Note that I recused myself from the 257 Calderon discussion because of its proximity to my house.

The rent control chickens have come home to roost.

@ Lenny

Sorry about that. I reworded the story to make it clearer that you recused yourself on one of the votes.

-- Mark

More homeowner units is a welcome development, as home ownership is essential to building equity in the Silicon Valley. Rentals only build equity for the owners. Yet it's a shame they couldn't push for more density, which would lower the price without reducing the developer's return on their investments. A truly healthy housing market in a diverse city has homes at multiple entry points.

Most apartment complexes slated for demolition were built in the 60's and early 70's. They lack many current building code standards; ungrounded electrical sockets, corroded galvanized water pipes, failing sewer lines, insufficient insulation, single pane windows, asbestos ridden finishes and seismic deficiencies to name a few.

The only way to bring these properties into the 21st century is to completely renovate the buildings (absent any occupants) or demolish and start over. Given the enormous disincentive to further invest in Mountain View's rental properties due to a very burdensome permitting process, including CSFRA's Rental Housing Committee upward adjustment appeal nightmare, it's no wonder landlords are simply selling their property for its land value rather than dealing with the above mentioned obsolescence.

For many landlords, including me, Measure V put a nail in the coffin after owning multifamily property in Mountain View for more than 50 years. Rent control has ensured economic and functional obsolescence for anything built before 1995. If Costa-Hawkins is repealed on the November ballot, Mountain View and California will see an ice age come over new rental housing as the building industry comes to a screeching halt.

For all the complaining from the rental coalition people, how many of you would welcome a rollback of your wages to 2015 or before, never receive a salary increase beyond the cost of living for the rest of your life and, should you change jobs, your salary would have to remain the same as your previous employment. That is what Mt. View's landlords are facing after November.

There are greener pastures, and this landlord is moving on. Good luck Mt. View.

If Mayor Siegel really wanted to protect older housing, why did he offer his support for this one? It sets a bad precedent. We need rent control housing too!!

"There goes the neighborhood" and Mountain View! Fortunately, it's upscale and not downscale. Owner occupied housing gives more stability, tax income, and quality of life to cities than rental housing.

Congrats to the all-white council at allowing even more gentrifying in mountain view. You're all doing a wonderful job of getting the low income people who bother you out of town so that more ultra-rich people can move in. well done, well done.

So much for 'rent control' which was supposed to keep rents at an affordable price for lower income residents. Where do they go now that their homes are being torn down and replaced with million dollar plus condos or 'new' apartments which don't qualify for rent control?? Get rid of rent control and save the older less expensive housing! Why does rent control only pertain to apartments built before 1995? Was this a rouse to get rid of older buildings to make room for overpriced new homes and apartments? Lived in MV for 35 years and ready to get out.

Re: "Was this a rouse to get rid of older buildings to make room for overpriced new homes and apartments?"

It seems like simple business decisions. The rental properties in Mountain View are no longer bringing in the desired returns, so landlords move their investment elsewhere (by selling the rental properties). The highest offers come from developers who want to tear down the existing structures and rebuild. The landlords accept the highest offers. End of story. There's no ruse involved.

The Mountain View city council not only has no interest in or compassion for those with modest incomes, it is outright hostile to them.

My building recently sold, I expect all of the tenants will be tossed to the street in a few months.

Those in tech will be fine, those of us who have lived here for decades will move off the Bay or live in the streets.

I suspect Lenny Siegel is wrong when he says, "There's plenty of room to provide housing without tearing down existing housing. I'd urge developers of projects like this to look for better places." In any event, I don't object to replacing existing housing with higher density housing. I don't see how Mountain View can ever have low-cost housing without higher density--the cost of land is just too high everywhere in Mountain View.

Increasing the proportion of home ownership is a good thing. Mountain View has far too high a rental population, in my opinion. It's through ownership that a real sense of community develops.

That said, it would be nice if these new condos replacing rental units could be more affordable. I live in a condo unit, and I think its market value is ridiculous. I'd move out into a house if I could, but who can afford that at these prices?

Of course the city will lose these older rent controlled apartments to new, multi-million developments. That is what rent control does, it reduces the "old rent controlled housing stock" The ground is now worth more than the business of for rent apartments.

The same thing has happened in San Francisco, fewer rent controlled units today as when rent control first started in that city.

The only way to keep more of these older, most affordable rental stock in the city is to repeal the rent control known as Measure V,

And so it begins

Saddest of all this are those who rent control "supposedly" protected. Everyone tried warning, tried telling them that it isn't going to help but they only listened to those saying what they wanted to hear rather than those saying the truth. That's the problem now, no one wants to hear the harsh truth, everyone just wants to believe these stories of cheaper rent, free healthcare, welcome everyone everywhere. IT DOESNT WORK. At some point someone pays.

So actually a landlord has no legal right to tear down apartments and create condos. That is why these proposed projects come to the City Council for approval or rejection. It is certainly better to get new housing in place of old. And apartments that are replaced by 3-story condos with plenty of parking are better than apartments replaced by 5-story condo highrises with no onsite parking at all. The latter will be allowed if and when CA Senate Bill 827 (or a similar bill) becomes law. Could happen just after the November election.

Most apartment complexes slated for demolition were built in the 60's and early 70's. They lack many current building code standards; ungrounded electrical sockets, corroded galvanized water pipes, failing sewer lines, insufficient insulation, single pane windows, asbestos ridden finishes and seismic deficiencies to name a few.

The only way to bring these properties into the 21st century is to completely renovate the buildings (absent any occupants) or demolish and start over. Given the enormous disincentive to further invest in Mountain View's rental properties due to a very burdensome permitting process, including CSFRA's Rental Housing Committee upward adjustment appeal nightmare, it's no wonder landlords are simply selling their property for its land value rather than dealing with the above mentioned obsolescence.

For many landlords, including me, Measure V put a nail in the coffin after owning multifamily property in Mountain View for more than 50 years. Rent control has ensured economic and functional obsolescence for anything built before 1995. If Costa-Hawkins is repealed on the November ballot, Mountain View and California will see an ice age come over new rental housing as the building industry comes to a screeching halt.

For all the complaining from the rental coalition people, how many of you would welcome a rollback of your wages to 2015 or before (no minimum wage law!), never receive a salary increase beyond the cost of living for the rest of your life and, should you change jobs, your salary would have to remain the same as your previous employment. That is what Mt. View's landlords are facing after November.

There are greener pastures, and this landlord is moving on. Good luck Mt. View.

In response to Former Landlord you said:

“Most apartment complexes slated for demolition were built in the 60's and early 70's. They lack many current building code standards; ungrounded electrical sockets, corroded galvanized water pipes, failing sewer lines, insufficient insulation, single pane windows, asbestos ridden finishes and seismic deficiencies to name a few.”

Whose responsibility is that? Oh yes, the private landlords, investors, developers, and the like for passing Costa Hawkins under the false promise that buildings would be built if rent control was prohibited. How did thjat work for you? You also said:

“The only way to bring these properties into the 21st century is to completely renovate the buildings (absent any occupants) or demolish and start over. Given the enormous disincentive to further invest in Mountain View's rental properties due to a very burdensome permitting process, including CSFRA's Rental Housing Committee upward adjustment appeal nightmare, it's no wonder landlords are simply selling their property for its land value rather than dealing with the above mentioned obsolescence.

My only response is that there are many better “fish” in the sea for those who want to be part of a solution. Rent control in fact has been proven to increase development in the following study (Web Link The fact is that the existing property owners simply do not want rent control because it makes them compete for tenants, and requires them to prove efficiency in order to get “rent control boards” to authorize increased rents. And the argument that building new resources will stop because of rent control can be proven false. You went on to say:

“For many landlords, including me, Measure V put a nail in the coffin after owning multifamily property in Mountain View for more than 50 years. Rent control has ensured economic and functional obsolescence for anything built before 1995. If Costa-Hawkins is repealed on the November ballot, Mountain View and California will see an ice age come over new rental housing as the building industry comes to a screeching halt.”

As proven above, this is the broken record threat made by those who have gambled on a risky investment, and want to minimize the risk, but continue to earn high returns on investment. Simply put most economic studies used to support this threat are written for, or paid for, by those whose benefit the research is directly linked to. Called a “conflict of interest” those reading them, especially the electorate, should be VERY SKEPTICAL regarding the methods and results of such studies. They are often manipulated so that the only result would be beneficial to the ones underwriting the research. You went on to say:

“For all the complaining from the rental coalition people, how many of you would welcome a rollback of your wages to 2015 or before (no minimum wage law!), never receive a salary increase beyond the cost of living for the rest of your life and, should you change jobs, your salary would have to remain the same as your previous employment. That is what Mt. View's landlords are facing after November.”

Property owners control their own earnings by the efficient management of their businesses. The salary of a landlord is not dependent on the rent alone. If a landlord cannot make the earnings they want by properly managing their business, why not? Please prove that the customer is responsible for that problem. If you cannot make the earnings you wish, find another line of work that is more, financially beneficial? Why do you think you are constrained to this business? You do know you are not coerced to be in this business. You finally went on to say:

“There are greener pastures, and this landlord is moving on. Good luck Mt. View.”

We will do fine if not better when those who are not interested in solving the problems, or worse benefit from them, are substituted by those who want to be part of the solution. We can find better “fish” in the “sea”. We will probably be much off without those who came into our city to pillage it.

I personally can’t wait for Costa Hawkins to be erased, and all “rentals” are regulated, even the condos. So if you think you’re finding an alternative in the long run. I would simply state, if you can get five apartment units in the space of one condo, you need to prove that the financial benefit of the condo is at least five times more than the alternative units. When condos and apartments play in the same sandbox, the apartments will tend to be more profitable with the elimination of Costa Hawkins.

@Harry

Apparently you've never been to a council meeting...

Money seeks the highest safest return. What we're seeing is capital flight out of California's housing market because of rent (price) control initiatives. Because of the internet you have immediate access to what economists and historians think of rent controls. They're a racket destroying the incentive to build new hard to build housing. Mountain View is quite a show.
George Drysdale social studies teacher and land economist

@The "Business" Man:

"How did thjat work for you?" Quite handsomely, thank you for asking.

"And the argument that building new resources will stop because of rent control can be proven false." Get back to us after the November election when Costa-Hawkins is repealed and every residential property is subject to Mt. View's rent control, regardless of age or category.

"As proven above, this is the broken record threat . . ." Nothing was "proven" above, moreover, Costa-Hawkins was put in place by the legislature because the multifamily building industry came to a screeching halt in the mid-1990's when vacancy control and price restrictions were a major disincentive to developers. History will simply repeat itself should Costa-Hawkins be repealed in November.

"We can find better “fish” in the “sea”. We will probably be much off without those who came into our city to pillage it." Put your money where your mouth is. Enjoy the ride as a landlord in Mt. View, Mr. "Business" Man.

" . . . if you can get five apartment units in the space of one condo, you need to prove that the financial benefit of the condo is at least five times more than the alternative units." Where does that theoretical scenario ever play out in Mt. View? Seventy-five class C apartments bought for $37M then replaced by seventy-five condos selling for $120M falls into my category of a "financial benefit". Perhaps other businessmen think differently than those of us who create the housing.

And where exactly were you fifty years ago when all of this was playing out in Mt. View by those early investors a half century ago?

It's great that the proportion of home ownership in Mountain View will increase a bit, as a result of converting apartments to condos. I just wish that the condos were affordable, priced so that the mortgage payments were commensurate with the previous rents.

In response to Former Landlord you said:

“And the argument that building new resources will stop because of rent control can be proven false." Get back to us after the November election when Costa-Hawkins is repealed and every residential property is subject to Mt. View's rent control, regardless of age or category.”

I can only see that the current owners will not move forward. But who needs them anyway when others will step up to the market. The current owners simply don’t matter in the long run. You said:

"As proven above, this is the broken record threat . . ." Nothing was "proven" above, moreover, Costa-Hawkins was put in place by the legislature because the multifamily building industry came to a screeching halt in the mid-1990's when vacancy control and price restrictions were a major disincentive to developers. History will simply repeat itself should Costa-Hawkins be repealed in November.”

Please provide some kind of proof that with Costa Hawkins, the private landords. Investors, and developers did any more building then before Costa Hawkins. Without such proof, you can state that Costa Hawkins did nothing for the citizens of California. Please provide some proof that the market in fact did significantly more development since Costa Hawkins passed before you try to claim it was such a good policy? You also said:

“"We can find better “fish” in the “sea”. We will probably be much off without those who came into our city to pillage it." Put your money where your mouth is. Enjoy the ride as a landlord in Mt. View, Mr. "Business" Man.”

Why would I when I have expertise in other areas? I simply do not need to be in that market. You also should not NEED to be in the market. Unless you have some issue that prevents you from attaining skilled employment, or worse a history that prevents you from consideration for any other work. You also said:

" . . . if you can get five apartment units in the space of one condo, you need to prove that the financial benefit of the condo is at least five times more than the alternative units." Where does that theoretical scenario ever play out in Mt. View? Seventy-five class C apartments bought for $37M then replaced by seventy-five condos selling for $120M falls into my category of a "financial benefit". Perhaps other businessmen think differently than those of us who create the housing.”

Please present evidence that this situation had in fact occurred. Please list the properties that were taken off the market and how many were placed on it in Mountain View? The only think I see are words with no evidence to support it. Until you can present independent records to prove your theory, it is just an opinion. You have a right to it, but I simply expect more. You also said:

“And where exactly were you fifty years ago when all of this was playing out in Mt. View by those early investors a half century ago?”

I wasn’t needed to be here to prove that the Costa Hawkins law is an epic failure. I do not need to be responsible for the epic failures of others. You should be pointing your questions to your peers for allowing the housing crisis to become so extreme. You blame the sexual assault victim for the crime of the sexual assault in this point of view. Classic blame the victims. When will you and your peers take accountability for your problems?

I'm gonna sit back, have a cold one and say I told ya so. I told ya those rent controlled apartments are coming down for new top of the line 1.8 million dollar condos!! The lands to expensive for rent control! DUH!

I love watching all the people run around tryin to figure out how to get their money out and then the tenants running around with nowhere to rent for the second act.
I got out early:))

@ The Business Man:

Being the incredibly successful businessman you surely are, I trust you are investing all of your impressive savings in what you characterize as the highly lucrative Mountain View multifamily housing market? If not, why not? And if not, are you abiding by those endearing principals of your circumlocutory treatise by limiting your personal return on all investments to an annual cost-of-living adjustment which otherwise renders you a zero-sum positive return on your precious savings?

Also, you didn't bother to respond to this comment for some reason. Please share with the readers your willingness to abide by the same income guidelines you desire to see imposed on landlords, an annual cost-of-living adjustment:

"For all the complaining from the rental coalition people, how many of you would welcome a rollback of your wages to 2015 or before, never receive a salary increase beyond the cost of living for the rest of your life and, should you change jobs, your salary would have to remain the same as your previous employment. That is what Mt. View's landlords are facing after November."

Rent control is not the issue here, I personally oppose rent control but it's the law in the City of Mountain View. The real problem is that the City Council approves each and every development proposal that comes across its desk. There is literally no proposal bad enough for the City Council to reject. Want to bulldoze rent-controlled apartments so that millionaires can move in? City Council says sure, no problem, be my guest developers, please make millions of dollars while poor people get evicted.

We need a City Council that rejects terrible proposals (and there have been many lately). Right now we have no City Council, developers basically run the city and Mountain View residents pay the price.

In response to Former Landlord you said:

“Being the incredibly successful businessman you surely are, I trust you are investing all of your impressive savings in what you characterize as the highly lucrative Mountain View multifamily housing market?”

Of course I will not participate in the pillage of a community. My “Code of Ethics” in both my profession and myself are a good basis not to. You promote the unethical actions of a minority of individuals that do not seem to have any alternatives, or simply chose not to take them. You asked:

“If not, why not?”

I answered the question. You then said:

“And if not, are you abiding by those endearing principals of your circumlocutory treatise by limiting your personal return on all investments to an annual cost-of-living adjustment which otherwise renders you a zero-sum positive return on your precious savings?”

Why should I limit ROI on all other markets? This market the “housing” market is in a very critical and sensitive market because “shelter” can mean the difference of life or death, or opportunity to contribute to the community. You cannot for example compare the housing markets critical impact to those who make movies. Why do you try to distract from the fact that a person’s life and health are a “right” and lack of affordable housing THREATENS the life of the citizens of our community. And since “life” is constitutionally protected, and “money” is not, you seem to be arguing the wrong idea. You said:

“Also, you didn't bother to respond to this comment for some reason. Please share with the readers your willingness to abide by the same income guidelines you desire to see imposed on landlords, an annual cost-of-living adjustment:

"For all the complaining from the rental coalition people, how many of you would welcome a rollback of your wages to 2015 or before, never receive a salary increase beyond the cost of living for the rest of your life and, should you change jobs, your salary would have to remain the same as your previous employment. That is what Mt. View's landlords are facing after November."

Again, if we tenants were choosing to make our living in a market that directly impacts a citizens “right” to “life” and “liberty” I would agree with you. But in this country it is accepted that “Housing” is not a “true” free market. That is why we have governmental agencies like the Housing and Urban Development. Our country simply does not believe that the “free market” can provide for the housing safety of its citizens. So please do not try to compare the “APPLE” to the “BANANA” like they do with the CNN network ad campaign to return integrity into the work of journalism.

The simple fact is that housing does not increase in value in the way that a “Doctor” increases their value by much larger margins due to specialized skills. If you can prove that the “Doctor” does not deserve an increased salary because the “actual” value is not warranted, the “Doctor” is likely to lose that increased salary. I think you really do not want to argue that a persons increased value is in the same playground and the value of a building?

Why do you assume that individual skill set improvements can warrant “disproportionate” increase in their earnings is unfair? The simple fact is a building is just a building, it does not perform critical functions that are in the same “playground” as a “doctor”, “IT engineer”, “accountant”, “lawyer”, etc. Until you come to grips that the housing industry is significantly limited in its potential value because it demands that it’s improvements be funded by others, you are not understanding reality. The increases in earning by a “doctor”, “IT engineer”, “accountant”, “lawyer”, etc, are funded by their own investment and effort, and they do not demand that they get paid up front to get their increased worth. That is the argument made by the housing industry, they want to be paid to improve the value and quantity of housing and at the same time charge a higher price for the use of it.

Does that seem reasonable?

@ The Business Man

You said yourself that housing is a life or death proposition for many. So, yes, it does fall into the category of a "critical function" as you put it.

Most doctors, lawyers IT professionals and accounts have improved themselves through university studies by borrowing money from others. Without the borrowed money and those willing to invest in them, they would have to figure out some other walk of life.

You said, "That is the argument made by the housing industry, they want to be paid to improve the value and quantity of housing and at the same time charge a higher price for the use of it."

And it's that very attitude by California renters voting to repeal Costa-Hawkins who will wake up in 2019 to construction industry layoffs, an even tighter housing market in rent control areas and a further escalation of obsolete properties redeveloped into a higher and best use, which is not class C apartments.

Former Landlord, be patient with this one called, "Businessman".

Businessman, please explain how housing is a right because it is so necessary to people as you state:

"Again, if we tenants were choosing to make our living in a market that directly impacts a citizens “right” to “life” and “liberty”

And then you state:

"The simple fact is a building is just a building, it does not perform critical functions that are in the same “playground” as a “doctor”, “IT engineer”, “accountant”, “lawyer”, etc.

So how is it so necessary and a right to Life and Liberty but not as important as a Doctor, IT engineer, accountant or even..god forbid a Lawyer?

Let me explain Rent control economics again and where this is all going.

The voters under Measure V guaranteed redevelopment of many affordable apartments by implementing rent control in Mountain View.

The apartment owners that are damaged the most by Measure V are the very owners that had their rents the lowest and most reasonable in the city. They are the most vulnerable. It's funny how when the government gets involved, it always does exactly the opposite of what they're trying to accomplish.

Well folks guess what, many of these landlords are left with only one option now and that is to tear it down and build expensive homes where this affordable housing sits. This is very profitable for landlord/developer and removes the rent controlled properties from the market.

This will make great profits for them and they can 1031 exchange the proceeds without paying taxes into apartments elsewhere. Also, the city increases the property taxes sometimes 10 fold on these deals making happy city planners that approve these plans.

And This is why they will do it!!

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.

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 fall into disrepair over time as the owner cuts back on expenses to cover the financial shortfalls.

This the future for Mountain View now under Measure V.
REPEAL IT AND SAVE YOURSELVES!!!

In response to Howard you said:

“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.

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.”

You are so wrong. You simply do not understand that the ”rent” of a building is NOT the ”value” the building. You try to make it sound that simple. The “Value” of the building depends on the quality of maintenance, capital improvements, and the current “market” trends in the area. And specifically discussing your example of the “candy bar”. In reality most products bought today are not the same quantity they were in the past for the same price. Some products have been shrunk a significant amount while increasing their prices.

“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.

The term “Economically viable” is just a term used to make unsubstantial claims. This concept is that if the majority of investors require greater than x% in order to invest, and it will not achieve it, they CHOSE not to invest in it. The real definition is:

Economically viable means that a venture or project is able to continue to create or take in resources needed to sustain it, because consumers actually want the product or service it provide.”

So if the definition depends on the consumers expectations and NOT the landlords. Simply put, landlords do not dictate “economic viability”, the customer does. If any specific landlord does not want to be in the business that is their choice. But do not try to claim that the “market” is not “economically viable” it will always be as long as anyone lives in apartments in Mountain View or California in that matter. You said:

“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.”

Investors will invest in ventures properly managed and efficiently operating. Those factors provide increased earning not dependent on any other prices. Lets repeat this: INVESTORS WILL INVEST IN VENTURES PROPERLY MANAGED AND EFFICIENTLY OPERATING. THOSE FACTORS PROVIDE INCREASED EARNING NOT DEPENDENT ON ANY OTHER PRICES. What you are promoting is that an investor should have a guaranteed ROI, whether the venture is skillfully operating or is just mediocre. You want to kill competition in this market area. That is not business, business needs competition to raise the invisible hand. So this doesn’t seem to make any sense. You said:

“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.”

You do not understand the real definition of “Economically Viable”. You look at it instead as depending only on the supplier of the market. That simply is not accurate, it is the other way around. But landlords do not want to face this reality.

Spoken like someone living from hand to mouth with absolutely no idea what capital markets demand in the risk vs. return world. The only salvation for Mt. View landlords is the continued inflation of land value. Class C apartments are economically and functionally obsolete as investment assets. DOA, unless Measure V is repealed. If a landlord is fortunate enough to have a nice piece of dirt to work with, salvation will only come with the bulldozer. Scrape and build, scrape and build. Repeal Costa-Hawkins and SFR neighborhoods will look just like Berkeley and Oakland. Anyone will be able to drive a street in Mountain View and point out the rental properties (assuming they can see past the RV's parked on the street).

Howard (Bob), that would actually be like buying a stock and having it go up at inflation rate.

To the rest of you and Former Landlords' point, I'm sorry that you landlords have to get actual jobs now rather than just siphoning off the wealth of the economically productive members of society.

@LOL:

An even bigger LOL, LOL! Can you hear it? Clearly a well informed comment from an experienced landlord /s/. No worries person who can't stop laughing. As I surely pay more in taxes annually than you could ever hope to earn at your job, I'll continue to employ the accountants, attorneys and real estate professionals helping to keep me in the well earned upper 2% of America's thriving economic machine.

You clearly misunderstood (not too shocking). All you have done is siphoned off money from the members of society who have actually done productive labor in life. I have no doubt it enriched you, "well-earned" is a bit of a stretch, on the other hand.

In response to Former Landlord you said:

“Spoken like someone living from hand to mouth with absolutely no idea what capital markets demand in the risk vs. return world.”

First WOW, you wonder why the citizens use public policy to control the market, when the market has disdain for its customers. Second, I have two business degrees (Management Information Systems and Human Resource Management) from an accredited business school, that required competency in Accounting, Finance, Economics, Operations, Human Resources, Information Systems, and Marketing. So please provide me your Business education? You also said:

“The only salvation for Mt. View landlords is the continued inflation of land value. Class C apartments are economically and functionally obsolete as investment assets. DOA, unless Measure V is repealed.”

That is your opinion. But I think what you’re really saying is if you cannot manipulate the Mountain View apartment market, you will do anything you can to destroy it. You said:

“If a landlord is fortunate enough to have a nice piece of dirt to work with, salvation will only come with the bulldozer. Scrape and build, scrape and build.”

CSFRA will require first right to move into any apartment built on that land with the original rent plus the AGA. You also said:

“Repeal Costa-Hawkins and SFR neighborhoods will look just like Berkeley and Oakland.”

Unless you can prove that Costa Hawkins actually provided significant development and provided ample resources, what can you prove that will establish that Costa Hawkins did any good for anyone? You finally said:

“Anyone will be able to drive a street in Mountain View and point out the rental properties (assuming they can see past the RV's parked on the street).”

Mountain View is not unique, this has happened in every city of Santa Clara County. You should see what it’s like in Menlo Park and Palo Alto. When people are forced to take desperate action, they will find a way to achieve what they can. Those RV’s are proof that Costa Hawkins is a failure. You also said:

“An even bigger LOL, LOL! Can you hear it? Clearly a well informed comment from an experienced landlord /s/. No worries person who can't stop laughing. As I surely pay more in taxes annually than you could ever hope to earn at your job, I'll continue to employ the accountants, attorneys and real estate professionals helping to keep me in the well earned upper 2% of America's thriving economic machine.”

Again WOW, when someone cannot stick to the subject, the person goes on to make disrespectful comments about anyone that doesn’t live up to their “ideals”. I have a favorite saying from Robin Williams, it goes like this:

“"Mr. Botha, there are fourteen million black people and three million white people. Does the name 'Custer' mean anything to you?"

You are in the 2% minority. That means that there are 48 of the others for one of you. Compare this to 4 to one in South Africa. Again, does the name Custer mean anything to you?

@ The "Business" Man:

Why do I have 41+ likes and you have none? 'Nuf said. Enjoy your "accredited" degrees. Live long and prosper.

In response to Former Landlord you said:

“Why do I have 41+ likes and you have none? 'Nuf said. Enjoy your "accredited" degrees. Live long and prosper.”

I am aware that the “likes” you mention are a false measure.

I can in 10 minutes add 10 likes to my comment at any time. How?

You can use an Ipad safari to access the page.

Hit the like button.

Go to settings and delete the cookies history and web page data.

Reopen Safari

Reopen the town square

Reopen the story you are talking in.

Miraculously the like button is restored, you can like the comment again.

You can do this forever, I did it in one story gave myself more than 50 likes.

Just realize that the “likes” are simply not accurate, and can be manipulated just like the apartment market of the City of Mountain View.

This is how the opponents of the city have manipulated the Mountain View Voices likes in every tory they participated in.

Like you really didn’t know it.

Also in response to “FORMER LANDLORD” you said:

“@ The "Business" Man:

Why do I have 41+ likes and you have none? 'Nuf said. Enjoy your "accredited" degrees. Live long and prosper.”

And oh wait a minute that was Departing Landlord with the 40+ likes on this page seen here:


“41 people like this Posted by Departing Landlord

a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood

on May 18, 2018 at 1:08 pm”

Astroturfing at its finest, you log onto the Mountain View Voice with multiple accounts, but cannot keep track of which one you are. Here are your posts:


“7 people like this Posted by Former Landlord

a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood

on May 18, 2018 at 9:31 pm

Former Landlord is a registered user.”


“4 people like this Posted by Former Landlord

a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood

on May 20, 2018 at 1:08 pm

Former Landlord is a registered user.”


“2 people like this Posted by Former Landlord

a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood

11 hours ago

Former Landlord is a registered user.”


“1 person likes this Posted by Former Landlord

a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood

8 hours ago

Former Landlord is a registered user.”


“Like this comment Posted by Former Landlord

a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood

6 hours ago

Former Landlord is a registered user.”


“+ Like this comment Posted by Former Landlord

a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood

4 hours ago

Former Landlord is a registered user.”

Someone is having a case of Multiple Personality Disorder, or is it Multiple Identity Disorder

Jest another sock puppet in the astroturfing wars.

Businessman,

Can you give me some likes too?? Coming from you would mean sooooo much to me:)

In response to Howard you said:

“Businessman,

Can you give me some likes too?? Coming from you would mean sooooo much to me:)”

I just “earned” 25 likes since my last post. Just like one of my favorite actresses said:

Sally Field: “You like me. You really really like me.”

So here is “Proof” that you cannot trust everything you read. I even admit that about myself.

Except that most of you know who I really am because I disclosed my real name at both the City Council and the RHC.

But many of those who post here do so with a pseudonym. They are afraid of what the “customers” they serve would do if their real thoughts about them were disclosed. Most likely their customers would find a new apartment and never do business the ones that post here again. That is because the first rule in business is true “The Customer is ALWAYS right.”

In response to Howard you said:

“Your right again...so when that bulldozer comes a knockin you won't be tockin!”

You forget the other elephants in the room, Tenant Relocation Assistance will be paid prior to the bulldozer it is defined as:

“(b) Relocation Assistance.

(1) A landlord seeking to recover possession under Subsections (a)(6)-(9) herein shall provide Relocation Assistance to affected Tenant households. The Relocation Assistance required herein shall be a minimum amount. The City Council may increase the dollar amounts of Relocation Assistance pursuant to its powers under law. The Landlord shall notify the affected Tenants of their rights under this Subsection, if any, at the time of service of the notice to quit. “

Sections a(6)-(9) are:

(6) Necessary and Substantial Repairs Requiring Temporary Vacancy.

(7) Owner Move-In.

(8) Withdrawal of the Unit Permanently from Rental Market.

(9) Demolition.

The CSFRA goes on to say:

“(2) The Committee shall issue rules and regulations to effectuate this Subsection including but not limited to rules and regulations setting forth the procedures for establishing the amount of Relocation Assistance applicable to any given Tenant household, and for the reasonably timely payment of any applicable Relocation Assistance.

(3) For purposes of this Article, Relocation Assistance shall be available to all Tenant households eligible under this Article whose household income does not exceed one-hundred-and-twenty percent (120%) of the median household income for Santa Clara County as adjusted for household size according to the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development.

(c) First Right of Return. All Tenants whose tenancy is terminated based upon a basis enumerated in Subsections (a)(6)-(9) herein shall have the first right of return to the Rental Unit if that Rental Unit is returned to the market by the Landlord or successor Landlord. Rent for the Rental Unit shall be the Rent lawfully paid by the Tenant at the time the Landlord gave notice of termination based upon Subsections (a)(6)-(9) herein.

(d) Retaliation is Barred. Notwithstanding the above provisions, no Landlord shall take action to terminate any tenancy or otherwise recover possession of a Rental Unit in retaliation for the Tenant reporting violations of this Article, for exercising rights granted under this Article, or for forming or participating in a Recognized Tenant Organization.

(e) Notice to Specify Basis for Termination: Any notice purporting to terminate tenancy on any of the bases specified in this Section must state with specificity the basis on which the Landlord seeks to terminate the tenancy.

(f) Landlord Compliance with this Article. In any action brought to recover possession of a Rental Unit, the Landlord shall allege compliance with this Article.

(g) Filing Termination Notices with Committee. The Landlord shall file with the Committee a copy of any notice terminating tenancy within three (3) days after serving the notice on the Tenant.

(h) Failure to comply. A Landlord's failure to comply with any requirement of this Article, including without limitation the failure to serve any of the required notices on the Committee pursuant to Subsection

(g) herein, is a complete affirmative defense in an unlawful detainer or other action brought by the Landlord to recover possession of the Rental Unit.

The regulations regarding Tenant Relocation are here (Web Link they state:

The Council amended the ordinance in June 2014 to increase the amount of assistance.

Voters approved an amendment to the City Charter entitled the Community Stabilization and Fair Rent Act ("CSFRA") on November 8, 2016, which provided an increase in the average income eligibility of households to 120% Area Median Income (AMI). Households are eligible for relocation assistance if:

The household income is 120% or less of the Area Median Income (AMI);

The household has a valid lease or rental agreement with the landlord; and

The household is not delinquent on rental payments.

Relocation assistance is provided as a cash payment to eligible person(s) on the lease or rental agreement. The following assistance is paid per rental unit, (not per tenant):

Full refund of a tenant’s security deposit;

A 60-day subscription to a rental agency;

The cash equivalent of three months median market rate rent for a similar sized apartment; and

An additional $3,000 for special-circumstances tenants, which are households having at least one person that is either over 62 years of age, handicapped, disabled, or a legally dependent child under 18 years of age.

So understand that your advice is going to be significantly costly, the 3 months rent will be approximately $4,500+, rental agency could cost more that $1,000 and if the renter falls under special circumstances, you add $3000. So for one unit you will have to pay as much as $8,500 before you can even start the bulldozer.

You have to then multiply that by how many units you have, in my building we have 10 units. So that could cost at minimum $85,000 just to move out the current tenants.

To me you are promoting what can be significantly risky business decisions because you will not receive any rent during the process, incur the costs of permit of build, design, demolition, and building of the new units. And there is no guaranty that you will get the asking price for the new property if it turns out there continues to be a population decline in the valley because landlords like yourself chose to make housing more scarce. For example if there is a 10% decrease in working population in the valley because companies can find better alternative locations, then you will wind up with having to expect a proportionate reduction in sales price.

Some people simply cannot understand all the factors involved in this decision making and the higher risks they will have in taking such action.

OH WOW LOOK AT MY LIKES NOW

No landlord has any right to tear down apartments and.build expensive condos. But it makes for better housing and, some think, better residents.