Thousands of times rent controls go in, thousands of times they go out. Check out European cities or Uruk the first city. Price controls lie about value. Most subsidies end up lousy. We must consider numbers in our thinking. Study history and economics. Maybe psychology is the core social science. My best bet is that Silicon Valley with its emphasis on rational thought will bust rent control out of California. George Drysdale a social studies teacher

The CAA misrepresented the facts to the RHC on Monday. Since the CAA had dismissed the case, the precedent TRO stipulated was in effect ERASED.

However, what you fail to understand is that once a TRO is dismissed, 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 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, and the restraining order is simply removed from enforceability. And as far as your claim that:

Another important note:

The article read:

“The apartment association found some support on the committee. Julian Pardo de Zela, an attorney who serves as an alternate member, strongly agreed with the CAA position. In his mind, Pardo de Zela said, the judge's temporary restraining order overruled the date written in the voter measure.”

This alternate simply also misrepresented the fact that once the case was dismissed in the Santa Clara Court, all issued orders are nullified. A case dismissal means it has been determined as if it never happened. The court thus retracts any actions made regarding the case.

As an attorney, this person knew this. He took advantage of the lack of legal education on behalf of the board and the city by not upholding this rather simple rule.

Given that the City Attorney has in fact recognized this publically means tenants should seek legal advice immediately. They should seek their own legal recourse. They do not need to wait. The CSFRA allows court action WITHOUT petitioning the board beforehand. And court action is likely to result in triple refunds under the CSFRA section 1714.

The City has simply made an enormous mess of things from the beginning.

"Check out European cities"

Many European cities do have what amounts to rent control, but they apply it across the board, to all units, in buildings old and new, and generally across regions, not just individual municipalities. This levels the playing field. There's no incentive to tear down old rentals and replace them with new ones, and zoning restrictions, along with economy structure and other factors, prevent them from being replaced by condos.

If you want to know what rent control does, take a look at Los Angeles. Los Angeles and many surrounding cities have various rent controls. The more stringent the rent control, the lower the availability, and the higher the prices. What rent control essentially does, is take units off the market. People will actually move away from the area for years and keep their rent controlled apartment vacant or use as a vacation property. The worst area to try to find an apartment is Santa Monica, it also has the most stringent rent control. So people who've lived there for years leave and enjoy paying a pittance for their vacant apartment, while the market value is four times the rent.

Or people live in a rent controlled apartment and the building gets sold. If they've been there a long time, they get a one time buy out. It's like they hit the lottery! Except now, they have to find another place that's affordable in a tight market. They eventually find an affordable place, and after a year, it gets sold. This time, they've only been there a year, so no big winnings. They go from apartment to apartment as each building is sold and redeveloped.

But once the property is redwveloped, those older and outdated, less exspensive apartments are removed from the market, further driving up demand for affordable housing. This is just how it is.

But clearly, the people who are so misguided to think rent control is an answer, aren't reading this.

My feeling is this, my new building owner thought he was going to put the cost of a new $22,000-24,000 a month mortgage on at least 9 of us were living before he bought it out of 11. His mortgage was that bad because he failed to negotiate a reasonable purchase price. He bought the building for 450% above the latest property tax assessment. However he made a terrible mistake and he has to deal with it.

His latest annual gross revenue was $255,000 last year, that included the raised rents he dictated to cover his mortgage. But if you compute the proportionality of that gross revenue which only was 10 months ownership of the year and the current rent rollback impact he is expected to receive a gross revenue this year of about $220,000 this year. And that is not taking into account the possible rent refunds he still owes for 6 apartments. The yearly mortgage it comes to $264,000 to $288,000, he is going to eat a loss of as little as $44,000 to $68,000 on mortgage alone. This doesn’t take into account any inhabitability costs and others. And no one can do anything about it because the new mortgage is excluded regarding a petition to raise rents.

I know that this has been common, but people buying buildings at outrageous prices only have themselves to blame.

This is in fact a “fair rate of return” because no one can rationally expect to break even for many years.

"People will actually move away from the area for years and keep their rent controlled apartment vacant or use as a vacation property."

This does NOT apply to the CsFra. The trends must occupy the unit.

In response to A simple example

You stated:

But once the property is redeveloped, those older and outdated, less expensive apartments are removed from the market, further driving up demand for affordable housing. This is just how it is.

However, your misinformed please read this:

Section 1705. - Just cause for eviction protections.

Section 1705 (a) No Landlord shall take action to terminate any tenancy, including but not limited to making a demand for possession of a Rental Unit, threatening to terminate a tenancy orally or in writing, serving any notice to quit or other eviction notice, or bringing any action to recover possession, or be granted recovery of possession of a Rental Unit unless at least one of the following conditions exists:

Section 1705 (a) (8) Withdrawal of the Unit Permanently from Rental Market. The Landlord seeks in good faith to recover possession to withdraw all Rental Units of an entire Property from the rental market. The Landlord first must have filed the requisite documents with the Committee initiating the procedure for withdrawing Rental Units from rent or lease under Government Code Section 7060 et. seq. and all regulations passed by the Committee, with the intention of completing the withdrawal process and going out of the rental business. Tenants shall be entitled to a minimum of 120-day notice or one (1) year in the case Tenants are defined as senior or Disabled under Government Code Section 12955.3. Notice times may be increased by regulations if state law allows for additional time.

Section 1705 (a) (9) Demolition. The Landlord, having obtained all necessary permits from the City, and having provided written notice to the Tenant pursuant to state law, seeks in good faith to recover possession of the Rental Unit to remove the Rental Unit permanently from rental housing use through demolition.

Section 1705 (c) First Right of Return. ALL TENANTS WHOSE TENANCY IS TERMINATED BASED UPON A BASIS ENUMERATED IN SUBSECTIONS (A)(6)-(9) HEREIN SHALL HAVE THE FIRST RIGHT OF RETURN TO THE RENTAL UNIT IF THAT RENTAL UNIT IS RETURNED TO THE MARKET BY THE LANDLORD OR SUCCESSOR LANDLORD. RENT FOR THE RENTAL UNIT SHALL BE THE RENT LAWFULLY PAID BY THE TENANT AT THE TIME THE LANDLORD GAVE NOTICE OF TERMINATION BASED UPON SUBSECTIONS (A)(6)-(9) HEREIN.

What does this mean? It means any new units placed on the land of a demolished building or withdrawn from the market entitles the tenant to move into it at the same rent rate they were paying. Thus the count of rental controlled units are maintained and should not reduce under these conditions.

This is infuriating the apartment owners because they have found themselves under rent control until the tenant voluntarily leaves the apartment, or the apartment is destroyed only to be replaced by a single residence or a condo. Those will take a minimum of 10 years just to break even given the upfront costs of building before getting any revenue. I have no resistance for an improved apartment building being built, but the CSFRA entitles first access at same rate even after a new building is built, because the building demolition clause is not restricted by Costa Hawkins.

Does this site offer a mechanism for muting/filtering an individual user's posts from my view of the site?

I've been scrolling past The Business Man's posts for months now -- I have no memory of which side he represents in any of these issues (and have nothing against him personally)... He's just always TL;DR and -- when I did put effort into reading his words -- he didn't make any points.

I would like to save some "gotta scroll past That Guy's post again" time.

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]

I find The Business Man's posting informative and deeply thought through. He's done a great job of showing how underhanded the City Council has been in trying to undermine the city charter and the will of the people. Keep at it, Business Man!

I am not trying to win a popularity contest. But it is well known who I really am. I have made statements routinely at the RHC and the City Council meetings.

All I have described in these meetings has come to be true as far as the fact that the City Attorney reluctantly conceded the correct enforcement date because the dismissed Santa Clara Court case nullified the stipulated TRO. A dismissed case means in the eye of the law and the courts, it didn't happen. Thus the TRO didn't happen.

Here's a Chrome bookmarklet that, when clicked while viewing an mv-voice.com page, will truncate and color any posts by The Businessman. It also says how many comments were truncated. If you hover over a truncated comment, you can still read it in full.

Unfortunately, this site doesn't allow A HREF in their comments!

So go to Web Link , drag the "Remove Unwanted Comments" link to your bookmarks bar, and return to this site... Then, whenever you're on a housing-related post, one click removes all the unwanted comments!

Note: this is in no way against The Businessman or his views -- it's just for others who might want to save some time while scrolling.

Hello All,

Since the City has refused to act, I am making an official declaration that I have consulted many lawyers and they have given me the following advice.

First, I will by the end of this week file a small claims case against my landlord demanding $10,000. Due to refusal to refund overpaid rent.

Second, next month my landlord will not receive any rent payment. He will then be forced to go to court, I am arranging representation regarding a cross complaint if he attempts to evict me.

Since both City Attorney and the Stanford Community have both agreed that the dismissal of the CAA complaint erased the TRO stipulated, the landlord has no defensible point to argue once the court adjudicates the case. I am simply FORCED to act because of the WILFUL refusal of refunding overpaid rent.

So let the legal bloodbath begin.

The "rollback" is called for by Measure V. Its actual effective date has not been defined by the RHC. The RHC punted this back to the courts. As "rollback" effective date is not defined and the process to recover "rollback" via Measure V is a petition to the RHC, litigation by a tenant seems premature, let alone a claim for 3x rollback (who is greedy now?). In any event, should the Business Man's landlord decide to setup a gofundme account for legal expenses, I would be happy to contribute. Landlords really should pay attention to their tenant screening procedures to avoid these sorts of entanglements, it is not normal.

In response to Triple Damages?

You stated: "rollback" is called for by Measure V. Its actual effective date has not been defined by the RHC. The RHC punted this back to the courts.”

You are clearly misinformed. The enforcement date is codified in the City Charter Section 1720, the RHC has no power to modify or alter this date. The RHC has no say in the matter. Section 1720 states:

“This Amendment to the City Charter shall be effective only if approved by a majority of the voters voting thereon and shall go into effect ten (10) days after the vote is declared by the City Council. The Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized to execute this Article to give evidence of its adoption by the voters.”

The City Council declared the vote on December 13th, 2016 from the Santa Clara Registrar of Voters. Thus the effective date is December 23rd, 2016. Thus is codified, it is not up to any discretion without a new ballot repealing it.

You stated: As "rollback" effective date is not defined and the process to recover "rollback" via Measure V is a petition to the RHC, litigation by a tenant seems premature, let alone a claim for 3x rollback”

You failed to read the CSFRA sections 1714 (a) and (b) the part (a) states:

“Landlord's Demand 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.”

Part (b) also states:

“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.”

This simple fact is your claims are misinformed. One is NOT required to petition the RHC in any way. How is it that the public is not understanding the WRITTEN and CODIFIED CSFRA. The courts are REQUIRED to act IN ACCORDANCE TO CODIFIED LAW. So the court cannot refuse to comply with the CSFRA codified in the City Charter Sections 1700-1720 inclusively.

You stated: “In any event, should the Business Man's landlord decide to setup a gofundme account for legal expenses, I would be happy to contribute. Landlords really should pay attention to their tenant screening procedures to avoid these sorts of entanglements, it is not normal.”

YOU’RE SUGGESTION IN MY OPINION MEANS THAT NO LANDLORD SHOULD RENT TO AN EDUCATED INDIVIDUAL. THIS ACTION WAS REQUIRED DUE TO ILLEGAL PRACTICES BY THE LANDLORD. IT IS NORMAL BEHAVIOR BY THOSE WHO ARE EDUCATED AND INFORMED AND DO NOT ACCEPT ILLEGAL BUSINESS PRACTICES.

I too would be happy to contribute to legal funds for the landlord. Please keep everyone updated should anyone hear of an opportunity to do this.

I will add that a friend who works for a property management company that manages mostly small mom and pop properties recently told me that they're getting much more particular with their qualification processes for new tenants. Requiring higher credit scores, increasing the amount of income-to-rent required (all well within legal means). Hopefully this will also help their clients, the owners, protect their investments and mitigate their losses.

In response to mvresident2003

"Requiring higher credit scores, increasing the amount of income-to-rent required (all well within legal means). Hopefully this will also help their clients, the owners, protect their investments and mitigate their losses."

These ideas are good ones, BUT it will not prevent the fact that ILLEGAL ACTIONS TAKEN BY LANDLORDS ARE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE LANDLORDS. You will end up with more educated tenants that will have greater resources to seek remedy for illegal business practices. To me it appears that what we have here is a conspiracy to violate the CSFRA by an organized organization.

You do realize that one could argue that this is evidence that can be used to determine that a Corrupt Organization is in play here. THis activity can rise to the level of being a RICO federal violation. And in fact this could be investigated regarding the City of Mountain View Government. In fact if you read the following:

Under the law, the meaning of racketeering activity is set out at 18 U.S.C. § 1961. As currently amended it includes:

ANY ACT OF BRIBERY, COUNTERFEITING, THEFT, EMBEZZLEMENT, FRAUD, DEALING IN OBSCENE MATTER, OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, SLAVERY, RACKETEERING, GAMBLING, MONEY LAUNDERING, COMMISSION OF MURDER-FOR-HIRE, AND MANY OTHER OFFENSES COVERED UNDER THE FEDERAL CRIMINAL CODE (TITLE 18);( Web Link

The act of not refunding the overpaid rent in this context is THEFT, and the financial ties to the City Government of Mountain View could be determined as BRIBERY. Thus the City could be the target of such an investigation.

All I ask is when you have such a coordinated effort to steal money from those who paid unlawful rent, you raise a lot of possible ugly questions.

mvresident2003 hit the nail on the head. Landlords will now compete for the best tenants in the economic sense, highest credit score/income, likely higher education level, more importantly, tenants with ambition to grow their careers and own a home. The freebie wanting, not accountable, not my fault sort of tenant need not apply. The Businessman, although he has stated he has the higher education level (though you don't necessarily know it from the quality of his posts) would strike out based on any enhanced vetting standard or process. I really feel bad for the poor soul who bought his building in good faith only to be stricken with this nonsense.

In response to Triple Damages?

You stated: “The Businessman, although he has stated he has the higher education level (objectionable language omitted) would strike out based on any enhanced vetting standard or process. I really feel bad for the poor soul who bought his building in good faith only to be stricken with this nonsense.”

So if your conceding that the new owner is “stricken” with serious problems because of the new CSFRA, and that it applies in the way I have documented earlier with Sections 1702,1714(a) and (b), and 1720. Then what you’re also conceding is that my analysis was at least reasonably accurate. But you need to deal with the fact that when one makes a bad business decision, even in good faith, that person must bear the cost of the decision.

NO ONE IS PROTECTED FROM THE CONSEQUENCES OF A BAD DECISION IN OUR MARKET. NO ONE IS GUARANTEED TO SUCCEED IN OUR MARKET. NO ONE SHALL BE PROTECTED FROM HE CONSEQUENCES OF THEIR DECISIONS. ALAN GREENSPAN CLEARLY INDICATED THAT AN INVESTOR IS LIABLE FOR ANY MORAL HAZARD THEY INCUR WHEN THEY MAKE THEIR BUSINESS DECISIONS.

OR are you suggesting we adopt a socialist market so that profits can be guaranteed?

@BusinessMan, you state
"NO ONE IS PROTECTED FROM THE CONSEQUENCES OF A BAD DECISION IN OUR MARKET. NO ONE IS GUARANTEED TO SUCCEED IN OUR MARKET. NO ONE SHALL BE PROTECTED FROM HE CONSEQUENCES OF THEIR DECISIONS. "

I actually agree with you. However it's pretty convenient that you only apply this logic to one side. It needs to apply to tenants as well. "No one is guaranteed to success in our market" equates to "no one is guaranteed to live in an area they can no longer afford"

@mvresident2003, aren't you a big-time supporter of Prop 13? Sounds like you're the real hypocrite here.

In response to mvresident2003

You stated:

"I actually agree with you. However it's pretty convenient that you only apply this logic to one side. It needs to apply to tenants as well. "No one is guaranteed to success in our market" equates to "no one is guaranteed to live in an area they can no longer afford""

I agree with you provisionally, there is a line that shifts the responsibility back to the landlord. If a landlord violates lawful regulations in either overcharging or receiving overpaid rent, and it is NOT returned. And the RESULTS in excessive cost of living, the tenant is no longer responsible for the problem.

Your opinion is the same as when the sexual assault offender goes to court and claims that it was the victims fault they were assaulted and must be found innocent. I honestly believe you didn't intend to claim this, but it is a similar situation.

That is what is happening in Mountain View at this time, a systemic theft of all tenants not provided their overpaid rents from December 23rd, 2016 to April 30, 2017.

I believe you must understand my point of view.

Business Man, I refuse to enter this discussion when you're purposefully obscuring and mixing two very different statements. Never have I mentioned or discussed the issue of rent payments between December and April, that is a legal issue that is being determined in the courts.

In response to mvresident2003

You states: "Business Man, I refuse to enter this discussion when you're purposefully obscuring and mixing two very different statements. Never have I mentioned or discussed the issue of rent payments between December and April, that is a legal issue that is being determined in the courts."

The whole point of the discussion here is what the CSFRA enforcement date is, December 23rd, 2016 or April 5,2017. This directly impacts overpaid rent during the period of December 23rd, 2016 and April 30, 2017.

The CAA court case was dismissed in April, the court will simply reject any argument regarding it until the case is reopened. As far as the court is concerned, the TRO vanished completely once the challengers of the CSFRA dismissed the complaint. So the court is likely to reject any action regarding a "declaratory" statement.

THe simple fact is CODIFIED city charter is to be ENACTED AS WRITTEN. Only when a court specifically calls for the code to be unconstitutional, may it deviate from enforcing it. Only when there is an ACTIVE court order can it be stayed. The current code is the one in force now and thus no other reading is necessary other than what is written in the City Charter today.

Please understand that in this situation, it really doesn't matter what the City of Mountain View thinks anymore, it is simply the new City Charter of the Land, and anyone violating it will be held accountable.

Hello All,

Keeping you in the loop.

I have just filed my Small Claims Court Case, and the Process Server is assigned the task of performing the service.

My court hearing is scheduled for Sept. 22, 2017

Fortunately, Small Claims Court doesn’t allow lawyers, my landlord will be all by himself.