It's good to read that someone with an actual economics PhD and experience with MV politics like Tom Means is involved. My personal preference is to provide better zoning, encourage housing growth along the 101 corridor, and expedite the approval process.

I have lived in a small well-maintained complex on Rock Street for over 18 years.
The owner even granted rent reductions some years ago when occupancy rates were low.
Since then my annual rent increases have been quite reasonable IMO.
I am retired on a fixed income (Social Security and pension).
Although I support the concept of reasonable rent control, I believe this ordinance, as written and voted in, is unreasonable with it's 3.2%-3.5% allowable annual increase.
IMO a 5%-7% annual increase is far more reasonable.
I am encouraged that the Rent Control Commission seems to be headed in that direction.
Cheers

I live in a large apartment complex, where a three-bedroom apartment is currently being rented out for $1,300 more than the price I am paying for the exact same floor plan. That's a 35% increase in just three years. Explain to me how landlords aren't getting a fair rate of return.

Tom Means once again has demonstrated he's neither dedicated to upholding the city charter nor temperamentally fit to serve. City Council knew this when appointing him, and they should be ashamed.

Recall McAlister, Abe-Koga, and Matichak!

If this is the "news" article (nice title!), I can't wait for the editorial.

@cpd - If the landlord was below water on his mortgage and investment (which is perhaps the most critical data point in all of this), then that increase is absolutely reasonable, regardless of what you might feel is "fair".

Anyone that objectively attended or listened to the meeting (you may listen to the replay online) Link here: Web Link
would conclude it is crystal clear Mr. Means knows his stuff with respect to the practical application of economic theory and he is able to clearly articulate and logically rationalize his thought process when making a suggestion. His suggestions are not based on emotion like fellow committee members Ramos and Ortiz, rather he is pragmatic and a credit to the City. I am thankful he is the adult in the room here along with Julian Pardo de Zela the alternate. The way he abstained on voting for the City staff recommendation (he knew it would be a draw) to steer it to requiring a court ruling was silk smooth.

The question that needs answering here is: what is the real reason the City did not file for declaratory relief on its own in April and why wasn't the City attorney present to answer this? The fact that neither side (CAA or Mills Clinic) agreed on the approach probably means it is the right one as it favors neither of them.
Kudos to the logical members of the committee for doing the right thing here.

Hahaha, Tom Means comes in with a sockpuppet account praising himself and denigrating his colleagues. This is precisely the type of behavior we should not have on the committee.

Recall McAlister, Abe-Koga, and Matichak!

Anybody who rents in Mountain View is a fool and richly deserves to be fleeced.

FOLLOW the MONEY.

Hopefully, this group find a way to protect landlords so they don't lose their shirts and everything they own in this disaster.

This rent control is one of the most punishing in the country and affects small middle class landlords. Honestly, these landlords have no choice but to sell to developers, given the long range consequences of Measure V. If you had tried, you couldn't have designed a better route to reduce low cost housing and generate a free for all for developers and resulting sky is the limit rents with tiny pockets of dilapidated buildings at below market rates, and subpar living conditions.

WAY TO CREATE A MESS!

Yes, someone needs to protect that downtrodden class, the landlords. It's not enough that we subsidize them with Prop 13 so they don't pay their fair share, we need people like Tom Means on the committee to undermine the will of the people and actively work against our city charter.

Recall McAlister, Abe-Koga, and Matichak!

Enjoying all the interesting comments here so far.

Some remind me somewhat of TrumpTweets and/or White House Press Briefings.

@Amused: assume you're unaware that approx. 65% of MV residents are renters - thus 65% of us are fools and deserving of being fleeced by some [not all] apartment owners. Your uninformed input is appreciated. BTW which "other community" are you a resident of?

@cpd: this is relevant and significant information - 35% increase in 3 years (12% annual) in a large complex, as my observation has been that "lower rent" complexes are smaller - suggests to me that at least part of exorbitant rental increase problem is being generated by large complex developers/owners, and smaller unit/lower rent owners are simply following.

@Shame: Pop13, misguided as it was when enacted in 1978, attempted to protect all property owners - homeowners, apartment owners, corporate owners [PG&E for example] - from the unreasonable property property taxes then occurring in some California counties.

Tired, gotta go for now.
Cheers

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.

I live in a Vittoria Management property. Over the space of 10 years, my rent was raised 85%. Inflation has run about 20.5% in that length of time, according to the consumer price index. Rent increases went crazy when Google, LinkedIn and Facebook started subsidizing their employees' rents.

Long term renter: what is your point? Where did you get the idea that you have the right to live in a property owned by someone else and only have the rent raised by the rate of inflation?

Ask yourself WHY rent control is only ALLOWED in FOUR states (California, Maryland, New Jersey and New York) and OUTLAWED in thirty two? (In states where the statutes are silent, local governments may enact rent control ordinances according to their general police powers, or they may be prohibited from doing so according to case law, - which has happened in Connecticut.)

The majority of states know that rent control has been an abysmal failure, and has brought degradation of neighborhoods, reduced available rental stock, and has brought greatly increased cost to taxpayers to manage and litigate the disruption these rent control laws bring to a city.

As evidenced in Mountain View, we see the small apartment owners of older buildings considering to cash out and convert to condos, as they cannot suffer the loss rent control brings, thus the newer apartment buildings will be even more in demand and the cost to renters will climb. The Rent Control Board, as already evidenced, will be extremely costly and this over-run will fall to the all the taxpayers in the city to cover.

Yet - there are those who continue to demand someone ELSE'S labor and planning be sacrificed for THEIR demand of lower rent. By any definition, that is confiscation of private property, and there is no justification for this. I do understand that people want to live where they want - at the price they want to pay - but life doesn't work like that. It is NOT the responsibility of Mountain View to house everyone who wants to live here. Private property is not a public utility.

iaefnamien and Research: Corporate landlords should not be allowed to gouge their tenants. That's just wrong. When Google, Facebook and Linkedin took the actions they did, it would have been fine if corporate landlords jacked up rents $400 a month for NEW tenants, but to apply these changes to ALL tenants is simply ravenous exploitation.

Former Councilmember Tom Meana is the answer to the passage of rent control from ruthless pro-landlord politicians currently on the City Council. Tom and his 2 pro-landlord plants on the rent board are the MEANS to the END of rent control and all limits on profiteering by landlords determined to exploit the government-created housing shortage in the Bay Area.

"formula for determining how much profit landlords are entitled to make from rent-controlled apartments" can you believe this - is America now a socialist or communist country! This country was built on free enterprise!

You can bet that "the only economist in the room" is sleeping just fine while hundreds are sleeping in their cars.

cpd -- So, your landlord is renting to you for $1,300 less than he could get renting to someone else. Sounds like a nice guy. He is keeping your rent artificially low and is eating $1,300 that he could have gotten.

Long term renter: pricing based on supply and demand is not "gouging".

Web Link

"Thou shalt not steal." You don't know how weird California is until you check out other states' laws concerning private property. You see in virtually all the states the owners owns their property. It's his. If a landlord wants to double his rent and empty out his building so be it. 44 states have outlawed rent controls. The main cause of a lack of apartments in the Bay Area is rent control. High demand would create an equilibrium. "Dead weight loss." If you are literate this is on the internet. Or a basic economic text. Mr. Means is driving a stake through the heart of rent control, which is pure evil. The city council should now deliver the death blow. George Drysdale, a social studies teacher