While the demand for rentals is temporarily lower than before, the turnover brought on by the loss of jobs actually can increase profits. How? New tenants must pay market rents. So, a starting point would be an evaluation of the effect of VACANCY DE-CONTROL on profits. What percentage of covered rentals in Mountain View have turned over since the effective date of Measure V?

Relax. Give it 6 months and then there will be plenty of movement in the market and we be moving past the terrible COVID year.

Either it's a law with enforceable metric and guidelines or it's not. Vacancies now exceed the guidelines for the law.

This is great! Landlords should’ve saved up some $$ from their absurd rent hikes to cover for the downturn. They’re literally the least affected among us. They have dozens of financial tools for riding out the downturn on their own.

The Rental Housing Committee has the option to suspend renter protections only because vacancy rates are currently high. Asking rents have also fallen. And if you drive around town, there are many for rent signs. This is a favorable renter market, even if, as Pardo De Zela shared, some landlords are withholding units from being rented. Withheld units would be a problem for renters only if there were no rentals available. But this is not the case. So Pardo de Zela's concern is for landlords and their long term profits. Sorry landlords - market downturns happen. It may make sense for you to withhold units from market - but don't tell us that this is hurting renters, so therefore we should suspend rent control for the benefit of renters. Pardo de Zela's only valid argument is poor landlords. Trying to argue that renter protections are hurting renters is not logical, and not supported by the facts.

The CSFRA - mountain view's rent control law - gives the RHC discretion, not an ultimatum. When 5% vacancy rate is exceeded - the rental housing committee may - not must - suspend the CSFRA. If you expect a market bounce back - and if a pandemic is adding risk and uncertainty - no you don't choose to suspend rent control.

Posted by Dan Waylonis you wrote:

“Either it's a law with enforceable metric and guidelines or it's not. Vacancies now exceed the guidelines for the law.”

Let look at the TEXT of the law that reads:

“Section 1718. - Decontrol.

If the average annual vacancy rate in Controlled Rental Units exceeds five percent (5%) , THE COMMITTEE IS EMPOWERED, AT ITS DISCRETION AND IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE THE OBJECTIVES OF THIS ARTICLE, TO SUSPEND THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ARTICLE. In determining the vacancy rate for Controlled Rental Units, the Committee SHALL CONSIDER ALL AVAILABLE DATA AND SHALL CONDUCT ITS OWN SURVEY. If the Committee finds that the average annual vacancy rate has thereafter fallen below five percent (5%) the provisions of this Article shall be reimposed.”

So the REALITY is that the RHC is not REQUIRED to implement decontrol. YOU knew that I am certain.

The real thing scaring the rent controlled landlords is that the market has collapsed in the City. And it will not likely recover as long as Oracle, HP, Palantir, Google, Apple are either allowing their workers to work from home or are outright leaving the county. The reality is the majority of THE BEST apartments in the city have seen price return to the levels they were in 2014, killing any return on investments.

The rent controlled ones are not even close to that quality. In fact, my building is about to be inspected by the City for severe patio/balcony safety problems. Twice my landlord brought in contractors but as soon as they saw that the main support beams holding up two patio balconies had serious cracks in them, they initially said they were still safe, but never started any work.

Here are some FACTS to consider, per the University of Massachusetts Amherst Building and Construction Technology webpage seen here (Web Link
[Portion removed due to lengthy cut-and-paste from another website/off-topic]

What happened?

This topic is not interesting?

Are we not entertained?