Has HdL paid their business licensing fees to operate in MV?

I remember this article from last year stating that HdL had not paid while they were trying to force others who at time work from home.

Seen this before with the private management of redlight cameras.

I'm not against a company seeking to make money. I'm all for it in fact.

But law enforcement and profits should never cross paths. You end up with bad results.

The motivation should be compliance with the law. HdL is motivated to maximize profits.

If the City of Mountain View is unable to enforce their own laws it's time to either get rid of the law or hire more people to enforce them.

My vote is to get rid of the law. What is this license really doing? It's just a money grab.

Please read the article before commenting. Your question, although a good one, is addressed.

Once set up, surely it costs HdL very little to spam first and ask questions later. The City has engaged a vendor with incentives to be blindly aggressive and puts the burden of negative proof on the accused citizen. This is one step better than phishing. It sure feels slimey when executed as is apparently happening.

With no intervening human examination, probably very many of these attempts are unwarranted. Retroactive fee and penalty demands are another thing that should be evaluated in a reasonable manner.

By the way, I have two current MV small business licenses. While cheap, these are essentially worthless to me in terms of any value that the City provides directly. One is for a home business that is on the scale of a hobby, the other is really independent of location, but I happen to live in MV. I maintain licenses simply as evidence of legitimacy for banking and insurance purposes, along with one Franchise Tax Board resale permit.

Jan Johnston-Tyler, as quoted in the article, puts it very well: "How my city, in which I have lived for over 30 years, continues to work with them is unthinkable."

These letters belong in the shredder.

A year or so ago I received a letter from HdL, they contacted me because I have a Resale Number from the State and moved to Mountain View in late 2012. HdL said I need to pay for the license plus three years of penalties, I sent HdL proof that I did not do business in Mountain View (my 2013 resale tax return show no business activity). HdL then contacted me and informed me that it did not matter that I did not do any business in Mountain View in 2012 or 2013 BUT JUST THE FACT THAT I HAD A RESALE NUMBER MEANT THAT I NEEDED A BUSINESS LICENSE, in fact the woman at HdL then told me to "google it". We did and guess what, you don't, they outright lied. Of course we then when to the City and it was taken care of but who knows how many people were fraudulently charged for business licenses and penalties by the City's hired agent.

Has anybody done a cost/benefit analysis?
Per the article, that program has netted less than 10K. How much has it cost us so far? (Hdl fees + City staff time spent on this)
Meanwhile ... isn't the City forgoing $1M in yearly "airbnb" taxes?

Yeah. Years after I was briefly a freelance contractor doing all my work OUTSIDE of Mtn View, I got a couple of those letters, probably because I still have my bank account using a legally registered fictitious business name. I replied by email explaining their error and never heard from them again. If I do get another letter, I'll consider legal remedies for harassment.

I legally registered a fictitious business name with Santa Clara County about fifteen years ago and worked a consulting business from my MV home. When HdL sent their first letter to me, I replied that the business ended ten years ago. Even so, they sent me the exact same form letter a couple months later, to which I replied again with the same information, adding that all future correspondence from them was going unopened into recycle. That was few months ago and no more letters from them, so maybe they got the message.

It has cost the City nothing according to the article. HdL gets 35% of any funds they recover.

If the City creates a law it cannot enforce they should repeal the law as ineffective.. not sick a collection agency on its citizens.

@Otto: This has probably taken hundreds of hours of city employees' time to (a) realize that there was an "issue," (b) convince superiors that there was an issue, (c) put out bids or seek contracts for the work, (d) review the contracts, (e) run the contracts through legal and negotiation, (f) run the contracts up the chain for approval, (g) chase for approval, (h) initial kick-off with the contractor, (i) monitor the contractor, (j) answer 500 questions from the contractor, (k) deal with 200 angry, complaining residents or residents with questions, (l) prepare internal reports on progress, etc.

All while inflaming people with this ridiculous nickle-and-diming from an outside agency. If this were a letter mailed by the city that explained the business license requirement with a simple Q&A (and perhaps an explanation as to what the fees go toward, embellished as I suspect they would have to), it would have been much better received.

What a great name for a cannabis beer!

What's this BS about "could have been resolved with a simple phone call"?
Not happening. Why should I spend my valuable time calling them to try to fix their error? If I don't have a business and you send me one of these letters - that's not my problem. You fix it.

@Resident: How naïve of me.. all your points are most likely 100% correct.

There I was thinking the City was being efficient. What a rookie mistake.

HdL definitely seems to be a bit out of touch with the actual law.

My wife has had a (professional) city business license at our home address for about 15 years. HdL has written her twice over the past few years, and she's sent them a current copy each time. This year, they're claiming that she needs a second business license (to cover her small hobby art-sale business from our home) and needs to pay a second fee. The city law says otherwise: SEC. 18.12 specifically says that only a single license is required for two or more businesses by the same owner at the same location, and that only one fee needs to be paid (the higher of the rates, which are the same in her case).

Also, FYI, SEC. 18.5 says "Every person commencing, transacting and carrying on in the city any business in a home in a residential zone, whose annual gross receipts from such business is five hundred (500) dollars or less, shall be exempted from the payment of a license tax hereunder." So, small "home hobby business" or casual-sales businesses don't require paying a fee to the city, even if you have a reseller's permit. I suspect that HdL isn't telling people that when they write/call.

I encourage anyone contacted by HdL to actually go read the city code and find out what your obligations really are:

Web Link

Did I miss something? Nowhere in the article did I read what kind or size of business is required by the City to have a business license. I guess I'll have to contact the appropriate City office to get that information.

No, "MV resident," you only need to read the comment preceding yours (always a good policy anyway!). It has an explanation and a link for authoritative info. So it seems the answer to your opening question is yes.

Thanks to Another MV resident for pointing me to the comment just before mine, that gives the information for which I'd been looking. I had not read that comment carefully enough to get it. I do think it would have been useful and pertinent for the MV Voice to have included who is required to have a business license.