Once again The Voice gives one side of a situation (as listed in the second paragraph of the article). The Voice's bias is obvious, as they are clearly no more than a mouthpiece for the Tenants' Coalition. I'm sure this comment list will have a lot to say - but it would be refreshing to see the Voice grow up and try honest journalism.

I am not a landlord, and not a renter, but I have watched this process very closely. I am baffled that people actually think they have the "right" to demand the property owner (who takes ALL the financial risks) should lower rents because they WANT to pay less. I'd like stores to lower prices, but I realize that's ridiculous and I simply buy what and where I can afford. I have worked all my life, saved money, and stayed within my budget - I bought in Mountain View. Sure, it would be great to live in Atherton or Palo Alto, but I don't expect them to lower prices just because I want them to do that! I'm very sorry if everyone cannot live where they want, but that is not anyone's responsibility but YOURS.

Another argument I find ridiculous is one I heard over and over at the last Council meeting. People stood up and said if rents are increased, they will be homeless. Are there no more affordable rents in Mountain View or within driving distance of Mountain View? If you are priced out of your apartment, will you not look for something more reasonable elsewhere - you'll just decide to live on the street? Is Mountain View an island and there are no other towns around? This kind of false argument only defeats your purpose.

I'm sure there are some building owners who charge outrageous prices for what they offer. (I think Rolex charges too much for watches, so I buy a less expensive one.) The only solution to being charged too much - if you want to continue to rent - is to look elsewhere.

Only FIVE states allow rent control (and only in a very few cities in those states) and THIRTY FIVE outright prohibit rent control. Those in favor of rent control conveniently never mention that. These states are aware that rent control is confiscation of private funds, AND it does the exact opposite of what it says it will do. Apartment owners - if forced to lower rents and perhaps lose money - sell to developers. Then the apartment goes to a buyer, making less apartments available. It's a simple fact.

Some of the current people fighting for rent control think they will get "something for nothing", but life doesn't work that way. They are working against their own best interests and though they will live to regret it - it will be too late for them when the number of apartments drops dramatically with rent control.

Can we please look at this realistically and rationally and without venom? I DO wish everyone could have what they want - but this is the real world.

It's really sad how people have no compassion for their neighbors. The thesis of the poster above me is "Rent's too expensive? Get out, you don't deserve to live near me, a wealthy landowner."

We've been subsidizing homeowners for too long with Proposition 13 and the mortgage interest deduction, but once a subsidy comes around that helps the poor instead of the wealthy, people get up in arms.

I'm tired of property owners here not paying their fair share.

No point in holding one's breath in hopes that The Voice will turn a new leaf and begin objectively covering local news.

It's amazing to me that I can sit through a city council meeting and then a day or two later read an article allegedly summarizing what might be considered a divisive or hot button agenda item that was discussed and perhaps voted on. Often times, it seems as if the journalist who wrote the article must have sat through a different city council meeting than I did, either that or the journalist cherry picked what to include in the article in order to slant the article to suit a particular agenda. Ugly business.

If you are truly interested to know the truth about what is going on at the city council meetings, don't expect to find that here. What you will typically find here is a biased version of what someone wants you to believe is the truth, or parts of a whole edited and molded to paint a particular picture or "truth", but it is certainly not the entire story.

If you want to understand for yourself what is happening and cannot attend the city council meetings, you can stream real-time online, or you can watch at a later date the archived video of the entire city council meeting. I highly recommend either attending the meetings, or watching them online, if for no other reason than to understand fully just how biased and perhaps agendized the journalism at The Voice has become. It's shameful, and a disservice to the community.

Same old same old = slimy, greasy lawyers are paid by property owners to undermine what the voters OBVIOUSLY approved in November ... the property owners are behaving as the losers in the national elections = if they don't LIKE the outcome of the fair vote, then they just throw hissy fit after hissy fit and expect the WINNERS of the vote to say "OH! Well since you disagree with us, the victors, then we will just go along with YOUR preferences and wants and desires!" ... THIS is why Donald Trump won the Presidency = a massive change was needed!!!

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]

@A Neighbor,

Maybe spend more time thinking about the situation of your neighbors, and less time mashing your keyboard with insults.

When will you begin paying your fair share to our city? I'm tired of subsidizing property owners who clearly have no gratitude for the benefits being conferred to them, nor any amount of compassion for their neighbors who are not wealthy like them.

Let me try to understand this. You are not happy with Prop 13 and mortgage interest tax deduction, correct? So why not try to fix that? I don't understand your jump to then wanting to pass more bad legislation with rent control. If it's bad, we shouldn't be trying to expand it to cover more people, we should reform it.

Really "Compassion", so paying property taxes isn't paying our fair share? Being subsidized by Prop 13, and the Mortgage Interest Deduction? Seriously? Our property taxes pay for your schools, City services, street maintenance, and Police, to mention only a few. I'm curious, what is your contribution?

I have owned a home in Mountain View for over 25 years. I have several retired neighbors who couldn't afford the property taxes if it weren't for Prop 13. I don't see this as being any different. Either both should apply or neither.

Thank God we are not a mob democracy where the majority of the tenants would be able to establish a tyranny over the minority property owners.
The 5th and 14th amendments protect (in theory) individual property ownership rights.
Unfortunately the California courts did not step up to the plate and left the local governments free to pass even the most ridiculous laws without heightened judicial scrutiny.
The only realistic hope is with a more conservative US Supreme Court.
It will take few years though, but the reversal of disastrous rent control laws will happen.

@Peoperty,

I'm a new property owner, so I'm paying the nominal property tax rates, which is my fair share. How about you? Still locked in at half your home's market value?

I find it absolutely disgusting that property owners who have so tilted the playing field to help themselves are now crying foul about those less well off than themselves trying to hold on.

Compassion,
Did anyone forced you to buy your property or did you exercise your free will to do it? Would you be willing to sell it now for half of the price for the benefit of the community, i.e. to a teacher who is not able to afford to live in MV otherwise.
See, in case of rent control owners cannot enter into mutually agreed contract with the tenant, they are FORCED to be subject to the permanent occupation of their property and they are FORCED to accept significantly less than a market price for their property ( both in rent and sales price).

Everyone should pay the same in property tax regardless of when they bought their home. People that pay less for the same property do not pay their fare share. Why should I have to pay 5x for the same thing. If you can no longer afford it move.

Isn't the purpose of this measure the same as Prop 13? To prevent older people from being kicked out. Just like 13, once their are new habitants, it goes to market value.

I agree with above poster, what's good for the gander is good for the geese.

Critical difference, the burden of preventing the people from being kicked out in case of rent control is FORCIBLY placed on VERY small group of property owners, who already own property.
This is not the case in prop 13.
In case of prop 13 the potential owners GET TO DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES if they want to pay the 5x larger tax than everyone else, before they buy. No one is forcing them to do so.

Rent control limits the rent increase every year. It hurts nobody except the landlords. Since a majority vote can impose pain on a select group of people just because they are outnumbered, I am surprised to see that the tenant advocates stopped at just limiting rent increases rather than requesting a rent decrease every year. Since you have the votes, why not, right?

Sick of property owners, not paying their "fair share"? How about you get on up to Sacramento and work with the good people up there to get an initiative on the ballot to overturn Prop 13? You know, come to think of it, Plan Bay Area has a massive (multi-billion dollar gap) in its funding model, and it's report has them making up this massive shortfall by simply having Prop 13 overturned, so...go for it.

As an aside, property taxes happen to be paid by property owners who have taken financial risk and at the same time made a long term investment in the city of Mountain View. If you no longer want a city where there are any property owners who have a vested interest in the community, well just wait about another 20 years and you should get your wish. It'll be a paradise of apartment buildings and other high density developments. People will no longer use personal vehicles for transportation but instead they will use bicycles, busses or other mass transit to get them anywhere they need to go. The city will be able to reinvest all the money it saved by cutting weekly trash pickup to biweekly service and resurrect the super popular bike-share program. The VTA should have long since completed its lane grab of the center lanes of El Camino Real -- which I am sure won't result in any additional vehicle traffic diverting through neighborhood streets, making them even more unsafe for pedestrians and bicyclists alike. High speed rail should be shooting through Mountain View, noiselessly, several times a day. And the FAA's NextGen's rollout should be fully implemented, resulting in a consolation of flight approaches and creating a literal aircraft superhighway in the skies -- which will, in fact, significantly impact the noise level on the ground in Mountain View and our neighboring cities.

Yup, the future's so bright, I've got to wear shades...or move.

I agree when an individual decides to buy or rent a new place it's their decision as to what they pay. But when an individual bought or rented a location 20 years ago at a specific price and the buyer is allowed to maintain a lower market valuation than the renter, then the two individuals are not treated equally as to the cost of living when it comes to housing

I'm shocked to see people will defend the subsidy that significantly helps them as just and fair, while deriding similar subsidies that don't help them as an affront to liberty. I guess saving a couple grand in property taxes each year can purchase some high quality mental gymnastics.

Sick of homeowners not paying their fair share go to Sacramento and start an initiative to overturn Prop 13.

Sick of your rent going up well go to City Hall and start a measure to stop it.

FutureSoBright, looks like they took your advice but not quite the way you advised it.

Clearly it's much MUCH easier to pass by a simple majority vote, in a city with a majority of renters, an ordinance which effectively provides those fortunate enough to be ensconced in soon to be rent controlled units, a subsidy - provided by the owners of those properties, to the tenants renting those properties.

Try passing an ordinance like that with the 2/3 majority requirement that we have on all special tax increases - which includes property taxes - that we consider on the state ballot in California. It would go down in flames, which is why the rent control measures were carefully balloted in cities that have a population where the rental population outnumbers the homeowner population. Even then, the rent control initiatives failed to pass in three of the five cities that were seen as being pretty easy pickings as far as passing a rent control ordinance. The good people of San Mateo, Burlingame, and Alameda saw the forest through the trees.

It's a lot harder to take someones money away when you have to get 2/3 of the voters to agree that their willing to give up their money, or willing to make someone else give up their money. Although, some people seem much more likely to vote for something if it means someone else will be giving up their money, than they are to vote for that same thing if it means they have to give up more of their own money. Go figure.

It's sad that there are people like "equal time" the writer of the first of these comments: "I am not a landlord and not a renter", this person says. What he or she really is, is a pharisee who demands a strict interpretation and observance no of the Mosaic law, but of the law of supply and demand with zero consideration for human dignity and moral principles but totally focusing on the materialistic side of things. "It will be great to live in Atherton or Palo Alto", this pharisee says as a vivid illustration of his/her one-sided materialistic view of things.

Nobody denies the legitimate right of any landlord to make a decent profit by renting his properties. What we wrightly oppose and fight is the greediness of many of those lanlords who seizes the opportunity to make money and more money with total disregard for the dignity and humanity of is fellow human beings.
Shame on you "equal time", you are a fealty vassal of the greedy landlords who only worship the god of money.

@FutureSoBright

This is exactly what I was talking about: property owners in California tilted the playing field to help themselves, but are now crying foul about those less well off trying to hold on. At least the other people in the thread are upfront about their desire to evict the poor.

A Neighbor,

Please understand, the people living in apartments in Mountain View work their (blank) off every day.

Mike Rose,

You state:

"The 5th and 14th amendments protect (in theory) individual property ownership rights....

The only realistic hope is with a more conservative US Supreme Court.

It will take few years though, but the reversal of disastrous rent control laws will happen."

However, what you negate to realize is that until the U.S. Supreme Court determines Measure V is unconstitutional, your NOT stating any accurate statement. You are NOT correct until the U.S. Supreme Court makes a decision that Measure V is unconstitutional.

You are making an argument, making an allegation, but that is all that it is. You cannot claim that anything is unconstitutional until the courts actually state that. All your doing is repeating an allegation that has not been determined as true.

In fact, you already conceded that the California Courts will not agree with the CAA and determine Measure V is unconstitutional, you stated:

"Unfortunately the California courts did not step up to the plate and left the local governments free to pass even the most ridiculous laws without heightened judicial scrutiny."

You simply admit that the courts have never supported your argument. Sorry.

Until either the Santa Clara Court, the California Supreme Court or the U.S. Supreme Court determines your allegation is in fact true, that Measure V is unconstitutional, you are simply trying to be misleading.

Like I said previously, feel free to get on up to Sacramento and work with the good people up there to get an initiative on the ballot to overturn Prop 13. You will be in good company with the Plan Bay Area folks, as evidently they are feverishly trying to figure out how they are going to overturn Prop 13 in order to make up for the massive funding gap in their One Bay Area plan. I am sure they could use someone like you, so dedicated to the cause.

Hop to it!

Here we go again with the purely emotional, feel good, everyone should get what they want approach. JLR, what you fail to clarify in your generous comment that landlords deserve a decent profit is that apparently you feel it's your choice to determine what is fair and not the owners. So here you have an investor, someone who took risk and out their own capital out, being told what he/she should be "allowed" to make and not only that, but he/she is being told what he/she can make by someone who has absolutely NO RISK, NO INVESTMENT in the game.

It's ludicrous, It's frightening there there is an entire generation and population of people who feel this is their RIGHT. that it's their RIGHT to dictate to someone when they have absolutely NO SKIN IN THE GAME.

WRONG. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

FutureSoBright, how come everyone latches on to Plan Bay Area as some sort of signifier? Are you going to talk about One World Government next?

I'll keep acting locally and making things more bearable for my neighbors. We'll sort out Prop 13 as a state soon enough, but the little victories like Measure V will have to be enough to tide me over. Hopefully, one day, everyone will chip in their fair share.

No, mvresident, this generation believes that everyone should be able to live near where they work, and that their community should come before "profits" and "investors." We actually care about our neighbors and don't just pretend to on Christmas. We want to keep the our community together.

It's not the renter's fault that there is a majority renters.

Also, rent control is part of the RISK, that the landlord's take

Rent control should NOT be part of the risk landlords take when it was not in effect when the property was purchased. Here's an idea, go ahead and get your rent control but only on those properties purchased AFTER, then you are correct, it can be part of the risk.

Again, this shows how naive and lacking in business judgment any of the rent control proponents are. It's just emotional feel good dreaming. Like Guelph says, "everyone should be able to live where they work". Since when is that a "right"? We moved to MV to be closer to our jobs....shortly after my spouses company moved up to San Carlos. So do we move to San Carlos now to stay close to the job? No. Because it'd probably move to SF or back down to MV or even god forbid to another state.

You don't have a "right" to live anywhere. It would be great if we could all live in exactly the place we want, surrounded by our families and friends and utopia. But that's not reality. Smart people make decisions and choices that have the most effective, long term economic effect on their family.

Before the November election, 6 of 7 City Councilmembers were against Measure V. Two councilmembers, John Inks and Mike Kasperzak, were ineligible to run again. But the two new members elected also opposed Measure V. So we still have 6 of 7 against V. Before the election, the City Manager bemoaned Measure V. And the City Attorney presented a phony alternative (Measure W) although she did so at the direction of Councilmembers who, as candidates, had been endorsed by a landlord-advocacy group. The question now is whether opponents of Measure V in public office are trying to discard it by rolling over in the lawsuit filed by a landlord-advocacy group (the California Apartment Association). The precedent for such a tactic is CA Proposition 208 (marriage is one man and one woman). The proposition passed but the CA Attorney General refused to defend it in court against claims that 208 violated higher laws. Others had to step in to defend it. The difference is that there were good argument that 208 was invalid but not that Measure V is entirely invalid. And Measure V has a severability clause. It advises that voters intended to have Measure V in the city charter even if a court were to find that some portion of it violates a higher law. So while the City should defend Measure V, it may not and others should be ready to step in. One way to step into a case is called intervention (California Code of Civil Procedure Section 387).

Randy Guelph,
There is really only one word that could describe the ideas stated in your last posting, COMMUNISM.

Rent control has been around since the 1920s. It has always been there although not actively persued here in Mountain View until recently. If landlords didn't consider the future sentiments of renter when choosing to rent, then that was their lack of forethought. Having said that, I do agree that there should be some accommodation for landlords who were renting prior to the measure.

I am a home owner of 20+ years, but not a landlord. So not only renters support this measurw. When I first came out here it took about 6 years to save up the down payment and I suffered through my rent going up as well as home prices. I considered moving out to Tracy and spend almost no time seeing my kids. I thought it was completely unfair the breaks that home owners got because they had money. Once again the working stiff gets screwed. Now that I own, I love prop 13 and the tax breaks and hope they never go away. But I haven't forgotten as I have younger co-workers who are in the same predicament as I was (but no much worse).

Watch out, Mike! A spectre is haunting Mountain View...

It's telling that you can't argue the merits and need to fall back to the old Red Scare tactics in order to avoid thinking about people and what it means to be a community.

mike rose,

Lets look at your declaration that rent control is communism. What is communism:

Communism
mike rose,

Lets look at your declaration that rent control is communism. What is communism:

Communism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For other uses, see Communism (disambiguation).

In political and social sciences, communism (from Latin communis, "common, universal")[1][2] is the social, political, and economic ideology and movement whose ultimate goal is the establishment of the communist society, which is a socioeconomic order structured upon the COMMON OWNERSHIP OF THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION and the absence of social classes, money,[3][4] and the state.[5][6]

Communism includes a variety of schools of thought, which broadly include Marxism, anarchism (anarchist communism), and the political ideologies grouped around both. All these share the analysis that the current order of society stems from its economic system, capitalism, that in this system, there are two major social classes: the working class—who must work to survive, and who make up the majority within society—and the capitalist class—a minority who derives profit from employing the working class, THROUGH PRIVATE OWNERSHIP OF THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION, and that conflict between these two classes will trigger a revolution. The primary element which will enable this transformation, according to this analysis, is the social ownership of the means of production."Web Link


An apartment is NOT A MEANS OF PRODUCTION,it is simply a residence, and thus communism does not apply in this case. So is rent control communism?

Under this definition, NO, rent control it is NOT COMMUNISM.

Be careful what you type because there will always be those who can demonstrate the errors in your conclusions.

Steven,
Not paying attention again, bad boy.
I referred to Ralph statement not to rent control per se.
So your rant again is off subject.

And Steve,
Don't lecture me please from the comfort of your armchair about communism theory.
I spent 25 years under communist regime and I know one when I see one.
I was forced to give up my home, family, job and friends due to communist oppression. Every citizen lived in misery although the official line was that all is done for a common good of working class.
Property rights and rights of the individuals were trampled upon.
Landowners were singled out, stigmatized as greedy, often jailed or exiled.
Private real estate was nationalized.
Some of the things happening here echo my past experience unfortunately.
So please don't read me Wikipedia definitions in hope of wiping out of 25 years of my personal miserable experience.

mike rose,

Who is ralph, I don't see a ralph here?

In any case, your comment was a bit vague, I poorly assumed it had to do with Measure V because it is the topic of the story.

My apologies

Here's the dangerous ideas Mike Rose wants you to reject:

"[your] community should come before "profits" and "investors." We actually care about our neighbors and don't just pretend to on Christmas. We want to keep the our community together."

This is somehow "communism." I always thought it was just basic decency, but I guess I was raised differently.

mike rose,

I didn't say that Communism was good, did I?

But if you look at Marx's definition of Communism and the applied form, they are not the same. In fact it appears that Marx's Communism has never been implements in any country like USSR, China, Cuba, etc. They all are totalitarian states, not communist.

Applied Communism like applied Capitalism can be corrupted and distorted on both ends to benefit those who can manipulate the power.

So Steven, I take you are still searching for good application of that system. Good luck!!!!
You quoted Einstein once:
" The definition of INSANITY is doing something over and over again and expecting a different result"

Randy,
It maybe news to you, but the system in our country is based on free enterprise and profits.
All other systems have been tried around the world and failed miserably.
That is not to say that there should not be room for compassion, but not for forced upon individuals compassion, particularly when is not just.
I am all for the whole community helping people in need and I do.
I am against forcing a small group to achieve that purpose, particularly when some of the needy may not be needy at all. In fact I know some elderly and not very rich landlords and very affluent tenants affected by this law.

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]

mike rose,

You are putting words in my mouth. I was just making an observation.

You obviously suffered a lot in your past. However, please do not punish those who did not inflict harm to you in the past? The Citizens of Mountain View did not:

I spent 25 years under communist regime and I know one when I see one.
I was forced to give up my home, family, job and friends due to communist oppression. Every citizen lived in misery although the official line was that all is done for a common good of working class.
Property rights and rights of the individuals were trampled upon.
Landowners were singled out, stigmatized as greedy, often jailed or exiled.
Private real estate was nationalized.
Some of the things happening here echo my past experience unfortunately.
So please don't read me Wikipedia definitions in hope of wiping out of 25 years of my personal miserable experience.

It appears your trying to seek justice from the wrong people who were not invovlved in your past history. Don't you know that?

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or off-topic]

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or off-topic]

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or off-topic]

Gary,

Thank you very much, I was very concerned that if the citizens tried to get involved in the CAA case in Santa Clara, it would have wound up being like the Proposition 8 case. As you know the SCOTUS decided that the proponents of Proposition 8 were disqualified from the case because that had no "Standing" in the case to appeal the federal court ruling.

But you presented CCP 387, which establishes that if a tenant is directly impacted by the "failure" of the City Attorney to represent them in the case, the court must allow another attorney to get involved. Once that happens, the first thing that should be done in revocation of the restraining order because surely the new attorney will contest the stipulation.

My question is, has any steps been made by the 4 legal resources that supported Measure V to intervene in this case. I would argue it is time to file to intervene in this case given that it is well documented that the City Attorney has completely dropped handling this case. I hope to hear about it very soon.

I guess righteous people don't want to defend thievery. This task should be left to the thieves themselves.

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or off-topic]

mike rose,

YOU know that 5 of the City Council are OWNED by the CAA and Real Estate interests. The public record shows how much money was given to the City Council candidates to run for office by the CAA and Real Estate interests, and that 4 out of 7 have more between $10,000. to $100,000. multiple investments in major financial institution investments.

How can that be considered "righteous", to me that is a prima facie case of corruption and racketeering.

Of course, you didn't want to discuss that before claiming that the City Council is "brave" to not cower to the Citizens of Mountain View. It would appear that the opposite is true and that the City Council is too intimidated by their financial supporters to do their job.

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or off-topic]

Mike,

Unlike you, I'm actually in touch with reality. Courts have been considering the constitutionality of rent control ordinances under several different theories and across many years and not a single court has found rent control to be a taking, without being overruled by the Supreme Court, that is. This is not all that surprising, for it is wholly appropriate for courts to exercise particular restraint in declaring regulatory takings, given that the text and history of the Fifth Amendment show that the Founders intended to limit only physical takings of property for public use without just compensation.

An honest, historical look at rent control finds it to constitutional, and this has been upheld repeatedly.

Being in touch with reality is also why I'm not terrified of communists lurking everywhere, like you are.

Randy,
I understand your nervousness and anxiety in regards to Trump SCOTUS appointees. Just give it some time and it will gradually go away.
No one suggests that courts didn't upheld rent controls to this point.
All I am saying that this will likely change with these particular measures in new political reality.
Many laws are subject to interpretations and usually comes to interpreting what is reasonable and fair and that is very subjective.

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or off-topic]

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or off-topic]

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or off-topic]

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or off-topic]

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or off-topic]

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or off-topic]