Voting Yes on D.

The "copy and paste-never been a businessman-tenant activist" will be along shortly to criticize my Post.

If you look at the minor changes in this measure, it makes no sense that any fair-opened minded person would oppose it.

You have to remember who wrote the current rent control law known as Measure V, it was written by an extreme outside tenant activist group who targeted several cities that had a large population of renters. This measure would never had pasted in cities that has a large population of homeowners. Listen to the link at the bottom.

I will give just 2 examples of the extreme language that this group wrote in the current law.

1-The interest on a business loan to buy the rental property is not allowed to be calculated as a business expense under the current law. No other business in the country has this kind of law, it is a legal business expense under state and federal law, but not allowed by the rent board.

2-Other rent control cities split the cost 50-50 with the tenant and landlord to administer the cost of these laws. Not under Measure V, it was written to stick the entire bill onto the landlord.

There is nothing fair about the current law, these minor changes are to help owners maintain and upgrade the safety for the tenants in the building.

Listen to the video of the outside tenant activist group who wrote the original rent control law.
Web Link

The purpose of Measure V, passed by voters in 2016, was to stop the displacement of renters, being caused by skyrocketing unlimited rent increases. Measure V is working well, efficiently administered, and has no cost to tax payers. Landlords can and do improve their properties so they can charge high market rents whenever a new tenant moves in. But, corporate landlords don't like ANY limits on their income, so they convinced the most conservative members of the City Council to do their bidding and weaken rent control. To sell this to the public, the landlords flyers say "protect rent control". That is not why they are paying hundreds of thousands for ads of every possible type. They want more money. If they win, that money will come from the renters. Renters will face up to 10% rent increases, and many will be displaced as they pay for improvements that will not benefit them at all after they are priced out of Mountain View. And shame on these Council members for conveniently forgetting that city staff concluded rent stabilization has NOT caused demolitions at a faster rate. No, instead these council members take their talking points from the landlords. A coalition of landlords and their politically minded supporters are behind D. The real community of Mountain View who loves their local business, good schools and diverse community needs to see through this corporate coalition and vote NO on D.

See what real community support looks like:Web Link

@Longview,

Scare tactics Longview.

People should read the measure them-self's and decide on their own.

In response to Mark you said:

“The "copy and paste-never been a businessman-tenant activist" will be along shortly to criticize my Post.”

I am happy to prove I have 2 Bachelors in Business Management Science from San Jose State University. And operating a business is not a requirement under that situation. WQhat do you want me to do if I cannot find good business opportunities especially in the wake of the 2007 Great Recession, and the lack of innovation at this time. What new product or services are there to invest in at this time or open a business? Sometimes people make statements that make no sense you said:

“If you look at the minor changes in this measure, it makes no sense that any fair-opened minded person would oppose it.”

So you’re making a personal attack on anyone that comes to a different conclusion than you by saying that you MUST be UNFAIR if you oppose Measure D. That’s what you said. You said:

“You have to remember who wrote the current rent control law known as Measure V, it was written by an extreme outside tenant activist group who targeted several cities that had a large population of renters. This measure would never had pasted in cities that has a large population of homeowners. Listen to the link at the bottom.”

There were over 80 open to the public meetings where the writing of the measure was done in public. The City Citizens appeared and worked with these people, so your idea that it was “outsider” interfereing with the City is simply false, and you knew that. You said:

“1-The interest on a business loan to buy the rental property is not allowed to be calculated as a business expense under the current law. No other business in the country has this kind of law, it is a legal business expense under state and federal law, but not allowed by the rent board.”

The State Gorvnemt has long been a paid partner in the private housing sector. It has been subject to “experts” who are paid consultants of the private housing business, thus they never get “unbiased” research. You know this. The fact is that this situation may be “new”, but it is a closing of a serious loophole regarding how people waste money in overspending for properties and them roll the cost off onto those who didn’t participate in the sales negotitation, but are forced to pay the price for the buyer lack of judgement. You said:

“2-Other rent control cities split the cost 50-50 with the tenant and landlord to administer the cost of these laws. Not under Measure V, it was written to stick the entire bill onto the landlord.”

Again, this may be “new” but what your really afraid of is it will become a standard practice for all cities considering new rent control. You said:

“There is nothing fair about the current law, these minor changes are to help owners maintain and upgrade the safety for the tenants in the building.”

THESE ARE NOT MINOR CHANGES, I HAVE DEMOSTRATED THAT IN OTHER NEW STORIES. I AM WILLING TO DEMONSTRATE AGAIN IF ANYONE WANTS ME TO POST IT AGAIN. You said:

“Listen to the video of the outside tenant activist group who wrote the original rent control law.”

So what? The City Voters agreed that the CSFRA was the RIGHT policy. There was nothing in the video that supports anything but it was a proper ballot measure, it was voted for, it passed, the City Council to 5 steps to try to impair the policy as pointed out here:

FIRST, they agreed to a temporary restraining order freezing the CSFRA while the CAA challenged the law in court.

SECOND, the City Attorney was instructed NOT to defend the CSFRA in court requiring intervention by the Stanford Community Law Center.

THIRD, when the case was dropped by the CAA, the City Council and the RHC did not want to enforce the rent roll back on the proper date of December 26, 2016.

FOURTH, the City Council colluded with the apartment owners to fast track removal of rent controlled units. Thus forcing the STATE to invoke a BAN of removal of rent controlled or affordable housing under SB330 . Thus taking that action away from the City Council.

FIFTH, the City Council DEMANDED reimbursement of the first year’s funds to start the RHC in only 1 year. They knew it was going to drive up the startup cost. Thus providing opposition to complain that the rental housing fees were too high. They could have made it a 5 year repayment plan instead, but they did want to help out of town investors to put their argument against CSFRA.

And it was Chris Clark and John McAllister who were the ones that made this happen. Why should we listen to them if they openly attack citizens of Mountain View this way.

So Mark what real evidence shows this is fair to Mountain View Citzens, NOT THE OUT OF CITY LANDLORDS WHICH MAKES UP AT LEAST 90% OF THEM!

"FOURTH, the City Council colluded with the apartment owners to fast track removal of rent controlled units. Thus forcing the STATE to invoke a BAN of removal of rent controlled or affordable housing under SB330 . Thus taking that action away from the City Council." should be the lead.

Yep, the opinion piece neglects the fact that any possible removal of rent controlled units by demolition and redevelopment is not PROHIBITED by state law. It's not clear that rent control made these changes more likely. But NOW rent control is essential in order to have the prohibition on removal in effect.

The opinion piece really should have talked about the SB330 protections. It's misleading not to.

In response to LongResident you said:

“FOURTH, the City Council colluded with the apartment owners to fast track removal of rent controlled units. Thus forcing the STATE to invoke a BAN of removal of rent controlled or affordable housing under SB330 . Thus taking that action away from the City Council." should be the lead.

Yep, the opinion piece neglects the fact that any possible removal of rent controlled units by demolition and redevelopment is not PROHIBITED by state law. It's not clear that rent control made these changes more likely. But NOW rent control is essential in order to have the prohibition on removal in effect.”

Perhaps you forgot the story written not to long ago called “A little-noticed new law could upend a key argument against rent control” found here (Web Link

It specifically states:

“SB 330 requires developers to replace all rent-controlled units they demolish, offer old tenants equally affordable new units”

And

“But for Mountain View, the most consequential section of SB 330 was buried deep in the bill. The new law also prohibits cities from approving new housing developments that would raze rent-controlled or affordable housing -- that is, unless an equal number of new units are rebuilt for tenants at the same price.

For tenant advocates, that requirement looks like a game-changer that could swiftly lead apartment owners to reconsider tearing down older units. Even in cases where apartments are being redeveloped into for-sale housing, developers will still be required to build new housing for all former tenants. Any displaced tenants must be given first rights to new housing units at the same price, said Nazanin Salehi, staff attorney with the Community Legal Services of East Palo Alto. These protections took effect at the start of January.”

Please remember this when people say if Measure D is not adopted, a loss of affordable housing will result. ESPECIALLY if claimed by the City Council. You said:

“The opinion piece really should have talked about the SB330 protections. It's misleading not to.”

Good to ask the question

Very well thought out article. Fixing Measure V is critically important in order to prevent more displacement and gentrification.

Measure D doesn't get rid of rent control, in fact it makes it more likely that rent-controlled housing will continue to exist.

Never forget that rent control means that the property owner is providing a subsidy to the tenant equal to the difference between market rent and the rent-controlled rent--even when the tenant isn't low income. It's the least equitable type of subsidized housing.

What I find ridiculous is the idea that these two claim that the CSFRA is not sustainable.

THE CSFRA WILL SUSTAIN.

Unless ALL apartments in the City close ALL at the same time.

Because the CSFRA is funded by the Landlords.

I think what they are really saying is that landlords manage their businesses so badly, that they cannot remain in business without either a bailout from the City, County, or State, or they have to raise rents for no other reason other than satisfy their “investors”.

AGAIN, NO ONE CAN TRUST THE CITY COUNCIL GIVEN THEIR HISTORY AND FALSE ADVERTISING.

THE TEXT OF MEASURE D IS NOT THE SAME AS WHAT THEY TELL YOU.

DID THE LANDLORDS TELL THE CITY COUNCIL THEY ARE GOING TO AS A WHOLE LEAVE THE CITY AND CLOSE ALL OPERATIONS?

If the landlords are spending big bucks for Measure D, it probably is bad in ways most people miss. What about the change in Measure D that the City Council could pass ordinances concerning rent control - not just regarding rent control at mobile home parks? Likely a trick.

You can often tell who is on the right side of an issue by *how* they argue, and the weakness of the Measure D defense can be seen in how vociferously (yet poorly) it's defended here.

Then you look at the comments, where the Measure D defenders talk in paragraph after paragraph trying to defend their indefensible position, and it's all the more painfully clear.

Let me state the obvious: if you have a reasonable position on an issue, all you have to do is make people aware of the obvious merits of that issue. You don't need essay after essay to justify something morally right, you just have to explain that it is so. But the very fact that D dfenders can only write these tortured "comment essays" just shows they don't have a reasonable position to defend, and are instead grasping at straws trying to justify selfish greed.

Longview's "See what real community support looks like:Web Link" was the most convincing sentence in the massive wall of text that is this page.

As an aside, MV Voice could you *please* improve your comments system? That captcha at the bottom never works right, and it would take just ten minutes to make the site remember people's names and neighborhoods instead of making them have to retype it.

There are many standard web commenting systems out there, so you don't have to reinvent the wheel to do this: just use one of them.

In response to Corine you said:

“Very well thought out article. Fixing Measure V is critically important in order to prevent more displacement and gentrification.”

What proof do you have regarding that given that there is no SCIENTIFIC research regarding the CURRENT STATE LAWS and the impact on the market.? You said:

“Measure D doesn't get rid of rent control, in fact it makes it more likely that rent-controlled housing will continue to exist.”

Actually, that is not logically true either, you know organizations like the California Apartment Association and the California Association of Realtors will always attack and try to destroy rent control. You said:

“Never forget that rent control means that the property owner is providing a subsidy to the tenant equal to the difference between market rent and the rent-controlled rent--even when the tenant isn't low income. It's the least equitable type of subsidized housing.”

AGAIN THE BROKEN RECORD OF FALSE INFORMATION. RENT CONTROL IS NOT A SUBSIDY AS DEFINED IN HE DICTIONARY AS (Web Link

“a grant or gift of money: such as:

a: a sum of money formerly granted by the British Parliament to the crown and raised by special taxation

b: money granted by one state to another

c: a grant by a government to a private person or company to assist an enterprise deemed advantageous to the public,”

As per part A of the definition, are landlords saying they are members of the British parliament or of ROYAL lineage? No, they are just regular people. As far as part B, LANDLORDS are NOT STATES, so that doesn’t work. As far as part C, a landlord is not a government agency, nor part of any government, so that doesn’t apply as well. This is just the same thing landlords try to deceive the public with the wrong use of the English language.

SIMPLY PUT YOU ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT ANY SUBSIDIES HERE. STOP TRYING TO MAKE RENT CONTROL INTO SOMETHING IT IS NOT.

AGAIN I WILL REPEAT: RENT CONTROL IS THE BARGAINING POWER OF THE BUYERS TO DRIVE A MARKET VALUE CORRECTION. IT IS NOT SUBSIDIZED HOUSING AT ALL. THAT IS NOTHING BUT A LIE. THE PORTERS 5 FORCES MODEL OF MARKETS FROM THE HARVARD BUSINESS SCHOOL SEEN HERE (Web Link MODEL BARGAINING POWER OF BUYERS ALLOWS FOR THIS METHOD OF PRICE CORRECTION. THAT’S ALL IT IS. THE SITUATION IS THAT WHEN THE BUYERS GET TOGETHER THEY CAN FORCE PRICES TO DROP. PLEASE STOP DECEIVING THE PUBLIC?

Constantly repeating a LIE will NEVER make it TRUE. The VOTERS must NOT reward such behavior.

As the article points out, landlords are shutting down their properties at a faster rate and converting them to for sale units. The authors make some excellent points and should receive a Pulitzer Prize for their efforts.

The point is that the historical research on the effect of rent control was not within current legal considerations.

It's currently illegal to remove tenants and replace existing housing without the new housing being offered at the previous rent to the previous tenant.

Any analysis or research that didn't include that particular circumstance is not applicable here. If any analysis does exist of the effect of rent control within these legal constraints, PLEASE POST A LINK.

Barring that, please stop comparing apples to oranges and claiming it's conclusive. It's ridiculous.

No on D!

I have a different reason for voting "No" on D. Read this article in the Washington Post: Web Link .

Measure V has already been proven to be sufficiently bad to encourage landlords to exit the rental business and convert their property to for-sale housing. The same thing has occurred in San Francisco, whose rent control ordinance is even stricter than Measure V.

The increase in for-sale housing has been an unintended consequence of using rent control to require property owners to provide subsidized housing to renters--eventually they get tired of providing these subsidies and they get out of the rental business by cashing out and building for-sale housing.

This consequence is good for some people and bad for others. It's bad for low-income renters that lose their housing subsidy and that can't afford to purchase housing. It's good for the renters that can manage to buy the new for-sale housing. It's good for the cities that get higher property tax revenue. It's good for the schools that get parcel taxes for each for-sale unit rather than only one parcel tax for an apartment complex.

So while it may seem counter-intuitive, the worse a rent control ordinance is, the better the overall long term benefit because of the speed in which rent-controlled housing is replaced by for-sale housing. If Measure D fails, as expected, we'll see more for-sale housing in Mountain View. The displaced tenants, that qualify, can apply for other subsidized housing through the City or non-profits.

Unfortunately, there isn't enough income-qualified subsidized affordable housing for everyone, but having landlords continue to subsidize housing via rent control is not going to be sustainable for very long without Measure D, and even Measure D is too strict. The loss of rent-controlled housing will also be an impetus for the State to step in with more funding for subsidized housing projects.

It would be wonderful if the people that believe that SB330 protects against Ellis Act conversions would actually read the law! It does provide some protections, but not to the level that some people apparently believe.

SB330 does not prohibit Ellis Act conversions if the replacement housing has greater density than what was demolished. You could not tear down an apartment complex with 100 rental units and build a new project with 100 for-sale condominiums. But as long as there are at least 101 condominiums then it's legal. Using density bonuses, a property owner could easily achieve this, without the need for any rezoning by a city. Since using the density bonus would mean that there would be BMR for-sale units, this would be a benefit, especially since those BMR units would be income-qualified.

Would a property owner tear down a 100 unit rent-controlled apartment building and build a condo project with 101 units with 15-20% BMR units? Probably, because it would still be far more profitable than owning a rent controlled apartment building. And it's fair to the property owner--they are making a boatload of money by selling the market-rate units and still not losing money on the BMR units. There are many such condominium complexes already in existence.

Would Measure D prevent such conversions? Probably not, because even market-rate rents have been coming down so eventually we'll see more conversions even in areas without rent control. But it would at least slightly reduce the incentive to do such conversions and slow them down.

mv renter: "It's currently illegal to remove tenants and replace existing housing without the new housing being offered at the previous rent to the previous tenant."

You're correct if the new housing is rental housing. That was true even before SB330.

You're incorrect if the new housing is for-sale housing. No property owner of rent-controlled housing is going to tear down rental housing and rebuild rental housing.

Contrary to what some people that have never read SB330 have stated, it is NOT illegal for the owner of a rental building to replace the rental building with new for-sale buildings, if the new buildings are higher density. What happened in Mountain View with the approval of 59 rent-controlled apartments being replaced by 55 market-rate townhouses would not be allowed. But if it were 60 market-rate townhouses, or 60 market-rate condominiums, then it would be okay.

In response to Scott Gamble you said:

“Unfortunately, there isn't enough income-qualified subsidized affordable housing for everyone, but having landlords continue to subsidize housing via rent control is not going to be sustainable for very long without Measure D, and even Measure D is too strict. The loss of rent-controlled housing will also be an impetus for the State to step in with more funding for subsidized housing projects.”

SCOTT, WHY IS THERE NOT ENOUGH INCOME QUALIFIED SUBSIDIZED AFFORDABLE HOUSING? THE PRIVATE HOUSING SECTOR PROMISED TO DO THIS SINCE 1965 WHEN THEY STARTED CONVINCING THE FEDERAL AND STATE GOVERNMENT TO PRIVATIZE THE PUBLIC HOUSING DEVELOPMENT. WHEN THE PRIVATE HOUSING SECTOR SCAMMED THE CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE IN 1995 TO PASS COSTA HAWKINS AND THE ELLIS ACTS? THE PRIVATE SECTOR CLAIMED THAT WITH THE INTRODUCTION OF SECTION 8 THEREI WOULD BE MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING? WHOSE FAULT IS IT? THE PRIVATE SECTOR DID THIS TO THEMSELVES BY MAKING FALSE CLAIMS THAT THE MARKET WILL PROVIDE HOUSING WHERE THEY MANIPUALTED THE MARKET TO THIS EXTREME SITUATION.

SCOTT, PLEASE STOP CALLING RENT CONTROL SUBSIDIZED HOUSING, BECAUSE RENT CONTROL IS NOT SUBSIDIZED HOUSING AT ALL. HOW MANY TIME D I HAVE TO PROPERLY DEFINE IT? You said:

“It would be wonderful if the people that believe that SB330 protects against Ellis Act conversions would actually read the law! It does provide some protections, but not to the level that some people apparently believe.

SB330 does not prohibit Ellis Act conversions if the replacement housing has greater density than what was demolished. You could not tear down an apartment complex with 100 rental units and build a new project with 100 for-sale condominiums. But as long as there are at least 101 condominiums then it's legal. Using density bonuses, a property owner could easily achieve this, without the need for any rezoning by a city. Since using the density bonus would mean that there would be BMR for-sale units, this would be a benefit, especially since those BMR units would be income-qualified.”

YOU ARE MAKING A MISTAKE, YES, THERE WILL BE MORE UNITS, BUT THE DISPLACED PERSONS AT LEAST IN MOUNTAIN VIEW WILL HAVE FIRST CHOICE OF THEM AND WHETHER IT IS RENT OR OWN THEY WILL PAY THE EXISTING PRICE TEY WERE PAYING. AND THIS WILL BE A MODEL FOR ALL NEW RENT CONTROL LAWS IN THE STATE BECAUSE SB330 KILLS THE ONLY WEAPON THE CAA AND CAR HAS TO IMTIMIDATE VOTERS. You said

“Would a property owner tear down a 100 unit rent-controlled apartment building and build a condo project with 101 units with 15-20% BMR units? Probably, because it would still be far more profitable than owning a rent controlled apartment building. And it's fair to the property owner--they are making a boatload of money by selling the market-rate units and still not losing money on the BMR units. There are many such condominium complexes already in existence.”

BUT 100 OF THOSE UNITS WILL STILL BE PRICE CONTROLLED, ONLY THE EXCESS UNITS CAN BE SOLD AT MARKET RATE EXCEPT FOR THE 15-20% YOU DISCUSSED. SB330 REQUIRES A 1-TO-1 REPLACEMENT IN THE PROJECT. YOU DIDN’T SEEM TO UNDERSTAND THAT PART. You said:

“Would Measure D prevent such conversions? Probably not, because even market-rate rents have been coming down so eventually we'll see more conversions even in areas without rent control. But it would at least slightly reduce the incentive to do such conversions and slow them down.”

UNDER THIS SITUATION, I SEE NO PROBLEM WITH CONVERSIONS AS LONG AS SB330 PREVENTS REMOVAL OF PEOPE BY PROVIDING STATE LAW REQUIRED SET ASIDE UNITS FOR THE CURRENT TEANTS BEING ABLE TO EITHER RENT OR BUY AT THE SAME PRICE THEY ALREADY PAY. THE NEW LAW MAKES THIS SO. You said:

“You're correct if the new housing is rental housing. That was true even before SB330.

You're incorrect if the new housing is for-sale housing. No property owner of rent-controlled housing is going to tear down rental housing and rebuild rental housing.

Contrary to what some people that have never read SB330 have stated, it is NOT illegal for the owner of a rental building to replace the rental building with new for-sale buildings, if the new buildings are higher density. What happened in Mountain View with the approval of 59 rent-controlled apartments being replaced by 55 market-rate townhouses would not be allowed. But if it were 60 market-rate townhouses, or 60 market-rate condominiums, then it would be okay.”

BUT 59 OF THOSE UNITS WILL BE SOLD OR RENTED AT THE SAME PRICE THEY ARE TODAY BECAUSE THE ORIGINAL TENANTS WILL HAVE FIRST CHOICE. AGAIN LOOK AT THE 1-TO-1 REPLACEMENT REQUIREMENT. IN EFFECT ONLY THE 60TH UNIT IS GOING TO PROVIDE A MARKET RATE RETURN. THE REST WILL HAVE TO BE OFFERED TO EXISTING TENANTS AS THE SAME PRICE THEY PAY TODAY. THE DEVELOPERS ARE PROBABLY NOT GOING TO DO THIS.

Scott Gamble makes some good points about how Measure D would make it less likely for apartment building owners to displace existing residents that are receiving subsidized housing.

Everyone agrees that rent control has long-term negative effects, while also providing some short-term relief. A study by Stanford academics concludes "We found that landlords actively respond to the imposition of rent control by converting their properties to condos and TICs or by redeveloping the building in such as a way as to exempt it from the regulations. In sum, we found that impacted landlords reduced the supply of available rental housing by 15%. Further, we found that there was a 25% decline in the number of renters living in units protected by rent control, as many buildings were converted to new construction or condos that are exempt from rent control."

Most of the tenants that will be displaced if Measure D fails will not have the financial resources to purchase one of the for-sale units that will replace the older rent-controlled housing. The displacement and gentrification that is caused by rent control has been researched for decades and there is no getting around the fact that the stricter the rent control the more likely displacement will occur.

If Measure D passes it will slow displacement slightly, but eventually it will occur anyway. I voted for it because it will at least slow displacement a little. I doubt if it will pass because trying to explain to people why it might be better to allow property owners to properly maintain their properties is difficult. There are too many uneducated people spreading falsehoods about Measure D, as we have seen in many of these comments.

Pick a fake name and stick to it, "Tom." Or was it Herb Masterson? Or Harold Dennison? Frank Iverson? Landlords are a desperate, unethical bunch.

In response to Tom Halstrom you said:

“Everyone agrees that rent control has long-term negative effects, while also providing some short-term relief.”

NOT EVERYONE. YOU WOULD HAVE TO PROVE THAT 100% OF ALL ECONOMISTS WOULD HAVE TO AGREE WITH THIS. The simple truth is the ECONOMICS science has been proven to be tainted, and cannot be PROVEN to be even CORRECT. I PROVIDED THE FOLLWING PROOF:


Also when the science itself is rife with corruption enough as demonstrated in this video (Web Link where an “Expert” had to reverse his statements, but after he admitted he used skewed information provided the banks he was told to study. The Banks that were members of the Iceland Chamber of Commerce who paid him to write the research. He didn’t bother to get independent verification about the information the banks gave him.

At the same time the video seen here (Web Link shows the head of the Columbia College of Economics head caught having a conflict of interest, and responding quite unprofessionally. When the economic scientists are caught, they simply will try to say, “You just don’t understand economics”, or “Who are you to question my expertise”, or do what this person did on video.

In the really scary part about the situation is that these people who were the navigators of the Titanic disaster of The Great Recession instead of having to account for their actions were rewarded instead. You said:

“A study by Stanford academics concludes "We found that landlords actively respond to the imposition of rent control by converting their properties to condos and TICs or by redeveloping the building in such as a way as to exempt it from the regulations. In sum, we found that impacted landlords reduced the supply of available rental housing by 15%. Further, we found that there was a 25% decline in the number of renters living in units protected by rent control, as many buildings were converted to new construction or condos that are exempt from rent control."”

THAT REPORT WAS DONE IN 2018, AND DOES NOT DEAL WITH THE NEW LAWS LIKE SB330. THUS ITS CONCLUSIONS ARE NOW INAPPLICABLE. WHERE IS THE NEW RESEARCH? You said:

“Most of the tenants that will be displaced if Measure D fails will not have the financial resources to purchase one of the for-sale units that will replace the older rent-controlled housing.”

IF THEY PAY TE SAME PRICE AS THEY DO NOW THEY CAN. IN FACT IF IT IS OWNERSHIP, THE MORTGAGES CANNOT INCREASE IN ANY WAY. I AM CERTAIN THERE WILL BE AVENUES TO GET UNDERWITING FOR A MORTGAGE. I WILL NOT BE SURPISED IF THECOMMUNITY MIGHT CREATE FUNDING TO ESTABLISH IT. SO FOR EXAMPLE IF SOMEONE PAYS $2000 A MONTH IN RENT, THE HOME PRICE WILL HAVE TO BE $300,000 IF YOU HAVE A POOR CREDIT, NO DOWN PAYMENT, AND AT LEAST $1000 MONTHLY EXPENSES CALCULATED HERE (Web Link IF THIS IS THE CASE EXPECT ONLY $300,000 AS A PRICE CONTROLLED REQUIREMENT. SO THAT IS JUST AN ODD THING TO SAY. You said:

“The displacement and gentrification that is caused by rent control has been researched for decades and there is no getting around the fact that the stricter the rent control the more likely displacement will occur.”

THE RESEARCH YOU DISCUSS HAS ALWAYS BEEN FUNDED BY OPPOSITION TO RENT CONTROL, AND PERFORMED BY THOSE WHO ARE BIASED AGAINST RENT CONTROL, THEY WILL SAY ANYTHING TO JUSTIFY THEIR DESIRED OUTCOME. THIS IS WHY INSIDE JOB THE MOVIE DID SUCH A GOOD JOB AND DEMOSTRATING THAT THESE EXPERTS CAN AND ARE WRONG IN MANY WAYS. You said:

“If Measure D passes it will slow displacement slightly, but eventually it will occur anyway. I voted for it because it will at least slow displacement a little.”

IN FACT IT WILL ACCELERATE DISPLACEMENT BY ALLOWING RENT INCREASES WITHOUT ANY PETITION HEARINGS A WRITTEN IN THE MEASURE. WHERE ARE YOU GETTING THIS IDEA? You said

“ I doubt if it will pass because trying to explain to people why it might be better to allow property owners to properly maintain their properties is difficult. There are too many uneducated people spreading falsehoods about Measure D, as we have seen in many of these comments.”

PLEASE DEMONSTRATE WITH EVIDENCE ANY FALSE STATEMENTS BEING MADE. IT IS IN FACT THAT IT HAS BEEN DEMONSTRATED THAT THOSE SUPPORTING MEASURE D HAVE MARKETED FALSE INFORMATION FROM THE VERY BEGINNING. YOUR ONLY RESPONSE, CLAIM THE FACT CHECKERS ARE “LIEING”, BAD LOGIC.

Well it does look like the city voted it down by almost a 2 to 1 vote ratio