This Stanford Community Legal Clinic is pretty irritating. If you believe so much in the value of rent control, then pass it first in Palo Alto. That's where Stanford is located. Why are you pushing this burden on another city? Plus the majority of these Stanford students probably come from very wealthy families with no rent control in their neighborhoods, so they don't have to suffer any of the negative effects. It's so hypocritical. They want to pat themselves on the back and feel like they are doing something good in the world, but they are not will to do so in their own towns. Pass rent control in Palo Alto first, and then I'll consider supporting it in Mountain View.

I don't think that hypocrisy means what you think it means. Did this group from Stanford previously make anti-rent-control statements or do something that demonstrated that they oppose rent control in Palo Alto or elsewhere?

The fact that Palo Alto doesn't have rent control does not mean that everyone in Palo Alto is required to oppose rent control. Not everyone in San Francisco needs to support it either.

The Stanford Community Law Clinic is a legal services clinic in East Palo Alto. Web Link

Web Link
East Palo Alto has a Rent Stabilization Ordinance. It was implemented back in 2010. Please share with those who would like to learn more about RSO.

Address:
Stanford Community Law Clinic
2117 University Ave a, East Palo Alto, CA 94303

There will always be two sides to every case. It just depends on whether you're the landlord or the renter. That's why there are lawyers for both sides.

Under CA Code of Civil Procedure section 387, a person or legal entity with a financial or other significant interest in the outcome pf a lawsuit may intervene if it is shown to the Court that the existing parties will not adequately represent that interest. I have not read the papers but it did seem to me that the City (with six of seven councilmembers against Measure V) had proven it could not be trusted to represent the interests of renters when it placed a worthless competing measure on the November ballot or when it stipulated to a TRO in December when the California Apartment Association (CAA) filed the case. Whether the other group will be allowed to intervene may involve showing that the CAA is not adequate - not so easily shown. The CAA argues that Measure V is invalid in almost every respect and, unlike the City, is not a risk to suddenly stipulate that its position is wrong.

None of the court issues will matter if the Council can't appoint one more landlord/rental manager to the board. It's required in Measure V to have at least 2 from that group. If the rent control board doesn't meet the minimum requirements, it won't exist. If CAA REALLY wanted to stop this ordinance, they just have to keep anyone from their side from applying or accepting the position. The drafters never put in a contingency for that scenario. Just sayin'.

@Patrick Actual phrasing is 1709(a) :"There shall be no more than two (2) members of the Committee that own or manage any rental property, or that are realtors or developers"

So 0,1, or 2 members can be landlords.

CAA is welcome to boycott participating.

The more I think about it, the more I realize old Billy was right...

The will of the people cannot be stopped. Temporarily restrained by our City Council Members under the influence of the CAA perhaps, but we shall inevitably prevail thanks to the support of our great legal counsel, truly a dream team.

Let the rents start rolling back soon!

Si, Se Puede!

Let's roll back car prices, grocery prices, taxes, and all other items.
Why should we stop with just rent control,

All price fixing is taking others property which should not be allowed.

If Prop 13 is OK then I don't see why Rent Control should be any different.

@YIMBY,
PROP 13 applies to all residents in California.
How about applying so called "STABLIZATION" on all property in Mountain View?
The absurdity of a measure voted by majority (renters and non owners) against property owners who cannot even vote in the city is a taxation without representation.

Prop 13 regulates tax rates between a citizen and the state.
Measure v regulates common law contracts between two private parties.
There is a fundamental difference in those two ideas just like there is a difference between how bridge tolls prices are set vs the cost of gasoline.

In the bay area prop 13 hasn't reduced the tax base, which is what you imply. So making the case that rents has to be high because property owners have a low tax base is a false narrative. Prop 13 tax base is reset upon sale of a property, which occurs just as frequently before prop 13 in the bay area as what prop 13.

Either way, if you want to turn this into a tax argument, then you should ask for a law that allows for rental deductions against income tax - that seems like the closest thing to prop 13.

20% of the citizens of this state live in poverty. This proposal will do nothing for them except exclude them permanently from these neighborhoods just like what happened in SF and NYC. As rent gets locked in, renters doesn't move and landlords gets more picky with who their renters are. It's astounding how many people choose to ignore fact and data to push the NIMBY mindset, especially given how clear it is that increasing density in this city so fundamentally solve the problem at its core. First principles anyone?

Either way, mountain view just got even more difficult for the poor people to be in. It's a sad day and a win for those with great paying jobs who just fattened their wallet at the expense of those truly in need of protection.

@Old timer

"PROP 13 applies to all residents in California."

Prop 13 applies to all residents in California who own property. Very important detail. But hey, if it was important enough to freeze property taxes so people wouldn't find themselves suddenly taxed out of their homes, that sounds like the exact same argument for legislating rent control.

@Pb

I see a lot of interesting arguments you've ascribed to me that I don't recall making at all in this thread. Are you sure you're not debating someone else?

Measure V is a case of democracy gone wrong.
1. Housing problem is city wide if not regional problem. Many city with rent control or similar ordinance have experienceed more problem afterwards. It is at best a bad solution to a fundamental problem.
2. It only affects older buildings, sadly, these are the ones providing lower rental stocks. This is also a measure against a smaller subset of property owners who are now asked to shoulder city wide problem.

Stanford is not in Palo Alto. Stanford is in unincorporated Santa Clara County for the most part. The SHOPPING CENTER area is in Palo Alto so that sales tax revenues benefit the city. East Palo Alto is in a different county and that's where the law project provides service. Argh.

I find this an abomination!

My good landlord already sold the property I rent as a result of this being voted in. I didn't vote for it but it won. Landlords should have seen it coming and done something before Nov.'s vote. Now it's the law so the city should defend it and end this now.

In a city that is majority renters with off site landlords, and out-of-control rent hikes in some well-publicized cases this was coming for a long time. The time and place for avoiding measure V was Before The Election. If we could go back and do the whole election over, then great. But we can't and this lawsuit is just wasting all our time now. Enforce it, refund the last rent hike (post Oct 2016) and move on.

Can someone explain how it is possible to "roll back prices"?

How asked a very good question:

“Can someone explain how it is possible to "roll back prices"?”

The courts for more than 30 years established that if there is a recognized lack of housing available in a city, the local government can in fact not only control rent, but reset the base rent to a prior level. The only thing required to be demonstrated is that there is a clear documented history of the lack of housing. In the case of Mountain View, the City Council record shows that the city council was aware of the shortage starting in October 2015.

The case that establishes this standard was:

Berman v. Downing (1986) Web Link

It stated:

We hold, on this record consisting of a stipulation of facts and the language of the West Hollywood Moratorium Ordinance, fn. 1 that the rent rollback provisions of that ordinance are constitutional.

[1] We agree with plaintiff that "the constitutionality of residential rent controls under the police power depends upon the actual existence of a housing shortage and its concomitant ill effects of sufficient seriousness to make rent control a rational curative measure." (Birkenfeld v. City of Berkeley (1976) 17 Cal. 3d 129, 160 [130 Cal. Rptr. 465, 550 P.2d 1001].) Equally important, however, "the existence of 'constitutional facts' upon which the validity of an enactment depends [citation] is presumed in the absence of any showing to the contrary [citation] ...." (Ibid) Plaintiff was entitled to show the nonexistence of those facts as to the West Hollywood ordinance but failed to do so.

So in order to prevent the rent rollback in court the CAA will have to demonstrate there is NO LACK OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING in Mountain View.

And this will need to be demonstrated with proof and evidence, without any of these, the CAA has no case to prevent it.