen. Only the older properties would be rent controlled.

If anything, adding rent control to the older stock would INCREASE the value proposition on new housing. Measure V would reduce the number of vacancies in the old stock, which would reduce the supply of vacant/available rental units in the city. Rents on new stock would increase (supply/demand). Since new housing would be exempt from rent control and the landlords could price the units sky-high, developers would be lining up to build even more units than if we failed to enact rent control.

So, the claim that rent Measure V would reduce housing units in MV is ludicrous!

Let's send a message to the lobbyist pouring MILLIONS OF DOLLARS into their anti-Tenant propaganda machjne.

Vote Yes On V!

@ "Not fooled" aka "Voting yes on V" aka
"V for victory" aka "V makes sense" aka "fact" aka
"@@how" aka "@how".

I find it interesting that the rules of the Voice, does not allow posters to use different names in the same thread yet they are not deleting your posts. This is all the same writing by the same person who can not have a factual and honest discussion about Measure V itself.

Fact: The outside special interest group that wrote it, and the people associated with that group have never been identified so the public can judge there qualifications to write such a piece.

Fact: There has been no disclosures where all this dark money came from that funded this measure. Like where did the money come from to pay $7 per signature for the signature gathers.

Fact: Measure V is a Charter Amendment to the city. It's equivalent would be like the U.S Constitution. Extremely hard to change. The burden is on them to answer questions about it, and defend it. They have refused to do so and constantly reverted to, distract, discredit and smear people who are against it. You have to demonstrate how it will not harm the city as other rent controlled cities have been.

Fact: You do not need a new unelected unaccountable new government agency to just set limits on rents and have unjust eviction laws. It is far more involved in that this a power grab of both our city government and a take over of a legal and lawful business.

Fact: This new rent board will have sole power to take money from the general fund.

Fact: They will have the power to write new laws.

Fact: Landlords with family members will be denied-prohibited to have family evictions. Family members living on their property is a threat to our community after all.

Fact: There has never been any Q&A meetings held with the public to explain or answer any questions about it.

You have obviously never run a business, you have no idea what all is involved in doing so, no idea as to all the bills that come in, yet you have the nerve to tell a business what to do when you have no idea what you are talking about.

Prop 8 was passed in this state in 2008. That was a new law that denied same sex marriages to gays. Just because the majority can vote to take away rights from a minority group does not make it right.

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

Go away, Mike. You've been putting out the same nonsense over and over and over again here on these discussion boards, and quite frankly, a lot of us are tired of it.

You're going to lose, and quite frankly, it can't happen to a more deserving "person."

If your side wins, it will be a loss for the city.
The only way you can win was by committing fraud against the residents of the city, perpetrated by you and the Voice for not informing the public what is in the actual language from the 20 sum pages of V.

So sad for people like you who are so dishonest.

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

Mike_: "The only way you can win was by committing fraud against the residents of the city, perpetrated by you and the Voice for not informing the public what is in the actual language from the 20 sum pages of V."

So you are going down the Donald Trump route?

Wow.

You truly are a pathetic excuse for a human being.

What I find sad....
Measures V and W both discriminate against owners of pre-1995 multi-family housing. Talk about discriminating on folks least likely to defend themselves. The 1995 Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing act made it illegal to pick on landlords post 1995. The peninsula needs 16,000 new rental units, none of which will be rent controlled. It's the misguided rising tide of pro V and W proponents that will reap what they sow, fewer housing opportunities will be available for many.

I was going to vote against V and W, but reviewing this discussion has opened my eyes to the necessity of rent stabilization. One abstute observer wrote

"If anything, adding rent control to the older stock would INCREASE the value proposition on new housing. Measure V would reduce the number of vacancies in the old stock, which would reduce the supply of vacant/available rental units in the city. Rents on new stock would increase (supply/demand). Since new housing would be exempt from rent control and the landlords could price the units sky-high, developers would be lining up to build even more units than if we failed to enact rent control. "

My house has had a TON of mailers from that California Real Estate special interest group. They argue that Measure V would reduce housing stock, but the above paragraph dispels that myth. The rationale for rejecting either measure seems to stem from self-interest (landlords of older housing) or Reaganomics-type armchair economists (and some paid ones) that think any social program will turn MV into the former Soviet Union!

I've had enough. I'm voting yes on V. I guess I will vote Yes on W as a safety.

Very well said, Voter! I also was turned off by the flagrant lies coming from the landlords. Every landlord claims to have small or no annual rent increases, yet fight tooth and nail against a law that would enforce what they claim to be doing anyway!

It's obvious that these people are no saints. In their attempt to squeeze as much money as possible from their tenants, thousands of long term MV residents are at risk of being banished from their community.

I think voting for both Measure W and V is the best choice!

@ "another voter"

Do you ever get tired of making repeated posts under different posted names, like "Voter" aka
"another voter",? and not only that you are replying to your own post! You have been doing this all day!

It is more than obvious to everyone looking at your posts that your are the same person doing this over and over and over and over and over and over.

Mike_: "It is more than obvious to everyone looking at your posts that your are the same person doing this over and over and over and over and over and over."

Pot, meet kettle.

Right, Mike/Mike_?

My posts have my real name, ON ALL OF THEM.

Your posts have 100 different names, not one of them is your real name.

Shall we start from there a discussion about who is honest?

Methinks your paranoia and anger have gotten the better of you.

Go have a drink somewhere, you'll be better off for it.

Don't forget about the vast global conspiracy by The Voice to quash the true facts (as written by the rent-hiking and eviction-happy landlords)!!!!

As far as I can see, all the posters are unique. But even if it was just a few, I find Mike and Mike_'s arguments weakest of all. That is why he constantly calls people out, accuse them and other personal attacks. If he has the facts on his side, then why write so immaturely?

Thanks Mike and Mike_ for emphasizing how excellent Measure V will be for our city.

Voting Yes on B!

Oops.

I meant Yes On V!!!!

That about sums it up!

Maybe if you prolific pro-rent control posters spent more time studying or working than posting smack on anonymous message boards you'd be able to afford the rents rather than asking for everyone else to subsidize you

I would love to be a fly on the wall of all these pro-rent control posters later tonight when they announce that the next President of the United States is Donald J. Trump.