What puzzles me about this new found sadness for poor corporate landlords and the reason they are suffering under current rent control, is that they can't afford to make neccessary updates to current stock. So when it was the wild rental west a few years back and still for recently vacant rentals. What the hell did you all do with that money. Rents raised over 70% in ten years prior. So as long as you can raise rents against tenants as you see needed, you didn't need to do those so very needed upgrades. But when you can't raise rents as ruthlessly as you feel or want. Oh how You need these very needed upgrades all the sudden. When is the last time a occupied rental was updated. Which by the way how the game works for those who don't know. They have contractor licenses under a LLC (so it won't show there actual name) they can claim astronomical costs. Say $4000 for fence replacement on a patio. But what they really do is get a no licensed subcontractor who by law can't lawfully charge more then $500 for and quoted job (these guys aren't licensed so they can't legally charge over $500). You do the math they claim a $4000 upgrade and hardship with the city so they can raise the rent. If the city accepts. The numbers are crunched and now you have a off cycle rent increase. But the kicker is the job only ever costs $500 or less. And this will be done over and over for esthetic but not actually helping the renter until you can't afford it. You'll move and they lick chops and really get to raise that wild west style rental rate. Thus is why they are caring hard working poor old landlords. Oh and if you use the csfra as a tenant your bilking the system.

I just had a bizarre situation.

I just returned from working off-site and I was having a dispute with my landlord becasue he illegally charged late fees in violation of the CSFRA.

I recently wrote a check for this months rent, but forgot to drop it into the slot.

I got my 3 day demand letter, but it indicated that it onbly demanded $330 to balance the rent payment for this month.

BUT my rent is $1530. But I indicated for months that the landlord had collected in total up to today of $1200.

So I get back and testify in the RHC and the City Council the fact that if a landlord violated the CSFRA but declares they comply with it during a petition, they committed fraud against the tenants and the City.

I looks like the landlord finally got the point that it made a serious error in conduct. I am about to get the petition voided based on the false declaration.

The CSFRA states no petition can be even considered if the landlord violates the CSFRA.

Wow suprising the pro landlord anti rent control trolls aren't blasting every renter as a bum in this article. That's how you know it's a farce.

@The Business Man

Having been a Mountain View resident for 27 years and having had trials, tribulations, and heartache with rent increases and the like, I have to mention that I'm glad for you that you have managed to pay a not-overly-inflated rent. I tried to maintain the same by staying put, being a good tenant, and not moving; but when my apartment buildings changed owners, management, and in one case was torn down; my rent skyrocketed and there was nothing I could do to prevent it. I had only lived in two places in Mountain View in 27 years, so I thought I was relatively stable. It was hard to weather the changes; and I had to make peace that even though I make a reasonable income my cost of living is high. It's a good thing I'm content with a relatively simple non-extravagant life.

So I have to admit to being slightly jealous, but mostly happy that you've been able to make it work.

The "coalition" cited in the first letter is not the proponent of the "sneaky repeal" of local rent control headed for the November 3 ballot. The proponents are two Mountain View voters. Mr. Howard is not one of them. Only the official proponents can withdraw the initiative. In fact, the official proponents could withdraw the initiative NOW conditionally - the condition being passage of Measure D in the March 3 ballot. They could - but have not. Why is that?