You got to be kidding me!
Another article again about this!

You must think that the people of our city are really stupid and can not read the initiative them-self, or that they are just sheep and you have to tell them what to do. If it is as bad as you claim, then people will not sign it, simple

This almost daily attacks of repetitive story's shows how desperate you are in that you want no reforms to this unfair-bureaucratic-expensive Measure V.

People should read it themself's and then decide themself's.

I support it and signed it.

Follow the same rules that the Measure V people said 2 years ago, "we just want this on the ballot and let the people decide"

By gathering enough signatures now, we can have a debate about the merits of the initiative over the summer, then people can say yes or no at the ballot in November.

What we have now is nothing but a bunch of loud people who do not want a debate but to simply label it as "Fake"

This is just the duplicate copy of the original story that often appears on the Voice website. It is a longstanding website quirk that all regular readers know about.

DO NOT post more comments to this copy! They'll just make you look ignorant about how the website works. The management may well condense the two copies back together again anyway, they often do.

No, let me make this simple for you to understand.

The Voice and it's employees are advocates of Measure V. They did everything to promote it 2 years ago, including hit piece stories against landlords. Voice employees past and present worked for the Measure V campaign without disclosing that fact to readers, only when other local papers disclosed that fact did they acknowledge that. The Voice advertised where people could go and sign Measure V initiative, etc.

Just look at the stark difference how the Measure V people where treated as compared to this reform initiative that is now circulating.

By you calling me "ignorant" for the fact that I am pointing that bias out shows that you have an agenda and this is not "normal duplicate posting".

I guess you must truly be new to the website then. This happens with many articles, it is a painfully familiar limitation of the software. (It isn't All About You.)

(I have no "agenda," I support the new initiative, I know from experience rent control's horrible side effects FOR RENTERS, and I have supported you in other threads here. Kindly wise up, I was trying to save you from an embarassing gaffe and it seems I failed!)

I have been here for many years.

Again your defensive reply quite missed my point. All *attentive* regular readers of this Town Square forum are accustomed to seeing duplicated copies of stories, when the story is first released here in advance of the print edition. A second copy is generated automatically (involuntarily) after the physical papers are printed. The Voice employees periodically explain and apologize, but the pattern is obvious anyway if you read many stories and pay attention. As you can check, text content of both online versions is identical, only the URL paths to the full stories differ, and they show different dates, a few days apart.

It is a standard quirk of this website. To be unaware of it (and rush to add comments to the duplicated online copy) gives an impression of either inexperience or inattention. (To go even further than that, and label the duplicated online copy "another article," as if posted deliberately, is seriously self-discrediting.) I'm disappointed, because I appreciated your thoughtful comments in the previous copy of the story and your (persistent) comments in this one do you disservice.

There are 3 "duplicate stories" about Do not sign measure V in the past 7 days.

How many other, non measure V, "duplicate" stories do you see in the past 7 days?

In this first article, it included council woman Showalter as it's guest opinion, but now her name is exluded in this second post.

Did she finally read the intiative and now agrees with it?

Or did the Voice make an assumption to push her in that direction?

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]

I stand corrected,her name is there.

I can see which side you support, the untolerant, uncivil side which calls other people names to shut down debate.

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or off topic]

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or off topic]

Glad they post d this again as I missed it the first time. So glad this petition is circulating, definitely will sign and hope to help gather signatures! Let’s get this rent control fiasco put to bed!

In response to It's Only Fair you said:

“I signed the initiative!!

I do not agree with the OP or the person who first posted, but everyone is entitled to their opinion.”

Of course you did, you’re a landlord in Mountain View, I know who you are because I have observed your behavior at the City Council and the RHC. It is in your monetary interest to gut the CSFRA

In response to Mark you said:

“I would suggest people should read the proposed changes themselves and not let these loud people tell them what to do. It is ridiculously funny to listen to people Calling something that they do not agree with, all these name's, like "Fraud".”

We are not loud, but we will call misinformation and deception for what it is. Just look at the false information used on the Measure V Too Costly Website Videos:

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

You also said:

“To all of you against this, why do you not follow the same rules that you where saying 2 year's ago, like, "we just want to get, measure V, onto the ballot so people can vote on it"

Let people read it, then let them decide what they want to do.”

We do not say you cannot read it. Just that it is not truthful, full of ways to kill existing rights to the citizens of Mountain View. You cannot trust for profit individuals regarding political initiatives because they are always designed to benefit them financially. This is the “Ultimate Truth”

karma.

And now back to the topic of rent control...interesting piece Web Link

Please sign the petition to place the amendment to Measure V on the ballot

Measure V should be amended because it is poor quality legislation with
un-intended consequences

1. Did voters intend the following:
a) A 200 unit apartment complex filed 156 page document to raise their
rent because they have been under-pricing the market
b) Create a $2.6 Million bureaucracy to over-see this program
c) 2017 the rent increases were limited to 3.4% (CPI). But excluded
increases in water/garbage and the $155/unit fee. Real rent increase
is about 1% behind the Consumer Price Index or about 2.4%. Is this any
way to run a railroad?

I don't think the pro-rent control folks intended any of these consequences. They
just didn't know any better.

But let's step back and think about this. Measure V takes money out of housing
provider pockets and puts it in the pockets of lawyers, retired judges,
administrators, and a new database system. What would landlords do with that money?
Of course, a portion is profit, other portions are daily operating expense like fixing the plumbing, leaf blowing, and 10% of their income should be set aside to pay for big ticket items when they come due - such as roofs, paint jobs, driveway, replace toilets, windows, floors, faucets, showers. The profit margins of the little landlord which provide a lot of the pre-1995 housing are not that big. According to Forbes Magazine, the net profit margin is about 8%. It does not seem to be a good use of funds to take it out of housing providers pockets and put it in the pockets of a bureaucracy.

Imagine the time and cost to do a 156 page document to apply for a rent increase,
because you have been pricing under market. Is that a good use of funds?

And how does it makes sense for the real rent increase to lag the CPI by about a full 1%. They do this by ignoring expense items such as water, garbage, and Measure V fees. Government can get away with ignoring expense line items which would show up in a private sector income statement. But housing providers can't get away with that. We pay out bills.

Please sign the petition to place the amendment to Measure V on the ballot

Measure V should be amended because it is poor quality legislation with
un-intended consequences

Measure V should be amended because the authors did not understand the consequences of their actions.

@YIMBY2

As long as Prop 13 is in place to make sure grandma isn't priced out of her house, we need rent control to make sure she isn't priced out of her apartment.

I am having some fun. How?

I overheard John Inks at the last City Council; meeting discuss the fact that the current signatures count is only at about 1500 signatures.

THe deadline for the new initiative is rapidly approaching. I cannot seem to find the deadline written anywhere. But from what I understand the rule is 131 days before the next general election. If the next general election is November 6, 2018.

Online it means that May 30, 2018 is the deadline for the signatures I think.

THe initiative needs:

Representatives of Measure V Too Costly filed The Mountain View Homeowner, Renter and Taxpayer Protection Initiative Friday, an effort to modify Measure V provisions they claim are overly restrictive and merely serve to subsidize housing for the wealthy at the expense of those in need. Within 15 days, the city attorney will draft a summary of the proposal, and proponents must collect at least 5,500 signatures – 15 percent of registered Mountain View voters – to earn the initiative a spot on the November ballot. It would require a majority vote to pass.

Thus there appears to be a need of an additional 4000 signatures in less than 20 days, there will need to be 200 signatures collected per day.

I will keep an eye on this, especially since in Pacifica there was a criminal prosecution due to illegal signature collection seen here (Web Link

To me the only way to achieve the goal is some kind of illegal activity.

To The Business Man:

Thank you for noting the claims contained in the clips used by sponsors of the Measure V Too Costly campaign.

I know and have respected several of the people shown in these videos. I am appalled to hear them blatantly lie about the content and implementation of Measure V, lied which you, Business Man, have spelled out above.

Mountain View is a community of highly educated people. These current and former City Council members and others should be embarrassed to lie to us, to present "alternative facts."

I have the following observations:

The first is that it is very unfortunate that we live in the era of George Orwell’s 1984. The information age has become a battlefield where the truth is the ultimate victim. You only hear the yelling regarding the idea of “fake” news and “spin”. We now live in an age that has used the information age to destroy the integrity of our language and information. Just look at the fact that all we see now is people trying to force their beliefs down your throat.

I hope that I have not become the same as the above. I have been trying not to become like that. I have expressed my opinion only in the dream to be informative. I want all to know that I do not require anyone to agree with me.

Another observation is since “Citizen’s United” the “for-profit” business of government has taken control. Even if a person loses an election, they actually win regarding wealth and power behind the scenes. A perfect example can be proposed regarding John Inks, Mike Kasperzak, and Margaret Abe-Koga.

If the Initiative authored by John Inks does not get the required signatures, I hope that the City Council will refuse to sell out and provide a back-door to the election regarding the initiative. At least we know that at least 3 city council members at least imply they will not cooperate. We know that Margaret Abe Koga will help John Inks. We then are left with Chris Clark, Lisa Matichek, and John McAllister.

As far as Lisa Matichek is concerned, she will assist John Inks because it is clear she has a “personal” or “financial” interest to assist him. She had in fact pushed for RHC Members she knew would take any opportunity to assist the private interest of the private landlords, investors and developers in Mountain View.

As far as Chris Clark at least seems to be what I can call independent as a history. You look at his background and it does not imply any bias regarding this situation. I hold hope that this will be good for the City of Mountain View. As far as John McAllister, he seems to also fall in the same category as Chris Clark.

So my observation is that we will have 2 Strong John Inks Initiative Supporters, 3 clear Oppositions of the Initiative, and the 2 members that have made it clear that they have not expressed any opinion publically. So it is very clear that Chris Clark and John McAllister are the ones that the Citizens of Mountain View must persuade to oppose any Initiative on the ballot.

@It's Only Fair: Please identify the current Voice employees whom you claim work for Measure V. To my knowledge, only one former staffer worked for Measure V, beginning about a year after he left our employment. His former affiliation with the Voice was disclosed in stories quoting him in his capacity as spokesperson for the campaign.

I wonder what's going on.

There is very little discussion being provided by those in support of the current ballot measure.

Is it because if Costa Hawkins is on the November ballot, the likelihood of anyone voting to hurt their rights regarding CSFRA are very slim?

In effect, the current tenants in the newer buildings once Costa Hawkins is dead, will vote their own rent rollbacks to October 2015, and rent control on a new measure in the next election?

FINALLY THE TENATSA ARE REALLY UNITED AND WILL ENFORCE THE OLD RULES OF BUSINESS ON APARTMENTS:

Rule 1: The CUSTOMER is ALWAYS right

Rule 2: in the case of the CUSTOMER being WRONG, REFER TO RULE NUMBER 1

The States landlords are due for a serious business lesson.

One observation.

I was at the City Council meeting on Tuesday and John Inks was there along with Curt Conroy.

Curt exercised his rights to address the City Council, but John Inks did not. I have actually significant respect for Mr. Conroy even though I do not agree with him and the content of his discussion. Primarily because I see nothing wrong with his conduct given the circumstances. But John Inks on the other hand has been earning a living via his work with the Measure V Too Costly website and his ballot initiative. I call it his initiative because he signed the documents in filing for it.

He has clearly made false statements, and simply refuses to remove the false claims from the Measure V Too Costly website. The same goes for Mike Kasperzak and Margaret Abe-Koga. What is good for those of us who keep vigilance on what is on the Internet.

It was a surprise that he chose not to discuss his initiative at the meeting even though it does look like he will need the City Council to get his initiative on the ballot.

I love what is happening in the state of California.

Real BUSINESS means that the “supply-side” owners cannot dictate the market. And now with Costa Hawkins in critical condition many of those who exploited the market in California are running like rats off a sinking ship if you read this article (Web Link

Specifically:

A push to expand rent control in California is sending a chill through the state’s apartment industry, prompting more investors to sell properties or hold off on buying.

Ben Lamson, whose family owned just under 100 apartments in the Inland Empire area in southern California, said he has sold about 70 units and is in contract to sell the remaining ones. He is taking all the money and investing it in properties in the Las Vegas area, he said.

Mr. Lamson said he started reading news about the push for rent control a year ago and decided it was time to leave the state where he was born and has lived for five decades. He and his wife bought a home for themselves in Las Vegas, where they plan to retire in the next five years.

“These renter groups are starting to speak out and say, ‘These rents are ridiculous.’ They’ve gotten more organized than they ever have been,” he said. “I started getting a little freaked out or a little scared or concerned [that] this could really happen.”

In late April, a coalition of housing advocates said they submitted some 595,000 signatures, more than enough to get a measure on the ballot in November to repeal Costa Hawkins, state legislation that prevents cities and towns from imposing rent control on buildings constructed after 1995 and on single-family rentals.”

YES, but it went on to say:

“In Santa Monica, the number of properties on the market is at the highest level in 20 years, according to Tony Solomon, a first vice president at Marcus & Millichap based in southern California. Mr. Solomon said there are 90 properties on the market, about 80% more than normal.

He said developers are also holding off on bidding on land to build new developments.

Many of the buildings on the market are a direct result of the fear that if “this were to pass, what this would do to the community again” in terms of prompting landlords to stop investing in their buildings and creating widespread disrepair, Mr. Solomon said.”

WRONG, there will be laws and regulations put into place to require that the landlords must never be allowed to let properties go into disrepair, by either direct penalties by the local government, or the power of tenants to dictate a lower rent via petitions. Simply put, this is the empty threat the landlords make every time their market control is threatened. It went on to say:

“Data from property tracker Real Capital Analytics show a 22% increase in multifamily sales, to $4.5 billion in the first quarter of 2018, compared with the same quarter a year earlier. Prices have risen 8% during this time, which indicates demand is healthy.”

WELL, that means that there are buyers willing to take over the properties, but the price rising only 8% is not in parity with the 22% rise in sales. These should be equal so that the prices should be rising at about 20% given stable demand. Thus this does not prove a “healthy” demand. It went on to say:

“Brokers and owners say they have become more spooked since the measure officially garnered enough signatures to be on the ballot, which won’t be reflected until the second-quarter data. The potential expansion of rent control is also having a bigger effect in places like Santa Monica and Santa Ana, where politicians and advocates are openly weighing expanding rent control.”

Advocates are skeptical of owners’ complaints that the push for rent control is having a negative impact on the market. Stephen Barton, who has a doctorate in city and regional planning from the University of California at Berkeley and is a former deputy director of Berkeley’s rent stabilization program, noted that real-estate groups are pushing for loosening development regulations even though that can depress rents.

“It’s very self-contradictory to say we need an enormous increase in supply and then point to rent control and say this would be terrible,” Mr. Barton said.

Landlords said what is concerning to them is the uncertainty over how municipalities will react to the repeal of Costa Hawkins and how far they will go to limit their ability to raise rents.

A Santa Monica apartment owner with roughly 50 apartment buildings, who declined to be named because he said he was afraid of attracting additional scrutiny at a politically sensitive moment, said he was in contract to purchase two properties but decided to back out because he wasn’t confident the measure would be defeated.”


I have always said that we do not need “specific” owners of properties. They are free to divest and leave. Of course they will see significantly lower sales prices in this situation. But they are free to go. The properties will remain on site until there are plans approved for replacement. The opposition simply understands that the customer is prevailing in the market after much exploitation via Costa Hawkins.