Glad to see the state taking action when the cities have been unwilling to protect our residents.

The current council majority, led by Margaret Abe-Koga and Lisa Matichak, has paid a lot of lip service to protecting the vulnerable, but it looks like they're all talk. While they "discuss" solutions, people are having their homes demolished. Same with their talk about extending rent control to mobile homes. All they've actually done with respect to that has been to craft a ballot initiative that explicitly declares them to be unprotected by Measure V!

Pure and simple, they talk a good game on protecting residents, but their actions show they're not interested in protecting residents who are poor.

There has been plenty of warning to all those owners of rent controlled apartments. If their investments are declining another notch in value because of the law then it's their own fault.

The city is setting itself up nicely to have slums in a decade or two.

In response to Bored M you said:

“There has been plenty of warning to all those owners of rent controlled apartments. If their investments are declining another notch in value because of the law then it's their own fault.”

There is a good solution, new projects will provide more units. As long as the CSFRA and the new law is complied with, there is plenty of opportunity to make a good profit. If these people know how to make good business decisions. But that is a giant IF because this industry has not been efficient at all. That is why you have giant rent increases in the past. They simply passed on the cost of their poor management to the customers. You went on to say:

“The city is setting itself up nicely to have slums in a decade or two.”

That is not correct IF the City Council does it’s job well and provides passage of well planned new housing and complies with all state and local laws like the CSFRA. But it is true that the history of the actions of the City council has not been very good. But my prediction is that you are not going to see any new projects approved because the City Council cannot have its discretion anymore. It will simply freeze all projects itself.

[Post removed due to trolling]

In response to BS you said:

“Another commie BS law, to end investments in our cities.”

Please understand that our constitution has a provision for “eminate domain” because the land is not private in reality. So land should never be considered an investment. At the same time, even if you “own” a lot of land, it is not yours. How? Because you must pay for property taxes every year. The real history is that there is no exclusive use of land in any state of the U.S. If you read the article titled “There is No Private Property in the United States” (Web Link You said:

“Liberals are doing anything they can get away with to end capitalism, but there will be a backlash, just like rent control.”

Capitalism is not ending, people are free to invest in anything they want. You want insurance that any investment must be guaranteed the rate of return they demand. Capitalism does not work that way, the reality is that poor investment decisions have a “moral hazard” of failure. That is what you demand of this country based on your arguments. You said:

“Our cities will turn into slums if we keep this up.”

Not if smart people make good decisions. But we have a lot of inexperienced decision makers regarding civil engineering and planning in all levels of government. We need to get skilled people to be decision makers. But our politics is designed so that it does not require expertise. It is done by a popularity contest and not a job interview, and requiring proof of skills necessary to achieve productive government.

Just understand what we need is a serious reform of the way decisions are made. But do the people actually have the choice? Especially with the big money in politics these days.

Thank you reporter Mark. This is a very interesting development with implications for defeating Measure D, from our own Democratic Suburbanite party leaders on our Council (Mayor MAK in particular).

Steve,

So correct.

The biggest argument regarding rent control was the idea that units would be demolished for other housing.

This law is going to be challenged I am certain. But I also think it will not be determined unconstitutional.

This is the biggest weapon other than going out of buisness. But by doing so, the exiting business will lose all revenues.

If I were working as a residential developmnet planner for the City of Mountain View, I'd be tuning up my résumé since SB330 is a guaranteed lych bell for any future redevelopment projects--which would otherwise rid MV of her thousands of '60's era units suffering from economic and physical obsolescence. And, yes, Business Man, the future is a steady decline--even surpassing present day Berkeley. Glad I'm out . . . by the hair of my chinny-chin-chin.

In response to The Successful Businessman you said:

“If I were working as a residential developmnet planner for the City of Mountain View, I'd be tuning up my résumé since SB330 is a guaranteed lych bell for any future redevelopment projects--which would otherwise rid MV of her thousands of '60's era units suffering from economic and physical obsolescence.”

First, this is STATE law, it doesn’t matter what city is in the approval of development. On top of this there are the other inclusionary housing price controls. So Mountain View is not being singled out, the private housing sector is going to have a state wide requirement.

As far as obsolete housing goes, if the private sector will not build any newer projects, than the state should build them. The private sector has exploited the market long enough dictating what it will build and where.

After 1965, the federal government started privatizing housing. There was plenty of housing during the baby boom through to 1965, so it was a solution looking for a problem. Ever since 1965, the housing shortages were born and were exploited ever since.

The public housing process worked to satisfy housing needs up to 1965 with federal money and state money. It was the private sector that promised that it could do a better job that diverted from public projects to private ones. Simply put, it is going to move back to that model, and either the private sector performs or it will lose ground on the housing market. You said:

“And, yes, Business Man, the future is a steady decline--even surpassing present day Berkeley. Glad I'm out . . . by the hair of my chinny-chin-chin.”

That statement can stand on its own.

The owner has option to offer the tenants buyout money to move out. Depending on the amount, it may be a fair deal.

in reponse to mh you said:

"The owner has option to offer the tenants buyout money to move out. Depending on the amount, it may be a fair deal."

I would expect he buyout to cover at least 1 years rent in another unit. That is fair.

The tenant should look at the market-rate rent of the new unit to be built there (not a similar-condition room they would move in next), because that's the stake for the developer. Maybe, that's what The Business Man meant, but I wanted to clarify because it's important. Then, I might even try 2 yr of the market rate.