Don't sign the landlords' sneaky repeal of the modest controls just adopted by voters last year. Rents could DOUBLE in short order.

Hello everyone:

It appears to be now official.

The Costa Hawkins Repeal initiative is now on the ballot seen here

Web Link

So if these homes turn out to be rented, they will likely be subject to rent control, since the latest polls seriously indicate that Costa Hawkins repeal will succeed. And the City Citizens in Mountain View WILL get CSFRA extended to the units or homes currently blocked by the Costa Hawkins law.

I wonder if the project will in fact move forward at this time. Many projects like this are given local approval, but then are cancelled by the developer after the approval.

It just appears that the statewide initiative is about to throw a lot of uncertainty in this situation.

@Bonnie Malouf,

You being a teacher, did you ever teach a classroom of students about private property rights? or contract law? or what is required to get a commercial loan-financing?

Did you ever teach a classroom of students about equal rights and equal protections?

Did you ever teach a classroom where we are all equal under the law, and when there is a majority (mob rules) that outnumbers other members of our community, that it is OK to take away others private property rights?

Bonnie, what share of the costs to subsidize renters are you willing to contribute to? You did not say in your OP what you are personally willing to do, but to only push this problem on another group.

It is not the responsibility for one very small group of business owners to be burdened with the costs of rent control.

If this is a community problem, then why do you not propose that all employers pay a living wage?

If this is a community problem, why do you not propose a plan that would spread the cost, a community shared cost plan, to subsidize low to moderate income people, to everyone in the city.

Bonnie, you are not a fair person in what you are saying.

I hope our children are not being taught this irresponsible way of thinking in the classrooms.

I do not understand how people can continue to be so incredibly misinformed about rent control. It DOES NOT CREATE LESS EXPENSIVE HOUSING. PERIOD.

Bonnie, do you not see the landlords that are already, in just one year, selling off their properties to developers building more expensive (and yet smaller) units?

Stop wth this rent control insanity, it is NOT a solution.

In response to mvresident2003 you said:

“I do not understand how people can continue to be so incredibly misinformed about rent control. It DOES NOT CREATE LESS EXPENSIVE HOUSING. PERIOD.

Bonnie, do you not see the landlords that are already, in just one year, selling off their properties to developers building more expensive (and yet smaller) units?

Stop wth this rent control insanity, it is NOT a solution.”

The reality is that preventing rent control doesn’t work either. The fact is after 20+ years the “Costa Hawkins” economics “experiment” or “promise” was an epic failure. Government statistics indicated that only 20% of the additional units for those who moved into the state of CA were built. And don’t put the blame on the local governments, if the private landlords, investors, real estate, or developers proposed projects that met the needs of the community, they will be given permission.

You simply threaten the communities that you will freeze building. It appears that has already happened. So as Donald Trump said to get elected: “What have we got to lose?” The fact is Costa Hawkins is an epic failure and saying it helped the state of California, has been demonstrated as a false promise and a failed experiment of economics.

FYI:

Elizabeth Lindsey at last night’s RHC made the argument that for those asking for hardship protections they must be required to apply for Section 8 vouchers.

The fact is the county of Santa Clara has not processed any new applications for as much as 20 years, just see this web-page (Web Link It is so well known that this is reality that she knew no one could even apply for the “wait list”. It was one of the worst attempts to in effect constructively evict her rent controlled tenants in the guise of “needs based” hardship protections.

And of course, she does not provide any housing under Section 8 as well.

Fortunately the RHC adopted that the hardship rues are as follows:

a. Inadequate Household Income of 100% of AMI OR 50% rent is paid of unit income

b. Families with Children Primary residence of one or more persons under the age of 18

120% of AMI OR 50% rent is paid of unit income

c. Senior Household Primary residence of individual who is 62 or older

120% of AMI OR 50% rent is paid of unit income

d. Persons with Disabilities Primary residence of person who is disabled

120% of AMI OR 50% rent is paid of unit income

e. Persons who are Terminally Ill Primary residence of person who is certified as terminally ill

120% of AMI OR 50% rent is paid of unit income

f. Other Other extenuating circumstances

120% of AMI OR 50% rent is paid of unit income

@the business man. Congratulation for your improved word counts over the months.
Both commuism and rent control are failed social experiments!
The only sensible solution is to increasing housing at reasonable cost - but not by penalizing those who are supposed to provide them. From this perspective, I really doubt you are a real business man.

In response to Old timer you said:

“Both communism and rent control are failed social experiments! “

The same can be argued for Capitalism if it doesn’t take actions to reform itself. You said:

“The only sensible solution is to increasing housing at reasonable cost - but not by penalizing those who are supposed to provide them. From this perspective, I really doubt you are a real business man. “

The reality is that preventing rent control doesn’t work either. The fact is after 20+ years the “Costa Hawkins” economics “experiment” or “promise” was an epic failure. Government statistics indicated that only 20% of the additional units for those who moved into the state of CA were built. And don’t put the blame on the local governments, if the private landlords, investors, real estate, or developers proposed projects that met the needs of the community, they will be given permission.

You simply threaten the communities that you will freeze building. It appears that has already happened. So as Donald Trump said to get elected: “What have we got to lose?” The fact is Costa Hawkins is an epic failure and saying it helped the state of California, has been demonstrated as a false promise and a failed experiment of economics.

Elizabeth Lindsey has a real problem.

By making any statements during a RHC meeting and at any time communicating with any member of the RCH board is ex parte communications and attempts to influence the decision’s currently pending petitions with the hearing officer and the RHC.

Given this fact, any petition should be disqualified or she should not be allowed to make any arguments regarding pending regulations. Given that she would destroy any qualifications regarding Due process.

As far as “Capitalism” and “Communism”, they are “extremes” either “right” or “left”. I know that the ultimate solution will be found in the middle of those points. That solution will allow for reliable business investment and health at the same time preventing outright exploitation of the customers.