Thank you Joe for your prompt and decisive leadership in the midst of this crisis. Hoping it will inspire the Mountain View City Council .... which as of now is not scheduled to meet until April 14 !!!

This is a PERFECT example that there is no representations provided by any City Council members. Just watch, they City Council will try to not comply with the County under this new rule.

Simply put NO CITY COUNCIL CANDIDATE that gets ANY support from the City of Mountain View Chamber of Commerce can be allowed to be elected. The Chamber of commerce is a private TRADE group and not any part of any government.

NOOR should any support from either any Realtor group or Realtor or any apartment management group or association.

The facts are these organizations CORRUPT the City Council completely as long as their paid for REPRESENTAITVES namely Margaret Abe Koga, Lisa Matichak, John McAllister or Chris Clark should ever be in the City Council EVER again.

The fact is these people have not the knowledge or the leadership to be in any position to manage the City of Mountain View. The only people that should hold office must have actual government experience or trained with real education regarding governmental management. Otherwise you get nothing but garbage from the City Council.

Also, I strongly urge that we elect only candidates that will sign a contract that is binding to never deviate or try to evade the City Charter. There is no reason not to and it can be enforceable by the people of the City of Mountain View.

The fact is the City Council up to this point has been nothing but a sham. Granted there have been those who tried to do their work but they are overpowered by the private money interests and have been for more than 20 years.

Time for the people to stop believing in the LIES that Margaret Abe Koga and Lisa Matichak must not ever sit on the Council again.

The article reports that the county law applies to all cities in the county. That is not ordinarily the province of the county board of supervisors - but could be under the Governor's emergency order. I would need to read the staff report for the agenda item. The article also reports that the moratorium applies even to commercial evictions. Quite a mess.

In response to Gary you said :

“The article reports that the county law applies to all cities in the county. That is not ordinarily the province of the county board of supervisors - but could be under the Governor's emergency order.”

So you are trying to find a loophole to avoid compliance already. WOW you said:

“I would need to read the staff report for the agenda item.”

What AGENDA item? Here we go again, the City is simply opposed to doing what is simply a required act until this crisis is over. Unbelievable. Please provide us some kind of justification other than simply because the landlords are going to suffer from a rent holiday. In fact Fannie Mae and Mac is instituting a mortgage holiday for multifamily units as long as no attempts to evict tenants are instituted. Thus those landlords should be providing a rent holiday as well.

That means the big chunk of loans are being given a holiday. WHY IS THE REST NOT DOING THE SAME? This doesn’t seem to make any sense to have the City trying to protect “landlords” when they are in fact being given a mortgage holiday or should be given the circumstances. Those who could not get a “conventional” mortgage were gambling at risk so high that “conventional” underwriters rejected the applications. Gary you are losing any basis for not taking this course of action. Then you said:

“The article also reports that the moratorium applies even to commercial evictions. Quite a mess.”

This is the NEW REALITY for now. The VIRUS is a mess, and there is no short cutting the economic impact. If we want to maintain the control over infections, the shelter in place cannot stop until the treatment and vaccines have been made and proven to work. Please explain what other option do we have?

@The Business Man What is all of that? I did not state I favored or opposed any action. I just suggested the action taken should be read directly. The County Board of Supervisors met today. Supervisors had an agenda. I have not checked to see if this item was on it or added at the meeting. Either way, there will be a staff report. Plus, the video of the meeting will become available. So check it if you are interested. The article reports that the county's action applies to cities - including Mountain View. If so, no further action is needed from the Mountain View City Council right away. But do plan on living rent free. The county action referenced in the article just delays when rent must be paid - under pain of eviction.

In response to Gary you said:

“@The Business Man What is all of that?”

It is a commentary on the way the STRUCTURE of the City of Mountain View is designed so that the Citizens are not at all represented by the City Council. It is nothing but a board of directors of a private corporation as a “Charter” city and that is in fact not a government at all. But the people of Mountain View have not been given the truth in this matter. You said:

“I did not state I favored or opposed any action.”

Actually you have always implied that your interests are with the private home or apartment renters. Please make you position clear? On many occasions you have made arguments as a “private” property rights advocate, and as I have demonstrated in the past that is nothing but a political argument that there is no such thing under the state and federal constitutions. You said:

“I just suggested the action taken should be read directly. The County Board of Supervisors met today. Supervisors had an agenda. I have not checked to see if this item was on it or added at the meeting.”

So now you are going to argue that my original idea that the City Council taking action not on an agenda item is not going to be used against the County by the City? Now isn’t that interesting? You said:

“Either way, there will be a staff report.”

Again, WHY? Unless it is the intent of the City to NOT follow the order? You said:

“Plus, the video of the meeting will become available. So check it if you are interested.”

I will, but I have noticed that you are not addressing my points, but trying to distract the people’s attention. You said:

“The article reports that the county's action applies to cities - including Mountain View. If so, no further action is needed from the Mountain View City Council right away.”

So you are in fact advocating the “pass the buck” mentality of the City. That City Citizens deserve MUCH better leadership and management of the City. This is NO EXCUSE for the fact that the City would rather act as a private company and advocate the private interests even when the City Council swore to uphold a code of conduct that prohibits this. No, the reality is that the City is not a government and does not represent the citizens. There is NO provision in the City Charter that makes this clear. My point is that the City Charter needs an amendment barring any appearance of any advocacy of any private interests. You said:

“But do plan on living rent free. The county action referenced in the article just delays when rent must be paid - under pain of eviction.”

My objective is not to live “rent-free” unless the situation is so extreme. But you are losing the point, if landlords or businesses are given a mortgage holiday that is tied to not requiring payments of rent, so be it. Again, until the VIRUS is under REAL control, the fact is all business is suffering, I lost my new job because of this VIRUS.

I was working on my move when the World Health Organization made the proclamation of the World Health Emergency on January 30. I was working up to February 20 to try to get quotes for my move, but by then the problem had made manifest and I couldn’t act. If I did, I would have wound up without any place to stay, and only I would only have my belongings that were in 3 suitcases.

So don’t even try to make it “appear” I am trying to “get off” not being responsible enough to pay my rent. Nice try. You have no idea what it is like to be directly impacted SEVERELY by this VIRUS mismanagement by the U.S. health system. The simple truth is that this mess is far more serious and will continue to be until the VIRUS has a proven treatment/cure AND a vaccine.

NO, the City of Mountain View City Council has no understanding at all regarding how a REAL government is required to act because it is a FAKE one as a CHARTER City.

The article has a link to the county moratorium ordinance. It does not explain how the county has jurisdiction in incorporated parts of the county (within cities). But assume it does. The ordinance restricts a landlord's ability to terminate a tenancy for non-repayment of rent or in response to the tenant's exercise of any rjght(s) under the ordinance. It initially applies through May 31. The tenant has the burden of demonstrating to the landlord (and in an eviction case if filed) that the tenant lost "substantial" income or incurred substantial expenses stemming for the Covid-19 pandemic. It also requires that any 3-day or other termination notice recite the tenant's rights under the ordinance. Figure landlords will refer to the ordinance and attach a copy. In response, the tenant would need to present to the landlord evidence of the requisite inability or decreased ability to pay the amount of rent due or past due. Rent is not waived. Landlords can sue for unpaid rent and/or eventually return to using the eviction (unlawful detainer) procedure to collect any and all past due rent. So only tenants who really cannot find the money to pay rent should use this restricted option of paying later. Any tenant considering use of the ordinance should read it first.

In response to Gary that said:

“The article has a link to the county moratorium ordinance. It does not explain how the county has jurisdiction in incorporated parts of the county (within cities).”

Again you fall back on the idea that the City WILL try to evade this order. You said:

“But assume it does. The ordinance restricts a landlord's ability to terminate a tenancy for non-repayment of rent or in response to the tenant's exercise of any rjght(s) under the ordinance. It initially applies through May 31. The tenant has the burden of demonstrating to the landlord (and in an eviction case if filed) that the tenant lost "substantial" income or incurred substantial expenses stemming for the Covid-19 pandemic. “

I would like to know where in the order did it say that the tenant bears the burden you claim. The only area it makes any requirements regarding the teants are this :

“For this Section to apply, a Tenant must demonstrate through documentation or other objectively verifiable means: (l) Substantial loss of income from: (i) job loss; (ii) layoffs; (iii) a reduction in the number of compensable hours of work; (iv) a store, restaurant, office, or business closure; (v) a substantial decrease in business income caused by a reduction in opening hours or consumer demand; (vi) the need to miss work to care for a homebound school-age child or a family member infected with coronavirus; or (vii) other similarly-caused loss of income, where the conditions listed in (i) through (vii) resulted frorn the 2020 COVID-19 pandernic or related guidance or public health orders from local, State, or federal authorities; or”

That is not a “burden” at all. The reality is that this evidentiary standard only means that for example if a person was offered a job, but was required to move to another state like Hawaii for instance, that the health situation directly prevented being able to act on it. Emails regarding the circumstances of the delay beyond the health requirements easily can be produced. That this is enough “evidence” to prove that COVID 19 prevented employment, thus limited income significantly. You should have seen this. You are just trying to misinform the public here. So you’re just trying to intimidate the City. You said:

“It also requires that any 3-day or other termination notice recite the tenant's rights under the ordinance.”

I don’t know about that since the order said this:

“(3) This prohibition shall also apply to an Owner's action that constitutes constructive eviction under California law. The Owner shall immediately correct any conditions of the property that could be considered to constitute cause for a constructive eviction under California law.

(4) An Owner's failure to comply with this Ordinance shall render any notice of termination of Tenancy, where the termination would be in violation of this Section, void. Any notice of termination served on a Tenant during the2020 COVID-l9 pandemic must contain the reason for the termination of Tenancy. Any notice of termination served on a Tenant during the2020 COVID-I9 pandemic must also include a notice of Tenant's rights under this Ordinance as well as a notice of emergency rental assistance programs. These notices shall be provided on a form approved by the Santa Clara County Office Supportive Housing. An Owner's failure to comply with this Ordinance shall render any notice of termination of Tenancy, where the termination would be in violation of this Section, void.”

Also it states:

“Upon expiration or termination of this Ordinance, a Tenant who demonstrated substantial loss of income or substantial out-of-pocket medical expenses as required under this Ordinance shall pay all past due Rent within 120 days from the date of expiration of this Ordinance.”

Thus back paid rent will be allowed to be repaid as long as 4 months after the order is rescinded. It is NOT IMMEDIATE. You again are trying to mislead the City. You should have seen this. It also stated:

“(9) Whenever an Owner endeavors to recover possession or recovers possession of Residential Real Property or Commercial Real Property in violation of this Ordinance, retaliates against a Tenant for the exercise of any rights under this Ordinance, or attempts to prevent a Tenant from acquiring any rights herein, the Tenant may institute a civil proceeding for injunctive relief, money damages of not more than three times actual damages (including damages for mental or emotional distress), and whatever other relief the court deems appropriate. In the case of an award of damages for mental or emotional distress, said award shall only be trebled if the trier of fact finds that the Owner acted in knowing violation of or in reckless disregard of the limitations of this Ordinance. The prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees and costs pursuant to order of the court.”

So trying to be abusive in any way will result in eventual large liability for trying to take advantage of the current crisis. You should have seen this. It also said:

“(10) An Owner may not charge or collect a late fee for Rent that is delayed during this Ordinance and for a period of 120 days thereafter.”

So the City should be made aware of this right, and you should have seen this too. You went on to say:

“Figure landlords will refer to the ordinance and attach a copy. In response, the tenant would need to present to the landlord evidence of the requisite inability or decreased ability to pay the amount of rent due or past due.”

Again, the level of proof is very lowe here, so this claim though accurate is not making any sense. Especially given that you haven’t even seemed to read the order You said:

“Rent is not waived. Landlords can sue for unpaid rent and/or eventually return to using the eviction (unlawful detainer) procedure to collect any and all past due rent.”

That is accurate EXCEPT for as long as the order is still in effect AND after 120 days after the order is rescinded. THEN the landlords can act in the manner you speak. Otherwise, any 3 day notices filed during the order are nothing but a violation of the order and intentional emotional distress which under the order the Landlord is liable for it. You should have seem this. You said:

“So only tenants who really cannot find the money to pay rent should use this restricted option of paying later. Any tenant considering use of the ordinance should read it first.”

I have given the public the relevant text now found here (Web Link . So what is your explanation for trying to mislead the City?

The simple issue is that many landlords are ZOMBIE companies meaning the get by with cash flow, but not enough to get them out of debt. Is that the fault of the tenants? Of course not, the poor management and poor decisions inflating the cost of operation is the problem and the landlords do not want to take responsibility for it. It is very likely if all tenants took advantage of this order, these landlords would be bankrupt. That is why Gary writes his comments.

As I stated, any tenant thinking of not paying rent should read the ordinance first. It provides what I stated. But no one should rely on my explanation or that of some BUSINESS MAN. Read it.

Gary, this is where I am in full agreement.

ALL TENANTS SHOULD SEEK COUNSEL FROM AN ATTORNEY TO SEEK ADVICE.

Neither of us are judges, nor trained attorneys so it would be a GREAT idea to get expert advice.

Gary, what you tried to do is make yourself an expert analyst.

I simply pointed out that you were not being complete in your presentation.

I am not an expert analyst either.

But what would it look like if the City of Mountain View as a whole pulled a rent strike under this situation?

I think that is what your most concerned about, the likelihood of a mass rent strike, thus driving the landlords out of business.

@ The business man Good that we agree tenants should read the ordinance and seek legal advice if they wish to use it to not pay (all or part of) the rent. As to a "rent strike" you suggest could drive landlords out of business that could be a problem. Without landlords, there would be no tenants. Let's use your closest neighboring tenant as an example to discuss the new way of life you seem to suddenly favor. Why should your neighbor have any "right" to occupy the property (rental unit) in preference to, let's say, 2 or 3 persons otherwise homeless? Does a tenant have some "property right" to remain? Where does that "right" come from? From the point of view of the best interests of the community, wouldn't it be better if your neighbor got out and 2-3 others had the unit as a place to live? How about your neighbor leaves so we can bring in a couple of nurses or school teachers to live there rent free instead? Are you saying the City Council should pass a law eliminating rent and choosing who could occupy rental units? Or are you saying it is FIRST COME, FIRST AND FOREVER SERVED?

In response to Gary you said:

“As to a "rent strike" you suggest could drive landlords out of business that could be a problem. Without landlords, there would be no tenants.”

Actually if the landlords go bankrupt, the lenders or creditors take over. The landlords are left with whatever the bankruptcy court will provide them. THEY AREN’T CRITICAL to providing housing at all. So let’s just say landlords have an inflated perception of their value. You said:

“Let's use your closest neighboring tenant as an example to discuss the new way of life you seem to suddenly favor. Why should your neighbor have any "right" to occupy the property (rental unit) in preference to, let's say, 2 or 3 persons otherwise homeless?”

The idea you are arguing is simply a distraction. When a landlord has managed themselves so poorly they need bailouts to survive, this is where Alan Greenspan would argue that this is the “moral hazard” of being in business. You simply cannot socialize your losses if you want private gains. And you know it. As far as saying:

“Does a tenant have some "property right" to remain? Where does that "right" come from?”

Yes they do as long as the laws or circumstances establish them. He simple facts are the teants have no responsibility for the failure of their property owners lack of judgement that leads them to ruin. You know this. You said:

“From the point of view of the best interests of the community, wouldn't it be better if your neighbor got out and 2-3 others had the unit as a place to live?”

It depends on if the “unit” is of 3 bedrooms, but if it has only one than the most you would expect is 2 persons. No this is just you trying to distract the readers. You said:

“How about your neighbor leaves so we can bring in a couple of nurses or school teachers to live there rent free instead?”

That is a false premise because you then want to make it so only those of certain professions are allowed housing. Again nothing but a distraction from the real problems and the results we are having to address. You said:

“Are you saying the City Council should pass a law eliminating rent and choosing who could occupy rental units? Or are you saying it is FIRST COME, FIRST AND FOREVER SERVED?”

Actually, that has been ALWAYS the business rule when it comes to housing. As long as the current crisis exists, no one should be allowed to be evicted. And if a person choses to stay in a unit, as long as the laws allow it, YES they can stay forever. It is the RESPONSIBILITY at this time for the PRIVATE HOUSING sector to create new housing and not depend of customer turnover. That works regarding say electronics because electronics products are not bought based on a REAL lifetime expectation, but not housing because it inherently is able to be a REAL lifetime arrangement. That is a REAL situation.

Again, you are demonstrating that if the City were to organize and act on a mass rent strike, you are in no position to fight back because the owners appear to be operating ZOMBIE companies and simply are that vulnerable to collapsing.

In response to The Business Man you said:

"Gary, this is where I am in full agreement.

ALL TENANTS SHOULD SEEK COUNSEL FROM AN ATTORNEY TO SEEK ADVICE.

Neither of us are judges, nor trained attorneys so it would be a GREAT idea to get expert advice.

Gary, what you tried to do is make yourself an expert analyst.

I simply pointed out that you were not being complete in your presentation.

I am not an expert analyst either."

I think all of us readers here at the voice agree with you on this one.

So what is the point of spending countless hours writing essays citing memorandums and nitpicked parts of the order? To prove a point...?

As you said you are not an expert, nor a trained attorney, but yet you want to provide a detailed analysis of an order on a public forum...Then you proceed to argue with someone because they implied their stance?
Come on, you are only contributing to the spread misinformation.(If not leading it)

Also, continuously bringing up parts of the order to force your point of view onto others shows that your focus is not on the issue at hand but in the need to be right.

In response to Posted by A annoying dude you said:

“So what is the point of spending countless hours writing essays citing memorandums and nitpicked parts of the order? To prove a point...?”

WRONG, it is to rebut the claims made by those who are wanting to manipulate others to not seek expert advices and simply follow their instructions. I simply have the right to prevent the imbalanced and not necessarily correct information from monopolizing on the topic. I am not making any claims but advising the people to get the right advice. I have an obligation as a citizen to do this you said:

“As you said you are not an expert, nor a trained attorney, but yet you want to provide a detailed analysis of an order on a public forum...Then you proceed to argue with someone because they implied their stance?”

I do so because I want to distinguish my actions from those that simply “imply” that their point of view is from some authority. Again, it is an obligation to act where you see that people are making claims that aren’t necessarily correct and are trying to influence the people from seeking out their legal rights under the current situation, case closed. You said:

“Come on, you are only contributing to the spread misinformation.(If not leading it)”

Please indicate any information I used that is misinformation, I have in the past apologized whenever I make a mistake, but I have seen others absolutely never do the same. That is all I ask you said:

“Also, continuously bringing up parts of the order to force your point of view onto others shows that your focus is not on the issue at hand but in the need to be right.”

I am only ensuring that the people have the information they need to balance out the LACK of information being presented by those that are simply trying to “CONvince” the public to behave in the way they want to DICTATE. I am not trying to mandate anyone’s actions, but you simply will never understand this. To you, my writing is “UNFAIR” and “UNBALANCED” because it does not agree with you.

They are also kicking the can up to the property owners who still must pay steep property taxes. Can they also defer property tax payments for those property owners who are family run (not big corporations)? My good friend is an elderly woman who relies on her rental income for her monthly expenses.

"rent relief", renter submits paperwork, when approved, the money is paid directly to the landord/property manager. Get a receipt "rent paid for unit# etc.

Again, I am in agreement in making it a "win/Win"

Make it so that ALL mortgages are on a payment holiday, which will not be required to do a catch up after the crisis is over.

Also do the same for all property taxes at the same time.

In doing so, hold all interest from the mortgages as well, the property owners should not be penalized regarding this situation.

By doing so, the only costs for these properties will be that of maintenance. This can be subsidized temporarily so as to negate all costs of operation for homeowners and properties that are rented out. Thus there is NO LOSS.

If this is not done, there is no way for the system to sustain itself under these circumstances. Sometimes it is better to put a temporary hold on the process than letting it fall apart out of control.

Then simultaneously provide that no rents be required since these businesses have no expenses. There is in fact NO LOSS to these businesses.

AGAIN we are in a HISTORIC HEALTH CRISIS and thus we need a HISTORIC ACTIONS THAT HAVE NEVER BEEN SEEN BEFORE.

Why is it so hard to do the right thing? It seems almost a clearly simple situation.

We now have more than 1 million new jobless people, and as long as this situation continues, this will continue to increase. And again, THERE IS NO TREATMENTS OR CURE IN SIGHT RIGHT NOW. Anyone claiming that we have the situation under control is simply delusional, or in a state of denial.

Why is it so difficult to take the proper actions? I am so confused.

It’s interesting that the county operates from a position that the landlord is flush with cash and capable of holding and maintaining the property without rent payments. A Robin Hood mentality without any informed basis. Not to mention that property rights are being completely ignored...

In response to Gh22 you said:

“It’s interesting that the county operates from a position that the landlord is flush with cash and capable of holding and maintaining the property without rent payments.”

The County is having to weigh the life of citizens versus money in this situation. Simply put you do not have a constitutional right to money. But there is a constitutional right to life. At the same time, if the Congress or the State or the County, or a City would do what I just suggested your argument is completely without merit. You went on to say:

“A Robin Hood mentality without any informed basis. Not to mention that property rights are being completely ignored...”

Here is some information to consider the U.S. Constitution states this:

“Preamble

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

Does this declare ANY property rights? No it doesn’t. And since it comes as the FIRST paragraph of the U.S. Constitution, it must be considered supreme over any other aspect of the U.S. Constitution.

Yes the 5th Amendment states:

“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

It does not guaranty any specific values regarding property. It in fact says that government can in fact seize property under emergencies like the OVID 19 state of emergency. And so let’s stop thinking that a property owner possesses any special rights because they really don’t exist. Legislation is a form of due process, thus the County acting the way it did does not violate the due process clause, nor is it taking property for public use. Even so, the Preamble is superior over the 5th Amendment, thus under these circumstances since there was a declaration of emergency by the President, puts on hold the bill of rights in general.

As far as the California Constitution it states:

PREAMBLE:

We, the People of the State of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure and perpetuate its blessings, do establish this Constitution.”

The Constitution says:

“ARTICLE I DECLARATION OF RIGHTS [SECTION 1 - SEC. 32] ( Article 1 adopted 1879. ) SECTION 1.

All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.”

The clause does not state any special rights regarding property other than the acquisition, the possessing and protecting property. No other rights are allowed here. In this case no one is interfering with any of these aspects. Under this crisis the County did not impair acquisition did it? Did it in fact take possession of that property? NO it did not. Are you allowed to protect your property? That can be considered yes. Your property is not threatened regarding any damages is it? And no, you cannot claim that “equity” is a recognized damage because that is subject to an arbitrary opinion unless it is performed scientifically. So that does not apply in this case. The Constitution states:

“SEC. 7. (a) A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws; …”

Again the due process clause is satisfied where there is a hearing held where both parties are provided an opportunity to state their case. That occurred here, there was due process. Thus this aspect of the California constitution does not provide any special rights to those who own property.

The California constitution has no provision regarding private property and fair rate of return, it has been a principle of the courts, but not either a statutory or constitutional issue. You can read up on it form here (Web Link And the courts under this situation will be VERY unlikely to claim that the current state of emergency would NOT be of a legitimate interest for any legislative body to impose an EMERGENCY CONTROL on this situation.

Well it looks like the new Coronavirus Stimulus package includes renter’s protection. Specifically it prevents evictions from late payments.

If you read this article from CNN titled “What's in the $2 trillion coronavirus stimulus bill “ found here (Web Link it states:

“Protections against foreclosures and evictions

The bill includes housing protections against foreclosures on mortgages and evictions for renters.

The bill states that anyone facing a financial hardship from coronavirus shall be given a forbearance on a federally backed mortgage loan of up to 60 days, which can be extended for four periods of 30 days each. The legislation says that servicers of federally backed mortgage loans may not begin the foreclosure process for 60 days from March 18.

The bill also does not allow fees, penalties or additional interest to be charged as a result of delayed payments. It includes similar protections for those with multifamily federal mortgage loans, allowing them to receive a 30-day forbearance and up to two 30-day extensions.

THOSE WITH FEDERALLY BACKED MORTGAGE LOANS WHO HAVE TENANTS WOULD ALSO NOT BE ALLOWED TO EVICT TENANTS SOLELY FOR FAILURE TO PAY RENT FOR A 120-DAY PERIOD, AND THEY MAY NOT CHARGE FEES OR PENALTIES TO TENANTS FOR FAILING TO PAY RENT.

Please read the following article titled “The Coronavirus Stimulus Bill Would Halt Evictions and Foreclosures “ found here (Web Link It states:

“Protections against foreclosures and evictions

The bill includes housing protections against foreclosures on mortgages and evictions for renters.

The bill states that anyone facing a financial hardship from coronavirus shall be given a forbearance on a federally backed mortgage loan of up to 60 days, which can be extended for four periods of 30 days each. The legislation says that servicers of federally backed mortgage loans may not begin the foreclosure process for 60 days from March 18.

The bill also does not allow fees, penalties or additional interest to be charged as a result of delayed payments. It includes similar protections for those with multifamily federal mortgage loans, allowing them to receive a 30-day forbearance and up to two 30-day extensions.

THOSE WITH FEDERALLY BACKED MORTGAGE LOANS WHO HAVE TENANTS WOULD ALSO NOT BE ALLOWED TO EVICT TENANTS SOLELY FOR FAILURE TO PAY RENT FOR A 120-DAY PERIOD, AND THEY MAY NOT CHARGE FEES OR PENALTIES TO TENANTS FOR FAILING TO PAY RENT.”

So under these conditions renters have a right to know if any federal assistance was used to either purchase or remortgage a building. Under this situation if any landlord is under this situation the law will effect your practices.

So Gary, does this in effect overrule your claim that if we fail to pay rent we are subject to eviction?

I am going to ask my landlord if he got any financing provided by and federal programs. OR ANY TAX BENEFITS FROM THE GOVERNMENT because it will in effect force him to NOT evict anyone for failure to pay rent.

"Imagine there are no possessions. I wonder if you can." Who sang that song? It is different from what "THE BUSINESS MAN" now seems to advocate: that he has the right to remain in exclusive possession of an apartment - as against anyone else who might want to live there - forever and without ever paying another dime in rent - at least until he can and wishes to pay something. The Business Man is claiming a right to property (exclusive possession and use) based on being there. Might not hold up in court - not for long. The United States Constitution not only recognizes a right to "property" which, by court decisions, cannot be taken by action of government without just compensation (money or other property) but also provides that a state may not impair the obligations of contracts. Ours is a system of private property interests. A tenancy is an interest in real property stemming from a contract which usually requires the payment of rent. The idea that a man or woman may rent a place and then stop paying rent FOREVER if he or she prefers - is not about the abolition of property interests but the theft of property by a occupant. That is not to say, of course, that there can be no government limits on rents or evictions or in times of crisis. But free housing for life for The Business Man? Let's put it to a vote. In Mountain View, it might be 1 IN FAVOR and 35,000 AGAINST. If we jnclude people who want to live here, the vote could be even more lopsided. But The Business Man calls for no vote - just to be given the apartment he occupies rent free and for life. And he may wish the same for other tenants. When you can't or won't pay the rent, you become the new owner. Even John Lennon would have to laugh - if only he had lived this long.

In response to Gary you said:

“It is different from what "THE BUSINESS MAN" now seems to advocate: that he has the right to remain in exclusive possession of an apartment - as against anyone else who might want to live there - forever and without ever paying another dime in rent - at least until he can and wishes to pay something.”

Nice try, I am happy to pay my rent. But since the VIRUS forced me out of my job, I am entitield to this kind of protection. So maybe you should be more angry about the complete failure of the U.S. Government in taking the right steps starting on January 30, which resulted in the disaster we are in today. You said:

“The Business Man is claiming a right to property (exclusive possession and use) based on being there. Might not hold up in court - not for long. The United States Constitution not only recognizes a right to "property" which, by court decisions, cannot be taken by action of government without just compensation (money or other property) but also provides that a state may not impair the obligations of contracts.”

But I have a month to month contract, and as long as there are lawful allowances and I comply with my contract, I can in fact STAY INDEFINITLEY. Because I am not the government. You said:

“Ours is a system of private property interests. A tenancy is an interest in real property stemming from a contract which usually requires the payment of rent.”

At least for now and until the crisis is over that may not be true. It will not be indefinite, maybe in about a year or two we will have a cure or a vaccine or both. But you are again complaining about the wrong problem. Sorry. You said:

“The idea that a man or woman may rent a place and then stop paying rent FOREVER if he or she prefers - is not about the abolition of property interests but the theft of property by a occupant.”

I NEVER said that and you know it. I stated only what the law states which as of now does allow any tenats to delay payment as long as they are in a apartment or house that was purchased using a government insured mortgage. WHERE IN THE WORLD DID I SAY YOU CAN STOP PAYING FOREVER. You are such a deceptive source of information. You said:

“That is not to say, of course, that there can be no government limits on rents or evictions or in times of crisis. But free housing for life for The Business Man? Let's put it to a vote. In Mountain View, it might be 1 IN FAVOR and 35,000 AGAINST.”

Why are you singling me out? I again never claimed the right to live an an apartment rent free forever. But as long as this Crisis exists there will be protections that will extend until the VIRUS is under control or eliminated. Please stop trying to make up a story that I never argued. You said:

“If we jnclude people who want to live here, the vote could be even more lopsided.”

Those who do not live in Mountain View do not have a vote where are you coming from here? You said:

“But The Business Man calls for no vote - just to be given the apartment he occupies rent free and for life. And he may wish the same for other tenants. When you can't or won't pay the rent, you become the new owner. Even John Lennon would have to laugh - if only he had lived this long.”

Stop trying to make up a stupid claim that I argued for indefinite free rent? You know that is a very BIG LIE. I never stated and would never support such a stupid idea. But you are again trying to distract the people and get them so angry at the wrong cause of the problem. And trying to say that a person who can’t or won’t pay becomes an owner of a property is simply crazy and nothing but a distraction. You know that is nothing but a distraction again. THE VIRUS IS THE PROBLEM.

I think your starting to get a little unhinged at this time.

I only read comments by The Business Man when they are a single paragraph, maybe two, which means I never read his comments.

Well, in defense of The Business Man, he was just trying to say that he only proposed a rent waiver (not just an eviction moratorium) in a time like this - at least for tenants that run out of money. I think that was it. As to the current action by the County Board of Supervisors, all unpaid rent will need to be paid after May 31 within 4 months. So, tenants who can pay, should pay.

In response to Gary you said:

“Well, in defense of The Business Man, he was just trying to say that he only proposed a rent waiver (not just an eviction moratorium) in a time like this - at least for tenants that run out of money.”

NO. This situation is THAT severe that trying to make it so it applies only to those with NO money will not work. You are setting people up to be homeless because there still IS NO END IN SIGHT.

There is no CURE nor any VACCINE.

And where they have NO MONEY. Means they have NO FOOD OR OTHER CRITICLE SERVICES. Do you think that is realistic?

The facts are the military should have taken over the grocery stores and started provide food for free and limiting “hoarding” on Jan 30, 2020 when the WHO issued the global pandemic declaration, and housing costs should have been ceased as well. Again this situation is THAT EXTREME and THAT ONGOING. You still aren’t understand the total picture or you want to avoid it. You said:

“I think that was it. As to the current action by the County Board of Supervisors, all unpaid rent will need to be paid after May 31 within 4 months. So, tenants who can pay, should pay.”

If we are looking at 1 year’s length of this disease being in control, all you’re doing is killing people because they are without an income, and they are spending money they will need for food. WHAT AN UNBELIEVABLY POOR IDEA. The Federal laws in the new stimulus goes much further already, but the County is going to have to extend that order in any case, prior to it expiring. They need that money to keep themselves alive.

Gary, what you are really saying is that you expect that the Real Estate market takes precedence over people’s lives. Aren’t you willing to understand the seriousness of what we are in?

Simply put, we are NOT getting close to being BACK to NORMAL for an indefinite period. WHEN are people like you finally going to accept that this is going to be a long-term problem and will not “fix” itself? All we are seeing in the “investment” world is hanging on unsubstantiated hope that the disease will solve itself. SCIENCE clearly says that is not going to happen.

There’s a lot of ranting here. Slow down people.

I can’t possibly read all of this thread but I want to say that many people have mortgages and all landlords have property tax too, and that rent pays for the property that renters are using so there should be some check that the renter is actually not able to pay the rent due to this health crisis and not a blanket halt on all evictions.

If the crisis goes on for a year there can be a bunch of bad apples who just stop paying rent and someone has to pay the bank and tax man each month. We need to think this solution over carefully and update it month by month.

Can small businesses apply for this relief?

In response to Old Mtn View you said:

“I can’t possibly read all of this thread but I want to say that many people have mortgages and all landlords have property tax too, and that rent pays for the property that renters are using so there should be some check that the renter is actually not able to pay the rent due to this health crisis and not a blanket halt on all evictions.”

I see no problem that the state and county has to stop collecting taxes under these circumstances. But that is nothing but an excuse. The fact is that it should be easy to arrange it so that taxes and maintenance costs can and should be subsidized during this time. No, what people are trying to do is in fact get their rents paid, where the majority will not have to pay mortgages at all. This is under the recently signed stimulus package. If these people are managing their properties well, that is at minimum 50% of their monthly expense. Thus they are now getting a BIG windfall under these circumstances, but the renters are not responsible for such a public health nightmare. You said:

“If the crisis goes on for a year there can be a bunch of bad apples who just stop paying rent and someone has to pay the bank and tax man each month. We need to think this solution over carefully and update it month by month.”

As pointed out, the vast majority if not all the mortgages are now in forbearance, and will not accrue interest. Your statement simply doesn’t match with reality. The taxes should easily be forebearanced under this situation as well. So your idea doesn’t seem to match reality in this case.

In response to @can small businesses apply for this relief? You said:

“Can small businesses apply for this relief?”

YES. I ENCOURAGE GETTING GOVERNOR NEWSOME OR PRESIDENT TRUMP TO ISSUE AN EXECUTIVE ORDER PUTTING ON HOLD ALL TAXES UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES. IN EFFECT ALL ACCOUNTS PAYABLE AND RECIEVABLE SHOULD BE PUT ON HOLD UNTIL THE VIRUS IS UNDER CONTROL. THUS FREEING UP THE MONEY TO BE USED FOR ONLY CRITICLE FUNCTIONS LIKE FOOD, ELECTRICITY, HEAT, HEALTH CARE, AND INFORMATION SERVICES LIKE CABLE TV, TELECOMMUNICATIONS, AND INTERNET.

WHY IT HASN’T ALREADY HAPPENED IS INSANE, IN FACT TO SEE ADVERTISEMENTS FOR INVESTMENTS, AUTO SALES, TRAVEL, AND OTHER MARKETS ARE STILL ON THE TV IS INSANE AT THIS TIME AND A WASTE OF MONEY.

What interesting is that many landlords have made agreements with a group called Zeus Living to make many of their unit’s short term rentals. They were sold that by partnering with Zeus they were promised stable cash payments.

My building has about half of them. 4 units out of 10 are not leased to tenants but the Zeus Living Corporation.

Air BnB recently invested as much as $50 million in Zeus in December.

But recently Zeus Living has laid of 30% of it’s employees. It looks like they are being killed by the current Covid-19 crisis.

Air BnB and Zeus were using the same model as WeWork. WeWork has fallen apart just before this situation.

My building will have 4 units empty by May 1, and they are likely to be left empty. Simply because of the practically a shutdown we are in. Zeus cannot afford to keep these units given this news. Thus my landlord is about to have 4 empty units with no cash flow.

And my landlord once claimed he could not get a “conventional” mortgage, which means he is unlikely to qualify for any mortgage forbearance. So it is likely he will be in significant trouble no matter what.

Another update:

Johnson and Johnson is saying it will have a vaccine to "start" human testing in September found here (Web Link

That means it is safe to say we will be in the shelter in place order beyond September.

What are we supposed to do until then?

The State better get on track to protect homeowners and renters at least till the end of the year AT MINIMUM.

I think MV Voice should have a policy of word(letter) count limits on posts. I have stopped reading more than 50 words from the most frequent offender. He/She does occasionally make some sense - unfortunately.

How about a coterminous moratorium on property taxes?

In response to Robyn you said:

“How about a coterminous moratorium on property taxes?”

I am in agreement with you. If anyone has tracked my posts, I have been for the following COMPLETE package:

ALL MORTGAGES NO MATTER WHO OR WHAT ISTITUTION HAS THEM SHOULD BE PUT ON HOLD AND NO INTEREST SHOULD BE ACCRUING EITHER UNTIL THE VIRUS IS UNDER CONTROL.

I AGGREE THAT PROPERTY TAXES ALLONG WITH ALL TAXES SHOULD ALSO BE PUT ON HOLD UNTIL THE VIRUS IS UNDER CONTROL.

ALL LANDLORDS MUST BE GIVEN A DIRECT SUBSIDY TO FEND OFF MAINTENANCE AND OPERATING COSTS UNTIL THE VIRUS IS UNDER CONTROL.

ALL OF THIS IS CONTINGENT ON A RENT HOLIDAY WITH NO MAKE UP COSTS FOR TENANTS OF THE PEOPLE ABOVE.

THE VIRUS IS THE ENEMY AND NOT EACH OTHER, BUT WE ARE NOT THINKING HOLISTICALLY, NOR WORKING AS A TEAM REGARDING THIS PROBLEM.

Are anyone understanding that this is the cheapest approach to deal with the current crisis?