@Khan,

Very smart of you to not buy a rental property in Mtn. View with rent control, even thou you could have.

For if you did you would find out very soon if Prop. 10 passed, that your interest on your mortgage is not considered a business expense. As other landlords have found out the hard way going thru the city's petition process for a rent increase only to be told by the hearing officer that landlord is making $35,000 a year in profit and denied the rent increase. But in actuality landlord is paying roughly $70,000 a year in interest which means landlord is losing $35,000 a year and he needs to pay his money out of his pocket into running the building expenses and thereby subsidizing the tenants rent.

In other words, if your business would be in Mtn.View, you would be losing money.

Word of caution to everyone who might want to buy or rent out your property, DO NOT DO IT IN MTN.VIEW OR ANY OTHER RENT CONTROL CITY.

You will be sorry!

The residents and the city council Do Not want rental units any longer in the city.

The residents have nothing but hatred towards landlords.

Go away landlords.Lenny Siegel is after your selfish souls.

I actually live in San Jose, but used to live in the Blossom area. I think that the time has come to consider company owned housing in this valley. It may be the only way to keep employees in the area. It would have to be done fairly and ethically though.

I commend the owner for helping her employees, both with the lower rents and in helping them feel like they're a family and "in this together." I've not yet been to the restaurant, but based on this article I will visit there soon.

Bless her. Yes. More companies should offer this. I have friends who work here and are moving two hours away, and from their children, in order to be able to still work here. They are so tired by the time they get home and just want to sleep. Google, move away someplace else already. Or make reparations for the negative impact you've made on our city. Why did you even choose Mountain View? What's wrong with Nevada? Cheaper, more space. We have no more room here for you to build. San Jose will now feel the wrath of Google's expanding empire. And above, yes, landlords have become so greedy. Just because you can raise rents to insane amounts, doesn't mean it's right as it's not. Anyone can steal, but it's still a crime, and in this case, raising rents to where families are separated from each other more and more is wrong.

What a compassionate employer! Kudos to Zareen Khan! Although, understandably, her one house is only a drop in the bucket, it has clearly improved the lives for 3 of her employees. She is a role model for other small businesses - improving your workers lives will benefit your business, in lower turnover and training. Additionally, although I currently have "favorite" restaurants, I will definitely visit Zareen Khan's restaurant in future!

Zareen Khan is to be commended for supporting her employees!

Unfortunately this approach can likely not serve as a blueprint for many small company owners as well as not for profits such as schools as our favorite Tech employers - and Ken DeLeon - are pricing everyone except their own employees out of the valley.

I do not see any solution other than the valley continuing towards becoming a tech island where the techies will one day not too far away crunch their beloved data to evaluate how it happened that all non-techies left the valley...

While I don’t think robots can replace cooks (at least for now, at least for stuff more complicated than a burger), I am actually more comfortable when I can get my food at the counter. I am sure dishwashing can be automated too.

If people think this is a wonderful thing that this business owner is doing, then Vote No. on Prop. 10 on the ballot this November.

If Prop 10 passes then that house would be under rent control, if it was in a rent control city, and if the employee says he does not want to work for Khan anymore, then Khan can not evict him from her property because of rent control.

Khan will be stuck with that ex-worker living on her property at a cheap rent.

Khan will also not be able to provide any new employee's room to live in the house until someone leaves.

Do you start to see people, how unfair rent control is. Khan knows exactly why she did not purchase that property in Mountain View.

Once again the anti-rent control faction forgets that San Francisco has rent control.

We also have an ever increasing homeless population and human feces in the streets.

And FedUp, once again, pro-rent control puts San Francisco as an sample of "success" for rent control......how's that working for people moving to SF? Is it what you would call an "affordable city"? Absolutely not. Rent control has not created affordable housing ANYWHERE it's been enacted. It protects the very few who are currently in housing but it does NOTHING to create affordable housing. It does the opposite, it discourages new construction and encourages older properties to be redeveloped.

Stop this rent control insanity. IT DOES NOT CREATE AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

First time I've heard mvresident2003 endorse new construction. Build, baby, build in Mountain View! How much and how high?

@Word of Caution to everyone

WOW. clearly you did not read. Khan is renting a below cost to her workers. As in the below market rent is part of their compensation. As in not a traditional landlord, same as many other company provided situations. If the employee leaves the company, one of the benefits is losing the room.

Wow @Fact Check,
You clearly do not know rent control laws or how it works.

Khan is a landlord in a different city. If that city had rent control, like Mountain View does, and if prop 10 passes, the tenants of Khan would not be exempt, nor would Khan be exempt from the rent control laws as she is not a non profit organization, rent control laws would apply to all.

you said,

"WOW. clearly you did not read. Khan is renting a below cost to her workers. As in the below market rent is part of their compensation. As in not a traditional landlord, same as many other company provided situations. If the employee leaves the company, one of the benefits is losing the room."

You are wrong.
You are what the Mountain View Tenants Coalition did 3 years ago in getting Measure V to pass. You lied, told false-wrong information to people to get it passed. Just like you are now attempting the same thing again to get Prop. 10 passed.

Person posting as "@", you should read the terms and conditions, you must post under the same name within an article. I'm surprised the moderators haven't cracked down on you yet.

The Tenants Coalition didn't lie about anything, unlike you folks trying to repeal Measure V. This is well-documented in other articles where signature gatherers were telling people the repeal measure would strengthen rent control, cover mobile homes, whatever it took to get those $40 for that signature. That you cannot post a single thing the Tenants Coalition lied about shows that you, frankly, are the one lying.

Anyway, keep posting! Your cowardly, angry landlord character is my favorite new addition to this site.

As far as Rent Control and Proposition 10 goes here are some facts:

This person properly bought the property at the right price. That is why the rent levels are achievable.

However, the majority of these buyers complaining about proposition 10 is that they buy the property at outrageous prices, thus force their tenants to bail out their purchase.

What is awesome is that Tom Means is no longer a member of the RHC, thus the RHC cannot be used to bail out the local landlords for doing the same thing.

I am not saying that you should vote for proposition 10. But I want you to make a decision based on the facts and not the promises or the arguments made by the industry that failed to perform after Costa Hawkins passed. They simply do not want to provide affordable housing only premium housing. THe Costa Hawkins backers claimed it would solve the housing problem.

It simply made it worse. They cannot blame anyone but themselves for the problem. They were given their chance and after 20+ years, we must take whatever actions are necessary to remedy the current laws allowing exploitation of the renters.

The public has a choice, make it a good one.

If only you knew what you are talking about, then people could consider what you say.

Since you have been proven wrong enough times already, people should not consider anything you say, IMHO.

Example,
You said if rent control passed in Mtn.View that landlords would never sell their properties to a developers because of the the fees they would have to pay"

Now, Mayor Siegel and your group are all upset that this is happening and the mayor wants to find legal ways to prevent this, further taking away private
property rights.

You also repeatedly say that landlords over pay for their properties, that shows how little you know about real estate, and you are a renter in a high priced area, not that saying you where smarter to rent, but you could never afford to buy. If apartment value's went any lower, as you want, there will be no more rentals in Mtn.View as they would quickly be bought up and turned into $2 million row houses.

You put more fault on the value of properties, why do you not put a cap on all property value increase's in Mtn.View? Because people who own homes would never vote for it as they want their own properties to go up in value. Just like Mayor Lenny Siegel's $2 million dollar house in the very desirable Old Mountain View neighborhood.

You said,
"The Tenants Coalition didn't lie about anything, unlike you folks trying to repeal Measure V. This is well-documented in other articles where signature gatherers were telling people the repeal measure would strengthen rent control, cover mobile homes, whatever it took to get those $40 for that signature. That you cannot post a single thing the Tenants Coalition lied about shows that you, frankly, are the one lying."

Prove it!
The TBM says that you need evidence and sworn testimony first. I can not remember how many people from the MVTC where posting on here telling people to film and record all these "Allegations that was going on in Mtn.View with the signature gatherers"

Yet not one thing has been shown to happen, not even the Voice recorded anything.

Go away with all the propaganda that your group was saying, it was all a plan as a last resort that if it made it to the ballot for your group to file a lawsuit to stop it.

@LOL,
You also said a week ago that you are not with the MVTC or a member, how would you know what they did or said if you denied here that you had nothing to do with them.

In response to @TBM you said:

“If only you knew what you are talking about, then people could consider what you say.

Since you have been proven wrong enough times already, people should not consider anything you say, IMHO.

Example,

You said if rent control passed in Mtn.View that landlords would never sell their properties to a developers because of the the fees they would have to pay"”

Please provide proof of this? I never said that. What I do say is the when for example my new landlord paid 4.5 times the county assessed value of my building. He simply took the word of a real estate agent regarding the value of the property. He did not get an independent assessment. He bought the property at an estimated future value of 30 years ahead. That is proof of overpaid property. You said:

“Now, Mayor Siegel and your group are all upset that this is happening and the mayor wants to find legal ways to prevent this, further taking away private property rights.”

What property rights are “taken”? The market regulations are not taking away the property. So no property rights are being taken. One is free to sell their property at any time. You bought into the false claims made by Tom Means in various publications paid for by his private interest groups like the “Independent Institute” which makes money making propaganda that has not be proven by a court of law. You said:

“You also repeatedly say that landlords over pay for their properties, that shows how little you know about real estate, and you are a renter in a high priced area, not that saying you where smarter to rent, but you could never afford to buy. If apartment value's went any lower, as you want, there will be no more rentals in Mtn.View as they would quickly be bought up and turned into $2 million row houses.”

I discussed this above. The property investors are being conned into buying properties at “real estate” appraised levels not market levels. The real estate appraisers get away with it because the courts only recognize them as opinions. And opinions are protected by the first amendment. Thus Caveat Emptor, the buyers are responsible for any failure to prevent overpayment of any property. You said:

“You put more fault on the value of properties, why do you not put a cap on all property value increase's in Mtn.View? Because people who own homes would never vote for it as they want their own properties to go up in value. Just like Mayor Lenny Siegel's $2 million dollar house in the very desirable Old Mountain View neighborhood.”

A home is not a commercial investment. Apartments are not single family homes that are simply OWNED and LIVED in. You love to mischaracterize and convolute the picture to confuse the public. I hope my information clarifies the public’s image so the voters can make an informed decision. That’s all. You said:

"The Tenants Coalition didn't lie about anything, unlike you folks trying to repeal Measure V. This is well-documented in other articles where signature gatherers were telling people the repeal measure would strengthen rent control, cover mobile homes, whatever it took to get those $40 for that signature. That you cannot post a single thing the Tenants Coalition lied about shows that you, frankly, are the one lying."

Prove it!

The TBM says that you need evidence and sworn testimony first. I can not remember how many people from the MVTC where posting on here telling people to film and record all these "Allegations that was going on in Mtn.View with the signature gatherers"”

Whenever anyone approaches these Professional Signature Gatherers with any device that can do what you say, they tend to pack up and leave. I do not have any footage, I want those who do to post where it can be viewed on this discussion as soon as possible. That’s all. You said:

“Yet not one thing has been shown to happen, not even the Voice recorded anything. “

As soon as anyone identifies themselves as “Voice” reporters approach, I am certain that people pack up and leave. And they also have unfortunately the right to not be identified in any news report without their approval. You know this. You simply want to give the impression it cannot be proven. The jury is still out on that. You said:

“Go away with all the propaganda that your group was saying, it was all a plan as a last resort that if it made it to the ballot for your group to file a lawsuit to stop it.”

You are not discussing the history accurately. The ballot measure was elected on in 2016 successfully. The CAA and local landlords did sue to stop the CSFRA. They failed miserably.

Instead of trying to personally attack another while not having any evidence to support your contention is a poor strategy. I simply discuss what publically objective information for the public to consider is. You want to dictate the conversation and declare anyone in disagreement as:

“If only you knew what you are talking about, then people could consider what you say.”

Please provide evidentiary proof that I have made any unreasonable observations. If you cannot do that, resorting to the above is not convincing.

There have been several false statements made here about Prop 10 that need to be addressed. One example of these false statements is the following: "If Prop 10 passes then that house would be under rent control" - its important to be clear that voting Yes on Prop 10 and having it pass in November 2018 does not automatically mean that every city in California will have rent control in place.

If the Affordable Housing Act, or Prop 10, passes in November, then local communities will be given the power to adopt rent control necessary to address the state’s housing affordability crisis by repealing the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act. Each city in California will have the option of passing rent control laws that are appropriate for their city if Prop 10 passes so local communities will have more local control over their own rental housing laws.

So its important to be clear that Voting Yes on Prop 10 in November just means that the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act will be repealed and its very clear that this law has not helped in any way to prevent this disastrous housing crisis our state is facing. Its time for this outdated law to go and for all of us to Vote Yes on Prop 10 in November!