. . . they've had a great number of years for a fair rate of return and then some. Don't undermine the spirit of why voters passed Measure V. Thanks.

And a very big thanks to Tom Means for providing a voice of reason, experience and knowledge. We must not ever undermine the spirit of risk, economy and investment.

Tom fails to provide any reasoning for how tying increases to the market rate for rent (RPR) provides any rent stabilization. It's abundantly clear that he has no desire to uphold the city charter, and he wishes to gut Measure V. City Council knew this when appointing Tom, and his pernicious, arrogant desire to overturn the will of the people has become only more clear over time.

Recall McAlister, Abe-Koga, and Matichak!

Tom writes his letter in to the Mountain View Voice, but he can't be bothered to respond here. It's a shame, but clearly indicative of his arrogance and attitude that he's not a public servant and has no desire to uphold the charter of the city. City Council's behavior knowingly appointing him was disgusting.

Recall McAlister, Abe-Koga, and Matichak!

Can't be bothered to respond......to what? A disparaging, snotty comment by an anonymous poster? Tom Means is a qualified, highly educated and knowledgeable non-partisan voice of reason. feel free to present a sound and factually accurate economic rebuttal. But stop with the personal attacks. its unseemly and below the belt.

Mr. Means or mvresident2003, perhaps one of you can explain this.

Measure V was enacted to stabilize rents due to exorbitant market-rate rents resulting in people being unable to afford housing. Tom Means suggested, and the landlord-favoring committee voted in favor of, solving this problem by tying rent increases to...market-rate rents. No reasonable observer would believe that the committee is faithfully fulfilling the city charter and the will of the people, and this is precisely what the council wanted by appointing Tom Means to the committee.

Recall McAlister, Abe-Koga, and Matichak!

Mr. Means,

Just realize that any attempt to violate the charter will result in litigation. So if you continue to take actions that violate the “text” of the CSFRA, you are just going to increase the public costs because your actions will need to be defended in court.

Granted, the CSFRA does not make economic sense. It was never designed to do that in the first place. The CSFRA is a commercial regulatory City Charter designed to force the apartment industry to become efficient and accountable.

It is also designed to take the burden of business losses not due to tenants’ decisions but apartment owners’ OFF THE TENANTS. Since when should innocent people that are working their (blank) off supposed to pay for the mistakes of others.

mvresident2003 comes in and talks a big talk, but once they're challenged, they slink off without a response.

I'll reiterate my disappointment that Mr. Means can't be bothered to respond here. It's a shame, but clearly indicative of his arrogance and attitude that he's not a public servant and has no desire to uphold the charter of the city. City Council's behavior knowingly appointing him was disgusting.

Recall McAlister, Abe-Koga, and Matichak!

I'm not slinking off anywhere, I refuse to be baited into a discussion that is slanderous and spiteful. And I'm sure Tom Means has better things to do than troll anonymous message boards.

In response to mvresident2003

“Can't be bothered to respond......to what? A disparaging, snotty comment by an anonymous poster? Tom Means is a qualified, highly educated and knowledgeable NON-PARTISAN VOICE OF REASON. feel free to present a sound and factually accurate economic rebuttal. But stop with the personal attacks. its unseemly and below the belt.”

I am surprised you describe him as a “NON-PARTISAN VOICE OF REASON”

AS WE ARE ALL AWARE, HE IS POLITICALLY OPPOSED TO THE CSFRA. THIS DOES NOT QUALIFY AS NON-PARTISAN. AS LONG AS HIS ACTIONS ARE NOT BASED ON THE CSFRA BUT SOME OTHER INFLUENCES. THIS MAKES HIM BY DEFINITION PARTISAN.

Nonetheless, let the landlords manipulate the RHC, it doesn’t matter anyway. The courts will simply overrule any decision made by the RHC.

The RHC cannot control the courts, all tenants should make their cases in the courts. For any civil remedies regarding the illegal actions of a landlord. The tenant is not required to and should avoid the RHC petition process. Let the landlords make their petitions with them, and oppose them. But always understand the courts will overrule them as long as evidence of contradiction can be presented to the court from the CSFRA.

The City of Mountain View will simply go on and advocate for the apartment industry, but the courts will determine the final decisions.

I am confused and too lazy to figure this out. Are you saying that the rent board chosen by the anti-rent control City Council has voted to allow landlords to petition to raise rents to keep pace with unregulated rental or housing increases in the area? If so, the rent board has found a way to gut Measure V. Usually, an allowance for inflation concerns the actual costs likely incurred - not the lost opportunity to make a higher profit. Maybe Tom Means will explain further.

Appears that Tom Means is done explaining what he is up to.

I'm sure Tom Means will contribute as per his position during next City Council mtg. Is there a particular reason you try to denigrate him behind his back on anonymous message boards that he likely doesn't even know about?

@mvresident2003, Tom has posted here before, and he sent a gosh darn letter to the Voice to air his grievances. This isn't behind his back, it's right to his face, and neither you nor he have the courage to address these substantive issues.

Are you going to slink off again, or do you have an explanation for how tying rent increases to market-rate rent fulfills Measure V as passed by the people of Mountain View?

Recall McAlister, Abe-Koga, and Matichak!

i don't understand why you can't have a discussion but resort to such divisive tone. I'm not an attorney and no, I don't know the details but I'll take a guess.

The Pro-V group has consistently complained about landlords gouging, jacking up rents far above and beyond "fair". So are you saying that increasing at Market rate isn't fair? And if not, just what specifically would you consider a fair amount and investor is able to get on their investment?

Hmmmm. Crickets.

@mvresident2003, your argument makes no sense. Market rate reflects exactly that landlord gouging that you're talking about. The market rate is...wait for it...the price on the market. How does tying rent increases to market-rate rents fulfill the city charter as passed by the people of Mountain View? Neither you nor Mr. Means have answered this basic question.