Language already exists in Measure V to, "may suspend if vacancies rise above 5%". This new language just says shall suspend if above 3% for 6 months. Measure V returns again if vacancies fall below 3%.

This initiative also allows improvements to be calculated into the cost of doing business, where as Measure V does not allow that. End result is landlords will not be improving their property if they can not pass that cost along.


This also allows a process where criminal tenants can be evicted from properties more simply than what Measure V allows.

Measure V remains for low income residents.

My last point is that this measure prohibits any funds, for what ever reason the rent board decides, from drawing any money from the public funds, everyone should support that, and it caps the cost to landlords at $100 per unit and is adjusted to cpi increases, instead of the current law which says that the rent board can rack up as many expenses as they wish then pass that onto the landlords, very unfair!

I will sign this initiative to get it on the ballot.

In response to its only fair, you said:

“My last point is that this measure prohibits any funds, for what ever reason the rent board decides, from drawing any money from the public funds, everyone should support that, and it caps the cost to landlords at $100 per unit and is adjusted to cpi increases, instead of the current law which says that the rent board can rack up as many expenses as they wish then pass that onto the landlords, very unfair!”

It is totally fair because no funds are used from general funds of the City of Mountain View and homeowner taxes. All funds for any litigation will be drawn only from the CSFRA fees, and nothing else. If the RHC makes mistakes causing lawsuits, you can put the responsibility on them. But they are also working with a bias to the benefit of Landlords. So this is fair,

As far as the misrepresentations made by Measure V Too Costly:

Mike Kasperzak criticizes Measure V for not addressing homeless in Mountain View, it was not voted on to provide homes to the homeless. It was a rent stabilization policy, and it is working great. What are you doing Mr. Kasperzak for the homeless?

Margareta Abe-Koga makes numerous errors and false claims regarding the City General Fund. Claiming that the RHC budget is funded by the City Taxpayers, IT IS NOT. It is funded by fees paid by the landlords. So why should the electorate take her word?

Bryan Danforth makes the argument that the CSFRA caused problems between tenants and their landlords. Those problems existed for as much as two years before the voters took control of the situation because the City did nothing to create any improvements. This video simply doesn’t make sense.

Shari’s video simply is completely false because no homeowner that dollars are used in the CSFRA, even the loaned money paid to start it has been returned. Any cost of litigation will come from the CSFRA fund, which is funded only by Landlord fees. So this video simply is not true.

Dr. Ken Rosen simply makes conclusions where there is no economics research performed that has proven it is performed without a conflict of interest. The recent updated Conflict of Interest disclosure requirements found here (Web Link), are being ignored by these “researchers” because disclosure would invalidate their findings as a whole.

John Inks makes the claim that CSFRA is removing money from the city. What proof does he have of this? His major criticism is that the City Council has no control over it. That was done because the City Council refused to get involved to establish a resolution to the problem. They have no right to control any solution proposed by the voters.

Heather Sirk makes a false statement, CSFRA does not control the tenants screening process. It is not impossible to remove a “Problem Tenant”. Of course what is the “definition” of a problem tenant in her eyes is the most important question.

Todd Rothbard makes the argument that CSFRA will not allow landlords to remove dangerous, or offensive tenants. There is nothing in the CSFRA that does this. The fact is this video is designed to inspire fear and anger by those viewing it that is all.

Jim Claus complains that he cannot maintain or improve his property under CSFRA. That is simply untrue, except if you as a property owner depend on your tenants to make up for poor management skills. There has been ample studies that prove that rent control improves property management efficiency and as a result provides adequate returns on investments.

It would appear that these videos are simply making any argument possible to punish the citizens of Mountain View for taking the appropriate measures to correct for a serious crisis. That’s all it is.

NO ONE should support this initiative based on the above

Measure V was truly the "Trojan Horse" promising low rents so that teachers, and law enforcement could live in the communities where they work. TOTALLY FALSE! It only helps those who are in place NOW! Unless you were a tenant in a building built before 1995 on December 29th 2016 you are at or close to market and your landlord is subsidizing your rent. Of course the tenants out holding signs and screaming don't want any changes. They live in the middle of Silicon Valley and are paying rents from 2015. They do not want to show what they earn so they can maintain their low rents. Shame on you for bringing out your little children and showing them how to make someone else pay for your lifestyle.

In response to Realist you said:

“Unless you were a tenant in a building built before 1995 on December 29th 2016 you are at or close to market and your landlord is subsidizing your rent. Of course the tenants out holding signs and screaming don't want any changes. They live in the middle of Silicon Valley and are paying rents from 2015. They do not want to show what they earn so they can maintain their low rents. Shame on you for bringing out your little children and showing them how to make someone else pay for your lifestyle.”

The solution will be the repeal of Costa Hawkins, which will result in the CSFRA being applicable to ALL apartments in Mountain View. This is FAIR. I believe that Costa Hawkins was unconstitutional because it treated citizens unequally. It was used as a means to split the voters so that rent control would be harder to introduce and protect.

It doesn’t matter what anyone earns, they worked hard to be skilled, and thus get paid for the services they do. The landlords are not entitled to a surplus of income based on the efforts of others in any way. This has been the false logic that the landlords has been promoted. Landlords have not paid for any education for those who work for their earnings, thus they are NOT entitled to a share of that success.

2015 rents in Mountain View or anywhere in the bay area were not low. For years, many local workers have been working multiple jobs or cutting back on other parts of their budgets in order to stay in the community that is their home. For years, to be a renter in the bay area is to dread, on any day, a $500 per month rent increase. No one is ready for that, but many had to face it. Measure V takes away the fear of a huge rent increase. That is what will help Mountain View keep experienced teachers, and will help Mountain View small businesses keep experienced employees. Landlords are still making millions from Mountain View renters, even with Measure V. Stability is good for Mountain View, and Measure V is good for Mountain View. Home owners should ask how much of their home value depends on keeping excellent teachers in Mountain View schools.

Greed. Greed. Greed. The opposition to Measure V team have been canvassing the area lately, with a mixed message to obtain signatures. We need some integrity. We people with moral standards, and not lawyers that can twist the law at their discreation. Shame on all the landlords and those looking to line their pockets through the hard work of the lower class, many of whom have only ever known Mountain View as home. This city has been on the decline for the last ten years because of all the developers who are only looking at profits rather than leaving an honest legacy of good will. This sort of Capitalism will surely be the demise of America.

@Longview "That is what will help Mountain View keep experienced teachers, and ..." " Home owners should ask how much of their home value depends on keeping excellent teachers in Mountain View schools."

I personally agree with both of these items. I know that Measure V has some major problems (but - so does any housing partial-solution). The micro-economics research on the question of 'are experienced teachers, better teachers' is very clear. YES. Keeping teacher working here, is one way to keep them improving and getting the value of their improvement.

As the MVWSD teachers' union past president often stated, MVWSD cannot afford to train and help new teachers, only to loose them.

Business Man makes a few very good poinst also. The 1995 limit on rental buildings makes no sense, so this Measure V cannot have as good an effect as it might. I will continue to support (lukewarm) Measure V but I will absolutely not sign the new "rent control" (sic) petition.

Vacancy rates are over 3% (under 5%) and that is just one of the tricks in the landlords' proposed ballot measure designed to ELIMINATE RENT CONTROL AND JUST CAUSE EVICTION COMPLETELY.

The landlords of pre 1995 buildings are being unfairly penalized. I think food and beverage prices are too high and I can't eat for the same price as I could in 2015. I can't buy a car for the same price as 2015. Perhaps we should make a law that restores all prices in the "free market place" to 2015 pricing. All business should be held to the same standard. Land-lording is a business, not a charity.

How much profit is reasonable for a landlord to make? I know when my rent is raised that it doesn't go toward maintenance of the building and it doesn't go toward taxes. Where does the money go?

Food and products and services are going in price BECAUSE OF RENT!

The person who thinks that tenants should be ashamed "bringing out your little children and showing them how to make someone else pay for your lifestyle" clearly has no soul & understanding of their working to middle class neighbors. My partner and I bust our ass to pay a reasonable rent for a very basic apartment that hasn't been updated in 20 years. We do it because we love Mountain View and our son thrives at his elementary school.

Some of the anti-Measure V folks brought their kids to the rally, too. What kinds of values are they showing them? That greed is good? That it's OK to arbitrarily raise the rent $500 or more so mommy and daddy can buy a new BMW? That democracy can be overridden by well-funded corporate interest groups like the CAA?

@Working Class Mom How about the freedom to make a living? The cold hard truth is that tenants are not entitled to property owners money just as property owners are not entitled to any tenants money. Sure they can raise the rent $500 dollars that is their inherent right as a free american to do so, it does not mean that the tenant has to pay them, they are free to pursue viable alternatives in housing.

Oh wait they are no affordable housing options? Then thats where our focus should be. BUILDING MORE HOUSING. Not on rent control.

@Member,

The freedom to make a living? Landlord costs haven't gone up, all they are doing is siphoning money away from the actually productive members of society because they were lucky enough to purchase a plot of land. They've constrained their costs thanks to Prop 13, and squeeze every last dime out of tenants. Repeal Prop 13, then we can talk about rolling back rent control.

I’m missing something here. Why would it be a landlords responsibility to provide low income housing? Seems like this would be the role of the government.
And “lucky enough to purchase a plot of land”? Interesting perspective. Lucky to save and earn and invest in something smart? I don’t follow. Seems like hard word, not luck.

Wow talk about blanket generalizations. How do you know who is a productive member of society and who isn't?
And who are you to determine that?
And furthermore what kind of insight do you have into the fluctuation of cost of living of someone else?

That is blatantly insulting. If owning property or running a business to make a profit is somehow makes you a lucky, entitled villain, then I want no part of Mountain View.

BTW I'm all for repealing prop 13, CEQA and local zoning laws if it brings more housing.

Sorry, this is basic economics. They're extracting rents from a scarce resource, land values are not tied to productivity at all. All landlords do is ride off the economic gains that productive members of society produce. Crack open an econ textbook past 101.

The landlords and their mouthpieces did and do not have the integrity to propose a direct repeal of Measure V. Instead, their measure would contains tricks to ensure that no tenant is ever protected from any rent increase or eviction a landlord fancies.

@LOL you state with such authority and confidence "landlord costs are not going up". Really?

Construction costs have increased. Trade costs have increased (plumbers, electricians, landscapers etc). Utility costs have increased. Taxes have (more than) increased.

Tell me a cost that HASNT increased?

As long as the City is focused on affordable housing, why not set a cap on housing prices too? Why should people who have worked hard, invested wisely, and paid for a house make a huge profit when selling - it's just greed, right?

If you're a landlord, I'd love to see you crack open your books and give a thorough accounting of where the costs have risen to justify rent increases. I guarantee you your taxes have only gone up by 2% annually, while the value of the property has gone up far more quickly. Rents have gone up at the same rate as property values, on the other hand.

The honest answer for the landlords is that they've been raising rents to what the market can bear, through no effort on their own behalf. The market can only bear so much because of the economic growth in the area, which landlords will happily siphon off into their own pockets.

LOL...you're welcome to make the investment and become a landlord.

Oh wait. You can't afford it. It requires some kind of capitol outlay and risk. Which someone down the road will imply makes you a greedy bastard when you try to recoup and cover those costs.

You've hit the nail on the head! It requires capital, pure and simple, and has nothing to do with the people who actually work hard for a living.

I'll ask again, show me the math where landlords are "recouping the costs" instead of simply siphoning away the productivity of others. You can't.

Which is more greedy?

A property owner increasing rent to match the going rate and/or cover their own costs

Or

Government asking property owners to limit their own ability to make money because the government doesn’t want to allocate more money to build more housing?

You can’t call the property owners greedy. It doesn’t make any sense. Think it through in your mind. Imagine if you had worked hard and saved/invested
In let’s say, a restaurant, and then the government comes in and limits what you can charge for meals because the government is having a hard time feeding the poor. Does that make any sense at all? Of course not.

Hunger and housing are issues, I’m not saying we should ignore them, but rent control is not the solution. So let’s work to find a real solution and not punish property owners in the meantime.

I think its funny when I see too groups of people arguing over what's fair.
The renters versus the landlords and a stupid law that does nothing to solve the real problem, housing shortage.

Measure V has exacerbated a regional problem into a future housing disaster by running all multi-family residential investment capital out of Mountain View. Investors are investing in non-price controlled areas and are moving their capital assets out of this town.

As for the current housing, the land is worth more than the return on investment these buildings produce and I can hear the bulldozers running all over town now. What's it going to look like in 5 years when these tenants which make up 70% of the population have no rental housing?

The voters really destroyed any chance of affordable housing in Mountain View with measure V and the tenants better save their money. It's going to cost a fortune to live in Mountain View!

Melanie, pretending that your costs are rising and you need to cover them via rent increases may be a nice rhetorical tactic, but the math doesn't work out. If I'm wrong, crack open your books and give a full accounting of where these costs factor in to rent increases. You can't because rents are rising to what the market will bear as landlords cash in on economic growth generates by the people here who work for a living.

As for "greedy," well, it looks like the landlords are using that term far more often than anyone else. Must be some repressed guilt expressing itself.

LOL,

You can call it greed but that doesn't matter.
I know you want to crack open Melanie's books on here business so you can decide what's fair. It ain't about what's fair, it's about business viability that matters. Here's a short lesson on economics I think you should consider before you go to the voting booth in November.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This the future of the rental housing for Mountain View now under Measure V.

There you landlords go saying "greedy" again. Honestly, that's between you and your therapist, not us. That you cannot provide an accounting for the "rising costs" and how that factors in to rent shows that you are simply trying to pull the wool over people's eyes. Or maybe you'll just post in all caps a bunch more times.

LOL,

I have no reason to "Pull the wool over people's eyes"
I'm not even a landlord in Mountain View, anymore.

I'm a businessman that's been in the business of owning and managing residential and commercial properties over the last 50 years in many different markets. I have done very well because of my business decisions and moving all my capital out of Mountain View last year was one of them which has already started to pay off.

I only speak the truth from my business experience and I seem to be right most the time considering the $45M in assets I have aquired from that experience.

What business experience do you have to come to the assumption I'm lying?

In resp0onse toHoward you said:

“Measure V has exacerbated a regional problem into a future housing disaster by running all multi-family residential investment capital out of Mountain View. Investors are investing in non-price controlled areas and are moving their capital assets out of this town. “

The regional problem cannot be placed on the backs of tenants or local governments. When Costa Hawkins was passed the justification was if the laws won’t interfere with the free market, the free market would provide the supply for the demand. After over 20 years, that proposition has proven to be a failure. Developers cherry picked the market so that the only available supply are premium units that are too expensive for the majority of the population. Also by controlling the supply they artificially inflated the price. That was not Measure V, it was the lack of good sense of the state government believing in the promises that were not kept. You said:

“As for the current housing, the land is worth more than the return on investment these buildings produce and I can hear the bulldozers running all over town now. What's it going to look like in 5 years when these tenants which make up 70% of the population have no rental housing?”

The strategy of intimidation and threats continues. Whenever “collective bargaining” is successful through political action, the easiest thing to do is threaten the opposition. It will take many steps to achieve this result, but it is unrealistic that it will take 5 years, if at all. Given permits and plans have to be approved before any action can take place. You said:

“The voters really destroyed any chance of affordable housing in Mountain View with measure V and the tenants better save their money. It's going to cost a fortune to live in Mountain View!”

If Costa Hawkins is appealed in the next election, I can foresee a drastic reduction in rents for all apartments under the CSFRA because it will become automatically effective on all apartments in Mountain View, even the luxury ones. If the current landlords do not like CSFRA, they can sell out. The Ellis Act provides them that choice.

Oh, Howard (or is it Bob?), you know quite well that rents in this market have nothing to do with costs. Pretending otherwise means you either aren't actually a landlord or are lying to us. Which is it?

Yet again, you ignore the fact that rising rents are solely the extraction of value from the economic productivity of the tenants, the siphoning off of economic growth by people performing no real work.

LOL,
So you believe that expensive housing in an region of high wages has no value?
Move to Alabama and tell me that, huh?? Your funny:)

Businessman, Costa Hawkins repeal was already shot down in the house a couple of months back and to be a ballot measure in California is a long shot.

Take an econ course, Bob. Land value is not the result of any labor, it's only costly because of the actual economic productivity of everyone else around it. Landlords simply extract that value from the people who actually work.

Howard, do not waste your time arguing with LOL. He has lost all credibility with his arguments by making blanket statements about a person's intrinsic value to society based on whether they own property. Let him revel in his discriminatory, marxist, fantasy land while we focus on getting policies enacted that solve the problem at hand.

Go ahead LOL get the last word in I know your dying for it.

In response to Howard you said:

“Businessman, Costa Hawkins repeal was already shot down in the house a couple of months back and to be a ballot measure in California is a long shot.”

As you well know the Real Estate and the Apartment lobby’s have control over the state government. So that was not a surprise. But the people directly is another story. Granted we have not gotten any updates regarding the submitted signatures by the secretary of state, but many weeks ago they did confirm 25% of the signatures were verified already.

There were reports like this one (Web Link indicating they have 75% of the signautures as of early Feb. So there is high likelihood it will be on the ballot.

And if you look at state polls the majority of voters are in favor of rent control , it can be seen here (Web Link and (Web Link

And since this is a unifying ballot measure ensuring all renters are equally treated fairly in the state, those in apartments without rent control will directly benefit. Also, since it has no impact on homeowners, and they have friends or family living in apartments, they are likely to vote in favor of repeal.

I would not underestimate the potential of this ballot measure.

Member, I'm neither a Marxist nor have I argued about someone's "intrinsic value to society," although I have seen such sentiments from the landlords here. I'm speaking purely in economic terms: there is no productive use in siphoning off surplus land value. This is agreed upon by right- and left-wing economists. Economic rents are a drag on an efficient economy. It has nothing to do with your worth as a human being, but the amount at which landlords here throw around "greedy" shows there's at least some cognitive dissonance at play as people recognize the truth of their profession.

I want to personally thank the residents of Mountain View for providing the Community Stabilization climate necessary to flood your streets and avenues with derelict RVs so those of us who can't afford to live here are welcomed and provided the necessities of life. Our fellow vagabonds have heard the call to relocate in such a welcoming community. Thank you all! Long live Measure V!

Perhaps the last comment about RVs parked on the streets is from a landlord or landland mouthpiece. Of course, Measure V (rent control for some apartments) has nothing to do with RVs, although both policies are stop-gap responses to a housing crunch caused by the big corporations blessing us with their presence and determination to bring in still more employees from everywhere.

One thing many are missing here, is that rent control doesn’t solve low income housing issues. There is no income verification requirement. A tech worker making $300K a year can live in a rent controlled unit. How does that make any sense at all or help a person of low income?

I moved OUT of the Bay Area because I couldn’t afford to live there. Simple as that. It happens all the time. I have many friends and family with children and schools and established jobs who are moving out of the area to places where life is more affordable. If you can’t afford to live somewhere, then move. People do it all the time. It’s not anyone else’s responsibility to provide you with housing.

Who gets to vote on that ballot? Is it needed to be citizen? Green card holder? Tenant?

Thanks

For those landlords who complain or worry about rent control, the right choice is to sell, NOW, before it is too late. The real estate market is hot, but this won't last long.

Isn’t the rent driven by supply and demand in a capitalism country? Since US hasn’t become a socialism or communism country, why the government wants landlord to sacrifice their financial interest and provide a lower than market rent to tenants? Anyone advocate this policy besides tenants is exploiting landlords right.

My only significant concern:

Will voter fraud occur in Mountain View like it did in Pacifica.

Given that this is a charter ballot, their must be strong controls put in place to prevent signature fraud.

There was enough evidence in Pacifica that the FBI arrested the contractor used and extradited them to California for trial.

No proof has been provided that supports the claim that the CAA nor SAMCAR has NOT played a part in this crime.

Should we believe these people, I believe in trust but verify. Independent observers must be used to make sure signatures are valid.

Just mentioning

JUst FYI:

There is a report the signatures are complete on the Costa Hawkins repeal Ballot as of today. (Web Link


Here is where the real game begins.

If so, there is very little chance of the City Ballot to pass. All tenants will vote against it.

The "Measure V Too Costly" campaign title itself is a complete lie as the entire program is paid for by landlords who are charged a nominal fee for each of their rental units per year so NO taxpayer funds are used. I was a landlord in Washington, DC and Montgomery County, MD and was charged a yearly fee and just understood it to be the cost of being a housing provider in those jurisdictions.

The Landlord Profit Protection Act is a more appropriate campaign title for this ballot initiative that will repeal Measure V. IF the landlord lobby is successful in collecting the required number of signatures, the initiative that they want to put on the ballot for November will change the language that already exists in Measure V to suspend rent control if vacancies rise above 5% to new language that says rent control will be suspended if above 3% for 6 months. This article explains that rate of vacancies in Mountain View has been above 3% since 2009!

This Measure V Too Costly campaign is a LIE and a sneaky repeal of Measure V by a landlord lobby who cares more about profits than people! And not only are they greedy but they teach their children messages like "sketchy tenants." Outside of Mountain View City Hall on Tuesday, April 17 before the Council meeting, one landlord's child had a sign that read "Protect Our Kids from Sketchy Tenants" - this is how low the landlords are willing to sink for money.

Sketchy tenants is an understatement. Their worse than zoo animals and I wouldn't let my dog sleep with them!

I just threw a guy out that caused me $11,000 in lost rent(didn't pay since October thru March), $10,000 in legal and did $16,000 in fire damage.
Ya, a judge took 4 months to evict him and he had 2 fires, one in January and 1 in March while he was cooking his meth.

Ya PG&E shut him down so he ran his extension cord into my laundry room for 3 months so he could keep cookin' but the judge didn't care

The family that has an elderly Father and 2 children that are 6 and 8 years old that live above him were fortunate that they weren't burned out or even killed by this sketchy animal. Yes, This animal threatened them on a daily basis

Ya so I'm just finishing up the repairs if anyone wants to come by and contribute to this $40,000 loss. ALL TENANTS WELCOME to chip in!!!

This isn't my first, I've had many as bad and I run clean buildings with great service. So there ya go on sketchy tenants.

Howard, I am very confused, you said in the past:

“I'm a businessman that's been in the business of owning and managing residential and commercial properties over the last 50 years in many different markets. I have done very well because of my business decisions and moving all my capital out of Mountain View last year was one of them which has already started to pay off.”

In fact you have stated in at least a dozen situations that you do not have any investments in Mountain View. But then you stated:

“I just threw a guy out that caused me $11,000 in lost rent(didn't pay since October thru March), $10,000 in legal and did $16,000 in fire damage.

Ya, a judge took 4 months to evict him and he had 2 fires, one in January and 1 in March while he was cooking his meth.

Ya PG&E shut him down so he ran his extension cord into my laundry room for 3 months so he could keep cookin' but the judge didn't care”

This must either be in another city, or you have just declared that you have made false statements?

Of course this kind of hyperbole is the last resort regarding this situation. Making inflammatory statements without collaborating evidence of it being true. Please tell us if this eviction took place in Mountain View? If not, how does behaviors by others NOT citizens of Mountain View have any bearing on the City of Mountain View?

This is typical rhetoric, being made by one who is anonymous, without any evidence to prove the story.

Why should anyone consider this story as valid under the circumstances?

Businessman,

Now there ya go again making assumptions.

You said, "This must either be in another city, or you have just declared that you have made false statements?"

It is in another city. I already told you that I moved my investments out of Mountain View. This "sketchy animal" tenant was in San Mateo County.

Then you rambled on and said,

"Of course this kind of hyperbole is the last resort regarding this situation. Making inflammatory statements without collaborating evidence of it being true. Please tell us if this eviction took place in Mountain View? If not, how does behaviors by others NOT citizens of Mountain View have any bearing on the City of Mountain View?"

As I stated in the past, I had property for 30 + years in Mountain View and dealt with "sketchy animal" tenants that I wouldn't let my dog sleep with there too.
What, you think you cross the city lines and tenants change?? My past history validates my claims.

Then you did it again by saying,

"This is typical rhetoric, being made by one who is anonymous, without any evidence to prove the story."

"Why should anyone consider this story as valid under the circumstances?"

Businessman, You sound like fake news to me because you try to invalidate others without the facts.

This sounds like, Russia, Russia, Russia but no collusion is ever proven.

In response to Howard you said:

“It is in another city. I already told you that I moved my investments out of Mountain View. This "sketchy animal" tenant was in San Mateo County.”

Good, then you have no evidence that Mountain View Tenants are “sketchy animals”. Of course you did not state this in your post, you also said:

“As I stated in the past, I had property for 30 + years in Mountain View and dealt with "sketchy animal" tenants that I wouldn't let my dog sleep with there too.

What, you think you cross the city lines and tenants change?? My past history validates my claims.”

You assume that the “Google techies” are the same as residents in San Mateo. What evidence do you have to prove this? What history, you’re an anonymous poster that has no documented proof of anything you stated. At least my identity is already known by those who read my posts, and that I testify at both the City Council and the RHC. You also go on to say

“Businessman, You sound like fake news to me because you try to invalidate others without the facts.”

What facts have you presented? This is all hearsay and is defined as:

Hearsay
Definition
Broadly, an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of whatever it asserts. Hearsay evidence is often inadmissible at trial. However, many exclusions and exceptions exist. Evidence meeting the broad definition may not actually be hearsay under the court's evidence rules. Even hearsay may be admitted if exceptions are met.( Web Link

Overview

Generally, an out-of-court statement is hearsay if the parties care about whether or not the statement is true. For the purposes of the rule, it does not matter whether the statement was oral or written. Generally speaking, hearsay cannot be used as evidence at trial.

For example, suppose that a witness stopped at the scene of a car crash. At the crash site, an injured driver stumbled up to her and said "Martians caused the accident!" Because of the hearsay rule, the statement cannot be used as evidence that Martians caused the accident. It could, however, be used as evidence that the injured driver was capable of speech after the crash. The rule would also bar the testimony if the injured driver scribbled his message on a scrap of paper and handed it to the witness.

In general, the hearsay rule is motivated by a belief that hearsay is unreliable. There are exceptions to the rule for for particularly reliable statements, and where allowing the evidence advances public policy goals. For example, under Rule 801(d) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, a witness's prior inconsistent statements are not hearsay, due to the public policy goal of avoiding perjury. Similarly, Rule 803(6) of the Federal Rules of Evidence makes an exception to the hearsay rule for business records, because businesses have incentives to keep accurate records.

Although hearsay rules differ by jurisdiction, many state hearsay rules are modeled on the Federal Rules of Evidence, which contains about 30 exceptions and exclusions to the hearsay rule. See state civil procedure rules; Federal Rules of Evidence.

See Civil Procedure, Evidence. For more on some hearsay exceptions, see Forfeiture by wrongdoing, Present sense impression, Declaration against interest, Dying declaration, Excited utterance, Past Recollection Recorded, business record exception, and former testimony exception.”

So unless you are willing to identify yourself, provide case information regarding this situation, or any other collaborating information for validation, please understand why I am skeptical. Finally you said:

“This sounds like, Russia, Russia, Russia but no collusion is ever proven.”

Wow, that’s all I can say

Businessman,

You said,"Good, then you have no evidence that Mountain View Tenants are “sketchy animals”.

I never said, Mountain View tenants are sketchy animals?

I said, "Sketchy tenants is an understatement. Their worse than zoo animals and I wouldn't let my dog sleep with them!

Then I said, "This isn't my first, I've had many as bad and I run clean buildings with great service. So there ya go on sketchy tenants."

"Sketchy" is the adjective and "Tenant" is the noun.

An adjective is defined as "a word belonging to one of the major form classes in any of numerous languages and typically serving as a modifier of a noun to denote a quality of the thing named, to indicate its quantity or extent, or to specify a thing as distinct from something else The word red in "the red car" is an adjective."

A noun is defined as,"Nouns are words that indicate a person, place, or thing."

So, I was speaking about tenants that are sketchy that live in Mountain View not Mountain View tenants in general.

As far as evidence of "sketchy tenants" in Mountain View, does Santa Clara County have evictions?

There is a courthouse for it and judges assigned to those departments that handle evictions. Correct or is this hearsay?

This isn't hearsay that there are "sketchy tenants" but evidence beyond a reasonable doubt and probably a preponderance of the evidence of the existence of sketchy tenants in Mountain View.

Sorry, but my story of dealing with sketchy tenants sounds more probable than your claims of them being untrue and hearsay.

Howard,

Too bad you have such opinions regarding fellow citizens.

It is fortunate you are posting anonymously, if any potential tenants ever heard what you posted here, I am certain they would choose another landlord.

I find it interesting that people are willing to say such things simply because they cannot be traced or accountable.

I think of two proverbs in this situation:

Put your mind into gear before putting your mouth into motion.

and

Better to Remain Silent and Be Thought a Fool than to Speak and Remove All Doubt

Your own words are in effect damaging your position. You should be more careful.

That's it? I have plenty of tenants that know my position. They are happy to reside in my properties because I take care of my buildings and run sketchy tenants out.

They don't want them there either. How do you think the tenant that lived above the meth guy felt when I finally got rid of that sketchy animal?
They have 2 small children as many of the other 59 units on that property have.

Ya, they love a landlord that kicks these types out because they want a safe, nice place to live and raise their children. I don't hide my thoughts from anyone because I believe in what's right not wrong as so many others do.

Maybe you think meth users should reside around children, I don't!

I just can't wait to see Costa Hawkins die, that's all.

Rent control has nothing to do with your rants. Eviction is not rent control.

Eviction is part of just cause eviction. Just cause eviction guarantees due process

Due process is not a problem for landlords, due process is guaranteed by the constitution.

It is equally fair for both the landlords and the tenants. So I still do not see any disagreement regarding this.

I do not argue at all that dangerous people are to be considered threats, but due process is required prior to eviction in just cause eviction.

But to still make widespread statements like:

"This isn't hearsay that there are "sketchy tenants" but evidence beyond a reasonable doubt and probably a preponderance of the evidence of the existence of sketchy tenants in Mountain View.

Sorry, but my story of dealing with sketchy tenants sounds more probable than your claims of them being untrue and hearsay."

Fortunately, you are not a judge, such bias in your beliefs would make due process impossible. You still have not produced any evidence yourself. All you do is try to use fear and anger as a political weapon. You are allowed to do so due to the first amendment, but it is my responsibility as a citizen of Mountain View to produce a "S.H.I.E.L.D." to demonstrate your actions.

It would be so nice if we could have a spam feature where we could select who's post's we do not want to see when we log on here. There is one individual who thinks he is King and the Smartest one in the world. It would be so nice to not see his post's anymore, it is just the same old stuff all the time with him.

Wow, enough said!

Sorry, Bob, I think they were talking about you. At least you're gracious in deciding to stop posting!

At least there are some landlords that have ethics, and morals they can be found here

Web Link

I admit, I am one of the dullest tools in the shed.

I clearly am not royalty.

There are tools you can download to block postings from whoever you wish online can be found here:

Web Link

I do not want those who do not want to read my comments to be forced to.

At least there are some landlords that have ethics, and morals they can be found here

Web Link

I admit, I am one of the dullest tools in the shed.

I clearly am not royalty.

There are tools you can download to block postings from whoever you wish online can be found here:

Web Link

I do not want those who do not want to read my comments to be forced to.

To the Business Man: In NEVER read your posts. Don't bother to respond, because I won't read it.

Settle down everyone. :) I know it’s an emotional topic, but we’ve got to try to focus on the issue at hand. Measure V has cost Mt. View a ton of money and as already mentioned several times above, is going to lead to a community where no one can afford to live. How has rent control affected NYC and San Francisco? It’s made it nearly impossible to afford to live there. So be careful what you ask for. Property owners of the “older” buildings will be forced to sell, new homes and townhomes will be built and we will all be priced out.

Howard and Melanie:

What I find amazing is that the following is happening:

For more than 20 years “supply-side” economics has run the California Apartment Industry under Costa Hawkins. Thus the customer has no power to influence the market.

During this period, the “supply-side” has neither provided adequate housing resources, or worse manipulated the market top arbitrage higher profit margins with no risk.

The explanation of the “supply-side” is that the customers are at fault, for either not allowing more development, or simply not exercising its power to control the prices in the “free-market”. In “supply-side” economics, there is no “free-market” it is under the direct control of the “suppliers”.

But “Supply-Side” economics provides no equality regarding the customer, the customer cannot be responsible for either lack of housing, owner’s ability to prevent excessive costs, nor the expressed belief by owners that customers are the problem for the lack of development.

So, it is only logical and inevitable that a “reform” of the market will happen. The Costa Hawkins repeal measure seems to be on track to pass. This will reintroduce a real “free-market” and many of those with poor ability will suffer Darwinism. They will not be able to adapt quick enough to survive. But that is the real “free-market”.

Businessman,

You forgot one thing. You always had a right over those 20,30,40 years to buy your own home. That was your choice and for you to say that government price controls are the real "free market" is absurd!

You said , "Thus the customer has no power to influence the market." That was your way as a customer to influence the market!!

Your logic is illogical and flawed and skewed in your favor as the customer!

What's scary about this is that many Californians feel like you, entitled to legislate or vote in numbers to change the rules of the "free market" for their own financial benefit with no care of the consequences.

About your Darwinism, i've adapted myself to your new rules and many of those in California. I have moved my investment capital into cities that have low levels of rental property inventory and high expensive home ownership.

My new markets don't exceed 30% renters to 70% owners in Million dollar homes thus eliminating possibility of rent control being voted in, in the first place.
Costa Hawkins has no effect on markets that are rent control free.

I decided that if the mob (Renters) in California vote in to repeal Costa Hawkins, that I will survive rent control or move my capital into something else.

In response to Howard you said:

“Your logic is illogical and flawed and skewed in your favor as the customer!”

Again, the customer has no power, it is “supply-side” economics. You also said:

“What's scary about this is that many Californians feel like you, entitled to legislate or vote in numbers to change the rules of the "free market" for their own financial benefit with no care of the consequences.”

The consequences of Costa Hawkins is equally catastrophic under the present situation. The ”supply-side” economics simply is a proven failure. You also said:

“About your Darwinism, i've adapted myself to your new rules and many of those in California. I have moved my investment capital into cities that have low levels of rental property inventory and high expensive home ownership.

My new markets don't exceed 30% renters to 70% owners in Million dollar homes thus eliminating possibility of rent control being voted in, in the first place.”

WOW that is enlightening. You are playing a good game. But you also remind me of when I saw “A Bug’s Life” where the scene Flik states:

“Ants are not meant to serve grasshoppers. I’ve seen these ants do great things, and year after year, they somehow manage to pick enough food for themselves and you. So-so who’s the weaker species? Ants don’t serve grasshoppers! IT’S YOU WHO NEED US! We’re a lot stronger than you say we are. AND YOU KNOW IT, DON’T YOU?”

This is the reality of the situation. The minority of owners are like the Grasshopers as described as:

“THE GRASSHOPPERS ONLY SURVIVE BY LIVING OFF THE SURPLUS VALUE CREATED BY THE ANTS. When the first food offering is lost, Hopper tells the ants that they will give them some time to collect more. When the queen (Phyllis Diller) says that this is when the ants collect food for themselves, Hopper’s response is curt: he doubles the quota. This squeezing of the ants’ food supply can be seen as the squeezing of capital. THE RESPONSE WHEN PROFITS FALL FOR THE BOURGEOISIE IS TO CUT WAGES, LAY PEOPLE OFF, ETC. BUT NOT TO REIGN IN THEIR OWN EXTRAVAGANCE. Similarly, instead of the grasshoppers eating less, they increase their ‘bonus’, DESPITE NOT HAVING ACTUALLY DONE ANYTHING (THEY CLAIM TO PROTECT THE ANTS FROM OTHER INSECTS BUT THE ONLY OTHER THING BOTHERING THE COLONY IS A BIRD OF WHICH HOPPER IS TERRIFIED).”( Web Link

The “Bird” is government regulation. The CAA and Real Estate are Grasshoppers. It is time for the bird to eat the grasshoppers.

I have to admit, Your entertaining!!!

I especially like the "IT’S YOU WHO NEED US! We’re a lot stronger than you say we are. AND YOU KNOW IT, DON’T YOU?”

No Businessman, I always have a financial backdoor exit strategy and the capital to make it happen. I know anything can happen when democracies fall because the divide between the haves and have nots creates things like rent control as government policy.

Reagan said it best, "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are I'm from the government, and I'm here to help."

Reagan wasn't referring to the policy, it was the unintended consequence of the policy that is "terrifying".

Anyone with half a brain could look to the cities that embraced rent control over the past 30, 40 years can see it didn't help and in fact hindered rental housing growth. I know your smart enough to understand history and the importance of guiding our future on lessons learned.

In response to Howard you said:

“No Businessman, I always have a financial backdoor exit strategy and the capital to make it happen. I know anything can happen when democracies fall because the divide between the haves and have nots creates things like rent control as government policy.”

We live in a republic, not a democracy. Thus, the Government is in effect “controlled” by the citizens. The Government can only do what the citizens provide it the power to do. Of course what you are promoting is not self-governance but an aristrocity. Our Constitutions prohibit that kind of power, you also said:

“Reagan said it best, "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are I'm from the government, and I'm here to help."”

When the people choose a public policy explicitly they are not being subject to the kind of terror you claim. Self-Governance allows for public policies that in effect reflect the will of the citizens. Simply said. You also said:

“Reagan wasn't referring to the policy, it was the unintended consequence of the policy that is "terrifying".”

But intentional policies are what we are talking about. So that seems to be not on the point. You also said:

“Anyone with half a brain could look to the cities that embraced rent control over the past 30, 40 years can see it didn't help and in fact hindered rental housing growth. I know your smart enough to understand history and the importance of guiding our future on lessons learned.”

Again, Costa Hawkins was the law of the land. Rent Control was forbidden in the California for 20+ years, and the industry simply did not rise to the needs of the people. Why can’t you stay on that topic?

So your claim is simply not accurate. And further, you simply like to be patronizing to those who do not agree with you.

I love it because if Costa Hawkins is repealed all apartments are by default required to be rent roll backed and refunds will need to be paid under CSFRA eventually because the voters will propose another City Charter Amendment to include all other existing rental units.

Granted it is not automatic, but the likelihood of the voters choosing to include all the units is very high.

The ballot will pass because of the unified electorate. All eligible renter voters will be in favor of a new amendment. And since Costa Hawkins will not be around, the landlords will be stuck with the new rules. And homeowners that do not rent out their homes will also be in favor of it.

Your intent and motivation is clear.
God help us and Scotty beam me up!!

Businessman,

I think you want to see a redistribution of wealth to occur in this country.
Somehow, you feel left out with so many others (like 98% others) and you feel entitled because of the mob mentality. So you want to start with the landlords money?

So when your done eating all that up..what's next, corporations??
So when it's all said and done, no one will need to work and we can all be on the dole. When that's done It will look like Mad Max beyond thunderdome.
Throw me a piece a meat, baby!!

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]

Hello All,

Please listen this may be very important? I was at the RHC meeting on 4/23/2018 and the Chair of the Committee (Vanessa Honey) expressed significant bias against the tenant attorneys during the hearing. From what I read from this document:

Web Link

It would appear that her comments made during the meeting would disqualify her regarding any appeals with the RHC based on the following text:

“Avoid the appearance of bias. This is simplistic advice, but if your judgment is fairly questioned, you can save yourself and your agency criticism (and, sometimes, legal fees) simply by abstaining. If the heat will be high, consider whether participation is worth the possible cost. Because the bias rule and the common law doctrine against conflicts of interest are judge-made law, the law develops in court cases after the fact. Thus, it is not possible for your legal counsel to predict with complete accuracy when a judge will or will not view your conduct as unacceptable under these doctrines.”

Also I read:

“C. PUBLIC OPPOSITION AS EVIDENCE

Quasi-judicial decisions must be based on credible evidence of facts relevant to the decision to be made. The relevant facts are defined by the rule or policy to be applied. For example, if issuance of a conditional use permit requires a finding that a proposed structure complies with the zoning ordinance, and the zoning ordinance imposes a 35-foot height limit, " the height of the proposed structure is a relevant fact.

Few rules of decision make the fact of public opposition relevant to the decision. If the rule to be applied states that an application must be denied if the proposed structure is greater than 35 feet, it will not aid a decision to note that affected neighbors would prefer the structure were limited to 30 feet.

Public opposition is always relevant as a political matter, but reliance on it is often an invitation to litigation.

At one time, the existence of public controversy about a project was a basis to conclude that the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) required the preparation of an environmental impact report (EIR) rather than a negative declaration for a project. 44. The Legislature amended CEQA to reject this rule. 45. Thus, even in this context, the mere fact of public opposition or controversy is not relevant in a quasi-adjudicatory decision. However, the facts and issues identified by public comment can often provide a basis for denying a permit or other decision, especially given the relatively broad discretion conveyed by most zoning standards and other local rules of decision.”

And:

“V. CONCLUSION

When a government decision will affect a protected property or liberty interest due process must be given. This requires only reasonable notice and a reasonable opportunity to be heard before the decision is made. Fundamental fairness is the goal of this requirement and, in most circumstances, acting in a way that appears fundamentally fair to reasonable people will suffice. When a matter involves significant controversy, however, sometimes more is required and in those circumstances, it is wise to consult with legal counsel.”

Please listen to the hearing and you will hear what I heard. She was simply hostile to tenant advocates in her public unprovoked comments. To me, this conduct was a shock.

Didn’t she know that by making such a public statement she was poisoning her ability to hear cases as a whole? To me, this testimony establishes just cause to require recusal of any appeals because of demonstrated bias.

Due process of law requires not only just the performance of non-bias in a legal or quasi-legal hearing, but the appearance that no bias is likely. But in this situation, there is no doubt given the message Vanessa Honey made at the hearing.

What was she thinking?

She was thinking of the absurdity of measure V and the effects its having on the rental housing industry in Mountain View. You think this is a good sign?

You have weakened and attacked the private housing providers that offered the most affordable housing in your city.

Stupid strategy to take out the weakest suppliers when you need supplies.
Maybe you should have waited until and if Costa Hawkins is repealed to start at the top providers?

In response to Howard you said:

“She was thinking of the absurdity of measure V and the effects its having on the rental housing industry in Mountain View. You think this is a good sign?”

In her position as the Chair of the RHC, she is not allowed to use her bias to influence the “due process” rights of anyone, either landlord or tenant. She is in effect a judge in a legal proceeding. She should have been educated to the fact that what you say in a hearing is public record and can be the basis of legal challenges regarding the “appearance” of bias in a legal or quasi-legal proceeding. In effect any decision she makes is now rendered invalid because it would show the “appearance” of bias on her part. People should be educated about it. You said:

“You have weakened and attacked the private housing providers that offered the most affordable housing in your city. “

No I have not. I have demonstrated the history and legal basis for the leveling of the market forces in the City of Mountain View. That is all. You said:

“Stupid strategy to take out the weakest suppliers when you need supplies.”

If they are not efficiently managing their product, the market competition would normally destroy them. This was proof that the market in fact was biased against the customer or a “supply-side” market. You also said:

“Maybe you should have waited until and if Costa Hawkins is repealed to start at the top providers?”

That was simply bad timing on the part of the apartment industry. The fact is Costa Hawkins is on the way out. The City of Mountain View Citizens simply took care of itself. The Costa Hawkins situation is state-wide. If the landlords of Mountain View didn’t raise rents as much as 83% in one case regarding a report to the RHC presented Monday, Measure V would not have been necessary. Who is the cause of the problem? Not the customers where they have minimized influence on a “supply-side” market.