I appreciate Mr. Inks describing himself as an urban camper. I will vote for him because he has real life experience.

If you own a pre 1995 multi-family project, sell it

If you own any type of post 1995 residential real estate you currently rent, or plan to rent, sell it.

Once Prop 10 passes, single family homes, duplexes, condos will enter the "rent pool" too. OMI will cease, already illegal in SF for a myriad of reasons for pre-1995 multi-family housing.

Imagine leasing your home for two years while pursuing an employment opportunity only to return and unable to get your home back.

The landlord tenant relationship is irrevocably broken. It's all lawyers, accountants, uninformed politicians and citizen boards (with a one-sided agenda) determining a "fair rate of return" for a few old landlords that operate pre-1995 multi family housing. Soon these people will be able to tell post-1995 homeowners what a fair rate of return is regardless of a standing mortgage or not.

It's a whole new ballgame once Prop 10 is passed, everyone gets to suffer. Rent control is a battlefield where there are only losers. New rent controlled housing, affordable or not, will never be built by private investors

The only plans that "pencil out" in the future will be 100% taxpayer funded and subsidized, never enough to satisfy all in need and will probably end up in the hands of well connected people anyway.

The smart money went to commercial real estate development in the 80's.

MVCC member priorities-get elected, get re-elected, pander to the under informed masses and disregard the 1st rule of economics-scarcity.

Remove council members that support the demise of Mountain View housing availability who support Prop 10 and rent control (Ask them!!) and those that think ordering MVPD to stand down by selectively enforcing of our parking ordinances regarding only RV's. Yes, some people need help and some just need to obey parking enforcement, surely MVCC and MVPD can figure out which is which.

Even Berkeley has a plan to exempt new housing development from rent control should Prop 10 pass. MVCC has a plan in place to allow/invite more RV's to the street.

Candidates positions on these issues are ambiguous and very fluid:)

"Mountain View's rent control law -- the Community Stabilization and Fair Rent Act (CSFRA) -- has many of the core tenets of Costa-Hawkins baked into its language. For example, the 1995 cutoff date for apartments is written into the law, which was approved by voters as Measure V in 2016. Likewise, single-family homes, accessory units and duplexes are explicitly exempted from rent control under the CSFRA"
(Web Link

The vast majority of the citizenry would like a solution to the RV problem.
This is not a "chase them out of town situation, but something DOES need to change.

This is the issue, IMO, where the candidate will become the next council member; provide a PLAN to not kick them out of town, but not allow them to continue as is the current situation.
They SHOULD NOT be allowed to live, literally, in our gutters.

@mvrenter
True for the moment, but as you surely now, a new initiative once the repeal is complete is an entirely new ball game for Mountain View.

Your comments can be taken the wrong way. Let me clarify for people.

If Prop.10 passes, ALL Rental Properties in Mountain View will be under rent control. NO EXCEPTIONS!!


IMHO, any candidate that still supports living in a vehicle at this point, which in some cases are being used as a business and rented out just like an apartment, I will vote against.
No to Hicks
No to Ramirez
No to Siegel

Where was this forum held? Which candidates attended? The next forum is at Google. In the election, will people be allowed to vote on their own or will they be required to deliver their proposed ballots to the Chamber of Commence and Google?

@ dude, you're not going to vote for any candidates because you're an absentee, out-of-town landlord. It's the same reason Measure V passed, you only get to vote in elections if you live here.

I don't think my comment *can* be taken in the wrong way. You are wrong about what prop 10 means in mountain view. I encourage anybody reading this to read the article I am referring to. Web Link
MV-Voice article is:
Costa-Hawkins repeal's impact muted for Mountain View
Prop. 10 would loosen restraints on rent control, but city's law incorporates many of state law's limits
by Mark Noack / Mountain View Voice

Is there a site where we can compare all the candidates side by side on their policies/views/votes?

In the case of Prop 10, it is a repeal of the state law, so there's nothing that 'trumps' the language in the CSFRA. Prop 10 doesn't alter the text of CSFRA so the exemptions stand.

"Over time as the community evolves ... I think we can retrofit this community in a way that makes transit a viable option for people," he said.

This is exactly the wrong kind of thinking with Ramiraz, Siegel, and Showalter. Let's create a huge infrastructure and city service problem building high density without expanding transit, parks, schools, hospitals, smart and green growth so we are not sucking on exhaust fumes all day crawling in traffic. Don't forget they sold the highest quality, most valuable water resource rights which may be needed for all the planned growth. These are short-sighted, panic-minded brains I can not support!

"Under Costa-Hawkins, cities may not subject newly built properties to rent control. The 1995 law also prevents cities from designating single-family homes as rent controlled.

If Prop 10 passes, it would add the following language to the state’s civil code:

“A city, county, or city and county shall have the authority to adopt a local charter provision, ordinance or regulation that governs a landlord’s right to establish and increase rental rates on a dwelling or housing unit.”

You don't know, now you know. Prop 10 is bad news. I expect our local leaders to take a stand now one way or another.

What was the article about? It doesn't seem to matter to some of these post-a-holics.

To all the naysayers that keep bringing up the "doom and gloom" that will befall the poor landlords, you need to ask yourself this question "without intervention, what do you think is going to be the housing situation in a one or five years from now?". Considering the massive growth this area has seen, to say that the market will produce the necessary housing is disingenuous. The landlords and home owners in this area have already made it quite clear, they do not care to offer affordable or middle range housing and they are completely happy with the status quo because it benefits them. They can continue raising rates endlessly and not worry about how it affects the community or individuals. Rent Control is only part of the solution but like those the bitch and moan about the ACA, you have nothing to offer to the conversation but negativity. Trust me, there is a need for Rent Stabilization in California because the level of greed is far outstripping the ability of most of the population to live.

I knew nothing about any of these candidates, but just by reading their positions here it's clear that while everyone else has a measured response to the housing crisis, Siegel would happily turn MV into a dump if it means fitting everyone into an apartment and the homeless having free rein of the city. For your own sakes don't elect this guy in. I'm just glad he doesn't live in my city.

John Inks says, to solve the housing crisis is to eliminate rent control and preserve pre-1995 apartments, rather than build more new housing. In other words, Inks' plan is to restore and preserve exploitive environments of old apartments that make landlords richer through artificial restraints on supply with no pathways out for MV renters?

Does John Inks represent the interest of the half of MV that rents or that of Los Altos Hills?