Question, if you have seen the shortages teachers in our community specifically MVWSD and you are one of the fortunate teachers still in the community .Why did you leave the district as stated here. We the voters will reach and decide you anvioulsly didn’t stay. Also this district surely needs to fix their own house before they start using teachers as advocates .

This article is so full of misleading and wrong information. And it's purely emotional, meant to play on the sympathies of those of us who of course want to support teachers.

Rent control is NOT a solution. rent control will NOT guarantee teachers cheaper housing. This whole notion is just insane, stop this rent control nonsense and talk about real issues. Large corporation responsibilities to the community would be a good start.

Rent control exacerbates the housing shortage. It doesn't make housing more affordable for new arrivals. In fact, its effect is just the opposite. Measure V simply delivers a lottery win for those who happen to already occupy below market apartments (those typically built before 1995)--and they won't be moving anytime soon given the monthly savings-further depleting the affordable housing stock.

Add to that the prospect of a statewide Costa-Hawkins repeal in November and you can kiss goodbye any hope of this housing shortage ever finding equilibrium.

Want a 1 bedroom for $3,500/month? No problem in Mountain View.
Want a 2 bedroom for $6,500/month? No problem in Mountain View.
Want a 2 bedroom for $2,500/month? Take a number or sign a waiting list.

In response to The Successful Businessman you said:

“Rent control exacerbates the housing shortage. It doesn't make housing more affordable for new arrivals. In fact, its effect is just the opposite. Measure V simply delivers a lottery win for those who happen to already occupy below market apartments (those typically built before 1995)--and they won't be moving anytime soon given the monthly savings-further depleting the affordable housing stock.

Add to that the prospect of a statewide Costa-Hawkins repeal in November and you can kiss goodbye any hope of this housing shortage ever finding equilibrium.”

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.

@The Business Man . . . Costa-Hawkins, while a statewide piece of legislation, only applies to cities with rent control. It has no bearing on the majority of the state since the majority of the state's more intelligent communities don't impose rent control on rental property owners. Cities like San Francisco with rent control have had a robust multifamily construction run because of Costa-Hawkins. Without Costa-Hawkins exempting post-1995 multifamily construction from rent control, no developer in his or her right mind would build rental properties if rent control would immediately apply to their property.

And so it will be in Mountain View if Costa-Hawkins is repealed in November. Every apartment, new or old, will be subject to Measure V's rent stabilization provisions along with the other provisions (Just Cause Eviction, etc.) Builders will simply go elsewhere--jurisdictions where there is no rent control--or simply rotate into product other than multifamily housing, such as condos for ownership.

Repeal of Costa-Hawkins also opens the door for Vacancy Control to be added to rent control communities, an absolute death knell for investors building new or considering the purchase of an existing complex.

Web Link

"Vacancy control contributed to lower rents and longer tenure by tenants compared to non-vacancy-controlled areas. There were also fewer rental units in part because of a shift from rental housing to owner-occupied housing."

Unless there is a massive economic incentive to invest in new Bay Area multifamily housing, the industry will come to a standstill. What's being seen now are projects that have been in the pipeline for years. You will not see more apartments added to the Mountain View housing stock if Costa-Hawkins is repealed. The only engine to restart the industry after a repeal would be new legislation from Sacramento imposing the same protections provided by an outdated Costa-Hawkins bill that should have been updated to 2018--but not repealed in its entirety.

The sneaky petition by former city councilmembers John Inks, Michael Kasperzak and current councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga and their landlord backers to repeal MEASURE V looks like it will not qualify for the November ballot. They can't get enough conscious persons to sign. But the landlords will ask the pro-landlord city council majoritu to nonetheless place on the November ballot a straight-up repeal of Measure V. Just watch. As to the lack of new sky-high priced apartments if the state restriction on local rent control is eliminated by statewide voters in November, who cares if developers build condos for sale instead of new $6,000 per month apartments for rent?

In response to The Successful Businessman you said:

“@The Business Man . . . Costa-Hawkins, while a statewide piece of legislation, only applies to cities with rent control. It has no bearing on the majority of the state since the majority of the state's more intelligent communities don't impose rent control on rental property owners. Cities like San Francisco with rent control have had a robust multifamily construction run because of Costa-Hawkins. Without Costa-Hawkins exempting post-1995 multifamily construction from rent control, no developer in his or her right mind would build rental properties if rent control would immediately apply to their property.”

You are partially correct. Costa Hawkins SPLIT voters regarding renters. So when rent control was placed on the ballots, the newer apartments voted against the older ones because they were nto going to get equal treatment. If Costa Hawkins is repealed, it will allow all renters to vote united, thus any city with more than 50% renters are almost certain to vote in new rent control. You are also wrong because unless the CAA and other groups FORCE private landlords, real estate, investors and developer to stop building, there will be those who will. Just NOT the current ones because they expect unrealistic returns on investment. You said:

“And so it will be in Mountain View if Costa-Hawkins is repealed in November. Every apartment, new or old, will be subject to Measure V's rent stabilization provisions along with the other provisions (Just Cause Eviction, etc.) Builders will simply go elsewhere--jurisdictions where there is no rent control--or simply rotate into product other than multifamily housing, such as condos for ownership.”

You are not correct, unless the CAA and other groups FORCE private landlords, real estate, investors and developer to stop building, there will be those who will. You said:

“Repeal of Costa-Hawkins also opens the door for Vacancy Control to be added to rent control communities, an absolute death knell for investors building new or considering the purchase of an existing complex.”

You are WRONG, people will make a profit, just not the unrealistic profit margins the suppliers have dictated. Simple enough, you said:

“Vacancy control contributed to lower rents and longer tenure by tenants compared to non-vacancy-controlled areas. There were also fewer rental units in part because of a shift from rental housing to owner-occupied housing."

What is wrong with having long term renters? It can be very good for landlords because they CARE about the places they live in. What makes it NECESSARY to push your customers out of the units? You said:

“Unless there is a massive economic incentive to invest in new Bay Area multifamily housing, the industry will come to a standstill. What's being seen now are projects that have been in the pipeline for years. You will not see more apartments added to the Mountain View housing stock if Costa-Hawkins is repealed. The only engine to restart the industry after a repeal would be new legislation from Sacramento imposing the same protections provided by an outdated Costa-Hawkins bill that should have been updated to 2018--but not repealed in its entirety.”

In a for profit business, the people or the state must not be forced by extortion to provide a pay out to satisfy the market. “pipelines” are just “pipe-dreams” until they are actually built. If the industry had the motivation, it would overcome such “delays” by making accommodations regarding the locality and the community needs. Sacramento would be foolish to do that because the initiative ballot measure can outweigh the state legislature in court. And also it would demonstrate that those reversing the votes would sign their own death warrant politically. The simple fact is the industry has to adjust to a market that gives equal power over pricing back to the customers.

The beauty of all this is we will know a lot more a year from now. Stay tuned.

BM,
You said on June 4th:
"I will address the California Department of Justice regarding criminal conspiracy to facilitate “price gouging” by the CAA and landlords."
Just wanted to check on status of your very important complaint.
Please, let us know if there are any imminent arrests coming?

Even though the landlords paid professional signature gatherers some $40 per signature, they were not able to trick enough voters into signing. Maybe these signature gatherers will now go back to work on another campaign - such as the Krelim's plan to keep Donald Trump in the White House.

In response to mike rose you said:

“"I will address the California Department of Justice regarding criminal conspiracy to facilitate “price gouging” by the CAA and landlords."

Since Costa Hawkins is on the ballot, it would not be as useful to act on that action. When I can work to establish so that any City in California with greater than 50% renters can succeed easily in getting rent control once the monstrosity of Cost Hawkins has been destroyed. You said:

“Just wanted to check on status of your very important complaint.”

I cannot wait to see all the rats running away because they cannot dictate terms anymore. Good owners will take over and lead the state to a more healthy future. You said:

“Please, let us know if there are any imminent arrests coming?”

I simply do not know if “criminal” sanctions are valid or appropriate when significant “civil” damages may be imposed upon success of the death of Costa Hawkins. To me, when the market corrects under the collective bargaining of the majority of cities establishing rent control, even the other that don’t will be forced to drop the prices.

So why waste that effort?

BM,
In the future check the applicable laws, so you do not have to pretend like you graciousely impose on CAA and landlords civil penalties in lieu of criminal ones.
Otherwise, to put it gently, it is very difficult to take your sensless ramblings very seriously.

Moderator,
Why BM has special privileges on this forum.
Calling housing providers, many elderly and minority,"rats" is disrespectful at minimum and against MVV posting rules.
Why his posts are not deleted and he is not suspended from posting like many others here for speaking the hard to swallow, unpopular truth.
Is MVV biased against housing providers?

In response to mike rose you said:

“Otherwise, to put it gently, it is very difficult to take your sensless ramblings very seriously.”

That comment is simply not on topic, and is simply designed to be a personal criticisim, it does not affress the topic and is categorically “objectional” You also said:

“I also wonder BM why you are not blocked from commenting on this forum for calling rental housing providers "rats"”

That is your opinion regarding the objective factual information I have discussed in the various stories. In reality I may have used the term “rats” in relationship to the following well known terms:

“Rats fleeing a sinking ship”

That is a euphemism and not a declaration or personal categorization and you know it. That’s all I will discuss about it. You also said:

“I was blocked for over a year for politely questioning your IQ level.”

Your interpretation of “politely” is up to you, I will not even go into your personal interpretation. But there must have been significantly ample demonstrations of your conduct violating the terms and conditions of participating in the forum. That’s all I will say about it. To the public, this can clearly be considered objectionable content, and the MV Voice simply follows the language of its terms and conditions. That’s All.

BM
Whatever context you might have used the word "rats"
describing people it is inappropriate.
You should apologize and MVV should remove your posting.
Demonizing people this way to take their property is reminiscent of 1930s in Germany.
Same word was used , next their properties taken and we know what followed.

In response to mike rose you said:

“Demonizing people this way to take their property is reminiscent of 1930s in Germany.

Same word was used , next their properties taken and we know what followed.”

So first you call the citizens of Mountain View “Communists” and now you call them “Fascists”.

This conversation is degrading down to “Name-Calling” or “Stereotyping”. This is an example of the problem we are facing in the City of Mountain View. “Property Owners” are not a legally protected class of citizen. Why? Because they have a strong history of being “Discriminating” regarding all legally recognized discriminated groups. The official list of those protected from discrimination in housing are:

“California law protects individuals from illegal discrimination by housing providers based on the following:

Race, color Ancestry, national origin Religion Disability, mental or physical Sex, gender Sexual orientation Gender identity, gender expression Genetic information Marital status Familial status Source of income(Web Link

The fact is you try to claim you are being discriminated for being “property owners”. The simple truth is that if you had your way you would discriminate against anyone. But fortunately we have this kind of protection BECAUSE of the ACTIONS of property owners. To try to compare the systemic violence that occurred in 1930-40s Germany to this city is simply amazing.

BM,
You can twist it all you want but calling people which you hate "rats" is clearly reminiscent of 1930's Germany.
Same words, same hate.

In response to mike rose you said:

“You can twist it all you want but calling people which you hate "rats" is clearly reminiscent of 1930's Germany.”

You can repeat the statement as many times you want. But it will always simply be your opinion. Repeating it does not make it valid objectively. This is process of which many political interests use. I do not TWIST anything, I simply provide an opposing opinion, in most cases supported by independent validation. Please respect the readers and do the same?

No one is forming a militia to seize property or intern any landlords. That is what occurred in Germany at that time. And it is just almost impossible for it to occur in the U.S.

Almost is the key word

In response to mike rose you said:

“Almost is the key word”

Just realize that by that time “Adolph Hitler” was the leader of the Fascist movement. Unless you are going to claim that “Donald Trump” is going to do the same, you seem to be making unrealistic statements. If you are going to claim that my actions are going to do the same, boy you are so wrong.

I only support political actions that are permitted regarding market regulations. And rent control is a constitutional act and not a “taking” under the U.S. and California Constitutions. Another false argument repeated over and over again.

Why are the people opposed to market regulations making such hyperbolic statements that are outside of reason?

BM,
The deplorable actions of stigmatizing group of people, calling them "rats", taking their property away from them, limiting their rigths, etc. under communism and nacism were also, as you said, permitted, legal and constitutional.
Do you claim they were right?

In response to mike rose you said:

“The deplorable actions of stigmatizing group of people, calling them "rats", taking their property away from them, limiting their rigths, etc. under communism and nacism were also, as you said, permitted, legal and constitutional.”

First you speed “Naziism” wrong.

Second, my family were Jewish Polish that left the country just short of the German invasion. So I can tell you, comparing “landlords” to the groups targeted by the Nuremburg laws or final solution is simply incredible. “Landlords” are not an immutable group like Jews, Roma, Slavs, Ethnic Poles, Soviet citizens and POWs, Political opponents (Nazi Resistance), Gay men, Persons of color, and Jehovah's Witnesses. You said:

“Do you claim they were right?”

You try to give the public the impression that the U.S., The state of California, Santa Clara County, or Mountain View are acting like the aforementioned groups. You know that is clearly not true. It is a blatant attempt to use fear and anger to obfuscate the fact that the “private” housing market is an epic failure because it requires that the customer pays the price for the failures of the owners.

This is clearly a violation of the markets “moral hazards” doctrine which is designed to disincentive the transference of cost. As described here:

“The idea is simple. IF YOU ARE CONTINUALLY WILLING TO PROTECT PEOPLE FROM THE CONSEQUENCES OF THEIR OWN ERRORS, YOUR BENEVOLENCE WILL BE FACTORED INTO THE FUTURE DECISIONS OF THE PERSONS RESCUED. In the long run, they will make even more errors. The principle exists at all levels. The teacher who changes grades when students plead hardship isn't helping in the long run. The teacher is rewarding and thereby encouraging poor study habits. He is creating moral hazard.”(Web Link

The thought that the public must “guaranty” a profit when those private landlords who made increasingly poor decisions is an affront to the free-market. There is no right to be protected for poor decision making. The fact is the Housing Market in in California is still suffering the “bubble” of property values due to Costa Hawkins. Costa Hawkins transferred the cost of bad management legally onto the customers with no economic or legal recourse. What do you think was eventually going to happen?

BM,
I am surprised, with your heritage, you call other people "rats".

In response to mike rose you said:

“I am surprised, with your heritage, you call other people "rats".”

You seem to make many mistakes regarding history please read this(Web Link

Maus

Maus[a] is a graphic novel by American cartoonist Art Spiegelman, serialized from 1980 to 1991. It depicts Spiegelman interviewing his father about his experiences as a Polish Jew and Holocaust survivor. The work employs postmodernist techniques and represents Jews as mice, Germans as cats, and Poles as pigs. Critics have classified Maus as memoir, biography, history, fiction, autobiography, or a mix of genres. In 1992, it became the first graphic novel to win a Pulitzer Prize (the Special Award in Letters).”

To me, it appears you really don’t appreciate history. Your attempts to misuse history and persistent approach to devolve the discussion to nothing but using the “rat” statement over and over is self-evident.

You simply ignore any information that contradicts your own. The “basis” of the “fake news” argument. This is a very dangerous vector regarding the direction the U.S. is going let alone Mountain View. But you are entitled to your opinion and have the right to express it.

BM,

This is history, text taken straight from Nazi propaganda film "The Eternal Jew" from 1940.

"Where rats appear, they bring ruin by destroying mankind's goods and foodstuffs. In this way, they spread disease, plague, leprosy, typhoid fever, cholera, dysentery, and so on. They are cunning, cowardly and cruel and are found mostly in large packs. Among the animals, they represent the rudiment of an insidious, underground destruction – just like the Jews among human beings."

Nothing resembling your cute story about dog, cat and mice.

You use similar comparison of rental housing providers to rats.
You should be ashamed of yourself, considering your heritage.

In response to by mike rose you said:

“This is history, text taken straight from Nazi propaganda film "The Eternal Jew" from 1940.

"Where rats appear, they bring ruin by destroying mankind's goods and foodstuffs. In this way, they spread disease, plague, leprosy, typhoid fever, cholera, dysentery, and so on. They are cunning, cowardly and cruel and are found mostly in large packs. Among the animals, they represent the rudiment of an insidious, underground destruction – just like the Jews among human beings."”

So you want to state that those supporting “rent-control” are the same as the Fascist German Regime. Talk about a comparison that simply is without any basis in reality. You also said:

“You use similar comparison of rental housing providers to rats.”

At this point of time, I simply say, please show the statements I have made that are in the same voice as what you just stated.

This means that you must demonstrate that my comments are equal to those from that movie you just stated. You have to show a hyperlink to any topic on the Mountain View Voice to establish proof. I do not think you will find any, and I do not have to prove I didn’t. To me you are just saying the same thing over and over again without any “proof” of the claim you are stating. If you cannot show proof of this categorization, then let it go.

To me, I finally realized that you enticed me into a discussion which was a demonstration of my lack of judgment.

BM,
You said: "So you want to state that those supporting “rent-control” are the same as the Fascist German Regime. Talk about a comparison that simply is without any basis in reality."

No, I am not making that statement to be clear.
This statement is strictly about you and your attempt to dehumanize rental housing providers by calling them "rats" which is exactly the same as Fascist German Regime attempt to dehumanize Jews by comparing them to rats.

BM,
The quote fro your June 20th posting above as requested:
"I cannot wait to see all the RATS running away because they cannot dictate terms anymore. Good owners will take over and lead the state to a more healthy future.

In response to mike rose you said:

“No, I am not making that statement to be clear.”

Really, that is not what you wrote on this discussion, and you know it. You said:

“This statement is strictly about you and your attempt to dehumanize rental housing providers by calling them "rats" which is exactly the same as Fascist German Regime attempt to dehumanize Jews by comparing them to rats.”

You simply have not proven that I ever argued that “landlords” should be restricted of all property ownership. That was one of the Nuremburg laws. You simply have not proven that I argued for “landlords” to be taken into custody and interned for destruction. That was the “final solution” of the “jews” problem. That’s All. You said:

“"I cannot wait to see all the RATS running away because they cannot dictate terms anymore. Good owners will take over and lead the state to a more healthy future.”

I stand by that statement 1000% because I cannot support the idea that “property-owners” should be able to extort the public into in effect stealing money. The private landlords, real estate, investors and developers simply have DICTATED the terms of the MARKET for 20+ years. They have proved that their interests are that if they cannot dictate the terms of the market, they will leave. That was their statements, not mine. Where good business people will replace bad, then the business will reform itself.

Your comparison of that statement as equal to the Fascist action of Germany in 1930-1945 is just amazing. Unless you can claim I am proposing the Nuremburg laws in Mountain View, you are simply reacting to the term “rats” because you are among those who are in that category of business practices.

NOW I UNDERSTAND YOUR OBJECTION. But sometimes reality is bitter.

Where did I say you are proposing Nuremburg laws?
You are dodging a subject trying to wiggle out of apology to the people you offended with derogatory remarks.
But I think by now all the forum readers can judge your character and motivations by themselves.
Nothing else to say.

In response to mike rose you said:

“Where did I say you are proposing Nuremburg laws?”

You said:

“BM

DEMONIZING PEOPLE THIS WAY TO TAKE THEIR PROPERTY IS REMINISCENT OF 1930S IN GERMANY.”

Enough said, you brought up the statement. You made the connection not me, you also said:

“You can twist it all you want but calling people which you hate "rats" is clearly reminiscent of 1930's Germany.”

Same response, you also said:

“The deplorable actions of stigmatizing group of people, calling them "rats", taking their property away from them, limiting their rigths, etc. under communism and nacism were also, as you said, permitted, legal and constitutional.”

You knew the language you used and the sentences you typed were designed to imply that “rent-control” was equal to Communism and Fascism. That is the bitter reality of your conversation. You said:

“You are dodging a subject trying to wiggle out of apology to the people you offended with derogatory remarks.”

I make observations based on the statements made by the private landlords, real estate, investors and developers. They continuously threaten that they will pack up and leave if rent control is required to do business in Mountain View and California under the guise that it is a “disincentive” to their business. Since profit is the incentive, good businesses will succeed in being profitable no matter how competitive the market is, also including “market regulations” as a competitive force under the porters 5 forces model of markets. This was simply a reminder that those “property-owners” can leave anytime they want under the “Ellis” act. They are not forced to do business here. You said:

“But I think by now all the forum readers can judge your character and motivations by themselves.

Nothing else to say.”

Your attempts to rewrite history to your benefit is the classic approach of a propagandist. The readers also should be aware of that too.

BM,
You said:
.... good businesses will succeed in being profitable no matter how competitive the market is.... This was simply a reminder that those “property-owners” can leave anytime they want under the “Ellis” act. They are not forced to do business here.
How different is if I say the same thing just applicable to tenants instead of landlords:
....good tenants will succeed in being able to rent no matter how competitive market is...., this is simply a reminder that those "tenants" can leave anytime they want, they are not forced to live here.....

In response to mike rose you said:

“How different is if I say the same thing just applicable to tenants instead of landlords:

....good tenants will succeed in being able to rent no matter how competitive market is...., this is simply a reminder that those "tenants" can leave anytime they want, they are not forced to live here.....

BIG DIFFERENCE, the tenants are the customers (demand), the landlords are the sellers (supply).

Business 101, the sellers must compete for the customers. PERIOD.

If they are not competing then it is a manipulated market, which is illegal in this country look up Sherman Anti-trust laws. In general they state (Web Link :

The Sherman Antitrust Act

Passed in 1890, the Sherman Antitrust Act was the first major legislation passed to address oppressive business practices associated WITH CARTELS AND OPPRESSIVE MONOPOLIES. The Sherman Antitrust Act is a federal law prohibiting any contract, trust, or conspiracy in restraint of interstate or foreign trade.

Even though the title of the act refers to trusts, the Sherman Antitrust Act actually has a much broader scope. IT PROVIDES THAT NO PERSON SHALL MONOPOLIZE, ATTEMPT TO MONOPOLIZE OR CONSPIRE WITH ANOTHER TO MONOPOLIZE INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN TRADE OR COMMERCE, REGARDLESS OF THE TYPE OF BUSINESS ENTITY.”

In California there is the Cartwright Act that states (Web Link

Prohibited Antitrust Activities under the CA Cartwright Act
The Cartwright Act prohibits COMBINATIONS OF TWO OR MORE PERSONS’ CAPITAL, SKILL, OR ACTS TO RESTRICT TRADE OR COMMERCE. Where the Sherman Act prohibits only “restraints of trade,” the Cartwright Act is more detailed in its list of prohibited actions. These include:

Price Fixing: AGREEMENT BETWEEN COMPETITORS TO BUY OR SELL PRODUCTS, SERVICES, OR COMMODITIES AT A FIXED PRICE OR RATE

Group Boycotting: COMPETITORS AGREEING TO BOYCOTT A CERTAIN ENTITY

Market Division Scheme: AGREEMENT BETWEEN COMPETITORS TO DIVIDE MARKETS, PRODUCTS, CUSTOMERS OR TERRITORIES AMONGST THEMSELVES”

It would seem that the concept of price fixing and market division seems very appropriate here. Thus your argument simply doesn’t make sense. The customers are not the ones that must compete for the sellers, but the other way around. Didn’t you get the memo?

BM,
You said:
BIG DIFFERENCE, the tenants are the customers (demand), the landlords are the sellers (supply).

Business 101, the sellers must compete for the customers. PERIOD.

"PERIOD." is inaccurate. Sellers compete for customers only when supply exceedes demand.
In case of current housing shortage (btw. not caused by landlords but the governments which in turn conveniently use landlords as scapegoats -"rats") the demand exceeds supply and therefore customers must compete amongst themselves. This is why you see multiple offers and regular overbidding for sale of real properties, and rising rental prices.
So your statement is totally false , I refer you to economics 101.

There is zero evidence of "Price Fixing: AGREEMENT BETWEEN COMPETITORS TO BUY OR SELL PRODUCTS, SERVICES, OR COMMODITIES AT A FIXED PRICE OR RATE"
This is simply supply-demand imbalance that causes significant rent increases ( for many years the rents were stagnant or dropping I guess no conspiracy then).
Also if there is violation of antitrust act, dont you think it would have been investigated or brought to attention by tenants activists.
You are simply making things up as you go, as you made up recently the alleged criminal conspiracy of CAA to facilitate price gouging, and made publicly a fool out of yourself.
Dont impulsively respond with nonsense, think this over a bit.

In response to mike rose you said:

“In case of current housing shortage (btw. not caused by landlords but the governments which in turn conveniently use landlords as scapegoats -"rats") the demand exceeds supply and therefore customers must compete amongst themselves. This is why you see multiple offers and regular overbidding for sale of real properties, and rising rental prices.”

Please provide evidence of your claims? You simply want to divert the real responsible parties. The Government gave the private landlords, real estate, investors and developers 20+ years to solve the housing problem they promised they would solve prior to Costa Hawkins. You must provide proof that the government has interfered with thes parties in ways that were not legal in order to make your point. You said:

“There is zero evidence of "Price Fixing: AGREEMENT BETWEEN COMPETITORS TO BUY OR SELL PRODUCTS, SERVICES, OR COMMODITIES AT A FIXED PRICE OR RATE"

When the industry argues that the “Average” rents should be a base-line for which they can claim a “fair” rent rate, once investors inflate costs upon themselves to raise that rate, they have acted to achieve a “price-fixing” process. Especially when there is evidence that real estate agents make unenforceable promises for rental incomes to entice new apartment owners to purchase properties. Of course, the political behaviors that has accumulated up to now can be justification for an investigation, which might result in the “evidence” you claim cannot exist. You said:

“This is simply supply-demand imbalance that causes significant rent increases ( for many years the rents were stagnant or dropping I guess no conspiracy then).”

That in effect does not establish that customers must compete for suppliers, it just means that prices can be manipulated higher if the supply is “controlled” to below the supply the “un-manipulated” market would achieve. That’s all. You said:

“Also if there is violation of antitrust act, dont you think it would have been investigated or brought to attention by tenants activists.”

Not if the political interests are successful in distracting the public from the potential of such violations of the Cartwright act. Thus it may just be that the public has been successfully deceived in not being aware of their right to such an investigation. You said:

“You are simply making things up as you go, as you made up recently the alleged criminal conspiracy of CAA to facilitate price gouging, and made publicly a fool out of yourself.”

I never respond impulsively. You have the right to “advocate” to those you most likely have an interest in. I have simply asked a question that bears given the history we have discussed, that such an investigation is prudent at this time. It is obvious that you are at minimum simply an advocate of the CAA, if not actually compensated. A person cannot be a fool if they are only asking questions, can they?

Mike rose

Here is the reasoning used for territorial and customer restrictions by a reputabile law firm, please read the following (Web Link

“VI. TERRITORIAL AND CUSTOMER RESTRICTIONS

Agreements between competitors or potential competitors not to compete for customers or not to sell in designated territories are per se illegal. Guild Wineries v. J. Sosnick & Son, 102 Cal. App. 3d 627 (1980). Such agreements invariably have the potential to restrict output and raise prices. By contrast, customer and territorial restrictions are analyzed under the rule of reason when they are imposed as vertical restraints by a manufacturer on its dealers. Exxon v. Superior Court, 51 Cal. App. 4th 1672, 1681-82 (1997). Thus, in the vertical context, such restraints may be upheld where the defendant lacks market power in the broader interbrand market (i.e., competing products from other manufacturers), and the restraints have a legitimate business purpose such as to prevent free riding or assure the manufacturer that its products will be sufficiently marketed. Exxon v. Superior Court, supra; Gianelli v. Beck & Co., 172 Cal. App. 3d 1020, 1047-49 (1985); Milton v. Hudson Sales Corp., 152 Cal. App. 2d 418, 443-45 (1957).”

Since the apartment industry is not a “vertical market transaction” the issue is that if any evidence can be found to determine any agreement to not compete in the housing market, it will be per se illegal. It is in the public interest to investigate the CAA to see if they can be found as facilitating such a market scheme.

I have plenty more where this comes from.