I am getting tired of the repetitive falsehoods cited by the recall campaign. Anyone who bothers to look at sources besides the recall campaign website will see there is much criticism of the way they distort the facts. It's almost as though facts don't matter - they power their campaign with outrage, and lies are definitely more effective at lighting the torches. This is 2016 all over again, right down to the Twitter-fueled alternate universe. Hopefully voters will be able to see through the deception. A campaign that requires so much dishonesty can't be good.

(I have a hard time believing that all of these letter writers are just regular folks writing in - since many of these same letters have appeared in other papers, I suspect that this is a coordinated effort by the recall team. Sad that the MV Voice has been duped like this).

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. Current law ALLOWS unlimited power to draw money from the general fund and also there is no cap on the spending and growing cost of this new RHC bureaucracy. This initiative 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!

Almost every rent controlled city splits the cost to administer the rent control costs 50/50 with landlords and tenants, but not in Mtn. View, they hand this new expense to landlords.

Also remember that the Tenants Coalition also used paid signature gathers to get their initiative, Measure V, onto the ballot. That should not be relevant anyway as the voters have to decide if they support this or not.

I have signed this initiative to get it on the ballot.

"It's only fair" is my favorite new astroturf poster. You haven't signed anything because you don't live in Mountain View.

Responding to "Also remember that the Tenants Coalition also used paid signature gathers to get their initiative, Measure V, onto the ballot. That should not be relevant anyway as the voters have to decide if they support this or not."

I would agree that paid gatherers aren't an issue in itself, but they become an issue when:
1) the gatherers are misportrayed the ballot initiative (and the initiative itself may be written to mislead)
2) the initiative sponsors is being investigated in Pacifica for illegal activity
3) the initiative sponsors are accusing Measure V of being of "outside interest" when in fact itself is an outside interests

From the San Jose Mercury regarding Measure V: "7,100 signatures were gathered for Measure V... 100 volunteers gathered the signatures, standing in front of grocery stores and knocking on thousands of doors... Less than 500 signatures were collected by paid signature gatherers, who were paid $4 a signature. The majority of signature gatherers were volunteers, according to the coalition." Source:
Web Link

That makes Measure V less than 10% paid signatures, so why leave that fact out? I really want to support fixing the many flaws of Measure V, but how I can support an initiative that misleads residents, gaslights its opponents, and calls for the removal of renters from the Rental Housing Committee (60% of MV are renters), all the while turning a blind eye to equal conflicts of interest among its own supporters on Rental Housing Committee.

Misleading Mountain View residents shouldn't be a financial investment tactic we welcome in our city. Landlords should stick to a truthful debate, share their hardships regarding the overwhelming paperwork and uncompensated rise in costs.

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. Current law ALLOWS unlimited power to draw money from the general fund and also there is no cap on the spending and growing cost of this new RHC bureaucracy. This initiative 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

"It's only fair," which properties in Mountain View are you a landlord or property manager for?

Measure V is the cause for this continued divisiveness. It was written by an outside activist group that targets cites that have a majority of renter's in it. This group is now in Pasadena gathering signatures for this very same initiative that they used in our city.

They wrote into this now law that the RHC has sole power to operate in our city with no oversight from the city council or the voting public.

The public has no recourse to make any adjustments to this law, except to do another intiative and then let the people decide the outcome. That was the intention of Measure V, to make it nearly impossible to change. It appears that many just want to call others names, intimidate, and not talk about the problems that is in Measure V.

I am for a full repeal of Measure V and support a simple law that caps rent increases to 7% and some simple rules that cover unjust evictions, then take it to the local court and let the judge decide the case based on the merits for any issues.

Get rid of everything else, including this $2.6 million dollar, divisive, new government agency known as the RHC.

KIS.

Both Measure V and its repeal share that they begin with outside interest, but the similarities stop there. This particular repeal will signal that democracy in Mountain View is for sale to whichever organization can pay for a manipulatively worded ballot, pay for enough signatures, and then pay for enough ads to make sure its misleading message is all people see.

MV is smart enough to know that rental advocates mobilizing hundreds of MV residents to pass Measure V is not the same thing as the California Apartment Association and their war chest and army of consultants.

Yes, rentals are a service, and landlords deserve to be compensated for offering that service, I think most of MV would agree. Many residents including myself do very much want to fix the problems with Measure V, but no fix is worth setting a precedent that MV laws are for sale.

In response to Mark you said:

“Measure V is the cause for this continued divisiveness. It was written by an outside activist group that targets cites that have a majority of renter's in it. This group is now in Pasadena gathering signatures for this very same initiative that they used in our city.”

No, Measure V was a Mountain View Citizens Initiative, authored with the approval of Mountain View Citizens, signed by Mountain View Citizens to be on the Ballot, Voted in approval by Mountain View Citizens. You made this claim in the past, so I just have to make sure the public is not mislead. You said:

“They wrote into this now law that the RHC has sole power to operate in our city with no oversight from the city council or the voting public.”

That is also not correct, if you can place some kind of REAL INJUSTICE that persuades the voters that the RHC is in effect taking outrageous actions, the voters can simply approve a remedy. The Voting public still has absolute control. You said:

“The public has no recourse to make any adjustments to this law, except to do another intiative and then let the people decide the outcome. That was the intention of Measure V, to make it nearly impossible to change. It appears that many just want to call others names, intimidate, and not talk about the problems that is in Measure V.”

So far the “PUBLIC” has not agreed with you. Yes it was designed to be difficult to alter because the City Attorney, The City Council, The CAA, and the City Landlords exploited the citizens of Mountain View for 2 years. Constant requests to help resolve the housing crisis in Mountain View went with solutions that were simply outrageous, like taking Homeowner tax dollars and using them to give to landlords without any responsibilities on the landlords part to control rents. Please understand that the CSFRA is much more fair to homeowners because they do not pay for it/ You also said:

“I am for a full repeal of Measure V and support a simple law that caps rent increases to 7% and some simple rules that cover unjust evictions, then take it to the local court and let the judge decide the case based on the merits for any issues.”

Again, the devil is in the details. You proposal is a good start, but you need to understand a lot regarding if it would be upheld in court. You also said:

“Get rid of everything else, including this $2.6 million dollar, divisive, new government agency known as the RHC.”

I simply do not agree with this as the only solution, but it is my opinion.

What I find interesting is that “It’s only Fair” and “Mark” are using the same words from the same script please read:

Its only fair in the article (Web Link made this statement:

“This Measure V was a STUPID IDEA. It was brought to this city from outside activist groups who are now doing this in southern California cities.

There is no need for the costs, the divisiveness, that this Measure V has caused our community.

There should simply be a law that says rents can not be raised more than 7% in a year, have a simple set of laws regarding unlawful evictions that the local courts and the judge will hear and decide the case based on the merits.

Lets get rid of this Measure V and hope this can be put on the ballot to repeal it.”

Then Mark said:

“Measure V is the cause for this continued divisiveness. It was written by an outside activist group that targets cites that have a majority of renter's in it. This group is now in Pasadena gathering signatures for this very same initiative that they used in our city.

They wrote into this now law that the RHC has sole power to operate in our city with no oversight from the city council or the voting public.

The public has no recourse to make any adjustments to this law, except to do another intiative and then let the people decide the outcome. That was the intention of Measure V, to make it nearly impossible to change. It appears that many just want to call others names, intimidate, and not talk about the problems that is in Measure V.

I am for a full repeal of Measure V and support a simple law that caps rent increases to 7% and some simple rules that cover unjust evictions, then take it to the local court and let the judge decide the case based on the merits for any issues.

Get rid of everything else, including this $2.6 million dollar, divisive, new government agency known as the RHC.”

It almost looks like they are reading bullet points from the same memo and then posting it on this service. Now isn’t that very peculiar. I would potentially argue that these two are simply acting as agents of those opposed to Measure V or CSFRA. Makes you wonder if they are paid to do so? In any event, these “two” may in fact be “one” in reality.

Mr. Chiang,

Your opinion shows what a utter Hippocrate and true partisan you are.

You talk about democracy is not for sale here? What the h#ll do you think the Measure V people did, by not only limiting further rent increases but by also telling renter's that we are going to roll back the rents to some 15 months prior to the election and force the landlords to refund that money to them. You bought these votes so there is your democracy for sale. The 2 prior rent control ballot measures in this city had failed, so to pass the 3rd one you had to promise money in people's pocket.

California also had a state wide ballot measure in the past that banned same sex marriages, and it passed by the voters. Mountain View has 15,000 renter's and maybe 800 landlords. Just because you have the majority and can pass what you want, does not make it right.

Calling this intiative a "repeal" is not being honest.

Your own words, "It appears that many just want to call others names, intimidate..."

Ihn response to Mark you said:

“You talk about democracy is not for sale here? What the h#ll do you think the Measure V people did, by not only limiting further rent increases but by also telling renter's that we are going to roll back the rents to some 15 months prior to the election and force the landlords to refund that money to them. You bought these votes so there is your democracy for sale. The 2 prior rent control ballot measures in this city had failed, so to pass the 3rd one you had to promise money in people's pocket.”

That was the content of the CSFRA. The citizens of Mountain View voted. Realize that property ownership is NOT CITIZENSHIP of the City of Mountain View. So those who live outside the City simply do not count as Citizens of the City of Mountain View. They are Citizens of the place they reside. You also said:

“California also had a state wide ballot measure in the past that banned same sex marriages, and it passed by the voters. Mountain View has 15,000 renter's and maybe 800 landlords. Just because you have the majority and can pass what you want, does not make it right.”

True that same sex marriage was passed and destroyed for unconstitutionality, you are free to argue in the courts that CSFRA is unconstitutional. Oh wait, it was brought to court, and oh yes, was not found unconstitutional, and the landlords and the CAA dropped that challenge. But more importantly, since there is NOT A REGISTRY of apartments in Mountain View, where the number of buildings, units, unit specifications, or ownership is maintained, and your count of 800 landlords seems a bit high. I would argue only about 100 landlords are owners of apartments in Mountain View. I strongly encourage a new database be made so that this information can be verified. You said:

“Calling this intiative a "repeal" is not being honest.”

Technically you are correct, it does not “repeal” CSFRA, but it “suspends” all rights to it andalso radically modifies the criteria of it. It in effect kills it by cutting the body enough and taking out organs necessary for it to survive. This may be more accurate, but the end result is the same. So I do find your argument a bit disingenuous.