So basically, mobile home owners are screwed by the landlords AND by Mountain View...... great!

Not screwed, just paying market rate like people do for pretty much everything in life.

I don’t have price control for my medical bills or for a gallon of milk.

Mobile home owners have been found to be uniquely vulnerable to predatory park owners in both US Supreme Court cases and California court cases (Yee v. Escondido, Galland v. Clovis). When we purchase and improve our homes we contribute substantial value to the mobile home park, often more than the park owners themselves, but we can't take that value with us when we sell a mobile home. For this reason, many counties and cities across California have enacted rent control for mobile home owners to protect them against unfair actions by mobile home parks.

The city's legal counsel clearly advised that the CSFRA covers mobile homes. One RHC member said he still wasn't comfortable with doing anything and he told mobile home residents they should sue the city instead. As another RHC member said, it was negligent of the committee to abrogate their duty to implement the CSFRA as written.

It is gutless of the RHC to keep punting and flip flopping again and again on this issue. Although I oppose price controls on private property owners and know the CSFRA is a travesty, if it was imposed upon older apartments in Mountain View where the tenants had no tangible investment and could easily leave and seek other accomodations, I don't see how it cannot apply to prefab home owners as they cannot just pickup and move. To be clear, I totally oppose the CSFRA, but you can't apply it one group (owners of pre 1995 apartments) who are unprotected by Costa-Hawkins and then let another group (mobile home park land owners) off the hook. This will just cost the city more money in legal fees in the end, money that should be used on schools, roads, police, fire, water etc.

Tom Means is determined to bring rent control to an End. That's why the pro-landlord city council put him on the committee.

This situation is very troublesome.

THe significant lack of consistency makes business decisions regarding the City almost impossible.

Too much has not been worked out yet. It has been over a year. That is a sufficient grounds for criticism.

But, that problem is not related to the Charter Amendment, it is the problems with the City Council, and the lack of skills that exist regarding the City Housing Department and the lack of using models that work in other nearby communities.

This is going to continue until the full program has matured. It is still a baby in a stroller.

Mayor Means has done more for the City of Mountain View than just about anybody else...ever. Mayor Means is consistent is his decision making following the American Constitution and sound economic policy for all. He has made numerous personal sacrifices for others, his church, this City, for his students, etc. It's time we honor the MAN for all that he has done instead of going with political favorites who have no understanding of humanity.

Just goes to show (Owner of Santiago Villa) when you have money you can make things move in your favor. I understand running a business. Your in it to make money. Don't forget the people that have been lacing your Families pockets are the same people you take advantage of. We can't sell because no one wishes to pay that much space rent coming in especially for an older home so we are pushed in a direction to take less from a buyer or much much less from Santiago Villa buy out. Google being in our backyard has increased property value but for the Owner of the park not so much the seller of the home. It has not become a Family place but a place for those that are for the new age and have much more $$ to spend. So very sad indeed.

There are valid arguments for/against rent control, but the proper place for that is at the ballot. It's not right for a body created to enforce a voter passed change the the city's charter (constitution) to try to kill or roll it back (not even the city council should oppose a part of the city charter, they should just propose new ballot measures if they oppose this). The city council made a big mistake in appointing members seeking to obstruct the will of the voters.

If you don't like rent control, put it back on the ballot. This behind the scenes dismantling of democracy is the exactly what's going wrong with government at all levels.

It's truly sad, then, that Mr. Means decided to throw away his reputation and his integrity by undermining the City Charter. I suppose that's what the San Mateo County Association of Realtors was paying for, as selling out one's integrity doesn't come cheap.

What is overlooked in the discussion is that the City's counsel stands to gain from the expansion of rent control. Their position that the CSFRA include mobile homes is self serving. In fact, between the requirement that the hearing officers be attorneys (a regulation written by the City's outside legal counsel), the administration by Project Sentinel (who are either lawyers themselves or trained by lawyers) and that the disagreements between landlords and tenants that rent control fosters commonly results in legal conflict, it is fair to say that to a large degree rent control is an effective full employment strategy for many local members of the legal community.

My suggestion is to contact Stanford Law Clinic or Fenwick and West and file for a Writ of Mandate in the state courts to order the rent control enforcement on the land lot rent of a mobile home.

All legal analysis indicated that this is what the law is required to do, nonetheless of what the City or the RHC desires.

A writ of Mandate simply orders compliance with established law. Since it has been established by the RHC Legal Team that the law does work in this way, it seems to be a quick solution. Writs are required where non-compliance causes significant harm to those the law protects.

I should not take long.

A Writ of Mandate to put price control of every piece of commodity will be nice! Who doesn't want a private jet?

Bluejay,

It only works where the law establishes a course of action.

Feel free to propose a law dictating the price of a plane.

It's not fair to paint a broad picture of these landlords. I can't speak for Vidovich, but as far as the Oku family (Moffett Mobilehome Park), they are extremely fair with their tenants. I am commercial tenant of theirs and have nothing but praise. If the misguided attempt to control their space rents was achieved, it would simply force them to raise the rents at the maximum allowable rate and would likely hasten the sale of the park to a developer.

In response to Greg David you said:

“I am commercial tenant of theirs and have nothing but praise.”

Does this mean you own multiple mobile homes and rent them out yourself? I find this very confusing. It sounds like you are a subcontractor in the mobile home business. It indicates that your financial interests are intertwined. You also said:

“If the misguided attempt to control their space rents was achieved, it would simply force them to raise the rents at the maximum allowable rate and would likely hasten the sale of the park to a developer.”

This simply would only be the status quo. That is the course of action that is already happening. There is no “argument” to convey that if the CSFRA is not enforced, it would alter the behavior of these businesses. They will simply continue their original plans, nothing more.

Quick vocabulary refresher:

- Rent Regulation: rules applied to how much landlords can charge tenants generally.

- Rent control: rules that cap rents; landlords can't raise rents at all.

- Rent stabilization: rules that set limits on how much landlords can raise rents; they can still raise them, but they can't charge anything they want.

- Affordable housing crisis: a disaster that's right around the corner for Mountain View without rent regulation.

In Mountain View, we have the last two.

In response to JohnKWaters

The correction is Mountain view had:

Quick vocabulary refresher:

- Affordable housing crisis: a disaster that's right around the corner for Mountain View without rent regulation.


before we had this:


- Rent Regulation: rules applied to how much landlords can charge tenants generally.

- Rent control: rules that cap rents; landlords can't raise rents at all.

- Rent stabilization: rules that set limits on how much landlords can raise rents; they can still raise them, but they can't charge anything they want.

So the latter cannot be blamed for the former.

In response to JohnKWaters

The correction is Mountain view had:

Quick vocabulary refresher:

- Affordable housing crisis: a disaster that's right around the corner for Mountain View without rent regulation.

before we had this:

- Rent Regulation: rules applied to how much landlords can charge tenants generally.

- Rent control: rules that cap rents; landlords can't raise rents at all.

- Rent stabilization: rules that set limits on how much landlords can raise rents; they can still raise them, but they can't charge anything they want.

So the latter cannot be blamed for the former.