So now the RHC is afraid of being sued for revisiting a policy decision ?

In 2018, there was talk of lawsuits from both sides for the same policy decision ..... RHC clearly chose one side.

Same today, it's certainly within RHC's purview but let's not hide behind Liticaphobia.

Mountain View apartment market rate is down 15.9% because of the economic downturn Web Link and people in apartment are mobile so rent must attract residents, yet despite the title "mobile home," given that mobile home residents have equity tied to homes that actually do not move, mobile home rent will not go down with the market. Mobile home rent is by design a predatory environment if not regulated. Sad to see the government neglect those (many of MV's most vulnerable) who need it most. Shame on MV.

Committee woman Almond has some gonads! And apparently, progressive Ramos does not. I say this because discussion of pending litigation DOES NOT HAVE to take place behind closed door sessions. That IS AN OPTION of the BROWN ACT. If you really want to let the public know, what 'lawyers' have to advise, you can do that in OPEN SESSION. ALL IT TAKES Committee woman Ramos - is a MAJORITY VOTE!

I wonder what timeline there is in the appeal?

Especially given the current crisis.

The RHC is benefiting from COVID because the courts are in shut down mode.

This is a diificult issue. I remember when the City Council met concerning the initiative rent control-just cause eviction measure (V). One councilmember, Christopher Clark, asked one of the attorney-authors of the measure whether it applied to mobilehome parks. She stated that she did not know. It would have been easy to write Measure V to explicitly extend to mobilehome parks. It wasn't. The best bet now for mobilehome park residents not ready to present and circulate their own initiative is to elect persons to the City Council who will work to protect them from exploitation. In addition, with mobilehome park rent control already in some 100 cities in California, the "progressives" in the state legislature might pass a state law controlling rents or rent increases at mobilehome parks. They already voted for some control of rent increases in much of the rental housing in California statewide.

The City or County should purchase these mobile home parks like what happened in Palo Alto with the Buena Vista Mobile Home Park.

If this does not occur, mobile home park owners can take advantage of the Ellis Act and go out of business and the land could be re-developed for much more profitable uses. Rent control will not solve the problem, it will only exacerbate it.

Correct me if I'm wrong. But I believe the mobilehome parks in MV are zoned just for mobilehome parks. The city council could change the zoning. That would be a reason to evaluate whoever runs for city council. Does the candidate favor rebuilding the city - or parts thereof.

The RHC lawyer argues that MH's could be included rather than should be included. The legal opinion ignores the definition of a rental unit in the measure which states that rental units are structures located on land. At best RHC could apply the measure to those who rent mobile units rather than those who own them and rent the land.

Web Link
(s) Rental Unit. Any building, structure, or part thereof, or land appurtenant thereto, or any other rental property rented or offered for rent for residential purposes, together with all Housing Services connected with use or occupancy of such property, such as common areas and recreational facilities held out for use by the Tenant.

Gary, the problem is that a developer or property owner can write a new law and with enough campaign contributions can find a legislator to introduce it and push it through.

A bill that required a city to re-zone former mobile home parks for high-density housing would be easy to have an anti-affordable housing State Senator or State Assemblyperson push through; these legislators have certainly done the bidding of developers multiple times in the past.

Displacement and gentrification are of no concern to the bad actors in Sacramento. They nearly got SB-50 through and only a large coalition, including affordable housing advocates were able to stop it, but they are not giving up.

True that legislators often advance special monied interests and can vote for statewide rent control this year and repeal it next year. But the Governor plays a role. He (or maybe someday she) can veto or sign a bill. So what I am saying to mobilehome park residents is to pursue all of your options. There would likely be statewide rent control for mobilehome parks if 100 cities did not already have local restrictions. The candidates for city council should be pinned down on what each would do locally. Of course, to live in a mobilehome park, one must stay alive. And so other races are critical as well - including the race for the Presidency. Can you make a difference in that race? The year 2000 race for President was decided by 500 votes in Florida. I can get 500 votes in Florida with one letter to a large newspaper there. So can you.

definitions. (m) Property. All Rental Units on a parcel or lot or contiguous parcels or contiguous lots under common ownership.

In response to correction you said:

“The RHC lawyer argues that MH's could be included rather than should be included.”

The simple insanity that you think a lawyer paid by a client would advocate a legal position against the interests of the client is incredible. The REALITY is that any attorney cannot prove an unbiased opinion to a client because it is against the professions general rules which state that client’s interest is higher than the public interest. In REALITY, the only people you can use to determine the real issues are those which have NO INTEREST in the outcome. A lawyer will be FIRED if they tell the CLIENT what they DO NOT WANT TO HEAR.

That is in fact what happened in the City of Mountain View if I remember correctly, the ones that wrote an opinion to the City RHC saying that CSFRA applied to Mobile Homes contract was threatened to lose their contract if they didn’t revise their opinion.

That is why I equally criticized the claim that when Measure D was giving an “unbiased” opinion from the City Attorney during the campaign. The REALITY was that the City Attorney could NEVER provide an unbiased analysis, in fact no government attorney can not even the California Attorney General.

The people should never take paid lawyers work as an unbiased opinion. The only ones to listen to are those with no interests in any way regarding the topic. This process is designed to manipulate voters without letting them know they are being fooled into thinking these people are unbiased.

The *committee* decided? The committee is appointed, not elected. They should not be making policy. Making recommendations, sure. But all decisions of this weight and magnitude should be owned by our elected representatives. Let the city council members stand up before the electorate and say if they support mobile home owners getting priced out of our city. I for one would be interested in knowing where they stand. So I can vote them out as soon as possible.

Well. The Rental Housing Committee (RHC) is given the authority to make some "policy" determinations under Measure V which was and remains part of the city's constitution (city charter) adopted by voters. Measure V authorized and still authorizes the City Council to appoint members of the RHC. Indirectly, the City Council has some control. But Measure V was proposed by initiative petition (and adopted by voters) because the City Council had failed and refused to enact any real limitations on rent increases on existing tenants. So let's jump to WHO IS RUNNING later this year. Four of 7 City Council seats are up in November. Two of 4 incumbents can run again (under the city charter's 2-successive term limit: Margaret Abe-Koga and Lisa Matichat. Termed out (ineligible to run this year) are Chris Clark and John McAlister. Two people who served on the City Council from 2014-2018 but fell a little short of re-election in November 2018 have said they plan to run again: Lenny Siegel and Pat Showalter. If only those 4 run, they will win the 4 seats automatically. Voters would have no choice. One other fellow to announce so far is Jose Gutierrez who is in his fifth year on the board of the Mountain View-Whisman School District. There are issues concerning Mr. Guterriez stemming, in part, from the school district's employment of his wife. Mr. Guterriez and Margaret Abe-Koga have previously endorsed each other and both appeared on campaign mailers from landlords in support of Measure D on the March 3 ballot. Measure D was a City Council proposal to amend the charter provisions concerning rent control (Measure V) approved by city voters in November 2016. Measure D was defeated 2-1 but the largest mobilehome park owner joined the opposition thinking he would be better off without one of the proposed changes. That change would have made clear that Measure V does not apply to mobilehome parks. The owner was concerned that such a clarification (or change) might lead to City Council-approved rent control in mobilehome parks. Also on the November ballot will be the referendum on a motorhome parking ordinance adopted by the City Council and - unless withdrawn - the "sneaky repeal" of Measure V that qualified for the city ballot by initiative petition sponsored by landlords. More candidates for city council will be needed. Incumbents are no longer assured re-election.

Both Lenny Siegel and Pat Showalter lost their re-election bids, due to retribution for the growing homeless crisis. Rent control is contributing to that crisis as more naturally affordable apartment buildings are torn down and high-cost for-sale housing are built in their place. The RV situation was not acted upon until after both of them left the City Council.

If you listen to Lenny Siegel's statements on Measure V they are both amusing and saddening:

'Measure V doesn't inhibit new construction in MV.' Sadly, he's correct. There will be a lot of new construction as property owners raze what was once naturally affordable housing and build higher-cost for-sale housing. But that's not the kind of construction he was thinking of.

"Developers are lining up to be able build apartments in Mountain View." That may have been true three years ago, when there was no end in sight to how high rents could go, and considering that new apartments would not be subject to rent control at all. Even before the Covid-19 pandemic we had a glut of unaffordable high-rent housing and developers were not building projects that had already been approved. Now the situation is far worse with plunging rents. If there's a silver lining is that suddenly for-sale housing is in vogue again.

And what Lenny didn't say is that the new apartments, had they been built, would not be subject to rent control at all. They would all be market rate. Combined with the loss of rent-controlled units (due to rent control and the Ellis act), average rents would go up, not down.

Well-meaning people are often unable to look at the cause and effect of their actions over the long term.

However Lenny is smart. He is basing his re-election strategy on the ballot measure overturning the RV parking ban. There are no runoffs for City Council. He just needs to get enough votes to at least come in fourth and he can probably cobble this together from naive renters and from other well-meaning voters who are not affected by RV parking in their neighborhoods.

Not only are mobile homes NOT covered by the CSFRA due to the decisions of the RHC, but on the day, 1 June 2020, that they decided to continue with that decision, I and other residents at Santiago Villa received rent increases. So, in my opinion, due to the greed of the owner of our park who still wants to make more $$$ during the pandemic, we desperately need the protection of the RHC and CSFRA (and as he makes more money during this time, we as renters do not have many of the "amenities" we are paying for, it is just not right). Oh, and my rent increase was more than the percentage approved by the RHC for apartment renters....and this really hurts a senior living on Social Security during this trying time.

The lawyers advice is designed by them to not "trap" their employers regarding legal advice. They make sure there is some kind of plausible deniability regarding their advice to their clients to preserve defense

In fact the Attorneys are acting like the CDC and the NIH, softening language so as to allow more freedom rather than less because they would be FIRED if the advice was not in agreement with some on the RHC. Also that their contract I believe is yearly renewed.

Remember, the attorneys are not judges.

From what I understand the appeal is still open, thus the COVID is simply delaying a final decision. I cannot predict the outcome, but the question is simply not yet completely answered yet. If the Appeals court remands or overturns the lower court, this issue will either still be in play or the city will be ordered to extend CSFRA to mobile homes.