Landlords! Sell now! I gave that advice before rent control passed and if Prop 10 passes, it will permanently stunt your investment and returns. Your returns are already being crippled, do you really want to sit there and wait for it to be maimed? Good luck!

Disclaimer: I have only my residence and no other properties, nor would I buy into one in MV at this point. Other markets are doing too well.

Good riddance to bad rubbish. Mr. Means should have resigned the moment he decided to accept money from the San Mateo County Association of Realtors for his paper about rent control. Council should appoint a successor who believes in upholding the law, in text and spirit, as passed by the people of Mountain View.

There is a reasonably good civics/bio of Julian that The Voice published when he applied to the Mountain View Whisman SD for a Trustee appointment. I don't know where the equivalent city Rent Control application information is. He was one of 11 applicants for the appointment.

near the end
Web Link

Tom Means vote and deliberation regarding Del Medio last night must be voided.

He was not entitled to adjudicate the case if it was known he was resigning before the meeting took place.

AND, any argument or deliberation he provided will have to be stricken from the record.

Evan Ortiz must decide to void the case resolution passed last night

TBM,
Would you share with us what the case resolution was re: Del Medio apartments?

Mr. Means had every right to participate up through the end of his term.
I have no dog in this fight.

I don't know how he could stand being in the same room with those fools as long as he has. I'd have never accepted the job. Life is too short for having to deal with ideologically irrational extremists.

@William Hitchens, but enough about Mr. Means!

In response to mike rose you said:

“TBM,

Would you share with us what the case resolution was re: Del Medio apartments?”

Remand, but only for requesting more evidence to be documented. No overturns.

In response to Robyn you said:

“Mr. Means had every right to participate up through the end of his term.”

Not if you’re in effect burning down the house because you are leaving it. It simply means that he “Cheated” in this decision. Especially when he said during deliberation that upon another appeal he would overturn the hearing officer’s decision. He purposely withheld his intentions to all of the people associated with the RHC. Pure and simple, this was an arbitrary and capricious act perpetrated by Tom Means knowing that he would not have to put the house back up. Also he went outside the legal scope regarding deliberations which makes the decision invalid, and I am certain the lawyers representing the tenants will consider court action.

In response to William Hitchens you said:

“I don't know how he could stand being in the same room with those fools as long as he has. I'd have never accepted the job. Life is too short for having to deal with ideologically irrational extremists.”

Well that is your point of view and you are entitled to it. But you cannot expect the public to agree with it. The public will make up its own mind.

TBM,
I don't understand, if only more documents were requested and no overturns, why would tenants be considering court action?

Tom Means is an economics professor at San Jose State University.

He is the most qualified individual to sit on the RHC. Where as you have Evan Ortiz, the most unqualified individual to speak on the matter of rent control or economics.

The council appointed Evan Ortiz, the radical rent control applicant who said "That he has to protect his people" as the counter to Tom Means.

The city council must appoint someone who is as qualified as Tom Means to the RHC.

If this does not happen, Mayor Lenny Siegel may get his wish as he recently said he wants to "turn Mountain View into the activist city of the south bay like Berekley is".

If private property rights is no longer protected in this city, watch out because these people are coming after you.

"Sad for our city" you don't even live here. The fact of the matter is that Mr. Means is a middling professor at best (check his evaluations) with no real notable publications. A radical libertarian ideologue who has been feasting at the government trough for his entire career (funny how that works). You just like him because he was overriding the laws of the city that you disagree with.

We're better off without him.

What is your authority for saying he should not have participated throughout his term? How did he go outside the legal scope? If people failed to object, did they waive the issue?
It hardly seems arbitrary and capricious if he knew beforehand that he would resign. It is a well thought out tactic whether we like it or not..

Shame and others,
Would you stop bringing up the fact that people who do not live in Mountain View should not be commenting on rent control issues.
This is a statewide issue, particularly prop 10 and also many precedencies could be set in any rent control community to affect others.
I noticed that newly established rent control regimes like MTN VIEW or Richmond, look to other, well established ones for guidance, from cities like Berkeley or Santa Monica.
They often hire the same consultants, and are otherwise interconnected.
So opponents of rent control also have a right to have the BIG picture, stay informed and participate in discussion, especially when it is not explicitly prohibited by the T&C.
I know that many of the far left radicals would like to have the monopoly on "high moral ground", but that is not true and simply will not happen. You are not going to squash property owner's voice who have a huge stake in the outcome of this attempt for grab of their properties.

Mr. Rose, I'm discussing the real facts that Mr. Means accepted money from the San Mateo County Association of Realtors while he was a sitting member of the rental housing committee. The moment that he chose to accept that money for his "paper" (campaign work) was the moment he should have resigned.

I don't care if you like rent control or not, it's the law as passed by the people of Mountain View, and Mr. Means worked tirelessly to undermine it during his tenure, arrogantly substituting his own judgment for the judgment of the people.

Those that clamor for law and order only care when it's a law they agree with. Perhaps if you lived here you would have been able to vote against Measure V.

Mr. Shame,
I do not know any details about Mr. Means, so I won't be commenting on his particular situation.
However, generally, if anyone on the committee broke any law, they should be held responsible. What they do with their private time should be not of anyone concern unless they are specifically prohibited from doing this.
I assume he was appointed by officials who were elected by majority of the Mtn View voters and you should respect that fact, regardless of the difference of opinion and ideology.

That doesn't cut it, Mr. Rose. Even elected officials are held to code of conduct standards and must uphold the city charter as passed by the people of Mountain View. This discussion with you does give us a lot of insight into how much you value the law and the will of the people, however, so thank you.

Mr. Shame,
When the landlord rights are trampled upon , i.e. during the last hearing for Del Medio apartments, nothing else is considered but the dry law.
Tenants hire attorneys for free and there is no talk about code of conduct, fairness, or even right to fair return.
They look strictly at laws and stick to it.
I think Mr. Means' behavior should be judged by the same standard, were his actions lawful? That's all.
Do you expect special extra consideration from people opposing the rent control?
Landlords ,or Mr. Means certainly don't get it from your side.

What on Earth are you talking about? I get that you're very emotional about rent control, but that doesn't excuse not using logic and reason.

I am asking, did Mr.Means break any laws? Is that is so difficult to understand?
Or you just simply disagree with his position on rent control.
If he did not do anything illegal, back off!!!

I think you need to read up on what he did. There is a ban on receiving honoraria, which he himself admits he did. I don't understand how you follow rent control in Mountain View deeply enough to reference a specific appeal, yet know nothing about Mr. Means' scandal. Are you playing dumb or are you simply blinded by your hatred of rent control that you can no longer reason?

NO, I clearly said, if he broke the law he should be held accountable, and I also said, I didn't know about his specific situation. My comments were in general.
But if he did not, you should back off!!!!
There is no reason to be so angry, this is not a good sign, calm down, please.

In response to mike rose you said:

“I don't understand, if only more documents were requested and no overturns, why would tenants be considering court action?”

The failure to establish good cause to remand those items that were affirmed by the legal experts for the RHC are the grounds. The RHC reversed the process, the burden of proof is on landlords to provide the preponderance of evidence, not the hearing officer, nor the tenants. The denial of Vega was affirmed. The equal distribution of the rent increases were affirmed. But Tom Means and Vanessa Honey demanded that these be remanded with no proof of failure of due process.

In response Robyn you said:

“What is your authority for saying he should not have participated throughout his term? How did he go outside the legal scope? If people failed to object, did they waive the issue?

It hardly seems arbitrary and capricious if he knew beforehand that he would resign. It is a well thought out tactic whether we like it or not..”

With regards to “objecting” the hearing format prevents anyone from speaking during deliberations. I guess you never attended a City Council of RHC meeting. Anyone speaking out of turn would be ejected. This hearing process simply allowed for Tom Means to manipulate the RHC to consider actions outside the legal framework of the process. It will need rectifying by court order most likely.

In response to mike rose you said:

“I know that many of the far left radicals would like to have the monopoly on "high moral ground", but that is not true and simply will not happen. You are not going to squash property owner's voice who have a huge stake in the outcome of this attempt for grab of their properties.”

Wrong, their properties will not change hands. You know that.

In response to mike rose you said:

“However, generally, if anyone on the committee broke any law, they should be held responsible. What they do with their private time should be not of anyone concern unless they are specifically prohibited from doing this.

I assume he was appointed by officials who were elected by majority of the Mtn View voters and you should respect that fact, regardless of the difference of opinion and ideology.”

I suspect that there is possibly an investigation occurring. It simply is not being disclosed. Also Tom Means made statements declaring bias as an RHC board member. The 5th Amendment prohibits even the appearance of bias. He disclosed it in public during the hearing. You said:

“When the landlord rights are trampled upon , i.e. during the last hearing for Del Medio apartments, nothing else is considered but the dry law.

Tenants hire attorneys for free and there is no talk about code of conduct, fairness, or even right to fair return.

They look strictly at laws and stick to it.

I think Mr. Means' behavior should be judged by the same standard, were his actions lawful? That's all.

Do you expect special extra consideration from people opposing the rent control?

Landlords ,or Mr. Means certainly don't get it from your side.”

As stated above, his public disrespect and clear bias against his own hired hearing officer (an experience Real Estate lawyer and judge) was simply the straw that broke the camels back. Before you try to make excuses for others behavior, it is better to know what occurred. You simply don’t seem to know what happened. I was there, and you can see the hearing on the Mountain View website video archive. You said:

“I am asking, did Mr.Means break any laws? Is that is so difficult to understand?

Or you just simply disagree with his position on rent control.

If he did not do anything illegal, back off!!!”

He violated the due process requirements for both the California and Federal Constitution’s by expressing clear bias regarding his decisions. Can you understand that even the appearance let alone demonstration of bias in public testimony from a judicial officer or procedure is unconstitutional?