Not at all surprised to read that several small apartment owners seem to be getting out. Could knock me.over with a feather with that news.

I would like to know how the sales data may have been "exaggerated"? Would that be like "cooking the books" sales reporting wise? Wouldn't the county recorders office have all the sales transactions on file?

The outcome was expected, rent control only supports real estate investments by big guys. Prometheus, Greystar, Summerhill are examples of the winners in this unfortunate MV fiasco. No more "Melrose Place" Apartment complexes, small garden-style mom and pop operations. All big, multi story high rises with apartment management companies. The voters asked for it, all pre 1995 apartments will disappear, even if Council member Siegel will veto it.
In Los Angeles developers replacing smaller old complexes have to set aside 20% of new units as affordable housing. Maybe we should enforce this rule for all new apartment construction, too.

"In Los Angeles developers replacing smaller old complexes have to set aside 20% of new units as affordable housing. Maybe we should enforce this rule for all new apartment construction, too."

If single-payer is good enough for medical care, how about single renter? The city should buy all the older units and then rent them out at affordable rents. Then 100% of the apartments would be affordable not just 20%. Just as in medical care, they could get rid of the middleman, use the city workers to maintain the apartments, use their clout to buy supplies at rock bottom prices. Since the city government has to answer to the voters, no more gouging increases of rent by greedy landlords.

Layer economic obsolescence on top of the functional obsolescence many property owners already experience seven days/week with their 50+ year old properties, and the picture becomes very clear about the future of MV's more affordable rental units. Spend money upgrading the apartments with new copper plumbing, grounded electrical circuits, fire sprinklers, failing sewer lines and cosmetic/functional updates or turn the land over to a developer to scrape and rebuild as row houses for sale. It's a very simple decision. Live with a modest return on investment forever, with no hope of capital appreciation, or move on. Better opportunities are aplenty elsewhere.

Measure V promoters and the RHC should at least be required to study and hopefully understand the very basics--Real Estate Principals 101: Economic & Functional Obsolescence. Measure V has brought it to Mountain View overnight. To borrow a phrase from Shark Tank, "I'm out." Good luck Mountain View.

And shame on you, Mark Noack, for yet again writing a biased hit piece. You're a disgrace to your profession. Let me know if you need some help with that HTML formatting. LOL.

In response to Existing Landlord, you said:

“Measure V promoters and the RHC should at least be required to study and hopefully understand the very basics--Real Estate Principals 101: Economic & Functional Obsolescence. Measure V has brought it to Mountain View overnight. To borrow a phrase from Shark Tank, "I'm out." Good luck Mountain View.”

The CSFRA was not designed to advocate for the for-profit real estate or apartment industry. It was in response to the political private advocacy of the landlords and real estate industry by the City Council and City Attorney. It was designed to be harsh because there was no good faith negotiations available at the time it was initiated. In fact if “good faith” deals were offered, it could have failed miserably in the election. That was the error on the part of the real estate and apartment industry.

I am looking forward to the passage of AB 1505, so that any new development can have mandatory below market rate apartments dictated by the City Government on any new developments. As I have noted before, the Costa Hawkins legislation was based on the promise that affordable housing would be plentiful as long as the state didn’t get involved in the apartment industry. The state agreed to that promise 20 years ago, but the promise was not kept. There is a good likelihood that the state will eventually repeal it as well.

I'll let the "likes" on this thread speak for themselves, and withhold further comment on this particular contribution to your legendary garrulous posts.

Redevelopment is good. It would have happened more slowly without rent control. And even now, it looks rare. Everyone knows the representatives of landlords on the City Council (a majority) will put a "repeal and replace" charter amendment on the November 2018 ballot - no signatures required. They will likely propose replacing Meadure V with Measure EV - short for EVICTION. That was the alternative presented as the Council-landlord concocted alternative to Measure V on the November 2016 ballot. It would have authorized and encouraged evictions designed to get higher paying tenants. In 2018, landlords will surely spend far more money to end rent control than the paltry million dollars spent against Measure V. A hundred million dollars would be more consistent with the potential income at stake.

Sadly, this result was predictable and predicted by my industry sources. There is a tidal wave worth of small apartment bldg sales in the pipeline now that aren't reflected in the data presented. Its a shame that the rent control advocates didnt listen.

Sigh, it couldn't have anything to do with record high real estate prices and a recent leveling off overall in the sale price for real estate in the area. Time to get out before the next retraction in value. Rent control doesn't explain this effect on single family residences and office properties. How long do you expect small investors to hold such property anyway? Eventually they retire and cash out.

Plus, thousands of new apartments are opening up causing traffic congestion and increased population. It's only natural that this should remind the small apartment owners that they have the option to cash out. The city isn't what it used to be. Hard for the small places to compete and they may not feel like funding the needed renovations.

This result is not surprising, which is one of the main reasons I was against rent control - it does very little to actually help people who need the most help. However, the one benefit I see of new housing is hopefully we have the chance to build new housing for people to purchase, thus giving more people the opportunity to own their place. This is not to be critical of people renting, we certainly need some rental housing supply as well, but we seem to be really short on housing for ownership. As people age, ideally they could work towards owning something so they have a more secure future than paying rent for 40 years would allow.

Have to build enough rental units to drive rents down, otherwise any money for a down payment will get eaten by exorbitant rents.

The disparity between post-1995 and pre-1995 rental units is 100%+. A class C property (built in the '60-'70s w/zero amenities) may rent for $2K/month where a comparable class A building (new construction) easily commands $4K+/month for the same square footage (one bedroom). Building more units will not drive down rents significantly if at all. I rent to 24 year old college graduates regularly who sign up with one of the major employers for $125K starting salary plus a $50K signing bonus. Just like home prices, rents are dictated by tenant income. As long as people are bringing in fat salaries, 30% of that paycheck will gladly be spent on housing, i.e. $3K+/month per occupant. Two high tech people sharing an apartment will comfortably pay $6K/month for the place. The major developers putting up these projects aren't going to cannibalize their own operations by overbuilding. It would take 20+ years to build enough units to stabilize the market in Silicon Valley, and that assumes no new jobs are created and people stop moving into the Bay Area.