too bad the council needs to be poked and prodded to be proactive in helping those whose lives are being torn apart - hopefully someone could think about this ahead of time

'They're tearing down people's homes."

It is a sad day for our city when you have council members who do not have the moral strength to say, NO, I will not make emotional decisions, no matter how many people you bring before me with stories about "my kids will have to go to a different school if you let them tear down my apartment building". Council members must make decisions on what is right and wrong.

Protecting property rights can not be undermined.

If any rental business owner wishes to go out of the rental business and sell to who ever they want, that is their right. If it is a developer who bought the property and wishes to tear it down, that is their right.

There is no renter, or city representative that has put their name forth onto either the loan documents or the deed to the property. Yet, incredibly, you have people who say that these renters have more rights to that property than the owner does. This is WRONG.

Most of those rental businesses had the rules changed on them in the middle of the game, by the city forcing Measure V onto the owners. The renters changed the rules on them, and they still are not happy, they want even more rules to take away what little rights that the property owner has.

These owners should have every legal right to exit their business with out the city making more rules to prohibit or restrict it.

In response to Gladys you said:

“It is a sad day for our city when you have council members who do not have the moral strength to say, NO, I will not make emotional decisions, no matter how many people you bring before me with stories about "my kids will have to go to a different school if you let them tear down my apartment building". Council members must make decisions on what is right and wrong.

Protecting property rights can not be undermined. “

Unfortunately you are under the impression that property rights are infinite. Under the U.S. Constitution, the California Constitution, the Federal and State laws, there are MANY regulating factors. Especially with the new laws enforceable as of Jan 1, 2019 tha I have presented multiple times. The simple truth is you do not want to accept that reality does not agree with your political philosophy. You said:

“If any rental business owner wishes to go out of the rental business and sell to who ever they want, that is their right. If it is a developer who bought the property and wishes to tear it down, that is their right. “

But any new project will be required to have as much as 50% inclusionary housing. The U.S. and California constitution supports this as long as there is a housing crisis. That crisis caused by the private industry through groups like the California Apartment Association and the California Association of Realtors and the other financial interests. Again, there is no unfettered property rights in the U.S. You said:

“There is no renter, or city representative that has put their name forth onto either the loan documents or the deed to the property. Yet, incredibly, you have people who say that these renters have more rights to that property than the owner does. This is WRONG.”

That is a CHOICE by the owner. The owner can just leave under the Ellis Act. They are no under coercion. You said:

“Most of those rental businesses had the rules changed on them in the middle of the game, by the city forcing Measure V onto the owners. The renters changed the rules on them, and they still are not happy, they want even more rules to take away what little rights that the property owner has.”

Again you are under the impression that property owner’s rights are infinite. They never were, and never will be. Also, owners made an “investment” knowing that the risks of business laws always change. Simply put, there is no realistic expectation that the rules will NEVER change. You simply do not like that the Citizens took control over their city via the correct process and succeeded. You said:

“These owners should have every legal right to exit their business with out the city making more rules to prohibit or restrict it.”

They do, under the Ellis Act

What is "affordable housing"? Who assigns this designation to a particular apartment?
What if landlord doesn't want his apartment to have this designation?
Can city assign "affordable housing" designation to any apartment?

I do have some concern about property owner rights.

But most of all, as a renter who was recently (within the last 12 months) displaced by one of these projects, I am glad for the sake of the others who stand to be affected by this that careful consideration is to be used, and that the situation at large is to be evaluated.

I understand that time is on no one's side in this case. Not for the renter about to be displaced, or for the owner who has a bid from a big developer who wishes to capitalize on their investment.

But this is why I favour the "take it slow approach". So that no one has to bear big fallout as we learn our lessons the hard way. If we hadn't gone so crazy with approving development/redevelopment proposals, the tide wouldn't be so strong now, and not so many people would be as impacted.

(BTW, for those in favour of marijuana storefronts: I'm coming from the same place here. I'm not necessarily unilaterally opposed to it; but I advocate the go slow approach).

Yes, I do not wish a landlord's rights to be infringed upon. But we're dealing with unintended consequences, both to owners and to renters, and it's inherently a good thing for those to be evaluated carefully. As someone once said, investment does not necessarily guarantee a return. Rather the same as for a securities trader when the SEC changes a regulation. Or when a cannabis business applies for a permit to a city where zoning has not been identified. "If you buy a lottery ticket, do you get to sue if you lose?"

Regardless, I wish all the best to the renters who are at risk, those whom this action comes too late to be any help to, and to the property owners who may have to stay in the business longer than they intended (and potentially operating at a loss), until the ship rights itself.

s/or for/nor for/g

Sorry for the bad grammar.

In response to nihilist, you asked:

“What is "affordable housing"? “

Under NEW state laws affordable housing is defined as inclusionary housing and the breakdown is:

30% must be affordable to 120% Area Median Income

15% must be affordable to 80% Area Median Income

5% must be affordable to 50% Area Median Income. You asked:

“Who assigns this designation to a particular apartment?”

The STATE laws and agencies now do under NEW state laws, NOT the City. You asked:

“What if landlord doesn't want his apartment to have this designation?”

The NEW State laws determine the apartment allotment regarding inclusionary housing. If the landlord doesn’t agree, he can try to go to court. Or he can use his Ellis Act rights. If neither, he has no choice to comply with the State laws. You asked:

“Can city assign "affordable housing" designation to any apartment?”

The City must comply with State laws. Thus the City actually doesn’t assign anything. When the City meets with the regional housing needs as determined by the Association of Bay Area Government report, the City will have more power to make that decision. Until then, they are to comply with the not net loss laws and the inclusionary housing requirements.

I'm continually amazed by the sheer sociopathy of posters here who put a higher value on property than people. How did your priorities and values get so out of whack?

The rights of property owners are important to a point, but the government and the council serve the whole city and should be focused on the well-being of ALL the community, not just property owners. The mindset that owning property gives you special privilege sounds like what existed back in our founding days when only white male property owners had any formal status in our society.

@Randy Guelph- things are out of whack - properties are too expensive in this area. Since people are more important, if you wanted to leave the area and sell your house how would you feel if the city prohibited you from selling? And what if, alternatively, you could rent your home, but at less than your monthly cost to own and maintain it? Are you willing to sell your home at less than market value to help a lower income family? Or to rent it for less than your cost to own?? If not, this is just a case of NIMBY. The sale/demolition of these older apartments was a foreseeable consequence of rent control. If they voted for it they cooked their own geese.

You'll find, as City staff and RHC have found over and over again, the passage of Measure V had no effect on the number of demolitions in the city. Please stop clinging to evidence-free, just-so stories to justify to yourself why it's actually the fault of the poor that they're being displaced.

Even if it were true, it's another example of this strange sociopathy where you value property over people, as you believe limiting people's profits on a basic necessity morally justifies those people to throw families out into the street. All of these buildings are still wildly profitable, as you can see in evidence in every RHC case, but the landlords want even more.

Lets play out the use of the Ellis Act. The key aspect of the Ellis Act is “The Ellis Act (California Government Code Chapter 12.75)[1] is a 1985 California state law that allows landlords to evict residential tenants to "go out of the rental business" in spite of desires by local governments to compel them to continue providing housing.”

What does this mean? It means that the Ellis Act cannot be used to evict tenants where either by mistake or intent, the property owner DOES NOT “go out of the rental business”. So this will not work to be used to remove low rent tenants.

Specifically :

“If withdrawn residential units can no longer be rented, property owners invoking the Ellis Act often sell apartments as individual tenancy-in-common ("TIC") units. Some cities, such as San Francisco, impose strict restrictions on withdrawn property (such as preventing condominium conversion or the adding of "accessory dwelling units"). However, a 2016 decision by the First District Court of Appeals upheld a challenge against San Francisco's ordinance preventing Ellis Act "mergers" of units and found that state law occupies the field of substantive eviction controls "for owners attempting to withdraw units from the residential rental market" and suggested that the Ellis Act may impose a limit on post-withdrawal "penalties" that seek to discourage the use of that right under state law.”

Thus this will in effect remove the rent revenue from the property. This has a direct impact on the appraisal of the property regarding sale. Appraisals use a formula regarding rent income and operational expenses typically. Thus no rent income but the continuing expense of property ownership will in effect make the property significantly lower in value.

Not to mention the already discounted values of property already occurring in Mountain View regarding the imposition of the CSFRA and the significant increase of new housing under consideration by the City. The combination will significantly drop values which will be a major problem for property owners.

This is the real reason why such owners are trying to get any legal protections above what the law allows. However trying to do so is likely going to cost a much higher price than just cooperating with all communities of the state, like Mountain View. Why do these people do so?

Simply because it is an expression of “strength” regarding “property rights”. These people would rather do more damage to themselves instead of providing any image of weakness. Isn’t that so?

Doesn’t sound very wise to me. And the public may also feel the same way.

What diversity are they talking about?
Many of the rent controlled units are in pockets of poverty I would say. Replacing them with decent housing attracts middle class and brings diversity while also improving the schools.

@Randy - “the passage of Measure V had no effect on the number of demolitions in the city.”
Really? Per the article:
“Developers in the city have won council approval to tear down more than 100 rent-controlled apartments in the past five months.“
“The number of units lost is growing”
“one protester noted that the problem just keeps getting worse.”

I don’t need to justify anything. I’m just stating the facts. Rent control always causes a net loss of affordable housing.

“All of these buildings are still wildly profitable...”.
You have no idea of the financial circumstances of the owners of these buildings. You seem very comfortable giving away other people’s money but if you really valued people over property you’d give them YOUR home. Stop with the virtue signaling and put your money where your mouth is and donate your assets to these people rather than harping on what other people should do.

I'm citing City and RHC staff, who have found that Measure V caused no increase in the rate of demolitions. You're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

We do know the finances of these buildings, since every time a landlord has requested a rent increase above the AGA, they need to open their books. Lo and behold, once they do, it's shown that the buildings are wildly profitable, but the landlord just wants more, more, more.

Thankfully, you included that rant about "virtue-signalling" at the end, so that those of us who operate on facts and reason can easily disregard your emotional, reactionary arguments. Thank you for that.

In response to Diversity you said:

“Many of the rent controlled units are in pockets of poverty I would say. Replacing them with decent housing attracts middle class and brings diversity while also improving the schools. “

So you’re saying that the quality of life is so bad regarding the rent controlled units that they should be condemned? Are you saying that these people are not worthy of proper consideration as citizens of the City? It almost sounds like you want to define them as second class citizens. You know that there is no such thing right?

In respomnse to Hmmm you said:

“@Randy - “the passage of Measure V had no effect on the number of demolitions in the city.”

Really? Per the article:

“Developers in the city have won council approval to tear down more than 100 rent-controlled apartments in the past five months.“

“The number of units lost is growing”

There are 31,000 housing elements in the City per the Cities own documentation. Historically it was told that 60% of the residents are in rental units. Thus you can estimate there are 18,600 housing elements that are apartments. Now, I hate to see the affordable units being destroyed for the wealthy to have their own place regarding the current residents. But to clarify that the loss of 100-150 units in the city represents only .8% of the total number. It would appear that you are maing a mountain out of an anthill. You said:

“one protester noted that the problem just keeps getting worse.”

I don’t need to justify anything. I’m just stating the facts. Rent control always causes a net loss of affordable housing. “

Actually, you will have to prove that scientifically, and any research older than 2012, or new research siting that older research, or any research performed by those without disclosure of a financial interest in the results, simply cannot be used. You make a conclusion without any evidence. You said:

“You have no idea of the financial circumstances of the owners of these buildings. You seem very comfortable giving away other people’s money but if you really valued people over property you’d give them YOUR home. Stop with the virtue signaling and put your money where your mouth is and donate your assets to these people rather than harping on what other people should do.”

Simply put, the market changes were always a risk regarding the laws regulating it. Your complaint that if the market was left alone would be the solution has been proven wrong because for 15 years the needs of affordable housing simply increased, and it was by design. So new State laws requiring inclusionary housing are now enforceable. You argue that if the government did nothing it would solve itself, that is wrong and it has been proven so.

Pockets of poverty or any concentrated poverty is not good for anyone. Maybe Los Altos can offer them housing, to diversify their city.

I appreciate that The Business Man consistently comments under his pseudonym. It makes it easy to scroll past his diatribes. Thanks TBM!

It’s a feeding frenzy for developers. The people have spoken and they’ve gotten what they asked for. The deceptively promoted rent control Measure V has started bankrupting small property owners and they’re getting out while they can- before they lose everything. Their property values have dropped in half since Measure V rent control was implemented. Small owners, often running the older, more affordable apartment owners, are getting out while they still have their shirts. With their rental property values dropping in half and no real way to increase rents, owners are cutting their losses and running before their properties devalue further!!!

We could not, if we had tried, have created a more ripe atmosphere for large corporate developers to scoop up land and redevelop it into housing that does not fall under rent control.

Not only has rent control daccellerated the elimination of affordable housing, it has also driven out small business owners in droves. We are creating a city where only large corporations can survive, and small businesses are being driven out fast.

Wake up and start looking at the reality of what’s happening here in Mountsin View. Dilusional decisionmaking, thinking it’s fun to turn a city into a college campus with AI and corporate beta testing if compuerized products in an open town doesn’t work. Encouraging bikes and other non motor vehicles in droves and putting bike lanes on streets that anyone who lives here knows better than to ride on, is a recipe for deaths. We’ve grown too much too fast and we’re headed for some serious consequences of corporatizatiin and loss of small businesses.

The never neverland attitude of forcing small business owners to provide housing welfare is corrupt to the core and violates the values of this country. Very disapppiinted to see so many people

and media jumping on the measure V bandwagon to help promote such a deceptive legislation. It NEVER works to “stick it to the other guy.” The ramifications of Measure V will continue to blow up in the face of our town, and will continue to backfire in an epic proportion.

In response to neighbor you said:


“I appreciate that The Business Man consistently comments under his pseudonym. It makes it easy to scroll past his diatribes. Thanks TBM!”

Everyone knows who I am. Everyone knows I have 2 Business Degrees from San Jose State University. They know that I have worked for the U.S. and have earned highly sensitive information access that I protect. They know that I strive to point out false logic. But thanks anyway.

In response to What did we expect? You said:

“It’s a feeding frenzy for developers. The people have spoken and they’ve gotten what they asked for. The deceptively promoted rent control Measure V has started bankrupting small property owners and they’re getting out while they can- before they lose everything. Their property values have dropped in half since Measure V rent control was implemented. Small owners, often running the older, more affordable apartment owners, are getting out while they still have their shirts. With their rental property values dropping in half and no real way to increase rents, owners are cutting their losses and running before their properties devalue further!!!”

That was always a risk of the business. It was not a surprise to anyone who understands it. You said:

“We could not, if we had tried, have created a more ripe atmosphere for large corporate developers to scoop up land and redevelop it into housing that does not fall under rent control.”

Only as long as the City and Developers follow state laws requiring as much as 50% of any development, FOR SALE OR RENT will be INCLUSIONARY regarding AFFORDABILITY. It doesn’t matter if it is a house or an apartment. You said:

“Not only has rent control daccellerated the elimination of affordable housing, it has also driven out small business owners in droves. We are creating a city where only large corporations can survive, and small businesses are being driven out fast.”

If those small businesses failed to negotiate prior to the elction of 2016, they made their own problems. Measure V was a threat that was designed to get an amicable compromise. These property owners simply scoffed that it would never pass and did nothing to negotiate. That led them to their own problem. You said:

“Wake up and start looking at the reality of what’s happening here in Mountsin View. Dilusional decisionmaking, thinking it’s fun to turn a city into a college campus with AI and corporate beta testing if compuerized products in an open town doesn’t work. Encouraging bikes and other non motor vehicles in droves and putting bike lanes on streets that anyone who lives here knows better than to ride on, is a recipe for deaths. We’ve grown too much too fast and we’re headed for some serious consequences of corporatizatiin and loss of small businesses. “

I already demonstrated that these businesses should have worked with the community to develop a better situation. They chose not to, that was their mistake. You said:

“The never neverland attitude of forcing small business owners to provide housing welfare is corrupt to the core and violates the values of this country. Very disapppiinted to see so many people and media jumping on the measure V bandwagon to help promote such a deceptive legislation. It NEVER works to “stick it to the other guy.” The ramifications of Measure V will continue to blow up in the face of our town, and will continue to backfire in an epic proportion.”

Measure V was NOT LEGISLATION, and it was AVOIDABLE if there was genuine action to resolve the problems regarding the business practices before the election. You simply are not understanding the history accurately and in fact are trying to rewrite the history.

And just understand that the citizens and the state government are simply taking emergency action because of the failure of the private sector to provide affordable housing. The industry simply ignores the problem or choses only to market to the target customers they want, the highest paid and with the most discretionary income. The industry is setting itself up to fail.

Manhattan is suffering from the same problem and the fact is the property values there are falling too. The analysis, too much housing at high prices and not enough moderate or lower priced housing. That pattern will only result in the loss of estimated values of the projects built here, like in New York. Just check it out (Web Link

And population growth may become a shrinkage if you read this article (Web Link And finally, the fact that Measure V is simply not the casue of the real estate losses if you read this article too (Web Link

These people simply want to find a scapegoat for the real issues facing them.