|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Mountain View voters who flat-out oppose rent control in any form will have an easy decision when they cast their ballots this election season. But those who support creating a mechanism to help stabilize a situation in this city in which double-digit rent increases — sometimes multiple hikes in a single year — are driving far too many residents from their homes will have a more complicated choice: They can vote for the citizen-backed Measure V, or for the hastily crafted City Council-sponsored Measure W.
We believe that rent stabilization is overdue and urgently needed to help staunch the flow from our community of senior citizens, working families, and others not reaping the economic benefits of the high-tech boom and who can no longer afford skyrocketing rents. And we firmly endorse Measure V.
The City Council had an opportunity earlier this year to meaningfully address the unprecedented crisis facing renters, and appeared to be poised to do so. But in the spring, council members significantly weakened the proposed ordinance that was intended to give renters needed relief, removing a last-resort binding arbitration provision that they had indicated support for late last year. This prompted citizens to gather signatures to place Measure V on the ballot.
In an attempt at recovery, the council then quickly crafted Measure W to compete, a move seen by some as an attempt to confuse voters and sabotage the efforts of Measure V backers. And to stir up further confusion, the California Apartment Association, which as of mid-September had raised $520,000 to oppose Measure V and similar Bay Area measures, several weeks ago mailed out an anti-Measure V hit piece filled with misleading and false statements.
In its haste to put a competing measure on the ballot, the council has left a major policy question unresolved until after the election. Council members late last month tried unsuccessfully to resolve a key question regarding the city’s tenant-relocation ordinance, which is referenced numerous times in Measure W to specify how landlords may be able to pay a fine to evict tenants, thereby getting around the measure’s just-cause eviction protections. This latest failure by the council builds ambiguity into Measure W, and the promise to work out the details after the election is the equivalent of telling voters, “Trust us.”
The time for rent stabilization has come, and our support for Measure V is based on its well-thought-out, reasonable and fair provisions — rules that ensure that landlords can benefit from a fair return on their investments and have flexibility to raise rents beyond the basic limits if they can show that the higher adjustment is needed to provide that fair return.
Other key provisions of Measure V:
• Landlords may raise rents once a year by 2 percent to 5 percent, based on the CPI. (With Measure W, the rent-hike cap is 5 percent, and an increase is permitted twice a year.) Landlords may “bank” rent increases under Measure V, as long as the subsequent rent hike doesn’t exceed 10 percent in a 12-month period.
• The council appoints a five-member Rental Housing Committee to oversee the rent-stabilization program; up to two members can own or manage rental property, or be a developer or a Realtor.
• Landlords may not evict tenants without just cause, which would include failure to pay rent, criminal activity, nuisance, necessary repairs, withdrawal of the unit from the rental market, failure to grant the landlord access to the unit and move-in by the owner. Although the rent-increase cap applies only to apartments built before February 1995 because of a state law, the just-cause-eviction tenant protection applies to all apartments, regardless of age. (Measure W offers just-cause eviction protection only to tenants of units built before February 1995.)
• The Rental Housing Committee can suspend Measure V provisions if the average annual vacancy rate of rental units covered by the ordinance exceeds 5 percent. (Measure W does not include a provision whereby the ordinance can be suspended.)
Measure V opponents, including council members who supported the competing Measure W, argue that because the citizen-backed measure would be a charter amendment — and therefore would require voter approval to change — it will have dire unintended consequences. This isn’t a compelling reason to oppose Measure V. If the city’s leaders, or its residents, see a need to change the ordinance because of flaws perceived after it takes effect, the City Council can put a measure on a future ballot to adjust it. That is not an onerous fix, if a fix is needed.
The argument that decision-making by voters is too costly or inefficient is weak, and shouldn’t carry the day in a democracy.
The California Attorney General apprised city council last week it was discriminatory to impose construction dates to exclude certain multifamily housing residents (PUD’s, TOD’s, and apartment dwellers) from participating in the Residential Parking Permit program within the hypothetically defined parking area. In fact, all residents within the proposed area are invited to participate in the petition process.
I’m not an advocate for either rent control measure, but if either is enacted, the rent control rules should be applied to all multi family housing without regard to size or year constructed.
Who is this “we” who is writing this? The fact this Editorial is being represented with no support or identification speaks volumes. The whole content and premise is based on emotion and a seriously misplaced ideology.
You say “reasonable and fair provisions”; reasonable and fair to whom? The ones asking for cheaper rent? Because it’s certainly not reasonable nor fair to the investors and owners of properties.
So glad I got a mailer that has presented nonpartisan facts from the Legislative Analysts Office. And it states irrevocably that rent control hurts both renters and property owners in Mountain View.
VOTE NO ON BOTH V & W
Here are just some important items that the Voice did not mention about measure V.
1-This new 5 panel rent board can not have more than 2 real estate or landlord advocates, and must be a 3 member tenant advocate board.
2-This new rent board will be totally independent from our current city government. They will be an entire government body with all the power within our current governmental system.The city council and city attorney, and everyone else will have no say or control over what they do. There is no recall provision to remove these people or if we do not like the new laws that they will make. The only option to repeal new laws they make will to constantly raise money and put them on the ballot.
3-This new rent board has unlimited access to the general funds for what ever reason they choose. Measure V gives them this power. Any new laws they pass, and gets challenged in a lawsuit, they can take as much money they need from the general fund to defend the lawsuit.
4-Measure V is not about capping rents, it is about taking away rights from property owners. As an example, written in Measure V is language that states a landlord can not evict a tenant from a property for a family move in, like son or mother, unless that owner owns at least 50% interest in the property, then that family member has to live there for at least 36 months or be subject to penalties.
I expect the proponent’s of this measure to come out and deny these as they are hoping to sneak all what’s in it, past voters. If they start this here, I will re-post an even more detailed response with more about what’s in Measure V with the actual language in the measure.
I ask everyone to pass this on to everyone you can so they will know the truth.
Vote No on Measure V.
This measure had no public review, it was written by outside groups behind closed doors, who have yet to be named. With no one from the business side present so as to get their point across.We do not know where all the money came to fund this, like the $7 paid for each signature gathered.
The Voice has been a pure advocate for this measure, has never run one story who the outside groups are that wrote and funded this. They have not done ONE story that showed any expenses that a landlord has, or has run ANY story that showed their side of the story. They also have not demonstrated how Mtn.View will be any different from other rent control cities, regarding blighted neighborhoods and increased crime, because these other city have the same exact language that Measure V has, the outcome will be no different.
The Voice editorial board does not live in Mtn. View. For what ever reason, do they think that people should not be told the truth about what’s in Measure V ?, otherwise, they would have written one story to tell people whats actually in it, and ALL what it will do.
You do not need a new 5 panel rent board to cap rents. It’s about a power grab.
Measure V also has a provision that states that any “improvements” that a landlord does to his property, that the rent board will not allow any rent pass thru.
What this language will guarantee will happen is, no landlord will pay the money to improve the property. He will only be able to do pass thru’s on repairs only. The consequences of this is, look at what has happened in other rent controlled cities like East Palo Alto, East San Jose, Oakland, Hayward, San Leandro and others. Blighted areas and increased crime. Even San Francisco is the number one city in all of United States for property crime. With the rent board denying the rights from landlords to evict these trouble makers, you can not clean up the area.
Measure V has these same language as the rules for S.F. The results will be no different here.
These rental areas will only become more blighted and will have a negative effect on our entire city.
If you support rent control, vote yes on W.
No on V.
I will vote not on both.
1. MEASURE V AND W ARE FULL BLOWN RENT CONTROL. They are NOT rent stabilization. Check out how misleading the ballot question is.
2. Quit the name calling. Correlation is not causation. Just because apartment owners have raised funds does not mean they are the cause of the problem. Maybe they are raising funds because if they spend a little to combat these horribly written measures, it might save them a huge loss. The vast majority of landowners feel a sense of pride in providing housing, and reward good tenants, myself included. Look at the whole picture.
3. Let’s talk about the 2 other ordinances that were passed. Right to lease and mediation. Have we given those a chance to work? No. So sure, let’s beat a dead horse.
4. You have to pay to play. I could not afford a single family home in Mountain View. So, I levered up and bought a small complex, live in one of the units, and use the other tenants revenue to offset my mortgage (and no, my tenants rents are not enough to cover the mortgage). But, guess what, these measures EXCLUDE FINANCING CHARGES. How is that realistic? Do we only want all cash buyers to run properties in Mountain View? I understand the pressures of high priced living, but when all cash buyers are the only ones left, get ready for that understanding to leave very quickly.
5. If these pass, get ready for Mountain View take a step 10 years back. Nobody wants that.
VOTE NO ON MEASURE V AND W.
Measure V is a bad move for the city. It is unfair to landlords who have kept their rents below market and it puts the burden of subsidizing below market rents on landlords of properties build before 1995.
In addition to the problems highlighted by Mike, Measure V is written in such a way that if state law is changed, the Measure V provisions would automatically apply to all the new rental units in MV, not just those built prior to 1995. This would certainly discourage development.
If people want to subsidize low income housing, they should pass a tax on everyone, not just a hidden tax on some landlords.
All comments are available here (not sure why this one escaped the discussion): http://www.mv-voice.com/news/2016/10/14/editorial-endorsement-measure-v-is-the-right-choice-to-protect-renters-and-community
1. MEASURE V AND W ARE FULL BLOWN RENT CONTROL. They are NOT rent stabilization. Check out how misleading the ballot question is.
2. Quit the name calling. Correlation is not causation. Just because apartment owners have raised funds does not mean they are the cause of the problem. Maybe they are raising funds because if they spend a little to combat these horribly written measures, it might save them a huge loss. The vast majority of landowners feel a sense of pride in providing housing, and reward good tenants, myself included. Look at the whole picture.
3. Let’s talk about the 2 other ordinances that were passed. Right to lease and mediation. Have we given those a chance to work? No. So sure, let’s beat a dead horse.
4. You have to pay to play. I could not afford a single family home in Mountain View. So, I levered up and bought a small complex, live in one of the units, and use the other tenants revenue to offset my mortgage (and no, my tenants rents are not enough to cover the mortgage). But, guess what, the “reasonable return factor” in these measures EXCLUDES FINANCING CHARGES. How is that realistic? Do we only want all cash buyers to run properties in Mountain View? I understand the pressures of high priced living, but when all cash buyers are the only ones left, get ready for that understanding to leave very quickly.
5. If these pass, get ready for Mountain View take a step 10 years back. Nobody wants that.
VOTE NO ON MEASURE V AND W.
I am a property owner and I make no profit. And no, I am not playing tax games. I am talking about dumb number profit. I lose money. With debt service cost excluded, I will lose more.
Perhaps you’re unfamiliar with the fact that an editorial is the opinion of the publisher of a newspaper. An opinion expressed by someone other than the publisher is called a column. The “we” in this case is clearly the editorial board.
What can you expect from an editorial that has no clue what Capitalism is all about.
Socialism is about control, control of the people and seems like the American people are slowly letting it creep in. Just like a thief in the night, stealing your rights. That’s the modern liberal democRat.
What should the income diversity of area residents (owners + renters) look like in 5-10 years?
Assuming all regional municipalities follow your leadership in voting, how would you acheive your vision of diversity and what are you actively doing to achieve that goal?
It’s obvious what I want income diversity to be in 5-10 years. I want it to occur completely voluntary and not determined by government edict. Government has no clue about what is the appropriate amount of income diversity and neither do me or you.
My goal will be achieved without government interference and by voluntary exchanges, it’s that simple.
Measure V is 27 pages long.
Everyone should read it first.
Then ask yourself why the Voice, or anyone else, never reported everything that’s in it.
It is a charter amendment to the city. A simpler equivalent in meaning would be like the Constitution.
Extremely difficult to change.
Vote No on measure V.
The MV Voice is the Fox News equivalent here in Mountain View. Their unbelievably biased reporting on this issue is shocking. I started out neutral about rent control even though I’m politically very liberal, but after watching their ridiculous coverage (and doing my own research from many other sources) I will be voting “no” on both measures. As others have pointed out, we know nothing about the MV Voice owners and editors, and yet they seek to clearly manipulate voters here on certain issues. Do the owners (it’s a private company, right?) even live in our city? Will they have to live with any mess that comes about if rent control is passed, or will they get to wash their hands of it and drive back to Los Altos Hills or where ever, which certainly will never have rent control? It would be nice to know who they are before we take their advice on anything.
Heads up Mountain View. Pull the puppet strings out of your backs and don’t relay on the MV Voice for any of your political decisions.
It has been suggested that journalists be required to take a couple of semesters of college level economics. They didn’t get it in high school economics a required subject. Editors: Go to the internet: rent control. This has happened thousands of times throughout history, rent control is the most studied subject in economics.
Geroge Drysdale a social studies teacher
Would Trump support Measure V? Absolutely not.
Do we really want to be aligned with a politician that advocates assault on women? I sure don’t.
@politics. You forgot to finish the other side of the argument.
Would Hilary support Measure V. Absolutely.
Do you really want to be aligned with a politician whose husband is a sexual predator? I sure don’t.
@@ who wrote this. Sigh. Yes. the point I was trying to make was who exactly is this anonymous “editorial board” their ‘oh-so-official’ stamp of approval. Who, or we should say what, is this publisher?
Most importantly, why should Mountain View residents give any crediblility to them???? Particularly when their articles go against every single thing that’s best for the residents of our city (yet suspiciously benefit a very few minority)
We have to pick either V or W. V makes much more sense. W allows rent increases of 10% per year. Wow! Yeah, you’re right, that’s not rent control.
For the sake of the community, V is the answer. Hillary Cliniton wouldn’t like it because the landlords are big campaign contributors. Look at the pot of money they have to campaign against Measures V and W. That alone tells you there is a lot of self-interest involved in the opposition. Naturally they want to squeeze the tenants as much as possible for the max profit, taking advantage of the ridiculous number of jobs the city has zoned into existence within its boundaries. The better choice would be to have been more restrained on the job proliferation to what could be handled. However, that’s already decided.
To counter the situation in which we live, Measure V is the only answer. It will self-destruct over time, as more and more older buildings are torn down and replaced by new denser ones that were made inevitable by the massive concentration of employment in Mountain View. So it’s a transitional law by nature.
Luckily, a lot of signs point to humane empathy on the part of the voters, and they may well do the right thing.
Measure V and W are not legally allowed by state law to apply to any building constructed post 1995. So, this means there is no regulation on charges for apartments in new construction. It incentivizes new buildings, which is what we need.
Some of those against Measure V simply do not want more people living within the city boundaries.
Inrerestingly, we have 5,000 more residents already, even without much in the way of new housing units. It really feels more like 10,000, and the numbers available are from 2 years ago. I think already more people are living in each unit on average.
@ Measure V or Measure W,
Your statement about measure W, allows rent increases of 10% is false!
Measure W is a binding arbitration process for rental increases exceeding 5% in a 12 month period.
It also has just cause evictions, service reductions language, and other language that the council will further expand on when and if it passes, like relocation assistance.
Measure W can also can be amendable by a super majority of the council so unforseen problems can be easily fixed.
Measure V will not be amendable unless money is raised to put it on the ballot again.
No, it is not a either or proposition, you can vote no for both.
Measure V, vote no.
It’s a power grab.
Mike said that Measure W would not allow 10pct rent increases. He said that more than 5pct increase would result in arbitration. Of course, the arbriter could allow a 50 percent increase, which is very likely, since the council will appoint a landlord to the position.
W is a dirty trick–don’t fall for it.
Measure V is a Horrific measure that deserves a No Vote.
My family owns a 5 plex, Mother and Father, sister and me.
We each have a 25% ownership interest in the property.
My sister lives in another state, she has a son and daughter.
The son wants to go to Santa Clara University next year.
The year after that, the daughter wants to go to Palmer College.
We have already been talking that they will be living at our 5 plex.
We want them to live in the only unit that has a 2 bedroom.
Under this new law, if it passes, we will not have any legal right to move in any family member, if it is occupied.
You will have to have a 50% ownership interest first, and then go ask permission first from the rent board.
Each of us has a 25% interest, we have no legal right to do this as you first need a 50% interest!
How can this be even legal.
How can any of you justify this!
How can anyone support a council member or a candidate, that supports this measure.
We will just be continuing with these divisive acts against minority groups in our city if we send divisive candidates into the position of city council members.
Our city used to be a tolerant one. Our councils represented everyone, fairly an equally.
Now we have become like Washington and brought that nasty politics to our city, we no longer look at people and guarantee that everyone has all the same rights as others, but now it is about group politics to see who can we take rights away from to give to others.
Yeah Right raises a point that is not unique to Measure W. The independent panel created by Measure V has the authority to allow a 10% raise as well.
And, everyone should please remember there is still the right to lease and mediation ordinances at the city level targeting this exact issue, and acting as a stop gap to nearly all of the tenants dire arguments. This is a complicated legal landscape, but if you read all applicable rules and understand the relationship between charter amendments, city ordinances and state law, you can then make an informed decision.
Sue – you have my unequivocal 100% support. The realistic picture here is getting lost. There are a load of small property owners in Mountain View (including myself) in your similar position who will be devastated if either of these are passed.
Vote No on Measure V and W.
This issue is to important to be buried on page 3.
Let’s keep it at the top, there should be no one against an informed public.
“We believe that rent stabilization is overdue and urgently needed to help staunch the flow from our community…” The word you want there is STANCH, not STAUNCH. Sheesh.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/staunch
1 staunch
transitive verb ˈstȯnch, ˈstänch
Popularity: Top 40% of words
Variant of stanch
1
: to check or stop the flowing of <stanched her tears>; also : to stop the flow of blood from (a wound)
2
archaic : allay, extinguish
3
a : to stop or check in its course <trying to stanch the crime wave>
b : to make watertight : stop up
So Much information is being withheld from the public. It is so important for the public to know and understand that Measure V is a Charter Amendment, it is the city’s equivalent of a Constitutional Amendment. It’s the nuclear option. It’s very hard to change.
Measure V does not cover 1995 and newer apartments, single family homes, condos, town-homes, row houses or duplexes. They are EXEMPT!.
So the burden of proof is on the supporters of Measure V, not the opponents! They need to explain why the languages below is good for the city. It is not about capping rents, with just cause evictions, as they have been telling people, but a power grab from the city government side and from private businesses.
***I have posted the page and sections of measure V below, some are a summary explanation of the text, but there is far more in there. But I want people to read this, copy it and email it to everyone. The only way to defeat this will be by word of mouth.*** PLEASE COPY-PASTE-PRINTOUT-HANDOUT!
============================================================================
Page 16 (k) Integrity and Autonomy of Committee.
This new rent board will be totally independent from our current city government. They will be an entire government body with all the power within our current governmental system.The city council and city attorney, and everyone else will have no say or control over what they do. There is no recall provision to remove these people or to be able to change any new laws they will make. No check and balances. The only option to repeal new laws they make will be to constantly raise money and put them on the ballot or challenge them in court.
============================================================================
Page 15 (j) Financing.
This new rent board has unlimited access to the general funds for what ever reason they choose. Measure V gives them this power. Any new laws they pass, and gets challenged in a lawsuit, they can take as much money they need from the general fund to defend the lawsuit.
============================================================================
Page 9 + 10 (7) Owner Move-in. (A) (B) (D)
Measure V is not about capping rents, it is about taking away rights from property owners. As an example, written in Measure V is language that states a landlord can not evict a tenant from a property for a family move in, like son or mother, unless that owner owns at least 50% interest in the property, then that family member has to live there for at least 36 months or be subject to penalties.
If there is already a family member living on the property, no further owner move in will be permitted.
============================================================================
Page 13 Section 1709. Rental Housing Committee (a)
This new 5 panel rent board can not have more than 2 real estate or landlord advocates, and must be a 3 member tenant advocate board. Is this equal or fair?
============================================================================
Page 18 (3) Fair Rate of return – Factors Excluded. (A) (C) (E)
In measure V, in states that “improvements to a property” will not be allowed to have a pass thru to Tenants. Only needed repairs to keep it as is will be allowed for any pass thru.This is the exact language in other rent controlled cities, and why you have and will have neighborhoods deteriorating in our city as well because of this language. No landlord will spend one penny to improve his property when the rent board will not allow any rent pass thru’s. For those of you who say it is bad now, wait till all improvements stops and see what happens to neighborhoods then.
The cost of dept service, including principal,interest and fees for any dept obtained after 10/19/15 will not be allowed for any rent pass thru for consideration for “Fair Return”.
Income Taxes will not be allowed for consideration for “Fair Return”
There is no business in United States that has these restriction on products or services they provide. To be considered for a truly “Fair Return” you have to take into account dept service, taxes. All businesses have to take these into account to make a profit and stay in business and keep paying the bills.
============================================================================
Page 7 + 8 Just Cause Evictions Protections. (4) Criminal Activity.
“The Tenant has continued, after the Landlord has served the Tenant with a notice to Cease, to be SO DISORDERLY as to destroy the peace, quiet, comfort, or safety of the landlord or other tenants at the property”.
Just look at other rent controlled cities and see how they look and the problems they have. SO DISORDERLY is the key word!
East Palo Alto, East San Jose, Hayward, San Leandro, Oakland. San Francisco is the number 1 city in all of United States for property crime, landlords are routinely denied to evict trouble makers there, and this same exact language is in Measure V. It will be up to the rent board to decide to allow any type of eviction, and with a majority tenant rent board, they will deny all evictions, just like S.F does.
These evictions issues should stay in the court system where an impartial judge makes the decisions, not a tenant biased rent board.
============================================================================
Measure V,
Everyone should read it.
If you do not read it and understand it, do not vote for it.
It will be a charter amendment to the city, and will be extremely difficult to change or modify.
That is why a super majority of the city council opposes it, and a super majority of council candidates oppose it.
============================================================================
We all know that markets have cycles, they go up, then they go down. It happened in the 1980’s, again in the 1990’s, in 2001, and it looks like we are starting the next cycle down. Rents are already falling, vacancies are way up, move in bonuses are being offered for move ins. The period of escalating rents are over, the market is now in reverse.
In every down cycle, rents fall and vacancy’s go up.
In the 1980’s landlords where offering free microwaves- which was an expensive item back then, and free trips to Hawaii for new tenants.
In 2001 the market rent for a 1 bedroom in Mtn. View was $1500. In 2003 it was $850 with a 30% vacancy factor on top of that.
Apartment owners all over the bay area where struggling to pay their bills. Many lost their properties and had to file for bankruptcy.
You did not have one landlord go to the city council demanding a bailout.
What people do not understand is, these mom and pop landlords can not survive in the next recession with rent control on top of them. These are artificially low rents during a recession and you can not cap these rent increases to CPI and expect these businesses to survive.
You are not capping anyone’s Else’s expenses that a landlord gets bills from, not one.
============================================================================
It has been proven over and over again. Rent controlled cities, like San Francisco, has fewer rent controlled apartments today than they did when they started rent control. Why, because landlords can not stay in business under rent control and they go out of business.
It totally defeats their arguments to say we have to have rent control to protect family’s, when all you are doing is removing these older- most affordable housing stock in the city from the rental market.
============================================================================
This measure had no public review, no Q&A from the public. It was written by outside groups behind closed doors, who have yet to be named. With no one from the business side present so as to get their point across.We do not know where all the money came to fund this, like the $7 paid for each signature gathered.
============================================================================
Measure V Measure W
Rent increase limit 2% to %5 0% to 5%
Just cause evictions._ yes yes
Rent Reduction for
decrease in YES YES
service. Who settles disputes Rent Board——–Professional-Arbitrator,Binding. board.
Retaliation Yes. Yes language.
If you support rent control, Vote No on Measure V and Yes on Measure W.
Measure V is a power grab.
If both measure passes, then Measure V will be the law as it is a Charter Amendment. It will take another 2 years and another ballot measure to fix the flaws.
I’m glad that our city is finally enacting rent control. We are a bit late, but better late than never!
http://www.pressdemocrat.com/news/6029273-181/santa-rosa-enacts-rent-control?artslide=0
“As it did earlier this month, the City Council voted 4-2 Tuesday in favor of an ordinance that will now go into effect Sept. 30. A companion law to protect tenants from unjust evictions goes into effect Sept. 16.
Council members praised newly presented details of the program.
City staff said it would require about four and half employees to implement and cost about $1.2 million to run annually. When spread out over the 11,076 apartments in the city expected to be affected by the law, the per unit cost will be $113 per year.
When split between the landlord and the tenant, which the law allows, that comes to $4.70 per month, which Councilwoman Julie Combs said she thought was a deal.
“For the security and stability of our community, for the assurance of having a place to live, and for not being evicted for no cause, I consider this a cost-effective program,” she said.”
Santa Rosa’s city council implemented rent control last month. They saw it was needed to protect the community and acted. I wish our council was as wise, but hopefully either V or W will pass. If not, I hope the new council joins the rapidly growing movement to preserve our wonderful communities.
@ “Update”
I would like your side the proponents of rent control to start answering questions about what all is in it this measures.
You are committing fraud to the residents of our city for not telling people about it, and to discuss it.
You have been distracting, stalling, calling people names who point out what is it in.
The rent cap that is in measure V does not cover the utility increases, water sewer,trash, P.G.&E.
You did not cap, not one of the numerous bills that come into the landlords every month.
In measure V, this new rent tax, that you bring up in your post about Santa Rosa, will not be passed on to the tenant, but the landlord has to pay.
Why is it in this rent control measure that a landlord has restrictions-denied the right to do any family move in for mother or son?
Please start answering questions.
Rent control on newer construction was made illegal statewide to benefit the affluent. Most of the state would never vote for rent control because they don’t need it. Most of the state is dry, jobless dirt patches, interspersed with water stolen from the rivers. That means no massive price hikes on rents.
The apartment owners used the initiative process to get their way along with a MASSIVE war chest of dark money.
I think if a community wants to enact rules that are constitutional, they should be allowed to do so. Being opposed by a bunch of voting districts that are uninterested is not what our founding fathers intended.
Most of my fellow homeowners will be voting for Prop V. We don’t think that it will damage our city and it is obvious that it will immediately help thousands of residents.
Rent control on newer construction was made illegal statewide to benefit the affluent. Most of the state would never vote for rent control because they don’t need it. Most of the state is dry, jobless dirt patches, interspersed with water stolen from the rivers. That means no massive price hikes on rents.
The apartment owners used the initiative process to get their way along with a MASSIVE war chest of dark money.
I think if a community wants to enact rules that are constitutional, they should be allowed to do so. Being opposed by a bunch of voting districts that are uninterested is not what our founding fathers intended.
Most of my fellow homeowners will be voting for Prop V. We don’t think that it will damage our city and it is obvious that it will immediately help thousands of residents.
Unfortunately this is a poorly written measure and will ultimately hurt good tenants. It will tie landlords hands in getting rid of deadbeat tenants and the cutbacks they have to make will go directly to reducing their overhead including employees and improvements. It is another layer of bureaucracy and government overreach. DON’T BE FOOLED, NO ON V.
A prolific poster on rent control has provided a “laundry list” of issues and questions.
Let’s Fact Check them! I have provided verbatim excerpts from the list, followed by a TRUE/FALSE evaluation that hopefully includes and adequate explanation. In most cases, I have provided the relevant excerpt(s) from the text of Measure V, which can be found here: https://mvtenantscoalition.files.wordpress.com/2016/04/040116-1.pdf.
Let’s proceed with the fact check:
CLAIM: “1-Evictions for family member move-ins may only happen if the owner has at least 50% of the property.”
EVAL: TRUE! That’s what the text of Measure V states.
CLAIM: “Then that family member has to live there for at least 36 months or be subject to penalties.”
EVAL: FALSE! The family member must in good faith INTEND to move into the property.
SOURCE: “The Landlord or enumerated relative must intend in good faith to move into the Rental Unit within sixty (60) days after the Tenant vacates and to occupy the Rental Unit as a Primary Residence for at least thirty-six (36) consecutive months.”
CLAIM: “Family move-in’s of an owner are not possible.”
EVAL: FALSE! Family members of owners can be moved in if that owner owns at least 50%. “
CLAIM: “No one has yet to explain why a owner of a property is such a threat to the community, and his family members, that they have to make new laws that would prevent family move in’s from happening.”
EVAL: FALSE! Family move-ins would only be prevented for owners that have < 50% ownership stake.
CLAIM: “2a- “This new rent board has unlimited access to the general funds for what ever reason they choose.”
EVAL: FALSE! The City provides the rent control board some initial funding, which is then refunded later at the City’s option.
SOURCE: “City to Advance Initial Funds. During the initial implementation of this Article, the City shall advance all necessary funds to ensure the effective implementation of this Article, until the Committee has collected Rental Housing Fees sufficient to support the implementation of this Article. The City may seek a reimbursement of any advanced funds from the Committee after the Rental Housing Fee has been collected.”
CLAIM: “2b-Any new laws they pass and gets challenged in a lawsuit, they can take as much money they need from the general fund to defend the lawsuit, etc.”
EVAL: FALSE! Funding comes from the landlords, except for initial funding of the rent board, which may be refunded at the City Council’s option. (Also, the rules they enact are not laws. Laws are enacted by elected officials and the People.)
SOURCE1: “The Committee shall finance its reasonable and necessary expenses, including without limitation engaging any staff as necessary to ensure implementation of this Article, by charging Landlords an annual Rental Housing Fee as set forth herein, in amounts deemed reasonable by the Committee in accordance with applicable law.”
SOURCE2: “The City may seek a reimbursement of any advanced funds from the Committee after the Rental Housing Fee has been collected.”
CLAIM: This new rent board will be totally independent from our current city government. The city council, city attorney, and everyone else will have no say or control over what they do.
EVAL: FALSE!. The rent board is dependent on the City in the following ways:
a) The board is appointed by the City.
b) The board is initially funded by the City.
c) The board cannot enforce an action against a landlord, nor participate in a litigation without approval by the City Council.
SOURCE1: “Pursue civil remedies as provided by this Article in courts of appropriate jurisdiction, subject to City Council approval. “
SOURCE2: “Intervene as an interested party in any litigation brought before a court of appropriate jurisdiction by a Landlord or Tenant with respect to Covered Rental Units, subject to City Council approval. “
CLAIM: “They will be an entire government body with all the power within our current governmental system.”
EVAL: FALSE! There does not exist any verbiage in Measure V that grants “all the power within our current governmental system.”
CLAIM: “There is no recall provision in V to remove these people.”
EVAL: FALSE! Recalls are only performed on elected officials. The rent board is appointed by elected officials—the City Council.
CLAIM: “If we do not like the new laws that they will make the only option to repeal these will be to constantly raise money and put it on the ballot.”
EVAL: FALSE! Measure V would become law if approved by a majority of the voters in MV. The board passes RULES, not laws. If a majority of voters do not like the board after it is formed, then they can pass an initiative.
CLAIM: “This is a new bureaucracy with no oversight.”
EVAL: FALSE! The City Council controls both appointments and authorizes the board’s legal actions.
CLAIM: “4- This new 5 panel rent board can not have more than 2 real estate or landlord advocates, and will be a 3 member tenant advocate board.”
EVAL: FALSE! The measure only requires that at least 3 of the board members not be involved financially in the rental or real estate business. If the board was dominated by landlords, then there’s a very real threat that the rent stabilization goals would be thwarted. In any case, if the City Council so wishes, it may appoint all five members who are politically opposed to rent control, as long as three of the five are not landlords or in the real estate game. Those three could live in houses, rentals, RV, trailers or even a boat. Measure V doesn’t care.
CLAIM: “5- Creates a lengthy process to evict problem tenants. Other landlords in rent controlled cities do not even try to do evictions because they are always denied.”
EVAL: FALSE! In Measure V, the process is simply to notify the rent board that an eviction notice has been served on the tenant. Then, it works exactly like all evictions without rent control, including a landlord initiated court action and assistance from the police to enforce the eviction. What is TRUE is that arbitrary evictions would be curtailed. If the landlord just doesn’t like the tenant for some reason, they can’t just kick them out.
CLAIM: “6a- Repair and Improvements. If you have a oven that needs repair for $300, you can pass that cost thru the rent. If you bought a new oven for $1,200 you can not pass that cost thru the rent, that is an improvement. “
EVAL: TRUE! in the limited case of an oven. Most expensive repairs in a rental would likely be related to a safety or code issue, which could then be passed through to the tenant. Even the oven scenario might be covered, depending on whether the fault created a code or safety issue.
CLAIM: “6b-“That is why you will have no landlord put any money into their property to fix it up, and that is why you have all these areas that have rent control turn into blighted areas.”
EVAL: FALSE! It is unlikely that NO landlords would not keep their properties maintained. It certainly has not happened in San Francisco, where most of the rent control units are reasonably well maintained. Most so-called “blighted” areas in the US are NOT under rent control, so a direct causal relationship is hardly a slam-dunk conclusion. Some studies indicate that rent controlled units may be BETTER maintained as the tenant is happy to have an affordable place to live and will contribute to the maintenance.
CLAIM: “7a- Measure V is a Charter Amendment to the city.”
EVAL: TRUE!
CLAIM: “It’s equivalent would be like the U.S Constitution.”
EVAL: FALSE! Here’s the easiest available process to add an amendment to the US Constitution: Step 1: Two thirds of both the HOUSE and the SENATE proposes the amendment. Step 2: The amendment must then be approved by 3/4 of the State Legislatures. To pass or retract a charter amendment simply requires a majority vote by the voting eligible residents of MV.
CLAIM: “It is extremely difficult to change or fix the flaws unless more ballot measures are done.”
EVAL: TRUE! The reason that Measure V is being proposed as a charter amendment, is that the City Council failed to respond adequately to this important issue. If it was easy to change or fix, then the City Council would most likely gut it.
CLAIM: It is the nuclear option to address this issue.
EVAL: FALSE! A nuclear blast would completely destroy a city and make it uninhabitable. Most economists believe that any POTENTIAL for negative issues would come on slowly. However, given that new construction is exempt from rent control, even the most pessimistic of economists would believe that Measure V would flatten MV.
CLAIM: “The public should have been apart of this debate, and had input, they where not included.”
EVAL: FALSE! The whole point of putting this on the ballot is to get the most powerful input the public can give—a Vote! The public has given public feedback to the City Council, which certainly has been read by the authors of Measure V.
CLAIM: “8- Under Measure V, the annual increase allowed will not even cover the annual increases in Water, Sewer, Trash and PG&E.”
EVAL: FALSE! Usually, the tenant pays for PG&E, which is the largest expense. If the other smaller items are substantially raised which significantly and negatively affects the business, then there is a provision in Measure V to pass it along to the tenant.
SOURCE: “Fair Rate of Return – Factors. In making any upward adjustment to the Rent based upon a Landlord’s Petition to ensure a fair rate of return, the Hearing Officer or Committee shall consider relevant factors, including but not limited to, the following: …
(B) Unavoidable increases or any decreases in maintenance and operating expenses;”
…”
CLAIM: “9- The writers of Measure V wrote that should measure V get challenged in court, the tax payers of Mtn.View will pay the legal bill, not the people who actually wrote the measure.”
EVAL: FALSE! The budget for legal defense as well as ALL of the board’s operations would come out of the Rental Housing Fees the landlord would be paying. There is a provision that would allow the board to REQUEST funding from the City, but there is nothing that would REQUIRE the City to approve and fulfill that funding request.
SOURCE1: “The Committee shall finance its reasonable and necessary expenses, including without limitation engaging any staff as necessary to ensure implementation of this Article, by charging Landlords an annual Rental Housing Fee as set forth herein, in amounts deemed reasonable by the Committee in accordance with applicable law.”
SOURCE2: “The Committee is also empowered to request and receive funding when and if necessary from any available source including the City for its reasonable and necessary expenses.
Now, let’s crunch some #’s:
# of Claims: 22
# True: 4 (18%)
# False: 18 (82%)
Result: With 82% of the claims being shown to be False, and only 18% shown to be True, it makes me see how the arguments against Measure V are not very rational. I think those that oppose are philosophically against any form of price controls and/or they are vested financially in rental real estate. Otherwise, there ought to be a substantial and verifiable argument to be made against the proposed Measure by now.
I hope that this was helpful. I am not connected in any way to the Mountain View Tenant Coalition, Daniel Debolt or any other organization involved in tenant rights, landlord rights, real estate, etc… I am simply an informed voter who wanted to provide thoughtful input on this important election issue.
Obviously very slanted but how about a fact check on the proponent. Most of the empirical evidence does not support rent controls. Also some of you facts are slanted. Claim 8 ignore s quality improvements. And part of claim 7 does not really address the public input allowed to write the measure. The measure was poitically motivates by a special interest group. lLawyers not business people wrote this measure by copying measures from other cities.
What an amazing snow job.
‘CLAIM: “There is no recall provision in V to remove these people.”EVAL: FALSE! Recalls are only performed on elected officials.’
[Translation: There IS, in fact, no “recall provision” to remove board members. Nit-picking. Claim was true.]
‘CLAIM: “If we do not like the new laws that they will make the only option to repeal these will be to constantly raise money and put it on the ballot.” EVAL: FALSE! . . .The board passes RULES, not laws. If a majority of voters do not like the board after it is formed, then they can pass an initiative.’
[Translation: Put it on the ballot — which is how you “pass an inititive.” As claimed, all True. Imputing artificial significance to Mike’s casual word choices (“laws” vs “rules,” “recalling” board members vs. elected officials, etc.) in order to ignore their obvious intended meaning, then artificially cry “FALSE,” is pretty shallow reasoning. Has someone been reading Orwell? Try pulling those stunts as a student in a serious univesity-level course some time.
‘CLAIM: “4- This new 5 panel rent board can not have more than 2 real estate or landlord advocates, and will be a 3 member tenant advocate board.”EVAL: FALSE! The measure only requires that at least 3 of the board members not be involved financially in the rental or real estate business. ‘
[Translation: Yes, the board cannot have more than 2 real estate or landlord advocates. True, by obvious intended meaning.]
‘CLAIM: “5- Creates a lengthy process to evict problem tenants. Other landlords in rent controlled cities do not even try to do evictions because they are always denied.”EVAL: FALSE! ‘
[Mike had simply reported the practical reality commonly occurring in other rent-controlled towns, which is TRUE — I’ve rented in some of them. “Fact Checker” either doesn’t know the practical history of US rent control, or does know it, and is being disingenuous.]
‘CLAIM: “6b-“That is why you will have no landlord put any money into their property to fix it up, and that is why you have all these areas that have rent control turn into blighted areas.” EVAL: FALSE! . . .Most so-called “blighted” areas in the US are NOT under rent control. . .’
[Wonderful though cheap rhetorical gimmick, a variant of the post-hoc-ergo-propter-hoc fallacies. Most people with cancers are non-smokers; therefore, smoking causes no cancers. Once again, anyone who has experienced rent control with open eyes knows the original claim as TRUE.]
‘CLAIM: “It’s equivalent would be like the U.S Constitution.”EVAL: FALSE! Here’s the easiest available process to add an amendment to the US Constitution: (blah blah blah)’
[Translation: Again, TRUE. Original poster made an ANALOGY, clear to any reader who isn’t determined to misunderstand. Another election is necessary to revise a city charter amendment. Quod erat demonstrandum: “Fact Checker” playing willfully disingenuous word games.]
‘CLAIM: “The public should have been apart of this debate, and had input, they where not included.”EVAL: FALSE!. . .’
[Once again, intentionally misrepresenting original poster’s intent. The basic claim here — that MEASURE V ITSELF was drafted behind closed doors WITHOUT participation of the affected public — is true and irrefutable, so it becomes necessary to play definition games. Claim was TRUE.]
Since the upshot of “Fact Checker’s” excercise here was to tally a “score,” arguing that criticisms of Measure V are “not very rational” (a claim with a certain irony, after how Fact Checker generated that result!), what puzzles me is why not make up several more fallacious analyses to pad the “score” even better? Since this series of arguments demonstrated no respect for real facts or meanings, the field remains wide open.
@ “Common Sense”
The rebuttal to your post above has been answered in the other thread titled,
“Rent control opponents raise $1.2M to defeat Bay Area measures”
You are still wrong, no matter how many times you repost these same dishonest posts.
And why are you always doing it under different names?
Vote No
It’s a power Grab
Wrong for MTN.View
Mr. Fact Checker,
just because you say it, does not mean it is true. You have a very rosy view of rent control. This ordinance creates a Renters vs Landlords environment. It is not a war anyone wants to be part of. “fixing” the high rent problem on the backs of those who have their life savings invested in these properties creates an adversarial situation that will not end well. “Landlords will pay the fees”. Are you aware of all the fees that the city demands of landlords. They just recently placed a $7 per unit Multi-housing inspection fee on all landlords that provides no benefit to landlords. Are you aware of what the cost of a permit is to replace a cabinet ($700) or remove a tree?($600) How about the cost for a mandatory business license or pool inspection? Your landlord pays it. If you don’t think tenants are going to end up suffering for costs that landlords can’t recoup because they have to struggle to make their mortgage, you are quite naive.
@ “Common sense”
My apologies to you. I included your name in my 3rd. post above this one. I was responding to the 3 same posts, on 3 different threads made here, at the same time by “Fact Checker”. I meant to use his name not yours.
You posted a very good reply and discredited “Fact Checker” post.
Tell all your friends what’s in these measures and how bad it will be for Mtn.View.
Vote No
It’s a power grab
Wrong for MTN.View
Gee – it is called majority rule, I UNDERSTAND V is a Charter Amendment! Just like the people (as expressed by a majority vote of the state electorate) in June 2014 changed the California State Constitution to protect the former statutory right to Public Documents. Proposition 42, 60% made it a state constitutional right.
So get over it. Vote for V specifically because it IS A Charter Amendment. When the people want ‘to fix it’ (5% is probably better than 2%) then the people will fix it! 50% majority vote, not of the Council, our local legislature, but of the people.
Please read up on our own political history. The Progressive Movement had a very strong presence in California over 100 years ago. The people – decided to wrest some control of the political process from The State Legislature – who were controlled by interests like “The Octopus” (Frank Norris).
Power to the people is a pseudonym of Mr. Nelson, who couldn’t agree more with Dr. Rudolph on this one.
@ “Power to the people”
The problem with what you are trying to do, is to lie to the people with all what is in V, telling people who vote for it that our city will become Utopia, etc.
If you can’t tell people all what’s in it, all what it will do, and how all the negative effects that rent control has on other cities like East Palo Alto, East San Jose, etc, and can not say how our city will not turn into one of these other rent control cities that have higher crimes and more blighted areas, then everyone should vote no.
One thing has been made very clear over this discussion of measure V. There has been no transparency with this group of outside special interest that wrote it, or where all the money came to fund it, like the $7 per signature gathers got paid per signature. These supporters have tried to keep all of the 20 some pages of this measure secret, but the public has been reading it and asking questions about it, but all we get is spin, dishonest answers,and personal attacks by these proponents of rent control if we do not agree with them.
We do not want MTN.View to turn into a divisive city with serious issues that these rent control measures will bring us.
The proponents of measure V have been trying to commit fraud on the city. They know most people will not read the measure, do not just read the ballot pamphlet as it does not say the bad stuff, read the entire 20 some pages of the measure.
Measure V is a power grab and a new government bureaucracy with no accountability or any check and balances.
Vote No
It a power grab
Wrong for Mtn.View
So I guess it’s ok for the majority to step on the rights of a few greedy landlords. Makes sense to me. NOT
Lots of conservatives love to throw around “economic science”, but constrain their thinking to a very narrow aspect. Free market, supply and demand, price controls are all interesting terms, but one must be careful on their application.
It seems to make a lot of sense that if rent control economically destroyed landlords, then rental properties would never be built. Supply would dwindle and prices would skyrocket. It all makes sense, right? Economic science rules supreme!
Where this all falls short is the particular (and peculiar) environment of California and the very limited proposals for local rent control. First, when a tenant leaves, the landlord can reset the rent to any amount they wish. Second, rent control only applies if the rental is the tenants primary residence.(disallows moving and subletting the unit)z Third, if the property is redeveloped, then rent control does not apply. Therefore, supply of new rental housing is not restricted.
When applying “economic science”, it is incorrect to automatically assume that every economic study of rent control applies to all forms of it. Careful examination of the studies shows that California’s unique situation differentiates itself from the cities that were studied–such as NYC. If one wishes to claim that “economic science” states that Measure V will cause massive devastation in MV, but cannot cite an apples-to-apples study supporting this, then really it is just an opinion.
Measure V will immediately protect tens of thousands of renters here in MV from massive price hikes and unjust evictions. That’s why I’m voting for V!!
The issue we have before us is V and W.
These are the ballot measures that voters will be voting on.
Voters, do not read the ballot pamphlet as it does not say the bad things in it. You must read all the 40 some pages of the measure. If you do not read it and understand it do not vote on it.
We have a right to know who these outside special interest group is and who the people are that wrote it and funded it. We have been denied the repeated requests for them to be identified and to answer questions about the actual language in the measure. No credible reply has been given.
I am reposting a post below from someone who has yet to receive any answer.
====================================================Posted by Sue
a resident of North Whisman
on Oct 17, 2016 at 7:35 pm
Measure V is a Horrific measure that deserves a No Vote.
My family owns a 5 plex, Mother and Father, sister and me.
We each have a 25% ownership interest in the property.
My sister lives in another state, she has a son and daughter.
The son wants to go to Santa Clara University next year.
The year after that, the daughter wants to go to Palmer College.
We have already been talking that they will be living at our 5 plex.
We want them to live in the only unit that has a 2 bedroom.
Under this new law, if it passes, we will not have any legal right to move in any family member, if it is occupied.
You will have to have a 50% ownership interest first, and then go ask permission first from the rent board.
Each of us has a 25% interest, we have no legal right to do this as you first need a 50% interest!
How can this be even legal.
How can any of you justify this!
How can anyone support a council member or a candidate, that supports this measure.
We will just be continuing with these divisive acts against minority groups in our city if we send divisive candidates into the position of city council members.
Our city used to be a tolerant one. Our councils represented everyone, fairly an equally.
Now we have become like Washington and brought that nasty politics to our city, we no longer look at people and guarantee that everyone has all the same rights as others, but now it is about group politics to see who can we take rights away from to give to others.
====================================================
Vote No
It’s a power grab
Wrong for MTN.View
It’s a shame that Lind…uh… “Mike” has resorted to name calling. This is typical of his political party. Trump is always yelling that there is a media conspiracy (like “Mike’s” unfounded claims about MV Voice). I guess when people smarten up, people like “Mike” get frustrated and go a bit nuts.
Chicago has a higher crime rate than MV. They also don’t have rent control. By his logic, our crime rate will go up if we don’t have rent control. See how ridiculous you sound?
Doesn’t matter. Measure V will pass. Too many smart people live here now.
Please show me one city whose business community says, “yes we love rent control, it’s done wonders for the economy of our city.”
It’s very sad that those who will vote for V will not have to feel the long lasting effects of it. All they have to do is give a 30 day notice and they’re gone.
This is an assault on private property rights. What’s next? V is bad for Mountain View. Vote NO
The everyday financial assault on our residents is a far greater loss of freedom, than preventing the arbitrary eviction of tenants thru massive hikes in rent. Landlords overvalue their properties by escalating the rents too high and too quickly. Restricting the rent increases to 10 percent is hardly unjust. 10 percent is still a very large increase. It’s just not ridiculously high.
Don’t let Linda Curtis, Shari Emling and the other closet republicans convince us that Prop V is equivalent to legalizing slavery! First, that is an absolutely disgusting comparison. Secondly, it makes zero sense!
Vote Yes on V. Vote Yes on W as a safety.
One of the worst things about rent control measures like V and W is that they punish the landlords who have kept rents below market for decades the most, and the landlords who have been keeping their rents at the market rate the least.
Society, and government, is at its worst and most unjust when generous and desirable behavior is punished rather than encouraged. Even though in a democracy, with a majority vote it’s legal to punish the kind-hearted landlords the worst, it’s senseless and unfair.
City Council very well may have dropped the ball on this, but that in itself is not an argument for voting for V or W, at least it shouldn’t be.
Anyways, rents in Mountain View have already leveled off, if they haven’t already starting coming down, according to every online rent tracking system I know of: https://www.trulia.com/real_estate/Mountain_View-California/market-trends/ (Trulia), https://www.rentjungle.com/average-rent-in-mountain-view-rent-trends/ (Rent Jungle), http://www.zillow.com/mountain-view-ca/home-values/ (Zillow). If you have data that contradicts these sources, please post it.
Not to mention, thousands of new units have recently been approved or are already being built. Supply will be catching up to demand soon.
I suggest voting no on both V and W. They are onerous and permanent solutions to a supply and demand problem that is largely behind us.
I’m voting NO on both V and W, and urge everyone who pays for a subscription to the Mountain View Voice to reconsider their financial support of a publication that advocates such measures.
No, I am not a landlord, nor do I have any financial stake in this. Measure V is just a feel-good proposal that won’t solve the problem and will have disastrous unintended consequences for our city. Measure W is almost as bad. Just get on facilitating private-sector construction of more quality housing and control office expansion.
What does it mean to move in to a new home? It should mean a welcome to a new neighborhood and a new community – not just for a year, but for the foreseeable future. It means kids making friends at a new school. It means finding neighbors you know well enough to talk with. Our society is better when we support housing stability for everyone. We all need a home. By state law, landlords will still charge any rent at move-in of a new tenant. Landlords have chosen their current rents to support their costs and make a profit. With measure V, landlords will still be making a profit. Measure V will just balance the landlord’s future profit increases with the needs of renters to have stability in their housing. Good landlords have not been hiking rents on current tenants, and good landlords are still making money. With measure V, now the restrictions good landlords impose on themselves will be imposed on all landlords. By law, Mountain View renters will only receive reasonable rent increases. Landlords who want to improve their properties can still do so, out of their profits, and to secure higher rents from new tenants. In California, rent control is limited to rent stabilization for current tenants. It makes so much sense. It doesn’t prevent profits. It just slows down windfall profits, and give our whole community stability. Measure V will benefit the whole city, and I hope many other cities will follow.
@ “Resident”
I do not know what it is with you people. No matter how often you post the same false information in different threads, it is still FALSE!
Residents should understand that this same nonsense language is also in Measure V.
@ “Resident”
“Rent control on newer construction was made illegal statewide to benefit the affluent”.
No you are wrong.
If you do not agree, please post your “white paper”.
When rent control started to come into city’s across the state, like San Francisco in the 1970’s, all new construction for apartments in those cities stopped. When it came to the point where cities where hurting to house the new people moving in to them and could not find housing, the local politicians went to Sacramento and asked them to pass a state law that would exempt new construction for rentals.
Rent control hurts cities. Look at East Palo Alto, East San Jose, etc.
Vote No
It’s a power grab
Wrong for Mtn.View
I love Mountain View, and have lived here since 1998. I own a 4-unit building that I lived in for years, and some of the current tenants have been with me since I purchased the building, or shortly thereafter. They include families and retirees. I still live in Mountain View, and I plan to stay.
I have never raised the rent more than 8% in a year, to avoid dislocating tenants. As a result, the rents in that building are significantly below market. I’m fine with that, because I know eventually there will be a slowdown, and it will be possible to align the rents with the market, without dislocating tenants.
As a landlord, I would be seriously hurt by Measure V, in that the rents will always be significantly below other units under rent control. I believe the tenants would also be hurt, because not too long from now, it will become difficult to maintain the property with the rent increases allowed by Measure V. Measure W would be a much better choice, since it allows 5% rent increases. That annual increase is likely to eventually let the rents reach market rates, without dislocating tenants.
As a resident, I truly believe that Measure V would cause older neighborhoods to dilapidate, and effectively become slums. Increases in crime will inevitably follow, and because Measure V is a city charter amendment, it will be very difficult to change when that happens. It’s very unlikely that the required effort would go into modifying the amendment in the future.
If you believe in rent control, please vote:
No on V
YES on W
Sincerely
MV Landlord and Resident
All these backyard Economists posting their personal observations based on feelings and emotion.
when applying Economic Science, I prefer to use facts, not random posts. Facts like those researched and presented by the NON PARTISAN fiscal and policy advisor of our very own California Legislative Analysts Office.
The Legislative Analysts Office, California’s own nonpartisan fiscal and policy advisor says rent control does NOT WORK. Their economic studies and facts PROVE that;
Under rent control;
Rental subsidies go to affluent renters (not those in need)
Overall quality of housing declines
Reduces availability of affordable housing
VOTE NO ON MEASURE V
I’ll say it again. The NON PARTISAN (not liberal, not conservative) CALIFORNIA (not NY or other state) advisor states that rent control does not work.
Where are your factual information and statistical references Econ101? Oh right, you don’t have any. You’ve been asked repeatedly and only throw out ideas, thoughts and feelings.
@ “@Not really”
“The everyday financial assault on our residents is a far greater loss of freedom”
A responsible citizen lives within their means. Freedom means that people have the right to choose where they would like to live. No one is forcing anyone to live here. If they want to live in this high expense part of the country, then there is a price to pay for that decision.
Those low income people would personal be better off in a different part of the country where they would have the same income, be able to rent a house for the price of a 1 bedroom here and be able to save enough to actually buy their own house and save for retirement. They can not do that here.
It is more than offensive to have people who have no idea what they are talking about, regarding what these businesses go thru in an entire economic cycle. They never seen a P&L statement. They never had to go thru a refinance on a commercial loan thru a bank which they will tell you what you need to qualify for a loan. They never seen all the bills that come in every month that has to be paid.
Most of these smaller properties are owned by Mom and Pop family’s where this is there business and entire income. They have to pay all their own bills as well.
These proponents of rent control are like someone who constantly tells a pilot how to fly a plane, but he has never flown one himself.
Would you trust yourself to be a passenger in that plane if that proponent took over the controls to be the pilot? I know I would not.
The basic argument for a no vote is this, the residents have not been told what all is in these 40 some pages of these measures. It is a power grab of our city with a new in elected, unaccountable new bureaucracy rent board with unlimited access to the general fund with the power to write new laws.
Rent control hurts cities.
We have yet to be told the names of the people who wrote V and where all the money came to fund this.
There has been no Q&A public meetings held by the people who wrote it so people can ask questions about it. Nor has anyone on this board answered specific questions about it.
The voters have twice already voted down rent control in our city going back to 1980. Had it passed back then our city today would resemble the other rent controlled cities around the Bay Area instead of the vibrant city we have today where people actually want to come and live in.
If this is a community problem, then the entire community needs to contribute to solve it and not on the backs of any minority group. There is no other business in United States that has these rules forced on them.
On the ballot is a $950 million dollar bond for low income housing. We will see what the voters decide.
Vote No
It’s a power grab
Wrong for MTN.View