Why not ask the applicants to send the Voice their entire application and oppose the selection of applicants who decline?

Google: <candidate name> , mountain view, ca
Is ouch info would show up

It would be really wrong for the person who is an organizer if The Mountain View Tenants Org to be on the committee. This would appear to be someone writing a measure for personal benefit, of course. Just another aspect of how wrong this measure is.

MV Neighbor, what would be wrong with a Tenants Coalition member being on the board?

I'm most concerned about Tom Means being there, since he is a well-known libertarian and cannot be trusted to faithfully execute the powers of the board. If he is fundamentally opposed to rent control, his serving on the board would be a slap in the face to the voters across the city that resoundingly approved Measure V. This is why it is important that we see the applications of all applicants.

The beauty of this selection process is the very learned City Council who opposed Measure V save for Lenny Siegel, will be able to ensure the majority of the Committee is unbiased, rational and not self dealing. They can accomplish this even with the limitation of not more than 2 being connected to real estate, there are many community members who are not realtors, brokers, property managers, apartment owners etc. who respect private property rights. It won't be a kangaroo court with majority tenant coalitionists. Sorry to see Daniel DeBolt did not apply, would have enjoyed hearing Councilman McAlister's deliberation comments on that.

@The Truth as stated on the other thread, a true glimmer of hope.

This is wishful thinking on both your behalves, since the Council had an easy opportunity to kill much of Measure V by refusing to pull forward the just-cause eviction protections. Instead, on a 6-1 vote, they chose to fight back against the cynical, greedy landlords who chose to begin evicting their tenants in anticipation of Measure V. The council is mostly composed of civic-minded people that respect the will of the city. But, feel free to enjoy the fantasy for a little while longer.

The fact the bulk of the Council opposed rent control, but humanely enacted the just cause ordinance early (before 12/23) shows how rational and fair they are. They prevented the ugly result of unintended consequences from a misguided measure V. The CAA actively discouraged its members from evicting people in this manner, those that did acted irrationally on their own, or likely weren't even CAA members. The Council was right to step in as they will be right in selecting a rounded, rational Committee.

From a property management perspective, the landlords that evicted people in a heartless way are the ones that were not managing their properties well in the first place, the writing had been on the wall for quite a while and the passage of V should not have been a surprise. When V fails to serve its purpose and does the opposite, hopefully it can be repealed.

I'm glad we can agree about the shameful actions of those greedy landlords that attempted to evict their tenants. The city council acted to enact the will of the people, and will continue to do so.

Once we all work together to build enough housing such that rents are under control, we'll find that Measure V is no longer necessary and roll it back. Until then, we'll guarantee renters the same protections from unpredictable costs that we afford property owners with Proposition 13.

@Frank Richards - "Once we all work together to build enough housing such that rents are under control, we'll find that Measure V is no longer necessary and roll it back.hards - "

You must know this is a pipe dream. There will be more housing, alright, because all those landlords that are set to be rent controlled will sell their buildings to developers. Then the developers will rent their new units at high prices to the local techies. Rent control never works...

"Seriously?" Housing is like any other good. Once there is more of it, it will cost less. We've been under-building here for a while, so there's a lot more demand for housing than supply, which causes all of the prices to skyrocket. Proposition 13 exacerbates this by having long-term homeowners far underpay their property taxes.

Once we have enough housing, sure techies will buy their luxury condos, but there will also be a wide swath of reasonably priced properties for normal folk. With the right amount of supply, everything will become more affordable.

This horrible law will never get rolled back. That's the problem with this type of thing. No one will ever vote to remove it, even once it's no longer needed and causing more harm than good to Mountain View. At some point the economy will go down, as it always does periodically in tech, rents will go way down and then never be able to come back up because they are artificially restricted. I am not looking forward to living in Mountain View when this all goes down. People who voted for this are absolutely nuts.

"No way," this is what happens when problems in our communities go unaddressed for too long. Rents have been skyrocketing, but the city has moved too slowly to ease the pain. The citizens took matters into their own hands to address the symptoms, for good or for bad. If we'd treated the housing crisis like just that, a crisis, Measure V would have never passed. The best we can do now is move forward to ease the housing pain and make its existence irrelevant.

@ Frank Richards: Frank, Frank . . . you clearly don't understand the economics of housing. First, have you ever bothered to walk into the rental office of any newly built apartment complex in Mountain View? Any idea what a newly built two bedroom apartment rents for in a Costa-Hawkins exempt building? It's not affordable for the core supporters of Measure V. Your dream that rents will come down once enough housing is built is a complete fallacy. Guess what? If developers can't obtain the monthly rent necessary to justify building more apartments (approx $500,000/unit), more apartments won't be built! It's that simple! Get a clue, rent control is regressive, illegal in most of the United States, not supported by 99% of economists as any sort of viable solution, creates blight in communities, and ultimately serves people it wasn't intended to protect.

Want to see a real emergency housing shortage in Mountain View, Frank? Let Measure V be implemented and watch as hundreds of apartments in dozens of projects simply disappear because they are no longer economically viable, the land has a higher and better use as row houses and condos--you may win a battle in part but you will undoubtedly lose the war.

Rent control is a failed social experiment and communities saddled with this legacy are worse off today than they would have been had it never been started. What does a one bedroom apartment rent for in NYC? SF? Both cities have stringent rent control. Rent control creates a housing shortage, exacerbates the supply of housing, and simply drives up rents.

@Blue Sky Wishes, your argument is inconsistent. Why wouldn't a developer build new properties? As you said, they can get a ton of money for them, and they're not affected by Measure V. With demand only growing, please explain why new projects will stop being built.

Landowners have been subsidized by Proposition 13 for decades, at the expense of the California taxpayer. I don't like either policy, but turnabout is fair play.

Sigh. The pre 1995 restrictions mean that those properties will get cleared away to put non-rent controlled buildings in their spot. That is if developers want to build new properties. The SFBA looks like a poor risk right now and the I-25, US 36 and east I-70 look like a better gamble.
To make things fair, ALL BUILDINGS MUST HAVE RENT CONTROL. If nothing is done, some owners will turn into SLUMLORDS, like the properties I saw on California Ave heading toward San Antonio Road. Good luck, you are going to need it.....

Punisher, when they build these new buildings, they'll likely build higher density to maximize their return, which will increase the housing supply, which will drive down prices across the town. The only reason landlords can get away with raising rents so much is that demand has vastly outstripped supply.

If you want to talk about fair, we should drop Proposition 13 and the Home Mortgage Interest Deduction, or add equivalent subsidies for renters.

To "make all things fair", let's allow landlords to continue to let the old apartments fall into disrepair while jacking the rents up as high as possible. This is America and the Poor should just be forced to live as far away from employment centers as possible. Derp!

I am surprised that this situation has gotten so intense

I am not a member of the Mountain View Tenants Coalition, I did not act politically nor did I act in any Get Out The Vote work.

But I have applied to the Committee, and if you all have agreed that I am very careful and thoughtful in my judgement in this situation, then you now know that there is 1 candidate that is mutually independent from both landlords and tenants.

Why can't we try to work together on this problem?

The problem with wishful thinking is that reality has a habit of ignoring wishful thinking. That law of supply vs demand does work for NON-ESSENTIAL ITEMS. Housing is an ESSENTIAL ITEM! Notice what has happened to INSULIN prices lately. Or any MUST HAVE drug pricing.

I have personal experience with the IC pricing when Intel and AMD had the monopoly on making ICs. ( I worked at AMD during the " wretched excess " days ). When the prices fell under normal supply & demand rules, BOTH companies would do the deferred maintenance and overhauls of the Test Equipment. When our Government screamed ( the spy satellites needed our parts @ X10 the price AND the customers needed our parts to build high end computers ), we would roll out the " new and improved " version of our parts. At the NEW HIGH PRICE! You want the old parts? We aren't selling any! ( our inventory was sold out earlier to our best ( paying ) customers.

That is the new way the market behaves. The NEW construction is done at the NEW COST. ( Pulled a permit lately? ) and the INVESTORS want an IMMEDIATE ROI or they pull their money out and invest it in other parts of the globe. Yes, this is the unforeseen consequences of a Global Economy.
There is no incentive to have long term investments, especially in Silicon Valley. I know that because my former boss, Dr. Steve Chen wanted to build supercomputers here and could not raise the capital in Silicon Valley.
however, CHINA was willing and now is about 20 years behind THIS Silicon Valley with THERE Silicon Valley! " Money knows no Nationality ".

So don't think the pricetag of new housing is going anywhere lower soon. BTW, Google is building a new campus in Boulder, CO which has the developers there raising the prices to higher levels. The same thing is happening to area rents & leases....not to the insane levels of the SFBA, but uncomfortably higher. $300,00 to $600,00 for a new house. The DTC area has more business this year than the 5 years before. Maybe companies know something that the West Coast doesn't. Maybe the NEW Law of Supply vs Demand.....

There really is a 1996 Court of Appeal case named Wilson v. Superior Court in which Republican Governor Pete Wilson refused to release applications to fill a vacancy on the Orange County Board of Supervisors. The Court of Appeal relied on a 1991 4-3 California Supreme Court case which had held that the same Governor was not required under the CA Public Records Act to turn over to the LA Times all of his records of meetings attended on the basis that the Public Records Act contains a broad exception to disclosing records if it is clear that disclosure is not, on balance, in the public interest. Judges appointed by Wilson thought it was important to enable a Governor to meet and think and write without the fear that any news organization or individual could demand and obtain a copy of all of the records created. The Court referred to the idea as protecting the Governor's "deliberative process" in his decision-making. The chief difference here is that, at the local government level, other laws require that the public be allowed to comment at a meeting about any proposed action - such as appointing persons to a rent control board. In the local government context, it is not in the public interest to withhold records that are needed for the press and public to participate knowledgably in the process and potentially hold local legislators accountable for making bad or corrupt appointments.

Well, you have one less unbiased candidate because I have to withdraw my application.

Why, because I did express bias against the City Council and the City Attorney for their behavior in this situation.

THe can be used to allege bias in my decisions in the CSFRA board.

Even though, that is a rash assumption. I may have a lot of bones to pick with the City Council and City Attorney's behavior, I know that that cannot influence the decisions or policies that the CSFRA board may adopt.

However, be that as it may, I cannot allow myself to be used as a weapon in the continuing war going on here in Mountain View. My intentions were to ensure fairness regarding the cases, but that simply cannot occur anymore.

I am very sorry because in this case both sides lost a valuable resource.

Since city offices are closed until Tuesday, How is it possible to withdraw an application. The council will always do what's right for the city, so I think someone is merely self -promoting. While your at it B- man why don't you also tell us that you won't participate in the Trump innaguaration ceremonies.