I will not be surprised that the two members of the CSFRA board that are to represent the landlords and real estate interests will withdraw their application because their private email and text messages have been declared public records by the Cal Supreme Court.

Under the recent California Supreme Court case of CITY OF SAN JOSE et al., v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SANTA, case decision, the Court has declared that the Committee members will be required to disclose private text and email messages. The court ruled:

“AP

Updated 1 hr 9 mins ago

SAN FRANCISCO -- The public has a right to access emails and text messages about government business on the private phones and accounts of state and local officials and employees, the California Supreme Court ruled Thursday.

In a unanimous decision, the court said those communications were subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act and not shielded because they were sent or received in personal accounts.

"If communications sent through personal accounts were categorically excluded from CPRA, government officials could hide their most sensitive, and potentially damning, discussions in such accounts," Associate Justice Carol Corrigan wrote for the seven-member court.

The ruling came in a lawsuit against the city of San Jose. San Jose City Attorney Richard Doyle said he was not surprised by the decision and did not plan to challenge it.”( Web Link

This issue is likely to impact the CSFRA board because the 2 members that are to represent landlords and real estate interests will likely withdraw their application. The decision states that anyone who is an “official” is subject to the decision. These two will have to provide the public with said disclosure of private communications if they involve any actions or case considerations being considered by the Board. They will refuse to comply with public disclosure of their communications that are likely to indicate that they are acting as agents for the private interests when doing so is against the California Political Reform Act.

This decision is going to cause great problems for Mountain View in general because the City will now have to compile the new information and provide it to the public. Especially if the City was using private channels of communication to discuss public issues, or worse coordinate with private interests regarding the decisions being made by the council or other employees of the city.

Due to repeated violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are automatically removed. Why?

RE: Rent Control

Why would any landlords sign up for a committee that is designed to be effectively a taking of their property and rights? When is the price of food going to be controlled, and cars, and everything else?

Rent control is a bogus and ethically wrong concept and counter to the Constitution Of the United States. Every study ever done concludes rent control doesn't work and in fact has an inverse impact. No new supply, renters find ways around the system and properties are no long kept up. Values drop, Real Estate Taxes go down. It's really a dumb idea.

@member,

Rent control: ethically wrong. Let me guess, big fan of Prop 13? Turnabout is fair play.

Constitution-wise, rent control has been upheld over and over again, so I'm reminded of this article: Web Link

The Supreme Court case holds that when public officials use private accounts to conduct the public's business, those accounts may become public records. All an employee or elected or appointed government official must do to keep his or her accounts private is to NOT USE A PRIVATE ACCOUNT FOR GOVERNMENT BUSINESS. Very simple.

The Business Man is greatly alarmed that the City has not complied with the law. When the TRO was issued on December 28, 2016, the TRO law clearly states it can only be in effect for 10 days. In the Case of Sharpe v. Brotzman (Web Link the court stated:

The record does not show who appeared in court on March 26th, or who requested the continuance. All we have is the order above quoted. WHILE IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THE TRIAL COURT INTENDED BY THAT ORDER TO CONTINUE THE RESTRAINING ORDER IN EFFECT, THIS IS NOT THE MOST REASONABLE INTERPRETATION OF THE ORDER. [1a] OF COURSE, UNDER SECTION 527 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SUCH A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER IS TERMINATED AUTOMATICALLY AT THE END OF 10 DAYS UNLESS A SUBSEQUENT ORDER IS MADE CONTINUING IT IN FORCE. [2] Moreover, it is the law that the burden was on the appellant to prove that the restraining order was in effect at the time of the foreclosure sale. ( Agricultural Prorate Com. v. Superior Court, 30 Cal.App.2d 154 [ 85 P.2d 898]; Palm Springs etc. Co. v. Kieberk Corp., 37 Cal.App.2d 642 [ 100 P.2d 346].) [1b] IT IS OF SOME SIGNIFICANCE THAT THE ORIGINAL ORDER IS IN TWO PARTS, AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND A RESTRAINING ORDER. ON MARCH 26, 1954, THE TRIAL COURT SAW FIT TO CONTINUE THE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE IN EFFECT BY THE USE OF EXPRESS LANGUAGE, AND THEN USED NO SUCH LANGUAGE IN RESPECT TO THE RESTRAINING ORDER. It is also significant that, although the burden was on appellant to show that the restraining order was still in effect at the time of the sale, she made no mention at all of the point in the trial court. Under these circumstances, the proper interpretation of the quoted order is that it did not continue the restraining order in effect after the 26th. Therefore, it was dissolved by operation of law, and not in effect at the time of the trustee's sale.

After trying to see the record of the current CAA case in Santa Clara Court, there is no record of any reissuance of the restraining order. If you take the statute of CCP 527 as the above court did, the Plaintiff (CAA) did not file for any reissuance of the TEMPORARY restraining order. Given that is proven if you look at the case history on-line, the TRO died January 12th, 2017.

The City has not enforced Measure V during February and March of this year where there is NO ACTIVE TRO to require none-enforcement.

When is the City going to tell it’s citizens that they are lawfully justified to only pay the October 2015 rent as of Jan 12th, 2017?

Why is the City Attorney not acting in compliance with the California Laws?

Why is Project Sentinel falsely informing the tenants of the City of Mountain View that the TRO is still in effect?

It APPEARS that we still have a hostile city government here in Mountain View.

Member

You stated:

“Why would any landlords sign up for a committee that is designed to be effectively a taking of their property and rights? “

Until the court in fact states that there has been a “taking” of property or rights, you cannot prove that this is true. It is just your opinion.

When is the price of food going to be controlled, and cars, and everything else?

In fact the price of food is controlled by subsidies paid to farmers and food makers (the most famous is the government sponsorship of Corn Syrup in prepared foods), so that in fact is true. Car prices are controlled by the fact that each car has to be equipped with a minimum safety standard equipment, mileage efficiency, emissions controls, and other factors that directly increase the cost of the manufacture of a vehicle, thus raises the cost of a production of a car which raises the sale price of a car. If these mandatory equipment rules were not in effect, one would probably see a price reduction as much as 40%. So your argument is false.

“Rent control is a bogus and ethically wrong concept and counter to the Constitution Of the United States.”

Again, when you can present a case that either the California Supreme Court or the SCOTUS that has made that determination, your statement is only your opinion and is not in fact true.

“Every study ever done concludes rent control doesn't work and in fact has an inverse impact.”

EVERY study, you’re claiming that there is not ANY study that contradicts rent control has an inverse impact? Can you in fact prove that 100% of the studies have not found one positive benefit to anyone regarding rent control? Granted that almost 100% of economic study is funded by those who have financial or personal interests in the conclusions, one can be very skeptical of their results as a whole. But nonetheless, you make a statement that simply is or cannot be verified or validated.

“No new supply, renters find ways around the system and properties are no long kept up. Values drop, Real Estate Taxes go down. It's really a dumb idea.”

So you are saying those who own properties then simply let their property fall apart and destroy their value. I will not argue that is their right, but to blame it on rent control is simply over simplistic. The simple fact is that property owners will use any excuse to cut costs on their property as to maximize retained earnings. That action is not in the scope of what the government can be responsible for as long as the property is still in fact “private”, it does not belong to the government. Thus the “private” sector must take whole responsibility of its actions and cannot blame anyone else for their poor decisions.

In my last report I read, there is a important passage:

Member

You stated:

“Every study ever done concludes rent control doesn't work and in fact has an inverse impact.”

EVERY study, you’re claiming that there is not ANY study that contradicts rent control has an inverse impact? Can you in fact prove that 100% of the studies have not found one positive benefit to anyone regarding rent control? Granted that almost 100% of economic study is funded by those who have financial or personal interests in the conclusions, one can be very skeptical of their results as a whole. But nonetheless, you make a statement that simply is or cannot be verified or validated.

“To my knowledge, the last time U.S. economists were surveyed on rent control was in 1990, in the survey of Alston, Kearl, and Vaughan (1992). The question asked for an evaluation of the statement: “A ceiling on rents reduces the quantity and quality of housing available.” The results were:

Generally agree: 76.3%

Agree with provisions: 16.6%

Generally disagree: 6.5%”( Web Link

This would indicate that 6.5% of economists did not agree with your point of view. Thus the statement you made in this message is not true, be careful next time please?

First, I need to apologise, it turns out that the Sharp v. Brotzman case was old and the statute was changed. Thus the 10 day deadline does not apply.

However, there might be a more serious issue that needs addressing in the hearing tomorrow. The CCP 527 contains a part called (d) (3) which states:

(3) When the matter first comes up for hearing, if the party who obtained the temporary restraining order is not ready to proceed, OR if the party has failed to effect service as required by paragraph (2), the court SHALL dissolve the temporary restraining order.

Since there is a hearing on 3/9/2017, the plaintiff (CAA) is required to make its case on Thursday. This is because the CCP 527(d)(3) requires both the service of the TRO and that the plaintiff must proceed to argue the case at the same time. That is because the 2 conditions are separated by an OR and not an AND. If the law said AND, then only serving the City of Mountain View would be sufficient to prevent the requirement or being ready to proceed on Thursday.

Thus the CAA better actually argue the complaint on Thursday, or the court must terminate the TRO because the law using the term SHALL removes the court's discretion to allow the TRO to remain. The term SHALL is distinguished from MAY. IF the law said MAY, then the court can make up its own mind. But CCP 527 uses the term SHALL that gives the court no choice in the matter.

So, I hope Brodie will demand that the court move forward with the case tomorrow, and if the CAA decides it does not want to present it’s case, the TRO is dead.

I see online at the Superior Court website that the judge granted the motion of rent control advocates to intervene in the lawsuit by the California Apartment Association v. City of Mountain View. Intervention is allowed when a party (here,the city government) cannot be trusted to defend a law (in this case, an initiative charter amendment).