Over the past 8 years, ALMOST ALL of the housing created in MV is unaffordable to the MAJORITY of residents who live here:
- ~90% of housing created in MV was expensive, market rate units.
- 2020 Census shows that over half the population of MV falls into the lower-income and average income RHNA income categories.

Nothing has been changed to alter this in our shiny new housing element. ALMOST ALL of the housing created in MV will be UNAFFORDABLE to most people who live here. Isn't that great?

A story to illustrate the truth of the situation:
10 men are invited to a conference. The 4 highest wage earners sit on the right of the room. The 6 lowest wage earners sit on the left. At lunch, a pizza is cut into 10 slices and given to the attendees. The 4 guys on the right are given 9 slices. The 6 guys on the left are given one single slice to share among themselves.

Some say, let’s just give MORE PIZZA (“build baby build!”). So 3 pizzas are ordered and cut into 30 slices. The 4 guys on the right side of the room are given 27 slices. The 6 guys on the left are given 3 slices. See how well that works? More pizza is given to everyone! Nevermind that the guys on the left seem to be getting such a bad deal.

ALMOST ALL of the housing created in MV is unaffordable to majority of residents who live here. So who is it being built for? Answer: “Future residents”! Translation: high wage earners that Google wants to hire, or at least wanted to hire before the current economic downturn.

So much talk has been made over supply and demand. Our new housing element will dramatically increase the supply of expensive, market rate units. That's what we needed most! Hooray!

Teachers, service workers, and kids who don’t code: your pain has been exploited. When the dust has settled, the housing crisis will still continue for you, because increasing the supply of housing that is AFFORDABLE to the majority of residents in MV is simply not a priority for state and local politicians.

Blast from the past! 2017, sacbee.com “‘Yes in my backyard.’ Silicon Valley money fuels fight against state’s housing crisis, Web Link

“With financial backing from Silicon Valley tech executives, [Brian] Hanlon is starting a new political and housing advocacy venture in Sacramento called California YIMBY – or “Yes in My Back Yard,” a riff on the “not-in-my-backyard” phrase that characterizes neighborhood opposition to development projects.”

““We want more housing, and all types of housing. So we advocate for everything from transitional homeless shelters ... to tall, luxury condos and everything in between,” Hanlon said.”

snip

“He is now among the ranks of housing advocates in Sacramento pressuring lawmakers to strengthen the state’s approach to affordable housing development.

YIMBYs might “advocate for everything”, but the TRUTH is their advocacy is MUCH BETTER at increasing the production of market rate units than it is for increasing production of affordable units. Witness MV's shiny new Housing Element. 6,000 of the RHNA mandate of 11,000 units are supposed to be affordable, but that part is being forgotten by the City Council and even the Voice. MV will most likely get ~1,100 affordable units instead. Surprise! No pizza for you!

Here’s another important point:
“Cities get criticized for not building enough, but what gets left out of the discussion is the lack of funding for affordable housing.”

And another:

““No additional supply is ever going to bring down the price to what they [low-income renters] can afford,” said Brian Augusta, a Sacramento-based housing advocate. “Unless we have some kind of intervention by the state, housing is going to continue to be out of reach for low-income people who pay upwards of 50, 60, 70 percent of their income on rent.”

When it comes to AFFORDABLE housing, the problem is not ZONING. The problem is FUNDING.

The pizza analogy is flawed for several reasons. First, it assumes that there is already an abundance of pizza for everyone, which is not the case in the current housing crisis. The analogy implies that one group is getting more pizza than they need, when in fact the housing crisis exists because there are not enough homes for everyone. In this context, the solution should be to increase the total amount of pizza (i.e., housing) available, rather than fighting over the limited slices.

Furthermore, the analogy oversimplifies the complex issue of housing affordability and ignores the fact that there are many factors at play, such as zoning laws, development regulations, and market forces.

The analogy suggests that there is a fixed amount of housing being distributed, and that those at the bottom are not getting their fair share. However, in reality, the housing crisis is not a situation where there is a limited amount of housing to be distributed, but rather a situation where even after all the "pizza" has been distributed, there are still many people of all incomes unable to afford housing.

Because of coordination between landlords, there is a much higher vacancy in apartment stock than is sufficiently appreciated. There is no shortage of apartments, only a shortage of them being placed on the market. By coordinating vacancies and rental rates, the landlords are able to increase their return on investment over time. That's why they do it.

The interesting thing is that the RHNA calculations actually DEPEND on the idea that the current stock is sufficient in that they base the market rate unit increases needed on an optimistic and unrealistic projection of population growth. They don't calculate the requirement based off a lack of current stock but rather then calculate need based on a very high rate of growth for the future.

That's why the whole issue of not succeeding in providing funding for increasing the regulated BMR stock is so serious. We'll never get "enough' BMR stock without a new funding source. That's what Sacramento and YIMBY's are resisting.

The price and vacancy coordination tool is a service called Realpage. Perhaps the YIMBY zealots might investigate THAT. Or perhaps they get most of their funding from the same landlords using Realpage in the first place...

You claim that there is a higher vacancy in apartment stock in Mountain View due to coordination among landlords, implying that there is no shortage of apartments but rather a deliberate withholding of available units from the market. However, this argument overlooks the historically low vacancy rates in Mountain View, which contradicts the premises presented.

Historical data on vacancy rates in Mountain View does not support the notion of a deliberate coordination to maintain higher vacancies. In reality, Mountain View has experienced consistently low vacancy rates in recent years, indicating a strong demand for housing and a limited supply of available units.

The historically low vacancy rates in Mountain View suggest that there is indeed a shortage of available apartments rather than a deliberate effort by landlords to coordinate vacancies. If there were a deliberate withholding of apartments from the market, one would expect to see higher vacancy rates. However, the data indicates the opposite, suggesting that the supply of apartments is unable to keep up with the demand in Mountain View.

Pizza analogy is not flawed. Many people struggle with math, analogy was developed to help folks understand what the following two FACTS really mean:

1) ~90% of housing created in MV is expensive, market rate units.
2) 2020 Census shows that over half the population of MV falls into the lower-income + average income RHNA income categories.

ALMOST ALL of the housing created in MV over the past 8 years is unaffordable to MAJORITY of residents. NOTHING has been done to change that going forward in our shiny new housing element. Housing is NOT being created to help the the current residents of MV, it is being created for what some slyly call “future residents”, namely high wage earners who Google has not hired yet.

Blast from the past: In 2016 - a year before the CA YIMBY movement was founded - Kate Vershov Downing resigned from the Palo Alto Planning Commission + wrote an article that went viral, Web Link : “It’s clear that if [highly paid] professionals like me cannot raise a family here, then all of our teachers, first responders, and service workers are in dire straits.” Note her PRIMARY concern was NOT low-income persons, she did not resign over THEM. She resigned because a highly paid couple should be able to buy a house, dang it! Her words struck a chord with other highly paid workers, + the YIMBY movement was born. Fun fact: former Mayor Lucas Ramirez is named in the article too!

Deception is the name of the game in modern politics. There are “private” positions + “public positions. The “private” goal of the YIMBY movement has always been about helping highly paid couples to buy a house. Forget about the plight of teachers + kids who don’t code, that was just a “public” position to fool the rubes.

Let us all be very clear: MV’s new housing element helps developers, Google, and high wage earners far, far, FAR MORE than it helps teachers + kids who don’t code.

The pizza analogy works especially well if you consider that people don't just eat pizza. The pizza represents the newly built housing only, not the old stuff or even units effectively created by sharing or returning a withheld unit to the market.

The so called vacancy rate is self reported and reflects only vacancies in units that the landlords have placed on the market. Or at least that's all it RELIABLY indicates. Landlords are known to withhold units for a variety of valid reasons such as remodeling or repairs. There is no obligation to dovetail each ending lease with a new one that starts the next day. But the truth is that landlords are keeping many more units off the market than is necessary, for purposes of manipulating prices. Sometimes you could say that's harmless. If a new building is completed, it makes some sense fo the owner to meter out the availability of units a little at a time over a ramp up period where they finally see them all placed on the market. They don't need to deal with a whole lot of moveins happening at the same time. But they are actually keeping these intentional vacancies for a long period, i.e. more than a year, more than 2 years. They act in concert via a coordination previded by "recommendations" from Realpages for example, as to what to charge and when to release an additional unit onto the market.

It is important to consider the overall housing market dynamics and empirical evidence to evaluate the argument's premises.

Firstly, if landlords were deliberately coordinating vacancies to manipulate prices, it would require a significant level of collusion and coordination among a large number of landlords in Mountain View. Such coordinated actions would be difficult to sustain and keep secret over an extended period of time, especially considering the number of independent property owners and property management companies operating in the area.

Secondly, the argument suggests that landlords intentionally keep units vacant for extended periods, more than a year or two, as part of their price manipulation strategy. However, from an economic standpoint, leaving units vacant for such extended periods would not be financially beneficial for landlords. Owning a vacant unit means no rental income is generated, resulting in lost potential revenue. Landlords typically aim to minimize vacancies and maximize their rental income by having units occupied as much as possible.

Additionally, the claim that landlords act in concert based on recommendations from platforms like Realpages to determine rental rates and when to release additional units onto the market lacks concrete evidence. While market data and platforms can provide information on rental trends, they do not necessarily imply collusion or coordination among landlords. Pricing decisions are often influenced by a variety of factors such as market conditions, operating costs, and individual landlord strategies.

In order to support your argument's premises about intentional coordination and manipulation of prices by landlords, there would need to be substantial evidence, such as documented agreements or investigations by regulatory authorities. Without such evidence, it is speculative to attribute historically low vacancy rates solely to deliberate actions by landlords.

Alert readers understand that the CA YIMBY movement was started in 2017 with financial backing from Silicon Valley tech executives.

2019: “Tech Companies Want to Improve Housing Affordability — Which May be Just as Much a Business Strategy as a Community Initiative” - Web Link

“The nation’s largest companies, including Google, Microsoft and Facebook, have pledged billions of dollars to create affordable housing near their campuses, acknowledging their part in the housing affordability crisis facing the Silicon Valley, Seattle and San Francisco areas. But, this may be a savvy business strategy, and not just a pure charity effort.”

“Pure charity effort”? These words make me smile. Are there really people out there who truly believe that these efforts were ever about charity?

“In order to recruit talent, tech companies have to pay high salaries so that employees can afford housing and an overall high cost of living with money left over for savings. Investing in housing near headquarters could bring down the cost of recruiting and paying talent over time. It could also help with employee retention if people are less likely to eventually need to either leave the area in search of affordability or quit in favor of a higher-paying job. But it’s possible demand for housing could outpace these increases in housing supply, to the point that these new units remain unaffordable to most of the people who would want to live in them.”

Let us all be very clear: when Brian Hanlon went to Sacramento to pressure “lawmakers to strengthen the state’s approach to affordable housing development”, his focus was on changes to help high wage earners, not workers at the bottom of the ladder. Our shiny new housing element dramatically increases the amount of housing created in MV that is UNAFFORDABLE to the MAJORITY of residents. We can all thank Brian Hanlon and the YIMBY movement for that.

The tech industry is a major player in the local real estate market too, especially for offices. It's a tangled web. The cooperation at info sharing about apartment rents and purposeful vacancies is nationwide, not just within this one city.

Los Altos Hills has now had their housing element approved as well. They pulled a rabbit out of a hat and showed plans for an unexpected number of new units in a location believed to be dormant and only suited for a smaller number. But will they be built? Most will be expensive, but oddly they include plans for farm worker housing which has got to be low income. All those farms in Los Altos Hills... You gotta give them credit for thinking outside of the box. Mountain View has zero farm worker housing. Sad.

To support your argument, it would be helpful to provide specific quantitative data or a reliable estimate regarding the number of homes being purposefully held vacant in Mountain View. Please share any available information, studies, or reports that provide a quantification of these intentionally withheld units. This data will help evaluate the extent to which your argument holds true.

I wonder what might happen if Alphabet/Google continues to pull out of Bayshore.

Remember the plan approved included that accounting of housing. Will that mean that they will have to amend the housing element report again?

Will it in fact automatically decertify this news? I suspect it will.

Given that Google is closing down in the city of Mountain View, and everyone knows it now.

LongResident, I would like to see some data to support the claim that landlords are intentionally keeping a significant number of units off the market. I'm not saying you're wrong; I'm just unconvinced. If landlords are able to coordinate effectively to do this, why would they keep otherwise habitable units off the market at all? With that level of coordination, they could just raise rents on all units.

It's not a question of permanently keeping the units off the market. The Realpages productivity software advises when to release added units and how to price them. Landlords face decisions about this any time a new building comes on the market. The coordination is a byproduct of a lot of different REIT's using the same software across a lot of different markets.

You can just look at how the rates for new apartments in Sunnyvale are lower than in Mountain View to understand that the pricing is not determined solely by bare demand. The city ought to keep track of how many new units are being added theoretically and census data could be used to determine how the population increases over the same period. The landlords treat occupancy data as proprietary.

While I understand your perspective on the role of software recommendations and coordination among landlords, it is still important to have concrete quantitative data to support your claims.

To further evaluate your argument, it would be helpful to obtain specific quantifications, such as the number of units currently being purposefully held vacant in Mountain View, as well as any available data on the number of vacancies in Sunnyvale and a comparison of vacancy rates between the two cities. This information will provide a clearer understanding of the extent of intentional withholding of units and its impact on pricing dynamics.

Additionally, while the use of productivity software and market trends can influence pricing decisions, it is crucial to differentiate between market factors and intentional coordination. Without specific evidence or studies that demonstrate a significant correlation between the software recommendations and deliberate actions to manipulate prices, it becomes challenging to support the argument.

Lastly, while occupancy data may be considered proprietary by landlords, there might be other available sources, such as housing market reports or government records, that provide insights into the number of new units being added and population growth trends in the area. Utilizing such data can contribute to a more comprehensive analysis of the housing market dynamics.

In summary, to strengthen your argument, it is necessary to provide quantifiable data on the number of purposefully held vacant units, a comparison of vacancy rates between Mountain View and Sunnyvale, and any supporting evidence that demonstrates intentional coordination among landlords.

"The landlords treat occupancy data as proprietary."

Keep in mind: As long as this is true, it is difficult or impossible to determine the number of units currently being purposefully held vacant in Mountain View.

Related questions: Why do landlords treat this information as proprietary? Also: why are they allowed to treat this information as proprietary?

It is important to note that the claim of landlords treating occupancy data as proprietary is not be entirely accurate in the context of Mountain View. Mountain View has implemented the Community Stabilization and Fair Rent Act (CSFRA), which includes provisions for monitoring and regulating rental housing. The CSFRA establishes the Rental Housing Commission, which is responsible for reviewing and analyzing vacancy data in the city regularly.

Given the existence of the CSFRA and the Rental Housing Commission, vacancy data in Mountain View is collected and reviewed by the local authorities. This suggests that the occupancy data is not entirely treated as proprietary, at least within the regulatory framework of the CSFRA. While there may be instances where landlords treat occupancy data as proprietary, it is important to consider the specific regulation.

So Clarence, where can a concerned member of the public find occupancy data?

You wrote:

"vacancy data in Mountain View is collected and reviewed by the local authorities"

Can you please elaborate? What kind of reviews are performed? Are the results of such reviews made public?

I think we all agree that "it would be helpful to provide specific quantitative data or a reliable estimate regarding the number of homes being purposefully held vacant in Mountain View." Where can we find this information?

The bottom line: either this information is made available for public review, or it is not.

The other bottom line: if landlords are intentionally keeping units vacant in order to "keep supply low", that is going to have a negative impact on housing costs.

In Mountain View, the Community Stabilization and Fair Rent Act (CSFRA) establishes the Rental Housing Commission, which is responsible for monitoring and regulating rental housing. The Commission is likely to collect and review occupancy data as part of its oversight and enforcement activities.

To access occupancy data and the results of the reviews performed by the Rental Housing Commission, you can start by visiting the official website of the city of Mountain View. The website may provide information on the CSFRA, including any available reports, publications, or datasets related to vacancy rates and occupancy data.

Additionally, you can reach out to the Rental Housing Commission directly to inquire about their data collection methods, review processes, and whether the results of their reviews are made public. They may be able to provide specific information or direct you to the relevant resources for accessing occupancy data in Mountain View.

It is crucial for individuals making specific claims about intentionally vacant properties to support their assertions with evidence. When discussing the intentional withholding of units or claims of coordination among landlords, it is important to have concrete data, studies, or other reliable sources that substantiate these claims.

Without proper evidence, it becomes difficult to assess the validity of such assertions or understand the extent to which intentional vacancies are occurring. Relying solely on anecdotal accounts or general observations may lead to misunderstandings or misrepresentations of the actual housing market dynamics.

To foster productive discussions and informed decision-making regarding housing issues, it is important to provide factual evidence, statistics, or research that support their claims. This helps ensure a more accurate and comprehensive understanding of the situation and enables stakeholders to work towards effective solutions based on reliable information.

Mountain View doesn't collect vacancy data from the new apartments not subject to rent control, or record when new units are placed on the market.

This is going to be a failure of a plan, why?

Because the expectations of demand and population are not going to match reality. This proplsed solution is going to blow up in everyones face in the next 2 years due to population decline, and tech busniess closures in the area.

The facts are proper affordable housing should have begun 10 years ago, but everyone had the idea of infinite demand and infinte growth in these areas.

Not going to happen.

"The Commission is likely to collect and review occupancy data as part of its oversight and enforcement activities."

Is likely?

In other words, you don't actually know, do you? Here are links that support @LongResident's claims re landlords using Realpage to coordinate pricing:

"Rent Going Up? One Company’s Algorithm Could Be Why." Web Link

"On a summer day last year, a group of real estate tech executives gathered at a conference hall in Nashville to boast about one of their company’s signature products: software that uses a mysterious algorithm to help landlords push the highest possible rents on tenants."

"For years, RealPage has sold software that uses data analytics to suggest daily prices for open units. Property managers across the United States have gushed about how the company’s algorithm boosts profits."

"The DOJ is reportedly investigating rent-setting software company RealPage" Web Link

"The Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division has reportedly opened up an investigation into RealPage, the real estate technology company accused of contributing to higher-than-normal rent prices. According to a report from ProPublica, the DOJ is looking into whether the company’s rent-setting software allows landlords to coordinate and raise rent across the nation.

This comes after last month’s report from ProPublica, which revealed that RealPage’s YieldStar software uses an algorithm to “help landlords push the highest possible rents on tenants.” As noted by ProPublica, YieldStar’s algorithm uses the non-public rental rates gathered from the landlords and property managers that are its clients. YieldStar then repackages that information in an anonymized form to make rental rate recommendations to its users, indirectly giving landlords access to their competitors’ pricing."

"ProPublica’s report states that the algorithm’s design has “raised questions among real estate and legal experts about whether RealPage has birthed a new kind of cartel that allows the nation’s largest landlords to indirectly coordinate pricing, potentially in violation of federal law.” These experts have also raised concerns with the RealPage user group, an online forum that lets apartment managers who use the service communicate — and potentially coordinate — with one another."

@Leslie - thanks! I like those ProPublica (Latin "for the public") Justice-Thomas-catching muckraking investigative journalists.

@Long Resident / I think MV also doesn't have a Let-Sit-Vacant-and-Unused residential housing database either (?). Out how about a TAX on such withheld-from-market vacant properties? {No-Use-Tax?} There is a modest size & rent property near me, I think it has been entirely vacant and Fenced Off for over a year, going on two. 994 Bonita (follow the 'little green Street View man' from maps.Google.com
Web Link

@Leslie and quant friends / Hello, There may be a 'trail' of Public Records Requests that show who IS collecting such "vacancy" information. For the last couple years, a request comes in, and is fulfilled for ...

I am requesting a list of properties that were issued a code enforcement violation if not a complaint from January 2021 to present. Specifically I'm looking for open & closed nuisance & property maintenance violations such as blight, trash, fire damage, debris, overgrown grass / weeds, trees,, abandoned property or houses, junk cars, rats, etc, Vacant and substandard building / neglected / unsecured properties, however I will take any code violations if it is easier. I need the property address, and if possible the violation date, reason for violation / complaint.

I am also requesting a list of properties that CURRENTLY have no water usage / zero water consumption. I need the property address. If this is not possible I’m requesting a list of properties that currently have the water shut off.
BY: "@equityconsultantpros.com"
22-2517, 23-674, 23-154

Via https://cityofmountainviewca.nextrequest.com
I used the search term "vacancy"

Also check 22-1918 "I'd like to request as much information as possible, including dates of occupancy, current rent price, rent history, and any other data provided to the city under the MHRSO regulations.

I'd also like the list of vacant units if available."

GOOD LUCK!

Thank you for providing a reference article about Realpage. However, to accurately assess the number of intentionally vacant homes in Mountain View, it would be helpful to have specific information or data from reliable sources that directly address the intentional withholding of units by landlords.

I don't think the real issue is vacant stand alone homes. The SFH market is governed by issues other than potential rental income or occupancy. The occupied homes don't see any real effect from vacant homes around here, since there are relatively few and the age of these homes would tend to favor the old house category.

But in the NEW apartment houses, the complexes with say 500 units in one property, these tend to be relatively new for the most part. The older apartments are in smaller coomplexes, except for maybe the Americana. These are the flashier apartments that have bling to display and get the rates up over $4000 per month for a studio or one bedroom. In such complexes, the vacancy rates are higher, and the units are not subject to rent control. There are a lot of units in these new developments. Think of all the new ones around San Antonio between Central Expwy and to and along El Camino Real (not the condos, few as they are).

How many homes would you say are being held intentionally vacant by landlords in Mountain View?

Consider that there were about 34,000 housing units in Mountain View. With the recent round of large deluxe new apartment buildings built or in the process,
there are now 3000-4000 more units newly added. The new units are all (unless BMR) at the high end of the rental range. The YIMBY's argue that the investors can be tricked into building so many more new units that the rental price of the marginal new units will go down. But it doesn't take much in the way of managing vacancies to control such this effect is minimal. The optimistic way to look at is investors might be less inclined to shy away from investment, since the profits will be optimized to control for the possible overbuilding as correlated with fairly unpredictable demand in any given year.

Inestors don't build too many units and end up reducing their return.

Sorry, I don't believe I quite followed your answer here. How many homes would you say are being held intentionally vacant by landlords in Mountain View?

To your second point, while increasing the supply of housing units may lead to a decrease in the return-per-unit, it is important to note that the goal of developers and investors is often to optimize their overall profitability, rather than solely focusing on return-per-unit. By increasing the total number of units available, they may be able to capture a larger market share, benefit from economies of scale, or capitalize on other factors that contribute to their overall profitability.

Every REIT is different, but they all like to report good valuations for their apartment communities. This is based on the rents being collected on rented units relative to projections when the project was planned. An important metric for calculation valuation is the rental rate received per rented unit. It's understood that it will take time for the product to age sufficiently reach peak occupancy. So not just actual collected revenue matters to the REIT. Other factors include turnover rate and income levels of occupants plus amounts received from garbage fees like for parking and pets. Higher income tenants are more willing to pay for extras.

"Warren Urges DOJ Review of Thoma Bravo Rental Software Unit-Senators say RealPage facilitates price-fixing, inflation - YieldStar software is used by largest US property managers" Archive: Web Link Original URL: Web Link

"A group of Democratic senators is urging the US Justice Department to scrutinize whether Thoma Bravo LLC’s rental software company RealPage Inc. is fomenting rising rents across the US through its rental pricing software.

"Senators Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Bernie Sanders of Vermont pressed the Justice Department in a letter Thursday to examine the impact of RealPage’s YieldStar rental pricing software on consumers and on inflation amid persistent concerns about the overheating of the US economy."

"Warren and Sanders have been investigating the impact of algorithmic rent-setting software on the economy and last year sought information from RealPage as part of their own probe into rising US rents. They wrote that YieldStar’s software has access to “transactional apartment data from the rent rolls of 13+ million units.” "

"Rents represent about one third of the Consumer Price Index — a key indicator of US inflation — which rose 6.4% in January versus the year before. The median asking rent in the US increased to $1,322 in December, a 26.9% increase since the beginning of the pandemic in March 2020."

"It’s “essential that the department use all of its tools to ensure that renters do not fall victim to corporate landlords and anti-competitive forces,” the senators wrote."

Apologies, I must be missing part of this. I've asked how many homes are being held intentionally vacant in order to increase prices, and you've responded with many different interesting facts, but no real assessment or estimate for how many are being held vacant in order to increase prices. Can you help me here?

Let me say that before I could estimate how many withheld units from new construction recently put on the market I would need to know just how many total units there have been from new construction in projects held by large REIT's. Usually these are the ones that have hundreds of units. But another thing to appreciate is that not all these units are finished at the same time. Each REIT is going to operate differently, e.g. Greystar when it releases its large new project on California Avenue may not act the same as did Preometheus with its nearby large project.

@Steven, I agree, love the folks at ProPublica. More: Web Link

““Never before have we seen these numbers,” said Jay Parsons, a vice president of RealPage, as conventiongoers wandered by. Apartment rents had recently shot up by as much as 14.5%, he said in a video touting the company’s services. Turning to his colleague, Parsons asked: What role had the software played?””

[Rents go up and the execs at RealPage brag about it]

“I think it’s driving it, quite honestly,” answered Andrew Bowen, another RealPage executive. “As a property manager, very few of us would be willing to actually raise rents double digits within a single month by doing it manually.”

[RealPage gives landlords the COURAGE to raise rents!]

“For tenants, the system upends the practice of negotiating with apartment building staff. RealPage discourages bargaining with renters and has even recommended that landlords in some cases accept a lower occupancy rate in order to raise rents and make more money.

One of the algorithm’s developers told ProPublica that leasing agents had “too much empathy” compared to computer generated pricing.”

[Have no words]

Did a search on “yimby realpage” to see if leaders in the YIMBY movement had issued any kind of statement about RealPage. Didn’t find anything. Seems strange, considering their mission statement: “We drive policy change to increase the supply of housing at all levels and bring down the cost of living in our thriving city.” Web Link

RealPage software appears to be technology that allows landlords to benefit from price-fixing without actually doing the dirty work themselves. Toto, we aren’t in Kansas anymore. Obviously if it IS being used by landlords here, it would be driving UP the cost of living in MV.

@Clarence, the DOJ believes that there is sufficient basis to move forward in an investigation against RealPage. Perhaps you disagree, that is your right.

While it's understandable that you are exploring related topics and potential connections between RealPage software, the YIMBY movement, and housing affordability, it's important to refocus on the original question regarding the number of intentionally vacant homes in Mountain View.

To gain a better understanding of the intentional vacancy issue, it would be helpful to gather specific data or evidence that directly addresses the number of intentionally vacant homes in Mountain View. While discussions on related topics can provide context, it's crucial to focus on the specific quantification of intentionally vacant homes to evaluate the impact on housing costs.

If there are any available studies, reports, or reliable sources that provide a quantification or estimate of the intentionally vacant homes in Mountain View, please provide that information. This will allow for a more focused and constructive discussion on the original topic.

I belong to a class of folks that has been scapegoated by the YIMBY movement for over 2 years. Rumors have been spread (and swallowed) that housing costs are high because SFH owners have somehow been “blocking supply”. I have tried to respectfully explain that housing costs are high because of capitalism: an abundance of high wage earners drive up prices, and for-profit developers avoid building affordable housing because they want to maximize their profits. The TRUTH is, we don’t have a “lack of housing”, we have an ABUNDANCE of unaffordable housing, and thanks to YIMBY advocacy, we will get a lot more of it in the next 8 years in our shiny new housing element.

Now we see that a product called RealPage exists, a product that allows landlords to maximize their profits by using software that allows them to COORDINATE and RAISE RENTS.

Sometimes people show who they truly are by their SILENCE. YIMBY movement pretends to be champions of affordable housing, at bringing “down the cost of living in our thriving city”. Why is it silent about a product that is price-gouging renters? Wouldn’t it be appropriate to publicly state that if it is true that RealPage allows landlords to maximize their profits by allowing them to COORDINATE and RAISE RENTS, such a product should be condemned?

Here is “news” from the RealPage site: Web Link

“The new report shows that market-rate apartment renters signing leases so far in 2022 are spending only 23.2% of income toward rent, up modestly from pre-pandemic norms, but still well below the traditional affordability ceiling of 33%.”

Get that? These guys are tracking the % of income spent on rent. They concluded that there was still room to increase rents on folks in market-rate apartments. It disgusts me that income info that a renter provides to a landlord to determine their ability to pay the rent is being ABUSED in this way.

"“The study shows that market-rate apartment affordability is not yet a major concern, and won’t be so long as wages continue growing,” said Jay Parsons, Chief Economist and Head of Industry Principals for RealPage."

I understand your frustration and concerns regarding housing affordability and the impact of RealPage software. It's important to approach these discussions with an open mind and avoid making assumptions about the motivations and beliefs of others.

Single-family homes in Mountain View are generally market-rate, does that mean you are proposing eliminating market-rate pricing for such properties? Different approaches and solutions can be explored to address housing affordability, including the development of affordable housing units, policies to promote affordability, and other measures.

Regarding the YIMBY movement, it's important to note that it encompasses a diverse range of individuals and organizations with varying perspectives and strategies. While some within the movement may focus on increasing overall housing supply, others may prioritize the inclusion of affordable housing options. It's essential to engage in constructive dialogue and encourage open communication to better understand different viewpoints and potential areas of agreement.

As for the issue of RealPage software, it's important to gather accurate information and consider multiple perspectives before drawing conclusions. While it's valid to question why there may be a lack of public statements or actions from certain groups, it's also important to recognize that people may have varying levels of awareness or knowledge about specific software and its potential impact on rental prices.

To foster a productive conversation and seek solutions to housing affordability, it's beneficial to engage in open and respectful discussions, consider multiple factors influencing the housing market, and work towards finding common ground to address the challenges faced by both renters and homeowners.

SFH is generally owned rather than rented. Rooms can be rented out though and are cheaper than apartment rents.

Could you please clarify why you believe single-family homes should be sold for the highest profit possible, while other types of homes should not? Additionally, what specific reasons or justifications do you have for this differentiation in the treatment of different housing types? Understanding your reasoning will allow for a more in-depth discussion and exploration of your perspective.

"I understand your frustration and concerns regarding housing affordability and the impact of RealPage software."

Respectfully, sir, you clearly do not "understand".

You work very hard to sweep these concerns under the rug, and change the topic to something else.

I see what you are doing. I leave it to others to judge for themselves.

For the past 2 years, the YIMBY movement has engaged in rumor-mongering against SFH owners, supposedly in an effort to drive “down the cost of living in our thriving city”.

Now we see that a product called RealPage exists, a product that allows landlords to maximize their profits by using software that allows them to COORDINATE and RAISE RENTS. And those in the YIMBY movement are silent. Why?

@LongResident, thank you. I had never heard about RealPage until you brought it up here in the comments of the Voice. I searched for reporting on it in the Mercury News, but found nothing. I wonder how many people in the Bay Area are even aware that it exists, or that an active DOJ investigation is being conducted.

"5 things to know about RealPage, the Richardson firm helping landlords raise rents" Web Link

"If you’re renting at an apartment complex anywhere in the U.S., chances are your landlord is using software from a North Texas-based company to decide how much to charge you."

"RealPage, headquartered in Richardson, became the nation’s dominant provider of software that landlords use to set rent prices after federal regulators approved a controversial merger with competitor Lease Rent Options in 2017, a ProPublica investigation found."

"[SF]-based private equity firm Thoma Bravo, one of the world’s largest private equity firms, bought RealPage in 2021 in a $10.2 billion deal, making RealPage a privately-held company."

"Thoma Bravo’s holdings include investments in tech and software firms. The company, which has offices in [SF], Chicago and Miami, manages more than $122 billion in assets."

"In 2017, the company paid $250 million for [CA]-based property management services platform On-Site Manager Inc."

I apologize if my previous responses did not fully address your concerns. My goal is to provide a balanced and informative discussion. However, if you feel that I have not adequately addressed your points, I apologize for any misunderstanding.

Regarding your concerns about the YIMBY movement and their response to RealPage, it is important to note that the YIMBY movement is not a monolithic entity with a single set of beliefs or actions. It consists of a diverse range of individuals and organizations with varying perspectives and approaches to addressing housing challenges.

While some within the YIMBY movement may prioritize increasing housing supply, others may focus on affordability, tenant rights, or other aspects of housing policy. It is possible that the silence you perceive may stem from a lack of awareness about the specific impact of RealPage software or a focus on other aspects of housing advocacy.

Engaging in open dialogue with members of the YIMBY movement or related organizations to discuss your concerns directly may be more effective in gaining insights into their positions and motivations. It is also worth considering that individuals within the movement may have different levels of knowledge or awareness about specific software or market dynamics.

For purposes of illustrating common fallacies about housing shortage and any relation to higher rents, we're lucky Realpages exists to demonstrate a specific mechanism of the way housing prices can rise even with new construction going on to a noticeable extent.

But, just simple reasoning can lead one to realize that developers aren't going to develop so much new housing that it depresses their rents. They spend a lot of time gauging the demand and only build when they are sure there's a high likelihood of manageable vacancies, vs. rampant amounts of unrented units. It's all wishful thinking behind the YIMBY contention that the only problem we have is mean zoning laws that keep altruistic developers from adding cheap supply to the market.

I understand that you hold a different perspective on the relationship between housing supply, rents, and developer behavior. You argue that developers have a vested interest in gauging demand and building housing in a manner that ensures manageable vacancies and maintains rental prices.

It is indeed true that developers typically conduct market research to assess demand and make informed decisions about new construction. They aim to maximize their return on investment and avoid excessive vacancies. However, it's important to note that housing markets can be influenced by various factors beyond the control of individual developers, such as population growth, economic conditions, and regulatory policies.

The YIMBY movement's focus on zoning laws stems from the belief that restrictive zoning practices can limit housing supply and contribute to affordability challenges. They argue that by easing zoning regulations and allowing for more diverse and denser housing options, it can help alleviate the pressure on housing costs. However, it is not a claim that zoning laws are the only factor affecting housing affordability.

Evaluating the complexities of housing markets requires considering a range of factors, including supply and demand dynamics, regulatory frameworks, economic conditions, and regional differences. It is important to engage in informed discussions that take into account multiple perspectives and empirical evidence to better understand the nuances of these issues.

Why put it so negatively? A developer has a vested interest in not losing its shirt. The developer needs to obtain financing for any project. The lenders or equity partners look at things too. The project needs to be demonstrably profitable. A market which is being saturated is not going to accept new projects as easily as one that favors the landlord over the tenants in terms of its attractiveness. It doesn't translate to gouging. The same YIMBY's who argue the free enterprise system will solve their housing issue fail to see the way free enterprise works when you are talking about projects costing tens of millions of dollars to produce.

Apologies if my previous response came across as overly negative. You make valid points regarding the financial considerations that developers and investors take into account when undertaking housing projects. It's true that developers need to demonstrate the profitability of their projects in order to secure financing and attract equity partners.

Developers typically conduct thorough market analysis to assess demand and ensure the viability of their projects. They consider factors such as market conditions, rental rates, and the competitive landscape. Saturation in the housing market can indeed impact the feasibility of new projects, as lenders and investors may be more cautious in financing ventures that face a higher risk of vacancies or lower returns.

It's important to recognize that the housing market is influenced by a complex interplay of economic, social, and regulatory factors. While the principles of free enterprise can drive development, the scale and long-term financial commitments involved in large-scale housing projects necessitate careful risk assessment and profitability considerations.

The YIMBY movement advocates for a variety of approaches to address housing affordability, including increasing housing supply, promoting policy reforms, and encouraging more diverse housing options. While the movement emphasizes the importance of market dynamics, it also recognizes the need for appropriate regulations and interventions to ensure equitable outcomes and address affordability challenges.

By considering a range of perspectives and engaging in constructive dialogue, we can better understand the complexities of housing markets and work towards effective solutions.