This seems like a reasonable way to proceed.

I just heard that our petition to include land spaces in the RV ordinance was denied. How is this possible? City staff and their lawyers told the RHC that thier legal opinion was correct. RHC violated the ordinance by ignoring their own legal advice. How could a judge ignore the obvious interpretation that other property must include land spaces? I am shocked.

I am shocked when the proponents of rent control "are shocked" at any judgement or RHC appeal that does not suit their fancy.
Remember, rent control supposed to be fair for the landlords and tenants.
Any rulings even slightly benefiting landlords are met with tenant's temper tantrums.
Grow up tenant activists, stop whining.

Is it weighs or weights?

In commemoration of the Bolshevik Revolution a hundred years ago. Lenin with henchman Stalin seized control of rentals and fixed prices leading to the collapse decades later of the price fixed Soviet empire.
George Drysdale a social studies teacher

In response to mike rose and robyn. Here is a breakdown of the hearing that occurred on Monday and can be verified by listening to the archive.

0:25:00 The legal definition of substantial evidence was stated.

00:26:15 Tom claims there was an “inference” there was no “inference” made by the hearing officer. The hearing officer made a determination based on the preponderance of evidence. That was not on the record and was not within scope of the hearing.

01:08:00 Vanessa Honey questioned the lawyers regarding validity of regulations, the lawyers stated the regulations are not to be adjudicated regarding the RHC, Any changes made must be done at the court level because making changes now would cause a due process problem. You cannot change regulations while their being enforced so that they benefit any party.

01:10:30 Matt questioned if the RHC can overturn the hearing officers determination of the tenants satisfactory preponderance of evidence that the rents were not below comparable unit rates based on the situation. The attorney reported that only if the RHC could provide substantial evidence contrary to the hearing officer’s determination could the decision be reversed, and that under the law that is the only action allowed, if the RHC could not do so, the lawyer said you must affirm the decision.

01:12:30 Tom asked about if VEGA must be used regarding “average” rents in the city, he never addressed the “comparable unit” standard. He knows that if you use the “comparable unit” standards must weigh on the VEGA levels. The answer from the lawyers was that the hearing officer made a decision based on not rebutted evidence by the landlord.

01:14:50 Tom Means tries to disregard the “comparable-unit” standards and he claims that the the tenants are not allowed to have that analysis for the petition process. VEGE is clear, it must be based on COMPARABLE UNITS and not a city average. The hearing officer being a Real Estate law expert know that the evidence supports her decision.

01:18:00 He makes the argument that the universal rent increase will not provide fair rate of return. VEGA is a adjustment on a building basis and not unit.

01:22:00 TOM and HONEY said they want to change the regulations after the fact of a petition filed and had the case decided. To me that indicates he has no plan to resign at this time. That will need to be scheduled for further meetings. This is an indication that Tom had no intention to resign on Monday at that time.

01:23:00 Matt asked Lindsey about the lack of rebuttal evidence regarding the “Comparable Unit” standards. She did not answer the question, only that her current maintenance was a good record. She never made any evidence to prove that a “Comparable Unit” was getting a higher rent than she was.

01:29:30 Tom asked about CPI impact and the petition had nothing to do with it. Tom knew this and the staff attorney told him it was irrelevant, but he pushed it into the hearing anyway. Thereby producing “facts not in evidence” thus impacting the legitimacy of the deliberations.

01:30:00 Honey asked about operating expenses verses management expenses. However if your job title and description involves the term “manager” or “management” than that is clearly a “management” expense versus an “operating” expense. Your only action will be to rewrite the job title or the job description to correct that problem. Then she can refile a petition.

01:35:00 Honey asks about the unit based rent increases regarding the VEGA adjustment and maintenance. The fact is VEGA case law does not allow for “unit-based” rent increases based on VEGA. No thorough inspection is done annually regarding the property only the “City Fire Inspection”. Lindsey complained that the problems of the units by tenants were never reported. They claimed that they inspected the property every 6 months during fire detector battery replacement. . How could they not see the problems that the tenants reported if they were performing good inspections?

01:45:00 The tenants representative pointed out all new questions made prior not in the hearing record was simply not ALLOWED to be considered under the hearing process.

02:08:00 Honey again mixed up the idea that VEGA is not based on HUD FMR because VEGA is building wide, and HUD FMR are unit based. The petition never made a request regarding HUD FMR unit based adjustments. Given that there was no HUD FMR request, the reasoning of Honey was significantly incorrect and unsubstantiated.

02:34:00 Honey again proposes that the HUD FMR was a part of the petition. The fact is HUD FMR are a UNIT based adjustment. VEGA is a building wide adjustment standard. There is NO PETITION on file by Lindsey to request a HUD FMR adjustment. Thus she conflated HUD FMR and VEGA in a manner that is NOT ALLOWED. Again “MARKET RATE” is a city wide average NOT TAKING INTO ACCOUNT COMPARABLE UNITS. THAT WAS THE BASIS OF THE HEARING OFFICERS DECISION. If you read the CSFRA it states:

Section 1710. - Petitions for individual rent adjustment—bases.

A Landlord or a Tenant may file a Petition with the Committee seeking adjustment, either upward or downward, of the Rent for any given tenancy in accordance with the standards set forth in this Section, and using the procedures set forth in Section 1711 herein and implementing regulations. A Petition shall be on a form provided by the Committee and, if made by the Landlord, shall include a declaration by the Landlord that the Rental Unit complies with all requirements of this Article.

(a) Petition for Upward Adjustment—Fair Rate of Return: To effectuate the purposes of this Article and the requirements of law, a Landlord may file a Petition for an upward adjustment of the Rent to ensure a fair and reasonable rate of return. It is the intent of this Article that individual upward adjustments in Rent be granted only when the Landlord demonstrates that such adjustments are necessary to provide the Landlord with a fair rate of return. The Committee shall promulgate regulations to further govern Petitions filed pursuant to this Subsection in accordance with law and the purposes of this Article.

(2) Fair Rate of Return - Factors. In making any upward adjustment to the Rent based upon a Landlord's Petition to ensure a fair rate of return, the Hearing Officer or Committee shall consider relevant factors, including but not limited to, the following:

(G) THE PATTERN OF RECENT RENT INCREASES OR DECREASES IN THE RENTAL UNIT DURING THE OCCUPANCY OF THE CURRENT TENANT. (3) “

THAT WAS THE BASIS OF THE HEARING OFFICERS DECISION. THE LAW DOES ALLOW THAAT THE HEARING OFFICER ONLY DETERMINE THE HISTORY OF THAT APARTMENT OWNED BY THAT TENANT ON THAT OCCUANCY. THE LAW SIMPLY OVERRIDES THE RHC OPINIONS AND THE HEARING OFFICER DID THE CORRECT EVIDENTIARY ANALYSIS.


02:42:00 Tom Means again tried to avoid the concept of “COMPARABLE UNITS” He wants to support the argument that NO COMPARISON TO COMPARABLE UNITS SHOULD OCCUR regarding VEGA. That would violate case law. If you want me to prove it, I can find the cases that state that.

02:48:00 Tom claims an “inference”. The evidence was clear, he just wanted to discredit the expert decision of a hearing officer with expertise in Real Estate.

02:49:00 Tom claimed that the hearing officer doesn’t know what impacts the variety of issues regarding the “COMPARABLE UNITS” are. He actually said “I don’t think she knows what she’s doing”. That is a personal opinion, not demonstrated by any evidence by Tom Means. THAT IS BIAS. Again the hearing officer is an expert in Real Estate Law. His comment was simply unsubstantiated and was a personal attack against the RHC’s own hearing officer.

02:57:00 Tom Means demanded a remand on the decision be reversed regarding equal application of upward adjustment. This is another situation where he said “we should revisit the regulations we made in the future”. Thus he is making a declaration of his intent to NOT retire during the hearing. Evidence that at that time he had no intention of leaving.

02:59:00 Honey makes the false claim that equal rent adjustment completely denies fair rate of return. The sum total of the rent increase DOES provide fair rate of return based on the data provided by the petitioner. Honey is simply wrong. She assumes that vacancy will be impacted, that is not a question of the RHC, only the regulations passed by the RHC. The sum total put together is equal to the fair rate of return standard. Another unsubstantiated argument with no preponderance of evidence to back it up.

03:000:00 Tom means states “I’M READY IF IT COMES BACK TO RULE AGAINST THE HEARING OFFICER. THIS IS THE ALLOCATION I AM GOING TO SUPPORT” However, the regulations and the case laws regarding VEGA simply do not agree with his opinion. THIS WAS THE DEMONSTRATION OF UNSUBSTANTIATED BIAS AND “ABUSE OF HIS DISCRETION”

TBM,
The "abuse of discretion" always occurs when you don't like the outcome. It is entirely possible that the hearing officer abused her discretion.
The same thing with you criticizing research on the negative effects of rent control schemes.
You ALWAYS claim conflict of interest there, citing some nonsense connections that don't exist.
I think your comments are simply not credible.
That's all.

In response to mike rose you said:

“The "abuse of discretion" always occurs when you don't like the outcome. It is entirely possible that the hearing officer abused her discretion.”

However, the RHC did not provide ANY evidence to support their arguments. This board was required to do so. The hearing officer demonstrated that the preponderance of the evidence standard as required under due process. The simple fact is that the hearing officer will simply provide more information to support the previous decision given that it was not given any justification to reverse the decision. Only that the REMAND needs more explanation. You said:

“The same thing with you criticizing research on the negative effects of rent control schemes.”

Yes, but I have provided reports written by those without a conflict of interest that clearly demonstrated that the assumptions made by those with conflicts of interest are not solid in the past. You so far have not provided any research exclusive of conflict of interest to support your position yet. You said:

“You ALWAYS claim conflict of interest there, citing some nonsense connections that don't exist.”

That is your opinion, the public can and will make up its own mind about that. You cannot dictate their point of view, nor instruct them to ignore opposing viewpoints. You said:

“I think your comments are simply not credible.”

My comments are based on the multiple informational forums that occurred here in Mountain View where the RHC provided tenants and landlord training regarding the petition process. Given that you are not in Mountain View, you cannot establish what I report is not accurate. In so far as “not-credible” they can do their own research and read the resources I provided that establish objective independent validation.

Again, your only approach regarding validated information I present is to personally attack the messenger. When will you provide any objective information free of conflict of interest? You stated that anyone discussing the biased actions of Tom Means to back off if they cannot demonstrate a vialtion of due process. Here is just a taste of proof that he did:

Here is just part of the document called “NO ACTUAL BIAS NEEDED: THE INTERSECTION OF DUE PROCESS AND STATUTORY RECUSAL” found here (Web Link It states:

III. DISCUSSION

Under the Court’s recusal precedents prior to Caperton v. A. T. Massey Coal Co., 179 a judge’s personal interest in the case’s outcome or his personal bias for or against a party would not be enough to require recusal under the Due Process Clause.180 Yet, a “fair trial in a fair tribunal,” a “basic requirement of due process,”181 would seem impossible when the judge is biased or has an interest in the outcome. Canon 2, Rule 2.11 of the American Bar Association’s Model Code of Judicial Conduct182 recognizes this reality, as do Congress183 and all fifty states that have adopted Rule 2.11’s “impartiality might reasonably be questioned” standard.184

In Caperton, the Court abandoned its former categorical approach to recusal and replaced these categories with an objective test—“probability of actual bias”—applicable to all situations.185 Despite the Court’s attempt to limit Caperton, 186 the practical effect of its decision was to raise the due process floor and erase the distinctions between due process and the Model Code’s recusal standard. Although the Court misframed its precedents, Caperton reached the right result by refashioning due process to comport with popular notions of fairness and impartiality as reflected in judicial codes.

A. Caperton Raised the Due Process Floor

1. Caperton’s “Probability of Actual Bias” Test Transformed Dicta into Law As Chief Justice Roberts’s dissent emphasized, the Court prior to Caperton had recognized only two categories of cases in which the Due Process Clause required recusal:187 (1) situations where the judge has a pecuniary interest in the outcome of the case188 and (2) criminal contempt cases where the judge had adjudicated and was embroiled in the earlier proceeding from which the contempt charge arose.189 The Caperton majority presented these categories of cases as examples, or “instances,” of when recusal was required.190 In reality, however, the Tumey v. Ohio, 191 Ward v. Village of Monroeville, 192 and Aetna Life Insurance Co. v. Lavoie193 pecuniary interest cases and the In re Murchison194 and Mayberry v. Pennsylvania195 contempt cases were not simply a few scattered examples of a broader rule, but rather were the only “instances” in which the Court had ever held recusal to be constitutionally required.196

a. Splicing the Precedents

The broader rule Caperton purported to extract from its recusal precedents was the principle that “objective standards . . . require recusal when ‘the probability of actual bias on the part of the judge or decisionmaker is too high to be constitutionally tolerable.’”197 The Court drew this quoted language from Withrow v. Larkin. 198 Yet the Court excluded Withrow from its discussion of its prior recusal precedents, all the while borrowing heavily from that case throughout the Caperton opinion. 199 Withrow is not a recusal case; it is a case in which the Court rejected the contention that a state agency’s “combination of investigative and adjudicative functions” violated due process.200 Therefore, the Court’s reliance on Withrow to articulate the due process standard for recusal is curious. Even more curious is the Caperton Court’s wholesale borrowing of Withrow’s language without any discussion of that case. The Caperton Court’s silence as to Withrow sharply contrasts with the opinion’s thorough treatment of Tumey, Ward, Lavoie, Murchison, and Mayberry.201

The Court even seemed to quote Withrow out of context. Withrow expressed doubt that the appellee in that case could meet the “difficult burden of persuasion” required to show that the state agency’s combined investigative and adjudicative functions violated due process.202 Meeting this heavy burden would require a complainant to

overcome a presumption of honesty and integrity in those serving as adjudicators; and it must convince that, under a realistic appraisal of psychological tendencies and human weakness, conferring investigative and adjudicative powers on the same individuals poses such a risk of actual bias or prejudgment that the practice must be forbidden if the guarantee of due process is to be adequately implemented.203

Withrow conceived of these requirements as high hurdles that would almost always yield to the “presumption of honesty and integrity in those serving as adjudicators.”204 Indeed, the Withrow appellee failed to convince the Court that the state procedure at issue violated his due process rights.205 The Caperton Court, however, quoted piecemeal from Withrow as though Withrow were paraphrasing a general rule governing all of the Court’s recusal cases:

In defining the[] standards [illustrated in the Court’s recusal precedents] the Court has asked whether, “under a realistic appraisal of psychological tendencies and human weakness,” the interest “poses such a risk of actual bias or prejudgment that the practice must be forbidden if the guarantee of due process is to be adequately implemented.”206

But the Court’s pre-Caperton recusal cases evince no such “risk of actual bias” standard. Tumey the seminal case, established that the Due Process Clause incorporates the common-law pecuniary interest prohibition.207 Ward confirmed that the prohibited financial interest need not be so direct that the money flows straight into the judge’s pocket.208 Lavoie stands as a modern illustration of the pecuniary interest prohibition,209 and In re Murchison and Mayberry carved out a narrow rule requiring recusal for judges adjudicating criminal contempt charges when the judge was in some way “embroiled” in the earlier proceeding that led to the contempt charge.210 If a common thread runs through these cases, it is the Tumey principle:

Every procedure which would offer a possible temptation to the average man as a judge to forget the burden of proof required to convict the defendant, or which might lead him not to hold the balance nice, clear and true between the State and the accused, denies the latter due process of law.211

Each of the Court’s pre-Caperton recusal cases, with the exception of Mayberry, quoted the Tumey dicta.212

Despite Tumey’s sweeping language, the Court’s conception of constitutionally mandated recusal in the pre-Caperton recusal cases confined itself to two categories: pecuniary interest213 and the criminal contempt context.214 The Caperton majority thus was disingenuous in two respects. First, it reframed its past recusal cases as examples of a broader principle, when they were actually examples of two narrow categories. Second, it used this reframing to introduce a wholly new standard for constitutionally mandated recusal—“probability of actual bias”—while pretending that such had always been the standard.”

I will provide even more shortly.

Where there is the “Probability of Actual Bias” the U.S. Supreme court determined that it would violate the 5th Amendment Due Process requirements regarding a judicial officer as reported here in just part of the document called “NO ACTUAL BIAS NEEDED: THE INTERSECTION OF DUE PROCESS AND STATUTORY RECUSAL” found here (Web Link It states:

b. “PROBABILITY OF ACTUAL BIAS”

It is well established in the Court’s recusal precedents that personal bias is not enough to require recusal under the Due Process Clause.216 The Caperton Court cited Lavoie for the proposition that “[p]ersonal bias or prejudice ‘alone would not be sufficient basis for imposing a constitutional requirement under the Due Process Clause.’”217 Yet Caperton proceeded to hold that the Due Process Clause required recusal when there was a “PROBABILITY OF BIAS.”218 Caperton thus leads to a curious conclusion: “[p]ersonal bias or prejudice” is not enough to require recusal, but a “CONSTITUTIONALLY INTOLERABLE PROBABILITY OF ACTUAL BIAS”219 requires recusal under the Due Process Clause.

This apparent contradiction suggests that the Court intended for its constitutional standard to be met only in “extreme” cases and for the more mundane cases of personal bias to be caught by judicial codes. The Court’s repetition of the word “extreme”—eight times in the majority opinion220—and its confidence that “[a]pplication of the constitutional standard implicated in this case will . . . be confined to rare instances”221 indicate that the Court envisioned a “constitutionally intolerable probability of bias” to require something more shocking or outrageous than “mere” personal bias. This distinction is dubious; how is a judge’s actual personal bias any less offensive to due process than a case of probable judge buying? Furthermore, the “PROBABILITY OF ACTUAL BIAS” standard itself contains no such limiting feature. Some lower federal courts, however, have ascribed an “extreme facts” requirement to Caperton’s standard.222

The “PROBABILITY OF ACTUAL BIAS” test appears to incorporate the objective component of the Tumey “AVERAGE MAN AS A JUDGE” test.223 Whether Caperton’s objective component224 hinges on a “REASONABLE PERSON” or a “REASONABLE JUDGE” standard is not entirely clear from the Court’s opinion. A fair reading of Caperton is that the objective test inquires whether a reasonable person would perceive a serious risk of bias in the average judge. The “reasonable person” component thus encompasses the traditional notion that “JUSTICE MUST SATISFY THE APPEARANCE OF JUSTICE,”225 and the “AVERAGE JUDGE” component finds validity in Tumey’s dicta226 and the Court’s quoting of the Tumey dicta in its subsequent recusal cases.227

2. Caperton’s New Standard Is Not Limited to the Judicial Election Context

Caperton articulated a broad standard: the Due Process Clause requires recusal when “THE PROBABILITY OF ACTUAL BIAS ON THE PART OF THE JUDGE OR DECISIONMAKER IS TOO HIGH TO BE CONSTITUTIONALLY TOLERABLE.”228 Caperton evinced no intention of limiting its holding to the judicial election context. Rather, the Court declared that it was applying the same standard it had used in its prior recusal cases, but this time “in the context of judicial elections, a framework not presented in [Tumey, Ward, Lavoie, Murchison, and Mayberry].”229 The Court conceived of its prior recusal precedents as examples of situations that “created an unconstitutional probability of bias.”230 In the Court’s view, the constitutionally intolerable bias resulting from the state election campaign in Caperton was merely a new illustration of an old standard. The Court saw no constitutional significance in the specific fact that a judicial election brought about the probability of bias.231

Facing criticism from the dissents232 and from amici curiae233 that a “PROBABILITY OF ACTUAL BIAS” standard would be unworkable, the Court sought to reassure its critics by emphasizing that the facts of Caperton were “extreme by any measure”234 and that “this [was] an exceptional case”235 and “an extraordinary situation.”236 The majority’s opinion concluded with the promise that because most states had adopted recusal standards “more rigorous” than the due process requirement, “[a]pplication of the constitutional standard implicated in this case will . . . be confined to rare instances.”237

However, as Chief Justice Roberts’s dissent pointed out, Caperton’s broad “PROBABILITY OF ACTUAL BIAS” standard provided no limiting feature besides the Court’s assurance that recusal statutes and codes would generally prevent constitutional recusal questions from arising.238 One commentator criticized Caperton for “killing a fly with a sledge hammer.”239 Lower federal courts and state courts will determine Caperton’s practical effect.240 In any event, it is clear from Caperton’s language that the application of the “PROBABILITY OF ACTUAL BIAS” test is not limited to any particular factual context.”

Thus as I said before when there is a judicial matter like a legal proceeding that occurred on Monday. If Tom Means acting as a justice cannot satisfy the general rule that “JUSTICE MUST SATISFY THE APPEARANCE OF JUSTICE”, and that if a REASONABLE PERSON or another member of the RHC as a REASONABLE JUDGE can determine that the PROBABILITY OF ACTUAL BIAS has occurred, then the violation of the 5th Amendment has been validated and it is a violation.

Of course you will try to claim I am unreasonable. But I gave an alternative, if Evan Ortiz, or Emily Ramos can come to the same conclusion I made, then you cannot simply claim my failure to be reasonable will protect Tom Means conduct during the hearing.

Mr. Business Man
the hearing officer refered only to the tenant statements as evidence for her decision and largely disregarded the large amount of documentation supplied by the landlord which refuted the statements of those trying to avoid a rent increase. This actually showed a very clear bias on her part thus, 11 of the 13 decisions were remanded due to a lack of substantiation by the evidence.
It is unfortunate that the outside council tried to lead the committee into thinking they were powerless to delve into the evidence. They are responsible to make the RIGHT decision, not just the easy one as Mr. Means accuratly indicted the Hearing Officer had done.

If you can't raise the rent, Start charging dues.

Simple way around the RHC.

In response to Just the facts you said:

“the hearing officer refered only to the tenant statements as evidence for her decision and largely disregarded the large amount of documentation supplied by the landlord which refuted the statements of those trying to avoid a rent increase. This actually showed a very clear bias on her part thus, 11 of the 13 decisions were remanded due to a lack of substantiation by the evidence. “

That is not correct because no evidence was documented by the RHC regarding proving your point of view. The RHC is required prior to making such a claim to establish proof. It was not proof but simply an opinion. If you want to declare bias on the part of the hearing officer, you are required to provide proof. I simply demonstrated on the record that there was declared bias. If you want the public to believe you, pleased provide the proof of bias on the hearing officers part. You said:

“It is unfortunate that the outside council tried to lead the committee into thinking they were powerless to delve into the evidence. They are responsible to make the RIGHT decision, not just the easy one as Mr. Means accuratly indicted the Hearing Officer had done.”

No Tom Means cannot indict the hearing officer. Indictment is defined as from the Law.Com website found here (Web Link

“Indictment

n. a charge of a felony (serious crime) voted by a GRAND JURY based upon a proposed charge, witnesses' testimony and other evidence presented by the PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (District Attorney). To bring an indictment the Grand Jury will not find guilt, but only the probability that a crime was committed, that the accused person did it and that he/she should be tried. District Attorneys often only introduce key facts sufficient to show the probability, both to save time and to avoid revealing all the evidence. The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on presentment of a Grand Jury…." However, while grand juries are common in charging federal crimes, many states use grand juries sparingly and use the criminal complaint, followed by a "preliminary hearing" held by a lower court judge or other magistrate, who will determine whether or not the prosecutor has presented sufficient evidence that the accused has committed a felony. If the judge finds there is enough evidence, he/she will order the case sent to the appropriate court for trial.”

Again those trying to support the unconstitutional acts of Tom Means revert to using categorically false claims. Tom Means is not a Grand Jury member Nor a Prosecutor. He CANNOT INDICT ANYONE.

In fact no crime is even proposed in this process.

Again, the hearing officer will simply rewrite the opinion to satisfy the conditions that was requested. It was obvious that the original decision was not going to initially demonstrate every evidentiary element because there was hundreds of pages being reviewed. Given that it was not requested initially by the RHC, the follow up will simply cite and copy the evidence into the decision. Thus the original decision is not likely to change, just that the RHC will have to read perhaps 100 pages regarding almost every decision.

In the meantime any decision made by the RHC committee will need to produce their evidence when rendering any decisions during a hearing. Simply voting to determine the tentative decision is invalid cannot satisfy evidentiary requirements. Simply doing so without any proof to support a vote will be render void by any court.

Just look at the record and you will have no choice but to admit, NO EVIDENCE WAS PRESENTED DURING THE MONDAY HEAR BY THE RHC.

I appologize for my typo. I intended to write "indicated" not indicted. Mr. Means has no authority to indict nor I'm sure any inclination to do so.

In response to “to the owner Elizabeth Lindsay” you said:

“If you can't raise the rent, Start charging dues.

Simple way around the RHC.”

That would not work please look at the following from the CSFRA section 1702 Definitions:

(p) Rent. All periodic payments and all nonmonetary consideration including, but not limited to, the fair market value of goods, labor performed or services rendered to or for the benefit of the Landlord under a Rental Housing Agreement concerning the use or occupancy of a Rental Unit and premises and attendant Housing Services, including all payment and consideration demanded or paid for parking, Utility Charges, pets, furniture, and/or subletting.”

Thus any attempt to “create” any dues for the purposes of proving services for “benefit of the Landlord under a Rental Housing Agreement concerning the use or occupancy of a Rental Unit and premises and attendant Housing Services, including all payment and consideration demanded or paid for parking, Utility Charges, pets, furniture, and/or subletting” would simply be required to be classified as a rent increase.”

Why did you not read the CSFRA to make sure you were accurate?

To me you need to do some more homework.

@BM, isn't your bladder empty by now?

I like be reading the town hall but as soon as The Business Man comments it’s all over. It’s really sad how he dominates a thread. Posts are so incredibly long and hostile. Any way to improve this?
As for this article, I think the owners need to clarify and improve their records and come back to the drawing board. Proximity to the tracks doesn’t mean much in this area or the Crossings would be cheap and they aren’t. If I were an owner under these new rules and regulations I would just sell.

In response to The Successful Businessman you said:

“@BM, isn't your bladder empty by now?”

Not when those opposing my opinion attempt and refill the “bladder”

In response to JW you said:

“I like be reading the town hall but as soon as The Business Man comments it’s all over. It’s really sad how he dominates a thread. Posts are so incredibly long and hostile. Any way to improve this? “

First I will address the length, unlike anyone here I provide objective information from reputable sources to support my rebuttal of personal attacks and misinformation. Yes is creates a long posting, but if I didn’t those with another point of view would simply disregard it as “opinion” alone.

In so far as “hostile”, my information is significantly strong in the opposition of others. But that is NOT hostile because I never make any declarations on the personal nature of others. In reality the opposing opinions like the one just cited here:

“@BM, isn't your bladder empty by now?”

This hostile statement simply equates my information with urine. Where can you document any comment I have made to any individual that comes close to this? So I would ask you only to require the same conduct on those who post nothing but personal attacks on others inste4ad of discussing the topic with grounded research. You said:

“As for this article, I think the owners need to clarify and improve their records and come back to the drawing board. Proximity to the tracks doesn’t mean much in this area or the Crossings would be cheap and they aren’t. If I were an owner under these new rules and regulations I would just sell.”

That may be a sound advice. But the loss due to property depreciation will still have a significant impact. My advice is to do a thorough reform of the business to eliminate all wasteful spending or inefficiency. Also I would attempt to get a new appraisal to reduce taxation given that the property values are going to go down due to the speculative nature of the industry. Upon the new appraisal, refinance the buildings because the current “loan” based on the property values will be impacted by the appraisal. Simply put, there is no evidence presented that “effective” management has been achieved. Granted the petition process technically does not require that. But for any “investor” that is a critical factor whether the investor will continue to provide any more funds to the company.

Is anything I say here hostile?

JW: Agreed re "The Business Man." The worst of it: this is an individual who clearly has a lot of time to spend posting arguments, yet suffers big blind spots about how to do so with effect! It'd take so much less time to read and absorb Strunk & White's thin little "Elements of Style," or to talk to a writing coach, than the time this person invests in belabored postings no one reads because they aren't written "for readers." (In fact, he has even gotten some excellent advice here for free, without effect.) A rigid reply template that often doesn't make word sense for what he is trying to do ("In response to ____ you said:") derails reader interest at the very outset. Even quite friendly tips that concision works have produced the same relentless multi-screenful reply format (sometimes, even more than one of them in a row!) in attempted rationalizations of verbosity. This is someone who Just Won't Get It No Matter What -- and consequently, so much of that obsessive writing energy is sadly wasted.

In response to Humble observer you said:

“JW: Agreed re "The Business Man." The worst of it: this is an individual who clearly has a lot of time to spend posting arguments, yet suffers big blind spots about how to do so with effect! It'd take so much less time to read and absorb Strunk & White's thin little "Elements of Style," or to talk to a writing coach, than the time this person invests in belabored postings no one reads because they aren't written "for readers." (In fact, he has even gotten some excellent advice here for free, without effect.) A rigid reply template that often doesn't make word sense for what he is trying to do ("In response to ____ you said:") derails reader interest at the very outset. Even quite friendly tips that concision works have produced the same relentless multi-screenful reply format (sometimes, even more than one of them in a row!) in attempted rationalizations of verbosity. This is someone who Just Won't Get It No Matter What -- and consequently, so much of that obsessive writing energy is sadly wasted.”

My only response is that if you cannot disprove the information I present, you attack the method of its demonstration. That is the only thing you are doing here. All I ask is that the public be given the information necessary for an informed judgement. I do not dictate their opinion. Unlike others here constantly try to do. I do not use personal attacks or criticize the methods of the others point of view writing. It appears that all those who do not agree with my information can do is try to ridicule and attack me and not discuss the topic itself.

Those with opposing points of view are free to do the same. I never propose to “censor” the opposition. They are open to write anything they want as long as it is not a personal attack. I do not try to remove those personal attack comments because they are good examples of the mentality of those who do not agree with me.

I champion the First amendment and will defend anyone’s right to express themselves. But realize that you also take responsibility for your contributions.

. . . And I guess no one should be surprised when such obtuseness regarding how to express ideas would support a similar impenetrability regarding the ideas themselves, and the principles behind them.

Sorry, I should have added before: BM, don't bother replying. We're writing about you here, not to you. Attempting to answer in the usual rigid way only strengthens our case.

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]

In response to Humble observer you said:

“. . . And I guess no one should be surprised when such obtuseness regarding how to express ideas would support a similar impenetrability regarding the ideas themselves, and the principles behind them.”

Exactly You said:

“Sorry, I should have added before: BM, don't bother replying. We're writing about you here, not to you. Attempting to answer in the usual rigid way only strengthens our case.”

So you want to make ME the topic? Well, that shows how much you want to distract the public regarding discussing the story. That simply is amazing.

As a resident who is very interested in this topic, I've read every article about it and witnessed probably ALL the comments including many that have been subsequently removed for violating the rules.
Every article about CSFRA prompt the same attacks from the anti-rent-control individuals. Often these comments are based on incorrect information and contain incendiary language and personal insults.
TBM's comments are thoughtful, thorough, and usually add quite a lot of verifiable, pertinent facts in a polite format. I admit I skip where he quotes the comment he is replying to (necessary because so often they get removed) Also it would be nice if more formatting options were available to make comments with quoted text more readable, but there aren't.
So, Humble Observer, it seems that your comments are the off topic ones (and admittedly, this comment is, too).
If TBM didn't make his posts, a number of others would be making the same points with less supporting research, so silencing his voice would probably just cause an unpleasant flame war.

If my comment is too long for you, I'll summarize it for you here: many other readers enjoy TBM's posts, even hope for them because they save us from having to respond ourselves.

You said,
"Every article about CSFRA prompt the same attacks from the anti-rent-control individuals. Often these comments are based on incorrect information and contain incendiary language and personal insults."

That is a false statement. Please back that up.

There is no other individual on this site who attacks more people than anyone else. His screen name is LOL. Why he has not been banned yet is up for speculation, but others have been banned for far less than what he gets away with.

By the way, LOL is pro-rent control and not anti-rent-control.

And wouldn't you know it -- when the landlord trollbots get challenged, they play the victim card.

Of course, you would do the same when you defend the indefensible...

Just as I thought, you can not back up what you are saying.

[Portion removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]
Let them keep posting and eventually they'll start posting conspiracy theories about posters and start ranting about people being members of "La Raza". They're definitely not racist, though, they just will refuse to clarify what they mean by any of it.

From what I've observed, nearly ...

Please apply that prefix to my previous post and then it's a true statement of my opinion. Now, can we drop the pointless hostility? I'll try to understand your typo if you'll allow me to make a comment without producing a detailed report first.

By the way, your *that's false, prove it* remark is very much like what (it seemed to me, haha) got TBM to start producing extra long comments in the first place. He's pre-empting that reaction (I think, hehe).

I don't think calling out another user who hasn't even commented yet is appropriate, but I won't be surprised to see an M*R* and an mv* shortly. H* seems to be elsewhere these days, though. Without even looking up an older article, I feel comfortable writing that. That's me backing up my observation.

It is great that there is such support of the 1st amendment. It's unfortunate that pro-rent control advocates don't support the 4th amendment.

In response to clearthinker you said:

“It is great that there is such support of the 1st amendment. It's unfortunate that pro-rent control advocates don't support the 4th amendment.”

“The 4th amendment states:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

This is a protection from police action against persons and criminal activities. I think you go something mixed up

Insofar as the 5th amendment, the courts have already statd that rent control does not violate the 5th amendment.

The 4th amendment is broken by the mandatory access to every apartment the city requires with its multifamily housing inspections. They require a "fee" from landlords for every unit and can enter without cause.
I don't see any support by rent control advocates of the 5th amendment either. Private property rights have no place in their narrative.
It is interesting how they pick and choose the rights they support and those they want to take from others.

In response to clearthinker you said:

“The 4th amendment is broken by the mandatory access to every apartment the city requires with its multifamily housing inspections. They require a "fee" from landlords for every unit and can enter without cause.”

Apartments are commercial units and not homes. Also, that process is not a police action nor an element of a criminal prosecution. The fact is if it was your “Home” and they find evidence of a crime without probable cause, you have a valid point. You said:

“I don't see any support by rent control advocates of the 5th amendment either. Private property rights have no place in their narrative.

It is interesting how they pick and choose the rights they support and those they want to take from others.”

Again, you need to do some homework because you have been given inaccurate information. The implementation of rent control does not violate the 5th amendment. Even the U.S. Supreme Court has refused to consider that argument. I posted information about that in the past. There are many “libertarians” that constantly argue that they have the authority to overrule the du process of laws. They so far have not succeeded in overturning the Bergenfield case in the California Supreme Court. Please look it up and read it?

My apologies, the case of Birkenfeld v. City of Berkeley is found here (Web Link

In this case we consider the validity of an initiative amendment to the Charter of the City of Berkeley providing for residential rent control within that city. In a class action brought by plaintiff landlords the superior court declared the amendment void and enjoined the city from enforcing it principally on the ground that the evidence at a lengthy trial showed that the city was not faced with a serious public emergency of the sort the court deemed constitutionally prerequisite to imposition of rent controls under the police power. AS HEREINAFTER EXPLAINED WE HAVE CONCLUDED THAT THE EXISTENCE OF SUCH AN EMERGENCY IS NO MORE NECESSARY FOR RENT CONTROL THAN FOR OTHER FORMS OF ECONOMIC REGULATION WHICH ARE CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID WHEN REASONABLY RELATED TO THE FURTHERANCE OF A LEGITIMATE GOVERNMENTAL PURPOSE, AND THAT THE FACTS ESTABLISHED AT THE TRIAL DID NOT PRECLUDE THE CITY FROM LEGISLATING ON THE SUBJECT OF RESIDENTIAL RENT CONTROL. We have also concluded that [17 Cal. 3d 136] state law does not preempt the field of placing maximum limits on residential rents and that an enactment for that purpose could properly take the form of an initiative amendment to the city charter.

However, we also hold for reasons hereinafter stated that the Berkeley Charter amendment transgresses the constitutional limits of the police power not because of its objectives but because certain procedures it provides would impose heavy burdens upon landlords not reasonably related to the accomplishment of those objectives. The amendment would require a blanket rollback of all controlled rents to those in effect on August 15, 1971, (or to any lower rents in effect thereafter) and would prohibit any adjustments in maximum rents except under a unit-by-unit procedure which for reasons to be explained would be incapable of effecting necessary adjustments throughout the city within any reasonable period of time. EVEN IF WE WERE TO ADOPT COUNSEL'S SUGGESTION OF A JUDICIAL POSTPONEMENT OF THE RENT ROLLBACK DATE TO ONE THAT IS MORE CURRENT, THE ABSENCE OF ADEQUATE ADJUSTMENT PROCEDURES WOULD LEAVE ARBITRARY MAXIMUM RENTS IN EFFECT FAR LONGER THAN WOULD BE REASONABLY NECESSARY TO THE AMENDMENT'S STATED PURPOSE OF ALLEVIATING HARDSHIP CAUSED BY RISING AND EXORBITANT RENTS EXPLOITING A HOUSING SHORTAGE IN THE CITY.

In addition to controlling rents the charter amendment imposes prerequisites and restrictions upon eviction proceedings. As hereinafter explained we concur with the trial court's view that the charter amendment's requirement that the landlord obtain a "certificate of eviction" from the city before seeking to recover possession of a rent-controlled unit is invalid in that it conflicts with state law prescribing procedures for evicting tenants. In the absence of these procedural restrictions the charter amendment's prohibition against dispossession of tenants who are in good standing apart from the expiration of their terms would be a permissible means of enforcing validly imposed rent ceilings. However, such prohibition necessarily falls along with the charter amendment's constitutionally defective mechanism for adjusting maximum rents. ACCORDINGLY WE AFFIRM THE JUDGMENT.”

Simply put market regulations are not unconstitutional given the CSFRA framework which was designed to take into account this case precendence. The 5th amendment simply doesn’t apply in this case and in most rent control.

Tom Means has been guilty of this for years. And the CAA and the CAR has ben paying for it so they are guilty as well. What you ask? This article from Bloomberg, you may need to use Internet Explorere to read it (Web Link

"Economists Are Cheating Their Profession

Presenting opinion as fact does everyone a disservice.

By Mark Buchanan

‎August‎ ‎1‎, ‎2017‎ ‎04‎:‎00

Many economists genuinely want to make their field more scientific -- grounded in empirical evidence rather than in theory or, worse, ideology. Yet a recent article by four prominent academics demonstrates the extent to which ideology remains a problem.

My Bloomberg View colleague Justin Fox has highlighted the motivated reasoning in the article, penned by a team of conservative economists including R. Glenn Hubbard of Columbia Business School and John Taylor of the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. They argue that the current economic stagnation has nothing to do with a hangover from the financial crisis, and that policies such as lower taxes and cuts in social spending would markedly boost growth. They say this follows from objective analysis of data on past crises and recoveries.

As Fox notes, the analysis actually rests on a conveniently biased selection of data. It includes among past financial crises several moderate downturns that most economists don’t think of as crises, and rather bizarrely counts the grinding decade of the Great Depression as a “rapid recovery” from the recession of 1929.

Worse, the article projects a completely unjustified sense of certainty. “Economic theory and historical experience,” it boldly asserts, “indicate economic policies are the primary cause of both the productivity slowdown and the poorly performing labor market.” This willfully misrepresents current thinking. Economists hold diverse views on the roots of the recent malaise, and remain divided and uncertain about the fundamental causes of growth.

The authors have every right to express their views and opinions in forceful terms. But when professional economists write as experts and claim theory as a basis for their views, they also have a duty to present that theory -- and other economists’ thoughts about it -- honestly. Their failure to do so is “unprofessional,” as University of California at Berkeley economist Brad DeLong rightly put it. It doesn’t reflect the honest, evidence-based approach that most economists aim for.

The question, then, is what, if anything, the profession will do about it. Does it have standards? If so, can it enforce them?

Just like regulators, economists can be captured by powerful corporations and individuals, as University of Chicago economist Luis Zingales has argued. Conservatives in particular have been successful in subverting research for their own ends, especially through the creation of think tanks and by funding economists adept at disguising ideological arguments in objective academic language. Concerted efforts date back at least to the 1980s. In her recent -- and controversial -- book “Democracy in Chains,” historian Nancy MacLean offers billionaire industrialist Charles Koch’s backing of libertarian economist James Buchanan as an example.

How can the profession combat such capture? Zingales has suggested public shaming, following the example of media efforts such as the film “Inside Job,” which exposed a number of prominent academics for pushing the benefits of modern finance while hiding considerable income from major Wall Street firms. Among the economists scrutinized was Columbia’s Hubbard.

Shaming seems appropriate. After all, public trust is a resource from which all economists benefit. If they want to preserve it, they should draw guidance from Nobel Prize winner Elinor Ostrom. She showed that successful management of such resources typically requires an effective means to maintain group standards and values -- for example, by punishing and deterring self-serving behavior among individuals within the group.

Economists who present their opinions as fact, or who misrepresent the consensus, are cheating at the expense of the entire profession. They shouldn’t get away with it."