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?

Rent controls always end. Now you re seeing why. They started (price controls) in Uruk the first city. Rent c0ntrol is the denial of liberty.

George Drysdale social studies teacher