I think that COVID has the landlords tied up right now.

I read a Motley Fool report indicating that AvalonBay has as much as 25% of their tenants in Mountain View up and left without notice. I think they are confronted with a wave of people leaving. Also those with a nest egg that lost their jobs due to COVID are leaving too.

And since Google and the others are encouraging work from home, there are a lot of people looking for better housing arrangements with less cost.

And AB5 is also impacting the local workers that were not employees but contractors. The reality is that these "employers" are using COVID to relocate contractors out of California. The COVID problem is masking this situation.

It really looks like we are in the perfect storm regarding housing in Mountain View in favor of the customers. About time.

WOW,

No one has any opinions regarding this topic?

That cannot be true.

Does this mean that there is practically a universal rejection of the ballot measure?

What is the case for passing this ballot measure?

We are listening.

88 days before the November 3 elections is this Friday, August 7. The two official proponents of the "sneaky repeal" of city rent control have only until Friday to withdraw it. Otherwise, the measure will appear on the November 3 ballot with an opening argument against it and no other ballot arguments. The signal to renter-rights advocates would then be that the landlords might still intend to launch a PEARL HARBOR-like surprise bombardment of voters in October. But maybe the landlords have already given up on this measure and will do nothing. .

Gary,

Please help, any news?

@Steven. It is Saturday morning. I have not heard whether former councilmember-mayor John Inks and his co-proponent of the "sneaky repeal" of MV city rent control withdrew the measure by yesterday's 5pm deadline. Only insiders and reporters get news after 5pm. I do see, however, at the City Clerk's website under elections that 3 of the 9 candidates for city council submitted their final paperwork sometime yesterday and the rent control repeal measure is still listed as on the November 3 ballot. When a reporter at the MV Voice reports on the 9 candidates who filed, he or she should also report on the rent control repeal measure. Because both incumbent city councilmembers eligible to run again did run, there is no extension of time for others to still join the race. So it will be the 9 reported previously. In other races.- including for the MV Whisman school board - in which not all eligible incumbents are seeking re-election, the filing deadline for non-incumbents is extended to next Wednesday at 5pm. On that score, I have not yet checked this morning the election site for those other races at the county Registrar of Voters Office.

Checking just now the county Registrar of Voters website and assuming it is up-to-date, I see one of 3 eligible incumbents (Laura Blakely) seeking re-election to the MV Whisman school board and 3 non-incumbents so far for the 3 available seats. So, it is 4 candidates for 3 seats so far - but the filing deadline is extended to next Wednesday at 5pm. In the MVLA high school district, it appears the 2 incumbents up for re-election ran and are unopposed. No voter choice for that board.

Gary,

The City Clerks office still indicates no argument for the CSFRA Amendment ballot.

This must mean that no argument for the ballot will be included in any voter information other than the City Attorney report, right?

At least to this degree, John Inks and his property management friend have conceded that they don't have a legitimate argument for their ballot initiative?

Maybe?

Yes. No argument for the measure could have been submitted late (absent a court order) and wasn't. The issue was whether the initiative measure would be withdrawn. It appears the answer is NO. And since withdrawing would have bern smart unless landlords planned to pursue passage, figure landlords plan to pursue passage.

Lenny Siegel sent out an email 15 minutes ago (I was not on his list but emails spread) that the proponents of the SNEAKY REPEAL did withdraw the measure by yesterday's 5pm deadline.

@ Gary - Note that the ROV site hasn't been updated since Thursday. (It's common for that office to not update on the Friday deadline since they're swamped with last minute-filers.) Best advice is to check again on Monday (amybe even Sunday?).

Thanks Ellen. But if you think another candidate for a school board filed on Friday, you could post that information here.

@ Gary - I don't know. We'll all have to be patient for a few more days. (You likely know that if an incumbent doesn't file by the 1st filing date, the filing for that office is extended to the following Wednesday.)

Yes. Sure. Extended for non-incumbents. But why the post about the Registrar of Voters website not being up-to-date as if someone filed for a local office (other than city council) who others do not know about? Jose Gutierrez, Jr. is not running again for your school board, is he? He is running for city council. That leaves the current President of the Board: Tamara Wilson, Did she file Friday? Just tell us

@ Gary - I don't know.

Another newspaper is reporting that Laura Teksler, a Planning Commissioner in Los Altos is running for MVLA high school board - creating a 3-way race for 2 seats with 2 incumbents. Only the 3 incumbent ran in the Foothill-De Anza Community College District. No contest there.

It is still listed with the SCC ROR

And it is still on the City Clerk Website.

Gary, how long does it take to see it get revised?

Gary and Steven Goldstein - The ROV updated its Candidate Filings page this AM (Mon. 8/10/20). For MVWSD, Tamara Wilson did not file, so currently there are 4 candidates in this race. For MVLA, Laura Teksler did file (as a "Community Volunteer"), so there will be an election in that race with the 2 incumbents filing. In LASD, only the 2 inumbents filed. In FHDA, there will be an election, as Govind Tatachari filed (as a "Software Engineer"), and the 3 incumbents filed. For City of MV, the same 9 candidates as previously listed filed. Go to SCCvote.org for more information.

re: Sneaky Repeal, I believe the City Council has to also officially remove it from the ballot. There is a special city council meeting tomorrow most likely for that purpose... Ironically, because of timing of that extra step, the SCC Registrar assigned a letter to the Sneaky Repeal: Measure D -same letter as the City Council's measure that just lost in a landslide-.

SRB,

Isn't it ironic, you can use the no on Measure D signs.

Isn't there supposed to be an agenda posted for the City Council?