@ Lynn C Waelde

What Mr. Dave intended to communicate which I have witnessed in other districts, is that the rush to include minority kids in advanced placement classes is often not well considered. In an effort to justify the inclusion of more kids there are occasions when instructors are asked to make it Halley and as a result the rigor of the classwork is effected, damaging the opportunity for all kids involved. Mr. Dave has repeatedly apologized for his inability to communicate this appropriately. But the reality is that sometimes people out their feet in their mouths and say something they don’t actually mean or something that misrepresents their actual beliefs. Do you personally know Mr. Dave? I kinda doubt it based on your editorial. Perhaps you should meet with him and discuss the issue.

I actually know him, and I’ve actually worked with him. I’m black and I completely understand what he meant to say and I completely understand that he butchered the idea he was trying to communicate. But your assertion that someone making a mistake or miscommunication an idea should immediately resign is a bit unforgiving. And I’m quite certain you don’t offer your resignation every time you misspeak or make a poorly wired statement or communicate a poorly considered policy opinion. It’s just not done. Mr. Dave has made a mistake. He has learned from his error. He has been a fantastic public servant for many years in this community. And one mistake shouldn’t negate this work for him or anyone else. Let’s put this issue to bed now and get back to the real discussion which is oreoaring kids who may have fewer resources for AP classes and identifying those kids earlier so that we may help them prepare for Success in AP classes. For your information, that is Mr. Dave’s position and I think it fits nicely with the District’s mission.

In response to Dave Fork I just want make sure the public is aware of this:

We are not loud, but we will call misinformation and deception for what it is. Dave Fork based his opinion on the propaganda provided by the false information used on the Measure V Too Costly Website Videos. I will go into a review of those 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 are a full service apologist for all sorts of sorry characters.

We should trust Sanjay Dave because you "know" him? Just like you know and respect Ayinde Rudolph and make apologies for the MVWSD board?

I don't think so!

It appears that the landlords are learning how to use THE VOICE to advance their views or financial interests. Great. But still NO ONE SHOULD SIGN THE LANDLORDS' SNEAKY RENT CONTROL REPEAL petition disguised as mere amendments to Measure V.

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.

Businessman,

You think Landlords and investors "running like rats off a sinking ship" is a good thing for the housing market?
Landlords selling off properties and moving money to Las Vegas and out of California is good? Who does this benefit? Sounds like it makes a bad problem worse for everyone including tenants?

Somehow, you think that if you financially hurt the "supply side" as you call it your going to benefit the consumer side?

This would only happen if the costs associated with the housing industry would fall with the decreased rents. That would be everything from materials to labor to fees and taxes. Do you think this is going to happen in a expanding economy?
If so, over how long would this adjustment to the cost of everything take while the landlord hangs on?

Would all other investments like stocks, bonds, gold, everything have to come down offering a lower return on investment also so the housing industry could survive?
I'm interested in your thoughts.

In response to Howard you said:

“You think Landlords and investors "running like rats off a sinking ship" is a good thing for the housing market? “

YES is the intent of those are to make use of “Market Exploitation”. The “Housing Market” will succeed without “Market Exploitation. You also said:

“Landlords selling off properties and moving money to Las Vegas and out of California is good? Who does this benefit? Sounds like it makes a bad problem worse for everyone including tenants?”

The “Housing Market” will succeed without those who depend on “Market Manipulation” WE in California do not NEED anyone who wants to MANIPLLUATE the MARKET. If this is your modis operandi we do not want you engaged with US. You said:

“Somehow, you think that if you financially hurt the "supply side" as you call it your going to benefit the consumer side?”

The fact is that “Market Manipulation” is used to finically hurt the consumer. The citizens right to properly regulate the market is not financially hurting them, just changing the rules of the game. You said:

“This would only happen if the costs associated with the housing industry would fall with the decreased rents. That would be everything from materials to labor to fees and taxes. Do you think this is going to happen in a expanding economy?”

That is not the responsibility of the citizens of California. That was a responsibility you choose to take to participate in this industry. I simply state those who are interested in a “Fair Market” will not leave. You also said:

“If so, over how long would this adjustment to the cost of everything take while the landlord hangs on?”

That depends on how long the “Market Correction” time and impact takes for the situation to correct itself. No one can predict that. The correct can be very severe given that some properties have been inflated as much as 450%. This was put off during the 2007-8 homeowner market correction by politicians and businesses. This simply is not the responsibility of citizens or customers. That’s all. You said:

“Would all other investments like stocks, bonds, gold, everything have to come down offering a lower return on investment also so the housing industry could survive?”

NO, because they are not in that market. Your attempt to obfuscate the issue by attempting to equivocate the “Housing Market” which involved significant manipulation to those markets that are much more transparent is simply incredible. The “Housing Market” will not only survive, but it will eventually thrive without the “Manipulation” you defend. You said:

“I'm interested in your thoughts.”

I think I made my thoughts clear. We do not need those depending on ”Political”, “Market”, or any other manipulation in order to maintain an artificially high ROI and reduce the risk involved with it. THAT IS REAL BUSINESS. Those of you that depended on the status quo, simply have outlasted your usefulness, social Darwinism will take care of you.

Businessman,

You use terms like “Market Exploitation” and “Market Manipulation” as the premise for your position and conclusion.

First of all, you must prove that these conditions exist to come to the conclusion that some regulation is necessary and then, and only then, that rent control is the answer to increase affordable housing in California.

You jump past all the questions one would ask to surmise or suppose that something is true without having evidence to confirm it. In other words, You have no proof that “Market Exploitation” and “Market Manipulation” truly exists and go straight to conclude that rent control is the solution without identifying the true problem.

If market exploitation and market manipulation truly exists in California, please state what laws or policies are in place to cause this?

As I understand it, we have anti-discrimination laws in our state that allow all to own or invest in real estate. Legally, we have abolished all past discrimination laws, allowing all to invest in real estate.

Are you oppressed somehow?

Please let me know. Maybe I can give you some guidance on how you can invest in real estate too.

In response to Howard you said:

“You use terms like “Market Exploitation” and “Market Manipulation” as the premise for your position and conclusion.

First of all, you must prove that these conditions exist to come to the conclusion that some regulation is necessary and then, and only then, that rent control is the answer to increase affordable housing in California. “

As far as “Market Manipulation” Please read the following report (Web Link

It specifically states:

“Horror stories abound of agents not listing properties until after they’ve tipped off an investor, several industry insiders told SN&R. It’s a practice known as “pocket listing,” Blomquist said, because it allows the agent to make money off of both listing and sales commissions.

“Several hundred homes never see the light of day,” Pool added.

But why would sellers take the first investor offer they solicit when the market is witnessing such sharp gains?

“It could be a greed, money, back-pocket type of thing,” Cuffe suggested.””

The facts are that landlords do not list apartments now unless they feel thjey can get the “rent” they dictate they must receive to provide the unit. Otherwise, they leave them delisted, artificiually reducing available inventory. As far as “Market Exploitation” please read this information (Web Link

Specifically it states:

A. Strong Version of the Claim: Deliberate Exploitation

IN SHORT, THE STRONG VERSION OF THE EXPLOITATION CLAIM—WHICH REQUIRES THE IDENTIFICATION OF IMMORAL OR ILLEGAL ACTION BY INDIVIDUAL LANDLORDS—SEEMS TO HAVE LITTLE SUPPORT. “

Given that the private landlords, investors and developers at least in Sacramento have the power to control the laws, that negates the legal defense in this statement. Also:

“AS DESMOND REPORTED, EVEN THOSE TENANTS MOST VULNERABLE TO EVICTIONS TEND NOT TO FAULT THEIR LANDLORDS: “TRAILER PARK RESIDENTS RARELY RAISED A FUSS ABOUT A NEIGHBOR’S EVICTION, WHETHER THAT PERSON WAS A KNOWN DRUG ADDICT OR NOT. EVICTIONS WERE DESERVED, UNDERSTOOD TO BE THE OUTCOME OF INDIVIDUAL FAILURE . . . . NO ONE THOUGHT THE POOR MORE UNDESERVING THAN THE POOR THEMSELVES.”

Which begs the question, why should tenants be deserving to have the market rigged against them? Also it was stated:

“AND IT IS HERE, WHEN THE FOCUS MOVES AWAY FROM PARTICULAR LANDLORDS TO THE NATURE OF THE MARKET, THAT A BETTER ARGUMENT FOR EXPLOITATION CAN BE MADE.”

And:

“LANDLORDS REAP BENEFITS BEYOND JUST THE LEGAL POWER DYNAMIC BETWEEN LANDLORD AND TENANT. AS DESMOND EXPLAINS, THE SUCCESS OF THE LANDLORDS IN EVICTED ALSO REFLECTS THE HIGH DEMAND FOR HOUSING AND THE CONSEQUENT STRENGTH OF THE LOW-END RENTAL MARKET.”

Given that available units are controlled by private landlords, investors and developers, no wonder. It goes on to say:

“SHERRENA AND SIMILAR LANDLORDS WITH ACCESS TO CASH OR CREDIT COULD TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE FACT THAT WHILE “PROPERTY VALUES FELL (AND WITH THEM MORTGAGE AND TAX BILLS),” “RENTS REMAINED HIGH.”

Well, that doesn’t seem to make sense, it went on to say:

“LANDLORDS HAVE POWER NOT ONLY IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL RELATIONSHIPS WITH TENANTS BUT ALSO IN THEIR ROLE SHAPING URBAN LIFE.”

In the City of Mountain View City Council, this statement was PROVEN. It took the City Citizens to go outside the normal legislative channels to achieve CSFRA, and attempt to protect it from the City Attorney and City Council. It goes on to say:

“THE CHALLENGE WHEN IT COMES TO STRUCTURAL EXPLOITATION IS THAT, AS THE FOCUS SHIFTS FROM INDIVIDUAL PARTICIPANTS TO THE MARKET, IT BECOMES HARDER TO IDENTIFY CAUSATION.

…

”THE MOST WE CAN SAY IS THAT THE LOW END OF THE HOUSING MARKET IS EXPLOITATIVE, WITH BLAME DIFFUSING TO ALL OF SOCIETY….

…

Ultimately, the question of whether or not Desmond’s exploitation claim can be sustained depends on what version of the claim is embraced. WHILE IT IS HARD TO ASSERT THAT LANDLORDS—EVEN IF THEY AT TIMES ACT SOMEWHAT HEARTLESSLY—BEAR INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR EXPLOITING THE POOR, IT IS POSSIBLE TO MAKE A RELATIVELY ROBUST ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF THE MARKET-BASED VERSION OF THE EXPLOITATION CLAIM. THE MARKET, COMBINED WITH A LEGAL STRUCTURE THAT LARGELY SUPPORTS THE INTERESTS OF LANDLORDS IN COLLECTING RENT OVER THE INTERESTS OF TENANTS IN ADEQUATE CONDITIONS, EXPLOITS THE INABILITY OF THE POOR TO MAKE MEANINGFUL DEMANDS ON LANDLORDS.”

So I have now provide that there is evidence regarding both “Market Manipulation” and “Market Exploitation”. So please explain what private landlords, investors, developers and the like are doing to prevent what is described above? If you cannot explain any legitimate reason for these events to be protected under the laws, it would seem you need to instead start the process of correcting for this problem You also said:

“You jump past all the questions one would ask to surmise or suppose that something is true without having evidence to confirm it. In other words, You have no proof that “Market Exploitation” and “Market Manipulation” truly exists and go straight to conclude that rent control is the solution without identifying the true problem.”

I have answered that question let’s go on to the next comment you said:

“If market exploitation and market manipulation truly exists in California, please state what laws or policies are in place to cause this? “

I think I just gave you that information, but let’s just call it for what it is “Costa Hawkins”, so let’s just move on to your next claim you said:

“As I understand it, we have anti-discrimination laws in our state that allow all to own or invest in real estate. Legally, we have abolished all past discrimination laws, allowing all to invest in real estate.”

But what you just said doesn’t address the issues of “Market Manipulation” or “Market Exploitation” thus you are simply trying to obfuscate the problem by claiming, “You are free to be member of our club.” You know that the cost of entry of the club is extremely high, but that doesn’t solve the problem of the “Market Manipulation” or “Market Exploitation”. You then asked:

“Are you oppressed somehow?”

WOW, you want to make it required that one is “oppressed” in order to seek prober market regulations? That is not the line that is necessary to require market regulations. Only that “Market Manipulation” or “Market Exploitation” has either been proven or accepted by the electorate and the electorate chooses to take corrective steps, that’s all. You finally said:

“Please let me know. Maybe I can give you some guidance on how you can invest in real estate too.”

Why would I want to become the person I find not behaving in the best interest of the community? Of course, I will not participate in the same behavior as you in any way, no matter how much I was being given to do so.

Businessman,

The fact that someone or many sources say that Landlords are exploiting or manipulating a market is all they are, opinions, even if the electorate chooses one way or another on an issue in a election. This is not proof of manipulation or exploitation by anyone.

I believe as many believe that this is a move for the have nots to take from the haves in a scheme of wealth redistribution. That is an opinion too without proof but at least answers why rent control even exists when it doesn't even address the real issue of the lack of affordable housing.

It doesn't build 1 more housing unit and in fact deters it from an investment standpoint in the private sector. It doesn't even increase taxes so the government can build housing either. It's just a bandaid on a scab that works temporarily for the few that were there in the beginning and then it does nothing to fix the problem.

Here's a better question:

"What would create an incentive to build affordable housing to meet the needs of society and is it even possible given the cost of Land and construction?"

I don't think it is possible because people need to be realistic about what affordable is and need to work together with the government to get it done.

Unfortunately, I think my hypothesis is right and jealousy of the have nots won't allow this to be possible. Also, how do you work with the government? Everything they touch costs 3 times more than it should because they try to figure out how to pay for their golden parachutes!

In response to Howard you said:

“The fact that someone or many sources say that Landlords are exploiting or manipulating a market is all they are, opinions, even if the electorate chooses one way or another on an issue in a election. This is not proof of manipulation or exploitation by anyone. “

However you need to prove that “Market Maniplulation” or “Market Exploitation” does not existy iin order to have you “OPINION” be given just weight. At least I provide valid proof, you so far have not you also said:

“I believe as many believe that this is a move for the have nots to take from the haves in a scheme of wealth redistribution. That is an opinion too without proof but at least answers why rent control even exists when it doesn't even address the real issue of the lack of affordable housing. “

As you said, your opinion has no proof. However you have not provided proof that private landlords, investors, developers or real estate provides affordable housing at all. You in fact want others to pay for it. What happened to the superiority of the free market to adequately satisfy the market? You seem to prove it free market will not provide such housing without being given a “gift”. You also said:

“It doesn't build 1 more housing unit and in fact deters it from an investment standpoint in the private sector. It doesn't even increase taxes so the government can build housing either. It's just a bandaid on a scab that works temporarily for the few that were there in the beginning and then it does nothing to fix the problem.”

You are right, it is the free markets responsibility to do so as long as the private landlords, investors, developers or real estate argues that if you leave it alone it will fill the hole. But that has been proven to be an epic failure. You also said:

"What would create an incentive to build affordable housing to meet the needs of society and is it even possible given the cost of Land and construction?"

The free market was supposed to be the necessary “Incentive”. That as the argument behind Costa Hawkins. But that has proven to be a lie. The free market does not require an “Incentive” if it in fact is the efficient method of balancing demand and supply. But you prove it doesn’t work. You also asked:

“I don't think it is possible because people need to be realistic about what affordable is and need to work together with the government to get it done. “

NO YOU ARE WRONG. THE FREE MARKET YOU SUPPORT IS SUPPOSED TO HANDLE THAT ISSUE. The private landlords, investors, developers or real estate, cannot put the blame of the epic failure of the free market on anyone else but themselves. Thus they are confronted with the consequences or lack thereof of their legal position in California. For as long as housing is for-profit, you are not deserving any additional “support” or “incentives” of you want a “free-market” to efficiently provide the supply to fit the demand. You also said:

“Unfortunately, I think my hypothesis is right and jealousy of the have nots won't allow this to be possible. Also, how do you work with the government? Everything they touch costs 3 times more than it should because they try to figure out how to pay for their golden parachutes!”

But if you are correct, it should cost 1/3rd the cost for the free market. Oh, I forgot, the efficient free-market simply doesn’t work when it comes to housing. Remember the 2007-8 financial crisis was solely caused by the “flaw” of the efficient markets regarding homes and ALSO APARTMENTS.

When are you and your peers going to “own” the fact that you caused the problem by making false promises if not lies to get Costa Hawkins passed? Until you do so, I think you have no issue to argue.

FYI ICYMBI

Recent research challenged the rent control study by Stanford recently in the article (Web Link

I will simply use the words already spoken:

“The Stanford paper—The Effects of Rent Control Expansion on Tenants, Landlords and Inequality: Evidence from San Francisco (Diamond, McQuade, Qian, October 2017)—has been widely cited in mainstream media outlets to buttress the claim that commonsense rent increase controls make housing more expensive despite a wide body of evidence, including hard data in the study itself, pointing to the fact that rent control provides stability for low-income tenants, especially seniors, immigrants and people of color. The paper acknowledges the direct benefits of rent control but incorrectly argues that the benefits are outweighed by other indirect factors. The Stanford study was released amid a historic wave of municipal, people-powered legislative campaigns for rent control forming throughout California.

Tenants Together’s new policy paper points out several flaws in the Stanford study’s methodology, including underestimating the direct benefits of rent control and ignoring exogenous factors that drove rent increases over the study period. Preston & Singh note that the study wrongly blames rent control rather than speculation and speculator-created loopholes for citywide rising rents, thus obscuring the role of landlord-lobby loopholes used to evict poorer tenants in favor of richer ones through illegal evictions, the Ellis Act, the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act, and tenancy-in-common (TIC) condominium conversions.

“It’s like blaming firefighters for the fire, instead of the arsonist,” commented Preston, Executive Director of Tenants Together.

MEANWHILE, RESEARCH ON THE EFFECTS OF RENT CONTROL ON DISPLACEMENT FROM THE URBAN DISPLACEMENT PROJECT—A GROUP OF RESEARCHERS AT UC BERKELEY, UCLA AND PORTLAND STATE UNIVERSITY—FOUND THAT RENT CONTROL WAS ASSOCIATED WITH LESS DISPLACEMENT AND MORE HOUSING CONSTRUCTION: BETWEEN 2007 AND 2013, THE SIX CITIES IN THE BAY AREA WITH RENT CONTROL PRODUCED MORE HOUSING UNITS PER CAPITA THAN CITIES WITHOUT RENT CONTROL. A NEW 2018 RESEARCH REPORT BY URBAN HABITAT FURTHER CONFIRMS WHAT TENANTS ALREADY KNOW AND IDEOLOGUES WANT TO HIDE: RENT CONTROL IS INTEGRAL TO COMMUNITY STABILITY FOR CALIFORNIA’S WORKING-CLASS PEOPLE OF COLOR.

“Rent control is essential to delivering economic and social justice to California’s most vulnerable communities. We are pleased to set the record straight with this paper,” commented Shanti Singh, co-author of the response released today. “Housing markets are complex, and analysis of housing policy deserves thoughtful study that does not rest on flawed assumptions.”

The actual report can be found here:

Web Link

What's scary is that there is a whole lot of people out there in this liberal state that think like you. Sorry, I don't think I owe anyone anything or should subsidize others housing.
As a businessman I have to evaluate risk to keep my businesses profitable and be able to adapt to the changing landscape quickly by keeping long term assets with higher yields balanced with lower yielding liquid assets so I can move investments when needed. I guess that's just the cost of doing business from now on.

In response to Howard you said:

“What's scary is that there is a whole lot of people out there in this liberal state that think like you.”

What REALLY is scary is that there are people like you who put the blame of “Market Manipulation” and “Market Exploitation” on the customers. That is like you want to prosecute a victim of sexual assault for contributing to the assault. Again remember the 2 rules of business:

RULE 1: the CUSTOMER is ALWAYS right

RULE 2: in the case of where the CUSTOMER is WRONG, you must refer to RULE 1.

You also said:

“Sorry, I don't think I owe anyone anything or should subsidize others housing.”

A landlord cannot “subsidize” housing. A Subsidy is defined by Merriam Webster (Web Link is:

a grant or gift of money: such as

a : a sum of money formerly granted by the British Parliament to the crown and raised by special taxation

b : money granted by one state to another

c : a grant by a government to a private person or company to assist an enterprise deemed advantageous to the public

Your situation does not apply regarding part A, you are NOT British Parliament. Your situation does not apply to part B, you are not a state nor a governmental unit. Your situation does not apply to part C, your group of private citizens are not granting money to individuals to assist in any governmental enterprise. SO PLEASE NEVER EVER MENTION THAT LANDLORDS SUBSIDIZE ANYONE AGAIN.

We are discussing public policy market regulations, nothing more. You also said:

“As a businessman I have to evaluate risk to keep my businesses profitable and be able to adapt to the changing landscape quickly by keeping long term assets with higher yields balanced with lower yielding liquid assets so I can move investments when needed. I guess that's just the cost of doing business from now on.”

I am very confused. Why weren’t you ever acting like that in the first place, and continuously? THAT IS THE PRICE OF BEING IN BUSINESS. It never changed, you just stopped actually being a business man and started just using political influence to make a living. Making a living by forcing your lack of business expertise cost onto those that were not responsible your poor judgment. I find it amazing that when public policies will require you to actually do real work, you run away.

Businessman,

Thank you for your business lesson. I believe one should study their opponents closely to learn the skills necessary to succeed in business.

One point that I would like to make is that most my residential properties really only produces 4-6% ROI on an annual basis because of my high equity positions. I maintain these high equity positions for safety reasons in case of unpredictable market shifts.

All of my LTV's are 20% or lower and appreciation is the real reason for my investing in these properties which have averaged around another 4-8% annually over the past 30 years.

The real profitability in my business is appreciation along with shelter (depreciation) and deferred taxes(Capital Gains).

The point is, tenants rents only support my business model and are not the only reason for the wealth generated by it. Without appreciation there is no point in investing in it and rent control killed any appreciation. I can't do business in that environment and will continue to reinvest in communities that won't allow it.

The other factor that has become increasingly valuable is the deferred taxes on appreciation. Most people, even business people don't understand the value of this.
The reason I point this out is that rent control takes most of that away!
How can anyone make a profit or get ahead when they pay taxes on everything they earn?

Look at all the wage slaves in silicon valley making $150k and paying 70-80K in taxes when you include sales taxes. How will they ever get ahead when that house they want to buy for 1 million increases in value 50k/year on average.
They will only continue to chase the carrot, never to taste it.

This is why I will continue to move money and your right, that's how it should of always been for me in business.

In response to Howard you said:

“One point that I would like to make is that most my residential properties really only produces 4-6% ROI on an annual basis because of my high equity positions. I maintain these high equity positions for safety reasons in case of unpredictable market shifts.

All of my LTV's are 20% or lower and appreciation is the real reason for my investing in these properties which have averaged around another 4-8% annually over the past 30 years. “

That sounds reasonable to me. But I would strongly propose that the current “speculators” have unrealistic expectations. The big one is that they will get the results you claim “instantly”. But when those buy properties at vastly inflated prices, that simply cannot happen. Are you willing to admint that in those cases t can take 5 to 10 years just to break even? You also said:

“The point is, tenants rents only support my business model and are not the only reason for the wealth generated by it. Without appreciation there is no point in investing in it and rent control killed any appreciation. I can't do business in that environment and will continue to reinvest in communities that won't allow it.”

With regards to the current “investors” they simply are not operating in that model. They simply expect their “cash-flow” statlements to support a potential ROI of their investment. I just need to remind you that you may be a minority regarding your “business-plan” You said:

“The other factor that has become increasingly valuable is the deferred taxes on appreciation. Most people, even business people don't understand the value of this.”

Thank you for brinig this up, I am greatly aware of this “facet” of the business gem. But you pointing it out wasa better voice about it. However you said this:

“The reason I point this out is that rent control takes most of that away!”

NO IT DOES NOT. THE TAX LAWS ARE NOT CHANGING. GOOD BUSINESS PLANNING AND EFFICIENT STRATEGIES ARE STILL AVAILABLE. RENT CONTROL DOES NOT REMOVE THIS> You said:

“How can anyone make a profit or get ahead when they pay taxes on everything they earn?”

Please point out how rent control impacts your taxes? If you are describing the Trump Tax Cuts that were passed, that is not rent control. I knew the Trump Tax Cuts were a Trojan horse with VERY UGLY side-effects. But this is not rent control. You also said:

“Look at all the wage slaves in silicon valley making $150k and paying 70-80K in taxes when you include sales taxes. How will they ever get ahead when that house they want to buy for 1 million increases in value 50k/year on average.”

But that is the tenants working life, NOT THE LANDLORDS. What does rent control do regarding this idea? I think you are just trying to again obfuscate the fact that if the apartment industry does not provide affordable living. The industry can either LEAD (provide ample affordable housing), FOLLOW (comply with market regulations to increase living affordability), or GET OUT OF THE WAY (divest from the market without forcing the replacements from taking a poisoned pill. You said:

“They will only continue to chase the carrot, never to taste it.”

This is a continuing statement of lack of respect for the customers in the apartment industry. You also said:

“This is why I will continue to move money and your right, that's how it should of always been for me in business.”

Please understand that either you will be part of the solution, or you can choose not to be. But it appears you simply CHOSE to not participate in working out the solution. So, why should the citizens of Mountain View want to support your financial or political point of view?

In many discussions with Mr Dave I have come to understand he is trying to do best by minority students, and especially those who have less access at home to education. It really has nothing to do with being a minority. He knows this. The truth is that so many homes have parents with two PHDs, and science backgrounds, and wealth. There is no way to replicate that level of resource at home. Also, There is a step we are skipping when we just try to get a kid who has two parents who never went to college into college level classes. We need to get them into the right level in the right order. If we can just get them ready for college by the end of high school, they will be better able to take the leadership role those very talented students deserve. This approach will give the best outcomes. Naturally some very talented students must be encouraged to skip steps so they are in the best learning environment in AP classes, but if they get low grades by doing so that is an unfortunate consequence. Even for my well resourced kids this is a problem. Some students may learn well in a high level class that they are making a low grade in. There is no way to fix that that I know. I encourage my kinds to take the class they want and not worry about the grade if they are learning more there. Hard to teach that kind of risk to a student, when you get a D on your transcript for your effort. I would like to say that some of the AP Math and Science classes seem wholly untethered to the prior curriculum, and are filled with students being tutored at Stanford and other after school classes that begun in Elementary school. They get bussed in from Middle schools to take AP Math and Science in the High School. I am not sure the wisdom of creating this two tier education system whereby affluent kids get a private tutor to take AP classes. What can we do about it?