Absolute power corrupts absolutely----The City Govt spends bloated thousands first to deal with rent control, then to play with it in court, then to create a bureaucracy to oversee what was decided, and then decides City shouldn't pay for its own shenanigans. Being untouchable must be lovely.

Are you serious?! Landlords are whining about this fee? Mine is going off on all sorts of vacations, more than usual, doesn't tell us when he's gone in case something needs repair, doesn't do necessary repairs as it is, is rude and basically a slum lord. Just because the Googlelites can afford high rent here doesn't mean it's right to expect those who have been here 40 plus decades to pay the same amount! Google needs to go...to Vegas, Arizona, someplace else. Many long term residents here feel the same. San Jose is going to have similar problems with them encroaching upon that area now and causing gentrification. Great for home owners, but renters will suffer like we are here. It's all about the wealthy. Nevermind mind those of us who actually work and are raising families. My kids had to move three hours away from here and many other families are being split apart as well and moving out of state. Thanks Google. Thanks alot.

"Rental property owners have suffered enough."

aww, they have to wipe the tears away using their giant stacks of money.

Are all apartments subject to this fee or just those subject to rent control (units built before 1995)? The most expensive apartments are the new complexes owned by corporate landlords, yet they are exempt. It does not seem right.

The story said”

“Joshua Howard, spokesman for the California Apartment Association (CAA), blamed the new measure for forcing landlords to recently pay "an average reimbursement of $1,000" to each eligible tenant. This reimbursement is due to an unsuccessful lawsuit filed by CAA that delayed program's implementation, resulting in landlords collecting higher rents for about four months, and now are faced with refunding the difference for apartments that fall under rent control.

"Now rents are still far below where they should be when adjusted from Oct. 2015 to today," Howard said. "Rental property owners have suffered enough."

Joshua Howard, simply put, your advice to these property owners lead to the passage of the CSFRA. On top of that, your group’s poor judgement cause the problem in the first place. So, I have very little empathy to your membership’s plight.

I am about to confuse the CAA, the citizens of Mountain View, and most importantly the Mountain View landlords and advocate for them.

I have had a discussion with Ken Rosenberg last Saturday, we discussed the situation regarding the CAA litigation. He posed the following question, if the CAA was representing the landlords of Mountain View, than aren’t ALL the landlords responsible for that action?

This is where I posed the following reasoning, NOT ALL landlords in Mountain View are members of the CAA. It is illogical to assume all landlords of Mountain View are members. In fact it is arbitrary and capricious. Granted those who are members receive significant benefits along with representation, like significant discounts for services related to the apartment business. Those who ARE NOT members of the CAA, are not entitled to CAA representation NOR any discounts by vendors servicing the CAA membership. They simply should not bear the cost of the CAA frivolous and meritless litigation, EVEN I THINK THAT IS NOT FAIR.

My logic is simple, only those involved in the litigation should bear reimbursing the City of Mountain View for the litigation costs. Those were only the CAA, Alamo Walker Venture, LLC, Lindsay Properties, LLC and Del Medio Investors. Only those registered as parties of the lawsuit must bear the cost of the litigation incurred by the City.

If this were to occur, those all landlords would have as much as a 10% reduction in the fees. BELIEVE IT OR NOT, THAT IS THE RIGHT THING. It was never the construction or the intent of the fee to be used to leverage the legal costs paid by the City’s poor judgment to PENALIZE THOSE NOT REPRESENTED IN THE CAA CHALLENGE. Thus I simply can say, it must not happen.

As far as the “Pass-through” of the fee onto the tenants, that is reserved to be achieved via the petition process, the RHC cannot make a policy decision regarding this because that is considered a rent adjustment above the CSFRA default Annual Rent Adjustment. Thus all landlords will have to petition for that to occur, the RHC cannot issue an automatic cost “pass-through”

Of course this means the landlord will have the right to request a “pass-through” but at the same time if any evidence can be presented by a tenant of a landlord’s failure to comply with the CSFRA, then said petition will be by default determined improper and rejected.

Rent control is taking other people’s property plus the administrative nightmare that is only beginning.

As has been said over and over with rent control there is no incentive for maintenance and repairs, the apartments will degrade or be demolished and replaced with new apartments not subject to rent control.

REMEMBER THAT DONALD TRUMP WAS (AND IS) A LANDLORD. HE WAS (AND IS) IN BUSINESS TO MAKE MONEY, IF THE TRUTH GETS IN THE WAY, TRUMP LIES.

In response to Rodger you posted: “Rent control is taking other people’s property plus the administrative nightmare that is only beginning.”

You know that the courts never determined that rent control is a taking of property, as a matter of fact the courts in the case of Citizens against Rent Control v. City of Berkeley (Web Link the courts upheld the constitutionality of rent control by 8 to 1 vote. Even though one person Muriel Rosenkranz threatened to file another lawsuit. As stated here (Web Link

“One of those is Muriel Rosenkranz, a landlord and past-president of the Berkeley Property Owners Association, who vowed Wednesday, ``We`re going to press on,`` and suggested the next action would be a suit to cover ``the damage (the law) is doing to property owners. The law is wiping out property owners, confiscating their property.``”

However it appears that lawsuit was never filed

Many cases followed to try to overturn this decision, all of which were rejected by the U. S. Supreme Court. Thus your statement is not correct on its face you went on to say:

“As has been said over and over with rent control there is no incentive for maintenance and repairs, the apartments will degrade or be demolished and replaced with new apartments not subject to rent control.”

Yes there is both a requirement and an incentive. The requirement is that failure to maintain and repair property will be grounds for a rent reduction. Also, acting like this would invalidate and dismiss any petition for a rent increase for failure to comply with the CSFRA. Any petition requires a legal statement declaring you are in entire compliance with the CSFRA. However failure to maintain and repair is a specific violation of the CSFRA.

Now owners are free to demolish and replace, but that would potentially require relocation assistance costs. On top of that, in that situation, the exiting tenant will be required to be given first shot at the new units at the original costs they paid before demolition and rebuild. But the owners are free to do as the wish. Except there are new state laws that might require other conditions.

It would appear that your point of view is not substantiated by history, the law, or the current situation. Please don’t “kill the messenger”?

Sorry landlords... [Portion removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language] get on with the business of making your rentals livable, and worthy of the monies you charge for them.

The refunds of excessive rents that are being repaid to renters due to the delay the landlords caused vav activation of the rent controls, is a fair and reasonable consequence for the feet dragging ploys landlords engaged in. [Portion removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]

At our condo complex, we have had quite a few units that had been purchased as investments and rented out. But now, all of these types of units are being sold to owners who will live in them. So it looks like housing availability is generally going to go down as a result of this new law. Good planning, City Council.

What should we call it when one group of residents says that newcomers aren't welcome? They don't look like us, don't talk like us, don't eat the same foods, don't listen to the same music. A lot of them weren't even born in this country. They should move away and never come back, or else!

Oh wait, it's not racism. We're only picking on techies. They aren't real, good people--like the entitled who have lived here for "40 decades".

At least I find it amusingly ironic when beatnik artists in SF, who have lived there for all of 5 years, complain that the "techies are ruining our city". There's little to amuse me in the nasty attitude of xenophobia I see above.

Rental rates in MTV have exploded and they are complaining about a measly $155 annual fee? SMH

Frankly, rent control would not have happened if landlords weren't so greedy

You gotta know when to hold em, you gotta know when to fold em.
Money is on the move.

Cheap housing is no housing. Apartment house land will now be utilized at it's best use as investors knock down old apartment houses for the best non price controlled land rents. All up on the internet. The first chapters of a basic economics text book. Economics is largely about price. The example of Mt. View is the flank of rent control in California. Rent control is the largest boondoggle in California's history. You see, the poor don't end up with rent control at all.
Mountain View's city council and the San Jose Property Rights Initiative (Google) are a gun at the San Jose city council's head. How dare they flunk out of high school economics a required course. California's Democratic Party is also running scared. The number one lesson plan in economics. They'll be able to make a movie out of this one.
George Drysdale initiator and land economist

1. A $2.5 Million per year bureaucracy has been created
a) When people voted for Measure V, did they know they were spending $2.5 M
to process paperwork? I don't think so.
2. Rent increase according to Measure V for 2017 is 3.4%
3. By the time you add in the $155 fee, it takes away about 20-22% of the
the 3.4% increase
4. The increases of water, garbage collection are not factored into this
5. So the landlords are getting less than the 3.4% increases, probably more in the
range of 2.4% or even less.
6. The prices of sub-contractors (carpenters, electricians, plumbers), services,
and parts are going up too. And their prices are double and more what they charge
in other parts of the state. And it will get worse as construction labor is
pulled into disaster repair (Napa fires, Houston, Florida) and materia shortages.
7. Does it make sense to tell landlords they are getting $3.4%, take much it away
via the Measure V fees + the water and garbage increases, leaving a much
smaller amount to cover point #6 above?
8. For those who are non-aligned (e.g. people who are not renters and not rental
property owners), does this make sense to you? Did you really vote for measure
V expecting to create a $2.5 M bureaucracy? Do you really thinking cutting rental
property owners year rent increase from $3.4 % to around 2.5% (maybe less, I did
not calculate the water and garbage rate increases) really makes sense in the Bay
Area?
9. I hear a lot of frustration with demand for housing from high tech employees
driving up housing and rental prices. This points to a supply issue. And
Measure V does nothing to address increasing supply. What you do see here
is a lot of money being spent on paperwork. Nevertheless, there is still the
frustration with the high demand for housing/rentals. But here are some thoughts (unfortunately some will not like this): If you go to 391 San Antonio Road - you will see a plaque commemorating where William F Shockley established the first semiconductor firm in Silicon Valley. Why do I bring up this seemingly irrelevant fact? Because when Shockley based his company in Mountain View in 1956, people from all over the country and now all over the world want to come to Mountain View
to be at the center of technical innovation on a planetary scale. Silicon Valley has experienced massive growth, which continues as we deploy autonomous vehicles, artificial intelligence, and the systems to support these huge computer processing requirements. If you wanted to live in a nice quiet suburb where nothing happens and rents and housing prices are low, this is the wrong place to have that expectation. And this points to increasing supply to meet demand, and not use an expensive bureaucracy (where you only control the older pre-1995 housing) to manage pricing.

1. A $2.5 Million per year bureaucracy has been created
a) When people voted for Measure V, did they know they were spending $2.5 M
to process paperwork? I don't think so.
2. Rent increase according to Measure V for 2017 is 3.4%
3. By the time you add in the $155 fee, it takes away about 20-22% of the
the 3.4% increase
4. The increases of water, garbage collection are not factored into this
5. So the landlords are getting less than the 3.4% increases, probably more in the
range of 2.4% or even less.
6. The prices of sub-contractors (carpenters, electricians, plumbers), services,
and parts are going up too. And their prices are double and more what they charge
in other parts of the state. And it will get worse as construction labor is
pulled into disaster repair (Napa fires, Houston, Florida) and material shortages
7. Does it make sense to tell landlords they are getting $3.4%, take much it away
via the Measure V fees + the water and garbage increases, leaving a much
smaller amount to cover point #6 above?
8. For those who are non-aligned (e.g. people who are not renters and not rental
property owners), does this make sense to you? Did you really vote for measure
V expecting to create a $2.5 M bureaucracy? Do you really thinking cutting rental
property owners year rent increase from $3.4 % to around 2.4% (maybe less, I did
not calculate the water and garbage rate increases) really makes sense in the Bay
Area?
9. I hear a lot of frustration with demand for housing from high tech employees
driving up housing and rental prices. This points to a supply issue. And
Measure V does nothing to address increasing supply. What you do see here
is a lot of money being spent on paperwork. Nevertheless, there is still the
frustration with the high demand for housing/rentals. But here are some thoughts (unfortunately some will not like this): If you go to 391 San Antonio Road - you will see a plaque commemorating where William F Shockley established the first semiconductor firm in Silicon Valley. Why do I bring up this seemingly irrelevant fact? Because when Shockley based his company in Mountain View in 1956, people from all over the country and now all over the world want to come to Mountain View
to be at the center of technical innovation on a planetary scale. Silicon Valley has experienced massive growth, which continues as we deploy autonomous vehicles, artificial intelligence, and the systems to support these huge computer processing requirements. If you wanted to live in a nice quiet suburb where nothing happens and rents and housing prices are low, this is the wrong place to have that expectation. And this points to increasing supply to meet demand, and not use an expensive bureaucracy (where you only control the older pre-1995 housing) to manage pricing.

Yimby #2, you give us YIMBYs a bad name.

Part of building a successful movement is going to be offering people solutions to their problems. What's your solution for people being displaced by rising rents _right now_? Building more housing stock takes time, so how do you help poor families today avoid being suffocated by skyrocketing rents?

Building more housing, which I support with wholeheartedly, is a long-term solution to the problem we dug ourselves into over the last 40 years.

In response to george drysdale who said:” Cheap housing is no housing.”

Well that is an indication of either you submit to my authority or leave. You also said:

“Apartment house land will now be utilized at it's best use as investors knock down old apartment houses for the best non price controlled land rents.”

That all depends on whether AB1506 gets reborn and passes or the voter initiative succeeds. If in fact Costa Hawkins is repealed, your in for a very ugly surprise George. You also said:

“All up on the internet. The first chapters of a basic economics text book. Economics is largely about price. The example of Mt. View is the flank of rent control in California. Rent control is the largest boondoggle in California's history. You see, the poor don't end up with rent control at all.”

Again, you fail to understand there is practically no rent control in the state of California. Only older buildings in 22 municipalities are rent controlled, the rest are not. The reality is that the industry choses to manipulate the market by intentional lack of development. Why are you trying to misinform the public? Is it because you do not want the public to know its being cheated? You also said:

“Mountain View's city council and the San Jose Property Rights Initiative (Google) are a gun at the San Jose city council's head.”

Since when has these people threatened anybody? Boy you really like to exaggerate things. It is the right of the people to make policy decisions either through representation or voter initiative. They are not “lighting torches and rioting in the streets”. You also said:

“How dare they flunk out of high school economics a required course.”

I think what you’re really saying is how dare the public demand that the apartment industry be regulated.. Especially once it has been proven the apartment industry simply wants absolute power to dictate terms. Also that the industry creates shortages intentionally because they have no incentive to build, even though they have no income caps due to Costa Hawkins. Your statements are designed to aggravate the public, but we will simply demonstrate your irrational point of view. You also said:

“ California's Democratic Party is also running scared. The number one lesson plan in economics. They'll be able to make a movie out of this one.”

I simply do not understand what your saying here, what can I say. You also said:

“George Drysdale initiator and land economist”

Actually you are advocate of extreme libertarianism. Your belief is that those who can buy like an apartment building or own something like land, should be entitled to dictate the lives of anyone in you properties or on the land. Isn’t this your real motive?

The city’s rental housing providers have already given a lot: they have lowered our rents, refunded rents, and been forced to delay capital improvements.

Even with a modest 3.4% rent increase, rents are still far below where they should be even when adjusted for inflation.

Being asked to pay $155/unit to fund a large bureaucracy is unfair and out of line with other cities that have rent control.

It is an insult that they are being told that in order to recover this cost we have to petition the city and jump through mountains of paperwork just to get fair treatment, 20+ pages for a simple claim!

Mountain View’s fees are not honest, not fair, and way out of line with most other rent controlled cities AND most other cities allow the owner to share the fee with the tenants.

Housing providers should not be forced to shoulder the entire burden of implementing this bureaucracy.

The RHC must develop a regulation that allows this fee to be shared with the tenants.

Voters should repeal Measure V at the soonest opportunity.

@Ridiculous,

"It is an insult that THEY are being told that in order to recover this cost WE have to petition the city and jump through mountains of paperwork"

Emphasis mine. You might make a more compelling case if you were up front about your vested interest in having the voters of Mountain View.

Note that the property owners who kept rent increases reasonable are being hurt by Measure V.
1. Give back modest rent increases
a) Some tenants send thank you notes for very modest rent increases
b) These tenants stay a long time if you keep reasonable rents
c) The idea that we can just make up profits when tenants move out has limited
applicability. The more reasonable you are, the longer the tenants stay
2. Delay rent increases
3. Reduce rent increases
4. Increase governmental expenses (Measure V fee + water + garbage)which negate
modest rent increases
5. Does not give the small property owner a way to keep up with expenses
6. Should we accept the damage to the small, reasonable property owner as merely
collateral damage?

In response to Ridiculous you said:

“Being asked to pay $155/unit to fund a large bureaucracy is unfair and out of line with other cities that have rent control.”

You know this is an initial fee being forced on you because the City demanded reimbursement for the startup costs and cost of litigation. You know if the City provided at least 3 years to repay these costs of startup. You know if the city required the litigation costs were required to be reimbursed by the CAA, Alamo Walker Venture, LLC, Lindsay Properties, LLC and Del Medio Investors. Only those registered as parties of the lawsuit must bear the cost of the litigation incurred by the City. That the initial fees would be greatly smaller. But the CAA and the other litigant instructed the City Council to do this to make it the most difficult to start the CSFRA. You also stated:

“It is an insult that they are being told that in order to recover this cost we have to petition the city and jump through mountains of paperwork just to get fair treatment, 20+ pages for a simple claim!”

This has been an accepted practice in most rent controlled municipalities. You are not being singled out for special treatment. This is simply the standard operating procedure, nothing more. You said:

“Mountain View’s fees are not honest, not fair, and way out of line with most other rent controlled cities AND most other cities allow the owner to share the fee with the tenants.”

I explained above what is occurring here, if you have any complaints take it with the City Attorney and City Council, they are causing the problem. You said:

“Housing providers should not be forced to shoulder the entire burden of implementing this bureaucracy.”

Again, this has been an accepted standard of operating procedure in the municipalities of California. You are not being singled out for mistreatment.. You also said:

“The RHC must develop a regulation that allows this fee to be shared with the tenants.”

The RHC is not allowed to do this. If you read the following component of the CSFRA:

Section 1710. - Petitions for individual rent adjustment—bases.

A Landlord or a Tenant may file a Petition with the Committee seeking adjustment, either upward or downward, of the Rent for any given tenancy in accordance with the standards set forth in this Section, and using the procedures set forth in Section 1711 herein and implementing regulations. A Petition shall be on a form provided by the Committee and, if made by the Landlord, shall include a declaration by the Landlord that the Rental Unit complies with all requirements of this Article.

(a) Petition for Upward Adjustment—Fair Rate of Return: To effectuate the purposes of this Article and the requirements of law, a Landlord may file a Petition for an upward adjustment of the Rent to ensure a fair and reasonable rate of return. It is the intent of this Article that individual upward adjustments in Rent be granted only when the Landlord demonstrates that such adjustments are necessary to provide the Landlord with a fair rate of return. THE COMMITTEE SHALL PROMULGATE REGULATIONS TO FURTHER GOVERN PETITIONS FILED PURSUANT TO THIS SUBSECTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND THE PURPOSES OF THIS ARTICLE.”

The committee can only promulgate regulation regarding the petitions process. The RHC cannot make a policy that establishes a "pass-through" charge to tenants under the CSFRA. The CSFRA also it says

"(1) Prerequisites. No upward adjustment of Rent shall be authorized by a Hearing Officer or the Committee under this Subsection if the Landlord:

(A) Has continued to fail to comply, after order of the Committee or other authority, with any provisions of this Article or orders or regulations issued thereunder; or

(b) Has failed to maintain the Rental Unit in compliance with Civil Code Sections 1941.1 et seq. and Health and Safety Code Sections 17920.3 and 17920.10.

(2) Fair Rate of Return - Factors. In making any upward adjustment to the Rent based upon a Landlord's Petition to ensure a fair rate of return, the Hearing Officer or Committee shall consider relevant factors, including but not limited to, the following:

(B) Unavoidable increases or any decreases in maintenance and operating expenses;…”

The simple fact is it does not cost you anything to file a petition given that the RHC has decided not to charge for one. So it would seem you’re simply very upset that you are disclosing your business practices in the petition, which might result in a backfire during the process.

If you are in fact such an honorable landlord, that has done good work regarding record keeping and keeping your records organized, this process should not be very difficult at all. In fact if you have your records kept through accounting software and the like, it may be as easy as just printing out a report. The cost of good accounting software is so small, even the littlest apartment business can easily afford it, or deduct the cost from state and federal taxes. The cost benefit of such investment in the real world is so good, it could be considered bad business practice NOT TO DO SO.

In conclusion

VOTERS MUST NOT REPEAL MEASURE V AT THE SOONEST OPPORTUNITY.

I recently went to work for a property management company and here is something I am seeing on a weekly/monthly basis. In cities not yet under rent control, long term owners, "mom and pops" who have been minimally increasing rates are asking me to raise rents quickly to get them to current market rates, in some cases giving tenants 60 days to vacate or be willing to pay big increases. They don't want to do it, they are those owners who have "big hearts" and try to help tenants but they are seeing what happened in MV and what's being discussed in Pacifica, Redwood City etc and they're afraid they're going to get stuck with strict controls that will bind them and potentially cause them economic hardship. Again, these are those really good landlords, the ones who care about their tenants and have given minimal increases over the years.

These affordable units are being pulled off the market ALL ACROSS THE BAY by owners who don't want to get left holding the bag for a failed rent control policy. I place the blame firmly on the shoulders of the proponents of rent control and the false ideology the Stanford law group represents.

Shame on you.

In response to Bay-wide you said:

”I recently went to work for a property management company and here is something I am seeing on a weekly/monthly basis. In cities not yet under rent control, long term owners, "mom and pops" who have been minimally increasing rates are asking me to raise rents quickly to get them to current market rates, in some cases giving tenants 60 days to vacate or be willing to pay big increases.”

So the first observation is that you are speaking BECAUSE IT IS YOUR BUSINESS TO RAISE RENTS AND FORCE PEOPLE OUT OF THEIR APARTMENTS, IS THIS CORRECT? Second, if the rents are raised simply for raising them sake, then this seems to contradict your claim that “mom and pops” are in fact being reasonable regarding their rent polices. You wen on to say:

“They don't want to do it, they are those owners who have "big hearts" and try to help tenants but they are seeing what happened in MV and what's being discussed in Pacifica, Redwood City etc and they're afraid they're going to get stuck with strict controls that will bind them and potentially cause them economic hardship.”

That is not a valid explanation at all. IF they truly have “BIG HEARTS” they would not attempt to raise rents simply because another neighborhood chose to implement rent control. It has nothing to do with them until their properties are in fact getting under the regulations of rent. And in fact, by raising the rents the way you describe simply almost guarantees that the people in that city will work to implement rent control and even worse require a “rent-rollback”. This action seems to be very poorly thought out. You also said:

“Again, these are those really good landlords, the ones who care about their tenants and have given minimal increases over the years.”

First, I cannot simply take your word for it. I need this to be demonstrated by disclosing who these people are, what the properties your talking about, what the amenities are to use in comparison to others, and the rents being paid in comparison to those with the same kind of apartments. This is a notorious, yet unsubstantiated claim made by the CAA repetitively. It seems that we have a CAA representative remaking the same arguments it made during the Measure V campaign. You go on to say:


“These affordable units are being pulled off the market ALL ACROSS THE BAY by owners who don't want to get left holding the bag for a failed rent control policy.”

You are arguing a conclusion that has not yet been proven, instead your just grasping at any excuse to justify a “cash-out” scheme. But it is true as of now that you can “cash-out” at any time due to the Ellis Act. You go on to say:

“I place the blame firmly on the shoulders of the proponents of rent control and the false ideology the Stanford law group represents.”

I think what you’re really saying is that with the likelihood of Costa Hawkins being repealed by ballot initiative, and the success of ballot measures putting more responsibilities regarding the justifications for raising rent, your economic interest is threatened. So be it. The reality is this is avoidable by CHOOSING NOT TO TAKE ACTIONS AS DESCRIBED ABOVE, you’re just pushing the communities to take the actions you want to prevent.

Bay-wide accurately represents what is/will happen.

The academic paper from all places Stanford (the independent thinking section, not the Mills Clinic) referred to in this article:

Web Link

Will have all landlords logically doing what Bay-wide describes. They gotta do what they gotta do, which is their right as private property owner. More people get screwed by rent control than those that benefit.

Landlords who invested in their properties, were selective to get quality tenants without compromise will be fine, they can exit now at strong return, others will need to resort to more desperate measures that will take longer.

What a travesty.

In response to Ridiculous you said:

“The academic paper from all places Stanford (the independent thinking section, not the Mills Clinic) referred to in this article:”

Web Link

Well as Ronald Reagan would say, “there you go again”. I read the article, and it was not written in compliance with the American Economics Association Guidelines established in June 2012 which states:

These are the new guidelines:

“(1) Every submitted article should state the SOURCES OF FINANCIAL SUPPORT FOR THE PARTICULAR RESEARCH IT DESCRIBES. If none, that fact should be stated.”

NEVER THE SOURCES OF FINANCIAL SUPPORT IN THIS “WORKING PAPER” IT APPEARS.

“(2) Each author of a submitted article should identify EACH INTERESTED PARTY FROM WHOM HE OR SHE HAS RECEIVED SIGNIFICANT FINANCIAL SUPPORT, SUMMING TO AT LEAST $10,000 IN THE PAST THREE YEARS, IN THE FORM OF CONSULTANT FEES, RETAINERS, GRANTS AND THE LIKE. The disclosure requirement also includes IN-KIND SUPPORT, SUCH AS PROVIDING ACCESS TO DATA. IF THE SUPPORT IN QUESTION COMES WITH A NON-DISCLOSURE OBLIGATION, THAT FACT SHOULD BE STATED, ALONG WITH AS MUCH INFORMATION AS THE OBLIGATION PERMITS. If there are no such sources of funds, that fact should be stated explicitly. An “interested” party is any individual, group, or organization that has a financial, ideological, or political stake related to the article.”

AGAIN IT APPEARS REBECCA DIAMOND, TIM MCQUADE, & FRANKLIN QIAN FLAGRENTLY VIOLATED THIS GUIDELINE.

“(3) EACH AUTHOR SHOULD DISCLOSE ANY PAID OR UNPAID POSITIONS AS OFFICER, DIRECTOR, OR BOARD MEMBER OF RELEVANT NON-PROFIT ADVOCACY ORGANIZATIONS OR PROFIT-MAKING ENTITIES. A “relevant” organization is one whose policy positions, goals, or financial interests relate to the article.”

AGAIN IT APPEARS REBECCA DIAMOND, TIM MCQUADE, & FRANKLIN QIAN FLAGRENTLY VIOLATED THIS GUIDELINE. REBECCA DIAMOND DID NOT DISCLOSE SHE IS A MEMBER OF THE “THE NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH” WHICH IS A PRIVATE INTEREST GROUP AND NOT A GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY SEEN HERE: (http://www.nber.org). TIM MCQUADE DID NOT DISCLOSE THAT IT APPEARWS HES IS A MEMBER OF THE “CENTRE FOR ECONOMC POLICY RESEARCH” WHICH IS A PRIVATE INTEREST GROUP AND NOT A GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY SEEN HERE: (http://cepr.org). FRANKLIN QIAM NOT DISCLOSE HE APPEARS TO BE A MEMBER OF THE “CENTRE FOR ECONOMC POLICY RESEARCH” WHICH IS A PRIVATE INTEREST GROUP AND NOT A GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY SEEN HERE: (http://cepr.org).

“(4) The disclosures required above apply to any close relative or partner of any author.”

THIS MIGHT NOT APPLY HERE EXCPET WE DO NOT KNOW MUCH ABOUT THE AUTHORS PARTNERSHIPS OR RELATIVES.

“(5) Each author must disclose if another party had the right to review the paper prior to its circulation.”

THIS RAISES A SERIOUS QUESTION. DID REBECCA DIAMOND, TIM MCQUADE, & FRANKLIN QIAN PRIOR TO PUBLIC DISCLOSURE ALLOWED FOR INTERESTED PARTIES TO MAKE SUGGESTIONS OR MANIPULATE THE PROPOSED INFORMATION?

“(6) For published articles, INFORMATION ON RELEVANT POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST WILL BE MADE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC.”

AGAIN IT APPEARS REBECCA DIAMOND, TIM MCQUADE, & FRANKLIN QIAN FLAGRENTLY VIOLATES THIS GUIDELINE

“(7) The AEA urges its members and other economists to apply the above principles in other publications: scholarly journals, op-ed pieces, newspaper and magazine columns, radio and television commentaries, as well as in testimony before federal and state legislative committees and other agencies.”

IF REBECCA DIAMOND, TIM MCQUADE, & FRANKLIN QIAN ARE MEMBERS OF THE AMERICAN ECONOMIC ASSOCIATION, THIS SEEMS TO INDICATE THAT THEIR MEMBERSHIP SHOULD BE CANCELED ON THE BASIS OF NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE GUIDELINES.

“Will have all landlords logically doing what Bay-wide describes. They gotta do what they gotta do, which is their right as private property owner. More people get screwed by rent control than those that benefit.”

As far as this report is concerned, given that it did not comply with the AEA guidelines, it cannot be a sound basis to support your point of view. You need better material.

“Landlords who invested in their properties, were selective to get quality tenants without compromise will be fine, they can exit now at strong return, others will need to resort to more desperate measures that will take longer.”

To me that sounds more like a threat to the public, either be subject to our terms, or we will eliminate your protection from the elements by removing your shelter. To me this is not a good way to win friends or influence people.

“What a travesty.”

Yes, it sure is, when those threaten others regarding what is their right to do. Participate in the political process of the state of California. You’re making it very difficult to encourage the public to support you.

Laughable comments from those running the RHC:

. . . said Committee Member Matthew Grunewald. "This first year is going to be the most expensive year, I hope."

** East Palo Alto charges $234.00 per rental unit
** Berkeley charges $270.00 per rental unit

The Mt. View RHC will run up a budgtet deficit in excess of $1M during 2018.

It's disconcerting to read the comments here, and see that those who chose to support rent control are desperately spinning the story now. What you REALLY have are small landlords taking a huge hit and getting out of the business. Their renters will either be forced to leave the area, or pay much more for any remaining units available. Some are selling to developers who will tear down old units and build new and much more expensive condos - either for sale or for much higher rents.

Supporters of this measure deny the fact that maintenance increases at a much faster percent than the building owners can handle, for the meager increases they are allowed. They also didn't admit that their Rental Committee would be such a massive drain on City finances - and ever increasing. There is still no mention that when City funds are used, it's WE TAXPAYERS who are paying the bill, until they can be reimbursed - and full reimbursement is simply not going to happen.

I read supporters excuses and misdirection here, refusing to admit this measure is taking taxpayers down the rabbit hole, with bad results for everyone, including renters. Supporters rhetoric just is howling into the wind. I remind you: you are allowed to make choices, but you are not exempt from the consequences of those choices. We will see massive expenses that cannot be covered by merely a fee, a huge bill for taxpayers (you and me) to cover, less rentals available and those available will eventually be converted to much more expensive units.

There is good reason why the majority of states refuse to have total rent control - it doesn't produce what it promises. Now we live with the consequences of a false, misleading, and counter-productive measure - which hurts those it professed to protect. How pathetic.

In response to Consequences, you said:

“It's disconcerting to read the comments here, and see that those who chose to support rent control are desperately spinning the story now. What you REALLY have are small landlords taking a huge hit and getting out of the business. Their renters will either be forced to leave the area, or pay much more for any remaining units available. Some are selling to developers who will tear down old units and build new and much more expensive condos - either for sale or for much higher rents. “

So far, there is no evidence that this is happening yet. And just watch out, there is only a 50/50 chance that Costa Hawkins will not be repealed. If it does, than all of the state of California will have rent control. But as of now only 4.5% of the municipalities of CA have rent control on buildings older than 1995. You also stated:

“Supporters of this measure deny the fact that maintenance increases at a much faster percent than the building owners can handle, for the meager increases they are allowed. They also didn't admit that their Rental Committee would be such a massive drain on City finances - and ever increasing. There is still no mention that when City funds are used, it's WE TAXPAYERS who are paying the bill, until they can be reimbursed - and full reimbursement is simply not going to happen. “

Maintenance cost increases are a valid and accepted for the issue of a petition for a rent adjustment. You forget that. Also it is no cost to petition at the current time since the RHC added the cost of petitions on the fee. Thus the petitions themselves are free. I never supported this idea, it should have been that the landlord petitions should have been charged at $1,000 per petition, and the CSFRA rental fee should have excluded the petition costs. But this is the way the RHC made their choice. You said:

“I read supporters excuses and misdirection here, refusing to admit this measure is taking taxpayers down the rabbit hole, with bad results for everyone, including renters. Supporters rhetoric just is howling into the wind. I remind you: you are allowed to make choices, but you are not exempt from the consequences of those choices. We will see massive expenses that cannot be covered by merely a fee, a huge bill for taxpayers (you and me) to cover, less rentals available and those available will eventually be converted to much more expensive units. “

That depends if there are members of the RHC board that act to sabotage the effective and efficient functioning of the RHC. And with Tom Means, that is exactly what is happening. You cannot hold the voters accountable given that the City Council chose the RHC membership and not the voters. So Measure V or the CSFRA is not to blame for this problem. The City Attorney and City Council have taken all actions possible to interfere with the effectiveness and efficiency of the CSFRA. You should hold them accountable for it. You also said:

“There is good reason why the majority of states refuse to have total rent control - it doesn't produce what it promises. Now we live with the consequences of a false, misleading, and counter-productive measure - which hurts those it professed to protect. How pathetic.”

This statement is completely false and you should know it You are making statements that are not accurate, there are 28 states with “preemptions” not on rent control illegality, in my research I have found that: (Web Link

14 states do have complete ban on rent control they are Washington, Idaho, North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Illinois, Michigan, Alabama, Massachusetts, Arizona, and Tennessee. Oregon does not control initial rate, but controls rent increases under the law. 5 states Utah, Mississippi, South Carolina, Wisconsin and Indiana have state reserved rights to rent control. 4 states have limited rent control New Mexico, Florida, Georgia, and Kentucky has some rent control based on public contracted services. 3 states have exceptions Minnesota, Connecticut, and North Carolina has exceptions, allowing limited rent control under conditions. New Hampshire is still in pending litigation regarding state policy. Colorado allows for control of private property that has public investment.

So only 15 states specifically prohibit all rent control out of 50, that is only 30% of the country. Your assumption seems to be not well founded. And on top of that those that have no rent control, like California under Costa Hawkins, are the ones with the highest shortage of apartments.

However, this does not mean they are in fact providing ample inventory at all. From the article found here (Web Link And this (Web Link

Washington State which bans rent control for example is undergoing a significant battle regarding its current policy, it is the 8th worst affordable place to live according to this report (Web Link Wouldn’t you think that without rent control, under your analysis, there would be ample inventory of apartments?

To me these articles demonstrate a significant market manipulation based on “supply-side” economics, and politicians establishing public policies that give the advantage to the industry that does not actually want to correct the problem. If in fact the 15 states policies were effective why are they also experiencing a critical shortage of apartments?

In fact many of these states have legislation pending to revise these issues. It may be that those states that prohibit rent control will in fact employ some controls very soon given they are experiencing the same problems occurring in California.

You prove my point with your lengthy manipulations and excuses. I said very clearly that "the majority of states refuse to have total rent control " and in your eagerness to disprove opponents, you fail in trying to prove that false. Yes - I am correct and you are wrong. Only 15 states have total rent control - meaning that few states have total rent control - as you admit. There are more states (28) that have some degree, but it is no where near the severity of Mountain View. So most states realize the severe damage of total rent control, such as that Mountain View now suffers.

So proceed, "Business Man" with your lengthy diatribes trying to prove yourself knowledgeable. The results will show who is right and truly had the best in mind for Mountain View. Rent Control will lead us to many fewer rentals, much higher rents for those yet available, and a huge tax burden on the taxpayers of this city - consequences of rent control that you and I will suffer - along with all of Mountain View.

I am not here to get into a personal battle with you, because I don't care to endure more of your lengthy responses. We will agree to disagree.

In what strange world is Measure V "total rent control?" It applies only to multi-family dwellings built before 1995.

Renting a single-family home? No rent control.
Renting a townhouse or condo? No rent control.
Renting at the new apartment complex in San Antonio? No rent control.

I know you think you "won" against the Business Man in your rant, but making things up as you go to win an argument just makes you look like a fool.

I agree with you, @Timothy Regis. It's true that many of Business Man's posts are long, but I think of them as "thorough". I appreciate the time he takes to research important topics, and the clear and logical presentation of his posts. In a sideways sort of way, I also appreciate some posters' attempts to discredit BM's posts, because his rebuttals reveal that his positions stand up to dispute.

Well, it is settled then. The Business Man should run for Mountain View City Council. His deep, insightful, thought provoking unbiased analysis is much needed. Where can monetary contributions for this effort be sent? Let's regulate all privately owned real estate in Mountain View and make it a great place to live for any and all who want to live here.

To bring a little humor into the subject, referring to me as BM reminds me of “Bowel Movement”.. I can be described as that.

I would never run for City Council, why? Because I know that I do not have the resources to solve the severely entrenched problems with Mountain View. The reality is one person cannot make a difference in this situation. It would require an entirely new City Council with far more real skills necessary to address these problems. But the likelihood of that happening given the political reality here is practically impossible. Just look at how Lenny Siegel gets abused to a significant degree. He may be “Vice-Mayor” but it is just like Vice President John Nance Garner said, “The Vice-Presidency (i.e. Vice Mayor) as being "not worth a bucket of warm piss" The reality is that I simply really don’t know how to fix the problems. So trying to put me into the position to do so would be a severe mistake.

My best place is right where I am, a concerned citizen, expressing my first amendment rights to contribute to the discussion. Believe me, that amount of responsibility for such little power is just not worth it.

Oh dear, Business Man, sorry about that and thanks for having a sense of humor! In retrospect, I should have paid better attention and perhaps used "TBM" or avoided shortcuts altogether.

As for how to fix things, well, one approach is to look at the causes of our troubles and reverse them. Other cities and countries put community first and don't allow takeover by corporations and foreign real estate investors. The wheel's already been invented; all we need to do is copycat.

I am referring to Mountain View's rent control in particular - how our new law is total for those rentals affected, not the partial rent control that is available in many states. It's a lengthy explanation as each state is quite different in what they allow landlords to deduct, what they can increase in rents, can they add utilities, what degree of maintenance allowed, etc. Mountain View has a total control on the units they put under rent control.
I doubt anyone thinks every rental in Mountain View is under rent control - and that is clearly not the subject here. It's made clear over and over.
I notice when people don't understand another's argument, they often descend to name calling, as you have. I understand your frustration, though. You've gotten a lot of unintended negatives in what you voted for, and it's going to cost you one way or another.

"60% of the time, it works every time"

I don't think you understand what the word "total" means. What do you actually mean by it?

I'm sorry I offended you, @To Anke.

"I notice when people don't understand another's argument, they often descend to name calling, as you have. "

Where have I descended to name calling?


"I understand your frustration, though. You've gotten a lot of unintended negatives in what you voted for, and it's going to cost you one way or another. "

How could you know how I vote?

@TBM, my job is to help my tenants find the best home within their budget and their means while balancing the investment of my owners.

You state" if the rents are raised simply for raising them sake"...that is not what I stated. The rents are being raised TO MARKET VALUE due to owner concerns that rent control will come in and lock them down below market rate.

I am not a CAA agent. I am not "grasping" at anything.I am speaking truths, I am just telling you what I experience on an ever-more consistent basis. I am not going to give you specifics because it's frankly none of your business but I will share with you that we had an owner in another city with a 4-unit complex, tenants paying $1550 then in July owner requested that we increase to $1770 and now owner asking us to increase again. We let owner know that this isn't good business, while we realize the units were not near market value it's bad business to continually increase rates on tenants. We are no longer managing the property. It's my understanding that owner is going to give all tenants notice that rent will be increased to $2200 and they have 60 days to either agree or vacate. The very idea of rent control is pushing owners to raise rent!

Again, this is a small "mom and pop", the owner has for years been underpriced, using emotion rather than good business sense. The owner is elderly, the child is stepping in and realizing how low rates are and understandably wants to be at market rate as rent control is being discussed and is a concern.

Rent control is like death to communities. It locks in a very few lucky people and drives up rents on the rest. Just look at San Francisco that has had rent control for years. It's the highest rental cost in the Bay. Guess what city that enacted rent control last year now is the #2 most expensive for rents in the Bay? Yes. Mountain View.

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]

MY observations regarding RHC session on Nov 6, 2017:

First, no City Attorney was present at the meeting. That makes sense to me, the City Attorney has provided very poor advice and expressed significantly poor judgment through the birth of the CSFRA.. The City outside counsel was there instead.

After my public comment, it appeared that Tom Means finally googled CSU:Fresno ant Professor Timothy Stearns.

I could clearly observe his shock to discover that CSU does in fact deal with tenured professors harshly when dealing with their misconduct.

It was soon after that, that he did not endorse any “Fee-splitting” with regards to tenants. He did however agree with me that the City should bear the costs sharing in that respect. The only action taken was that a letter would be issued to the City Council to have $1,000.000. be allocated to reduce the landlords costs of the CSFRA fee. They refused to act on any fee-sharing by tenants, thereby leaving the landlord fee to be solely the responsibility of the landlords.

I always said the City in its active sabotage of the CSFRA by the City Attorney and the City Council in effect added as much a $600,000 at minimum to the costs of the CSFRA. IT was only logical that the City must bear that cost.

John Inks was observed as greatly opposed to the idea. Of course, it WAS his ACTIONS that caused the ENTIRE MESS IN THE FIRST PLACE given the closed door meeting on December 21 or 22 when he instructed City attorney to stipulate to the initial TRO that CAUSED SUCH A MESS FOR EVERYONE.

What is interesting is the City Council cannot oppose this action, GIVEN THAT THE CITY CHARTER IS WRITTEN TO AUTHORIZE THE RHC TO ACCESS ANY CITY FUNDS IT NEEDS. If the City opposes to provide funds, it will simply violate the City Charter.

Thank you for another well-researched, informative post, Business Man.

"a letter would be issued to the City Council to have $1,000.000. be allocated to reduce the landlords costs of the CSFRA fee"

Do you have any details on that? Is that $1k per year, per case, total forever?


"I always said the City in its active sabotage of the CSFRA by the City Attorney and the City Council in effect added as much a $600,000 at minimum to the costs of the CSFRA. IT was only logical that the City must bear that cost."

Logical, certainly. But the city is all of us, and any of us could think of a long list of far better uses for those funds. What a waste.


And referring to earlier posts, speaking of fixing things, our pragmatic-minded neighbors to the North have decided to stop fooling around and start looking at the big picture for real solutions. The below link from the San Francisco Chronicle is unfortunately behind a paywall, but they might post the article to their public site (sfgate.com). I've included a few excerpts.

Web Link

"Vancouver looks to collaborate with San Francisco on housing solutions"
By Gregor Robertson and Gil KelleyNovember 2, 2017 Updated: November 5, 2017 1:27pm

"The cities of the North American West Coast share so much as vibrant, sustainable and prosperous places to live and work in the 21st century."

"We also face a common threat to that livability. We are seeing unprecedented escalation in housing costs for our working families, the “missing middle” and young professionals, as well as the increasing pressure on our most vulnerable populations."

"We’ve learned the causes of the housing crisis are deep and powerful: housing is increasingly not “home” first but rather a commodity for investment on a global market for investors large and small, foreign and local, as interest rates remain low and equity searches for substantial returns. "

The article continues with their ideas for reclaiming cities for those who have been squeezed out and restoring vibrancy.

Further observations and response:

I noticed on 3 occasions Vanessa Honey claimed there were 3 board members in favor of the “fee-sharing” approach. Not only was that not true, but on those occasions Tom Means had to correct her. It almost looked like she wanted to “will” the board into attempting what the bard could NOT do.

The CSFRA being a City Charter, cannot be modified by either the RHC, the City Council or the City Attorney. Tom me it was attempting to reject the rules and in a sense reality on behalf of the RHC.

I made a formal demand to the Board for violating MY rights during the October 23rd session. It appears that Vanessa Honey simply doesn’t understand the rules that apply regarding her conduct. I strongly urge the rest of the board to demonstrate to her the problems she is causing by not paying attention to the discussion around her, and not understanding the rules that she broke with regards to the prior meeting. It took 3 times for Venessa to understand that only 2 member were in support of an act that was simply illegal and violated the boards authority.

As far as the $1,000,000. Letter to the council. That is a flat rate letter.

It is determined that the board could not order a regulation establishing a fee “pass-through”. And the fact that the CSFRA fee pays for a free petition process regarding the landlords right to a rent increase due to “unavoidable” additional cost. For example the CSFRA fee. It would only be logical that all landlords will petition for that rent increase to pass the CSFRA fee to the tenant. That is their right under CSFRA in fact. Depending on if the tenants can demonstrate any violation of the CSFRA committed by the landlords, if they can, the petition is required to be dismissed.

The petition costs are now going to increase significantly

In response to Bay-wide you said:

“@TBM, my job is to help my tenants find the best home within their budget and their means while balancing the investment of my owners. “

So do you in fact find other places for those you price out of your apartment? What records do you have of success in doing this? Do you expect me to take you at your word when you use a fake name. My name is Steven Goldstein, what’s yours? You said:

“You state" if the rents are raised simply for raising them sake"...that is not what I stated. The rents are being raised TO MARKET VALUE due to owner concerns that rent control will come in and lock them down below market rate. “

What measure are you using to establish “Market Rate”? It simply doesn’t matter if you claim a rent is below market rate unless for example you document the HUD Fair Market Rent of your apartment and then disclose the rent being charged. To me, this simply is not a sufficient explanation of your business practice until you disclose the information I just suggested. You went on to say:

“I am not a CAA agent. I am not "grasping" at anything.I am speaking truths, I am just telling you what I experience on an ever-more consistent basis. I am not going to give you specifics because it's frankly none of your business…”

If your going to discuss things in a public forum, you must back up your discussion with disclosure of relevant information. Withoput it, how can one grant you proper consideration? You can understand my skepticism. You went on to say:

“ but I will share with you that we had an owner in another city with a 4-unit complex, tenants paying $1550 then in July owner requested that we increase to $1770 and now owner asking us to increase again.”

Until I can see “WHERE” this complex is, and find out the HUD FMR, I cannot tell if you are alreaedy getting a Fair Market Rent in that complex. You are not providing enough information to the public for your consideration. You went on to say:

“We let owner know that this isn't good business, while we realize the units were not near market value it's bad business to continually increase rates on tenants. We are no longer managing the property.”

However, you are not disclosing how you stopped working that property, were you in fact FIRED or TERMINATED because of this issue, or some other issue. How am I supposed to know? If you were willing to provide enough information for me to learn that your conduct was in fact “ethical” but “penalized” I would be the first to support you. You went on to say:

“ It's my understanding that owner is going to give all tenants notice that rent will be increased to $2200 and they have 60 days to either agree or vacate. The very idea of rent control is pushing owners to raise rent! “

The idea is not sufficient enough to justify abuse of customers that do nothing to deserve such treatment. You must really know this. You go on to say:

“Again, this is a small "mom and pop", the owner has for years been underpriced, using emotion rather than good business sense. The owner is elderly, the child is stepping in and realizing how low rates are and understandably wants to be at market rate as rent control is being discussed and is a concern. “

Again, I simply do not have enough information to determine the validity of that situation. Until I do, I simply cannot just “take your word for it”. You go on to say:

“Rent control is like death to communities. It locks in a very few lucky people and drives up rents on the rest. Just look at San Francisco that has had rent control for years. It's the highest rental cost in the Bay. Guess what city that enacted rent control last year now is the #2 most expensive for rents in the Bay? Yes. Mountain View.”

Given it can be proven that the rent controlled units in San Francisco and Mountain View are a significant minority of the total apartments, I have a hard time agreeing with you. What you have is the market using anti-competitive collaboration to provide more expensive apartments and less of them to inflate the cost of living in California in general.

What I find difficult to understand is there are no records indicating the total number of apartments in San Francisco, and also the total counted as rent controlled. My suspicion is that the apartment industry refuses to construct such data because it will prove that the total rent controlled versus the total apartments is a very small minority of them.

The same will occur here in Mountain View. The only statistic that I heard was there are 16,000 that are covered by CSFRA. But what is the total amount of apartments in Mountain View? Given that there has been 20+ years to build, and you can easily observe many new apartments, this number should dwarf the older ones. The simple fact is rent control only impacts a minority of apartments, but you do not want to discuss this fact.

If it is true that as few as 10-20% of the apartments are old enough for rent control. The why claim that rent control forces the rest of the market to be higher in price? The only excuse is that the apartment owners abuse the market to make up for poor management. The only way to prove otherwise is to disclose the business practices and allow a disinterested party to analyze it. If you say it is not anyone’s business, then we cannot simply “take your word for it”. Sorry.

Something very important just came to me. If in fact the new Guidelines from American Economist Association Guidelines from (Web Link You can look up the page, since I have been criticized for being TOO LONG

This would mean that if this disclosure is NOT PROVIDED, said RESEARCH IS IN EFFECT DISQUALIFIED as upholding the scientific integrity. This also would apply to any report USING PREVIOUS ECONOMIC RESEARCH, FORMULAS, OR ALGORITHMS THAT ALSO DID NOT PROVIDE SAID DISCLOSURE. WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?

IT MEANS ALL PRIOR RESEARCH LACKIG DISCLOSURE IS RENDERED VOID.

This applies to any economics studies OF ANY KIND REGARDING ANY THEORY.

IN EFFECT THE SCIENCE OF ECONOMICS HAS TO RESET AND START WITH TOTALLY NEW RESEARCH THAT IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH SAID GUIDELINS. THE SCIENCE CANNOT AWARD ANY CONSIDERATION REGARDING PAST WORKS THAT ARE NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THESE GUIDLIEMS BECAUSE THE RESULTS NO MATTER WHAT THEY ARE, ARE NOW RENDERRED TO HAVE NO ACADEMIC VALUE.

IN EFFECT ALL STUDIES DONE LACKING THIS DISCLOSURE ALSO MUST NOT BE CONSIDERED REGARDING AND PUBLIC POLICY CONSIDERATIONS.

THIS MEANS THERE MAY NOT BE ANY ECONOMIST AT THIS TIME THAT CAN ARGUE EITHER WAY. THE PUBLIC POLICY IS SOLELY DEPENDENT ON IF ONE IS ENCOURAGED BY OTHER INFLUENCES THAT CAN DETERMINE THE POLICY (I.E. CITIZENS UNITED).

This is going to throw the economics science into a void. TOO BAD.