The loss of apartment housing in MV very well could be the result of Rent Control. When property owners can’t charge market rent then it makes sense to monetize their investment (that's right...their investment, not the communities) in other ways. Now you want the Council to take action to further restrict their property rights. It's just not right. Sorry to hear of folks losing their rental homes, but everyone was warned of this possibility during the rent control debates.

Thank you, Lance, for reminding everyone that landlords do not care about our community, they're only here to squeeze money out of our residents. It can be easy to forget, as they often pretend that they're doing the city some favors by collecting rent.

If you are a landlord, you are a bad person.
-Randy Guelph

I disagree with Randy Guelph because I know that people are individuals, some good, some bad.
-Summary

Do you disagree with Lance? That's precisely what he's saying: to landlords, their investment is more important than our community.

You thought up the words in your head and wrote them down. I read them and understood what you wrote. Then I disagreed, thinking that such a blanket statement was not only incorrect, but irrational since it suggests all people who rent a property subscribe to a common negative behavior.

You're a bit too overconfident that you understood the words written, but that's OK. Reading comprehension is not everyone's strong suit.

Do you think the behavior, as described, would make someone a "bad person"? If you don't think the behavior is common to most of them, then you must disagree with Lance, as well: "When property owners can’t charge market rent then it makes sense to monetize their investment."

I'm sorry Randy. It's my opinion that not everyone acts a particular way simply because of what they do to make a living. I can't participate in discussions that claim such things. It's like discussing how all accountants are tax cheats or how all cops are racist. Ridiculous notions to the thinking mind. Not to worry though, I'm sure someone else will come along for you to play that way with.

Enjoy your Friday afternoon!

"Thank you, Lance, for reminding everyone that landlords do not care about our community, they're only here to squeeze money out of our residents. It can be easy to forget, as they often pretend that they're doing the city some favors by collecting rent."

Of course Lance did not say this. This is a clear misstatement of his comment.

It takes two to make a rental agreement. If one side wants to back out of the deal then they should be allowed to and not be subject to coercion.

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]

This was Lenny Siegel's plan and his group of 100 other activist who meet about a month ago in a building on Shoreline, across from Safeway Their plan is to bombard council at their city council meeting on 12/11 and try to force council to deny any rental property owner from going out of business.

Unfortunately we not only have activist from our city, but from all over the bay area who will be at that council meeting, demanding a moratorium.

If you want to stop this, then buy the property yourself and let everyone live in it for free.

You call landlords all sorts of names yet being the hippo-crates you are you want even more laws that would force any property owner-landlord from going out of business.

The city will be mandating systemic retrofit to most of these 60 year old buildings. The city is saying they are unsafe. Are any of you coming forward and donating any of the money needed to retrofit these properties? Of course you are not.

If the city says they are unsafe, there should be NO MORATORIUM put in place to prevent the removal of these unsafe properties.

These properties are not "community assets" they are bought and run by private individuals who signs loan docs to borrow money to buy these properties. The community does not sign any loan docs.

See, Summary, all you have to do is let these people speak for themselves for a bit, and you get comments like Selfish People above. The almighty dollar is the only thing that matters to them, without any concern for our community.

You have to have a basic understanding of right and wrong, which you do not have. The activists who wrote Measure V wrote it so a landlord can be losing money on a property and be denied and additional rent increase, which has happened. All your side does and say to bad, you over paid for your building.

Your thinking is you want to sre@w the landlord every way you can "BECAUSE IT IS GOOD FOR THE COMMUNITY".

If you truly care for the community, why don't you go to all the banks and force them to forgive all the loans plus the interest that these landlords have to pay so you people can live in a rent control property. Landlords are not even allowed to calculate the interest on these loans as a business expense under Measure V.

Or better yet, force the banks to give free money to everyone so they can buy their own place. All you people did was to pick on the easiest target to attack and get away with it. Very brave of you.

Thank you for demonstrating that you have no problem outright lying. Landlords directly get housing inflation increases, which preserves their profits. Where they don't get increases are when they ask for even more profits, and then triple-bill their services, as in the only cases where landlords have been denied.

Sad troll thread here. Be compassionate with the lonely souls during the holidays.

Typical response from your side, just keep lying about all the harmful things in Measure V.

It already has been discussed who that landlord was who was losing thousands of dollars a month on his rental property, and he was denied any rent increase to make up that difference.

You people keep taking about compassion, you are forcing your views onto others, that is not compassion. You are taking rights away from a property owner, a business owner and this mostly affects Mom and Pop families. You have no clue about their finances and you do not care.

Please, spare us this compassion nonsense.

Mods, the above poster is posting here under multiple name, violating the Terms of Service.

"It has already been discussed" is what people say when they're making something up and have no evidence for their claims. Are you so shameless that you have to lie about this? I guess with those price-gouging profits on the line, people will sacrifice the last bits of their humanity.

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]

Wait, you sit here exposing false information over and over again and you want me to educate you?

1-How many hearings have you sat in on?

2-How many RHC meeting have you been to?

Are you saying you never read any posts here, about 4 months ago, discussing this landlord who I am referring to? Even "TBM" acknowledged that fact.

If you want to be educated by me, you will need to answer me these 4 simple questions.

3-Is the interest on a mortgage, for the rental property, can it be calculated as a business expense under Measure V.

4-If a landlord chooses to buy anything new for the apartment, say instead of fixing 60 year old appliances he buys new ones, can that be calculated as a business expenses under Measure V?

Answer these questions and I will tell you who that landlord is.

I am awaiting your response, simple questions should get a simple answers. Please, no bloviating.

Note that you have every opportunity to post supporting evidence for your claims, but you don't. Instead you write weird quizzes. If I were you, I wouldn't be concerned about "educating" me, but instead the other people reading, who see you post unsubstantiated, vague claims over and over again. That you are simply unable to support your lies when challenged tells the whole story. I'm eagerly looking forward to your next numbered list of questions that you'll predicate my "education" on.

Just as I thought, you do not know anything!

2 simple questions for you to answer to show how well informed you are on this subject and you do not even attempt to answer them.

You want to prove me wrong, then answer the questions, but you will not because it shows how uninformed you are.

lmao man, that's not how evidence works. You're making claims about Measure V, you need to back them up. You've had so so so many chances to do that simple task, but you're going to puff up and pretend instead. Paper tigers like you collapse so easily, it's why you're a failed landlord.

O.K, I will make this so simple that even you can get it. I will answer the questions for you.

Questions 1 and 2, No you have never attended any hearings.

Questions 3 and 4, you have no clue as to what those are.

Simply reply that yes, this is correct, or correct what is not accurate, then I will educate you as to what landlord I am talking about.

Man, when you're in a hole, stop digging. You've had so many opportunities to post anything to substantiate what you've been talking about, and you flat-out refuse. Now you're providing what you imagine my answers to your quiz would be? It's beautiful seeing people like you try to bluster your way through when caught with your pants down. Keep going!

I have attempted to have an open and honest discussion with you, but your high opinion of yourself in not wanting to be shown as an uniformed individual on this matter has been made very clear to the people who have been reading this thread, which has been my objective.

You are what many others on your side have done for over 2 years now in trying to hide what really is Measure and the effects it is having on our community.

You have no compassion, hatred toward landlords, yes.

I have made my point, but to further show how uniformed you are, there where 2 cases that came out of the hearings around June, both denied rent increases. One was Elizabeth and the other is the landlord who I am referring to.

The correct answers to 3 and 4 are, NO, under Measure V interest and new appliances are not allowed to be calculated as a business expense.

You have a Merry Christmas.

An open and honest discussion would entail your posting a single shred of evidence, something you've proven either incapable or unwilling. Hm...why could that be?

I'm looking forward to your next update about where Lenny or Job had dinner last night. Do you imagine yourself a hero of some spy thriller, lurking in back alleys?

Happy Holidays!

So far the City Council has gone along with some minor conversion of old apartments to new condos. There is no right to tear down or subdivide for condos. Apt owners are always free to sell and then the buyer is the landlord. Under Measure V, tenants have some protection from rent gouging and eviction without good cause. Under the landlords' SNEAKY REPEAL, rents could DOUBLE in a matter of months. Take your pick.

@Ted,

You said,
"There is no right to tear down or subdivide for condos. Apt owners are always free to sell and then the buyer is the landlord."

Not true. Where do you think you get the right to tell a property owner that they can not tear down their building if they wanted to.

Further, David Avny is the landlord in question, regarding the back and forth between @Randy and Randy.

If anybody has been following the stories and posts in the Voice for the past several years you would now that @Randy is correct.

If you would have read the 20 some pages that was this initiative known as measure V, you would have read that the morgate interest is not allowed as a cost of business, and only repairs can be considered as a business expense.

This is where the "Business Man" should step into this conversation and verify this information as he is a tenant in David Avny property.

I'm glad you mentioned specifics. Let's take a look at the landlord you referenced: "Various expenses, such as travel, office supplies and landlord meals were improperly included in the apartment's expenses to justify rent increases." What a world where landlords can't eat fancy dinners and travel around and pass that on as rent increases above housing CPI! It's amazing that some landlords can't help themselves from gouging tenants.

Calling, that's a direct quote from the Mountain View Voice article (Web Link about the case. Those come from the hearing officer, not me. Let me guess, though, the hearing officer is a far-left socialist radical that was spotted by the other guy with Job and Lenny?

Mike, weren't you banned from this site? I see your ability to type coherently hasn't improved in your time off. Absentee landlordism should afford you a lot of time for remedial English classes.

I am glad you admitted to David Avny, the landlord who is not entitled to use his mortgage interest as a business expense. But you knew this all along, you just do not want to be honest and acknowledge the facts to the public. Figure that expense into what the hearing officer said was his profit for the property, then you see he is losing something around $20,000 a year. That is what measure V says, no interest deductions.

It also says only repairs are to be considered as a business expense. Which is why when the city council will mandate systemic retrofit to these old unsafe buildings, the city will face many lawsuits against it from property owners who want to raze their unsafe properties but are prevented from doing so if a moratorium is put in place.

The city residents where warned what would happen if rent control passes, that there would be less and less of these older buildings around.