The first Letter to the Editor is from this year's Mayor, Pat Showalter, who was elected two years ago with the help of landlord-advocacy groups - including through the use of "dark money." She opposed any binding arbitration of rent increases until the initiative (Measure V) qualified for the ballot.

Then, Showalter joined with other city councilmembers also endorsed as candidates by landlord groups and proposed binding arbitration in Measure W - but with a GIANT LOOPHOLE: Landlords could simply end tenancies (by notice or lack of renewal) to get new tenants whose initial rent cannot be and would not be regulated at all.

And while these landlord-endorsed councilmembers did adopt the requirement of "just cause" for eviction under Measure W, they also placed in the language an EXCEPTION: all a landlord would need to do is pay a tenant "relocation" expenses in an amount to be separately fixed by the landlord-endorsed City Council majority. The amount of such allowed expenses could be set a two cents and later reduced to one cent, for example.

Put differently, Measure W is a POLITICAL DIRTY TRICK designed to draw votes away from the rent control initiative (Measure V). It will not pass. But it could have the planned effect of defeating Measure V.

Read the ballot arguments in your Voter Information Pamphlet before you vote.

Thanks Gary. I had no idea Measure W allows "unjust evictions" if the landlord writes a (probably small) check! Very dirty trick.

This is yet ANOTHER reason why voting for Measure V is the right thing to do. We have to send a message to the bought-off Council that there will be consequences.

As to the letter from former City Council candidate Ellen Kamei, most readers of this newspaper ONLINE realize that if Measure B becomes law, the VTA will resume pursuit of its worse projects.

FOR ONE: Taking lanes on El Camino Real for occasional "rapid transit" BUSES ONLY would waste lane space and make it nearly impossible to use or cross that key street.

The VTA moved the plan to the back burner after Supervisor Joe Simitian opined publicly that they should shut up. But the plan for bus lanes is already being implemented in San Jose on Alum Rock (AKA El Camino south). It is also planned for Steven Creek Boulevard. The VTA could - but need not - use money from Measure B for these bus-lane projects, The point is that passage of Measure B would eliminate the only leverage voters possess to stop the lane grab.

Another bad project the VTA moved to the back burner with Measure B on the ballot is called TOLL LANES on Highway 85. Toll lanes waste lane space as long as they are under-utilized. Check out Highway 880 toll lanes from Fremont to San Jose. Few cars use the toll lanes. Moreover, toll lanes will lead to TOLL ROADS. Same principle. We are being set up. Really. Where is Wikileaks on this?

If Measure B becomes law and the VTA has this additional revenue stream of $6 billion to borrow against, objections to TOLL LANES or any other projects will again fall on deaf ears.

VTA bureaucrats are not elected by anyone. VTA Board Members are not elected to those seats. They volunteer from the county board of supervisors (2) and city councils around the county (10).

I actually suggested to the VTA Board of Directors at their monthly meeting on October 1, 2015 that they place in their planned tax measure a provision outlawing bad projects (such as bus-only lanes on El Camino) unless and until approved by voters.

When the VTA Board voted unanimously to place Measure B on the November ballot last June, not one of these politicians suggested promising in the measure to NOT do anything.

In fact, the language of Measure B also promises to do NOTHING in particular. The expenditure categories are broad and the VTA Board is authorized by the measure to ignore the categories by a vote of the Board membership. Vote NO.

@ "Disgusted"

For your information, measure W has identical language regarding "unjust evictions" as measure V.

Measure W, SEC.43.32.

If you disagree, copy and paste here the section of the measure you disagree with.

Proponents of measure V need to come out of hiding and start explaining the language in measure V, and stop calling people names.

Why is there language that would restrict-deny an owner from a property to do a family eviction move in.

The majority in the city should all be against a blighted city and have safe neighborhoods, measure V needs a No vote to safe guard our city.

The majority of people in our city our renters, they can decide who they want for city council and yet they are constantly calling council members "landlord council" they keep saying that future landlord council will change measure W. It needs a super majority to make a change, and that includes a tenant majority council can make changes.

Why are you so afraid of future councils when tenants are the majority in our city?

@ "Gary"

Please provide the actual language, and section of this " GIANT LOOPHOLE" that you refer to that is in Measure W.

Please provide the language for "EXCEPTION" that you refer to.

I read "exception" as it says it must be in compliance with the tenant relocation ordinance.I have posted that language below. You have to meet one of these 6 items to be exempt.

You and your friend "disgusted" are suggesting that this is simply paying as little as 2 cents and then there would be no more tenancy and you can then get a new tenant and charge higher rent. Which is not true. It is far more involved of a subject than you suggest it to be.

It does not surprise me as your side has been totally dishonest in this matter, all you do is call people names and provide false information.

To recap, you must comply with one of the 6 below items, and pay a fee to the tenant, which could be as high as $10,000. That is what SEC. 43.32. 9 (c) Exemption, means. 5 of the 6 items listed means that you are no longer in the rental business.

MVCC 36.38 The tenant relocation service.

1-The landlord seeks to withdraw all rental housing units from the rental housing market as provided in Government Code §7060, et seq.;

2-The landlord seeks to recover possession to demolish or otherwise remove a residential rental housing unit from residential rental housing use after having obtained all proper permits from the city, if any such permits are required;

3- The landlord seeks to recover possession to remodel, renovate or rehabilitate the unit(s) resulting in permanent displacement of tenants and the project requires discretionary or ministerial permits from the city;

4- The landlord seeks the conversion of a building into a condominium, as those terms are defined in California Government Code and Business and Professions Code;

5- A change of use of real property from a residential use to a nonresidential use that requires a permit from the city; or

6- The change from rental to ownership units where the units were rented out for a period of time after being approved for sale.

Please post your GIANT LOOPHOLE language in W,

I also wait for you to take back your incorrect statement about EXEMPTION.

You guys really do not know what you are talking about.

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

Who is this "Mike"?

The City Council majority of four - including Councilmember Mike Kasperzak - voted to not include the text of Measure W in the ballot pamphlet. Of course, I have it. I will make it simple for "Mike."

There is no prohibition in Measure W against a landlord's ending a tenancy to get a new tenant (whose initial rent cannot be and is not controlled)except the "just cause" language copied from Measure V. But then, unlike Measure V, Measure W provides that landlords will not need any "just cause" to end a tenancy if they pay a relocation amount TO BE DETERMINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL IN A SEPARATE ORDINANCE.

Councilmember Mike Kasperzak refused - after voting to place Measure W on the ballot - to establish any amount or formula for relocation expenses for these to-to-displaced tenants. He is waiting until after the election.

The amount could be one penny or two pennies or 3 cents. But really, Measure W has no chance of passing. It is a decoy. Right Mike? Quite right. Mike is fooling few suckers. But maybe enough to draw votes away from Measure V. That is the plan.

Have you ever seen a Town Square user with the persistence of "Mike"? I'm not saying that "he" is paid by a lobbyist group or is a landlord "himself", but it sure would explain the non-stop gushing of lies, brow-beating and spam.

I'm really hoping that Donald Trump is the last gasp of the Republican Party, because it would serve as a wake up call to move that party more toward the center. Assaults against Measure V and similarly liberal policies should be fewer and less "violent".

MV is still a good place to live, but if everybody but the wealthy gets forced out overnight, then it's going to (excuse my French) suck!

@ "Gary"

O.K Gary, I will post the entire language from "Exemption for you, which spells it out.

"Page 12 of measure W, SEC. 43.32. 9 (c) Exemption.
A rental unit shall be exempt from this section 43.32 if the landlord provides verification to the city for compliance with the tenant relocation assistance ordinance (MVCC 36.38 et. seq.) for that rental unit and the city has reviewed and approved the verification."

I have in my previous post above yours, posted the 6 conditions that must be met in order to claim Exemption status, 5 out of 6 items lists conditions where the rental property will no longer be a rental property. There is also language in that ordinance that states what the actual relocation assistance fee will be paid to the tenant. It can be as much as $10,000

The language is there, written before your eyes.

Measure V is over 20 pages long and it is also not on the ballot pamphlet. So what is your point?

Look over the actual measure and Post PAGE and SECTION of your giant loophole. I have done that and proved my point.

Then go and print out the city's relocation assistance ordinance and read the process in determining how to figure out what the actual dollar amount would be, it is not any where near 2 cents.

There is only one person here Gary who is trying to fool people, and it is not me.

People need to read all of the 20 some pages of measure V and all of measure W.

DO NOT just read the ballot pamphlet, that does not even show a fraction of what these measures have in them.

If you not read the entire measure, if you do not understand them, DO NOT vote for them.

Definitely a problem with all the landlords posting cr*p here. I get enough mailers with a bunch of lies about rent control. San Francisco has rent control and it is still a top tourism destination. Property values are sky high, which is a key measure of desirability. None of these mailers go into any of that. I wonder who funded it. Could it be the landlords???

@ "Jessy"

I am all about getting the "Cr*p" out of here.

I have been posting the actual language in measure V and W with page number and section that it is in.

The problem here is your side does not want the public to know what all is in this 20 some page measure V.

Your side is not answering any questions about the language in it.

Instead of calling me names, and making derogatory false posts under my identity, why don't you actually point out the page and section of both measure V and W and prove me wrong! If I made a mistake, I will admit it.

But as of today, your side has not produced any facts of the measure to prove me wrong.

You are only upset with me for pointing out what is in the measure.

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

Here we go again with the rent control proponents dragging it into the dirt using derivative terms like Trump, "spam", crap, etc.

Measures V & W will not magically lower rents and make MV affordable...that ship has sailed. Rent control can only affect units built prior to 1995, the very units that are likely in need of more upkeep and repair. The only thing rent control will do is discourage landlords from making these repairs, leading to slums and rundown properties. As a homeowner in MV I want to protect my investment in this city and not make decisions that lead to the decline of property values.

The other option is that landlords will not be able to afford the properties so then will sell them and new, smaller, MORE EXPENSIVE units will be built.

Neither of these situations will protect low income renters. Studies by the Urban Institute and our very own California Legislative Anylyst's Office PROVE it (yes, those "crap" mailers that happen to be full of FACT) In fact, Measure V omitted critical renter protections that would have guaranteed only those renters actually in need of subsidies would get them...so it actually benefits more affluent renters rather than those truly in need.

Also stated by the Legislative office; over time, depressing rents can lead to a decline in overall quality of a community's housing stock. Again, I am not willing to risk my investment in my personal home (and a very big investment it was, it has cost us dearly), I'm not willing to risk that on what is already proven to be a very bad policy in rent control.

This is not a liberal/conservative issue. VOTE NO ON V & W

@"mvresident2003"

Someone made a post, posted last night at 11.30pm.

I do not know if you saw it, or my reply to it.

Someone used my identity that I use here and made derogatory remarks about residents in our city.

I asked the Moderator to delete it, he also deleted my reply to it for pointing it out.

Very telling about all these people who can not discuss the actual text of the measure, but can do the art of personal destruction.

I am still waiting for Gary to produce page and section number of measure W for this "Giant Loophole" that he makes claims to.