"Rent control works great and achieves the objectives", said no economist ever.

I don't understand how the courts ruled the way they did. It seems obvious to me that the initiative would include mobile homes unless it had specific language excluding them.

We regulate housing supply to retain the neighborhood feel of our community. Likewise, we regulate rent to retain our neighbors.

Both policies have benefits to select groups and harsh economic tradeoffs, so let's be honest when one claims to support the free market while bashing rent control, all the while staying silent on restrictions placed on market-driven new housing, they aren't really supporting the free market.

As long as supply is artificially restrained (and for good reasons), then it's reasonable to consider rent control too, especially for mobile home parks, which are some of Mountain View's most vulnerable residents in the most exploitable position, as they have homes they own, that they cannot move, on space that can charge any rent they want knowing if a resident cannot pay, the park then gains the benefit of buying that home at a discount.

Cooperating Paths to (Housing Land) rent control?

Instead of "competing" I hope Lenny and the proponents (are U in this fight Christopher Chiang?) can figure out:
progressive sub-majorities of Both the City Council and RHC can 'convene together' and come up with a single united RHC policy and city ordinance. Same wording for the basics. Stand (it seems) or fall together (Court of Appeals makes fall unlikely IMO)

The Brown Act does not any any way whatsoever prevent sub-majority cross agency coalition collaboration! Just Do It!

How to 'Walk around the Wall' of Margaret and Lisa.