I don't get it - all of the Bay Area are dyed-in-the-wool Liberal Democrats, who love to care for the needy, right? Non-discriminatory, rights for all, protect the poor man, correct?

So why isn't rent control the norm and fiercely defended by MV? Why are trailer parks and very-low-income housing going away? Why are we saying 'yes' to Googleplexes and high-end apartment housing instead?

Because you liberals are all hypocrites. You love to take care of the poor, the homeless, the undocumenteds...as long as it's not in your dear Mountain View and as long as it doesn't hit *you* in the pocket.

CAA is going to fight this all the way to Supreme Court.
In the meantime the City will have to spend millions defending the measure at every level.
By the time it gets there SCOTUS will likely have majority conservative justices.
Couldn't the money be spent more wisely?
Let the radical activists defend the measure on their dime.

Frank, your comment is really confusing, but not surprising for someone who doesn't love in our community.

The people of Mountain View did just that, voted for rent control to protect people in our community. Our elected representatives have chosen to defy the will of the people, but clearly the people have put their money where their mouths are.

Mike, the most likely outcome is that the city will recover attorney fees from the CAA for its frivolous suit. I hope CAA members are happy that their dues are going to fight a losing battle.

With regards to the Supreme Court, 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.

I live in Santa Clara - we've got lots of Sobrato assisted housing and trailer parks. I can't afford to get into MV. So now that's straight.

Are your City Council members all Republicans then? If so, why did you vote them in?

Good Democrats wouldn't let Google take over MV, kick out the trailers and bring in high-end homes for the techies.

Actually Randy in Richmond suit (MV really did not have a hearing yet) the judge stated that she was very concerned about constitual soundness of the measure, that is why she scheduled expedited hearing.
This directly contradicts your assumption that the suit is frivolous and therefore would not be subject to reimbursement of attorneys fees.
To the contrary attorneys fees are requested and maybe awarded to CAA if they prevail as their suit on the constitutional grounds serves public interest.

Mountain View City Council is a nonpartisan office, which is something you would know if you lived in our community.

Do you have any real points to make, or are you just spewing partisan hatred? Constructive suggestions would be appreciated. I, for one, think we should build more, and the current Council has done a great job of increasing the amount of housing.

Frank, there are a lot of misconceptions about rent control. Sounds great, right? Not so much when you look at the consequences. The reason people are opposed to this rent control is because it only applies to older rental properties, aka those rental properties that have higher repair costs, typically owned by middle class people, and have p lower rents, The price gouging rents are generally exempt from rent control because they tend to be newer. Buildings built after 1995 are exempt from rent control to encourage new construction. By targeting these older buildings, we force small landlords to pay an unfair tax, to supplement rents, and to operate at a great loss if they were recently sold. These property values literally drop in half because there is no future profitability. Recently new owners are stuck with huge mortgages, operating at great losses for more than a decade ;this is typical, as profitability increases as markets increase, however, by the time the rents have increased to profitability, small landlords face needed capital improvements, as costs of repairs also rise, further delaying profitability). With no way to raise rents, landlords we. Forced to absorb dropping housing costs, and have no way to recoup in good times, so no chance to ever be profitable as real estate values and rents increase, essentially cnancelling the equity of these units by transferring the equity benefits to some lucky tenants who win the rental lottery.

Anyone who knows anything about economics and housing costs could do a quick analysis of this and realize that although well intended, measure V greatly benefits large, new, expensive complexes, by taking less expensive units off the market via rent control. This essentially lessens competition for those pricey rental units. In addition, the small, older, more affordable rentals will be phased out as middle class owners find it unprofitable, or go bankrupt as they are forced to supplement rent. These properties get torn down and rebuilt and are then exempt from rent control.

By enacting this law, Mt. Viewers are saying they do not appreciate the character of olde buildings, nor do they support small businesses, but prefer massive corporations.

History shows that rent control does not work and leads to severe problems, lowers real estate values, reduces housing availability, on and on.

Do some research folks. You're killing your own real estate values and tightening the rental market with rent control. This law is aimed in the wrong direction. People are foolish to waste city money or any money on this.

How far down does the rabbit hole go?

I read this:

Mountain View officials don't have much time to spare deciding how the city will be involved in the case. In the days since the lawsuit was filed, the city has retained the Oakland law firm Remcho, Johansen and Purcell to assist with the case. The city attorney's office declined to disclose details of its contract with the Remcho firm, citing attorney-client privilege. But the city attorney did note that so far no payments have been made to the firm.

This would appear to me that there is some kind of disagreement between the City Attorney and the City Council. Or it could be that the City Attorney has discussed that she cannot handle the case with the City Council, and they need a substitution of legal representation.

Why is the meeting regarding the lawsuit private, it involves a public interest, and the consequences are not going to impact the City Council at all. I find it confusing also that the City Council in public meeting acts completely opposite to when it makes decisions in private.

To me, I would rather fully understand the standings of the City Council, by not knowing the truth, this is an intolerable situation.

Mtn View Neighbor,

Agree with you completely.

As CAA suit claims tenants essentially will have a property right to their landlord’s property. This is not satire; it is the virtue of caring, as understood by liberal government.


In addition to rent control’s random dispersal of benefits rent control is destructive because it discourages construction of new apartments and maintenance of existing ones.

It creates the “emergency” it supposedly cures.


Rent control is unconstitutional because it is an egregious and uncompensated physical occupation of property. The Constitution says that private property shall not “be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
This Measure shows compassion to tenants — many of whom are not needy- by compelling landlords to subsidize them.

A property right, in a physical thing is a right to possess, use and dispose of this thing. Because government-compelled possession of property by a third party is an unambiguous taking, property right has been essentially nullified by this measure.

John Locke, an intellectual source of American freedom, said that property rights, which he defined to include rights to “lives, liberties and estates,” exist prior to, and independent of, government, and their preservation is “the great and chief end” for which governments are founded.
Property rights provide a sphere of personal sovereignty, a zone of privacy into which government should be able to intrude only WITH DIFFICULTY and only so far. Because they are the basis of INDIVIDUAL INDEPENDENCE, America’s Founders considered property rights the foundation of all other liberties.

This measure illustrates, no longer secret desire, to transform property from a fundamental right into conditional privilege. Government would like the right to be contingent on whatever agenda it has for fixing the "emergencies" it causes.

Such a substantial regulation — which a physical occupation is — of real property violates the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause if it does not substantially advance legitimate state interests. The court also has held that a regulation of real property violates the Takings and Due Process clauses if it serves no “public use” or is “arbitrary.”

Nice work, mike rose, in plagiarizing a George Will op-ed from 2012.

Web Link

Nevertheless universally true.

This comment is 529 words 15 paragraphs

249 words and 9 paragraphs are mine, not counting the summary just listed

mike rose,

You stated:

“Rent control is unconstitutional because it is an egregious and uncompensated physical occupation of property. The Constitution says that private property shall not “be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

This Measure shows compassion to tenants — many of whom are not needy- by compelling landlords to subsidize them.”

As I have discussed in the past, no private person can subsidize anyone. A subsidy is funds given to a private entity by the government to promote more economic access to the good or service. This is simply inflammatory language that was used in advertising in opposition of Measure V during the campaign. What you really want to say is you want the right to arbitrarily set prices so those who actually work for a living have to fork out more money to your interests. This claim is so categorically wrong.

You stated:

“A property right, in a physical thing is a right to possess, use and dispose of this thing. Because government-compelled possession of property by a third party is an unambiguous taking, property right has been essentially nullified by this measure. “

Another factually wrong assertion, the property owners still possess and use the property and can do with it what they wish. Rent control does not interfere with this action. You mistake "use" with the freedom to arbitrarily set rents according to unrealistic financial expectations. The use of the property is defined as the ability to change, improve, tear down, and rebuild. That is the definition of "use" in the setting of the 5th Amendment.

As far as John Locke is concerned, he was described with this:

"John Locke

The single most important influence that shaped the founding of the United States comes from JOHN LOCKE, a 17th century Englishman who redefined the nature of government. Although he agreed with Hobbes regarding the self-interested nature of humans, he was much more optimistic about their ability to use reason to avoid tyranny. In his second treatise of government, Locke identified the basis of a legitimate government. According to Locke, a ruler gains authority through the consent of the governed. The duty of that government is to protect the natural rights of the people, which Locke believed to include life, liberty, and property. If the government should fail to protect these rights, ITS CITIZENS WOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO OVERTHROW THAT GOVERNMENT. This idea deeply influenced THOMAS JEFFERSON as he drafted the DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE.(Web Link

So if you want to follow his example, you are potentially promoting an effort to overthrow the City Council, the state of California, or the U.S. Government. Is this correct?

You finally stated:

“Such a substantial regulation — which a physical occupation is — of real property violates the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause if it does not substantially advance legitimate state interests. The court also has held that a regulation of real property violates the Takings and Due Process clauses if it serves no “public use” or is “arbitrary.” “

However, rent control has been determined to serve the public "public use" and has been also determined as not arbitrary in the courts. Why are you making statements that can be so easily disproven?

"If Mountain View loses this fight, rent control laws all over the state are in jeopardy, along with the livelihood of hundreds of thousands of people," said Tenants Coalition organizer Daniel DeBolt.

Really??? I doubt that this is the case. Most likely, the rent control advocates just being hysterical and stirring up trouble again.

William,

Daniel is just an ordinary citizen, he is not experienced at being a public spokesperson. I think he is having difficulty being the focal point of this issue, but it was thrust upon him given the crisis in the City of Mountain View regarding out of reality rent increases.

So I tend to give him a lot of slack. His intent is in my view is honorable, but those out there are using his inexperience to attempt to discredit the point of view of the Mountain View Tenants Coalition. This group does not consist of professional politicians, just the citizens of Mountain View. This makes it difficult to grant them a fair consideration sometimes.

The Business Man,

Mike has shown himself to have no academic integrity here, lifting wholesale a 2012 op-ed to bolster his case, without providing any attribution. He clearly has no desire to actually grapple with the issue, instead wants to parrot the lines given to him by others.

Well Steve if you admit that rent control is a "public use "
In your last sentence above then you can complete the rest from the 5th amendment text.

Plagiarist,
I'd rather be 10 times plagiarist for the noble cause than once a thief of property that does not belong to me

My goodness, Mike, but a thief is exactly what you are! By posting someone else's work without attribution, you are not only a thief, but a fraud and liar. You presented someone else's words as your own, and you should feel ashamed.

Wow, and you are not ashamed of stealing someone's hard earned property? I guess left wing radicals have no shame

I am sorry Plagiarist, I shouldn't call you thief. I guess more " politically correct" form would be a proponent of an involuntary wealth transfer in the name of "social justice".

Mr. Rose, I haven't even given my position on rent control, so I don't know why you're leveling accusations at me. Just because I pointed out your blatant plagiarism doesn't mean I agree or disagree with you.

Ok then it is fair that I retract my accusations against Plagiarist with apology.

This comment has 330 words and 11 paragraphs

163 words are citations comprising of 4 paragraphs

mike rose,

You do not seem to understand that your information does not support your claim, please look at your quote:

“Such a substantial regulation — which a physical occupation is — of real property violates the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause if it does not substantially advance legitimate state interests. The court also has held that a regulation of real property violates the Takings and Due Process clauses if it serves no “public use” or is “arbitrary.” “

With regards to the first sentence:

“Such a substantial regulation — which a physical occupation is — of real property violates the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause if it does not substantially advance legitimate state interests."

In almost every case in history that deals with this issue, it appears that all declared that “rent control” is enacted to substantially advance the legitimate state interests of the general welfare, the protection of a citizens interests, and to prevent even more problems regarding public infrastructure decay due to longer commutes. You do realized the general welfare is specifically included as required to be provided under the U.S. Constitution:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[note 1] PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

In so far as the second sentence.

"The court also has held that a regulation of real property violates the Takings and Due Process clauses if it serves no “public use” or is “arbitrary.” “

In this case Measure V was designed to promote a public service, which is a public use. Measure V was designed to be not arbitrary because it provides a case by case assessment regarding the rents to be paid by specific tenants by specific apartment owners. Since Measure V serves a “public use” and is NOT arbitrary, this statement seems to go against your belief.

Thus, your quote does not seem to apply in this case, can’t you understand that?

Steven, you can twist it around as long as you want.
The bottom line is this is a private property and government cannot take it without paying compensation.

Permanent physical occupation equals taking by any measure.
This is immoral.
People worked all their lives to aquire property for market price and now government takes it and allocates to the tenants.
A separate issue is that this taking never worked in history.
It is purely for political reasons. There are thousands of publications proving this scheme does not work as intended.
And why do you think is it fair to place this burden on a small group of landlords owning pre 1995 units when all of the community should in fairness carry this burden.
You may say because they are greedy,
But is NOT the landlords who dictate rent. Market does,
Imagine if landlords would not ask any rent and let the tenants bid among themselves. The result would have been the same. It is the shortage of housing not the landlords which caused this situation.
And rent control will just exacerbate the shortage..
Is this really so hard to understand?

Unless ALL apartments built are covered, a legal " taking " is not possible. Strip out the " Buildings built after 1995 are exempt " and the proposition is legal up to the SCOTUS. Also legal by the Constitution IF EVERYONE IS TREATED EQUALLY!

Buildings after 1995 must be excluded by state law, no way they might be incorporated in this law.

This comment has 445 words and 24 paragraphs
322 of those words are mine 9 paragraphs

mike rose,

You stated:

“Steven, you can twist it around as long as you want.

The bottom line is this is a private property and government cannot take it without paying compensation.”

I did not twist anything, I just demonstrated that your statement did not make any sense in the situation.

You stated:

“Permanent physical occupation equals taking by any measure.

This is immoral.”

The problem with addressing this statement is this, morality is an individually defined concept. Thus I will not argue with you that your moral standards has determined your point of view. Morality in itself is not singular universally defined or accepted code. Your perspective is just as valid as mine in that regard.

You stated:

“People worked all their lives to acquire property for market price and now government takes it and allocates to the tenants. “

Again, the apartment owner owns the property, it has not been taken away.

You stated:

“And why do you think is it fair to place this burden on a small group of landlords owning pre 1995 units when all of the community should in fairness carry this burden.”

I agree with you, in fact I do believe that because this problem effects all the citizens of Mountain View, the idea that Costa Hawkins prohibits new properties from rent control is unfair, that law should be stricken so that all properties are treated identically. Or the Costa Hawkins law must be amended to cover all properties. This is a political matter that can be handled by the State legislature or a state wide proposition. You are free to act on both ideas.

You stated:

“But is NOT the landlords who dictate rent. Market does,”

However, the fact that there is clearly demonstrated failure to develop property even with a ban on rent control for new properties is not the fault of a tenant. That is an industry caused problem that cannot be used to the detriment of the consumer market.

You stated:

“Imagine if landlords would not ask any rent and let the tenants bid among themselves. The result would have been the same. It is the shortage of housing not the landlords which caused this situation. “

I would love to see that play out. I cannot say that you are wrong, but it has never occurred from what I can see anywhere. The property owners choose the conditions of the market, not the consumer.

You state:

“And rent control will just exacerbate the shortage.."

Again, are you blaming that the tenants are responsible for the current mess? I cannot think the industry could even present one iota of proof that your statement is rational or reasonable.

The Biisiness. Man,
You finally convinced me. I am ready now to disregard the 100% of the economists and researchers who unanimously came to opposite conclusions after studying this issue to "death".
You are truly a genius!!!!

During wars price (rent) controls are enacted. After the wars the market mechanisms should be returned. Price cap things are you have another Venezuela. Silicon Valley needs more rentals. Bravo for the city council for standing up to mob rule. This is covered in economics 1 (high school). Rent control is immoral.

George Drysdale a social science teacher

Mr Drysdale, you are making the classic mistake that people make when using economic arguments. Economic arguments are not moral arguments. Whether or not something is efficient says nothing about whether or not it is moral. Please stick to your area of "expertise."

It is both economically insane and immoral.
Rare occurrence but nevertheless true in this case.

Mike, I saw you post in another article that you would support rent control of 3%. If it is immoral, why would you support such a thing?

You are mistaken. I said I personally have no problem with raising rents more than 3% and in reality I raise rents for much less than that. But I am against forcing someone to have the same rules and principles that I have.
Everyone's situation is different and they should be able to make their own decisions.
The rent control forces property owners to do things. 3% or so cap is only one of these things.
The most egregious is the so called "relocation assistance", payouts to tenants who benefited for years from artificially low rents, which amount to tens of thousands of dollars just so the OWNER can move in to their OWN home.
By what standards is that just or moral? SF at one point required these payoffs to be into hundreds of thousands of dollars. CAA (rightfully so) had to resort to legal action to curb that insanity.
Richmond Rent Ordinance i.e. removes the landlords right to approve a subtenant, who upon move in becomes protected tenant, effectively depriving the rightful owner from ANY control of who lives on his property.
These are just few examples of the insanity, I could go on and on.
But at this point only legal avenue remains, and I am very hopeful that the courts will recognize this as a tenants money grab, and declare these measures illegal for what they are.

Sorry typo should be "no more than 3%"

This comment is 332 words long

Mike and greg,

I understand your moral objection to Measure V. But is a moral objection enough to render a law unconstitutional? That has been asked and answered by the courts.

In Brown V. Education, the “Moral” argument that the state or city is free to maintain separate educational systems based on race. This was because the states laws that were based on moral beliefs that there must be the separation of white and black students. And in the past case of Plessy V. Ferguson, the court did agree with that. But after reconsideration, SCOTUS reversed Plessy because it determined that the state’s moral framework alone does not form the basis of a constitutional argument.

In Roe V. Wade, the state argued it had an interest in criminalizing and preventing abortion because it was immoral. The Roe case simply stated that a moral basis alone cannot be the basis of rendering a law as constitutional. There must be more than a moral belief, but demonstrable evidence that the law in question is justified.

So what does this mean? It means that morality alone is not the sole basis of which the U.S. Constitution and the law is enacted. That when Measure V was voted on, the people had the ample evidence to render a decision, it was not just “mob” mentality. That Measure V is backed by demonstrable evidence that the law is justified. There is a famous saying that legality and morality do not agree.

Look at all the fraud that occurred causing the Great Recession of 2007-9, not one person in all of that immoral and unethical action was prosecuted or jailed. Even though on its face the was rampant fraud and deception on the parts of many different groups, like real estate appraisal, real estate sales businesses, mortgage lending companies, mortgage underwriters, and investment banks that sold the mortgages as collateralized debt obligation.

Thus morality is not sufficient to render Measure V unconstitutional.

Fascinating how easy it is to discuss morality when it's not your money but someone else's.

@mvresident2003,

Maybe spend more than one day a year on charity, then you can come in and lecture us on morality.

mvresident2003,

When your rent gets jacked $900 a month for no reason other than the landlord overpaid to buy your building, since when is that moral?

That money was never "his" money at all. It is my money that he takes.

The Business Man,
You can remove yourself from the undesirable situation with 30 day notice for free.
The landlords don't have this option.
Big difference!!!!!!

Charity, you don't know enough about me to make that comment and yet you're so sure of yourself. Very assumptive yet typical. Again, easy to throw stones....

And The Business Man,
It maybe a breaking news but the money you spend on services and goods are your money, always.
So no need to rediscover a wheel here.

@mvresident2003,

I've seen enough of your posting here to know pretty well. You don't care about your neighbors, want renters and the poor to get out, but come in here talking about morality. We've all seen it a thousand times. You're a blight on our community since all you do is drag it down.

It always was the law in California, that any increase in rent exceeding 10%, requires 60 day notice minimum, 10% or below 30 days.

If a tenant receives a rent increase that is perceived to be unjust, 60 days is ample to find suitable accommodations elsewhere (not necessarily Mountain View).

Tenants were always in control provided they took care of their business and maintained good credit scores and verifiable income.

Any tenant with a poor credit score or unverifiable income would have a tougher time finding a new home, but there are existing programs for that, plus, why shouldn't all people be accountable for living within their means (maintaining credit score) and making themselves useful to employers?

The victim mindset is not productive for society.

mike rose,


The situation is equal regarding tenant and landlord, either can choose to not be in the business.

What the CAA hates is that instead of the citizens of Mountain View being pushed around by the apartment industry, they fought back. Landlords simply say if you don't like the deal, leave. But as a collective action coordinated by the CAA, this becomes a market exploitation, because the "supply-side" economics are controlling the market, as well as coordinated uniform business practices designed to avoid actual competition in the market.

The landlord can always quit the business if they discover they made a bad business decision. This is simply done by selling the property.

And in almost all cases, the landlords own the property via a LLC. a Limited Liability Company which is the United States-specific form of a private limited company. It is a business structure that combines the pass-through taxation of a partnership or sole proprietorship with the limited liability of a corporation. It is designed to immunize loss due to bad business decisions.

No one forces anyone to own property, you can chose to leave it at anytime.

However, a tenant has no such protection at all. In fact if the property is abandoned, in some cases the tenants must leave, only if there is some law to protect them from that loss.

So landlords choose to persist in the business, they are free to leave at any time.

The landlord can sell their proeprty at any time

Charity,
Liberals virtue of caring is to give property rights to the tenants as a right and to transform legal owners rights to a costly privilege.
This is what rent control does and only naive would believe that it has anything to do with caring. But proponents use this slogan often to fool unsuspectting public.
Shame on you

@mike,

Take a few seconds to proofread your posts, since as it is, you've written incomprehensible nonsense.

The business Man,
You conveniently omitted your "no cost" option that I pointed out in my response . Like that would not make a difference.
You cry over your $900 dollars that you have to spend on market rate having option to move out at virtually no cost, yet you brush aside the fact that landlords would incure hundreds of thousands of losses if they sell under rent control or give phony relocation payouts to tenants if they decide to get out of business.
Do not omit inconvenient but important facts.

Charity,
This is what you do when you do not have any substantive response?
Shame on you again.

@mike,

No, I'm 100% serious that I couldn't understand what you were trying to say. Proofreading will help others understand you.

If I receive another comment from anyone else than Charity I will rewrite it. I thought it was pretty straightforward.

mike rose,

There is always a cost in business. One cannot rationally or reasonably assume that you can get into business with no cost. However as I said, if you run an LLC, there is no cost to the person, thought the LLC will be out of business, the debt assigned to it cannot be forced upon the persons who formed it. As long as no embezzlement or other illegal business activity is associated with the failure.

I guess you think there should be a business that allows you to make money, not using any money of your own, without having to take any fiscal responsibility for it. If you wish that you should be incorporated, and sell shares of stock to cover the expense of the property, before you purchase any property so that the property is in fact paid for before you do anything with it. Otherwise you are really being very unrealistic.

I will rewrite my comment anyway.
What I was saying is that rent control in transfers essential property rights (indefinite possession and use)from the owners to tenants. On the other hand it makes the ownership (possession and right of use) a conditional privilege (not right).
This is as the liberals understand the virtue of "caring"
Yet the "caring" slogan is often used to fool the unsuspecting public, when in reality it means the money grab and wealth transfer.

Really, the only people I see with a victim mindset are the landlords. Our community decided that the people within it were more important than lining the pockets of those who only cared about profit, and we did something about it. Now, every other article has some landlord complaining about their investment returns and putting on their crocodile tears. They didn't care before Measure V, and now they have to deal with the consequences.

The Business Man,
Again for your convenience you assume that all older property owners form LLC.
This is simply not true.
Most of the time these owners are sole proprietors.
And to follow your line of reasoning... you must assume the cost associated with renting. There is always another option you can buy your own place and be in control of your destiny that way.
I am curious, you were bragging about your two MBA's the other day, why did you not take control of your own housing situation by buying.
That would solve a lot of your anxieties.
As you can see tenants, and particularly you have options much more palatable than landlords.Unless you want something for nothing. Then the rent control is your option.

I don't think most landlords, although they are victims of this potentially unlawful taking of their property, will have a "victim mindset " like the leadership and members of the tenants coalition. They are not seeking to, without consent, take from other persons or otherwise intrude on their freedom.

The landlords will slowly but surely raise their tenant qualifications, sell when the right opportunity presents itself, put some units as <30 day rentals (airbnb or similar) and exercise their rights through the political and judicial processes available to them.

None of this addresses the real root cause of lack of personal responsibility on the part of tenants and the City's aggressive sellout to build massive amounts of office space disproportional to housing.

@Tenants rights,
Looks like you hate capitalism, business and profits.
That is normal for radical leftists so don't worry to much.
However I suggest that you consider other countries which already have these policies in place like Venezuela, North Korea, Cuba.
There the business people lining pockets with profit are considered criminals and usually sentenced to life imprisonment.
I am sure you would feel in " heaven" there.

mike rose,

you state:

“What I was saying is that rent control in transfers essential property rights (indefinite possession and use)from the owners to tenants. “

Please read this?

"UNIFORM RESIDENTIAL LANDLORD AND TENANT ACT In response to the civil rights movement of the 1960s, the federal government funded a legal services project to draft a model residential landlord-tenant code. From this model code the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws drafted the Uniform Residential Landlord and Tenant Act (URLTA) in 1972. The American Bar Association approved this act in 1974. Subsequently, most states and many municipalities passed laws based upon this act.

Q. What is security of tenure?

A. Security of tenure provides that the tenant has the legal right to continue the tenancy indefinitely unless the tenant violates certain rules or regulations or the landlord has a compelling reason to reclaim possession of the premises. This provision is a major departure from the traditional concept that the landlord had the arbitrary right to terminate the lease at the end of any term. The right of the landlord to raise rent is the major area of conflict in the enforcement of security of tenure. All municipalities with rent control have security of tenure laws. "

The simple truth is that Measure V does not do what already has been the law since 1974. What you complaining about is in fact not even part of Measure V when the federal law already states that a tenant can stay indefinitely already. This is no transference of ownership.

The Business Man,
I maybe stupid in this question, but if the federal law trumps the state law how comes that under a California law the landlord can issue either 30 or 60 day notice for the tenant to vacate?

Our community decided to use the levers of power available to us to change our society. Whatever you think of it, there's no way that's a victim mindset. Sounds like a bunch of real go-getters if you ask me. They organized, pounded the pavement, got out the vote, and won.

On the other hand, you have landlords, regular Captains of Industry, like mike rose who spend all day crying on the newspaper comments of communities they don't even live in. Maybe if the landlords went out there and actually worked for and with their communities, we wouldn't be here. Instead, they were content to line their pockets, and Measure V passed. Now they sit here and cry about losing.

It's clear who has the victim mindset.

Mike, your silly Red Scare nonsense died last century. Just because someone supports things like child labor laws, minimum wage, OSHA regulations, and any number of other regulations on unfettered capitalism, doesn't make them totalitarian dictators. Your spittle-flecked rants about communism just make you look unhinged.

@tenant rights
I admit communists are known for being well organized.
I will let my previous comments stand.

Randy ,
Your "unhinged " comments sound like a broken record by now.
But you still try to minimize and ridicule my comments on communism despite the photographic evidence that I provided you on another forum.
Do you want me to do it again or you rather keep it secret?

Oh, wow, you have photographic evidence of Mountain View being run by communists?

If this is about Richmond again, no one here cares about how much you hate your city council. Maybe if you went to a meeting and helped campaign against Measure L instead of just posting on newspaper comment sections all day, you wouldn't have rent control there.

The tenants coalition is nothing more than an angry mob whom despite their numeric advantage, only won by 2k votes a simple majority yes, but not representative of the whole community. I suppose if it makes them feel good to paint themselves as heroic, more power to them, whatever helps you sleep at night.

They collectively will not be successful at making themselves happy as the mob can only take so much from others before there are repurcussions.

President Trump is one example of an unfortunate outcome from the left going too far.

That's what I thought. You would not want any evidence of rent control proponents association with bloody communist dictators revealed here.
BTW I adore your bravery and full of integrity City Council and your suggestion that is run by communists is preposterous. suggesting that I suggest this is insane.

Yes my reference was to your ideological surrogates in Richmond.
But I will not elaborate on this unless you want me to.

Well, at least we moved past them having a victim mindset. Our community banded together against the landlords who, in spite of a massive spending advantage and attempting to split the vote with Measure W, couldn't convince the voters. We, the people, used the democratic process to help our neighbors, and now the landlords have sour grapes that all their money couldn't prevail. If they took some personal responsibility for the situation they got themselves into, maybe we wouldn't be having this conversation.

I'm glad you brought out the, "this is why Trump won," the last bastion of someone with no argument. How'd he do here in California, again? Maybe you could look that up for me.

@Tenants Rights
The democratic process you are referring to is subject to judicial scrutiny as the majority rule may not be constitutional.
The best example was last election where Hillary was voted in by majority but constitution ruled otherwise.
You can have pretty much anything voted in if it sounds right on the surface. Average voter does not investigate constitutionality. They just vote on their feelings.
So hold off your horses for now and let's see what the Trump's SCOTUS will decide. We

The victim mindset millennial members of the coalition should go and get an education and better jobs while living within their means instead of looking for handouts. I agree it is easier to take from others than earn on your own, way to go, I have a winner trophy for each of you.

California is and always be a part of the USA it will never be able to secede, traditional American values of hardwork and personal accountability are absent from the mvtc. Sad!

I don't think they need handouts, since they fought you and won. And they definitely don't need the trophies, since they won the election. Maybe you want a participation one? We can't all be winners, but to paraphrase Trump, it's not your fault you were born messed up.

Wow @ Tenant Rights
What an intelligent ad substantive response.
You are the "winner" . Enjoy while it lasts.

Thanks, Mike!

You are more than welcome!

Look at the sky-rocket price for real estates. Landlord cannot rent out the units and incur a loss after mortgages, property tax and expenses. With the sky-rocket house prices, property tax is sky rocket high. If the city wants to have rent control, they should consider cutting down the property tax for rental properties.
The city should build more affordable housing. This is the responsibility of the city government, not the responsibility of landlords.

Mike rose,

You said:

The Business Man,

I maybe stupid in this question, but if the federal law trumps the state law how comes that under a California law the landlord can issue either 30 or 60 day notice for the tenant to vacate?

The ULRTA has provisions in it for situations like if you want to stop renting out an apartment, you’re going to renovate, you’re going to tear down and rebuilt, etc. It does not make security of tenure absolute. Your question indicates that you have a lot of misinformation.

I never claimed that security of tenure is absolute.

The Business Man,
This is simply untrue for the simple fact that California state law allows the landlord to remove the tenant with proper notice. No reason must be given.
And you attempt to spread the misinformation that federal law requires reason for eviction.
Under your theory California is in violation of Federal law and it has been for many years.
Cmon, get real and stop spreading nonsense, you are losing all credibility disputing even the most obvious facts.
Stop lying.

@emde,

It's not the responsibility of the city to ensure that your rental business is profitable. If you can't make it work, then take some personal responsibility instead of this victim mindset we see that's so prevalent amongst landlords.

This comment is 700 words long

166 words are citations

emde,

You stated:

“Look at the sky-rocket price for real estates. Landlord cannot rent out the units and incur a loss after mortgages, property tax and expenses. With the sky-rocket house prices, property tax is sky rocket high. If the city wants to have rent control, they should consider cutting down the property tax for rental properties.”

Granted the prices are way out of control. But that means that landlords must take responsibility for their decisions. If the price is too high for a property, don’t buy it. No one forced anyone to purchase the property, they did it by their own free will. If they make a bad judgement regarding the purchase price, that is not the fault of a tenant. You’re killing the hens because the fox got into the chicken coop.

As far as taxes go, this is what I read:

“City and County Transfer Taxes on Home Sales

When a property is sold, certain cites in San Mateo County and Santa Clara County, levy a city transfer tax of a few dollars per $1000.00 of a home’s sale price. In addition, both Santa Clara County and San Mateo County also have a transfer tax of $1.10 per $1000.00 of home sale price. Transfer taxes are allocated between buyer and seller on the basis of tradition, but are subject to negotiation. Transfer taxes are subject to change so always consult your tax Professional.”

Mountain View property tax is Mountain View CA City Transfer Tax: $3.30 per $1000. of assessed value or $3300.00 on a 1M dollar home. That is a tax rate of .33%, less than 1 percent. So for example a property tax for a $5 Million Property is $16,500.00. But this is a one-time tax. It only occurs when a property is purchased, it is only a one time charge. This would seem to be a very good low rate because if you own the property for say 20 years, that makes the yearly expense for the property regarding the tax as $825. Given that most rents are per month per unit are much higher than that, this appears to be a poor argument.

For example, if a building has 9 units and it charges $1500. Per unit, per month per year that comes to 1500 * 9 * 12 = $162,000. So subtract the yearly cost based on 10 years and your yearly income based on that amount is $162,000 - $825 = 161,175. But most importantly the yearly tax rate on that income comes to $825/$162,000 = .5%.

That does not seem all that bad. But the real cost of ownership regarding taxation is income taxes. But since the purchased property payments are directly deductible from state and federal taxes, this results in a significant tax deduction, in in most cases, yes the taxes are paid quarterly at the set income rate, but you get that money returned to you in the form of a tax refund after filing your taxes.

You also stated:

“The city should build more affordable housing. This is the responsibility of the city government, not the responsibility of landlords.”

As a business person, I cannot believe I just heard this. I thought that the market will effectively self-correct for these problems. At least that is what all economists believe. What you are saying is that the government should provide housing? If that is the case, then you’re in for a very scary reality.

If the government is required to do as you ask, the government will simply take land and reserve it for those projects. If you thought the land shortage is bad now, that would jack up the land costs even worse. You would find it almost impossible to develop any new properties. Also, the government would simply take over existing apartments in order to accomplish your logic.

But the reality is that the industry has had complete control over this problem, but instead of trying to find economical solutions, it instead takes economic advantage. The industry’s failure to achieve proper inventory is not the responsibility of a tenant. Since when do tenants tell developers they cannot build?

Even with Measure V, there is no obstacles legally to develop, the measure makes specific provisions to provide freedom to do so.

Responsibility,
One is a victim by definition if one's property is stolen (taken).

@mike rose

See, this yet another manifestation of that victim mindset. Landlords can't help but see themselves as the victims, and clamor to the government for a bailout. Take some personal responsibility!

I just provided definition, not a mindset.

@mike rose

It's really sad that you're so entrenched in your victim mindset that all you can do is perceive yourself as a victim. Maybe one day you'll take some personal responsibility instead of wanting a government bailout, but clearly that's not today.

Won't dignify this vicious attack with a response.

Please,

I have my disagreement with mike, but I have no ill feelings. He has his interests at stake too, I am certain.

I suspect that mike was encouraged into investing into a property that now is subject to a market correction. This is very damaging. I for one would like it if he had legal recourse to get his investment burden reduced accordingly.

Unfortunately the federal HARP program was limited to only 1-4 unit properties. I strongly believe this should be expanded to all properties because the biggest losers are those who invested in say 5-15 unit properties, small in number units high in cost, and worse in risk.

we must have a "civil" discussion

The Business Man,
You change your answer to the same question each time you respond, and each time you provide misleading and incorrect information.
It is FALSE information that there is FEDERAL LAW that requires justification for removing tenant, REGARDLESS of the number of units.
Otherwise State of California would NOT be in compliance with federal law for many years.
But you falsely state to the contrary:".... federal law already states that a tenant can stay indefinitely already...."
California Law requires NO REASON for removing tenants.
Once you are caught lying then you wiggle around with some absurd exceptions, technicalities etc.
Have courage to admit that you lied.

mike,

Here is the information I found, I did make a mistake, this is not a federal law, but it was enacted by the American Bar Association.

That would mean that no lawyer can suggest, nor practice any act in conflict with it. If they did they would be disbarred.

So Landlords themselves are freew to take action, as long as no "just-cause" laws or ordinances exist.

From what I understand, the City of Mountain View will defend "just-cause" and the current restraining order does not impact it. Since that has happened, please read this:

"30-day or 60-day notice

A landlord who wants to terminate (end) a month-to-month tenancy can do so by properly serving a written 30-day or 60-day notice on the tenant. Generally, a 30-day or 60-day notice doesn't have to state the landlord's reason for ending the tenancy. The 30-Day or 60-Day Notice is discussed in Giving and Receiving Proper Notice, and proper service of notices is discussed below.

In some localities or circumstances, special rules may apply to 30-day or 60-day notices:

Some rent control cities require "just cause" for eviction, and the landlord's notice must state the reason for termination.

Subsidized housing programs may limit allowable reasons for eviction, and may require that the notice state one of these reasons (see Giving and Receiving Proper Notice).

Some reasons for eviction are unlawful. For example, an eviction cannot be retaliatory or discriminatory (see Retaliatory Actions, Evictions and Discrimination).

A landlord cannot evict a tenant for the reason that the water heater must be braced to protect against earthquake damage.280"(Web Link

So yes, I made a serious mistake regarding representation, however, the impact is non-existent. Just-Cause is the law in Mountain View, and thus the URLTA would deny any lawyer the discretion to attempt to interfere with the security of tenure provision.

Any lawyer would have to withhold acting in your interest if you choose to act in that way, you are left all on your own.

In fact, the CAA attorney is violating the ABA endorsement of the URLTA and could be held in disciplinary action by the California Bar.

mike rose,

What I find difficult to understand is this.

A tenant even on a month to month agreement does not deserve to be evicted by no fault of their own. What you're arguing for is the philosophy that a tenant is a cow or a horse. If you don't like your cow or horse, just kill it. An agreement is solid if the own paying their rent continues to do so in compliance of the agreement. Remember, it is the one paying money that is entitled to the services they pay for. In this regard, as long as rent is paid, the landlord is obligated to provide services. The tenant is not subordinate to the landlord as long as the rent is paid.

If you think this is immoral and should be illegal, then have the state laws determine that with regards to rental agreements, the landlord has a supreme authority to break an agreement without consequences. That is the basis of why relocation costs are charged to a landlord, because the landlord broke the agreement without any basis to do so. The state laws has never endorsed the concept that one is free to break an agreement without just consequences.

Please explain it to me?

This is simple contract law

mike rose,

Please help me are you the same mike rose who was:

C. Michael Rose (State Bar No. 614173)?

If you are, aren't you the one that got disbarred?

Dear Business Man,
Mike Rose is my screen name only (not real name).
Of course the tenant isn't a cow or horse.
The way I understand it is that two parties freely and willfully enter into a contract to rent the premises.
In that contract they mutually agree to the time period for the lease, then they also agree to the continuation of the renting on the month to month basis, or they agree to end the lease.
With month to month tenancy they agree that either party may terminate the lease with 30 day notice.
So as you see, everything is a voluntary contract for both parties.
Then the government comes in and says: the contract is null and void, tenant has all of the say when to terminate it, landlord has no say.
By what moral standards is that fair?
It seems like the fairest thing would be for 2 free people to agree between themselves what they want to do.
I just don't get it.

The City Council finally came to its senses and will defend Measure V against the frivolous CAA lawsuit. It is about darned time.

The CAA is having a meeting in our city at the Computer History Museum on 1/26 beginning at 8:30 am, the mayor will be in attendance as well as the CEO of the CAA, major landlords and state politicians.

Web Link

Let's all show up and let them know the people have spoken and we are not going to take their abuse any longer! What happened in Richmond and soon Mountain View will send a clear signal to those in power in our great State, most of whom will be at this meeting! We need to keep this movement going not just in Mountain View, but first County wide, then Bay Area, then California all the way to justice for all!

Si Se Puede!

Hail Measure V,
Why do you promote this silly "hooray!!!" with your "brown shirt" demonstrations???
It has been proven all around that rent control and your version of "social justice" have disastrous unintended consequences.
There is no one logical reason behind it, that would justify this, except wanting something for nothing for yourself.
I call this theft.

Yeah, mike rose, how dare the people of Mountain View protest against an organization that's suing our fair city! Especially when the mayor will be speaking there. We should be thankful that our landlords even allow us to pay them exorbitant amounts of money to rent here.

Go back to Richmond.

Protest,

Lets have the government and mob determine what prices they should pay for all essential services, health care ,food , housing etc.
After all health, nutrition and housing are a right not a privilege, right?

I forgot, what is that system called?

It's called "Go back to Richmond," mike.

No,
I think it is called "shut up free speech" for the inability to provide sensible argument.

"mike rose",

I find it fascinating you prefer to be anonymous while disclosing my identity in your posts. My name is Steven Goldstein, and unlike you, I have been known to be who I am for quite some time now. However you are determined to remain anonymous, probably because you know that if the public knew your intent in your business, they would prefer to not do business with you. Until you self-disclose, one should not consider your point of view.

You do realize that in fact "mob" mentality does determine prices in this country, not the "supply-side" economics. If the "market" makes a legal regulation, the "market" is superior to the supplier.

You state :

"Lets have the government and mob determine what prices they should pay for all essential services, health care ,food , housing etc.

After all health, nutrition and housing are a right not a privilege, right?"


There is food stamps, medicare/medicaid, section 8 housing etc. These directly impact the costs of these services. So yes the government does have the power to intervene in any market, when doing so has been determined a "state" interest.

as far as :

"Why do you promote this silly "hooray!!!" with your "brown shirt" demonstrations???

It has been proven all around that rent control and your version of "social justice" have disastrous unintended consequences.

There is no one logical reason behind it, that would justify this, except wanting something for nothing for yourself.

I call this theft."

Your opinion is that anyone that has a contrary point of view "brown shirts" is either "communist", "socialist", or "fascist". You have that right, but it does not dictate that it is so.

You state that rent control has bad consequences, please demonstrate with objective data how that is so? Yes it will have a direct impact on you and your peers, but that does not make it true that it impacts everyone.

You argue there is no logic behind rent control, but if that were correct, then there would not be ANY rent control anywhere in the state of CA. In fact there are now 20 cities in CA that have rent control specifically. You simply exercise selective perception and self-fulfilling reasoning. That does not necessarily prove anything. If you watch the documentary "inside job" you can see that economists practice selective perception and self-fulfilling reasoning, even when the reality does not agree with it. They are acting on their own interests and not the general population, so many have been proven wrong in our recent history.

Finally, the government has always reserved the right to make significant changes in business practices, and it is not called theft. Please understand that no court has stated that rent control itself is theft. There is questions regarding relocation penalties, but not the fact that rent prices are subject to control.

I for one am grateful that the City of Mountain View finally understands that the CAA complaint is not a warranted one, and will defend the citizens of Mountain View.

The Business Man,

You are right, it has not officially been called theft.
Rather "wealth transfer" instead.

I have guessed your identity based on your postings, you are welcome to guess mine (you did not voluntarily disclose your name, in fact you threatened me with a lawsuit for calling you by your legal name).

Food stamps, section 8 and even RENT CONTROL are fine, as you say, as long as the whole society bears the cost equally, not a small, singled out group.

Regarding the presentation of bad consequences of rent control, there is not enough space on this forum. This debate has been decided and there is unanimous consensus among economists that it is counterproductive.
Why do some cities still go for it?
Well, really the only municipalities that impose it are those which have majority tenant populations.
They just vote themselves windfalls for purely selfish reasons. They do not care about tenants in general, who will pay eventually higher rents in the future, due to shortages caused by rent control. They care about THEIR rent only, right at the moment, without more thoughtful considerations.
That is precisely self-fulfilling reasoning that you mention.
And finally your argument about the government being able to make changes to business practices.....
This is a price control, not business regulation.
It is also a government mandated, permanent physical occupation of private property, in reality.
So yes, government can regulate businesses, but to test the regulation for its constitutionality is totally appropriate.

mike rose,

you stated:

You are right, it has not officially been called theft.
Rather "wealth transfer" instead.


"Wealth transfers are perfectly legal and constitutional. in fact Taxation itself is "wealth transfer" or a state sponsored "redistribution of wealth" , this is the best definition I can find:


Redistribution of income and wealth

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Redistribution of income and redistribution of wealth are a concept of socialism and are respectively the transfer of income and of wealth (including physical property) from some individuals to others by means of a social mechanism such as TAXATION, charity, welfare, public services, land reform, monetary policies, confiscation, divorce or tort law.[1] The term typically refers to redistribution on an economy-wide basis rather than between selected individuals, and it always refers to redistributions from those who have more to those who have less.

Redistribution TAX policy should not be confused with predistribution of wealth, where the lower and middle classes pay higher net effective TAX percentage rates, as the elite pay regressive TAX rates. Itemized deductions, often called TAX loopholes, tend to perpetuate predistribution preferences in lieu of implementing a neutral TAX system, such as a flat TAX. Many alternate TAXATION proposals have been floated without the political will to alter the status quo. The proposed "Buffett Rule" is a hybrid TAXATION model, a compromise of opposing systems, intended to minimize the favoritism of the special interest TAX design.

The effects of a redistribution system are actively debated on ethical and economic grounds. The subject includes analysis of its rationales, objectives, means, and policy effectiveness.[2][3] A 2003 survey among 264 members of the American Economic Association found that 71.2% of them support redistribution, while 20.4% oppose it, and 7.2% had mixed feelings.[4]

Modern forms of redistribution[edit]

Today, income redistribution occurs in some form in most democratic countries through economic policies. Redistributive policies attempt to shift wealth, income and other resources from the “haves” to the “have-nots.” Like Robin Hood, government acting through redistributive policies seeks to help its poorer citizens. The U.S. government’s income tax policy is redistributive because it is based on a progressive tax rate.[9]

In a progressive income TAX system, a high income earner will pay a higher TAX rate than a low income earner. Not only do high-income families pay more in TAXES in pure dollar amounts than low-income families, but they also pay a greater amount in TAXES as a percentage of their income than low-and-middle income families.[10]Another TAXATION-BASED method of redistributing income is the negative income tax.

Two other common types of governmental redistribution of income are subsidies and vouchers (such as food stamps). These transfer payment programs are funded through general TAXATION, but benefit the poor, who pay fewer or no taxes. While the persons receiving transfers from such programs may prefer to be directly given cash, these programs may be more palatable to society than cash assistance, as they give society some measure of control over how the funds are spent.[11]

Another common type of governmental redistribution of income are direct benefit programs. These programs are also funded by the United States TAX payers. Direct benefit programs involve either cash transfers or the purchase of specific services for an individual. By far the largest direct benefit programs are Social Security and Medicare.[12] Unlike subsidies and voucher programs, Social Security recipients receive a direct payment not a voucher that is limited as to what it can buy.

Medicare is a government run health insurance program that covers people that are 65 or older, certain younger people with disabilities, and people with End-Stage Renal Disease (permanent kidney failure requiring dialysis or a transplant, sometimes called ESRD).This is a direct benefit program because the government is directly providing health insurance for those who qualify.

The difference between the Gini index for the income distribution before taxation and the Gini index after taxation is an indicator for the effects of such taxation.[citation needed]

Wealth redistribution can be implemented through land reform that transfers ownership of land from one category of people to another, or through inheritance taxes or direct wealth taxes. Before-and-after Gini coefficients for the distribution of wealth can be compared.

Objectives[edit]

The objectives of income redistribution are to increase economic stability and opportunity for the less wealthy members of society and thus usually include the funding of public services.

One basis for redistribution is the concept of distributive justice, whose premise is that money and resources ought to be distributed in such a way as to lead to a socially just, and possibly more financially egalitarian, society. Another argument is that a larger middle class benefits an economy by enabling more people to be consumers, while providing equal opportunities for individuals to reach a better standard of living. Seen for example in the work of John Rawls,[citation needed] another argument is that a truly fair society would be organized in a manner benefiting the least advantaged, and any inequality would be permissible only to the extent that it benefits the least advantaged.

Some proponents of redistribution argue that capitalism results in an externality that creates unequal wealth distribution.[13]

Some[who?] argue that wealth and income inequality are a cause of economic crises, and that reducing these inequalities is one way to prevent or ameliorate economic crises, with redistribution thus benefiting the economy overall. This view was associated with the underconsumptionism school in the 19th century, now considered an aspect of some schools of Keynesian economics; it has also been advanced, for different reasons, by Marxian economics. It was particularly advanced in the US in the 1920s by Waddill Catchings and William Trufant Foster.[14][15] There is currently a great debate concerning the extent to which the world's extremely rich have become richer over recent decades. Thomas Piketty's Capital in the Twenty-First Century is at the forefront, critiqued in certain publications such as The Economist.[16]"

mike rose, just simply understand that in effect rent controls and just cause provisions are an alternative version of a tax, which one must pay to be be either a citizen or a business. If your argument was sound, the concept of a tax would be unconstitutional, and thus taxes would have to be abolished.

Mike, have you tried going back to Richmond?

The Business Man,

You are not claiming that Rent Control is a form of TAX, are you?

Because if it is, I believe it would have to pass with 2/3 majority and proceeds would have to go to the general fund.

So all of your rant about taxation being fair is irrelevant.

THIS IS NOT A TAX, IT IS PRICE CONTROL!!!!!

Landlords are TAXED through completely different mechanism.

C'mon Business Man, this is first grade economics.

The Business Man,

When you copy from Wikipedia to prove your point, you should at least delete portions like this:

"....redistribution of wealth are a concept of socialism ....",

which are proving my point instead.

Protest,
No, I decided to stay here, sorry.

Mike, Richmond needs you to fight their communist city council. Hurry! There are communists swarming the city!

Protest,

Thanks for agreement and support.

You're wasting precious time here. Surely, a captain of industry such as yourself has to allocate their time very carefully.

Protest,
Thanks again for the wise advice. I wouldn't know.

I saw the mike rose signal go up across the bay! You're needed quickly, hurry home to stop those devious communists! Your community needs you!

Mike rose:

You stated:

The Business Man,

“You are not claiming that Rent Control is a form of TAX, are you?

Because if it is, I believe it would have to pass with 2/3 majority and proceeds would have to go to the general fund.

So all of your rant about taxation being fair is irrelevant.

THIS IS NOT A TAX, IT IS PRICE CONTROL!!!!!

Landlords are TAXED through completely different mechanism.

C'mon Business Man, this is first grade economics.”

You have of course tried to change my language I stated:

I stated:

“mike rose, just simply understand that in effect rent controls and just cause provisions are an ALTERNATIVE VERSION OF A TAX, which one must pay to be either a citizen or a business. If your argument was sound, the concept of a tax would be unconstitutional, and thus taxes would have to be abolished.”

So in fact this is not a tax, but it is in effect a redistribution of wealth based on ECONOMIC POLICIES. What you seem to do is grasp at anything that you can to delegitimize the political process and the citizens of Mountain View’s rights to in effect change the rules. It has been and will always be that way, even if it hurts business unfortunately.

You also stated:

“When you copy from Wikipedia to prove your point, you should at least delete portions like this:

"....redistribution of wealth are a concept of socialism ....",

which are proving my point instead.”

However I copied the entire text to illustrate that this model of governmental action applies to every form of government, and for every form of markets, capitalism, democratic socialism, authoritarian socialism, and communism. I do not intentionally provide incomplete or erroneous information, I make my mistakes. But for example you neglected to read:

TODAY, INCOME REDISTRIBUTION OCCURS IN SOME FORM IN MOST DEMOCRATIC COUNTRIES THROUGH ECONOMIC POLICIES. REDISTRIBUTIVE POLICIES ATTEMPT TO SHIFT WEALTH, INCOME AND OTHER RESOURCES FROM THE “HAVES” TO THE “HAVE-NOTS.” Like Robin Hood, government acting through redistributive policies seeks to help its poorer citizens. THE U.S. GOVERNMENT’S INCOME TAX POLICY IS REDISTRIBUTIVE BECAUSE IT IS BASED ON A PROGRESSIVE TAX RATE.[9]

And:

Some[who?] argue that wealth and income inequality are a cause of economic crises, and that reducing these inequalities is one way to prevent or ameliorate economic crises, with redistribution thus benefiting the economy overall. THIS VIEW WAS ASSOCIATED WITH THE UNDERCONSUMPTIONISM SCHOOL IN THE 19TH CENTURY, NOW CONSIDERED AN ASPECT OF SOME SCHOOLS OF KEYNESIAN ECONOMICS; IT HAS ALSO BEEN ADVANCED, FOR DIFFERENT REASONS, BY MARXIAN ECONOMICS. IT WAS PARTICULARLY ADVANCED IN THE US IN THE 1920S BY WADDILL CATCHINGS AND WILLIAM TRUFANT FOSTER.[14][15] There is currently a great debate concerning the extent to which the world's extremely rich have become richer over recent decades. Thomas Piketty's Capital in the Twenty-First Century is at the forefront, critiqued in certain publications such as The Economist.[16]"

The Measure that was passed in effect is a redistributive process that does in fact shift wealth to the public from the private. This has been completely accepted as a legitimate constitutional act because wealth is not property. You keep commingling the two. The fact is the US has adopted redistribution of wealth as an appropriate action, as long as the political process involved in its formation has made a legitimate effort to follow legitimate processes. That’s is what occurred in Mountain View when the ballot measure was created, the sponsors followed the state and county procedures in the entry of the election and when the election occurred, the measure passed. The fact is this is a new ECONOMIC POLICY, not a TAX, and is not in conflict with any aspect of the constitution or any other laws.

Please understand that you’re not making much sense?

My goodness, The Business Man, you are the one who does not make sense going against the majority of economists who unanimously found these policies to be complete failures.
Not only economists, just look around you, all the cities with rent control in place have terrible problems with housing and their rents are the highest in the nation. Take your blindfolds off!!!

You quote:
"TODAY, INCOME REDISTRIBUTION OCCURS IN SOME FORM IN MOST DEMOCRATIC COUNTRIES THROUGH ECONOMIC POLICIES. REDISTRIBUTIVE POLICIES ATTEMPT TO SHIFT WEALTH, INCOME AND OTHER RESOURCES FROM THE “HAVES” TO THE “HAVE-NOTS.” Like Robin Hood, government acting through redistributive policies seeks to help its poorer citizens. THE U.S. GOVERNMENT’S INCOME TAX POLICY IS REDISTRIBUTIVE BECAUSE IT IS BASED ON A PROGRESSIVE TAX RATE..."

Sounds reasonable, you MAKE more, you pay more taxes.

Why on earth would one apply this reasoning to rent control?
It is a transfer of wealth that is NOT NEED BASED!!!
There are many well to do tenants, who will benefit from rent control unjustly and many retired landlords who's retirement will go up in the flames after a lifetime saving, investing and dealing with bad tenants.
Rent control apartments are allocated by luck, not by need.

You assume that the income of a landlord is larger than that of a tenant.
Where is your evidence of that?

The more proper comparison to this, not "need based" form of rent control, would be the example of the government taxing the poorer citizens to the benefit of the rich.

Mike, I have an issue. I think my landlord is a communist. This has given me quite mixed feelings, since as a landlord they are clearly good, but as a communist they are clearly bad. They also may be a vampire, but I think that ends up being a wash. What should I do?

Mike rose:

You stated:

“My goodness, The Business Man, you are the one who does not make sense going against the majority of economists who unanimously found these policies to be complete failures.

Not only economists, just look around you, all the cities with rent control in place have terrible problems with housing and their rents are the highest in the nation. Take your blindfolds off!!!”

I stated:

If you watch the documentary "inside job" you can see that economists practice selective perception and self-fulfilling reasoning, even when the reality does not agree with it. They are acting on their own interests and not the general population, so many have been proven wrong in our recent history.

Here is the website: Web Link

In fact, there are no ‘Public” economists in this country. All have substantial ties to the financial industry. The Financial Industry funds all economic studies, so the results are suspect due to conflict of interest in the people performing them. Those Financials have no interest in promoting rent control because they are dependent on speculative real estate investment. Under these circumstances you get instead of a real economic evaluation, a financially and politically skewed opinions that actually caused the multiple economic crises.

The first wave was the S&L crisis, which ironically was caused by another real estate bubble. Substantial deregulation, especially the Garn-St. Germain Act which deregulates Savings and Loan companies, leading to the later S&L crisis.
Most S&L’s were banking on mortgages to provide a risk free significant return. In the S&L scandal: loose regulations, lax enforcement lead to massive fraud; hundreds of S&Ls fail lax enforcement lead to massive fraud; hundreds of S&Ls fail; $124 billion taxpayer-funded bailout. In fact the Bush family was part of it, Neil Bush approves $100 million of bad loans to business partners through Silverado S&L, which subsequently fails. During 1987-1990: Michael Milken, Ivan Boesky and other Wall Street executives convicted of fraud and insider trading. In 1989: Keating Five: Four senators and CEO Charles Keating accused of improper influence in advocating against investigating Lincoln S&L, which collapses and Keating is convicted of fraud. It was a warning that no one in the economic sector ever listened to.

When the recent housing crisis started, the first step was 2000s: new crops of highly complex financial innovations flourish: securitization of mortgages, credit default swaps, synthetic CDOs. Following this 2000-2007: Fed by the investment banking industry, a massive housing and mortgage credit bubble sweeps the United States; mortgage lending quadruples, housing prices double. During 2000-2005: Investigations of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac reveal massive accounting fraud. At the same time in 2002: Arthur Andersen, auditor, convicted of obstruction of justice for shredding Enron documents. As well as in 2003: Worldcom revealed to have inflated assets by $11 billion. In 2004: After intense lobbying by investment banks, the SEC lifts the leverage limits on the investment banking industry, allowing them to borrow more. In 2005: IMF chief economist Raghuram Rajan warns of dangerous incentives and risks in the financial system; Larry Summers dismisses him as a “Luddite”. During 2005-2008: Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Deutsche Bank and other investment banks begin using credit default swaps to bet against the same mortgage securities that they are selling as extremely safe. Then in 2006: Hank Paulson, CEO of Goldman Sachs, becomes Treasury Secretary. Finally in 2007: The housing bubble bursts, as the financial sector runs out of people willing to borrow and purchase more housing; home ownership reaches an all-time high, while savings rates are at historic lows.

During all this time economists were promoting the financial process that led up to the problem in 2007. So before you start giving credit to any economist, you better make sure that they have no money in the area of finance that they aspire to report on. Otherwise they are just going to protect their own interests no matter what the cost to the public.

In 2008 there was the collapse of Bear Stearns (March) and then Lehman Brothers (September), then after that the government used public funds to rescue AIG with $85 billion one day after Lehman declares bankruptcy. This is when the bubble burst and housing prices drop by 32 percent over three-year period, and record foreclosures as well as unemployment rises from 5% to 10% in one year. In fact tens of billions in bailout money go to AIG and Goldman Sachs, and finally $700 billion of the us public money is used to fund a emergency bailout for the financial industry.

All during this time, not one economist has ever stated they made any mistakes. To them, they only need to supply reports that satisfy their research funding and personal financial interest.

So, please don’t ever claim that economists are objective researchers regarding business practices. The majority simply cannot be objective given that they are in most cases consultants or employed by the financial interests they are supposed to study.

Surprised article was not updated by the Voice to reflect the results of the meeting, so I will do it here:

Of the 19 remaining hopefuls for a spot on the coveted committee of 5 plus 1 alternate, 9 were eliminated outright, 10 will be brought back at a to be determined date for a second round of interviews. These 10 people in order of "votes" by council are: Julian Pardo de Zela, Emily Ramos, Evan Ortiz, Matthew Grunewald, Steven Hochstadt, Tom Means, Joan MacDonald, Vera Szepesi, James Leoanard, Gene Lee.

The caveat here is the council discussed releasing application details of these 10 remaining people, but only after informing them of this pending release, they would be able to opt out of this release by opting out of their candidacy. On top of this, the timing is in the air as the current TRO expires 2/3/17, by then an injunction request would be filed, but the City Attorney estimates the court would not be able to hear it until March, so at earliest, committee not needed until April. The risk here is the pool may be too shallow in the end with respect to numbers. Only one of the 10 is a landlord/engaged in the real estate business.

This means the roll back ain't happening in February or March, at soonest April, if the CAA is able to get an injunction then the litigation would be many months or even years for this to settle. As this is for all the marbles from a state perspective, you can believe the CAA will go all out if they get the injunction, which would not be a positive for the City of MV budget to defend V. One thing would be for sure as always, the only people getting paid are the lawyers.

Protest,
Ask The Business Man,
He would make not only an excellent lawyer but also great psychotherapist.
In fact he diagnosed me once over the internet with emotional distress. I think he can do you a favor too.

But Mike, you're the communist expert! You have that special sight where you can see them lurking all around us. I'll set aside the vampirism, but I really need your communism assessment and advice. TIA.

mike rose:

The Nile is not just a river in Egypt.

How do you explain how the economists totally botched up the world economy in the last 10 years?

Protest,
I suspect in my limited intellectual capacity that this might be a tricky question. Therefore I am reluctant to give an answer, but I will do my best.

I think you and your proxy tenants should ask the landlord for a meeting.
Then you should all sing international communist hymn in the beginning ( you know it by heart, don't you) and after that you should ask your landlord to divide the property equally and justly among yourselves.
Problem solved.
See how easy it is.
Oh, I almost forgot, you should sing that hymn at the end again and maybe even wave the red flag.

The Business Man,
I thought the economy is not CONTROLLED by economists. They just do research and draw conclusions.
And I also thought that for the most of the last 10 years governing liberal democrats controlled the economy in the US and large portions of the world.
It is changing now throughout Europe and US with recent rounds of elections.

That won't solve my problem at all! Now my fellow tenants and I will be complicit in his communism. I'm trying to address the fact that my landlord's a communist, but you're trying to turn me into one! This is just like his vampirism! If these are your solutions, I can see why you haven't been very effective in Richmond.

Protest,
I am not trying to turn you into anything, you are just "glowing" red on this forum whether you realize it or not.

Mike, do you mean it's too late? He's already communized me? Oh, no, this is the vampirism all over again!

mike rose,

I never claimed they controlled the economy, but they have been instrumental in the public policies that cause the crazy problems in our economy.

In fact Forbes magazine stated:

A lot of blame has been spread around regarding the financial collapse and the onset of the Great Recession. Greedy speculators, big banks, Wall Street executives, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have all taken turns as whipping boys. BUT ONE GROUP HAS LARGELY AVOIDED THEIR FAIR SHARE OF ATTENTION: ECONOMISTS. THEY WERE THE ONES WHO PROVIDED THE INTELLECTUAL JUSTIFICATION FOR THE TRANSFORMATION OF OUR ECONOMY OVER THE PAST THIRTY YEARS. THEY STOOD IDLY BY AS JOBS WENT OVERSEAS, DEMAND WAS SAPPED BY INCREASINGLY UNEVEN DISTRIBUTIONS OF INCOME, COMPETITION WAS DESTROYED BY LAX ATTITUDES TOWARDS ANTITRUST LAWS, AND SAFEGUARDS WERE DISCARDED IN THE FINANCIAL SECTOR. MORE THAN THAT, MANY ACTUALLY PRAISED THESE EVENTS. THIS IS NOT INSIGNIFICANT. MUCH OF THE FINANCIALIZATION OF THE U.S. ECONOMY (THE SHIFT FROM PRODUCING GOODS AND SERVICES TO MANAGING FINANCIAL WEALTH THAT PLAYED SUCH A CENTRAL ROLE IN OUR COLLAPSE) COULD NOT HAVE OCCURRED WITHOUT ECONOMISTS OFFERING THEIR TACIT AND OPEN APPROVAL. OPPOSITION WOULD HAVE SLOWED, IF NOT STOPPED, THESE TRENDS.

There was actually a poll among economists to determine which of their brethren they thought most responsible for our current debacle. The “winners” were as follows:

ALAN GREENSPAN (5,061 VOTES): AS CHAIRMAN OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM FROM 1987 TO 2006, ALAN GREENSPAN BOTH LED THE OVER EXPANSION OF MONEY AND CREDIT THAT CREATED THE BUBBLE THAT BURST AND AGGRESSIVELY PROMOTED THE VIEW THAT FINANCIAL MARKETS ARE NATURALLY EFFICIENT AND IN NO NEED OF REGULATION.

MILTON FRIEDMAN (3,349 VOTES): FRIEDMAN PROPAGATED THE DELUSION, THROUGH HIS MISUNDERSTANDING OF THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD, THAT AN ECONOMY CAN BE ACCURATELY MODELED USING COUNTERFACTUAL PROPOSITIONS ABOUT ITS NATURE. THIS, TOGETHER WITH HIS SIMPLISTIC MODEL OF MONEY, ENCOURAGED THE DEVELOPMENT OF FANTASY-BASED THEORIES OF ECONOMICS AND FINANCE THAT FACILITATED THE GLOBAL FINANCIAL COLLAPSE.

LARRY SUMMERS (3,023 VOTES): AS US SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (FORMERLY AN ECONOMIST AT HARVARD AND THE WORLD BANK), SUMMERS WORKED SUCCESSFULLY FOR THE REPEAL OF THE GLASS-STEAGALL ACT, WHICH SINCE THE GREAT CRASH OF 1929 HAD KEPT DEPOSIT BANKING SEPARATE FROM CASINO BANKING. HE ALSO HELPED GREENSPAN AND WALL STREET TORPEDO EFFORTS TO REGULATE DERIVATIVES.

One might wonder how there could be such a disconnect between the theories employed by these economists and the real world. But, to those of us in the profession, it comes as no surprise. Some of us have been worried to death about it for years.

THE SHORT ANSWER IS, THE INCENTIVE STRUCTURE IN MAINSTREAM (OR NEOCLASSICAL) ECONOMICS IS SKEWED TOWARDS REWARDING PEOPLE FOR BUILDING COMPLEX MATHEMATICAL MODELS, NOT FOR EXPLAINING HOW THE ACTUAL ECONOMY WORKS. You might assume those two things are connected in some tangible way, but that’s not necessarily the case. I think the non-economist would be absolutely shocked by some of the things we learn in graduate school. For example, I wonder how many people know the formal Monetarist (Milton Friedman’s school of thought) explanation of how the Great Depression occurred? Their analysis depends on the existence of something called money illusion on the part of workers. The idea is that laborers are never quite certain what the current cost of living is since they do not keep a careful accounting of their expenditures. Meanwhile, firms are pretty darn sure what prices are because it is so important to their livelihood to pay close attention. Now imagine the following. Let’s say there is a massive collapse in the supply of money, leading to a fall in prices (which is, as I have pointed out elsewhere, based on a very poor understanding of the modern financial system; but, in the interest of keeping things simple, I’ll concede the point here). The fall in prices, because it means they are earning lower profits, leads firms offer lower wages to their employees. But–and here’s what they say happened in the Great Depression–workers, not realizing because of money illusion that the cost of living has declined (and that firms’ offer is therefore not unreasonable), quit their jobs. And that, apparently, is how unemployment rose to 25% in the 1930s: the money supply fell, lowering prices, leading firms to offer lower wages, and causing workers to VOLUNTARILY QUIT THEIR JOBS! I don’t know about you, but that’s one of the most ridiculous explanations I have ever heard in my entire life. It also puts into perspective the above quote criticizing Friedman’s approach.

This is not completely atypical. It is a function of the fact that economists spend too much time developing complex thought experiments and clever stories and not working to understand the complexities of the real-world economy. A famous book published in 1990 showed evidence of this in the top graduate programs in our discipline (The Making of an Economist by Arjo Klamer and David Colander, Westview Press). When asked what was most important to success as an economist, students ranked these skills in this order (page 18):

1. Being smart in the sense of being good at problem solving.

2. Excellence in mathematics.

3. Being very knowledgeable about one particular field.

4. Ability to make connections with prominent professors.

5. Being interested in, and being good at, empirical research.

6. Having a broad knowledge of the economics literature.

7. Having a thorough knowledge of the economy.

NO, I DID NOT ACCIDENTALLY TYPE THE LIST BACKWARDS! AND, IF ANYTHING, THE RELEGATION OF “KNOWLEDGE OF THE ECONOMY” TO DEAD LAST HAS BECOME WORSE. COURSES THAT WOULD HAVE PROVIDED CONTEXT AND EMPIRICAL GROUNDING TO THEORY HAVE BEEN SLOWLY REPLACED OVER THE PAST THIRTY YEARS BY THOSE TEACHING MORE MATHEMATICAL METHODS. TODAY, STUDENTS LEARN MORE ABOUT SET THEORY THAN THEY DO ABOUT THE MERGER MOVEMENTS OF THE LATE 19TH AND EARLY 20TH CENTURIES--IF THEY HEAR ABOUT THE LATTER AT ALL, WHICH IS INCREASINGLY UNLIKELY. MOREOVER, WINNING THE PUBLISHING GAME MEANS WRITING ARTICLES THAT ARE MORE GENERAL, THEORETICAL, AND MATHEMATICAL. THE AUTHOR OF A PIECE ON THE EVOLUTION OF THE SPECIFIC INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE OF THE FINANCIAL SECTOR IN THE UNITED STATES FROM 1980 TO 1990, FOR EXAMPLE, EVEN IF WELL-WRITTEN AND FIRMLY GROUNDED IN THEORY, WOULD FIND IT DIFFICULT TO PUBLISH IN ANY OF THE “TOP” JOURNALS. THIS WOULD HURT THE CAREER ADVANCEMENT OF A MIDDLE- TO SENIOR-LEVEL ECONOMICS PROFESSOR AND COULD BE A DEATH SENTENCE FOR THE JUNIOR ONE, NEEDING, AS THEY DO, TO EARN TENURE IN ORDER TO KEEP THEIR JOB.

Not that I have anything against mathematics. My first college major was physics and I have always enjoyed the subject. I was one of those strange kids who loved word problems and derived great joy from figuring out the underlying logic of mathematical relationships (no, I didn’t date very much!). But for economists, math should be no more than a tool, not the end in itself. I’m afraid that’s not the case, so much so that today a common pattern is for a student to earn a math degree as an undergraduate and then pursue an economics PhD. Are they really interested in understanding unemployment, inflation, poverty, pricing, consumer choice, etc., or have they found a place where doing what they do best is rewarded?

This doesn’t mean that nothing useful gets done, but there are built-in incentives against it. Nor do I mean to implicate all of economists. Many DID raise the alarm and tried very hard to get the attention of the powers that be. But, they were in the minority and members of schools of thought largely dismissed by mainstream economics (e.g., Institutionalism, Post Keynesianism, and Modern Monetary Theory).

Their graduate programs DO force students to learn about the structure of the actual economy (although still with plenty of math, but this time as the means rather than the end) and their journals DO reward authors who tackle the extremely complex and much messier task of figuring out what caused real-world economic disasters and successes. This is the sort of work that needs to be encouraged.

There was, incidentally, a second poll asking who most accurately forecast the financial crisis. The winner was, by a wide margin, Professor Steve Keen of the University of Western Sydney. The page announcing the award says this about Professor Keen’s work:

In December 2005, drawing heavily on his 1995 theoretical paper and convinced that a financial crisis was fast approaching, Keen went high-profile public with his analysis and predictions. He registered the webpage www.debtdeflation.com dedicated to analyzing the “global debt bubble”, which soon attracted a large international audience. At the same time he began appearing on Australian radio and television with his message of approaching financial collapse and how to avoid it. In November 2006 he began publishing his monthly DebtWatch Reports (33 in total). These were substantial papers (upwards of 20 pages on average) that applied his previously developed analytical framework to large amounts of empirical data. Initially these papers analyzed the Global Financial Collapse that he was predicting and then its realization.

In the 1995 article referenced above, Keen takes pains to model explicitly the features of a modern financial system (see Steve Keen, “Finance and Economic Breakdown: Modeling Minsky’s ‘Financial Instability Hypothesis,’” Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, vol.17, no.4, Summer 1995, pp.607-635). For him, there are no helicopters increasing the money supply by dropping cash, no households with perfect working models of the economy in the backs of their heads, no depressions caused by the fact that workers suddenly and voluntarily quit their jobs en masse, no speculators who know the future (all of these are actually features of popular mainstream economic approaches). His paper contains a great deal of math, but as a tool rather than an end. Among his key conclusions are:

• “...CAPITALIST EXPECTATIONS OF PROFIT DURING BOOMS CAN LEAD THEM TO INCUR MORE DEBT THAN THE SYSTEM IS CAPABLE OF FINANCING” (P.633).

• A BREAKDOWN RESULTS WHEN THERE IS A DEBT-INDUCED RECESSION, LEADING SOME CAPITALISTS TO GO BANKRUPT AND LENDERS TO “WRITE OFF BAD DEBTS AND SUFFER CAPITAL LOSSES” (P.633).

• “...A RISE IN INCOME INEQUALITY (BETWEEN WORKERS AND CAPITALISTS) LEADS TO A PERIOD OF INSTABILITY AND THEN COLLAPSE” (P.633).

• “...A LONG PERIOD OF APPARENT STABILITY IS IN FACT ILLUSORY, AND THE CRISIS, WHEN IT HITS, IS SUDDEN–OCCURRING TOO QUICKLY TO BE REVERSIBLE BY CHANGES TO DISCRETIONARY POLICY AT THE TIME” (P.633).

• THE WEIGHT OF THE COLLAPSE MAY BE SO GREAT THAT MONETARY (HE SPECIFICALLY MENTIONS LOWERING INTEREST RATES) AND FISCAL POLICY ARE POWERLESS TO REVERSE THE TREND.

All this was written in the midst of the longest peacetime expansion in US economic history, a period when some mainstream economists were declaring it a “New Economy” where recession had been banished forever. His predictions–and this is just a small subset of his work–were eerily accurate and based on work well outside of what is recognized as worthwhile in mainstream economics. He has continued to constantly update his work in his blog: Web Link

If you have never heard of him, that’s not surprising. You probably don’t read too many academic journals. The real problem is, most economists have never heard of him either. If we are to truly recover and put ourselves back on the track to prosperity, that has to change. It is vital that our profession revise its incentive structure such that models that more closely reflect the complex institutional structures and behaviors in the real world are valued above those that look pretty, but tell us nothing.(Web Link

So please explain, how am I getting the history wrong?

Wow, The Business Man,
Forgive me for this suggestion, but I really don't think anyone is reading your long "copied and pasted" totally irrelevant rants.
I suggest you keep them shorter and "in your own words" if you want anyone to read it.
Plus your theories are so convoluted that are incomprehensible for an average reader.

On TV at about 5:15 p.m. on Tuesday Jan 24, it was announced at the City Council meeting that the City Council had voted 6-0 to "answer" the lawsuit by the California Apartment Association but not more broadly to defend against it. The City government has shown it cannot be trusted.

I voted against Measure V and W because I believed people who said it would destroy our neighborhoods while helping nobody. After reviewing all of the poorly formed arguments against rent control and stacking them against all of he sound arguments for it, I can now see that I erred

Rent control is clearly important to this community and will positively benefit it and its residents. Thanks for the debate! Without it, I would still maintain my foolish opposition! I encourage all those who still oppose it, to open your minds, let go of your preconceived notions and embrace what the majority of voters desire for our city.