I feel very hopeful regarding this news. I have been stating that this was the situation for quite a few months. But being a regular “non-lawyer” many people simply disregarded me as unrealistic, irrational, or worse. Many of my critics argue that my position is unfair. It may be so, but if you want to do business in the City of Mountain View, there is an opportunity cost. Now it appears that the Stanford Community Law Center has posted the legal basis of my opinion and it has SIGNIFICANT expertise in the law is in fact supporting my idea.

The City of Mountain View created its own serious problem in the very beginning. The City chose to not advocate for the citizens and instead acted for the benefit of private interests in December. If the City of Mountain View acted like the City of Richmond, it would not be in this situation. I keep on asking what makes a Citizen in Mountain View different than one in Richmond? Under the law, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

It appears that the City will do anything to try to dodge the compliance defined in the CSFRA section 1720 by active interference. This was a problem the City Council and City Attorney created, and NOW they have to remediate it.

I feel very hopeful regarding this news. I have been stating that this was the situation for quite a few months. But being a regular “non-lawyer” many people simply disregarded me as unrealistic, irrational, or worse. Many of my critics argue that my position is unfair. It may be so, but if you want to do business in the City of Mountain View, there is an opportunity cost. Now it appears that the Stanford Community Law Center has posted the legal basis of my opinion and it has SIGNIFICANT expertise in the law is in fact supporting my idea.

The City of Mountain View created its own serious problem in the very beginning. The City chose to not advocate for the citizens and instead acted for the benefit of private interests in December. If the City of Mountain View acted like the City of Richmond, it would not be in this situation. I keep on asking what makes a Citizen in Mountain View different than one in Richmond? Under the law, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

It appears that the City will do anything to try to dodge the compliance defined in the CSFRA section 1720 by active interference. This was a problem the City Council and City Attorney created, and NOW they have to remediate it.

Hello All,

This member of the RHC, Tom Means, has in fact conceded that the City has acted to manipulate the Rental Housing Committee. This was done by using the City to hire a law firm to provide the legal analysis to the RHC. However, this caused a conflict of interest for the City because it was required to maintain INDEPENDENCE to the CSFRA RHC. This conflict of interest is cause when the City and Staff hired the law firm in the beginning. the CSFRA required that the RHC take that action, and that the City must provide the funds to pay for it without interference.

This statement should be the basis of a complaint against the City of Mountain View.

The statement "THIS IS TYPICAL BASED ON MY EXPERIENCE AS COUNCIL MEMBER." cannot apply here. The RHC was an INDEPENDENT agency, such City Council practices are DISALLOWED under the CSFRA. The City Council practices and the City Council is barred from acting in this manner because of the historical conflict of interest involved in the CSFRA. The RHC was an INDEPENDENT agency, such City Council practices are DISALLOWED under the CSFRA. Such documentable bias raises to a conflict of interest in this context.

The statement " STAFF WANTED TO HIT THE GROUND RUNNING AND I BELIEVE DID THEIR BEST JOB IN FINDING AN EXPERIENCED FIRM TO DEAL W RENT CONTROL ISSUES.”, cannot apply here. The City Staff is barred from acting in this manner because of the historical conflict of interest involved in the CSFRA. The RHC was an INDEPENDENT agency, such City Council practices are DISALLOWED under the CSFRA. Such documentable bias raises to a conflict of interest in this context.

He also stated "YOU STATE THAT WE MAY NOT BE GETTING INDEPENDENT INFORMATION. THAT MAY BE TRUE,". This statement indicates his knowledge that this law firm is manipulating the analysis to provide the most benefit to those interest which the City Council and city Attorney advocated and used to oppose the CSFRA ballot initiative. His explanation is that if the RHC makes bad decisions, they have only themselves to blame. Such documentable bias raises to a conflict of interest in this context.

The statement " MOST LAWYERS ARE ILL PREPARED TO UNDERSTAND THE ECONOMIC IMPLICATIONS OF SOME OF THEIR SUGGESTIONS.” Indicates that he disregards any independent legal analysis by attorneys. He has a bias against lawyers that argue against his point of view. Such documentable bias raises to a conflict of interest in this context.


This should be good grounds to have him disqualified as a board member because he has a documentable conflict of interest, which requires him to not act on the RHC committee.

NONE OF HIS COMMUNICATIONS CAN BE CONSIDERED PRIVILEGED, IT MUST BE PUBLIC AND MUST BE DISCLOSED TO THE PUBLIC UNDER THE NEW RULES ORDERED BY THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT REGARDING PUBLIC RECORDS AND EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE.

Sincerely,
Steven M. Goldstein
CISSP
BS of Bus. Admin: MIS and HRM

TM
Tom Means (RHC) <tom.means.rhc@gmail.com>

Reply|

Today, 9:32 AM

You

You forwarded this message on 7/18/2017 10:57 AM

Dear Mr. Goldstein,

Thanks for your comments. YES THE LAW FIRM ASSISTING US WAS HIRED BY THE CITY. This is typical based on my experience as council member. While the RHC certainly had the right to hire the firm of their choice, doing so would have led to more delays in implementation of the rental ordinance. None of our members had experience with which firm to hire and it would have been a long interview process. STAFF WANTED TO HIT THE GROUND RUNNING AND I BELIEVE DID THEIR BEST JOB IN FINDING AN EXPERIENCED FIRM TO DEAL W RENT CONTROL ISSUES.

YOU STATE THAT WE MAY NOT BE GETTING INDEPENDENT INFORMATION. THAT MAY BE TRUE, but that is why you need highly qualified individuals who are trained in economics, finance, and accounting, are able to ask the right questions and act independently and not just go with the status quo. You will note that some of our members are very critical of the suggestions recommended by the law firm and as I have noted, MOST LAWYERS ARE ILL PREPARED TO UNDERSTAND THE ECONOMIC IMPLICATIONS OF SOME OF THEIR SUGGESTIONS.

Cordially,

Tom

This active interference with the CSFRA by the City is totally incredible and is grounds for a major litigation against the City. The City must cease and desist in this course of action, and must restart the process all over again. Tom Means cannot claim that his background has any legal basis to counter argue the law. His job is to comply with the text without exception and without bias. This Action simply disqualifies him as a board member and he should either resign or be expelled.

Enough is enough. I am so tired of hearing about rent control and the chaos it has caused this city. It's already costing the general fund tons of money---did anyone not hear the city council raise concerns about how much they're spending to implement this darn law.

And, now the tenants are coming back wanting MORE. This is ridiculous. They won at the ballot, won at the court, and now want more. I bet this is all a crazy scheme cooked up by those social justice lawyers to make more money for themselves.

It's time to end this nightmare and end rent control. It's dividing the community, diverting resources from our city services, and has become just a endless stream of lawyers yelling at each other. Meanwhile, not one new unit of housing is being built because of Measure V.

Is $12 million owed back reasonable? 15,000 apartments times 3 months times an on average roll back amount of $300 per month comes out to $13.5 million.

What a nice gift to the local economy when renters are able to spend these refunds on something other than rent.

Bravo Stanford Community Law Clinic!

Bravo Tenant Attorneys!

Sounds as if this will go on forever, but a 4-month refund of excess rent charged would be most welcome -- like Christmas in (whenever). I look forward to that time, but will not hold my breath.

The over-reaching Stanford Community Law Clinic's provocative actions are only making things worse. Landlords will now be more motivated to clog the adjustment hearing process as well as exit the housing business by selling out to development of pricey town homes. The change in stance and emboldened demands by Ms. Brodie is truly disgusting.

What a Commie/socialist city we live in where the city forces Landlords to not make a profit. Where the Tenant has more rights than the owner is REALLY anti American.

Folks the Commie/socialists are in our govt. say hey to the the new masters.

Just a mess. Now a Stanford clinic trying to stir up trouble and demand redistribution.

This will be a lively thread. See what excuses the Greedheads can come up with to avoid obeying the law. Landlord greed is Mountain View's greatest natural resource. I've got my popcorn. Let the festivities commence!

In response to excessive intervention:

Are you also willing to stipulate that the CAA and the Intervenors Alamo Walker Venture, LLC, Lindsay Properties, LLC and Del Medio Investors, LP (Dori Y. Kilmer) were excessive intervention to block the properly voted voter initiative that was approved by the votes?

This is not the same situation because the current situation is that of those not in compliance with the City Charter. This is a right to the citizens of Mountain View, not the financial interests of for profit industries. Your opinion is respected but I simply demonstrate that it does not appear to be appropriate.

In response to Such BS

Your claim that this situation is not American is very troubling. The voter initiative process is an extremely pro-american process. Please read the following:

In California, a ballot proposition can be a referendum or an initiative measure that is submitted to the electorate for a direct decision or direct vote (or plebiscite). ... The state legislature can place a state constitutional amendment or a proposed law change on the ballot as a referendum to be approved by voters.

California ballot proposition - Wikipedia

Communism does not allow for any democratic nor republic voter practices at all. The process used in this situation clearly is not communist. It is not socialist either, socialist models declare ABSOLUTELY that there is NO PRIVATE OWNERSHIP of property. Simply put, Socialism overrides capitalism totally, the state OWNS ALL PROPERTY.

Our market process in the US allows for regulatory constraint where the regulations are put in place through the proper political process accepted by the US and California Constitutions. This allows for this kind of action.

In response to resident.

This is not redistribution, it is a refund for overpaid rent. The law is very clear, there was a gamble made by the CAA and the intervenors that they would prevail in court, assisted by the City Attorney. But the gamble was made worse when the City allowed “banking” of overpaid rent between January to April. Now the case is closed, there is no justification for non-compliance with the charter. So this comment seems to be misguided.

CAA failed very early in the lawsuit.

It didn't even get to the trial phase. The temporary restraining order does not change the law. The effective date did not change only the earliest date the city could enforce the law.

and the lawyers will pocket all the money....hahahaha

Ann,

The Stanford Community Law Center receives NO MONEY with regard to their work. However the City Attorney, the Attorneys Hired by her, the Attorneys for the CAA and the intervenors Alamo Walker Venture, LLC, Lindsay Properties, LLC and Del Medio Investors, LP (Dori Y. Kilmer) all made profits with regards to their work.

All the legal resources assisting the tenants are doing this work Pro Bono, they get no compensation for any of the work they are doing.

Please make sure everyone knows about this.

There's nothing like rent control to create an adversarial relationship between landlords and tenants. Instead of talking with each other, they now thump the rule book at each other.

We've gotten ourselves into a terrible situation with the anti-development attitude that led to this housing shortage.

What a novel idea... to hold the landlords responsible for their fun and games avoidance of accepting a law they didn't like... to make them have tangible consequences for such greed and arrogance.
NOW THAT'S A PROCESS THAT "FAIR IS FAIR" SAYS I SHOULD SUPPORT.
The "free market" is a sham and nothing about it is free esp when it comes to gouging prices for goods and services. So now's the time to let the "free market" be free to the tenants.

Rent control is called the tyranny of the majority by social scientist. How can things so misfire. Mountain View rent control in Silicon Valley will help bring about the end of rent control throughout the state and probably the nation. Part of the internet revolution as you can now access info immediately what you should have remembered from high school economics. The city council of Mountain view can now heroically act to quash rent control.

George Drysdale a social studies teacher

Hello George:

I hope you’re doing well. I have a very interesting question for you and your comrades.

While the federal and state constitutions and laws, and city charters and ordinances give the advantage to the apartment industry. Didn’t you promote your position that EVERYONE must COMPLY WITH THE LAW as a “law and order” proponent? I am sure you cannot deny that.

While the federal and state constitutions and laws, and city charters and ordinances give the advantage to the tenants. Do you promote your position that ANYONE ACTING IN VIOLATION OF THE POLICY OR TAKING ACTIONS TO SUBVERT THE PUBLIC POLICIES AS “HEROS”? This seems to be an example of cognitive dissonance. This is defined as:

Cognitive dissonance (From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

In the field of psychology, COGNITIVE DISSONANCE IS THE MENTAL DISCOMFORT (PSYCHOLOGICAL STRESS) EXPERIENCED BY A PERSON WHO SIMULTANEOUSLY HOLDS TWO OR MORE CONTRADICTORY BELIEFS, IDEAS, OR VALUES. The occurrence of cognitive dissonance is a consequence of a person's performing an action that contradicts personal beliefs, ideals, and values; AND ALSO OCCURS WHEN CONFRONTED WITH NEW INFORMATION THAT CONTRADICTS SAID BELIEFS, IDEALS, AND VALUES.[1][2]

To a reasonable person, your behavior is strange. You want to claim you are a “law abiding” citizen, AND YET when the laws are in opposite of your interests, YOU PROMOTE THE VIOLATION OF THE LAWS. Please help me understand how you can be in favor of both of these actions AT THE SAME TIME?

As if there weren't enough problems just getting that rent controll committee up and running, these attorneys want to bollix it up even more? Breathtakingly ridiculous, and stupid.

Have been following this rent CONTROL (and control it is, control of the minions who think they're being helped but are too uneducated to understand what truly is happening. And before you spout off on me calling someone uneducated, I'm not referring to level of school but rather a complete and absolute lack of KNOWLEDGE of the effects of rent control)

Anyway, have been following and speaking out very vocally against it. However, it passed. I was extremely upset, very bothered. But now? Honestly, all of you so thrilled about this rent control, thinking it's your magic pill to make Mountain View less expensive? Now, I'm just sitting back and watching this ridiculous and very sad catastrophe that you haven't even realized is happening (again, because you're lemmings jumping into the sea). You're going to lose even more of your affordable units. You're going to be stuck living in slums. And you're then going to blame it on the rest of society rather than reading, studying, learning about history and economics and causes of market effects.

so sad.

In response to Eh,

Please provide your evidence to support the following claims:

"You're going to lose even more of your affordable units. You're going to be stuck living in slums."

I understand you disagree with the new Charter, but you are going to have to substantiate your comment in some way. Otherwise, it is just an opinion, it must only be considered as such.

You also stated:

"And you're then going to blame it on the rest of society rather than reading, studying, learning about history and economics and causes of market effects."

Please provide some independent resources that have no interest in the real estate or apartment industry that can substantiate this opinion. Otherwise it is just an opinion.

HOWEVER IT CAN BE ARGUED THAT PRICE INFLATION IN THE CALIFORNIA APARTMENT INDUSTRY IS BASED ON THE APARTMENT INDUSTRIES REFUSAL TO BECOME EFFICIENT IN ITS BUSINESS PRACTICES SIMPLY BECAUSE IT PASSES ON THE COST OF INEFFICIENCY TO THEIR TENANTS. Thus the Apartment Industry has a desire to just require the tenants to pay for the inefficient or poor judgement of the industry. However in the study I found at this location:

(Web Link

The conclusion the authors stated this:

SECTION 7: CONCLUSIONS

Furthermore, THE TENANCY DURATION OF CONTROLLED SECTOR RENTERS WAS SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASED BY THE EXPECTATION OF RENT CONTROL BENEFITS. Taken together, our findings suggest that rent controls have done very little to improve the distribution of resources BUT THEY HAVE EXERTED LARGE EFFICIENCY EFFECTS. “

THIS SIMPLE TRUTH IS THAT THE APARTMENT INDUSTRY IN CALIFORNIA HAS SIMPLY BEEN ALLOWED TO PASS ON COST INEFFICIENCY AND POOR MANAGEMENT DECISION COSTS ONTO THOSE WHO ARE CLEARLY NOT RESPONSIBLE, THE TENANTS. The Apartment Industry uses tenants to subsidized poor judgment and cost inefficiency by simply passing it onto their financial costs. UNLESS THE APARTMENT INDUSTRY IS WILLING TO ALLOW THE PUBLIC TO INDEPENDENTLY ASSESS THE EFFICIENCY OF THE BUSINESS PRACTICES, THE PUBLIC HAS THE RIGHT TO ASSUME IT IS INEFFICIENT.

RENT CONTROLS IN EFFECT FORCE THE INDUSTRY TO BECOME MORE COST EFFICIENT, THUS REQUIRING HIGHER PERFORMANCE IN GOOD BUSINESS MANAGEMENT, AND CONTROLLING LOSSES DUE TO INEFFICIENT PRACTICES. THIS IS WHAT THE APARTMENT INDUSTRY SHOULD HAVE DONE FROM THE BEGINNING, BUT IT SIMPLY GOT USED TO LEVERAGING INEFFICIENCY ON THE BACKS OF TENANTS.

If this is not so, please provide evidence that contradicts this assessment?

Hi folks,

As some of you may have noticed, we've changed the headline on this story after receiving some valid complaints from tenant attorneys. Originally it was titled "Tenant attorneys demand citywide rent rollback," but that's not quite accurate.

As we explain better in the story, their new letter is demanding that the city acknowledge Dec. 23 as the effective date of the Measure V rent-control law. This has huge implications for the possibility of future refunds on overpaid rent, but that's a few steps ahead of where we are right now with this issue. Sorry for the error.

Anyone interested in getting the city's take on this issue can read the new staff report for the Rental Housing Committee's July 24 meeting.

Web Link

Mark, thank you for clarification and the link to the documents!

In response to Mark, thank you very much.

The staff report seems to be designed to be confusing and in fact quite threatening. The specific language states:

ANALYSIS

“From a legal perspective, CAA and proponents both have interesting legal arguments regarding the effective date. CAA will argue the temporary restraining order prevented the CSFRA from becoming effective and, therefore, it only became effective when the TRO ended. Thus, the effective date is April 5, 2017. The proponents will argue December 23, 2016 is the effective date based on the CSFRA, and since it was an initiative passed by the voters, only the voters can change the effective date of the charter amendment. CASE LAW DOES NOT PROVIDE CLEAR DIRECTION ON THIS ISSUE.”

There is clear evidence that this statement is not accurate if you read the following:

“Stopping Enforcement of a Law

A California court will not prevent government officials from enforcing a law unless the law is unconstitutional or if enforcment of a valid law is done illegally. [Code of Civil Procedure Section section 526; Civil Code Section 3423(d); Alfaro v. Terhune (2002) 98 CA4th 492, 500; Novar Corp. v. Bureau of Collection & Investigative Services (1984) 160 CA3d 1, 5]”( Web Link

Since the courts could not determine that the CSFRA was unconstitutional or if enforcement of a valid law is done illegally because on December 22nd 2016, the law was not yet in effect. Thus there is no way the City Attorney can claim what she said here.

“There are three ways to establish an effective date for the CSFRA. First, the City contemplated filing a declaratory relief action to resolve the controversy created by the conflicting positions taken by the CAA and the proponents regarding the effective date. This approach offered the most expedient and cost-effective option to resolve the dispute regarding the effective date of the CSFRA. However, when informed the City was considering this approach, neither the CAA nor the proponents were inclined to support such an approach and in fact may challenge this approach, resulting in an unnecessary use of resources and exposure to attorney fees. BASED ON THE OPPOSITION EXPRESSED BY CAA AND THE PROPONENTS, STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND THIS APPROACH.”

So what this statement declares is that it takes the private interests of the CAA and its proponents over the public interest. Clearly this is an indication of what side the City Attorney is fighting for.

“The two remaining options are for the Rental Housing Committee (RHC) to adopt a resolution establishing the effective date or wait for a tenant petition for unlawful rent to reach the RHC on appeal and rule on the effective date of the CSFRA at that time. ADOPTING A RESOLUTION PROVIDES A FASTER ROUTE TO A COURT DETERMINATION AS BOTH OF THESE OPTIONS ARE LIKELY TO LEAD TO AN EVENTUAL DETERMINATION BY THE COURT AS IT IS NOT POSSIBLE FOR THE RHC TO SELECT BOTH DATES.”

This claim is really unrealistic because the previous court actions made by the CAA and its proponents failed miserably. In fact the previous Santa Clara Court declaration indicates that there are NO GROUNDS to challenge the city regarding the CSFRA. The CAA itself recently declared that:

“The California Apartment Association has suspended its legal efforts to overturn a pair of rent control measures approved by voters last year in Mountain View and Richmond.

In recent months, judges in both Santa Clara and Contra Costa counties ruled against CAA’s motions for preliminary injunctions that would have halted enforcement of Measures V and L, respectively.

After analyzing these decisions and the judicial climate moving forward, CAA decided to re-evaluate its legal strategy to ensure the most effective challenge to these measures.”( Web Link

So it is simply very unlikely that any court would issue a favorable decision against the city of Mountain View.

“It is likely the RHC's decision will be challenged and the matter will ultimately be decided by the court. To get this issue before the court, the RHC must take a position on the effective date. The RHC has the option to select either December 23, 2016 or April 5, 2017 by adopting the attached resolution (Attachment 5) or wait for an unlawful rent petition to be filed and reach the RHC on appeal. IN TERMS OF A RECOMMENDATION ON THE DATE TO SELECT, STAFF WOULD RECOMMEND THE RHC ADOPT A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF DECEMBER 23, 2016 BASED ON THE EXPLICIT LANGUAGE IN THE CSFRA, CALIFORNIA LAW ESTABLISHING THAT A BALLOT MEASURE MAY ONLY BE BY ANOTHER VOTE OF THE PEOPLE, UNLESS THE MEASURE AUTHORIZES AMENDMENT BY THE LEGISLATIVE BODY, AND THE ABSENCE OF ANY LANGUAGE IN THE TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER SUGGESTING THAT THE COURT INTENDED TO REFORM THE CSFRA TO MODIFY THE EFFECTIVE DATE.”

There was a clear absence of any language in the temporary restraining order suggesting that the court intended to reform the CSFRA to modify the effective date. No court would ever dare to change the date given the reasoning described above.

This seems to be a blatant attempt by the City Attorney to interfere with the RHC decision making process, which is a clear violation of the CSFRA. What is the City thinking regarding submitting language like this?

The City Staff and Attorney are approaching this exactly the right way. They have a responsibility to all citizens of Mountain View, not just the beneficiaries of Measure V.

The City rightfully never wanted this nor the legal and administrative expenses and hassles. There are more meaningful fish to fry.

Non beneficiaries that voted for this were duped and they will also pay for this debacle. Why is it that a group of people who feel so entitled to free stuff are enabled by Stanford University and its Legal Clinic?

What is happening is not for the greater good of the community. The most sensible outcome after all of this is to repeal Measure V and change the City Ordinance to require a super majority instead of simple majority in order to re-write its constitution.

Make no mistake, Mountain View was targeted for this due to optimal conditions to "win" by simple vote, this wrong needs to be righted long-term, what happened in Mountain View is extreme and does not represent the super majority in the Greater Bay Area.

In response to Kudos to the City Staff and City Attorney,

You stated:

“THE CITY STAFF AND ATTORNEY ARE APPROACHING THIS EXACTLY THE RIGHT WAY. THEY HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO ALL CITIZENS OF MOUNTAIN VIEW, NOT JUST THE BENEFICIARIES OF MEASURE V. “

You do realize that the City Attorney is now officially stating it is REQUIRED to enforce the CSFRA on the date of December 23rd. Please just look at the following text:

IN TERMS OF A RECOMMENDATION ON THE DATE TO SELECT, STAFF WOULD RECOMMEND THE RHC ADOPT A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF DECEMBER 23, 2016 BASED ON THE EXPLICIT LANGUAGE IN THE CSFRA, California law establishing that a ballot measure may only be by another vote of the people, unless the measure authorizes amendment by the legislative body, and the absence of any language in the temporary restraining order suggesting that the court intended to reform the CSFRA to modify the effective date.”

This would appear to indicate that at this time, the City Staff and Attorney has come to the realization that their original position is invalid. But what is insulting is that you also state your opinion:

“WHAT IS HAPPENING IS NOT FOR THE GREATER GOOD OF THE COMMUNITY. THE MOST SENSIBLE OUTCOME AFTER ALL OF THIS IS TO REPEAL MEASURE V AND CHANGE THE CITY ORDINANCE TO REQUIRE A SUPER MAJORITY INSTEAD OF SIMPLE MAJORITY IN ORDER TO RE-WRITE ITS CONSTITUTION. “

First, the super-majority rule deals with issues involving taxes, not commercial regulations. Please read:

“California Proposition 26, Supermajority Vote to Pass New Taxes and Fees (2010)

California Proposition 26, or the Supermajority Vote to Pass New Taxes and Fees Act, was on the November 2, 2010 ballot in California as an initiated constitutional amendment, where it was approved.[1]

PROPOSITION 26 REQUIRES A TWO-THIRDS SUPERMAJORITY VOTE IN THE CALIFORNIA STATE LEGISLATURE TO PASS MANY FEES, LEVIES, CHARGES AND TAX REVENUE ALLOCATIONS THAT UNDER THE STATE'S PREVIOUS RULES COULD BE ENACTED BY A SIMPLE MAJORITY VOTE.[2] Supporters of Proposition 26 called it the Stop Hidden Taxes initiative, saying that fees, levies, and so on imposed by the California government amount to taxes, and should therefore require the same supermajority vote required to enact income or sales tax increases.

According to Allan Zaremberg, president of the California Chamber of Commerce, "The Stop Hidden Taxes initiative will prohibit politicians from using a loophole to raise even more taxes by disguising them as fees. Right now, elected officials at the state and local level pass higher taxes by labeling taxes as “fees” so they can pass or increase them with a 50% vote instead of the two-thirds required by law – and in the case of many local taxes, enact them without a public vote. WE NEED THE STOP HIDDEN TAXES INITIATIVE TO CLOSE THIS LOOPHOLE. HIGHER TAXES AND FEES MAKE IT MORE DIFFICULT FOR BUSINESSES TO STAY IN CALIFORNIA – THE VERY BUSINESSES THAT EMPLOY CALIFORNIANS, CREATE JOBS AND GENERATE REVENUE FOR OUR STATE. INCREASING EMPLOYMENT AND GROWING THE ECONOMY ARE CRUCIAL TO CALIFORNIA’S RECOVERY."[3]

Proposition 26 is somewhat similar to Proposition 37 (2000), which was narrowly defeated.( Web Link

So in this case the supermajority is not required involving a voter initiative, this rule applies to legislative actions, you will have to modify the City Charter or the California Constitution to establish this requirement. Otherwise there was no violation of the rules in this situation.

Also if you looks at this webpage further, you will discover that this proposition 26 was supported by big corporations, and was passed by a simple majority of only 52.5% yes and 47.5% no. Measure V passed by the voters on a larger margin than this.

BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, YOU NOW WANT US TO BELIEVE YOU HAVE OUR BEST INTERESTS IN MIND? YOU TO SUBSTITUTE YOUR POLITICAL WILL ON THE CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW BY SAYING IT IS FOR OUR BEST INTEREST? HOW CAN YOU SUPPORT THIS CONCLUSION? WHY DO YOU DISCREDIT THE CITIZENS OF MOUNTAIN VIEWS RIGHT TO VOTE ON BALLOT INITIATIVES? PLEASE PROVE TO US THAT YOUR OPINION HAS MERIT?

To me this seems like your lashing out, and disrespecting the citizens of the city of Mountain Views rights entirely. This is simply a terrible way to win friends and influence people to steal from Andrew Carnegie.

It costs Berkely about $2.5 M to administer rent control on about 19,000 units
It costs Santa Monica about $4 M to administer rent control on about 28,000 units

So far MV has said it would seek to recover $800K+ from landlords to pay for this program. This is not a full accounting of how much will be spent on rent control in
MV.

Clearly, the RHC is struggling with the very hard issue of "what is a fair return?"

We in MV are on track to spend a bunch of money. We will eventually find out how much. Think of it like a surprise birthday party, execpt you get to pay for it :).

Rents are slowing or flattening. Business is expanding in other areas because
cost of living. People are turning down jobs or leaving Silicon Valley. It is not
a mass exodus but clearly price/supply/demand equilibrium is working itself out.

But if you step back and think about it, what will have been accomplished?
We're paying people to do centralized planning even though market forces are kicking in. We're seeking to transfer money from landlords to do centralized planning. What if those landlords were using that money to pay for maintenance instead of hearing officers? Or another way of looking at it, if you are spending
$15,000 for an electrical panel, and seek approval from a hearing officer to increase rents to pay for it, and they charge you $600 to $1200 to present your case (and the time collecting the data and formating it for a lawyer grade presentaton), then you have increased you costs a bit under 10% with no tangible benefit.

I forgot to mention, MV has around 15,000 units

Set the trial date, have a trial on the sole issue of the start date and move on.

In response to Robyn which said:

"Set the trial date, have a trial on the sole issue of the start date and move on."

I am moving forward on that course of action given that a tenant is NOT required to petition the RHC for a rent refund before going to the courts under the CSFRA, please read this information:

“SECTION 1714. REMEDIES.

In addition to any other remedies provided by law, Landlords and Tenants covered by this Article shall have the following remedies for violations of this Article.

“(a) Landlord's Demand for or Retention of Excessive Rent. When a Landlord demands, accepts, receives, or retains any payment or payments in excess of the lawful Rent pursuant to this Article and the regulations promulgated hereunder, including in violation of the provisions ensuring compliance with habitability standards and maintenance of Housing Services, the Tenant may file a Petition pursuant to Section 1710 OR file a civil suit against the Landlord. A Landlord who demands, accepts, receives, OR retains any payment of Rent in excess of the lawful Rent shall be liable to the Tenant in the amount by which the payment or payments have exceeded the lawful Rent. In such a case, the Rent shall be adjusted to reflect the lawful Rent pursuant to this Article and its implementing regulations. “

THe word OR in this provision clearly means is the as of now since the City Attorney and Staff in fact now conclude the enforcement date for the CSFRA is December 23rd, 2016, the tenants can move forward to file a complaint in court to enforce rent refunds for a prorated December 2016 and January to April of 2017. My significant suggestion is to start this process right NOW.

The refusal to do so will be significantly more costly because if you read this part of the CSFRA it states:

“(b) Civil Remedies. A TENANT MAY BRING A CIVIL SUIT IN THE COURTS OF THE STATE ALLEGING THAT A LANDLORD HAS VIOLATED ANY OF THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ARTICLE OR THE REGULATIONS PROMULGATED HEREUNDER, INCLUDING THAT THE LANDLORD HAS DEMANDED, ACCEPTED, RECEIVED, OR RETAINED A PAYMENT OR PAYMENTS IN EXCESS OF THE LAWFUL RENT. In a civil suit, a Landlord found to violate this Article shall be liable to the Tenant for all actual damages, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE DAMAGES DESCRIBED IN SUBSECTION (A) HEREIN. A PREVAILING TENANT IN A CIVIL ACTION BROUGHT TO ENFORCE THIS ARTICLE SHALL BE AWARDED REASONABLE ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS AS DETERMINED BY THE COURT. ADDITIONALLY, UPON A SHOWING THAT THE LANDLORD HAS ACTED WILLFULLY OR WITH OPPRESSION, FRAUD, OR MALICE, THE TENANT SHALL BE AWARDED TREBLE DAMAGES. NO ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY NEED BE EXHAUSTED PRIOR TO FILING SUIT PURSUANT TO THIS SUBSECTION. “

In this situation, a tenant can hire an attorney at this time, and the costs of the attorney will be required to be paid by the landlord as long as they are REASONABLE. The landlords WILLFUL actions forcing filing a case in court will require that the court will multiply the overpayment by 3 because of this provision. This will mean that the landlord will incur the costs of their own attorney, the tenants attorney, and the triple damages if they choose to not cooperate as of NOW.

Finally the Santa Clara Court will have jurisdiction on the case given this section of the CSFRA:

“(c) Jurisdiction. The appropriate court in the jurisdiction in which the Rental Unit is located shall have jurisdiction over all actions brought under this Article.”

The landlords MUST understand that since the same court will hear the complaint, a court that already clearly stated in the denial of the preliminary injunction, that the CSFRA is valid law. The court went further to demonstrate that it finds it unlikely that the CSFRA could be determined as unconstitutional.

So the landlords MUST understand that:

First, The legal history of the various provisions of the CSFRA are not questionable.

Second, The legal history regarding the challenges in this court indicates it has certified the validity of the CSFRA.

Third, That as long as a tenant can demonstrate the effective date is accepted under the City of Mountain View is December 23rd 2016, that this is the start of rent overpayments under the CSFRA

Fourth, That the record of date of residence was within the base rent provisions, meaning whether a person was living continually since October 2015, or in the in between period from October 2015 until December 2016.

Fifth, That the rent paid during the period of December 23rd 2016 to April 30th 2017 was NOT the base rent under the CSFRA and the base rent, the rents were paid in surplus the LAWFUL rent regarding the continuous residence since October 2015, or the in-between peirion of October 2015 and December 2016,

And finally, That the landlord WILLFULLY refuses to comply with the overpayment refund requirement to the CSFRA.

That this is enough for the court to order triple damages, the cost of legal representation will be required to be paid by the landlord. There is simply no legal basis to refuse this court remedy under the CSFRA. Thus it is simply not likely that the landlord under this situation will prevail in such a court complaint.

I am starting my process and I encourage anyone not provided their refund to do the same.

Hello All,

This posting is to balance things out. This is because I understand that the legal liability for willfully violating the CSFRA by landlords are caused by a very serious problem completely unrelated to the RHC.

If one would read the letter issued by the City Attorney and City Staff attached to the agenda for the RHC meeting on July 24th you would see it discloses something that may result in serious costs to the City. These costs are related to actions taken on behalf of the City Staff, the City Attorney, and the City Council, and excludes any responsibility to the CSFRA Rental Housing Committee. The City recommendation clearly shows it knew when the landlords were required to repay rent based on the CSFRA enforcement date of December 23rd 2016 and neglected to inform them for political reasons and NOT LEGAL ONES.

The text of the analysis included:

“From a legal perspective, CAA and proponents both have interesting legal arguments regarding the effective date. CAA will argue the temporary restraining order prevented the CSFRA from becoming effective and, therefore, it only became effective when the TRO ended. Thus, the effective date is April 5, 2017. The proponents will argue December 23, 2016 is the effective date based on the CSFRA, and since it was an initiative passed by the voters, only the voters can change the effective date of the charter amendment. CASE LAW DOES NOT PROVIDE CLEAR DIRECTION ON THIS ISSUE.”

There is clear evidence that this statement is not accurate if you read the following:

“Stopping Enforcement of a Law

A California court will not prevent government officials from enforcing a law unless the law is unconstitutional or if enforcement of a valid law is done illegally. [Code of Civil Procedure Section section 526; Civil Code Section 3423(d); Alfaro v. Terhune (2002) 98 CA4th 492, 500; Novar Corp. v. Bureau of Collection & Investigative Services (1984) 160 CA3d 1, 5]”

In the Alfaro v. Terhune case, the courts initially ordered a injunction, but that injunction on appeal was overturned, the discussion came down to:

“DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed insofar as it rejects plaintiffs' constitutional challenge to the Act. The judgment is reversed insofar as it permanently [98 Cal. App. 4th 513] enjoins defendants from implementing the Act. The matter is remanded to the trial court with directions to enter judgment in favor of defendants. The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 26(a)

Davis, J., and Raye, J., concurred.”(Web Link

Since the courts could not determine that the CSFRA was unconstitutional or if enforcement of a valid law is done illegally because on December 22nd 2016, the law was not yet in effect. Thus there is no way the City Attorney can claim what she said here.

In regards to the Novar Corp. v. Bureau of Collection & Investigative Services case the court stated:

“OPINION

RYBURN, J.

Appellant, the Bureau of Collections and Investigative Services of the Department of Consumer Affairs of the State of California (Bureau), appeals from a preliminary injunction enjoining it and its agents, servants, employees and representatives from making statements that respondent, Novar Corporation, is an "alarm company operator" and must be licensed by appellant.”(Web Link

This case is inapplicable in this situation because this opinion clearly was based on the fact that the TEXT of the law being discussed here clearly defined the proper course of action, and the agencies discussed went outside the scope of the text. The CSFRA text in this situation was not ambiguous, section 1720 clearly stated that 10 days after the December 13th, City Council entry of the certifies election result by the Santa Clara Registrar of Voters, the CSFRA was to be made enforceable. Section 1719 removed all discretion regarding what the City Staff, the City Attorney, and City Council because it expressly prohibited making any changes to the text of the CSFRA.

Thus the City Attorney simply was trying to avoid its required actions under the CSFRA and had no basis to do so. The City Attorney and Staff went on to say:

“There are three ways to establish an effective date for the CSFRA. First, the City contemplated filing a declaratory relief action to resolve the controversy created by the conflicting positions taken by the CAA and the proponents regarding the effective date. This approach offered the most expedient and cost-effective option to resolve the dispute regarding the effective date of the CSFRA. However, when informed the City was considering this approach, neither the CAA nor the proponents were inclined to support such an approach and in fact may challenge this approach, resulting in an unnecessary use of resources and exposure to attorney fees. BASED ON THE OPPOSITION EXPRESSED BY CAA and the proponents, staff does not recommend this approach.”

So what this statement declares is that the City Staff and City Attorney instead of acting on fully valid law, it took steps to prevent the implementation of the CSFRA based on POLITICAL MOTIVES and NOT LEGAL ONES. The statement made by the City Staff and City Attorney went on to state:

“The two remaining options are for the Rental Housing Committee (RHC) to adopt a resolution establishing the effective date or wait for a tenant petition for unlawful rent to reach the RHC on appeal and rule on the effective date of the CSFRA at that time. ADOPTING A RESOLUTION PROVIDES A FASTER ROUTE TO A COURT DETERMINATION AS BOTH OF THESE OPTIONS ARE LIKELY TO LEAD TO AN EVENTUAL DETERMINATION BY THE COURT AS IT IS NOT POSSIBLE FOR THE RHC TO SELECT BOTH DATES.”

This claim simply is an attempt to avoid all required actions as defined in the City Charter CSFRA AND Section 506 regarding the City Council. The City Council is required to uphold and act on the City Charter and has no discretion to deviate from it based on Section 506 which states: “ Powers vested in the council.; All powers of the city, EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN THIS CHARTER, shall be vested in the council, and said council may establish the method by which any of such powers may be exercised.” This action was made solely for POLITICAL reasons and NOT LEGAL. It was successful in misinforming the landlords their obligatins to return overpaid rent starting on December 23rd, 2016. The statement went on to say:

“It is likely the RHC's decision will be challenged and the matter will ultimately be decided by the court. To get this issue before the court, the RHC must take a position on the effective date. The RHC has the option to select either December 23, 2016 or April 5, 2017 by adopting the attached resolution (Attachment 5) or wait for an unlawful rent petition to be filed and reach the RHC on appeal. IN TERMS OF A RECOMMENDATION ON THE DATE TO SELECT, STAFF WOULD RECOMMEND THE RHC ADOPT A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF DECEMBER 23, 2016 BASED ON THE EXPLICIT LANGUAGE IN THE CSFRA, California law establishing that a ballot measure may only be by another vote of the people, unless the measure authorizes amendment by the legislative body, and the absence of any language in the temporary restraining order suggesting that the court intended to reform the CSFRA to modify the effective date.”

The City Staff, the City Attorney, and the City Council clearly knows there was a clear absence of any language in the temporary restraining order suggesting that the court intended to reform the CSFRA to modify the effective date. No court would ever dare to change the date given the reasoning described above. In effect, it took almost 4 months for the City to simply understand section 1720, and it was doing so for POLITICAL and no legitimate LEGAL basis. These action can be said to be the sole cause of landlords placing themselves in serious legal jeopardy because the results of this behavior encouraged illegal business decisions on the part of the landlords.

I would support that the City Staff, the City Attorney, and the City Council has brought serious legal financial liablilty on itself. Most importantly, the Rental Housing Committee cannot be in any way a contributing factor. The landlords should target those whose actions caused their serious financial costs, and no statements should be made to infer that the RHC has done any harm to them. The RHC simply is responsible for enforcement of the CSFRA,BUT the City Council was required to do so in the first place as of the court decision made on April 6, 2017. This course of action was done because of POLITICAL reasons and not any legitimate LEGAL ones.

So any financial reimbursement for having to pay for triple damages, the legal costs to the landlords and the plaintiffs should be reimbursed by the City of Mountain View. I in fact strongly encourage any landlord that did willfully withhold refunds for the tenancies during December 24rd, to April 30th where the rent paid was unlawful based on the CSFRA to file a lawsuit against the City at this time.

THE CITY STAFF, THE CITY ATTORNEY AND THE CITY COUNCIL ARE TO BLAME, NOT THE CITY RENTAL HOUSING COMMITTEE.

Thanks "The Business Man" for making me laugh out loud regarding your attempt to recover "triple damages." The intervening attorneys for the tenants led by Brodie stated up front that they did not intend to recover 12/23 to 12/31 by going after rent already paid, then stated it was a gray area for 1/1 to 4/5, now they have gotten aggressive, the City themselves posted that it was effective for payments received after 4/5, they have since backed down of course. What this shows any reasonable person is that it is still not clear and it would be hard to prove landlords are acting in bad faith.

You of course, take the interpretation that lines your own pockets the most and you want to foist upon the good Citizens of Mountain View more attorney's fees and penalties. Of course a City cannot be held liable for their mistakes (see Oakland Ghost Ship et al). Keep chasing those ambulances and other ill-gotten government payments funded by people who actually work for a living. I don't believe you have ever won a court case and I don't expect you to start winning now.

In response to Triple Threat

“Thanks "The Business Man" for making me laugh out loud regarding your attempt to recover "triple damages." The intervening attorneys for the tenants led by Brodie stated up front that they did not intend to recover 12/23 to 12/31 by going after rent already paid, then stated it was a gray area for 1/1 to 4/5, now they have gotten aggressive, the City themselves posted that it was effective for payments received after 4/5, they have since backed down of course. What this shows any reasonable person is that it is still not clear and it would be hard to prove landlords are acting in bad faith.”

“Please look at the letter posted here (Web Link you will find that in fact you have not been keeping up with things. This document in fact establishes that Brodie’s opinion based on sound legal basis does in fact entitle those who overpaid rent during 12/23 to 12/31 and 1/1 to 4/30. The triple damages only requires that a landlord WILFULLY withholds overpaid rent to be entitled to triple damages if a tenant goes to the courts. There is no necessity to act on bad faith under the CSFRA. You further stated:

“You of course, take the interpretation that lines your own pockets the most and you want to foist upon the good Citizens of Mountain View more attorney's fees and penalties. Of course a City cannot be held liable for their mistakes (see Oakland Ghost Ship et al).”

The costs of this situation was caused by the actions of the City of Mountain View City Staff, City Attorney, and City Council. Unfortunately their poor choices of actions put the cost on the Citizens of Mountain View. I understand that this is going to cost the City of Mountain View. Please do not transfer the responsibility of that problem on those who were the victims of such poor choices. That is the idea you promoted here. You further stated:

“Keep chasing those ambulances and other ill-gotten government payments funded by people who actually work for a living. I don't believe you have ever won a court case and I don't expect you to start winning now.”

I have as a lay person filed some complaints and I admit I have only a 75% winning average. But 12% of that was I admit I didn’t know anything about how much the state of California protects behaviors under statute that are malicious or unsubstantiated. The remaining 12% is still in the courts, so I will not claim success yet.

I have not been a vexatious litigant by any means, I have been forced to do so where it can be solidly justified for me to do so. In my 50 years life I have been involved with 7 legal complaints. Please refer to this law resource Changes in the Vexatious Litigant Statute by the firm of Rossi, Hamerslough, Reischl and Chuck, 1960 The Alameda, Suite 200, San Jose, CA 95126, Phone: 408-261-4252 their published document gound here (www.rhrc.net/Changes-in-the-Vexatious-Litigant-Statute-pdf.pdf)” It states:

“Under California Code of Civil Procedure § 391(b), a vexatious litigant is defined as a person who does any of the following:

In the immediately proceeding seven year period has commenced, prosecuted, or maintained in propria persona at least five litigations other than in a small claims court that have been

(1) FINALLY DETERMINED ADVERSELY TO THE PERSON, or (2) UNJUSTIFIABLY PERMITTED TO REMAIN IMPENDING AT LEAST TWO YEARS WITHOUT HAVING BEEN BROUGHT TO TRIAL OR HEARING.

(2) AFTER A LITIGATION HAS BEEN FINALLY DETERMINED AGAINST THE PERSON, repeatedly re-litigates, attempts to re-litigate in propria persona, either (1) the validity of the determination against the same defendant or defendants as to whom the litigation was finally determined, or (2) the cause of action, claim, controversy, or any of the issues affect or law, determined or concluded by the final determination against the same defendant or defendants as to whom the litigation was finally determined.

(3) In any litigation while actin in propria persona repeatedly files unmeritorious motions, pleadings, or other papers, CONDUCTS UNNECESSARY DISCOVERY, OR ENGAGES IN OTHER TACTICS THAT ARE FRIVOLOUS OR SOLELY INTENDED TO CAUSE UNNECESSARY DELAY”

So under this definition, it can be determined that at the very least, I DO NOT SEEK REASONS TO GO TO COURT THEY ARE THRUST UPON ME.

Even if you take into account that I could start at age 18, meaning I have 32 years of opportunity that would mean that circumstances on average lead me to action in about 1 every 4.5 years. That simply is not enough to try to classify me in such a way you did. And most importantly, I have prevailed in most cases, thus this characterization would not apply to my situation.

Correction My paragraph above said this"

"I have as a lay person filed some complaints and I admit I have only a 75% winning average. But 12% of that was I admit I didn’t know anything about how much the state of California protects behaviors under statute that are malicious or unsubstantiated. The remaining 12% is still in the courts, so I will not claim success yet. "

It should have stated this:

I have as a lay person filed some complaints and I admit I have only a 75% winning average. BUT 12% OF MY LOSING CASES WAS I ADMIT I DIDN’T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT HOW MUCH THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA PROTECTS BEHAVIORS UNDER STATUTE THAT ARE MALICIOUS OR UNSUBSTANTIATED. THE REMAINING 12% OF LOSSES IS STILL IN THE COURTS, SO I WILL NOT CLAIM SUCCESS YET. "

Sorry

In follow up to Posted by Triple Threat

I forgot to mention that since the CAA and the Intervenors Alamo Walker Venture, LLC, Lindsay Properties, LLC and Del Medio Investors, LP (Dori Y. Kilmer) were parties to the implementation of the course of action the City Staff, City Attorney, and City Council’s actions regarding this situation. There can be a good argument that independent landlords being stuck with such a legal nightmare due to these parties can also include CAA and the Intervenors Alamo Walker Venture, LLC, Lindsay Properties, LLC and Del Medio Investors, LP (Dori Y. Kilmer) as defendants for a tort and civil claim of their own.

But also take into account that I didn’t realize that the CAA could be at least considered by the public a Vexatious Litigant under the spirit of the terms in Cal Cod of Civil Procedure 391(b) terms I discussed earlier, except for one thing. The professional attorneys made sure that this statute did not apply to them. If you noticed in the language:

“Under California Code of Civil Procedure § 391(b), a vexatious litigant is defined as a person who does any of the following:

In the immediately proceeding seven year period has commenced, prosecuted, or maintained in PROPRIA PERSONA at least five litigations other than in a small claims court that have been

(1) Finally determined adversely to the person, or (2) unjustifiably permitted to remain impending at least two years without having been brought to trial or hearing.

(2) After a litigation has been finally determined against the person, repeatedly re-litigates, attempts to re-litigate in PROPRIA PERSONA, either (1) the validity of the determination against the same defendant or defendants as to whom the litigation was finally determined, or (2) the cause of action, claim, controversy, or any of the issues affect or law, determined or concluded by the final determination against the same defendant or defendants as to whom the litigation was finally determined.

(3) In any litigation while actin in PROPRIA PERSONA repeatedly files unmeritorious motions, pleadings, or other papers, conducts unnecessary discovery, or engages in other tactics that are frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay”

This statute was designed in effect to punish any person classified as PROPRIA PERSONA that could not get professional representation based on the potential cause of action they are dealing with. Because it is solely directed to the idea that an attorney or business determined that they CANNOT be a vexation litigant as defined in the statute. This is a codified violation of the U.S. Constitution and the State Constitution because based on wholly arbitrary and capricious basis, the due process of law in California has 2 standards. This may provide for a challenge of said law so that businesses and professional attorneys can be held to the same standard. Otherwise, this could fly in violation of the California Anti-SLAPP laws because those being targeted in SLAPP litigation are not held to the same standard if they are a business or a professional attorney, but if a PROPRIA PERSONA did so, they would surely be impaired by the Vexation Litigant statute.

Just a wild observation.

Hello All,

The RHC chose to place responsibility of the current problems with the CSFRA back in the hands of the City. They instructed the City to go to court to get a court decision to for once and for all make it clear that section 1720 requires enforcement of the CSFRA for December 23, 2016. I totally agree, the City wanted to pass the hand grenade to the RHC, which who was not responsible for the mess we are in. They were sworn in weeks after the April hearing and decision. They have their own responsibility to take care of getting the CSFRA off the ground, and not pick up the pieces of a broken plate.

Hello Everyone,

By now you must be aware that the RHC has instructed the City Attorney to go back to court regarding the enforcement date of the CSFRA. So this means that the City will be in court, it is inevitable.

But there still is the matter that the City Attorney has made a determination that they city has no authority to deny that the CSFRA enforcement IS required to be the day of December 23rd, 2016. Since the city will not avoid a court hearing at this time, UNLESS THE CAA REFUSES TO TAKE LEGAL ACTION. The City Council simply must make an official resolution to declare the City will act according to the advice of the City Attorney. WHY?

SINCE THE CITY ATTORNEY HAS MADE AN OFFICIAL DETERMINATION THAT THE ENFORCEMENT DATE OF THE CSFRA IS REQUIRED TO BE DECEMBER 23, 2016.

Refusal is pointless now since court action is going to occur as of now. Thus you might as well just issue an emergency resolution establishing the enforcement date policy for the City of Mountain View as December 23rd 2016. So it would seem that refusal of the City Council to issue the urgent resolution would not be of any benefit to the city at this time. The city attorney is now instructed to seek clarification already, it cannot be prevented. However the Santa Clara court decision made in April 5th, lays a good case that the tenants are being subjected to unlawful rent overpayments. Not only was the preliminary injunction denied, but the courts in effect determined that:

“Without the protections afforded by the measure, some residents of Mountain View face excessive rents and arbitrary evictions, and the City of Mountain View will be handicapped in its effort to comply with a state-mandated plan to address housing needs.”

And those payments are REQUIRED to be returned. The challengers of the CSFRA will choose whether they will seek a court order. If the challengers in fact decide not to do so, that is their choice.

IT SIMPLY MEANS YOUR INABILITY TO COMPORT WITH THE CITY CHARTER AT THIS TIME IS NOT A GOOD EXAMPLE OF CITY GOVERNANCE.

Well you know, it ain't gonna happen.

Aside from the fact the bulk of the City Council and City Attorney opposes rent control and smartly installed a Rental Housing Committee with a majority of sensible members, the simple fact is the express language of the TRO which the City agreed to in December 2016 stated,

"The effective date of measure V is hereby stayed and Defendant City of Mountain View is enjoined from making any attempts to enforce Measure V until February 3, 2017, or, if a Motion for Preliminary Injunction is filed by Plaintiffs on or before February 3, 2017, when such Motion is decided by the Court, whichever is later."

The preliminary injunction was filed and the "later" became April 5, 2017, the technical read 'em and weep effective date. Any alternate interpretation can only be clarified by the court, until then, no triple soup for you, no resolution, stop threatening the professionals providing housing to you at a below market rate and take a chill pill, or some medicinal herb now that it is legal.

In response to You Say You Want a Resolution?

“Aside from the fact the bulk of the City Council and City Attorney opposes rent control and smartly installed a Rental Housing Committee with a majority of sensible members, the simple fact is the express language of the TRO which the City agreed to in December 2016 stated,

"The effective date of measure V is hereby stayed and Defendant City of Mountain View is enjoined from making any attempts to enforce Measure V until February 3, 2017, or, if a Motion for Preliminary Injunction is filed by Plaintiffs on or before February 3, 2017, when such Motion is decided by the Court, whichever is later."

The preliminary injunction was filed and the "later" became April 5, 2017, the technical read 'em and weep effective date. “

However, what you fail to understand is that once a TRO is expired, in this case as of April 5, 2017, that order has been erased. ESPECIALLY WHEN THE CASE IS CLOSED AND DISMISSED ON 05/16/2017 Notice: Entry of Dismissal w/POS, if you look at the case information on the Santa Clara County Court website. A CASE DISMISSAL ERASES ALL DECISIONS AND ORDERS IN THE PRACTICE OF THE LAW. THE CAA AND OTHERS WILL NEED TO REFILE A NEW CASE TO ACQUIRE A PERMANENT COURT ORDER TO REVISE THE CSFRA SECTION 1720. When a TRO is dismissed, all restraints agreed to by the TRO are DISMISSED, the restraining order is simply removed from all enforceability. The City Attorney knows this and that is why she wrote the following:

“IN TERMS OF A RECOMMENDATION ON THE DATE TO SELECT, STAFF WOULD RECOMMEND THE RHC ADOPT A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF DECEMBER 23, 2016 BASED ON THE EXPLICIT LANGUAGE IN THE CSFRA, California law establishing that a ballot measure may only be by another vote of the people, unless the measure authorizes amendment by the legislative body, and the absence of any language in the temporary restraining order suggesting that the court intended to reform the CSFRA to modify the effective date.”

Again, When a TRO is dismissed, all restraints agreed to by the TRO are DISMISSED, the restraining order is simply removed from enforceability. And as far as your claim that:

“Any alternate interpretation can only be clarified by the court, until then, no triple soup for you, no resolution, stop threatening the PROFESSIONALS PROVIDING HOUSING TO YOU at a below market rate and take a chill pill, or some medicinal herb now that it is legal.”

Just to let you know, my particular apartment owner is no professional landlord. His profession and current employment is a vice president with a worldwide corporation. This is a “Side-Business” and it is defined as:

(Name Withheld for Privacy) is located in Palo Alto, California. This organization PRIMARILY OPERATES IN THE BUSINESS ACTIVITIES AT NON-COMMERCIAL SITE BUSINESS / industry within the Business Services sector. This organization has been operating for approximately 7 years. (Name Withheld for Privacy) is estimated to generate $254,907 in annual revenues, and employs approximately 3 people at this single location.

First, the fact that it operates in a residential zone may raise questions regarding if it is in fact legally operating. Second the ones operating it are fully employed working at the same multinational corporation full-time. So, please don’t try to claim this is a professional outfit when it has 3 employees, since it is a Partnership, thus 2 employees are the partners. Please don’t try to claim this qualifies as a professional apartment company?