They were still collecting signatures in front of Safeway after the recommended deadline probably because they don't have enough. I was amazed at the fibbing and misinformation of the person sitting at the table. She did not understand how to interpret the vacancy rate percentage and was flat out wrong. When I pointed this out to her she got angry, raised her voice and started throwing papers around the table. Seriously.

But the California Apartment Association is not going to give up very easily. So I suspect we will revisit this and their questionable tactics in the near future.

If the petition gets enough signatures - but too late for November - the measure will go on a later ballot if submitted. The reporter should ask the city clerk about that. Another possibility is that the landlords will give up on getting signatures on this petition but ASK THEIR MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL TO PUT THIS OR SOME OTHER PROPOSED CITY CHARTER AMENDMENT ON THE BALLOT as the City Council makority may do.

To say that the paid signature gatherers have made 'misleading' statements is a gross understatement.

They have gone door-to-door in mobile home parks, telling the residents that while they are not currently protected by Measure V (true), they will be protected if they sign the petition and the measure passes in November. FLAT OUT LIE.

It's been reported that they've told people that Measure V is about to expire, and signing this petition will renew/extend it. ANOTHER FLAT OUT LIE.

It's been reported that a signature gatherer outside a Target store was smoking pot, while gathering signatures. When the voter called him on it, he insisted it's legal to smoke pot in public. SO, SO WRONG!!

It's been reported that signature gatherers have made disparaging and rude remarks when approached by members of the tenants coalition, as regards their heritage and ethnicity (and, these exchanges took place in front of voters). Gives you an idea of the caliber of people with whom the CAA is contracting.

If you signed the CAA petition by mistake, because you were taken in by their deceptive practices, it's not too late to submit a signature withdrawal form.

These forms must be submitted to the City Clerk BEFORE the CAA submits their petitions, which could happen at any moment.

If you'd like to submit a form, please call/text Steve at 650 766-4071, or you can e-mail mvtc.volunteer@gmail.com, and a volunteer will take care of you.

Laura Teutschel of the group Measure V Too Costly denied that time had run out for the petition. She declined to say when the signatures would be submitted.

"So, the city clerk has an insight as to how long this will take the County Registrar of Voters? Interesting. How does she know that?" she wrote in an email.

Um, yeah, maybe the City Clerk DOES have an insight here. It's her JOB.

California Elections Code section 9255 provides that a city charter amendment proposed by voter petition may be placed only on one of 3 possible election dates: (1) the date of the next statewide primary, (2) the date of the next statewide general election, or (3) the date of the next city general election. In MV's case, (2) and (3) are the same date: the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November of even-numbered years.

This means that if the landlord petition gets enough signatures but is turned in too late for this November's ballot, the proposed measure would go on the June 2020 statewide primary ballot. But if, which seems more likely, the landlords lack the signatures and don't think they can get them, they will be going to the City Council to ask that the City Council place a measure to repeal Measure V on this November's ballot as authorized by the same code section.

Sounds to me like there is a misunderstanding of what the statutory "30 days" means. Nautsch thinks it means 30 business days before July 24. Teutschel thinks it means 30 calendar days before July 24. Depending on whom you believe, the petition is either too late or there's still time.

I encountered these signature gatherers on a few occasion and was mislead, but did not sign. If the ballot measure does qualify for the November election, I'm thinking a class action lawsuit against this landlord-backed group, on the misleading tactics they used to collect signatures, is very plausible. Document everything people.

I encountered these signature gatherers on a few occasion and was mislead, but did not sign. If the ballot measure does qualify for the November election, I'm thinking a class action lawsuit against this landlord-backed group, on the tactics they used to collect signatures, is very plausible. Document everything.

Several of these complaints were posted here before by proponents of rent control.

Let the measure get on the ballot and let people vote. This law clearly isnt working as well as the supporters would have you believe and is expensive and beauracratic and yes the 3% thing is just a way to roll it back and maybe a bit sneaky, we get it. Let us go up for a vote and stop complaining about some bad words you had with someone who is collecting signature which makes you sound as bad as them.

Vote!

Are these professional lying petition circulators knocking on doors in your neighborhood? If so, post it here. Include the street name, date and time. There are local residents ready to drop warning flyers ahead these circulators.

hello ...

if you were duped by paid signature gatherers on this initiative who told you that this initiative would expand current rent control, cover every renter in mountain view, expand rent control to mobile home parks (owners and renters), and generally improve on the existing rent control initiative (calling it phase II of rent control in mountain view), (i was told all these things), please file a complaint with the secretary of state's election division online at:

Web Link

the form is easy to fill out and only takes a minute ...

you can also call 916-657-2166, and file a complaint ...

i'm all for open debate but telling flat out lies to renters and senior citizens to get them to sign a petition like this is simply corrupt and per state statute, illegal ...

> Let the measure get on the ballot and let people vote.

No. Out of city interests should not get an opportunity to change laws that the tenants coalition worked hard to pass.

The car that the landlords have not submitted says that the mv voters HAVE voted, by not signing this disingenuous petition.

Let's leave the lying to the White House.

I too encountered these fraudulent presenters of this "petition to support rent control".

Given the wide spread encounters of fraud, it occurs to me to advise the city council members who support the landlords' and oppose rent control... you need to consider what nest you want to be in on this issue. Birds of a feather DO FLOCK TOGETHER. I for one will be watching to see if "owners' rights" continue to receive your support over and above people's rights.

The smelly ever deepening swamp in DC is seeping into state and local politics. Do you really want to swim there?

Maher,
People's rights above ownership rights... wait I heard that somewhere before.
Wasn't it Cuba, Venezuela, Soviet Union, former eastern European communist bloc, etc, who embraced the same ideology and outlawed private property rights for all practical purposes and called themselves people's republics.
How did it work for them?
But wait.. MV is different, this time is going to work great, trust me....

WOW mike rose and Howard are at it again.

THey want to distract the public by equating the citizens of mountain view with "scapegoating" and broadband "disqualification" of another's point of view.

Of course we are dealing with "astroturfing" people who are not even in the "real" sense "real". The postings are by those that are anonymous. Everyone know who I am. It is time for these two to publicly disclose their real identity.

Why, so that the public can appreciate the motivation of their postings along with the content of their message.

I am told the California primary in 2020 will be in March instead of June. Maybe the landlords will get enough signatures by October to qualify their sneaky repeal of Measure V for the March 2020 presidential primary ballot. If they turn in their petitions and fall short, the petition drive is over. But I continue to warn folks that the pro-landlord City Council majority can on July 24 (or even a little later at a special meeting) place on the November 2018 ballot a straight-up (or disguised) repeal of Measure V. These are some of the same councilmembers who tried to defeat Measure V by placing their own fraudulent competing measure (Measure W) on the November 2016 ballot. Concerned residents should check the July 24 agenda when posted on July 20 and watch out for any later-created special city council meeting. Get ready for a new set of voter petitions: to RECALL city councilmembers working for the California Apartment Association and the like.

Businessman,

You want to know my identity?

I'm the investor that pulled $10 million in cash out of the affordable housing in Mountain view last year because of measure V and reinvested in other free markets.

This little move I made slated many of your affordable units in Mountain View to be demolished for new $1.6m - $1.8m homes for the non-affordable housing of other people.
You know your city will continue to approve this practice for the property tax increases, so we don't have to discuss that. Money talks and you know what walks.

Do you really believe the city or large corporate developers are really going to infill these lost affordable apartments and build the thousands of units they promise?

The city has no money for this and they keep telling you that and corporate investors like prometheus see better opportunities elsewhere. Just watch all the promises evaporate.

When you get rid of measure V or can guarantee the landlord a "Fair Rate of Return" I'll come back to reinvest with many others.

Your definition of "Fare Rate" is nonescence and many investors will continue to boycott your city with our investment monies.

That's who I am and I'm not alone.

In response to Howard you said:

“
Your definition of "Fare Rate" is nonescence and many investors will continue to boycott your city with our investment monies.”

You just said something that can be argued as illegal. In California we have the Cartwright act that states:

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:

Group Boycotting: COMPETITORS AGREEING TO BOYCOTT A CERTAIN ENTITY

Your threat to “boycott” the Mountain View housing market. Here is the reasoning used for boycotting by a reputable law firm, please read the following (Web Link read this information:

“VIII. GROUP BOYCOTTS AND REFUSALS TO DEAL

When competitors combine to deny a competitor benefits enjoyed by members of the group, such horizontal boycotts may give rise to per se liability. This was the case in Oakland-Alameda County Builders Exchange v. F.P. Lathrop Const. Co., 4 Cal. 3d 354 (1971), where contractors who participated in a bid depository agreed to boycott contractors who were not participants. See also People v. Santa Clara Valley Bowling Assn., 238 Cal. App. 2d 225, 233-37 (1965) (bowling association rule designed to induce league bowlers from bowling in nonmember houses was per se illegal).

In Marin County Board of Realtors v. Palsson, 16 Cal. 3d 920, 931 (1976), however, the court refused to apply per se illegality to a real estate association rule that denied part-time agents access to a multiple listing service. It noted that, rather than attempting to coerce part-time agents to adopt anticompetitive practices, the rule may have a legitimate business reason in which the alleged boycott was only a byproduct of that agreement. Nonetheless, since defendants had 75% of the market and the rule had serious anticompetitive effects without any business justification, the court invalidated the association rule under the rule of reason. See also, Amarel v. Connell, 202 Cal. App. 3d 137 (1988) (companies with 75% of market engaged in boycotts and refusals to sell to those who purchased from competitors); People v. National Association of Realtors, 120 Cal. App. 3d 459 (1981) (rule restricting access to multiple listing service was group boycott). In Freeman v. San Diego Assn. of Realtors, 77 Cal. App. 4th 171, 196-98 (1999), however, the court held that denial of access to ancillary services offered by a multiple listing service did not state a group boycott claim. Where defendants are not competitors, the per se rule does not apply. Nova Designs, Inc. v. Scuba Retailers Ass’n., 202 F. 3d 1088, 1092 (9th Cir. 2000).”

So Howard, you have now in effect provided evidence to support an investigation regarding the possibility of violations of the Cartwright Act. Thank you very much because your argument is now evidence to be used regarding ALL landlords involved in the City of Mountain View. Especially any one you mentioned like:

“The city has no money for this and they keep telling you that and corporate investors like prometheus see better opportunities elsewhere. Just watch all the promises evaporate.”

So you now have implicated that the “Prometheus” group regarding a boycott of the City of Mountain View if they participate in a boycott based on your own words. You also said:

“When you get rid of measure V or can guarantee the landlord a "Fair Rate of Return" I'll come back to reinvest with many others.”

So you are in fact a violator of the Cartwright Act by your own admission. You threatened to pull out of Mountain View and did so, and now dictate the terms of your return. Such actions are a violation of the Cartwright Act.

You are indeed lucky that you post anonymously because prosecutors cannot “identify” you. But you in effect put the Prometheus Group under the proverbial microscope. If they in effect start to boycott Mountain View, they may be investigated for Cartwright Act Boycott violations.

It would take a speed reader from Neptune to keep up with the posts of "THE BUSINESS MAN" - although one must admire his persistence. Getting back down to Earth, I am reminded that in the 2014 City Council race, mailers arrived from some a fictitiously named group supporting three candidates; PAT SHOWALTER, KEN ROSENBERG and ELLEN KAMAI. The first two were elected and actively opposed rent control in 2016 (Measure V). The mailers - it was later reported in the Mountain View Voice - were secretly funded by landlord groups. How did they know to support Showalter, Rosenberg and Kamai? The first campaign stop in city council races is always the Mountain View CHAMBER OF COMMERCE. Any candidate that has not revealed his or her position on rent control is asked by that point.

Businessman,

Your postings are always so colorful and interesting if one actually takes the time to read them. I don't know, maybe some even believe them.

First of all, this case law your using doesn't even apply to my posting.
For there to be any shred of a legal argument there would have to be a named "competitor" or "entity". As you even stated, under the Cartwright Act,"COMPETITORS AGREEING TO BOYCOTT A CERTAIN ENTITY".

So nice try, but no pudding after dinner for you.

As far as my implicating others goes, when I said,"like prometheus". Notice the word "like"?

Like is defined as, "having the same characteristics or qualities as; similar to."
So from a legal standpoint, that can mean just about anything or anyone.

Do you remember when Bill Clinton was questioned about his affair with Monica Lewinsky and he testified to the Grand jury in response to his having an affair.
He said, ""It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is."
Well, this is, an is, is moment for you, Businessman.

Enjoyed it, keep in touch.

Businesman in his hasty responses very often cites laws that don't exist (like recent case of him accusing CAA of criminal facilitation of price gouging).
BM, this maybe news for you but price gouging is NOT a crime in California unless natural disaster is declared by the governor in a specific area (like wine country fires last year).
Many more examples of him citing case laws that don't apply at all.
Another classic of his is the accusation of price fixing by CAA and rental property providers.
He is not capable to differenciate beetween price increases due to supply/demand imbalance (market laws) and conspiracy to fix prices.
He thinks that by "sounding smart " he will convince majority of readers of this forum that he is right.
But at the end he only makes fool of himself.

Businesman in his hasty responses very often cites laws that don't exist (like recent case of him accusing CAA of criminal facilitation of price gouging).
BM, this maybe news for you but price gouging is NOT a crime in California unless natural disaster is declared by the governor in a specific area (like wine country fires last year).
Many more examples of him citing case laws that don't apply at all.
Another classic of his is the accusation of price fixing by CAA and rental property providers.
He does not comprehend the difference beetween price increases due to supply/demand imbalance (market laws) and conspiracy to fix prices.
[Portion removed due to disrespectful comment]

Mike Rose and Howard: Good work shedding light on the Businessman's misleading and voluminous postings, which some people actually believe. I used to have a minor elected position in a nearby major city, and had a person in the audience similar to the Businessman.

Two key points Mike and Howard make:
1) case law your using doesn't even apply to my posting.
2) cites laws that don't exist

Just like my guy, the Businessman's strategy seems to be to be "Baffle them With high volume of BS". But if you actually take time to read the Businessman's material, it is cut and and pasting a lot of stuff and throwing it at the wall to
see what sticks.

To close, the core issue is that there is a shortage of housing supply, which drives up prices. The challenge is to increase housing supply and transportation capacity to meet the needs of the wildly and too successful Silicon Valley. There are the beginnings of local, regional, state, and national initiatives to increase housing supply and address transportation issues. I suggest that supporting these initiatives are the constructive way forward.

@yimby2, Howard and Mike,

You guys are just now figuring this guy out. It's been obvious from the beginning. He's made several claims which are either false or clearly overstated.

It is not only the the readers of this forum who do not buy his BS, Santa Clara court judge kicked his case against his landlord out of his court in a hurry earlier this year.
I'm sure he had a good laugh before, listening to BM's "legal arguments". That one did not stick for you, BM.

@duh You are correct. Clearly the Businessman provides non-credible data and conclusions. But not everybody is as smart as you, and they need help. Both Mike Rose and Howard did a good job clearly calling out the BMs non credible statements. At issue are the people who buy into BM's reality distortion field. Have you not observed the small of number of vociferous pro-rent control folks to go out of their way way to endorse BM's non-credible communications?

I find it interesting that a “group” of “anonymous” posters are now in effect ganging up on me their “anonymous” names are Howard, mike rose, yimby#2 and duh. I guess I am touching a raw nerve. Given that these people refuse to use their own identity should beg to question their credibility. Everyone knows who I am. Of course if they are landlords and their customers knew what they write here, their customers would leave and no one would ever rent from them. Either way I will address their postings. This is long because I am in effect being “gang” attacked.

In response to Posted by Howard you said:

“For there to be any shred of a legal argument there would have to be a named "competitor" or "entity". As you even stated, under the Cartwright Act,"COMPETITORS AGREEING TO BOYCOTT A CERTAIN ENTITY".”

Definition in our case is competitors are the landlords of Mountain View, the entity is the City of Mountain View. So the statement is City of Mountain View Landlords AGREEING TO BOYCOTT the City of Mountain View. Can you understand that? You said:

“As far as my implicating others goes, when I said,"like prometheus". Notice the word "like"? Like is defined as, "having the same characteristics or qualities as; similar to." So from a legal standpoint, that can mean just about anything or anyone.”

You put the Prometheus Group under the microscope I didn’t. You said:

“Do you remember when Bill Clinton was questioned about his affair with Monica Lewinsky and he testified to the Grand jury in response to his having an affair.

He said, ""It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is."”

What can I say about this?

In response to mike rose you said:

“Businesman in his hasty responses very often cites laws that don't exist (like recent case of him accusing CAA of criminal facilitation of price gouging). “

BM, this maybe news for you but price gouging is NOT a crime in California unless natural disaster is declared by the governor in a specific area (like wine country fires last year).”

NOT UNDER THE CARTWRIGHT ACT IT IS, that’s all I have to say about it.

In response to Yimby #2 you said:

“Mike Rose and Howard: Good work shedding light on the Businessman's misleading and voluminous postings, which some people actually believe. I used to have a minor elected position in a nearby major city, and had a person in the audience similar to the Businessman. “

Two key points Mike and Howard make:

1) case law your using doesn't even apply to my posting.

2) cites laws that don't exist”

Since when does the Cartwright Act not exist? Please prove it doesn’t. Also please prove it cannot apply in this case in Mountain View?

In response to Duh you said:

“You guys are just now figuring this guy out. It's been obvious from the beginning. He's made several claims which are either false or clearly overstated.”

I may have overstated something, but you haven’t proven it. You just make the claim that I have, nothing more. You said:

“It is not only the the readers of this forum who do not buy his BS, Santa Clara court judge kicked his case against his landlord out of his court in a hurry earlier this year.”

Again the broken record regarding your claim I had no argument. Let’s take a walk through the history:

On April 27rd, 2017, A demand for refund was written and delivered with rent check for overpaid rent from December 23rd. 2016 to April 1st, 2017. All responses from defendant was that he had no knowledge he was overpaid.

On August 10, 2017 over 100 days later a lawsuit was filed with the Santa Clara Court costing $200. In expenses filing for triple damages entitled under CSFRA

On August 29, 2017, the court ordered the plaintiff to appear on September 22nd, but excused the defendant.

On September 11,2017 the City states that rents must be refunded. But that was after the Small Claims Case was filed.

On September 22nd, the plaintiff appears in court. The court orders a later hearing. For November 17th, 2017. The question on whether the extreme delay for the refund was still up in the air. Given that the landlord simply has typically 30 days to provide the refund after the demand letter to avoid triple damages

On November 17th, the case is heard. The decision made was not explained in any way. The decision was produced on a form with no explanation regarding the legal basis of the fact that for more than 120 days the demanded refund was not paid. You cannot claim that the legal argument was invalid given that no legal explanation was ever written to determine your claims are valid.

In response to Yimby #2 you said:

“@duh You are correct. Clearly the Businessman provides non-credible data and conclusions. But not everybody is as smart as you, and they need help. Both Mike Rose and Howard did a good job clearly calling out the BMs non credible statements. At issue are the people who buy into BM's reality distortion field. Have you not observed the small of number of vociferous pro-rent control folks to go out of their way way to endorse BM's non-credible communications?”

Ah just another “fake news” claim to attempt to discredit another person’s point of view. You have the right to your point of view. But you don’t have the right to personally attack anyone that has an opposing view.

" Their customers would leave....?"
Is this threat a joke under rent control and just cause?
I would gladly disclose all of my biographic info if someone guarantees that my tenants paying 1/2 market rent would leave.
Again BM you are out of touch with reality.

Successful businessmen don't have the kind of time to spend on comment venues such as this. Just saying, those in business training . . .

In response to mike rose you said:

“Is this threat a joke under rent control and just cause?”

No it is just reality you also said:

“I would gladly disclose all of my biographic info if someone guarantees that my tenants paying 1/2 market rent would leave.”

No you won’t have that happen, ALL of your tenants will find alternatives. You cannot pick and choose them. You just have to have FAITH that your business practices will encourage your tenants to stay, especially the full rate ones. You said:

“Again BM you are out of touch with reality.”

Maybe I am, maybe I am not. To me, just the fact you hide yourself behind a mask is simply a demonstration of potential dishonesty. I am not saying you are dishonest because I have no proof you are IRL. But your Alternative Identity can be seriously questioned by the public.

People,

The truth is we all want to find agreement regarding the high cost of housing in Mountain View. The problem is the high cost of housing in Mountain View and not the landlords.

Landlords need tenants and tenants need landlords. The problem is it is frickin expensive to live in Mountain View and to buy a home or a rental. So either you pay the cost or you move.

Rent control will not only delay the inevitable, but make it worse by removing affordable units, discontinuing investment money into the community and penting up the losses with current landlords that will be paid back by future tenants.

I understand the problem in our region with the inequities of the "Haves" and the "Have nots" and there are some that call for a reorganizing of our society because it is so profound. Why not, when the top 4% own half the country and live without fear of surviving the day.

But the reality is that you need to bring yourself up rather than ask others to bring themselves down!
Landlords have invested in themselves, their children, their families and their futures. THEY WILL NOT BE BROUGHT DOWN!!!

Simce there is now a local law (Measure V) which somewhat limits how much landlords of apartment buildings occupied before 1995 can raise rents, landlord advocate "Howard" is right that landlords are not now the problem EXCEPT insofar as they terminate tenancies unlawfully to get sky-high rents on turnover, push on voters a fraudulent petition to improve the local rent law (wnen it would actually wipe it out) and support candidates for city council secretly sworn to advance their interests.

In response to Howard you said:

“The truth is we all want to find agreement regarding the high cost of housing in Mountain View. The problem is the high cost of housing in Mountain View and not the landlords.”

When my landlord bought my building and simply raised rents to cover his mortgage payments for buying the building overpriced, WITHOUT ANY IMPROVEMENTS ON THE UNITS, you call that the “high cost of housing?” You said:

“Landlords need tenants and tenants need landlords. The problem is it is frickin expensive to live in Mountain View and to buy a home or a rental. So either you pay the cost or you move.”

So you DICTATE the terms of business. You have no intention of “finding and agreement” in any way. That simply indicates the lack of candor. You said:

“Rent control will not only delay the inevitable, but make it worse by removing affordable units, discontinuing investment money into the community and penting up the losses with current landlords that will be paid back by future tenants.”

That has yet to be proven and you know it. These statements are the same broken record played over and over again by those who have no interest in being a cooperating partner in the solution of the housing problem. And you know that too. You said:

“I understand the problem in our region with the inequities of the "Haves" and the "Have nots" and there are some that call for a reorganizing of our society because it is so profound. Why not, when the top 4% own half the country and live without fear of surviving the day.”

If you are that secure, then taking actions to provide an amicable solution should not be a problem for you and your peers. The fact is that kind of wealth is based on significant debt. You borrowed so much to achieve your proclaimed wealth, that in reality your position is not secure at all. That is why you do not make any attempt to participate in solving the housing problem. You said:

“But the reality is that you need to bring yourself up rather than ask others to bring themselves down!”

Good faith compromise is not bringing anyone down. But you refuse to compromise. Thus the public policy approach to relief is not only fully constitutional and legal, but clearly the right course of action. You said:

“Landlords have invested in themselves, their children, their families and their futures. THEY WILL NOT BE BROUGHT DOWN!!!”

This is basically in the easiest terms a declaration of war by the landlords against the Citizens of Mountain View and the state of California. You obviously have chosen words and expressions that do not seem “friendly” in any way. Why should anyone expect to be treated fairly when you have such hostility to anyone but yourself? Why should we in the end, believe that you have anyone’s interests but your own you advocate? You don’t seem to understand the consequences of your words?

But thanks for providing justification for more stringent market regulations in the future.

See I tried and they still bite

In response to Howard you said:

“See I tried and they still bite”

If you are referring to biting the hand that feeds you. You don’t feed anyone anything. You simply have made it clear that you and your peers have the intention of manipulating the market to raise prices. And when you have your peers invest in properties poorly, have the public make up the loss for those mistakes. To anyone that is simply unreasonable.

You have to prove by action you are in good faith, but the evidence at this time indicates you do not.

Businessman,

It is clear that your very defensive and your always on the attack even when someone tries to find common ground with you.

You blame the landlords for the high cost of rent when everything else around you is expensive also. Do you think cable bills should be $200/month? What about average cars that cost $50,000 nowdays?

What do you think happened to the landlords expenses? Do you believe they went down?

What about the repair costs and replacement costs of appliances,carpet,paint,dry rot, roofing, kitchens, bathrooms,windows landscaping, pools not to mention PG&E, water, garbage and the payoffs to the local fire department, property taxes, insurance, management, maintenance labor, parts and so on and so on. It never ends when your a landlord and you....get the luxury of it not being your problem by paying rent.

But that's not good enough for you because you want someone else to subsidize all these cost for you and complain that their the problem when it is the cost of living in Silicon Valley that's the problem.

Some people never get it because they don't want to get it. This is why I pulled my money out of your city, reinvested in another with a free market so I can keep up with the costs and make a profit.

Meanwhile, I'll be in Cabo at the Pueblo Bonito Sunset Beach Resort, sitting on the beach with a bucket of cerveza and plate full of fish tacos, earning 20% because I deserve it!

Howard,
We are clearly wasting time arguing with BM.
He always gives BS for an answer, he feeds on that.
I think his delusions and lies were exposed enough and we should let readers decide.

In response to Howard you said:

“It is clear that your very defensive and your always on the attack even when someone tries to find common ground with you.”

What common ground, you say pay our prices or leave. That was your own words. You said:

“You blame the landlords for the high cost of rent when everything else around you is expensive also. Do you think cable bills should be $200/month? What about average cars that cost $50,000 nowdays?”

All other products are not in consideration regarding the “Housing” crisis of California. This is just a smokescreen. Stick to the subject. You also said:

“What do you think happened to the landlords expenses? Do you believe they went down?”

No one forces anyone to be a landlord, and they all should know the risks when they enter the market. They must not be allowed to depend on the government or the customers to protect them from their poor judgement. If they cannot compete, they have the choice to get out of the business. You said:

“What about the repair costs and replacement costs of appliances,carpet,paint,dry rot, roofing, kitchens, bathrooms,windows landscaping, pools not to mention PG&E, water, garbage and the payoffs to the local fire department, property taxes, insurance, management, maintenance labor, parts and so on and so on. It never ends when your a landlord and you....get the luxury of it not being your problem by paying rent.”

That is not the responsibility of the renters, because the renters do not own the property nor benefit from property appreciation values. Since when should the renters bear the pain of a landlord that does not understand and manage their property efficiently enough to balance their own books. Simply put, that is not the responsibility of tenants and you know it. You said:

“But that's not good enough for you because you want someone else to subsidize all these cost for you and complain that their the problem when it is the cost of living in Silicon Valley that's the problem.”

I simply disagree with your premise as a whole. Those who have continually gambled higher and higher entry costs cannot expect the losses be insured by anyone else. That is not business and you know that.

They are still gathering signatures immediately outside Safeway. I have sent a message to Safeway to see what their policy is of having paid signature gatherers. I note there is a bill SB-1394 proposed in the California Legislative to make it illegal for signature gatherers to be paid per signature.
(I can see both sides of the case for and against rent control ,however I am very against paid signature gatherers who are misleading the public)