This Rental Housing committee doesn't care about following the CSFRA and allowing these landlords a fair rate of return on their investment!

This is a bunch of Commies that believe in this redistribution of wealth scheme and they see this landlord as a fat cow to slaughter.

Landlords, get your money out of that city and reinvest in cities that have home ownership rates of at least 70% so they won't vote in this socialist plan in the first place.

But everyone has advice on what others should do with their money. Rhetoric is also often included for free. Whatever you do, follow the financial advice of the anonymous posters on this board, ranting about whatever is worth ranting about for that day.

Lindsey will have to prove by a preponderance of evidence that the hearing officer was in appearance "unfair". But that would mean she will have to disprove the accounting irregularities.

Everyone knows in business accounting is used to downplay actual earnings so as to minimize the Federal, State, County, and City taxes.

But this may have been the first time an independent audit of the accounting practices of her property has been performed in years. Her "accounting" was being performed by either business associates, or her husband. This is the closest Lindsey has been to what is equal to an independent or IRS audit in a long time.

THe fact is Lindsey will have to prove that this decision was not objective, or it deviated from known rent control practices and is contradicted in a court case.

But, since the hearing officer seems to have significant experience, I would expect that she did her adjudication based on sound rent control regulations and the laws and case history.

What we have here is the fact that an independent audit saw such irregularities that could not be adjudicated as valid in this case. Simply put in the decision. Lindsey will have to show proof that this is not correct in order to prevail.

From the original article, Lindsay failed to explain the various expenses. This sounds like the books were not in order. Lindsay was not prepared for a very basic audit.

Sounds like Lindsay is asking to be treated special.

The article doesn't say what kinda rent increase the landlord is seeking? Without the #s, it seems to me she must be asking for steep increase from what most of her tenants are paying. It is apparent that she is playing a new game to evict the long time tenants who probably won't be able to pay this rise and thereby she can get newer ones paying top dollars.

The IRS has to hear about this accounting. Clearly they are not using a CPA and not doing their books according to standards. Interesting question would be was a W2 filed for these alleged paid work hours by the husband and wife?

As I stated, move your money landlords because these previous comments are the view of the new electoral of the working poor in Mountain View. They think, If you have money, you must be corrupt and they demand a redistribution of your wealth into "their pockets".

Investing in cities of people with wealth and an understanding of true democracy will keep these socialist policies out of the business climate.

Hopefully, this new regime of democrats will crash and burn quickly so we can get on with America and being the best we can be rather than tearing each other apart out of narcissistic greed.

"MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN"

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or off-topic]

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or off-topic]

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or off-topic]

Trump Lover,

Trump isn't a Republican, he's an American.
I think its funny how the left hasn't even figured out what their up against:)
It's called America!

In response to Howard you said:
[Portion removed due to disrespectful comment or off-topic]


WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH THE STORY? HYPERBOLE AND POLITICAL SPIN BUT NOT RELATED TO THE STORY.

In response to mike rose you said:
[Portion removed due to disrespectful comment or off-topic]


SAME ISSUE HERE. NOTHING BUT VENTING OUT POLITICAL HYPERBOLE, BUT NOT DISCUSSING THE STORY.

In response to Trump Lover you said:
[Portion removed due to disrespectful comment or off-topic]


AGAIN, SUCH POLITICAL HYPERBOLE. BUT YOU SIMPLY ARE NOT DISCUSSING THE STORY, JUST VENTING OUT YOUR POLITICAL SPIN.

Would you please contribute something related to the story? You have the right to express your opinions. But there is also a responsibility to do so by addressing the actual topic. Your rants against others simply because they don’t agree with you do not do you benefit alone.

The readers of this story are simply going to let you make your comments, and you are going to manipulate the “likes” to give the impression that you’re making a point. But we all now that is just a simple cheat. I already laid out the process for you and you have taken the bait by blowing it all out of realism. Thank you.

LOL,
It's not sad, it's called freedom of speech ( which I am sure "progressives" would love to curtail)
I would be delighted to read your posts anywhere you'd like to post them.

And by the way, here is the rent adjustments being requested, so you all know what we are talking about.

"Los Altos resident Elizabeth Lindsay, who owns the Del Medio apartments with about 12 other family members, had sought to raise rents on about two-thirds of the family's 105-unit apartment complex. The proposed increases ranged from $125 to $900 a month in additional rent."

One commenter seemed to bring up a valid point:

“Rent increase of up to $900 per month? That is ridiculous, is that because they never raised rent in 20 years? If yes, then they are lousy business people and deserve what they get.”

The petition was designed to attempt to reverse the “rent-rollback”. She wanted to use the petition to claim that she was not making a “fair rate of return”. But she did so by submitting accounting data that was indicating poor if not worse business accounting practices.

If it were a publically traded business, and the company she owns had to submit SEC filings, I am certain that no one would invest in her business. Private corporations get away with operating a “black box” company, unless something like the CSFRA comes around to require public disclosures to be granted increased rents.

This is the REAL threat to these businesses, the idea that the business actions are going to be disclosed in the public, indicating poor performances, are the real problem for these businesses.

Those in the business will always say to the public: “What right do you have to know my business?” Well, since you want the “public” to in fact bear the cost of bad business practices, the answer is right there. Simply put.

I love it,
" If they didn't raise the rent in 20 years they are lousy business people, they deserve it..."
If they did they would have been called "greedy bastards"
Can landlords ever gets fair shake?
Not in CA.
Hate by " progressives", including the TBM is rampant.

In response to mike rose you said:

“" If they didn't raise the rent in 20 years they are lousy business people, they deserve it..."

If they did they would have been called "greedy bastards"”

WRONG, if for example there were rent increases of say 3-5% a year, NO ONE would have made a complaint. However, when the market has had this impact:

“Executive Summary

The tech boom has driven San Jose rents sky-high. Between 2009 and 2015, the inflation-adjusted average rent for an apartment jumped by 32.2%. Yet over that same time, ADJUSTED MEDIAN INCOMES FOR RENTERS HAVE ACTUALLY DECLINED 2.8%. This has forced families to cram together in small apartments, move away to cheaper places, make unhealthy trade-offs between rent and other essentials like food and prescriptions, or sleep on the streets.

By capping allowable rent increases in rent controlled units at the Consumer Price Index (the cost of living), San Jose could help stabilize communities that are being hard hit by gentrification and rising rents. Currently San Jose allows landlords to charge up to 5% more each year, more than double CPI in recent years.

Most rent controlled units in San Jose are owned by large, extremely profitable corporations, which could easily absorb a lower annual rent increase. JUST 1 IN 8 RENT CONTROLLED UNITS ARE OWNED BY SMALL LANDLORDS.

Yet at the same time the City is considering limiting unaffordable rent hikes, the Housing Department has proposed allowing landlords to charge tenants a slew of new charges and fees. These costs could add up to more than an 8% increase on top of the rent cap, undermining the stability rent control is intended to provide.

AND:

Key Findings

Rents have risen nearly 4x faster than wages and nearly 5x faster than Social Security payments.

Only37.4% of rent-controlled apartments are owned by landlords in San Jose.

The gap between wages & rent affordability is nearly 3x what it was in 2009.”(Web Link

My question is, “WHAT did the landlords do regarding EXISTING APARTMENTS NOT RENOVATED that entitles them to INCREASE PRICES?” The simple fact is if the units are NOT IMPROVING, especially in Del Medio WHERE NO IMPROVEMENTS WERE MADE, what justifies the increases in rent? That expectation IS MORE THAN JUST A “FAIR SHAKE”, it is in effect EXTORTION BECAUSE IT IS EITHER PEOPLE PAY THE HIGHER RENT, OR THEY ARE EVICTED. But with NO IMPROVEMENT of the unit, there is no “fair” expectation that the rent should increase. You said:

“Can landlords ever gets fair shake?”

They do get a fair shake, in fact, they have been proven to historically increase the price of the product WITH NO ACTUAL IMPROVEMENTS. Isn’t that the definition of UNFAIR SHAKE REGARDING THE TENANTS? What did THE SPECIFIC TENANTS DO to deserve having the price of their unit increase? Del Medio NEVER DEMONSTRATED that the “tenants” in those units caused any increase costs to the apartment. If they did that, I would have no argument. You said:

“Hate by " progressives", including the TBM is rampant.”

Please prove that I “Hate” landlords? I am simply pointing out the errors in assumptions that landlords make over and over again. I am stressing that as a private industry, the cost of poor decisions cannot be put on the public or the tenants that is the ACCOUNTABILITY of those who CHOOSE to PARTICIPATE in the MARKET.

That is a universal reality in business.

Yes, Mike, it is freedom of speech, although the local newspaper is a private entity so no real legal guarantee [Portion removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]