|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Mountain View’s fledgling rent-control program is facing its biggest test to date: thousands of apartment tenants having their rents roll back to Oct. 2015 rates this week. So far, city officials say they are hearing remarkably few reports of problems, leading them to believe that nearly all landlords are complying with the new law.
Mountain View Associate Planner Anky van Deursen said the city is cautiously optimistic that the roll out of rent control under the voter-approved Measure V has been mostly successful. In the days leading up to the implementation, her office sent out about 16,500 letters to give notice of the new rules to both tenants and landlords. Leading up to May, the city’s hotline on Measure V was fielding upward of 100 calls a day, she said.
For the most part, landlords were acting in good faith, she said, trying to figure out how to comply with the new law. While the city has urged tenants to take initiative by reaching out to landlords, city officials say it is ultimately the landlords’ responsibility to fulfill the new rules.
“This week was when everyone started worry and wondering how to implement it,” van Deursen said. “Most of the calls were questions about how do we go forward with this.”
For both landlords and tenants, there remains plenty of unanswered questions on the new law. Many of those questions haven’t been resolved yet, since Measure V’s rental housing committee still needs to discuss and set many of its policies.
On Monday, May 8, the new five-person rental housing committee will convene its first public meeting. This initial session will be taken up mostly with procedural business: electing a committee chair and vice-chair and setting the schedule for the rest of the year.
But next week’s meeting will also set the stage for what will likely be some heated debates to come. The committee will discuss its work plan for the year, including discussion on major issues such as hiring enforcement officers, creating an apartment registry and determining a “fair rate of return” for landlords.
The meeting will be held at 7 p.m., Monday, May 8, at the City Hall Plaza Conference Room at 500 Castro St. An agenda for the meeting can be found on the city’s website.
Wish this applied to our rent situation. Just got a call from my landlord probably wanting to raise the rent another $200 this year. It’s really stressful dreading that yearly call from him. We live in a town house that he rents to two families and i’ve been there 10 years.
Prometheus is only “thinking about it”
I could not find the year our place was built anywhere, so was thrilled to get a letter with a drop in rent.
AS a landlady with several houses that I rent out, that my husband and I worked our butts off to pay for I would like to state that the day they come under rent control…they will go up for sale…removing 5 rental homes from the market….I would also like to state that the highest I get for a 3/2 with a two car garage is 2,600…….The rent was raised in January for the first time in seven years….considering that in 35 years we have taken 4 vacations,instead using our money to pay off these homes….I find it appalling that a city council can tell me what to charge rents for MY investments….when do you go tell Tesla or ford what to charge for there cars…or Safeway about what to charge for a package of meat. ? Once again the people on the city council have there nose in people’s private business. MAybe they plan to lower my property taxes to 2015…..
Um, the City Council didn’t vote on this…the voters did. The Measure, which was on the ballot in 2016, also creates a new body, called the Rental Housing Committee, who will be the arbiters of Mountain View rent control. Angry? Blame your fellow residents/voters. City Council voted No on rent control time and time again – which is why the tenants brought it to the voters!
You could be charging $4000 for a 3/2 with a 2 car garage, when I was renting I was paying $3200 for a 2/1 townhouse without a garage in MV before I bought the house I live in now. I could easily rent my now townhouse (3/1.5) for $3600, so it’s your choice to lose out on that much money every month.
Don’t sell your best investments Jeanne, only your bad ones. Make hay while the sun is shining! Find out your rights but you should be getting market rate of $6K-$6500+ for your 3/2. Maybe an upgrade improvement could be what you need.
Please be sure to actually read the Measure to understand if it applies to your home:
http://www.mountainview.gov/depts/comdev/preservation/rentstablization.asp
On November 8, 2016, the residents of the City of Mountain View voted to adopt Measure V, also known as the Community Stabilization and Fair Rent Act (“CSFRA”), to stabilize rents and provide just cause eviction protections for certain Rental Units in Mountain View.
Effective April 5, 2017, rent levels and rent increases for covered rental units, built before February 1, 1995 must comply with the CSFRA. Single family homes, condominiums, and duplexes are not covered by the CSFRA. If you like to check if your multi-family apartment complex is built before 1995, please click here (go to the referenced webpage for link).
@Jeanne Governments regulate prices all the time. I’m not saying I know enough to know whether rent control is the best economic policy, but it doesn’t apply to you.
I had what I considered a pretty reasonable rent increase several years, and then last year they started really jacking up the price so I was glad to see it go back to Oct. 2015 levels, it’s still pretty high. In fact my 2/2 apt in a complex is still more than your house so I would love to check it out -my kids want a house so badly.
I am very disappointed that our city officials believe they can (or should) regulate what is a fair rental rate that landlords can charge for their properties. Why should anyone be able to medal with the free market? And why just rental’s? I don’t believe the city is looking to regulate other people’s incomes in Mountain View? Why not cap what others can charge for their goods and services? Why aren’t we setting the rate my dentist can charge or what the market can charge for milk and bread? Rentals are how I make my living and I should not be limited on what I can charge for MY properties! If the free market is willing to pay a higher amount, than I should be able to benefit from that. Most of my tenants work in high tech and make more money than I ever did. Would they be willing to have their stock or salary regulated?
I worked for years in order to be able to purchase these properties. After buying them, I worked on them on weekends and nights fixing them and giving up family time so I would have money for my children to go to college and so I could one day retire. I had several years where I had to pay money every month out of my pocket to pay for the loan, the repairs and all the other costs associated with owning property and I lost money. All this for the payoff of one day that is now being hijacked/stolen from me!
The fact is that Measure V was intended to help provide more affordable housing for Mountain View and it will end up doing just the opposite. I get calls from developers all the time that want to buy my properties so they can tear them down and build new “expensive” Townhomes. I have resisted selling for years but now see it as my only good alternative.
Another thing I am really disgruntled about is while I understand the authors of Measure V wanting to provide more affordable housing for residents but why would they choose to only hurt the landlords of these properties (We are the people who worked hard to buy these properties and took all the risks over the years). Why not pass a city tax that would go to subsidize the tenants in MV so no one segment of people (the Landlords) feel the burden and the burden is shared by all the residents. A tax would be the only fair and equitable way to provide affordable housing….. #SellingAsSoonAsPosible #TearingThemDown #DoneWithSocialism
“Why should anyone be able to medal with the free market?”
We don’t have a free market in local housing. Supply is highly regulated in MV, and for good reasons, but the end result is housing supply can’t freely adjust to market forces. *Therefore, landlords benefit from this market distortion.*
Pre-rent control, it was the landlords that benefited from government interference in the free market, rent control now means the government is regulating both ends. You want a free market? Then deregulate both ends of the equation.
Nicole’s comments are reflective of the problem with rent control; those who voted it in have no understanding of economic policy. Unfortunately you were sold a bill of goods by a group whose intentions were heartfelt but severely misguided.
So we’re left with those like Ready To Tear Down who have worked hard, made sacrifices and who are paying the price for those ideologies that feel taking from one so another can stay is OK. It’s not. And it’s going to backfire and everyone’s loses.
Sad. Sad that people who have Literally no knowledge or understanding can determine someone else’s future. Sad.
It’s my understanding that this law does not apply to town homes, or single family homes. It only applies to multi it dwellings such as duplexes and apartment buildings.
This is at happens when voters vote to tax or punish a population to which they don’t belong. You can bet these people won’t be buying homes in Mountain View. People with a complete lack of understanding of economics and social responsibility vote to tax and punish others, to their own advantage. This sort of legislation is very dangerous.
Very unfortunate that the voters sought to punish owners of older buildings. These older buildings are generally already lower rent rates than the newer buildings and measure V makes it so unprofitable for owners that they are better off selling to developers. Greedy, stupid people, trying to take advantage. You folks who voted this in didn’t just screw over small property owners. You also screwed future renters and yourselves. The stringency of measure V does not allow owners to ask a renter to leave. An owner can have a drug dealer and there isn’t any way to get rid of them. Get it? There have been a lot of major drug busts and lately. With drugs, you have guns. Get it? Owners can no longer ask these hoods to leave. It can take years for these sorts of riff raff to get busted, and only when the activity is extreme. Welcome to your neighborhood. Have fun with it.
The landlord tears in this comment section are so delicious. Please keep them coming. Y’all still haven’t figured out why this happened to you. All the complaining about economics and what’s efficient is just like when Trump won. None of that matters when you were greedily siphoning off money from people and they were facing down exorbitant rents or eviction.
You had your chance to help people by pushing for more housing supply to bring rents down, but you saw dollar signs and were happier lining your own pockets. The People, through our wonderful democracy, took matters into their own hands. All you’ve been left with is suing our fair city and whining in newspaper comments sections. Why not try to help your community for once instead of just trying to get rich off the backs of people who work for a living?
Well, the law suit by CAA has beeen just dropped.
Well, CAA just dropped their lawsuit
If anyone had 5 rental homes bought a good while back, they’d not be talking about selling them all on an impulse.
The capital gains tax would hit hard. I don’t see why else Jeanne should not sell though, because that
would be 5 more homes available for sale.
The rent committee was selected by the anti-rent control city council and is mostly anti-rent control. It is like making a polluter the head of the EPA. As to rollbacks, what landlords have credited tenants with the earlier (lower) level back to December or even April 4th? None I bet. Tenants will need to sue and sue some more. And before you know it, the anti-rent control city council will put on the city ballot a proposal to REPEAL AND pretend to) REPLACE Measure V.
Equity Residential sent letters to every tenant informing them of the rollback and adjusted amount. Spot on
@Landlord tears…..I made not a landlord. But I am someone who has made a very big investment in this community (by purchasing a home at a ridiculously high price) and frankly it is offensive and frightening that you feel you can scoff, poke fun at and make snide comments to me. But it’s very telling about the attitudes and behaviors of those seeking rent control.
As I said before, very sad.
Should read “I am not a landlord”
“So sad,”
Thank you for making it even more clear that you just don’t get it. I’m sure it’s “offensive and frightening that [I] feel [I] can scoff, poke fun at and make snide comments” to you. I suppose you think we renters should know our place, not get uppity and talk back to our betters.
What have you done to help the housing crisis? You parked your $1M+ in property here and think you’ve “invested” in the community. Meanwhile, the community is being priced out and evicted. Are you going to use your new-found position in the community to push for more housing supply in Mountain View and bring down rents?
Further correction: we’re not seeking rent stabilization, we got it 🙂
The terrible attitude, selfishness, gloating and hypocrisy of the Tenants Coalition and its “leadership” will only help in turning the tide against them. There is no doubt “Landlord Tears” is one of the “leaders.” The tenant group leaders are extremists in the Bay Area rental population just as ISIL is to mainstream Muslims. Same with the landlords behaving badly, a fringe minority not representative of the whole group. This must have been the one time they “won” something other than a participation prize, too bad what they really won is the long term destruction of moderate priced housing in Mountain View. Sad.
The long-term destruction of “moderate priced housing” began with the passage of Prop 13. That ship sailed long ago. Rent control is the other side of the same coin. Quite frankly there’s no reason to keep one and not the other. If you want to get rid of rent control so that you can charge market rents on your investment properties, then get rid of Prop 13 so you can be charged taxes on the market values of those properties.
Smiles, again, you still don’t get why this happened to you. It’s the same reason Trump won: you can talk all you want about attitude and tone, but at the end of the day, when people are facing being unable to provide for their families due to skyrocketing rents or outright eviction, attitude doesn’t matter if you’re not offering a solution. And the landlords didn’t even try to offer a solution, all they did was try to buy off the council (see the Voice article about post-election donations, Kasperzak’s emails to the CAA, Measure W, the fact that Tom Means is on the committee, etc.).
Tenants will listen if you want to work together to increase the housing supply in Mountain View so everyone who works here can afford to live here. But until you face up to the fact that your greed put you in this position, and that you only have yourself to blame, there isn’t going to be any progress.
Finally, if you’re attempting to be the attitude police, you’re not helping your cause by comparing the other side to ISIS…
Your comments are incredibly ignorant and highly uneducated. I am curious what you want to be when you grow up? “you know nothing Jon Snow” They are mildly entertaining though.
@@Yimby
You might want to leave the playground first before you start telling other people to grow up in between ad hominems.
Well, it appears that some landlords are aware of the retroactive refund issue regarding the lifting of the TRO. The apartment next door to me issued “rebates” for the overpaid rents from December 23 to May. This would be easy for any landlord that was interested in having a good relationship with tenants and not trying to take advantage of them. Those costs should be at most somewhere between $200 – $300 a month. It would come to $800-$1,200 per applicable unit.
But any landlord with a substantial raise in in this time period is stuck with a major financial problem. For example my rent rose $900 a month when my NEW landlord bought my building at a cost of $4.9 Mil on a City appraised property only worth $1.15 Mil. This was not a decision I negotiated, nor would have I supported if the buyer had given me a chance to advise before it was bought. This was done when the information was available, but the person did not seek it, and relied only on the sellers marketing when buying the property.
This situation applies to 6 units in my building where on the average the rents were raised the same $900 a month. This results in a potential loss of $900 times 4 months times 6 units which comes to $21,600.
Those landlords have no interest in having a good relationship with tenants and in fact are openly hostile to them to encourage them to leave. They are in fact trying to penalize innocent victims for their own poor judgement. They had the freedom to do so until the CSFRA was passed by the voters. This codified that the citizens lawful rent on a unit where the person lived in since October 2015, is the rent paid in that month starting December 23, 2016. Now the situation has been remedied and tenants have an equal negotiating position.
I did issue my letter to my landlord, he is “requesting” guidance on the issue as we speak.
My hope is that since no court order froze the TRO in place after it was lifted, this should be the simple truth. That the CSFRA was restored in entirety, and that even though the City Attorney let the plaintiffs have their TRO in December, the fact is the City Attorney cannot hold off the City Charter enforcement until the court issues an order overriding the language of the CSFRA.
Any property attorney should not advise a Mountain View landlord that there is any “grey” area in the law at this time.
Also, I noticed that the plaintiffs in the Mountain View case have become completely inactive. The case has no scheduled hearing at this time. Yes the CAA has not formally withdrawn the case, it appears they are not pursuing any legal processes at this time. Is it possible they know that they have a losing case, but will not withdraw because it would irreparably damage the credibility of the CAA and their Attorney?
This seems to be also occurring in the Contra Costa court regarding Richmond. The CAA is simply not going to publicly concede that its law actions were ill conceived. They are using the inaction to maintain the “active” status of the laws suits, but it is a sign that they really don’t understand how their complaints were never valid, and could never be substantiated in court.
I have to agree with YIMBY
When Costa-Hawkins was passed in 1995, it was argued that the imposition of rent control would cause either a lack of available affordable housing, or a lack of investors willing to develop new residential inventory to improve the supply of affordable housing. The concept was if you let the free market work, the investors would build more residential projects to increase the supply.
As we all know the market prices are dictated by the intercept of the plotted demand line and the supplier anticipated return lines. Demand is determined as to how much the market is willing to spend based on the number of available units. This line increases in price when there is less available supply. The supply line is the amount of anticipated or required income expected based on the supply levels at various amounts.
Costa Hawkins was passed based on the promise of increased supply making housing more affordable. But what happened in the last 20 years? If you read this government report (http://www.lao.ca.gov/reports/2015/finance/housing-costs/housing-costs.aspx) it demonstrates that the amount of supply increased less than 2% since Costa Hawkins became the law. The industry simply did not build any significant increase in housing. But the number of need employees statistically is still radically outpacing the supply, hiring grew from 14.4 mil CES to 16.7 mil, an increase of 20% if you look at this government report (http://www.deptofnumbers.com/employment/california/).
If you want to say that the free market is efficiently improving the housing situation, this information seems to prove we are falling behind in supply as much as 18%. And you wonder why there is an affordable housing crisis?
The cause of the crisis is not workers in the state of California, it is the apartment industries lack of ability to build new housing. This situation should not have occurred since there was freedom to make as much profit as possible under Costa Hawkins.
The verdict in my humble opinion is that Costa Hawkins is a failure. It must be repealed. Also the State, County, and Cities of California must build it’s own residential resources as a “public” owned property. By doing so, we can be assured that the supply problem will be dealt with. But we are starting extremely behind.
Dana Gardens / Zell Associates is choosing not to comply and has sent threats of eviction to tenants who attempted to pay the rolled back rent. Its a shame as things were good here until they enacted large rent increases, made tenants pay for garbage/water/sewage, and tried to get people on long term leases to protect their position. Will be seeking legal help up for this. @Business Man, any suggestions?
Like two other respondents to this thread, my landlord is refusing to comply with the law. They have sent letters explicitly stating that they are “willfully” not complying with the law in response to tenants submitting their lawfully required rent under current Mountain View law.
I can fully understand why property owners would oppose the measures passed by Mountain View residents and voters, and would support legal challenges to them. This does not justify violating the law (in contradiction of the California Apartment Association’s own advice to its members). I have never violated the law or my legal contractual obligations as a Mountain View tenant.
I would strongly encourage those property owners bloviating against this law to “go galt” and sell or redevelop your property immediately. The end result will either be an increase in housing supply, or at the very least, one less Mountain View land owner opposed to the values of the majority voters of Mountain View, and one more land owner willing to follow the law of the city of Mountain View.
@drekin1: contact law foundation of silicon valley at 408-280-2424 if you haven’t already.
(even if you have other legal assistance, to be aware of organizing efforts)
Posted by drekin1
Dana Gardens / Zell Associates is choosing not to comply and has sent threats of eviction to tenants who attempted to pay the rolled back rent. Its a shame as things were good here until they enacted large rent increases, made tenants pay for garbage/water/sewage, and tried to get people on long term leases to protect their position. Will be seeking legal help up for this. @Business Man, any suggestions?
In response to your request, here is some information:
Evictions: Your landlord now needs to state one of the 9 “just causes” listed in Measure V in any termination notice or notice to vacate (if you live in an apartment building with three units or more). Only condos, duplexes, single family homes and post 2016 apartments are exempt from this. If you received a notice to vacate (60-day or 30-day) — even if it was before Nov. 15 — you should contact one of the legal resources listed below as soon as possible for help. If you have been served “unlawful detainer” court papers, don’t wait!
Law Foundation of Silicon Valley: 408-280-2424,
Bay Area Legal Aid: 408-850-7066,
Asian Law Alliance: 408-287-9710,
Project Sentinel: 650-282-2514
Rent Rollback: Many households will qualify for a rent reduction when Measure V takes effect on Dec. 23. You must live in an apartment building built before Feb. 1, 1995 with three units or more. If you moved into your apartment before Oct. 19, 2015, when you pay your January 2017 rent, you can legally pay the amount in effect in Oct. 2015. If you moved into your apartment after Oct. 19, 2015, you can pay the amount you were charged for rent when you first moved in.
New! Click here to download and print a letter you can send to your landlord along with your January 2017 rent explaining the rent rollback.
FAQs
What if my landlord insists on unlawful rent? If your landlord gives you a “three day notice to pay or quit” in response to your reduced January rent payment, you have options:
Pay the higher, unlawful amount right away (within the 3 days). Keep payment records so you can petition the rental housing committee for a refund and rent reduction.
Do nothing. Your landlord may serve you with eviction (“unlawful detainer”) court papers. If you receive those papers, you can defend yourself, but you have only five days to submit papers to the court. Call one of the phone numbers above for legal help right away.
I think at this point in time even Project Sentinel will advocate for you as well, even though it was associated with Mike Kapserzak.
Contact those groups ASAP. Time is important and if you can get them involved quickly, you can prevent more frustration in the future. They seem willing to assist you. I believe there will be an event at the Rengstorff park Community Center this week on Thursday where there will be attorneys present to assist you and your neighbors.
I’m curious ajl. Do you support sanctuary cities?
Posted by mvresident2003
a resident of Monta Loma
6 hours ago
mvresident2003 is a registered user.
I’m curious ajl. Do you support sanctuary cities?
Since when are sanctuary cities involved with the new CSFRA?
I think the City will enforce the rent rollback this month, they have stated they would.
I would contact the City Housing group as well given that the City Attorney did state she would enforce it after April 6th. If your rent payment is made after then, the City is obligated to enforce the new Charter for you.
Landlord Tears…. Your comments and attitude are truly disgusting…. As a phycology major it’s pretty easy to profile you. You are an over educated, over privileged, spoiled brat that hasn’t had to work for anything “her” whole life (Oh you think you worked hard for your degree, but you didn’t get through school having to work two jobs and surviving on no sleep while living in your relatives basement like all the hard working generations before you!). Your closet at home has some dusty participation trophies that you’re proud of and can’t throw away. Pretty sad you believe you can take from the people who have worked hard all their lives and taken big risks to get ahead. The fact that you feel so “Entitled” to be handed things that you want instead of pulling up your big girl panties and working hard will be the downfall of this country. You’re in the wrong county…. Grab your safety pin and ask for a government assisted airplane ticket to any of the failing countries struggling with socialism… You will be better for it in the long run!