No, Michael Fischetti,the $2.5 Million dollar cost to the landlords who are paying for Measure V, is not fair. There is no cap on what this new rent board can spend money on. Unlike landlords who are capped at CPI for rent increases, 3.4%, there is NO cap on the increases that the rent board can charge the landlords. It is only fair to have this same rule for increases,CPI, that landlords have to pay.
Almost every city that has rent control, that cost to administer it is split 50/50 with tenants and landlords, not so in Mountain View. You are being a Hippocratic if you support CPI on rent increases, but not on the fees that landlords have to pay to fund Measure V.

Measure V protections remain for low income residents.

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”.

If Costa Hawkins makes it on the ballot, and if voters approve it, all these new apartment buildings that have been built in our city, will more than likely be evicting existing tenants, Ellis Act, and those building owners will apply for, if they already did not do so, for a Condo map and sell those units as Condo's. There will never be another apartment building built in this state. Do your homework as to why the elected city official's of San Francisco went to the legislators of Sacramento and asked them to pass the Costa Hawkins bill in the 1990's, because there where no units for people to move into when they wanted to live in San Francisco because they stopped building apartments when they passed rent control in San Francisco. The is one of the harmful effects of rent control.

In response to It's Only Fair you said:

“If Costa Hawkins makes it on the ballot, and if voters approve it, all these new apartment buildings that have been built in our city, will more than likely be evicting existing tenants, Ellis Act, and those building owners will apply for, if they already did not do so, for a Condo map and sell those units as Condo's.”

What an empty threat. Yes, the current owners will simply leave. Don’t let the door hit you on the way out. You also said:

“There will never be another apartment building built in this state. Do your homework as to why the elected city official's of San Francisco went to the legislators of Sacramento and asked them to pass the Costa Hawkins bill in the 1990's, because there where no units for people to move into when they wanted to live in San Francisco because they stopped building apartments when they passed rent control in San Francisco. “

And please demonstrate that Costa Hawkins prevented a incredible lack of housing? If you read the article found here, that seems to be proven wrong. (Web Link The report indicates at minimum a 1.5 million unit deficit. Show us evidence that you did anything to prevent this?

Granted, the current owners will probably leave, again, the state of California does not owe anything to the current owners. You are free to leave. But the “free-market” will fill your spot. We simply do not need you.

THAT IS FAIR

Yes, after rent control passed in 1979 in San Francisco, multi family construction stopped in the city. New construction started once again as Costa Hawkins passed as state law. Had there been no rent control in the city, construction would have continued and NOT STOPPED.

The problem with some people is that they have a lot to say, but they do not know what they are talking about.

In response to Mark you said:

“Yes, after rent control passed in 1979 in San Francisco, multi family construction stopped in the city. New construction started once again as Costa Hawkins passed as state law. Had there been no rent control in the city, construction would have continued and NOT STOPPED.”

What evidence do you have to support your opinion. What evidence do you have that established that Costa Hawkins provided adequate housing in the state of California? You also said:

“The problem with some people is that they have a lot to say, but they do not know what they are talking about.”

All I think is I remember 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.

If the make-believe 'reform' of Measure V qualifies for the November ballot and is approved by voters, there will be no rent control in Mountain View for anyone for at least two reasons: (1) the landlords' new measure provides for the suspension of all rent control whenever the vacancy rate is above 3% as it always is and (2) landlords would be entitled to apply to increase rents on their tenants in view of the opportunity "cost" of rent control itself.