The City Council majority appointed anti-rent control crusader Tom Means (and two other rent control opponents) to the Committee to undermine the rent measure. These City Councilmembers have no reason to "investigate" whether Means is doing the job they had in mind. He is.

What I find amazing is that landlords are playing games with their tenants.

They as a group plot to stretch the tenants’ economic resource to such an extent, that they are in effect always at risk of becoming homeless. This is by design. It is done so that the tenants will either stay in apartments for a short term, less than 10 years, so that rents can always be increased.

At the same time the tenants will take any work possible just to prevent the loss of residence.

What this force does is puts a downward force on wages and salaries for all businesses. Thus is the ultimate objective. That is why investors in effect get involved in the business. By making their potential employees or contractors desperate, they by duress require work performed at compensation that is far below the actual value of that work.

And you wonder why the latest study of San Francisco indicated that the majority of rents take more than 30% or 50% of a tenant’s income? And don’t try to say it is rent control because rent control applies to apartments built before June, 13, 1979.

Those apartments are NOT RENT CONTROLLED. The City unfortunately does not track apartments at least from what I see on the City website. But by simple logic, especially after the big quake in 1989, that many of the older apartments were damaged enough that they got rebuilt. Thus their rent control status is likely there is none.

If one would look, I would not be surprised if the rent controlled apartments comprise less than 15% of the apartment market in SF.

What does this have to do with Mountain View? The city government is in effect a racketeer influenced and corrupt organization working for the benefit of their benefactors that pay for their political campaigns. In effect the money provided is protected under Citizens United, but it can be investigated as to whether the City chooses actions that can be proven to be designed to benefit their political supporters.

I find it disappointing, shallow, even grotesque that two Voice editorials in a row (one of them "Guest Opinion") would attack Tom Means, when a far more diverse range of views exists in the community (even if you just asked people who aren't landlords).

How about more real, fair, representative reporting on opinion in this complex and important topic, one that too easily devolves to demagoguery games and cheap shots. (As some Town-Square commenters are often at pains to prove.)

Excellent Guest Opinion... I've attended Rental Housing Committee meeting and think Scott Pruitt every time I hear Mr. Means speak. He is out to destroy the measure that voters approved.

In response to HUMBLE OBSERVER you said:

“I find it disappointing, shallow, even grotesque that two Voice editorials in a row (one of them "Guest Opinion") would attack Tom Means, when a far more diverse range of views exists in the community (even if you just asked people who aren't landlords).”

First, It simply goes with the “territory” that if you’re going to be in any political or governmental position that has impact on the public, you explicitly consent to any public scrutiny.

Second, the editorial and “guest opinion” are FIRST AMENDMENT EXPRESSIONS guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. You are also FREE TO EXPRESS YOURSELF, but the question is, what point of view will you express? You simply cannot demand that since you haven’t gone on the record like Michael Kahan, you can demand that Michael cannot be allowed to express himself.

At least he uses his real identity, like I do, STEVEN GOLDSTEIN. You hide behind a false identity as the “HUMBLE OBSERVER”. You go on to say:

“How about more REAL, FAIR, REPRESENTATIVE REPORTING on opinion in this complex and important topic, one that too easily devolves to demagoguery games and cheap shots. (As some Town-Square commenters are often at pains to prove.)”

If you are a reporter, go to work and report the story as you see it. If you’re just a “HUMBLE OBSERVER”, then continue observing humbly. If you want others to consider your opinion, stand up, REPRESENT YOURSELF, and demonstrate in what way this “guest opinion” is “UNREAL”, “UNFAIR”, or “MISREPRESENTATIVE REPORTING”. You have the right to do so. Demonstrate your “humble observations” in a substantive counter point. But simply claiming that the argument was based on “DEMAGOGUERY GAMES AND CHEAP SHOTS” is simply not worth considering.

What does President Trump have to do with the dismal state of affordable housing here in Mountain View? Mr. Kahan tries to draw a parallel between a few appointments the President made and the appointment of Tom Means to the RHC, but if that is what he was trying to do, he failed not only to show it was a bad thing, but his premise is also seriously flawed. Lets examine it:

Mr. Kahan claims that the President's appointments are opposed to the missions of the agencies that they head. This statement is patently false, or at the very least hyperbole. For example, Betsy Devos has dedicated a significant portion of her life to improving education for all students, but especially students of color. Are we to believe then that the Department of Education's mission is to ensure that students of color are not educated effectively? One could certainly make that argument given the results! While it is true that poor and minority students are closing the gap (especially in the South), the fact that approximately 1/4 of all Black and Hispanic students do not graduate is still greatly disturbing. The approach that Ms. Devos took in Detroit with expanding the Charter School Programs has proven to be successful overall leading to significant improvements in reading for Blacks, and significant improvement in math for Blacks AND Hispanics ( Web Link ).

Let's look at Mr. Pruitt of the EPA next. He was confirmed on an 11-0 vote by the Senate Environment and Public Works subcommittee; and 52-46 by the full Senate which included 2 Democrat votes, so obviously the Senate does not share Mr. Kahan's opinion.

Finally let's look at Mr. Perry at the Department of Energy. Mr Perry was at one time a very vocal critic of the President, but President Trump chose him for his knowledge and skills rather than as some Presidents have done, primarily choosing only those that agree with them. While true that Mr. Perry did at one time want to abolish the Department of Energy, he did accept the appointment and has continued to fight for the things he believes are in the best interests of America's Energy needs and programs even if they bring him into conflict with the President's priorities ( Web Link ). It is this type of independent thinking that we need at ALL levels of government, but especially at the local levels where too many agencies, representatives, and commissions suffer from group-think.

As to Mr. Means arguments about rents, in my opinion he is entirely correct. When incomes were going down, so were the rents. I was living here in Mountain View about 8 years ago when my landlord had to decrease the rent due to the fact that I could not find additional roommates to split the rent because the rental market had dropped for this area. Also, while Mr. Kahan notes a study from The National Low Income Housing Coalition, he fails to note whether or not the information from the study is specific to Mountain View or are national statistics.

Lastly, one can be opposed to a law, but still maintain one's integrity and objectivity as to enforcing that law. I know Tom Means personally and I know him to be a man of great insight and integrity. Unless he has or does violate the rules of the RHC, there is NO reason for the Council to remove him from his appointed position. It would be disturbing for a city that prides itself on diversity to deprive itself of someone who is a proven and extremely capably community leader because some do not agree with his diversity of thought.


Jim Neal
Old Mountain View

I wonder, Mr Kayan, how can you continue to support rent control when every economic study, every factual overview, PROVES that it does not work! How can you continue to support rent control when acts like this article are published?

Web Link

Um, Counter-point, your article states "occupants of rent-controlled apartments built before 1980 are 20 percent more likely to stay than other renters." That sounds like rent control working.

In response to Counter-point you said:

“I wonder, Mr Kayan, how can you continue to support rent control when every economic study, every factual overview, PROVES that it does not work!”

Unless you provide a resource that we can read, I will not address the premise. But as soon as you do, tI will read it with an open mind. You said:

“How can you continue to support rent control when acts like this article are published?

Web Link

This news report did not actually claim rent control was not working. In fact the article did say:

"Rent control exacerbates the housing shortage by pushing landlords to remove supply of rental housing," Diamond told SFGATE.”

And:

“She explained that the expansion of rent control "would likely benefit current tenants, especially older ones who likely do not need to move very often," but in the long term, "the rental market will make all rents even more expensive by causing landlords TO REMOVE SUPPLY."

Isn’t that ANTI-COMPETITIVE PRACTICES UNDER THE SHERMAN ANTI-TRUST LAWS? Doesn’t that mean that the landlords are CONSPIRING TO MANIPULATE THE MARKET? To me the answer is surely YES.

The report went on to say:

"RENT CONTROL IS AN IMMEDIATE SOLUTION THAT WILL PROVIDE RELIEF TO FAMILIES EXPERIENCING DISPLACEMENT TODAY," she said. In the longterm, CONSTRUCTION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS ESSENTIAL FOR THOSE MOST THREATENED BY DISPLACEMENT.

"For-profit developers build to make a profit, AND THAT'S NOT THE KIND OF HOUSING WE NEED," she said.

The Stanford study found landlords with property in desirable neighborhoods WERE MORE LIKELY TO TRY TO REMOVE THEIR TENANTS, EITHER THROUGH MOVE-IN EVICTIONS, BUY OUTS OR THE ELLIS ACT, A LAW THAT ALLOWS LANDLORDS TO EVICT TENANTS IF THEY INTEND TO REMOVE THEIR PROPERTY FROM THE RENTAL MARKET (BY CONVERTING IT TO CONDOS, FOR EXAMPLE). “

Also:

“Renters impacted by a decreased housing supply could be protected against WITH GOVERNMENTAL INSURANCE, SUCH AS SUBSIDIES OR TAX CREDIT, AGAINST LARGE RENT INCREASES, THE STUDY AUTHORS SAY, WHICH WOULD SHIFT RESPONSIBILITY FROM LANDLORDS.”

Thus the Landlords want the public funds to subsidize their profits. This is completely insane. Why should the government get involved in providing private interests their profits? This simply makes no sense. Thhere is no way for an industry to expect the homeowners to be taxed so that those monies got to apartment renters. That is insane. The Apartment industry has to solve its own problems without government assistance. If in fact they build apartments that are unaffordable, then they go empty unless they allow for price cuts. Let the market deal with the problem by the market FORCING the landlords to lose monies based on bad business decisions.

You guys just can't accept that rent control does not work. Rent control does not provide lower housing to those in need. Rent control does not work. The very study posted in the article, by Stanford economists no less, says it every way possible but you still just can't accept it. You're so blinded you cannot see the truths that are being presented.

But it doesn't matter really. We have it. It's here. and it's already happening with buildings being sold and what once were affordable u it's being permanently removed from the market. You made your bed, you lay in it.

In response to Bay-wide you said:

“You guys just can't accept that rent control does not work. Rent control does not provide lower housing to those in need. Rent control does not work. The very study posted in the article, by Stanford economists no less, says it every way possible but you still just can't accept it. You're so blinded you cannot see the truths that are being presented.”

One item you neglected to mention, Rebecca Diamond and Timothy McQuade are associated with the National Bureau of Economic Research, it is a private, non-profit, non-partisan organization dedicated to conducting economic research and to disseminating research findings among academics, public policy makers, and business professionals. What is considered notoriously as a PAC used to lobby for policies that benefit it’s members.

Upon review of the study they did not disclose their participation in this private organization which is required under the American Economist Association Guidelines, she did not disclose if:

“Every submitted article should state the sources of financial support for the particular research it describes. IF NONE, THAT FACT SHOULD BE STATED.”

They did not disclose the financial support at all.

“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.”

They did not disclose any information either way.

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

They did not disclose either way.

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

They did not disclose either way.

“EACH AUTHOR MUST DISCLOSE IF ANOTHER PARTY HAD THE RIGHT TO REVIEW THE PAPER PRIOR TO ITS CIRCULATION.”( Web Link

They did not disclose either way

Without said disclosure, the legitimacy of this study simply is disqualified. I am surprised that the SFGate did not notice this problem. You go on to say:

“But it doesn't matter really. We have it. It's here. and it's already happening with buildings being sold and what once were affordable u it's being permanently removed from the market. You made your bed, you lay in it.”

It appears you’re in favor of violating anti-competitive business practice laws, too bad, I was thinking you were an ethical person. However you have just raised some questions.

Bay-wide, you're just a religious fundamentalist, but your religion is laissez-faire capitalism. The article posted shows that rent control works, in that it keeps tenants from being displaced from their homes. These are facts, but they fly in the face of your religious beliefs, so you reject them. Fortunately, facts don't care about your feelings. Sad!

People, before we can have meaningful debate about whether rent control "works" or not, we must first agree on the meaning of "works" in this context.

Both sides of the debate need to first clearly state what they mean by "works", otherwise, how can anyone gathering facts and data from the real world use them to decide whether rent control has been or is "working"?

When rent control advocates say it "works" ... does that include (vs. no rent control):

• Increases overall (gross) housing supply?
• Reduces jobs-housing imbalance (ratio)?
• Eases mobility (moving and finding new housing) as measured by increased vacancy rate (listings)?

Everything I've read and have been told, says no ... but I'm no expert.
What do the best papers and studies say about this?

The price of housing (rents) will stabilize and even fall to the extent the above 3 points are addressed. If rent control does that, then I'm for it. Otherwise, I'm not.

Separately, another point about rent control that some opponents point out is that it's unfair; that it amounts to a housing lottery in which tenants whether they are filthy rich or dirt poor get treated equally. Why should affluent (or even rich) tenants be allowed to hang onto (or even sublet at a profit) rent-controlled units when those who desperately need it are stuck sitting on the sidelines?

Rent control's goal is to decrease the risk of tenants being displaced by rising rents. It's Prop 13 for renters. There's no dispute that it accomplishes that goal.

In response to Reality Check you said:

“People, before we can have meaningful debate about whether rent control "works" or not, we must first agree on the meaning of "works" in this context.”

100%+ agreement. You said:

“Both sides of the debate need to first clearly state what they mean by "works", otherwise, how can anyone gathering facts and data from the real world use them to decide whether rent control has been or is "working"?”

Still 100%+ agreement

“When rent control advocates say it "works" ... does that include (vs. no rent control):

• Increases overall (gross) housing supply?”

Here is where I disagree, Rent control is not designed nor will it ever “FIX” housing supply. Its task is to prevent the systemic “price gouging” of a manipulated market. That is all it does. You then said:

“ Reduces jobs-housing imbalance (ratio)?”

Again, improvement of the jobs/housing balance that is NOT the purpose of rent control. Its task is to prevent the systemic “price gouging” of a manipulated market. That is all it does. You then said:

“Eases mobility (moving and finding new housing) as measured by increased vacancy rate (listings)?”

Again, easing mobility via increasing the vacancy rate is NOT the purpose of rent control. Its task is to prevent the systemic “price gouging” of a manipulated market. That is all it does. You then said:

“Everything I've read and have been told, says no ... but I'm no expert.”

That is 100% correct. The purpose of rent control is to establish public scrutiny of market manipulations or “price gouging” in a market that simply does not want to maximize availability, only cash flows. You went on to say:

“What do the best papers and studies say about this?

The price of housing (rents) will stabilize and even fall to the extent the above 3 points are addressed. If rent control does that, then I'm for it. Otherwise, I'm not.”

I am for the government to use its unique low cost of borrowing (in some cases the lowest interest rates possible)to build more apartments designated not-for-profit. Thus hopefully greatly increasing supply. But those who are in the current industry will argue that you are invading on their industry and causing them losses because increased supply will greatly reduce the demand/supply equilibrium. The will complain that their cost of borrowing is much higher. But their projects are not designed for the public and are for profit. Thus this allows the greatly reduced interest rates, let alone that government bonds can be issued to insure payment for the borrowed funds. The private sector simply cannot do this, which is their responsibility. You stated:

“Separately, another point about rent control that some opponents point out is that it's unfair; that it amounts to a housing lottery in which tenants whether they are filthy rich or dirt poor get treated equally. Why should affluent (or even rich) tenants be allowed to hang onto (or even sublet at a profit) rent-controlled units when those who desperately need it are stuck sitting on the sidelines?”

It is not a lottery, it is simply seniority of tenancy biased. However, the market is that way, and it will always be that way. The market is not being changed regarding this fact. Also again it simply doesn’t matter whether you are poor or wealthy if you are subjected to “price-gouging”. Rent control establishes public scrutiny to establish that said “price-gouging” is not occurring in the market. Isn’t it always been understood that “price-gouging” is an anti-competitive business practice which violates the Sherman Anti-Trust laws? Rent control is simply a method to prevent such violations of that law.

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.

The Stanford profile on professor Kahn states that he does not have a PhD in Economics, but rather in History, University of Pennsylvania (2002). I believe professor Means served in the Economics Dept. (SJSU) and has a PhD in Economics, UC Los Angeles (1983).

Tom Means' education as an economist has no bearing on whether or not he violated the prohibition on receiving honoraria by taking money from a realtor political organization while he was a sitting member of the Rental Housing Committee. Funny how everyone wants to ignore that issue.

@Shame: As an area expert with a PhD on the subject, Tom Means would have been asked to drafted a policy position regarding Pacifica's proposed rent control ordinance whether he was on the Mountain View RHC or not. It's a moot point that an inconsequential stipend was remitted to him. He likely copied and pasted his accurate summary and conclusions about rent control from existing papers he's already written over many years. Trump believes in a Keystone pipeline he's invested in, tears up trade agreements, sabotages health insurance mandates, cancels climate accords yet he still sits in the White House despite his opposition to existing laws and family's financial gains.

The greatest difference between Mountain View and Pacifica is that the majority of Pacifica voters are obviously more intelligent since the city's Measure C proposal was soundly defeated.

The facts explained to those who care about knowing the truth:

PACIFICA RENT CONTROL FACTS

"Rent control will create a stagnant housing market in Pacifica. As household incomes naturally increase, instead of buying a home, renters in a rent-controlled environment are incentivized to stay in the subsidized unit – even when they are making well over $200,000 annually, preventing scarce affordable housing from being available to those who really need it.

Rent control will reduce the number and quality of rental housing units available in Pacifica. Rent control exacerbates a housing shortage by incentivizing tenants to stay far longer in more affordable units. When government places an artificial control on rent, property owners are not able to adjust rents to accommodate increased costs or unexpected circumstances and properties deteriorate.

Rent control will lead to higher rents in Pacifica. Although people think rent control will lead to lower rents, the exact opposite is true. The rents of available apartments in rent controlled cities are dramatically higher than rents in cities without rent control. In cities without rent control, available units exist all along the spectrum from low-priced to high-priced. In rent controlled cities, the only units available are the highest priced, far above the median rent. When property owners have the freedom to adjust their rents as needed to accommodate costs, they are able to keep rents low. Under rent control, no property owner will keep rents low, as their flexibility has been eliminated.

Rent control will take the investment, life savings, and retirement from people in Pacifica who have invested their money in real estate. Many Pacificans have unconventional retirement plans. Rent control ordinances that prohibit property owners from asking for market rate rents unfairly steal from people's retirements.

Rent control will bankrupt Pacifica. Rent control ordinances create substantial administrative costs. Rent controls require the creation of convoluted bureaucratic systems. Rental property must be registered, detailed information on the rental property must be collected, complex systems for determining rents must be created, and processes for hearing complaints and appeals must be established. Pacifica is currently over $700,000 in debt. By the end of next year, Pacifica will be well over $2 million in debt.

Rent control will disproportionately harm Pacificans in affordable housing. Poorer families suffer a marked decline in existing housing as the quality of existing housing falls in response to reduced maintenance expenditures. The middle class have greater ability to move out, but poorer families lack this option. In addition, poor families are at a substantial disadvantage when it comes to finding new housing. In a tight market – as we currently have – there are more people looking for housing than available rental units, giving housing providers far more discretion in choosing among competing potential customers. In rent-controlled markets, housing providers turn to factors such as income and credit history to choose among competing renters.

Rent control means expensive consumer entry costs. In many rent-controlled communities, prospective consumers must pay substantial finder's fees to obtain a rental unit, due to the scarcity of available housing. And, in some rent-controlled areas, a "gray-market" in rental housing has developed in which units are passed among friends or family members, or new consumers may be required to pay "key money" or to make other payments to current consumers to obtain housing. Sub-leasing is common in rent-controlled cities.

Rent control will artificially destroy home values in Pacifica. Plummeting values will adversely impact our schools and city services. As home and apartment values decline, revenue from the county also declines. This will jeopardize the long term health of our schools and city infrastructure such as police, fire, and other services.

PACIFICA "JUST CAUSE" EVICTION FACTS

"Just Cause" Eviction will punish good renters in Pacifica. "Just Cause" Eviction ordinances have the detrimental effect of making "good tenants" endure years of harassment, verbal abuse, inconvenience, or dangerous living circumstances where they live in close proximity to drug dealers, petty thieves, and lewd or offensive individuals. Rarely will the "good tenants" testify in court for fear of their safety. Instead, they will expect the property owner to handle the problem. When it is not handled, the "good tenants" suffer.

"Just Cause" Eviction provisions dramatically increase the cost to evict problem tenants. With "just cause" eviction, the property owner has to prove that "good cause" exists, which requires witnesses and additional trial time. Under these circumstances, the problem tenant's attorney often requests a jury trial, hoping they can persuade jurors, who are less accustomed to dealing with problem tenants. In San Francisco, attorney's fees can exceed $150,000. These costs are passed on to the "good tenants" who suffer because "Just Cause" Eviction ordinances protect the "problem tenant" over the "good tenant."

Month-to-Month leases will be made virtually obsolete in Pacifica. While the tenant can serve the property owner with a 30 day notice, the property owner can only terminate the tenancy if the property owner can prove "just cause" in court. And, while the "just cause" might very well exist, it is extremely difficult to prove this in court, particularly when the good tenants or neighbors are scared or intimidated by going to court and testifying against the problem tenant.

There is no need for "just cause" eviction legislation in Pacifica — evictions are already costly and time consuming processes for property owners. Evictions can take several months and cost many thousands of dollars. Tenants being evicted often do physical damage to the property. For property owners, eviction is the final alternative to which they turn, not the first.

Gangs and criminal behavior thrive where "just cause" eviction ordinances are in place. In areas where "Just Cause" Eviction ordinances are enacted, it is virtually impossible for property owners to evict gang members due to the burden of proof placed on the property owner. In these situations, it is very unusual that a "good tenant," who is witness to the activities of a gang member, will actually testify in court on what he or she has seen for fear of retribution.

Good renters in Pacifica will experience harassment under the "just cause" eviction ordinance. The worst unintended consequence of all that will be created by this "Just Cause" eviction ordinances is when a property owner – facing tens of thousands of dollars in attorney's fees and several months in uncollected rent – decides NOT to evict because of this ordinance and leaves the "problem tenant" alone to harass, disturb, threaten, intimidate, or leer at neighboring tenants and neighbors, commit petty crimes, deal drugs, and engage in gang activity."

It's cute that you yourself just copy-pasted from a document circulated by SAMCAR. Not surprising, but cute, and shows precisely how much critical reasoning you've used to come to your conclusions.

Yet again, you cannot simply address whether or not Mr. Means violated the prohibition against receiving honoraria. The statute makes no provision for an "inconsequential stipend," as inconvenient as the facts of the matter are to you. Fortunately, facts and the law don't care about your feelings about rent control.

I response to Repeal Rent Control you said:

“@Shame: As an area expert with a PhD on the subject, Tom Means would have been asked to drafted a policy position regarding Pacifica's proposed rent control ordinance whether he was on the Mountain View RHC or not. It's a moot point that an inconsequential stipend was remitted to him. He likely copied and pasted his accurate summary and conclusions about rent control from existing papers he's already written over many years.”

There are two problems with Tom Means and his works. The first is he did not comply with the American Economics Association Disclosure requirements. I will provide the link here (Web Link Without the disclosure, this research simply has no economic scientific value at all. Tom Means as a competent “PhD” should have known this. He simply has been acting as a political advocate, and not an “economics scientist”. As long as he doesn’t comply with the guidelines, his publications are not scientific, but just political.

Second, he simply references previous studies with the same failure to disclose under the guidelines. The best description of this is it is “fruit from a poisonous tree” or if you read this:

“Fruit of the poisonous tree is a legal metaphor in the United States used to describe evidence that is obtained illegally. The logic of the terminology is that if the source (the "tree") of the evidence or evidence itself is tainted, then anything gained (the "fruit") from it is tainted as well.”( Web Link

Given that the research is done lacking proof of no conflict of interests disclosed, the research is identical to “evidence that is obtained illegally” thus the results and use of this research is the same as “then anything gained (the "fruit") from it is tainted as well”

The Economist community is required to in effect completely redo all previous researches so that the knowledge base of economics’ is “cleaned” for the “taint” of conflict of interest. Thus no “economics” studies until the disclosures are made public are valid in any way. Tom Means is surely aware of that too.