How sad for our city that we had to have such a one sided partisan Charter Amendment in our city.

If people only knew how unfair Measure V is to the small Mom and Pop business people, they would see that we need some reforms. Owners are not guaranteed a "fair rate of return" because capital improvements and the interest on the mortgage are not allowed to be used as a business expense.

One owner has already filed for rent increases only to be turned down by the hearing officer and if you figure his mortgage interest as a business expense-he is losing money on the property.

We need to scrape Measure V and start over to a simple process that does not cost $2.5 million dollars a year to operate.

In response to So Unfair you said:

“If people only knew how unfair Measure V is to the small Mom and Pop business people, they would see that we need some reforms. Owners are not guaranteed a "fair rate of return" because capital improvements and the interest on the mortgage are not allowed to be used as a business expense. “

YES no one is guaranteed a fair rate of return because that depends on the wisdom of the investor and management skills. NO ONE is guaranteed a profit in business. You said:

“One owner has already filed for rent increases only to be turned down by the hearing officer and if you figure his mortgage interest as a business expense-he is losing money on the property.”

If you’re talking about 184 Centre Street, if you go to google the idea of “break-even” after purchasing an apartment it is well known that this kind of investment does not return significant wealth if you read this article from the Brick Underground titled “Want to buy an investment apartment to rent out? Here's what you need to know “(Web Link It specifically states:

“Will you be able to live off the rental income alone?

PROBABLY NOT IF YOU’RE BUYING JUST A SINGLE APARTMENT, SAY OUR EXPERTS. “Most investors are picking up one to two apartments,” Azarian says, “SO IT IS MORE OF A SECOND INCOME OPPORTUNITY. You have to go big with quantity in a rental portfolio or GET MORE INTO BUYING AND FLIPPING to think of it as a quit-your-day-job thing.

"IF YOU COLLECT A PORTFOLIO OF SAY 15 APARTMENTS AND RENT THEM OUT—STUDIOS, ONE-BEDROOMS AND TWO-BEDROOMS—YOU CAN MAKE A SIX-FIGURE INCOME FROM YOUR INVESTMENTS. YOU NEED A FAIRLY LARGE PORTFOLIO TO GET TO THE SIX FIGURES, HOWEVER.”

Hoagland adds, “If one is able to purchase an entire apartment building… the income may be more conducive to that of a career.””

The people who bought properties in Mountain View expecting INSTANT BREAK EVEN let alone PROFIT was UNREALISTIC. The California Constitution does guarantee the OPPORTUNITY to get a fair rate of return. But it cannot force anyone to provide profit on those that do not provide evidence of wise management. That is what the RHC is designed to deal with.

This idea that one is constitutionally protected for a profit has been a false claim. If you read the following text from the Kavanau v. Santa Monica Rent Control Bd. (1997) (Web Link states:

“We question some of the Court of Appeal's reasoning in Kavanau I. For example, that court IMPLIED THAT THE STATE AND FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONS require application of the "fair return on investment" formula for setting rent ceilings. (Kavanau I, supra, 19 Cal.App.4th at pp. 733, 735; for a discussion of the fair return on investment formula, see Guidelines, supra, 35 Rutgers L.Rev. at pp. 790-796.) Though we have used the phrase "just and reasonable return" (Birkenfeld, supra, 17 Cal.3d at p. 165), WE HAVE NEVER HELD THAT EITHER THE STATE OR FEDERAL CONSTITUTION REQUIRES APPLICATION OF THE FAIR RETURN ON INVESTMENT FORMULA OR ANY OTHER SPECIFIC FORMULA. (Fisher, supra, 37 [16 Cal. 4th 778] Cal.3d at p. 681 [REJECTING ARGUMENT THAT CONSTITUTION REQUIRES APPLICATION OF THE CIRCULAR "FAIR RETURN ON MARKET VALUE" FORMULA]; Carson, supra, 35 Cal.3d at p. 191.)

Simply put please provide text from either the California of Federal Constitution REQUIRES the fair return principle?

@The Business Man,

My mistake, I should have mentioned that my comment is not directed at you or for your reply back.

You opinion has no value to me, or to any one else that is fair minded or has a business that has bills to pay in order to stay in business.

When a mob can come in and change a legal contract between 2 parties, we no longer have equal protection rights in our society.

In response to So Unfair you said:

“My mistake, I should have mentioned that my comment is not directed at you or for your reply back.”

Your open public comment is open to rebuttal. I simply use my First Amendment rights to provide the public another point of view with validating research. So far you haven’t. You said:

“You opinion has no value to me, or to any one else that is fair minded or has a business that has bills to pay in order to stay in business.”

Your response simply doesn’t matter. My freedom to demonstrate a counter point of view is protected as long as I am not being personally insulting. But your comment could be construed that way. You said:

“When a mob can come in and change a legal contract between 2 parties, we no longer have equal protection rights in our society.”

Market regulations are dynamic, always in flux, and simply are not a “mob”. The facts are when business practices, like the Uber and Lyft case in the California Supreme court just rules, drivers cannot be “independent contractors” but must be “employees”. So this is the natural part of business.

Of course you attempt to demean opposing points of view. I simply address your point of view with research.

It is appropriate for communities - either through elected officials, or through initiatives, to establish regulation of businesses in order to serve the public good. Safe food and medications, sensible zoning, building regulations, reasonable rent increases. The voters of Mountain View found Measure V's regulation of rent increases to serve the public good. They don't want new families to come to Mountain View, only to have to move again in a year due to an excessive rent increase. Change in regulation, or change in the economic climate, is a risk to any business owner.

Good Luck to Mr. Pardo de Zela.
He is going to need it.

"Change in regulation, or change in the economic climate, is a risk to any business owner."
@Longview- couldn't the same be said for any renter?

When the landlords all sell their properties to the condo developers or large apartment corporations there will be no low rent apartments anywhere. You're shooting yourselves in your feet.

I watched this unfold online. Chris Clark didn't even let City Staff present their researched opinion, which said the council should open up applications to fill the seat and start a pool of eligible candidates for April, before he made a motion to appoint the alternate and leave a spot empty. The usual lackies supported this because it ensured the balance stays with the CAA. Suprise, they all take campaign money from them.

It makes me sad these folks represent special interests instead of citizens. They sure had an easy time doing a quick repick to change the balance of the RHC and to appoint The train wreck Vanessa Honey as the chair when they were elected. Mrs. Honey had just mysteriously down yup at the final hour and there was no transparency in her apartment. But now these same council members can't be bothered to fix the problem they caused. I personally have been to more RHC meetings than any of our elected officials or the alternate. I believe the alternate had been to a total of two meetings. What a joke.

Probably time to disband this commission. It is too political and divisive. Long term it will lead to landlords developing properties elsewhere reducing the rentals available. The market is turning so supply will soon exceed demand. People choose not to live in London, Paris and NY cause it is too expensive. Sadly this now applies to MV and people will have to move. Yes, employers will not be able to find lower wage folks and over time market forces will increase wages which in turn will increase prices and so the world goes around. Once you start messing with the economic cycle, as the rental commission shows, chaos ensues.

@Council Bias & @Concerned. The game of politics/law and economics being played out here and across California (initiative ballot measure) on residential rental property needs to be viewed within a clear context of THE RULE OF LAW. It is not clear to me that you two quite understand that.

Council Bias - the council appoints the RHC members. The city staff do not - it is only their place 'to advise' the council. The legally appointed RHC members make their own rules (majority votes) and appoint their own commission chair. The COUNCIL MEMBERS have no legal or formal role in the meeting-to-meeting operation of the RHC! That's Our Law (The City Charter amendment settng up the RHC). [I signed the petition and I voted for it/reluctantly]

@Concerned. To disband the RHC you will need to amend The City Charter. Luck on that one - it will require a majority vote of the electorate in this Charter City. We do not yet seem to want that. But you can try.

In response to Concerned you said:

“Probably time to disband this commission. It is too political and divisive.”

That will need to be done by the City Council. You said:

“Long term it will lead to landlords developing properties elsewhere reducing the rentals available.”

No scientific evidence can prove that. In fact economic studies cannot predict future events given it is a “social science”. That is why all investments have the disclaimer “past performance does not indicate future results”. You said:

“The market is turning so supply will soon exceed demand.”

Not if you look at the governmental reports provided by the Association of Bay Area Government reports. The only apartments available are premium. (Web Link . The shortage for moderate to extreme low income housing shows no improvement at all. In fact it is getting worse.

“Sadly this now applies to MV and people will have to move. Yes, employers will not be able to find lower wage folks and over time market forces will increase wages which in turn will increase prices and so the world goes around. Once you start messing with the economic cycle, as the rental commission shows, chaos ensues.”

And like the chaos was not happening already? You seem to be blaming the symptom for the disease. The long term plans of the CURRENT owners are disrupted yes because they “BET” that their business practices could never be FORCED to change.

Simply put, they can be replaced by others if they choose not to participate in solving the housing crisis they caused. They benefited by allowing the cancer of lack of housing to metastasize to every city California by forcing higher prices.

This was the correct decision. In fact the council could have opted to do nothing. As an alternate appointed member of RHC, Julian could have taken the empty spot due to an absence and voted on all matters. The rules for an alternate on RHC are different than the alternates appointed to other commissions. An alternate for RHC has the right to sit in and participate in discussions and vote if one of the permanent members is absent.

The staff report failed to include this in their report because the mayor and CA did not want Julian appointed. He is a lawyer and would not go along with the pro tenant expansion of the ordinance. The CA is always looking for ways to expand the power and money spent in her office. You saw this with the mobile home lawsuit. The CA recommended violating the ordinance and the RHC stood up to this power grab. A judge confirmed this by supporting the decision of the RHC. A slap in the face to the city staff and attorneys.