Of course there will be petitions, because tying rent increases to the CONSUMER price index is stupid and bears no relationship to prices landlords actually pay for upkeep, repairs, management, etc.

Once the lease is up, the landlord does not have to rent any longer, whereby tenet would have to leave. The landlord can then bring the price up to current rates, after making some modifications.

Well it looks like it's impossible to do business as a landlord in Mountain View

The RHC just guaranteed redevelopment of many more rent controlled apartments by using HUD calculations for the Vega adjustment.

The apartment owners that are damaged the most are the very owners that had their rents the lowest and most reasonable in the city. It's funny how when the government gets involved, it always does exactly the opposite of what they're trying to accomplish.

Well folks guess what, many of these landlords are left with only one option now and that is to tear it down and build expensive homes where this affordable housing sits. This is very profitable for landlord/developer and removes the rent controlled properties from the market.

This will make great profits for them and they can 1031 exchange the proceeds without paying taxes into apartments elsewhere. Also, the city increases the property taxes sometimes 10 fold on these deals making happy city planners.

This is why they will do it:

The City of Mountain View has adopted Rent Control Measure V for all housing of 3 or more units which were built before 1995.

This measure caps rental increases on 15,000 older rental units in the City of Mountain View to the CPI (Consumer Price Index) making the units NOT ECONOMICALLY VIABLE as an investment to existing and new operators in the real estate industry.

CPI is considered the annual inflation of a region, in this case the Bay Area which was 3.4% over the past 12 months as reported. If a candy bar costs $1.00 12 months ago it should have increased in price to $1.034 today according to the CPI.

Apartment building valuations are determined by Capitalization Rates by buyers and banks that finance them. After that the buyer who is now an investor looks at their Return On Investment Rates. ROI Rates rise directly and only as a result of increased rental income minus all expenses.

Return on investments need to increase over time from rising rents to make an investment ECONOMICALLY VIABLE to the investor. If the rents rise at the rate of inflation or CPI then the Appreciation Rate of that investment is stagnate and mirrors the inflation rate or CPI, meaning there is no financial benefit to investing in it. That would be like knowingly buying a stock that is always WORTH THE SAME FOREVER.

If the building was worth $1.00 12 months ago, and now $1.034 but the cost of everything else went up the same percentage, food, gas, cars, vacations, etc., what's the benefit to the investor of investing millions of dollars and risking losing capital with all the work necessary to run the business? The building will always be worth the same amount taking inflation into consideration.

NOT ECONOMICALLY VIABLE is the definition of what has happened to all these apartments under Measure V. The values dropped dramatically enough leaving owners to either demolish them for new ECONOMICALLY VIABLE housing or accept no appreciation in the future. The larger properties will be redeveloped with expensive housing, further frustrating the shortage of affordable housing in the City.
The smaller properties that can't be redeveloped because of zoning requirements will fall into disrepair over time as the owner cuts back on expenses to cover the financial shortfalls.

This the future for Mountain View now under Measure V.

Bob, you hit the nail on the head. When a basic need like housing is an instrument of profit for the wealthy, we should all reject that. The City is the only entity that should be responsible for providing affordable housing, and we the people should all share in the benefits of the windfall provided by our scarce resource.

Or to rephrase that just slightly, LOL: "From each according to ability, to each according to need."

(Been tried already.)

Ah, Common sense, I see you don't actually have an argument. It's sad you're so afraid of working to help your neighbors.

Really, Are you kidding and why do you treat Landlords this way? "The new petition for landlords is 22 pages long and requires detailed information, including years of income and expense statements for each apartment building. The form for tenants requires far less information and is only a few pages long."

I was going to buy apartments here and offer housing for an investment but now I know the score. What have you people done to your town?? Crazy.
I'LL stay out of Mountain View with my money because Landlords are discriminated against. You are terrible people and should be ashamed of yourselves!!

Oh no, one less person trying to profit off a basic need for all humans! How will we cope without "Sam the man" trying to gouge our residents?

In response to Bob you said: “NOT ECONOMICALLY VIABLE is the definition of what has happened to all these apartments under Measure V. The values dropped dramatically enough leaving owners to either demolish them for new ECONOMICALLY VIABLE housing or accept no appreciation in the future. The larger properties will be redeveloped with expensive housing, further frustrating the shortage of affordable housing in the City.”

I do not argue that values are dropping in Mountain View, but they were inflated based on the real estate industry selling them at inflated “FUTURE” values and not the real ones. I strongly support an appropriate market correction, and the correction is not just in Mountain View but the entire state now that the state laws are revised to facilitate it. Measure V is nothing compared to the new state laws.

You said: “The smaller properties that can't be redeveloped because of zoning requirements will fall into disrepair over time as the owner cuts back on expenses to cover the financial shortfalls.”

If this in fact does take place, the tenants will petition for rent decreases based on non-compliance with the CSFRA. Thie requirement is that the properties must be maintained in the same quality as they were when CSFRA was enacted. Your proposing a violation of the CSFRA which will do nothing but guarrenty that the landlords will be liable for their actions and lose money as a result. Sometimes you better not take a first gut action, it will be so much worse if you do.

You said: “This the future for Mountain View now under Measure V.”

This is simply VERY PREMATURE. You are making assumptions that you cannot substantiate yet. You know what assumptions do to us? I would not be making such statements until the evidence is in fact able to be demonstrated. But that is my HUMBLE opinion.

LOL,
Thank you for making my point.

Class warfare doesn't benefit the tenant or the Landlord. It only creates a greater divide removing private money that's invested in housing in your community out of your community. This appears to be funny to you?
Well, we will see how funny it is in 5 years from now.

Class warfare has already been going on against the poor here for a decade. [Portion removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]

LOL, you sure seem to find humor in a sad situation. Why do you think this is so funny?

That's just my username.[Portion removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]

How much profit does one make on a $2-3000/mo 1bd1ba apartment? I know my landlord doesn't spend that money on taxes or maintenance, so it must be nearly all profit going straight into their pocket. It isn't even a nice apartment. I'm disgusted by how people regard the poor here, like being poor is a life a choice and not based 98% on luck or how willing you are to exploit someone.

[Portion removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]

[Portion removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]

[Portion removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]

[Portion removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]

[Portion removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]

@Bob notes that

"Well folks guess what, many of these landlords are left with only one option now and that is to tear it down and build expensive homes where this affordable housing sits. This is very profitable for landlord/developer and removes the rent controlled properties from the market."

And sure enough, it's already happening. The below link is at least the second article in the Voice on the topic:

"Large push of projects replacing rent-controlled units expected"
Web Link

Interesting but really kind of dumb.
Lots of noise, lots of self entitlement, lots of philosophy, but the money is on the move. It will go where there is opportunity to make more money. Nobody gets to vote on this except the one who has the money. You can't tax or impose fees or impose rules on money that is no longer here.
This is only the beginning. The money is on the move.

What is really going on here?

The Landlords put the blame of their situation on the Tenants.

THIS IS SIMPLY SCAPEGOATING THEIR CUSTOMERS FOR THEIR UNWISE DECISIONS AND ACTIONS.

WHO IS WAGING THE CLASS WARFARE HERE? WHO ARE THE ONES THAT ARE GOING TO THREATEN THE SAFETY OF OTHERS? WHO ARE THREATENING THEIR CUSTOMERS VIA FORCING THEM TO LEAVE THE APARTMENTS THAT THEY PAY FOR LEGALLY AND LAWFULLY? DOES THE NAME "ANDREW CARNEGIE" AND "HOW TO MAKE FRIENDS AND INFLUENCE PEOPLE" RING A BELL?

Yes there will be quite a reduction of profits in the rental industry of Mountain View.

BUT THE RENT CONTROL PART OF THE SITUATION IS VERY SMALL COMPARED TO THE NEW STATE LAWS JUST SIGNED LAST WEEK. THESE NEW LAWS ARE GOING TO UNDERCUT THE OVERINFLATED PROPERTY VALUES ALL OVER THE STATE. BOY YOU ARE NOT REALLY PAYING ATTENTION TO THE GORRILA IN THE ROOM. BUT THE ONES WAGING CLASS WARFARE ARE NOT MENTIONING THEIR REAL PROBLEMS ARE THEY?