I remember very well, at the early stage of that rent control initiative, everyone that was pro rent control involved with the language of that initiative said that Mobile Homes is not covered under it. Even Mark Noack commented here on this site that it was too late to add Mobile Homes under that initiative and that maybe they could do it at a later time.

There is no confusion as to what happened, just some angry people who wants to get it on the act after it became law.

There is just nothing else to say at this point. Some people just do not understand if you do not own the land, then you need to honor the rental contract that you voluntarily signed and agreed to.

I'm pretty sure that I stated, at one of the August 2016 meetings at the Second Stage, that it appeared that the initiative that became Measure V would cover Mobile Home Space. After the Rental Housing Committee was seated, its attorneys agreed. You may disagree about what it should say, but I think the language has always been clear.

he generally means what he (first) says and says what he means

We don't know from the article what arguments the attorneys presented. The question is what Measure V states - not what some supporter(s) of the measure stated at a meeting. If the language of the measure is unclear, the judge could examine the city attorney's "impartial analysis" of the measute and the official ballot arguments to see what voters were told. As I recall, there was no mention of mobile home park rents in the those ballot materials.

I think you cracked it! I just took a look at Measure V, and not only does it not mention "mobile homes," it never mentions "apartment"! Someone should tell this judge.

So how does Mwasure V define the covered rental unit(s)? Post that language if you can. We xan all be judges.

Here is the definition of property from the ordinance. It's clear that property refers to a structure and not land. So property mentioned in the definition of a rental unit refers only to structures.

m) Property. All Rental Units on a parcel or lot or contiguous parcels or contiguous lots under common ownership.

Convenient that you didn't quote the definition of "Rental Unit" in Measure V, which clearly includes land:

"(s) Rental Unit. Any building, structure, or part thereof, or land appurtenant thereto, or any other rental property rented or offered for rent for residential purposes, together with all Housing Services connected with use or occupancy of such property, such as common areas and recreational facilities held out for use by the Tenant."

Are u referring to land appurtenant? . It refers to land connected to the rental unit. The argument from staff was that the phrase other rental property could include mobile home land. The definition of property excludes land and refers only to structures. At best there is a contrdiction.

1) the definition of Rental Units never mentions structures.
2) definitions aren't circular like that: Property refers to Rental Units (capitalized because it's using the defined term). Rental Units refers to "any other rental property" in the more common sense, hence why it's uncapitalized.

This will all be settled by the court, but this is generally why people hire lawyers and then listen to their advice rather than trying to undermine the law they were appointed to uphold.

Rental Unit. Any building, structure, or part thereof, or land appurtenant thereto, or any other rental property rented or offered for rent for residential purposes, together with all Housing Services connected with use or occupancy of such property, such as common areas and recreational facilities held out for use by the Tenant.

You despise all private property owners from having property that they rent out.

I am just waiting for you to go after commercial properties next, as I also remember very well when you said that, put you did not have the votes on the council yet, for that.


There is no such thing as equal rights and protections for everyone, as long as you are in office.

What r u saying. The definition of Rental units refers to structures in the first sentence of the definition. Any reference to property must be to a structure so land is excluded. Capitalizing is irrelevant. Other property refers to buildings that are rented. For lawyers this is a throw away sentence to include all types of buildings. At best a rented mobile unit could possibly be included but not a mobile home that is owned on rented land. This is why some lawyers are ignored. They argue a point that is possible but unlikely given the common use of the language.

Apologies, I meant that the definition of "Property" never mentions structures, which we can all agree on, right?

Capitalization is entirely relevant. The lawyers that the RHC hired are there to represent the committee, neither landlords nor tenants. To ignore their advice is a bad idea, at best. I understand you likely have a lot tied up in your interpretation, but odds are your interpretation won't prevail.

Listen to your lawyers when you hire them, folks.

Within these past 3 weeks you had Mayor Siegel say that "he wants to turn Mountain View into the South Bay City of Berkeley"

Then he recently said he wants to "find legal ways to prevent redevolpment of these older rent control apartment's". Taking away the their further property owners rights to go out of business.

Siegel has been working with the Voice, hand in hand to plan on how the paper can stir up anger in the city thru their articles, then Siegel can channel that anger to the city council forcing the members to act.

He did that from day one when he became a council member. The first story was thru the Voice contacting the New York Times paper, who sent a reporter-photagraher from the San Francisco office to do a story about rent control and a Google tax that Seigel wanted. How do I know that, the NYT reporter told me.

We do not live here because we want to turn Mountain View into an activist city like Berkeley is.

Vote Siegel out this November.

In response to Vote Siegel Out you said:

“Within these past 3 weeks you had Mayor Siegel say that "he wants to turn Mountain View into the South Bay City of Berkeley"

Berkeley is known to be a great City to live in. What is wrong with comparing us to Berkeley? You said:

“Then he recently said he wants to "find legal ways to prevent redevolpment of these older rent control apartment's". Taking away the their further property owners rights to go out of business.”

If the redevelopment will address affordable housing issues, you will find very little trouble in getting those projects approved. But if your just going to destroy apartments and replace with less units, that should be prevented because of the critical housing shortage we have now. You said:

“Siegel has been working with the Voice, hand in hand to plan on how the paper can stir up anger in the city thru their articles, then Siegel can channel that anger to the city council forcing the members to act.”

Please understand he is discussing the critical housing issues. Please start providing solutions? Please just allow the City to address the problem without interference? Or, please just get out of the way? You said:

“He did that from day one when he became a council member. The first story was thru the Voice contacting the New York Times paper, who sent a reporter-photagraher from the San Francisco office to do a story about rent control and a Google tax that Seigel wanted. How do I know that, the NYT reporter told me.”

That is just hearsay until you have the reporter testify to that. Sorry. You said:

“We do not live here because we want to turn Mountain View into an activist city like Berkeley is.”

Berkeley is an example of a good city. Why not be more like it? Berkeley citizens take responsibility and control of their policies. The City of Mountain View should do the same.

You said,
" landlords are just using scare tactics when they say if rent control is passed, they will sell out to developers who will raze the property. You said that will never happen because the landlord will have to pay all those fees to the tenants and they will not do it".

As usual, you do not know what you are talking about as Lenny Siegel is now trying to finds ways to prevent that.

I know your personal story, how sad for you. In order for you to feel important you have to come here and try to convince people how important you are and for them to like you.

The term "mobile home" is an oxymoron. The houses that have been built in the parks in the past 20-odd years are manufactured homes - purchased with mortgage loans. They are made out of wood-frame studs, drywall, and many have hardwood floors. They are bonafide houses that pay bonafide property taxes. New homes are selling for $300,000 and up.

They are the last detached owner-occupied single family homes that are truly affordable in Mountain View.

But that *are not* mobile. After they are built and put together on-site, they effectively cannot be moved somewhere else move-in ready. Older manufactured homes are effectively torn down and junked ans construction debris.

The issue is that these single family, non-mobile manufactured homes exist in a weird limbo, they are real estate (and taxed as real estate), but that real estate exists on land owned by someone else - to whom the home owner must pay rent.

If the rent becomes unaffordable, they manufactured home owner cannot hitch up their house to a tractor trailer and move it somewhere else. They are constructively evicted from their home and will be forced to sell - because once that manufactured house is built in a space, it is effectively there for good.

So the issue is homeowners (usually seniors on fixed incomes) facing the possibility of losing their homes due to space rent increases.

The tenant activist group has repeatedly said that "landlords should have known when they bought their apartment buildings that rent control was always a possibility of happening".

Now apply that same rule that the pro tenant rent control group has been saying to mobile home owners.

They should have known that rents for a parking spot for a home that they bought and are the owners of, who gets a property tax bill from the county assessor every year, could go up and would go up.

The older mobile homes probably still have the wheels and axles underneath them so they can be moved or sold. Only the newer homes have the axles removed to keep costs down, but they are easily put back on, and or sold to someone else to live in.

For the sake of argument let's assume the definition of property defined by measureV uses the definition of RENTAL UNits as defined later in the ordinance and somehow includes MH land spaces. You now have the definition of Property defined as MH land spaces located on a parcel or lot. A parcel or lot is clearly land . So how is land located on top of land? Lawyers have never explained how this is possible. They have admitted there is no court case or precedent for this awkward interpretation of rental units. The same wording is used by several cities in their RC ordinances, but has never been applied to mobile homes. Cities that have the same definition for rental units have chosen to write a separate ordinance to cover mobile homes.

My view is that a judge will see that the RHC has been prudent in coming to their conclusion and will allow this legislative body discretion in making a decision. The judge will defer to the appointed committee rather than impose his own interpretation or someone else's interpretation.

At best one might argue rented MH units could be subject to RC.

It says "on" not "on top of." I can have three corn fields on my farm, both of those are land. For someone arguing for plain reading of the text, you seem to repeatedly insert or skip over words depending on how it suits your argument. Motivated reasoning is a powerful force. Over and over, you're starting from your preferred interpretation and working backwards. But this has been a fun way to waste some time!

You just supported my argument. Corn fields on land consist of two items , the corn and the land. Both cannot be land. Mobile homes and land spaces are separate entities. You seem to want to read something else into the simple meaning of land and structures as ifboth can be considered land. That's why you present an awkward and impossible argument by taking extreme definitions of common language.

I doubt a judge would use such twisted logic.