I need to ask the CAA a question, how long was Nemat Maleksalehi a member of the CAA?

I just read the article called "Bad Landlord has Criminal Record" in the daily post today.

In the article he was convicted or plead guilty of:

2001 Fraud against HUD of $1.4 Million. Where he claimed subsidies for non-existent tenants or empty properties.

2000 Welfare fraud for arranging his mistress and her mother welfare benefit during 1990-1996.

Section 8 fraud by receiving vouchers when the tenant moved out of his property and did not notify the agency of change of address.

He was in the news because he plead guilty to shooting shooting at his tenants vehicles he wanted to move out because they were receiving section 8 subsidies and he wanted to rent the apartments to new tenants at a much higher rent rate.

And it is the landlords that criticize those receiving welfare or section 8 vouchers for causing the property owners problems? I cannot believe that they love to state this when if the public looks at their history, they themselves may be guilty of criminal acts involving welfare and subsidies.

If the CAA wants to be considered a legitimate trade-organization, it must take responsibility for the potential criminals that they advocate for publicly. My simple question is, will they provide a list of members so that the public can see if their members are criminals themselves.

That would seem to be a reasonable request, if they make any argument against it, this would be a very good indicator that either they are protecting criminal activity, or worse, they could be accomplices after the fact regarding any criminal acts perpetrated by their members.

Until then, why is any politician taking any advice or donations from what could be a criminal organization?

Well, I know many tenants - criminals, drug dealers.
Tenants Toegether and supporters of Measure V including The Business Man must be criminals too by the same logic.
This argument is ridiculous The Business Man.
I think you are disgrace the school that gave you 2 MBAs.

To clarify, I did not seek to intervene. I had reserved a hearing date for a motion to intervene just in case the proponents of the measure sat back and counted on the City to defend the measure. But proponents stepped up and I am not needed in the case.

Ekim Esor

You posted:

“Well, I know many tenants - criminals, drug dealers. “

This almost sounds like when Trump said most Mexicans are criminals (drug dealers, rapists, etc.). But if in fact these people are criminals, please identify them so we can check if in fact they are. Or is it just that you love to say they are with no evidence to back it up?

You also said:

“Tenants Toegether and supporters of Measure V including The Business Man must be criminals too by the same logic.”

You know I did not say this, what I said was:

If the CAA wants to be considered a legitimate trade-organization, it must take responsibility for the potential criminals that they advocate for publicly. My simple question is, will they provide a list of members so that the public can see if their members are criminals themselves.

I did not claim all CAA members are criminals, but we have the right to check to see if they are. I asked a logical and appropriate question, if the CAA is such a legitimate organization, they should provide the public a list of owners so that customers can do a background check on them. Especially since they demand one from their tenants or more importantly categorize all those they do not advocate as “undesirables” who should receive no respect or dignity.

Like many on the side of the CAA, you try to put words into others mouths. This is an attempt to insult the character of the person asking questions, thus diverting attention to the question itself. How many members of the CAA have a criminal record, and what kind of crimes did they offend? We the public have the right to know this given that the CAA basically argues that they only target “undesirable tenants” who they claim are "criminals" and not “ALL” tenants to unfair and unjust business practices.

What you do not want to understand is it is very likely that many landlords are in business because they have had some problems with the law, thus having to answer on a job application that they have been convicted of a felony. Thus they cannot get any respectable work other than getting a loan with assistance of an organization like the CAA or some personal assistance from other financial interests, so they can make a living doing work that requires no public disclosure of any criminal background.

THe simple truth is that this particular landlord may be a common example of those in this business, that take any action they can to derive more money into their pocket, even if it was clearly an illegal act.

I suspect that asking this kind of question opens up a Pandora’s box that the CAA is desperate to keep closed. I am not saying every member is a criminal, but we have the right to know who are, and it would be interesting to see what the percentage of the membership that have criminal backgrounds?

Let's not forget that rent control is the number one bad example for price controls in economics 1. Graduating high school students know this. The apartment house association is doing what is best for the community. Rents must be set at the high cost of new construction other wise nobody will build new much in demand apartment houses. High rents mean more production of new housing. Rent controls are a very destructive racket. Go to the internet and read all about it. Rent controls are not an entitlement they are like (literally) bombing the community. George Drysdale economics teacher

George you state

Let's not forget that rent control is the number one bad example for price controls in economics 1. Graduating high school students know this. The apartment house association is doing what is best for the community. Rents must be set at the high cost of new construction other wise nobody will build new much in demand apartment houses. High rents mean more production of new housing. Rent controls are a very destructive racket. Go to the internet and read all about it. Rent controls are not an entitlement they are like (literally) bombing the community. George Drysdale economics teacher.

Here is a list of reasons to be skeptical of any “economists” opinions, because that is what they are only opinions. The reason being is that economics is not a hard science, you cannot prove in a laboratory that any theory correctly connect a specific economic cause results in a specific effect to the required 95% certainty standards to establish its accuracy:

Musings on the Current State of Economics

UNLEARNING ECONOMICS

18 Signs Economists Haven’t the Foggiest

I’d like to thank Chris Auld for giving me a format for outlining the major reasons why economists can be completely out of touch with their public image, as well as how they should do “science”, and why their discipline is so ripe for criticism (most of which they are unaware of). So, here are 18 common failings I encounter time and time again in my discussions with mainstream economists:

1. They defer to the idea that “all models are simplifications” as if this somehow creates a fireguard against any criticism of methodology, internal inconsistency or empirical relevance.

2. They argue that the financial crisis is irrelevant to their discipline (bonus: also that predicting such events is impossible).

3. They think that behavioural, new institutional and even ‘Keynesian’ economics show the discipline is pluralistic, not neoclassical.

4. They think that the fact most economic papers are “empirical” shows economists are engaging in the scientific method.

5. They think ‘neoclassical economics‘ doesn’t exist and is just a swear word used by their opponents.

6. When pushed, they collapse their theories and assumptions into ridiculously weak, virtually unfalsifiable claims (such as revealed preference, the Efficient Markets Hypothesis, or rationality).

7. They dismiss ideas from the past or comprehensive study of previous thinkers and texts as “not science”.

8. They think positive and normative economics are 100% separable, and their discipline is “value free“.

9. They simply cannot think of any other approach to ‘economics’ than theirs.

10. They believe in an erroneous history that sits well with their pet theories, such as the myths of barter and free trade.

11. They think that microfoundations are a necessary and sufficient modelling technique for dealing with the Lucas Critique.

12. They think economics is separable from politics, and that the political role and application of economic ideas in the real world is irrelevant for academic discussion (examples: Friedman and Pinochet, central bank independence).

13. They think their discipline is going through a calm, fruitful period (based on their self-absorbed bubble).

14. They think that endorsing cap & trade or carbon taxes is “dealing with the environment”.

15. They think making an unrealistic model consistent with one or two observed phenomena makes it sound or worthwhile (DSGE and other models are characterised by this “frictions” approach).

16. They think their discipline is an adequate, even superior, method for analysing problems in other social sciences such as politics, history and sociology.

17. They think that the world behaves as if their assumptions are true (or close enough).

18. They think that their discipline’s use of mathematics shows that it is “rigorous” and scientific.

Every above link that is not written by an economist is recommended. Furthermore, here are some related recommendations: seven principles for arguing with economists; my FAQ for mainstream economists; I Could Be Arguing In My Spare Time (footnotes!); What’s Wrong With Economics? Also try both mine and Matthjus Krul’s posts on how not to criticise neoclassical economics. As I say to Auld in the comments, I actually agree with some of his points about the mistakes critics make. But I think these critics are still criticising economics for good reasons, and that economists need to improve on the above if they want anyone other than each other to continue taking them seriously.

PS If you think I haven’t backed up any of my claims about what economists say, try cross referencing, as some of the links fall into more than one trap. Also follow through to who I’m criticising in the links to my previous posts. And no, I don’t think all economists believe everything here. However, I do think many economists believe some combination of these things.

Web Link

I do not agree with all of these, must most are relevant at this time. The simple truth is that financial and political interests dictate the majority of what an economist reports as an opinion. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but it does not necessarily mean that that opinion is scientifically sound. So please find some other “Scientifically sound” argument against rent control

And oh by the way aren't we in a "War against ISIS/ISIL"?

That has dramatic changes with regards the to the U.S. Constitution, when at a state of war, the constitution is suspendend. And specifically to the point “RENT CONTROL” is absolutely allowed while in a state of war. Since the “War against ISIS/ISIL” is still in effect, the “Takings Clause enforcement on Rent Control is suspended until the state of war is over if you read the fllowing text:

“Statements of judicial deference are found in numerous cases rejecting regulatory takings claims against the United States – claims based on (1) the federal government’s temporary wartime shutdown of non-essential gold mines to free up needed mine workers and mining equipment, United States v. Central Eureka Mining Co., 357 U.S. 155, 168 (1958) (“In the context of war, we have been reluctant to find that degree of regulation which, without saying so, requires compensation to be paid for resulting losses of income.”); (2) WARTIME RENT CONTROLS, BLOCK V. HIRSH, 256 U.S. 135, 157 (1920) (“[A] LIMIT IN TIME, TO TIDE OVER A PASSING TROUBLE, WELL MAY JUSTIFY A LAW THAT COULD NOT BE UPHELD AS A PERMANENT CHANGE”), and Bowles v. Willingham, 321 U.S. 503, 519 (1944) (“A nation which can demand the lives of its men and women in ... war is under no constitutional necessity of providing a system of price control on the domestic front which will assure each landlord a fair return ....”); (3) a federal order during the Arab oil embargo that an oil production company sell oil to a particular refiner, Condor Operating Co. v. Sawhill, 514 F.2d 351 (Temp. Emer. Ct. App.) (citing Block v. Hirsh quote, supra), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 976 (1975); and (4) a federal prohibition on the exercise of stock options in a U.S. company by a foreign national with ties to Libya, a nation accused of sponsoring terrorism, Paradissiotis v. United States, 49 Fed. Cl. 16, 23 (2001) (“It is unfortunate that plaintiff lost his property outright. The preservation of the national security interest of the United States nevertheless greatly outweighs plaintiff’s loss.”), affirmed, 304 F.3d 1271 (Fed. Cir. 2002). (Web Link

I a sense the CAA cannot even make any claim that rent control is a taking as long as the U.S. is still in a state of war. THe court surely must be aware of this, and simply dismiss the case. But NOT with prejudice, the case may be reactivated once the state of war has been officially lifted.

As of 1230 Feb 14, 2 weeks after the CAA requested the injunction in Contra Costa Court against Richmond, no injunction has been issued.

This is getting very weird because such decisions for issuing an injunction will take less than 1 week.

I cannot make any predictions, but the fact that 2 weeks have passed and no injunction was ordered. This should indicate that the court is finding it very difficult to satisfy the legal requirements that are necessary to issue the injunction.

I suspect they have been pressured by the Santa Clara Court to delay the denial because it would remove all choice from the Santa Clara Court judge in making an exact same ruling.

This is a very rare situation where 2 courts are hearing the same complaint, from the same plaintiff, from the same attorney representing the plaintiff, regarding the same matter in the court, at the same time. This case can in fact perhaps demonstrate that if the courts rule differently, the issue becomes much more serious. Remember that the 14th amendment requires the laws to be equally enforced. Thus for example, if the Contra Costa Court denies the injunction but the Santa Clara Court issues an injunction, or vice versa, then a very bad situation is unfolding.

This could indicate that the court issuing an injunction or denying one can be argued to be unduly influenced by issues not related to the case. This will place the integrity of California County Court legal processes into question in such a severe way, that at least one of them will have the legitimacy of their decisions be requiring new legal hearings to satisfy the required 5th amendment requirements of proving due process was complied with. That is because the appearance of bias on behalf of the court will be established to such an extent that that court will need to rework the cases to provide proof of objectivity.

This is becoming a far more serious problem than just rent control.

Well, it is now official, the Contra Costa Court denied the injunction regarding CAA and Measure L in Richmond.

Richmond’s new rent control law will remain in effect, at least for now, after a state court judge denied the California Apartment Association’s request for a preliminary injunction pending a decision on its lawsuit seeking to overturn the voter-approved law.

The association, which represents landlords, filed a lawsuit Jan. 6 asking for a permanent injunction. It claimed that Richmond’s Measure L — which got about 65 percent of the vote in November — is unconstitutional.

The association had previously asked for a temporary restraining order to halt enforcement of the law, which Contra Costa County Superior Court Judge Judith Craddick denied Jan. 6, allowing the measure to remain in effect. Craddick heard the association’s request for a preliminary injunction on Feb. 1.

In a decision dated Tuesday, Craddick denied the preliminary injunction on the grounds that the association had not proved that its members would suffer “irreparable harm” if rent control remained in effect pending a hearing on the merits of the case. She added that the court will set a hearing on the permanent injunction “on an expedited basis.”


At least for now, the CAA cannot get a preliminary injunction at the Santa Clara Court now, unless the court will violate the 14th amendment.

This means that the court did not find enough proof to act in favor of the CAA. And from what it appears it looks like the CAA simply tried to make an unsubstantiated allegation in both Richmond and Mountain View.

I bet the CAA is now trying to find out what to do. My strongest advice is to forget about stalling Measure L and V, and better start working on the merits of your claims in the court. The court did not need to answer the question whether the CAA will prevail in court since irreparable harm could not be proven nor was by the CAA.

The court is giving the CAA a good warning that their arguments are weak, and may never see any more light of day, becasue the case may be dismissed on grounds of lack of substantiation.

Good news for tenants.

I have a very simple question, when will the Mountain View City Attorney formally apologize for the fact that her original actions regarding Measure V have been proven so completely without basis, by the Richmond City Attorney, and the Contra Costa Court?

My observation is that her "political" or "personal" opinions took priority over seeking compliance with the law. She decided to promote a legal position that was in fact completely proven false. My only thought is that she takes actions not based on the laws, but on her personal beliefs.

This behavior cannot be allowed to be acted on in her position. Given the entire picture, this attorney has demonstrated unsatisfactory work performance, to such an extent, that she should be demoted at minimum, if not terminated.

Her actions put the City of Mountain View in an indefensible position, placing additional financial obligations on the city, due to her inability to perform her vocation as an attorney.

When will we the citizens of Mountain View be issued a formal apology?

I just learned about this regarding our City Attorney:

The City Council chose Jannie Quinn to take the reins as Mountain View's City Attorney after she did the job on an interim basis for the first half of the year.

The council approved an employment agreement with Quinn Tuesday night which includes a $215,000 base salary. In contrast, her predecessor Michael Martello was paid $235,000 in his final year. Quinn may also receive annual pay increases in return for good performance.

Council member John Inks said he supported Quinn's appointment, adding that it was a near unanimous decision on the council. He would not support her employment agreement, however, saying her salary was too high. But member Laura Macias disagreed, saying "she's worth every penny."

"I am honored the council has appointed me," Quinn said in an email. "I find being a City Attorney exciting and challenging and feel very fortunate to have this opportunity."

Quinn, formerly the assistant city attorney, was appointed interim city attorney when Martello retired from the job at the end of last year. After observing her performance as interim city attorney, the council decided she was a good fit for the job on May 25 and decided to forgo the expense of searching for other candidates.

"We decided after the six months she had been doing a great job," said council member Mike Kasperzak, a trial lawyer himself for 11 years. "We did not see the need to go out and go through the expense of a search just to find the person we had already was as good or better than everybody else."

Kasperzak described Quinn as "very conscientious, energetic and articulate. I think she has strong attention to detail and is able to explain legal terminology in lay terms. She is a good researcher" and has "good legal instincts. Those are the sorts of skills I think are important."

Kasperzak said Quinn would be able to carry on the legacy of Martello, who "was not a city attorney who was afraid to get involved in issues. THERE ARE A LOT OF CITY ATTORNEYS WHO ARE OVERLY CAUTIOUS AND DON'T WANT TO ROCK THE BOAT."

As city attorney, Quinn will run a legal department with three other attorney positions and two code enforcement officers. Quinn says she has had an increasingly wide range of exposure to municipal law in her 14 years with the city, where she has supervised code enforcement, filled in for Martello at City Council meetings and played a role in significant legal battles, including a lawsuit with AT&T over the city's cable services.

"I'm very proud of our office," Quinn said. "I think it runs very well and I think our council is very happy with it."

Quinn has been with Mountain View since 1995, when she was hired as senior deputy city attorney. Before coming to Mountain View she worked for one year with the city of San Jose and two years with San Jose law firm Robinson and Wood, where she said her first two cases out of law school were for the city of Mountain View.

Quinn got her law degree from the University of San Diego in 1988. She lives in San Jose with her husband and two sons, ages 14 and 17.( Web Link

This report indicates 2 facts.

Fact 1, Mike Kasperzak was instrumental in getting her a job that makes her a millionaire after 5 years. Thus she has a deep debt to pay to him. At this time, I believe an audit of her work to determine if she has provided preferential treatment to certain claims against the city. She seems to beat up those who are no represented by an attorney, but when challenged by a reasonably good attorney, she tends to capitulate. This is exactly what she did in the CAA case, she simply behaved like a good girl and let the CAA go unchallenged regarding rent control and rent rollback. The simple history is that Mike Kasperzak has fought for the interests of the CAA from the very beginning, and he used his influence to establish preferential treatment to it.

I have no argument that if the City Attorney was not an employee of a governmental body, she could act in such a way. But given she is obligated as a local governmental agent, she is required to ensure that substantive and procedural due process regarding any legal case in her scope of employment must be satisfied. From what I can see here, she has in fact acted to subvert due process, and at the same time, prevent equal enforcement of the law from being carried out by NOT following the letter of the law. Her initial actions were not based on any legal basis, but on the basis of being a loyal beneficiary of a benefactor and nothing else.

Fact 2, she used her office to selectively attack John Inks for ethics violations, which on its face appears to be as result of his criticism of her original pay rate proposed in 2010. This is an abuse of her power. I noticed she never investigated Mike Kasperzak for any conflict of interest. There is more than ample prima facie evidence to warrant it.

At this point I seriously question the integrity of her work, and it should be audited by an independent legal group to determine if there is indeed a statistically proven disparate treatment or impact regarding her offices work?

I am very concerned that the supporters of the CAA are not using their 1st amendment protected rights to explain to the public their legitimate reasoning for seeking a court overturn of Measure V.

I have noticed it has been more than a week since any posting to help educate us on the illegitimacy of Measure V. I have an open mind, I listen to your discussions. But I usually do find problems with your reasoning or research. But please do not give up?

I never claim I know better than anyone. I want to learn how your belief that any rent control is an unconstitutional "taking". But I find it interesting that the CAA only makes the following claim:

“The apartment association has challenged the makeup of the five-member rent board. Measure L says that no more than two members can be landlords or Realtors, but it does not limit how many can be tenants. San Francisco’s five-member rent board, by comparison, must include two landlords, two tenants and one person who is neither a landlord nor a tenant.

“Obviously, we are disappointed with the ruling,” the association said in an email. “We continue to believe that Richmond’s rent control law is unconstitutional and remain committed to overturning Measure L.”

The association also filed a lawsuit seeking to overturn a voter-approved rent control measure in Mountain View. In that case, a Santa Clara County Superior Court judge approved the association’s request for a temporary restraining order, which prevented the law from taking effect."(Web Link

However, I find that the term "believe" concerns me because the definition of believe is :

verb be·lieve \bə-ˈlēv\

Definition of believe

1 a : to have a firm religious faith, b : to accept something as true, genuine, or real <ideals we believe in> <believes in ghosts>

2 : to have a firm conviction as to the goodness, efficacy, or ability of something <believe in exercise>

3 : to hold an opinion : think <I believe so>

transitive verb

1 a : to consider to be true or honest <believe the reports> <you wouldn't believe how long it took>, b : to accept the word or evidence of <I believe you> <couldn't believe my ears>

2 : to hold as an opinion : suppose <I believe it will rain soon>believer noun(Web Link

However, if you noticed there is a problem with believing something is unconstitutional, and what REALLY IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Everyone has the right to believe in something, but it does not mean it is in fact true. For example for hundreds of years people thought the world was flat, and if you go too far into the ocean you would fall off the earth. That turned out to be completely wrong. Many people still believe that the world is only about 10,000 years old, the Catholic Church believed this, and many still do. Carbon dating evidence as well as uranium and lead studies have proven the Earth is a little more that 4 Billion years old. For hundreds of years the people on Earth thought it was the center of the universe and everything orbited around the Earth. Giordano Bruno and Galileo Galilei were punished as heretics even though they were correct that the Earth orbited the Sun. Many people believe that Caucasians and different body characteristics mean there are different “races” of human beings. Modern Genetic mapping has determined that there are no sub-human races, they simply have variants of the DNA within the “operational framework” of what it means to be a human being.

You get my point, a belief is not sufficient for any court to agree with a complaint. It must be supported by evidence, which establishes the burden of legal proof, which substantiates an allegation that is contained in a legal complaint. But it appears the Contra Costa Court simply stated the CAA has failed to establish anything yet.

So why are the supporters of the CAA so quiet now?

Business Man, You ask why nobody is replying to your posts. Perhaps this is because you have written the last eight or nine posts in a row - and they are extremely lengthy?

Perhaps you could start a blog or something instead of taking over the public forums? I know you mean well and you are very ardent, but it's simply not working for most of us. If you blog, those who want to read your posts would have a place to do so, and you could write to your heart's content!

Interested,

Thanks, I do not disagree with your observation.

But I was taught that when you are starting to succeed in an important issue, the worst thing you can do is not follow through to the end.

It works in Golf, Bowling, Pitching in Baseball.

Also, I feel if I don't keep the fire burning, the politicians will simply go back to business as usual and start acting on behalf of the CAA. I hope you can understand my situation.