News

Fight brewing over rent control petition

Signature gatherers allegedly misleading residents about landlord-backed initiative

If you've been out in Mountain View the past few weeks, you've probably been approached by someone holding a clipboard, asking if you'll sign a petition for something called "The Mountain View Homeowner, Renter, and Taxpayer Protection Initiative." And if you ask for details, you'll likely get very different answers.

When visitors at the farmers market were asked to sign, they were told it would expand rent control to all homes in the city. When Sahara Village residents were solicited, they were told it would protect the city's mobile home parks from rent increases. When this Voice reporter was asked to sign, he was told it would prevent evictions and strengthen rent control.

In fact, all of these claims border on outright falsehoods. The proposed measure would almost certainly result in a suspension of the city's renter protections passed as Measure V in 2016, giving landlords a free rein for rent increases on most apartments. The initiative is being spearheaded not by tenants but by the California Apartment Association, and its main backers include some of the city's largest landlords.

The push to collect signatures in time for a June deadline is leading to many reports of paid workers allegedly bending the truth to get residents to jot down their names. Proponents and those they've hired need to collect about 5,150 signatures within a matter of days to get the measure qualified for the November ballot.

Several Mountain View residents told the Voice they signed the petition after being told they were supporting stronger renter protections. Monte Loma resident Laurent Dinard said he signed the petition two weeks ago, after a signature gatherer came to his doorstep saying it would boost the city's rent control measure and prevent it from sunsetting. He later learned that was false.

"I was told this was needed to prevent rent control from expiring. That was the word he told me: It was 'expiring," Dinard said. "I feel like I was duped."

Members of the Mountain View Tenants Coalition say incidents like that have become common as a way to get residents to support a measure they say is intended to be confusing.

Vacancy rate triggers 'sneaky repeal'

At first glance, the proposed measure would appear to create a milder version of rent control with income restrictions for tenant eligibility and caps on the program's costs. But buried on page 12, the measure has a crucial clause that essentially renders most of its language moot: If the city's vacancy rate ever exceeds 3 percent, then nearly all tenant protections must be suspended, it reads.

Except in extraordinary circumstances, this would mean nearly all city's rent control provisions and eviction protections would be immediately nullified, possibly never to return, said tenant advocates, who have dubbed it the "sneaky repeal."

The city's vacancy rate -- which currently hovers at 4.1 percent -- has rarely dipped below 3 percent for any year on record, according to city officials. Vacancy data going back about 20 years from the real estate tracking firm CoStar shows a brief period around 2000-01 when about 2 percent of Mountain View apartments were unoccupied, but city officials are skeptical of that data. City Associate Planner Anky van Deursen told the Voice that vacancy data is unreliable and inconsistent until around 2006, and she advised against looking for trends in prior years.

While signature gatherers can point to various proposed tweaks to the city's rent control program, the measure's real impact would be to suspend renter protections indefinitely, said Steve Chandler, a spokesman for the Tenants Coalition.

"Most of the measure is just window dressing and a big distraction because this whole effort is really about eliminating rent control," Chandler said. "Our vacancy rate is always above 3 percent; that's where it hovers all the time."

Measure V Too Costly, a political group promoting the ballot measure, declined to answer questions about the proposed measure when asked by the Voice, saying it would compromise "campaign strategy."

"Signature gatherers are clear on the proposed initiative," said Laura Teutschel, a Measure V Too Costly spokeswoman. "This is more scare tactics and nonsense from the Mountain View Tenants Coalition."

One of the measure's main proponents, former Mayor John Inks, has helped collect signatures as a volunteer. Asked about the 3 percent threshold, Inks said that he wasn't directly involved in drafting the ballot initiative. The measure's language was authored by an attorney hired by the California Apartment Association and their political consulting firm, Wheelhouse Strategy Group, he said.

"I didn't write it, and I wouldn't have chosen the language that they did," Inks said. "But if it's a balance of Measure V versus an alternative, I'd go for the alternative."

By its nature, it is impossible to quickly describe the full measure to people on the street, he said.

"I just tell people it's setting a new bar for rent control. It's as simple as that," Inks said. "If software engineers are making $180,000, then they can afford to pay market rent here."

In recent days, signature gathering has been intensifying, with more paid workers going door-to-door. The fierce push has led to a premium bounty -- As of Wednesday some workers were saying they were being paid up to $40 per name they collect.

The pay-per-signature system for getting measures on the ballot has long drawn criticism for fostering deceptive tactics, and for allowing well-heeled groups to push forward a political agenda without popular support. Over the last decade, several proposed state bills have called for restricting the practice, such as forcing signature gatherers to disclose if they are being paid. A current bill in the state Senate would make paid signature gathering illegal.

It is already illegal under California elections and government code to intentionally mislead a voter as to the intent of a signature-gathering operation, but proving this crime is a difficult matter. In April, San Mateo County prosecutors arrested two signature gatherers working to overturn rent control in Pacifica. Investigators had received complaints that the workers were lying to get people to sign their names, but they couldn't prove this beyond a reasonable doubt in order to file criminal charges. Both workers were instead charged with forging about 100 signatures.

In Mountain View, tenant advocates have been trying to keep pressure on the signature gatherers by sending out their own members to follow them as they solicit citizens. In some cases, tenant advocates have been publicly challenging the claims being made for what the measure would do.

This has led to multiple squabbles, sometimes requiring law enforcement to get involved. Over the last two months, Mountain View police officials say they have been called out for as many as five incidents involving arguments over signature gathering.

Tenant advocates are also running a counter-operation against the petition campaign. In recent days, tenant campaigners have been knocking on doors to encourage people who signed the petition to file a letter with the city rescinding their support. So far, 23 requests to remove signatures have been filed, according to the City Clerk's office.

Over the weekend, Leticia Jones, a Tenants Coalition volunteer, said she canvassed a mobile home park and found nearly every resident, many of them seniors living on fixed incomes, had signed the petition. Days earlier, a signature gatherer had come through the neighborhood, telling residents he wasn't working for the "landlord petition," and was collecting signatures to save rent control and bring it to mobile homes.

It was hard to explain to them that they had been deceived, Jones said.

"Initially, there was a lot of confusion -- they didn't understand the difference between what we were offering and what they had signed," she said. "Almost every person we talked with thought this measure was helping rent control, they were under the impression it was phase two for Measure V."

Mobile homes are not currently covered under Mountain View's rent control law. Earlier this spring, the city's Rental Housing Commission voted against including tenants at mobile home parks.

The landlord-backed campaign to amend the city's rent control law will need to submit a petition with 5,156 valid signatures in order to be placed on the November ballot. The Santa County Registrar of Voters recommends initiative petitions be submitted by June 5 to provide about a month for their office to verify a subset of the signatures.

If these signatures are verified in time, the Mountain View City Council would be obligated to place the initiative on the November ballot at their July 24 meeting.

What is community worth to you?
Support local journalism.

Comments

145 people like this
Posted by Ekim Esor
a resident of Monta Loma
on May 31, 2018 at 1:39 pm

Another article very much biased against private property rights by MV Voice.
They blocked me several times from posting for my comments exposing the unfairness and devastating effects of rent control.
Shame on you for censorship MVV.


15 people like this
Posted by @Ekim Esor
a resident of Bailey Park
on May 31, 2018 at 1:50 pm

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]


50 people like this
Posted by Christopher Chiang
a resident of North Bayshore
on May 31, 2018 at 2:06 pm

Shame on John Inks for believing the ends justify the means. No excuse for any civic leader to endorse his or her neighbors being lied to.

Shame on Laura Teutschel, the Measure V Too Costly spokeswoman, for using the lowest of Trump-era tactic of blurring the truth by claiming the speaker of truth is the liar. How she can call poor MV residents the "outside special interest," all the while paying up to $40 a signature for outsiders to lie to MV residents, sickening.

No matter if you support the repeal, if you support this kind of repeal, done this way, you throw away all decency in local democracy, and that price should be too high for any resident to stomach.

Wait for a straight forward repeal to be put on the ballot. MV democracy is NOT for sale! Do not welcome these tactics in our city.


23 people like this
Posted by @Christopher Chiang
a resident of Rex Manor
on May 31, 2018 at 2:34 pm

Shame on you for denigrating one of the best Mayors the City of Mountain View has ever had! Mayor John Inks is a man of integrity and principles!

I stand behind Mayor Inks because he is honest, open, and forthright, and doesn't political rehtoric for emotional appeal!


21 people like this
Posted by concerned tenant
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on May 31, 2018 at 2:36 pm

yep. had a guy with a clipboard knock on my door, asking for a signature telling me it was to strengthen rent control. how is this even legal? good thing i documented the bs the guy was telling me. this is a class action suit waiting to happen, i know some bay area lawyers are waiting for this to get on the ballot.


52 people like this
Posted by clearthinker
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on May 31, 2018 at 2:55 pm

clearthinker is a registered user.

It is interesting because I could say the same thing about those who are trying to KEEP residents from signing the petition to get the Measure V Fix on the ballot. The promises they made when trying to get Measure V on the ballot were based on an unsustainable belief that landlords are an enless source of cash and they can single handedly solve the housing shortage. Their relentless demonization of Housing Providers was an effective rallying cry.

As I walked through the apartment complex that I manage today I came across several flyers that had been distributed to tenants and in common areas. I took a look at the text and was amazed at the one-sided half-truths. The MV Tenants Coalition seems to feel that as long as rent control only hurts landlords its ok. Its “fully funded” by fees to landlords, at “no cost” to Mountain View voters. Sure, “as long as I don’t have to pay for it.” its great!

The flyer hangs most of its opposition on the premise that rent stabilization is suspended if vacancy rates climb above 3% while failing to include that this is at the discression of the RHC. It is NOT automatic, but this would be contrary to the narrative Measure V supporters love so much, “landlords are bad and deserve to be punished.”

Housing Providers are being held responsible for the poor planning of a city who has not provided enough housing while giving carte blanche to tech companies. The city has collected fees and concessions for subsidized housing but where are all those units that were supposed to be built for low income employees, teachers, and law enforcement? Why isn’t there a means test to make sure those who need subsidies can get them?

The flyer stated inaccurately that Measure V is not costly because mortgages are fixed, which is absolutely NOT true, and property taxes are stabilized at 2%. There is no mention that some landlords who purchased complexes within the last 5 years are unable to pay their taxes and mortgages because rents that were anticipated to stay at least constant were rolled back 2 YEARS! Housing EXPENSES WERE NOT ROLLED BACK 2 years! They have only gone UP by 12%, 15%, and even 25% for healthcare, water, sewer, permits, city fees, and workers compensation.

Keep in mind that when you punish one segment of the community to help another, something’s got to give. For many housing providers it will be the sale of their property and the loss of many homes which will be replaced with new and expensive homes that most tenants cannot afford.

The three City Council members who wrote this misleading flyer should be ashamed and the half-truths being stated as fact need to be called out. Why would you side with a measure that so severly damages one sector of the community you were elected to serve? You say,"Measure V is not too costly to taxpayers because they don't foot the bill." WOW! Hat's off to the entitlement mentality! Make those who pay the property taxes, employ hundreds of workers, and take all the risks pay for it!

Landlords who are working on an amendment to fix Measure V are just trying to stay in the game. We want to continue to make real estate a viable investment and provide housing but without a “fix” many of us will be out. Solving the housing crisis on the backs of those who own older building who have participated and supported the community for 20-50 years is just wrong. You can call it sneaky but when tenants start losing their homes it will just be called sad.


10 people like this
Posted by Martin
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on May 31, 2018 at 3:00 pm

Last weekend a signature gatherer wanted me to sign a petition to "increase school funding." Now I'm wondering if it was one of these degenerates trying to dope me!


32 people like this
Posted by Dave
a resident of Rex Manor
on May 31, 2018 at 3:02 pm

Why is the city council obligated to put this on the ballot? Its simply fraudulent.

I was approached by signature gatherer and asked to sign a petition to protect rent control.

Another time a signature gather came to my office and asked me to sign something to protect measure five! He thought it was a roman numeral.

Council stand up and do something. Don't let mtn view get sold under your watch.
Give me a town with or without rent control but do it fairly and democratically.


41 people like this
Posted by rich
a resident of Blossom Valley
on May 31, 2018 at 3:08 pm

We were lied to by a dude in dreadlocks who told us this made the rent control stronger. Who do we complain to? I did not sign because I was pretty sure he was lying, but my wife did.

Regardless of how you feel about rent control, our government needs to be fact based. Legislating by dogma instead of facts is leading us to very dangerous places.


37 people like this
Posted by Trevoli Welsh
a resident of Cuesta Park
on May 31, 2018 at 3:18 pm

The facts about Measure V: funded by landlords at a fee of $155 per unit, per year. PER YEAR! The amounts to less than $13 per unit, per month. Somehow, I think landlords can afford that.

The facts about this petition: If the average annual vacancy rate in Rental Units equals or exceeds 3%, the committee shall suspend the provisions of sections 1705 and 1717 of this article at its next regularly scheduled meeting.

SHALL SUSPEND, not MAY SUSPEND. And, by the way, this would remove protections related to no-cause evictions, too. In effect, a landlord could lawfully evict a good tenant, simply to make room for another tenant, in order to jack up the rent.

I maintain that if the CAA wants to repeal rent control and other protections, then by all means, go ahead. What frustrates me and others from the Tenants Coalition, are the flat-out lies the signature gatherers are telling. If your petition is on the up-and-up, why the lies?


35 people like this
Posted by Trevoli Welsh
a resident of Cuesta Park
on May 31, 2018 at 3:24 pm

Rich, or anyone who feels like they were duped into signing this petition, please e-mail the Tenants Coalition at mvtc.volunteer@gmail.com. A volunteer will bring the form letter to you, withdrawing your signature, and will deliver it to City Hall on your behalf.

The deadline for submitting these forms is a little fuzzy, because they have to be submitted before the CAA submits their petitions. That deadline is June 5, but they could turn petitions in at any time.

Thank you for acting quickly on this.


14 people like this
Posted by Dave
a resident of Rex Manor
on May 31, 2018 at 3:25 pm

Who should you complain to? Great Question

Send a message to county supervisor joe simitian.

Write a letter to all the council members.

Demand as you say a fact based process.


40 people like this
Posted by @ clearthinker
a resident of Rex Manor
on May 31, 2018 at 3:34 pm

All we as pro-rent control people are asking for is that the signature gathers be honest about what voters are signing.

STOP LYING.

There are plenty of people that voted against Measure V. Get those people to sign without lying about the repeal measure.

If Measure V should be repealed then be honest about the reasons. The signature gatherers are LYING. They may get the signatures to put it on the ballot, but they aren't doing you any favors. Any public official who supports this deceptive campaign that is a perversion of democracy should be voted out at the next opportunity.


30 people like this
Posted by Trevoli Welsh
a resident of Cuesta Park
on May 31, 2018 at 3:40 pm

I have been approached by two different signature gatherers: one had a whole bunch of petitions he was peddling, including one from CAA. The other had just the CAA petition. When I pointed out to them what it was they were asking people to sign, they had absolutely no idea, nor did they care. All they know, is that they get $x for each signature, and nothing else.

I have heard reports of signature gatherers getting very worked up and acting aggressively when challenged, especially if it's in front of potential signers, to the point that the police have been called.

I am a big fan of people acting in line with their principles, their convictions, and their conscience, AS LONG AS THEY ARE GIVEN THE FACTS, and not a bunch of misleading statements and bald-faced lies, which is exactly what is happening here.

"Sensible" rent control? A 'tightening' of rent control? Misleading, at best.
Telling mobile home residents that they will be covered? Measure V, 2.0? Flat-out lies.


20 people like this
Posted by Longview
a resident of another community
on May 31, 2018 at 3:46 pm

Longview is a registered user.

@ so called clearthinker - first get your facts straight. Measure V puts a decision to suspend renter protections at the discretion of the rental housing committee. The corporate landlord ordinance says

"SECTION 8. Section 1718 of the City Charter is amended as follows:

Section 1718. - Decontrol.
If the average annual vacancy rate in Controlled Rental Units equals or exceeds three percent (3%), the Committee shall suspend the provisions of sections 1705 to 1717 of this Article at its next regularly scheduled meeting.

Shall suspend. No discretion. No renter protections. Current limits on rent increases will be gone at the next Rental Housing Committee meeting.

Next, tell the whole truth. If your costs have gone up 12% a year, you can get higher rents by documenting that. Under Measure V as interpreted by the landlord friendly rental housing committee, landlord profits are guaranteed to go up by the bay area housing inflation rate. This interpretation weakens Measure V protections. Why would a landlord not claim this option for higher rents? Perhaps because their expenses have not gone up massively, and because their rents, which they can set to market for every new tenant, have gone up on many units. In short, because they are already making a high and growing profit.

Yes, some landlords will choose to sell their properties, and some rental units may be lost. But at the same time, thousands of families who live and work in Mountain View will be able to stay in their community rather than being displaced to new schools and longer commutes or to new jobs.

Aren't landlords business people? The risk of regulation is something that all business people face. Other local businesses face the risk of not finding the workers they need.

Why is it that the Corporate landlord lobby and the CAA find it in their interest to tell so many lies? So disappointing.


24 people like this
Posted by Questions for the "poor" landlords
a resident of Rex Manor
on May 31, 2018 at 4:06 pm

Questions for the "poor" landlords is a registered user.

I seriously got to wonder about the financial ability of these landlords.

They seem to be living so close to the financial edge.

Not being able to raise rents 20, 30, 40 % per year. How would they survive any sort of downturn in the economy?

I am concerned that they can't handle having any apartments making less than maximum dollars. How would they survive if there was a fire, water leak or anything else that rendered some of those apartments uninhabitable for any period of time.

God forbid if there was an earthquake or any other event that would damage the buildings.

Therefore I propose the city create a fund to help out these landlords. This fund would buy out any landlord in desperate financial need at market rate. Let the city assume this great burden.


24 people like this
Posted by mountain view resident
a resident of Martens-Carmelita
on May 31, 2018 at 4:09 pm

I too was duped by these paid signature gatherers. Even the signature gatherer acknowledged that they were duped and promised to shred all the signatures she had collected. The Apartment Association sponsoring this initiative is, in my opinion, leaving themselves wide open to lawsuits and claims of placing an initiative on a ballot by using blatant lies to encourage voters to sign their petition. I was told this new initiative was "sponsored by a renter's group". "would cover mobile home parks and ALL renters in mountain view", was "phase 2 of rent control", and would "bring rent control to all renters in mountain view". These are clearly blatant lies. In my opinion, the City Council should invalidate the petition.


18 people like this
Posted by @mountain view resident
a resident of Waverly Park
on May 31, 2018 at 4:16 pm

The signature gatherer will not shred any signatures collected. That would be illegal for them to do, so you need to contact the city to revoke your signature.

Go here (Web Link) for the form necessary to have your signature removed. Otherwise, you'll have helped the repeal of Measure V.


21 people like this
Posted by Christopher Chiang
a resident of North Bayshore
on May 31, 2018 at 4:33 pm

In Pacifica, the California Apartment Association (CAA) were found guilty of fraudulent signatures, enough to make the ballot invalid, but since the legal finding was after the election, the results of the election could not be changed. Web Link

The rulebook of "no trick is too low to win" is now upon our town. If you are sick of people gaming democracy, and you don't stand up for Mountain View now, when will you stand up?

The city council could place a straight forward ballot initiative to repeal rent control. I urge the city council to show political courage to fight this corporate perversion of our civic processes, and end this by itself placing a clean repeal on the ballot for residents to consider honestly and thoughtfully.


23 people like this
Posted by Maher
a resident of Martens-Carmelita
on May 31, 2018 at 4:42 pm

Yes, this petition IS A FRAUD. I was approached and told it is to extend rent controls to protect home owners in mobile home parks from the routine rent increases higher than the (Consumer Price Index) CPI % annual increase. The CPI is supposed to be the guideline for space rent increases but usually those annual increases are 2x's higher than the guideline.

The presentation of the petition was, I now know totally fraudulent, filled with lies and I am going to demand that my name be taken off the list of signers. ACTUALLY, I THINK THE WHOLE PETITION SHOULD BE NULLIFIED AND NOT PUT ON THE BALLOT AT ALL. It's a fraud after all.


24 people like this
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on May 31, 2018 at 4:43 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

In response to Ekim Esor you said:

“Another article very much biased against private property rights by MV Voice.”

“Rent control” is not legally taking away “property rights”, and you know that. You said:

“They blocked me several times from posting for my comments exposing the unfairness and devastating effects of rent control.”

Did you violate the terms and conditions involved with any postings? You have the right to express yourself in public, but a discussion area in a private news website is not a public expression. You must follow the rules like all of us. You said:

“Shame on you for censorship MVV.”

It is not censorship if you violate the terms and conditions to such an extent that you appear unwilling to comply with them. By the way, nice to see you Mike Rose.

In response to @Christopher Chiang you said:

“Shame on you for denigrating one of the best Mayors the City of Mountain View has ever had! Mayor John Inks is a man of integrity and principles!”

Yet he make false statements in videos on a commercial website. I simply do not agree with you and propose the opposite view. You said:

“I stand behind Mayor Inks because he is honest, open, and forthright, and doesn't political rehtoric for emotional appeal!”

However the content of his video is completely false and easily disproven, this does not seem to indicate he is honest, open, and forthright. But that is only my opinion.

In response to Clearthinker you said:

“It is interesting because I could say the same thing about those who are trying to KEEP residents from signing the petition to get the Measure V Fix on the ballot. “

No one is prevented from signing the petition, you know that. But it is fair that a citizen of Mountain View be provided an accurate picture of the ramifications of passing the current ballot petition. The citizens involved with the MVTC simply are expressing the same rights of free speech that the current ballot proponents are allowed to do. Nothing more. You said:

“Landlords who are working on an amendment to fix Measure V are just trying to stay in the game. We want to continue to make real estate a viable investment and provide housing but without a “fix” many of us will be out. Solving the housing crisis on the backs of those who own older building who have participated and supported the community for 20-50 years is just wrong. You can call it sneaky but when tenants start losing their homes it will just be called sad.””

Simply put, it may be that you cannot manage your properties competitively enough without imposing significant rent increases to satisfy yourself or investors. Is that the responsibility of the customer? Should the Customer bear that cost? The fact is that with Costa Hawkins, the industry has not “competed” with anyone for years. They simply raise rents to cover for mismanagement. Nothing more.

I hope that helps the discussion


7 people like this
Posted by The Successful Business Man
a resident of North Whisman
on May 31, 2018 at 6:19 pm

The Successful Business Man is a registered user.

At the end of the day, the registered voters in Mountain View can and will decide on the destiny of their community, whether renters or owners. Campaigns and initiatives are replete with deception, misinformation and dishonesty. We have a lovely example of it in Washington, DC at the moment.

If Mountain View voters, the residents and caretakers of this community, don't back a modification or repeal of Measure V, the ballot box will be their appointed place to make those wishes known. Whether this or any other proposal gets on future ballots, it doesn't really matter how the mangled initiative got there. The voters are the final say on the matter. The ballot box isn't a high pressure sales pitch so there's plenty of time for voters to assess the merits or demerits of any proposals.

Personally, I'm not an advocate of rent control, price controls, import tariffs on products or market manipulating subsidies. Having said that, a community has a right to decide what they want as part of their fabric. If Mountain View wants the consequences of rent control, they have every right to vote it in and preserve its legacy.

Even though a $150K+/year software engineer may not need rent control, relocation assistance or other entitlements meant for the less fortunate, someone is cleaning their office at 1:00 a.m. and those worthy individuals are as human and necessary as anyone with a college degree.

Perhaps with a little more cooperation between these feuding groups and less antagonism between the "haves" and "have-nots", Mountain View can be a shining example of people coming together with revolutionary solutions rather than repeating the same mistakes and foibles of countless generations before.

This is our duty and calling in Silicon Valley. Disrupt the old practices in brand new ways since the old ways have been proven ineffective over and over.


16 people like this
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on May 31, 2018 at 6:46 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

In response to The Successful Business Man:

In the most part I again totally agree. But you need to remember the history of the issue in Mountain View before you say:

“Perhaps with a little more cooperation between these feuding groups and less antagonism between the "haves" and "have-nots", Mountain View can be a shining example of people coming together with revolutionary solutions rather than repeating the same mistakes and foibles of countless generations before.”

Starting in 2015, the tenants were talking with landlords regarding the severe increases in rents. The landlords answers were “I cannot balance my costs without raising rents”. But they never disclosed the books so that the tenants could verify the problems, or better yet, provide possible alternatives.

Then the citizens went to the City Council for an amicable resolution. But at that time the City Council simply refused to do anything based on the lobbying of the CAA, and arguments made by landlords saying simply “it’s my property and I will do what I want with it”.

When Measure V was in the ballot stage, the CAA and landlords vehemently said, “no negotiations, no concessions, no mercy”.

When Measure V made it onto the ballot, the CAA and the landlords coerced the City Council to advocate an alternative Measure W, which did not provide protections against lobbying forces on the City Council to manipulate the rules. The alternative would have not solved the problems, only continued to allow outside interests dictate the rights of citizens of Mountain View.

Up to the election, the CAA and their partners could have started acting like you claim they could, but their only response simply is “You will take our orders or else”.

And even after it passed, the CAA and their partners lodged a frivolous lawsuit to claim the CSFRA was unconstitutional, forcing extreme costs on all landlords subject to the CSFRA by delaying the rent rollback. Which was eventually dismissed by the plaintiffs because they knew it was without merit. This added even more costs to landlords who joined the legal fight.

So please be accurate regarding whom was more hostile to who. Just understand the political process that was used simply was the correct way to act, and succeeded.


9 people like this
Posted by lan
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on May 31, 2018 at 7:53 pm

lan is a registered user.

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]


17 people like this
Posted by lan
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on May 31, 2018 at 8:10 pm

lan is a registered user.

Well that was fun. A bit of website bling.

To continue -- my current property manager is a member of the California Apartment Association, and my new landlord has been very outspoken about his negative views on rent control.

If Prop V were repealed, my rent would increased at least $1000 per month. I, like several long-time hard working families in my complex would be forced out of our homes and our community. I would lose my job and my friends. The destabilization this would cause cannot be put into words.

The lies and manipulations of those behind this petition makes me sick. We are in a battle between greed and the preservation of our community and our families.

If greed wins, I will leave Mountain View, and though I will happily slam the door on the way out (because Mountain View will change, and not for the better), I will never forget the names of those who caused such a huge displacement of so so many families.


9 people like this
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on May 31, 2018 at 8:10 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

Ian,

I agree with you, but you need to put it in words that will not get your post possibly removed.

John Inks has been an opportunist, making a living by having lobbyists provide him with rewards for his actions when he was on the City Council.

The system allows this unfortunately.

And the First Amendment does not have an exception regarding making any false or misleading claims. And years ago the fair time doctrine regarding political action was removed. Finally, the Common Cause Supreme Court case provided the emergence of "for-profit" political business.

We simply have to be prepared to make us of what we have to counter-point any claims that are unfounded.


6 people like this
Posted by lan
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on May 31, 2018 at 8:34 pm

lan is a registered user.

The business man:

I did not intend to submit my first comments. The website was freezing, hence the errant click. But, my sentiments are fairly clear, typos notwithstanding.

I did receive a flyer on my door to Not sign the petition. I hope there is outreach to the apartment complexes along Latham Street and California Street, that part of town where there are lots of apartments.

If this measure (Prop V Too Costly) ends up on the November Ballot, it would helpful to know of websites or people to contact who are leading efforts to encourage voters to not repeal Prop V.


6 people like this
Posted by Castro Street
a resident of Cuesta Park
on May 31, 2018 at 9:12 pm

Castro Street is a registered user.

Another poster suggested complaining to County Supervisor Joe Simitian. As it happens, according to a banner on the Voice, he has "Sidewalk Office Hours" this Sunday, June 3, 10:00am - 11:30am at the Mountain View Farmers Market. I don't know exactly what "Sidewalk Office Hours" means. Will he be there? Will he have representatives/delegates there? In any case, this might be prime time to voice your opinions.


13 people like this
Posted by @Ian
a resident of Cuesta Park
on May 31, 2018 at 9:29 pm

@Ian is a registered user.

"If this measure (Prop V Too Costly) ends up on the November Ballot, it would helpful to know of websites or people to contact who are leading efforts to encourage voters to not repeal Prop V."

The volunteer group that got Measure V on the ballot in the first place, and helped to get it passed, is the Mountain View Tenants Coalition. Their website is mvtenantscoalition.org and they can be reached at mvtc.volunteer@gmail.com.

If anyone would like to submit a form to the City Hall Clerk's office, to withdraw their signature, please email and a volunteer will bring the form to you, wait for you to complete it, and deliver it to City Hall on your behalf.

I would urge you to do this ASAP, as these forms must be submitted BEFORE the CAA turns in their petitions, and that could happen at any time. The deadline is June 5, but they could be turned in at any time.


8 people like this
Posted by Castro Street
a resident of Cuesta Park
on May 31, 2018 at 9:46 pm

Castro Street is a registered user.

To: The Successful Business Man

I agree with a lot of what you wrote, especially your comment about our so-called leadership in D.C.

I do take issue with a couple things though:

You said: If Mountain View voters, the residents and caretakers of this community, don't back a modification or repeal of Measure V, the ballot box will be their appointed place to make those wishes known. Whether this or any other proposal gets on future ballots, it doesn't really matter how the mangled initiative got there.

I disagree whole-heartedly. It absolutely matters that voters were duped into signing the petition to get this on the ballot in the first place.

You said: The voters are the final say on the matter. The ballot box isn't a high pressure sales pitch so there's plenty of time for voters to assess the merits or demerits of any proposals.

Not a high-pressure sales pitch? Are you kidding me? If the CAA is willing to go as far as PAYING people (many of whom don’t even live here) to blatantly lie in order to get signatures, I can’t even imagine what they’d stoop to, in order to get votes. Not high-pressure? Please… I do agree that voters will have time to assess the merits of any proposal, but when they are lied to, repeatedly, about what a proposal will mean for them, their families, and their community, that’s a whole ‘nother situation.


10 people like this
Posted by alexprime
a resident of Shoreline West
on May 31, 2018 at 11:09 pm

alexprime is a registered user.

Some great advice I've followed since moving to CA is to always vote NO on any ballot agenda that feels misleading or had been 'marketed' to voters that way.


7 people like this
Posted by Howard
a resident of Monta Loma
on Jun 1, 2018 at 9:34 am

Howard is a registered user.

The only answer to this is MORE BULLDOZERS!

Since the landlords can't afford to run it and the tenants don't want to pay for it, tear it down and build 1.8 Million dollar homes on top of it.


6 people like this
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jun 1, 2018 at 11:54 am

The Business Man is a registered user.

In response to Howard you said:

“The only answer to this is MORE BULLDOZERS!”

That’s if you get permission to demolish the property. You need to get a demolition permit first. You also said

“Since the landlords can't afford to run it and the tenants don't want to pay for it, tear it down and build 1.8 Million dollar homes on top of it.”

First, you need to prove that landlords cannot afford to run it. You just can’t expect us to believe you if you do not disclose your business management, and explain how the decisions you made do not inflate your costs.

Second, tenants are paying for it. Just not the amount you “want” us to pay to provide you the profit margin you “want”. Again, the customer is market control. I remember a line from the movie “Margin Call”

The line goes that a business survives on 3 situations, it is smarter, it is faster, or it cheats.

Smarter of course means having the skill to minimize costs thereby increasing profits. The evidence seems to prove the industry is not smart because it cannot prove that it in fact can minimize cost.

The industry is not fast, because the opportunities to make money by providing good development, and taking into account the measures necessary to get projects approved in a timely manner. The projects being offered simply cause to much cost on the areas surrounding the projects, that is why the projects get delayed or rejected. The industry simply cannot figure that out can it?

Finally, there is cheating. The means of not competing for customers and instead share information through resources like the CAA so that prices rise because there is no competition. Just understand that conspiracy does not need to involve “collusion”. A conspiracy can occr amongst a group even if members do not know specifically how they are conspiring. Conspiracy is defined as (Web Link) :

“Conspiracy

An agreement between two or more people to commit an illegal act, along with an intent to achieve the agreement's goal. Most U.S. jurisdictions also require an overt act toward furthering the agreement. An overt act is a statutory requirement, not a constitutional one. See Whitfield v. United States, 453 U.S. 209 (2005). The illegal act is the conspiracy's "target offense."

Conspiracy generally carries a penalty on its own. In addition, conspiracies allow for derivative liability where conspirators can also be punished for the illegal acts carried out by other members, even if they were not directly involved. Thus, where one or more members of the conspiracy committed illegal acts to further the conspiracy's goals, all members of the conspiracy may be held accountable for those acts.

Where no one has actually committed a criminal act, the punishment varies. Some conspiracy statutes assign the same punishment for conspiracy as for the target offense. Others impose lesser penalties.

Conspiracy applies to both civil and criminal offenses. For example, you may conspire to commit murder, or conspire to commit fraud.”

The idea of providing say to a bank that a property has an inflated value via the inflation of rent revenue via coordination by the CAA is fraud. Thus as long as evidence can be found, like when a person buys a property with a market value of $1.15 m established by a county tax appraisal with a purchase price of $4.5 m simply based on an opinion of a real estate agent. That could be argued as a fraud against that bank. That is why no person intentionally overpaying for the properties never get a tax basis reappraisal. This would provide proof of this fraud, and result in criminal investigations.

Thus if it can be found that practice is assisted by an organization like the CAA, then the CAA could find itself in serious trouble.


10 people like this
Posted by SRB
a resident of St. Francis Acres
on Jun 1, 2018 at 2:39 pm

SRB is a registered user.

"(Proponents of the sneaky repeal) declined to answer questions about the proposed measure when asked by the Voice, saying it would compromise "campaign strategy.""

That really says it all; deception *IS* their strategy. And quite an expensive strategy, given the $40 per signature and the going rates for Wheelhouse Strategy Group.

Don't fall for that. Don't sign and rescind your signature if you were deceived.


5 people like this
Posted by Castro Street
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Jun 1, 2018 at 2:46 pm

Castro Street is a registered user.

A member of the Tenants Coalition called Simitian's office to find out if filing a complaint with his office is the right approach. Here's what they learned (spoiler alert: it's not):

"I called Joe Simitian’s office yesterday to ask if they have suggestions for how to deal with misinformation from paid signature gatherers (psg).

Although they said their office has no jurisdiction over this issue, they were very helpful and suggested calling the California Secretary of State - Election Division at 916-657-2166.

I called today and found them to be quite sympathetic and open to investigating this further. They asked for my name, phone number, a description of the specific examples of misinformation I witnessed. This included everything from false representation of the ballot measure I overheard — to the psg claiming that it’s illegal for me to stand next to their table — to the psg falsely telling people to ignore me because I’m a landlord.

By the way, if you encounter a psg please ask for their name. It’s not necessary, but it is helpful to include when giving testimony.

​It’s worth it for as many of us as possible to call to report our personal experiences and respectfully ask the election division what can be done about this type of election interference."

So there you have it. Please feel free to call (and relay your personal experience with a psg, if you have one) if you think this is a shameful way to get a measure on the ballot.


9 people like this
Posted by beelia
a resident of North Bayshore
on Jun 1, 2018 at 6:26 pm

beelia is a registered user.

There is a bill pending in the California State Senate that would level the playing field and keep this from happening again.

SB1394, "Compensation for Signatures"

"The Legislature hereby finds and declares that the communication of accurate information by signature gatherers is important to the integrity of the elections process. The intent of this bill is to prohibit the compensation of signature gatherers in a manner that gives signature gatherers an incentive to deceive voters in order to obtain their signatures."

Mountain View's State Senator is Jerry Hill. If you want this bill to pass, let him know about it: Web Link


11 people like this
Posted by Howard
a resident of Monta Loma
on Jun 1, 2018 at 8:50 pm

Howard is a registered user.

Businessman,

The only conspiracy I see here is when a mob votes to take away property rights from select businesses in the name of democracy.

If you put price controls on the grocer, auto shop, restaurant or the hair salon down the street would you think that's right too?

You know I think the price of gasoline is getting out a line so I think we should make all the stations in Mountain View drop their prices to $2.50/gallon and allow them 3% increases per year. Would you agree and should we vote that in even if their suppliers raise their wholesale prices by 7% each year?

Your foolish and the tenants that voted for measure V are foolish to cut off the very landlords that supplied the most affordable housing in that city. You do realise that the properties you hurt the most were the most affordable ones for your fellow tenants? Stupid, stupid but I have to admit it's entertaining to watch the mob justify it.


6 people like this
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jun 2, 2018 at 12:51 am

The Business Man is a registered user.

In response to Howard you said:

“The only conspiracy I see here is when a mob votes to take away property rights from select businesses in the name of democracy.”

Here we go again, “rent control” does not take your “property rights” away. There is no court that ever decided that occurs. Market regulations are not taking away “property rights” either. You love to play that song. You said:

“If you put price controls on the grocer, auto shop, restaurant or the hair salon down the street would you think that's right too?”

The “housing” market is a special case regarding market regulations. That is why we have federal, state, county and city housing agencies. But be my guest and propose a good market regulation for those markets, I will likely support it. You also said:

“You know I think the price of gasoline is getting out a line so I think we should make all the stations in Mountain View drop their prices to $2.50/gallon and allow them 3% increases per year. Would you agree and should we vote that in even if their suppliers raise their wholesale prices by 7% each year? “

Again, this simply is a false argument since as I pointed out “housing” is a special market situation. You said:

“Your foolish and the tenants that voted for measure V are foolish to cut off the very landlords that supplied the most affordable housing in that city.”

In what way did we “cut off” landlords? They simply have to be more competitive because they cannot simply pass off bad decision costs to the customer, forcing the customer to “support” the desired profit margins. The lack of good judgment is being insured by those who are not responsible for the lack of good sense in some landlord’s actions. Why do you assume that that is normal? You said:

“You do realise that the properties you hurt the most were the most affordable ones for your fellow tenants? Stupid, stupid but I have to admit it's entertaining to watch the mob justify it.”

If you look at the statistics regarding HUD Fair Market Rent, there is practically no real affordable housing in Mountain View, the current standard used by the RHC is $1419 for a 1br, $1800 for a 2br, and $2500 for a 3br. Please demonstrate to us how many apartments in Mountain View are charging that rate? The current averages in Mountain View are $2,782 for a 1br, $3,395 for a 2br, and $3,878 for a 3 br. Those indicate that Mountain View landlords get a surplus regarding HD FMR of $1363 for a 1br, $1595 for a 2br, and $1378 for a 3br on average. What are you calling affordable?


5 people like this
Posted by Castro Street
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Jun 3, 2018 at 7:26 am

Castro Street is a registered user.

I was thinking about the deceptive practices that the CAA is using to get signatures on their petition, and how the Powers That Be are probably legally bound to put this measure on the ballot, should CAA collect enough valid signatures.

It’s awfully difficult, if not impossible, to prove fraudulent behavior, because the CAA will claim that none of their signatures gatherers made misleading statements or told outright lies.

True enough, BUT, if enough people called the California Secretary of State - Election Division at 916-657-2166 and relayed their experiences, a pattern of behavior would emerge that might be hard to ignore. It couldn’t hurt, so I urge everyone who had an encounter with a signature gatherer and believes they were misled, to call the Election Division. And do it soon!!


5 people like this
Posted by MVRenter
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jun 3, 2018 at 7:39 am

MVRenter is a registered user.

In March I received a survey from the Opinion Research Team at McGuire Research, via text. The survey asked questions about Prop V. Many of the questions seem to focus on the language of rent control and my sense was that by completing the survey I was supporting the anti-rent control measure. After 5 minutes of answering question after question after question, I got suspicious and stopped. With the current efforts of the CAA, etc., to use manipulative verbiage to get signatures, I am wondering who was behind the McGuire survey.


6 people like this
Posted by Donald Trumpster
a resident of Sylvan Park
on Jun 3, 2018 at 11:39 am

Donald Trumpster is a registered user.

Congrats to the entrepenours (however it is spelled) who are getting or tricking smucks to sign the petition. The attacks on the petition are just lies, lies and more lies. Go with that. And in the end, all I want is a monument with my handsome face on it. The tallest in town. "Trumpster Tower" it could be named. Rent will be cheap - when compared to value. And at Trumpster Tower,there can be no discrimination. All Russian spies with money are welcome. Rubles and foreign bank loans will be accepted.


6 people like this
Posted by clearthinker
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jun 3, 2018 at 4:19 pm

clearthinker is a registered user.

I found a flyer on each door at our complex produced by the “Democratic Socialists of America” (clearly labeled in the lower right hand corner) Pleading not to sign "the sneaky repeal". This should be very obvious to anyone that the Bolsheviks are now out in the open, in crusade mode! I'm amazed that Socialists can openly advocate and win approval of the voters!

“The goal of socialism is communism”. Vladimir Lenin


Like this comment
Posted by mike rose
a resident of another community
on Jun 3, 2018 at 5:03 pm

mike rose is a registered user.

Over 140 likes on my post? Still censored?


2 people like this
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jun 3, 2018 at 6:05 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

In response to mike rose you said:

“Over 140 likes on my post? Still censored?”

My observation is the likes go to Ekim Esor, not Mike Rose and second. That likes on this website are seriously flawed measures. Because If you do the following:

I am aware that the “likes” you mention are a false measure.

I can in 10 minutes add 10 likes to my comment at any time. How?

You can use an Ipad safari to access the page.

Hit the like button.

Go to settings and delete the cookies history and web page data.

Reopen Safari

Reopen the town square

Reopen the story you are talking in.

Miraculously the like button is restored, you can like the comment again.

You can do this forever, I did it in one story gave myself more than 50 likes.

Just realize that the “likes” are simply not accurate, and can be manipulated just like the apartment market of the City of Mountain View.

This is how the opponents of the city have manipulated the Mountain View Voices likes in every tory they participated in.

Like you really didn’t know it.


4 people like this
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jun 3, 2018 at 6:18 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

In response to clearthinker you said:

“I found a flyer on each door at our complex produced by the “Democratic Socialists of America” (clearly labeled in the lower right hand corner) Pleading not to sign "the sneaky repeal". This should be very obvious to anyone that the Bolsheviks are now out in the open, in crusade mode! I'm amazed that Socialists can openly advocate and win approval of the voters! “

Democratic Socialism is not and never will be full blown Socialism. Socialism is defined as:

“Democratic socialism (Web Link)

Democratic socialism is a political philosophy that advocates political democracy alongside social ownership of the means of production[1] with an emphasis on self-management and/or democratic management of economic institutions within market socialism or decentralized and participatory planned economy.[2] Democratic socialists hold that capitalism is inherently incompatible with the democratic values of liberty, equality and solidarity; and that these ideals can only be achieved through the realization of a socialist society. Democratic socialism can be supportive of either revolutionary or reformist politics as a means to establish socialism.[3]

The term "democratic socialism" is sometimes used synonymously with "socialism", but the adjective "democratic" is sometimes used to distinguish democratic socialists from Marxist–Leninist inspired socialism which is viewed as being non-democratic in practice.[4][5] Democratic socialists oppose the Stalinist political system and Soviet economic model, rejecting the authoritarian form of governance and highly centralized command economy that took form in the Soviet Union in the early 20th century.[6]

Democratic socialism is further distinguished from social democracy on the basis that democratic socialists are committed to systemic transformation of the economy from capitalism to socialism whereas social democracy is supportive of reforms to capitalism.[7] In contrast to social democrats, democratic socialists believe that reforms aimed at addressing social inequalities and state interventions aimed at suppressing the economic contradictions of capitalism will only see them emerge elsewhere in a different guise. As socialists, democratic socialists believe that the systemic issues of capitalism can only be solved by replacing the capitalist system with a socialist system—i.e. by replacing private ownership with social ownership of the means of production.[3][“

Further:


“In contrast, other tendencies of democratic socialism follow a gradual, reformist or evolutionary path to socialism rather than a revolutionary one, with socialism as an eventual long-term outcome.[14] This tendency is often invoked in an attempt to distinguish democratic socialism from Marxist–Leninist socialism as in Donald Busky's Democratic Socialism: A Global Survey,[15] Jim Tomlinson's Democratic Socialism and Economic Policy: The Attlee Years, 1945-1951, Norman Thomas Democratic Socialism: a new appraisal or Roy Hattersley's Choose Freedom: The Future of Democratic Socialism. A variant of this set of definitions is Joseph Schumpeter's argument, set out in Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy (1941), that liberal democracies were evolving from "liberal capitalism" into democratic socialism, with the growth of workers' self-management, industrial democracy and regulatory institutions.[16]

As an example, the Democratic Socialists of America define socialism as a decentralized socially-owned economy, but while ultimately committed to socialism they focus their political activities on reforms within capitalism:

Social ownership could take many forms, such as worker-owned cooperatives or publicly owned enterprises managed by workers and consumer representatives. Democratic socialists favor as much decentralization as possible. While the large concentrations of capital in industries such as energy and steel may necessitate some form of state ownership, many consumer-goods industries might be best run as cooperatives. Democratic socialists have long rejected the belief that the whole economy should be centrally planned. While we believe that democratic planning can shape major social investments like mass transit, housing, and energy, market mechanisms are needed to determine the demand for many consumer goods.[17]

As we are unlikely to see an immediate end to capitalism tomorrow, DSA fights for reforms today that will weaken the power of corporations and increase the power of working people.[18]”

Whereas Marxism-Leninism is defined as (Web Link ) :

“In political science, Marxism–Leninism is the ideology of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU), of the Communist International, and of Stalinist political parties.[1][2] The purpose of Marxism–Leninism is the revolutionary development of a capitalist state into a socialist state, effected by the leadership of a vanguard party of professional revolutionaries from the working class. The socialist state is realised by way of the dictatorship of the proletariat, which determines policy with democratic centralism (diversity in discussion and unity in action).[3][4]

Politically, Marxism–Leninism establishes the communist party as the primary social force to organise society as a socialist state, which is the intermediate stage of socio-economic development towards a communist state — a classless society that features common ownership of the means of production, accelerated industrialisation, and concentrated development of science and technology in support of the productive forces of society;[5] nationalisation of the land and natural resources of the country, and public control of societal institutions.[6]”

From what I understand the Democratic Socialists of America are not trying to create a classless society that features common ownership of the means of production, accelerated industrialisation, and concentrated development of science and technology in support of the productive forces of society;[5] nationalisation of the land and natural resources of the country, and public control of societal institutions. Only attempt to restore some balance over the power to control one’s life in the U.S. because the capitalist model is also just as extreme as the Marxist-Leninist model.

Talk about “Red Baiting”


2 people like this
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jun 3, 2018 at 8:28 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

FYI:

I love his article (Web Link)

The landlords are finally understanding that tenants have the drivers seat in the housing market. But is it too late?

Especially the text stating:

The California Apartment Assn. says it’s OK with limiting annual rent hikes to the cost of inflation plus 5% alongside property tax breaks for apartment owners who convert residences to low-income rentals. UC Berkeley researchers proposed both ideas this week.”

My question is, if they are willing to voluntarily choose this practice, how much profit are being achieved without it, because this proposal will certainly provide significant profits to the property owners.

Does this mean that the CAA fails to disclose that “cost of operations” of apartments are actually very low?

Why didn’t this proposal been made regarding City rent control campaigns?

Would this idea have prevented the passage of Measure V?

Why doesn’t the landlords in Mountain View have the wisdom to see the big picture and negotiated any idea like this before the election and to the City Council?

Why did the CAA take the City of Mountain View to court when they may have prevented their problems by voluntary steps without legal compulsion?

To me, this indicates that the CAA and its membership needs to do some serious thinking about its actions and future.


To me, if this was a staring contest, the CAA has blinked already. They seem to be aware that the Costa Hawkins repeal has significant chances of success.


3 people like this
Posted by Howard
a resident of Monta Loma
on Jun 3, 2018 at 11:51 pm

Howard is a registered user.

Businessman,

Your article is nothing more than a circle jerk from the far left and Berkeley anarchists. What does this even mean?

"The California Apartment Assn. says it’s OK with limiting annual rent hikes to the cost of inflation plus 5% alongside property tax breaks for apartment owners who convert residences to low-income rentals. UC Berkeley researchers proposed both ideas this week.”

Are you kidding me and who is going to enforce and monitor this program and what are the tax breaks and which government is even offering this tax incentive?

This is rhyme without reason just like your understanding of the rental industry and the profitability of it. You speak with no reference point as a pissed off tenant and continually contradict the information from the "real" Business people that work in the industry of supplying housing in Mountain View.
It's just gibberish without substance.

Why do you think this article that is running now was even written. "Council pushes back on hefty cost of affordable housing".

Because it costs 41 million dollars to build 71 units. That's 577K each. Do you think that's affordable? The city and tax payer doesn't think so.

So why is it reasonable to make the landlord lower his rents to what you think is reasonable? Oh that's right, their rich and it's someone else's money.


2 people like this
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jun 4, 2018 at 12:27 am

The Business Man is a registered user.

In response to Howard you said:

“Your article is nothing more than a circle jerk from the far left and Berkeley anarchists. What does this even mean?”

It was obvious in the article, you said:

“"The California Apartment Assn. says it’s OK with limiting annual rent hikes to the cost of inflation plus 5% alongside property tax breaks for apartment owners who convert residences to low-income rentals. UC Berkeley researchers proposed both ideas this week.”

Are you kidding me and who is going to enforce and monitor this program and what are the tax breaks and which government is even offering this tax incentive?”

To me it doesn’t matter because the fact is you aren’t answering the question. What IS the PROFIT margin that the INDUSTRY is pushing onto the CONSUMER? You need to be transparent in order to achieve some kind of appreciation from the public. You said:

“This is rhyme without reason just like your understanding of the rental industry and the profitability of it. You speak with no reference point as a pissed off tenant and continually contradict the information from the "real" Business people that work in the industry of supplying housing in Mountain View.”

My question is where is the proof of what you said? Thes words and claims made by the various people are Hearsay as long as you withhold your accounting ledgers so that we cannot see “PROOF”. You said:

“It's just gibberish without substance.”

You should see the gibberish some landlords put into their petitions. Which makes them less likely to achieve their goals. You said:

“Why do you think this article that is running now was even written. "Council pushes back on hefty cost of affordable housing".”

Again, I expect NO PUBLIC FUNDS used to build the “affordable housing” because the industry did not fulfill the promises of Costa Hawkins. There is an accounting that needs to be reconciled by those who made empty promises. You said:

“Because it costs 41 million dollars to build 71 units. That's 577K each. Do you think that's affordable? The city and tax payer doesn't think so. “

Until you provide the documentation to establish proof of this claim, it is just Hearsay. This estimate is probably based on the most luxurious apartment amenities that you can provide, i.e, Dishwashers, Central Heating and A/C, Washers and Dryers in each apartment, Up to date Wiring, Cable TV hookups in each Living Room and Bedroom, Private Gyms, Pools, etc. You don’t even try to compare costs of “affordable” housing. Do you think the public should “trust” your claims without “evidence”? You said:

“So why is it reasonable to make the landlord lower his rents to what you think is reasonable? Oh that's right, their rich and it's someone else's money.”

When the industry convinced the state government it would provide housing as long as rent control would not be engaged, it failed miserably. So, that is justification for that expectation. Accountability is on the ones that failed to provide adequate housing, NOT the PUBLIC. That is just what is real.


4 people like this
Posted by mike rose
a resident of another community
on Jun 4, 2018 at 8:52 am

mike rose is a registered user.

Industry provided housing so your statement is false BM.
Is there enough housing for everyone? This is entirely different question.
Clearly not.
Can industry provide cheap housing with the current land prices, cost of construction and excessive regulations and multi year delays caused by governments and activists?
Clearly not.
Will additional draconian regulations provide for more cheap housing to be build?
Very clearly not. Just the opposite.


4 people like this
Posted by Howard
a resident of Monta Loma
on Jun 4, 2018 at 9:09 am

Howard is a registered user.

Businessman,

I don't need to show you my books. You will see the accounting in Mountain View by what happens to the housing in your town. It's called tear down the not economically viable rent controlled units and build expensive housing on top of the expensive dirt!
You better start saving your money if you want to stay there.
It's gonna be about a 500k down payment. See ya at the bank:)


8 people like this
Posted by LOL
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Jun 4, 2018 at 9:49 am

LOL is a registered user.

Oh Howard, if you didn't exist the tenant advocates would have to invent you. You're the perfect encapsulation of everything wrong with the landlord business. Your glee at people being priced out of their neighborhoods and using your wealth to pick on those less fortunate is certainly a sight to behold.

Keep up the good work!


Like this comment
Posted by Howard
a resident of Monta Loma
on Jun 4, 2018 at 10:05 am

Howard is a registered user.

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or trolling]


2 people like this
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jun 4, 2018 at 10:18 am

The Business Man is a registered user.

In response to Posted by mike rose you said:

“Industry provided housing so your statement is false BM.”

The current crisis in housing proves otherwise. You said:

“Is there enough housing for everyone? This is entirely different question. Clearly not. “

CORRECT, you only built for the most highest priced properties via anti competitive business tactics, forcing the prices too high creating this crisis, you said

“Can industry provide cheap housing with the current land prices, cost of construction and excessive regulations and multi year delays caused by governments and activists?”

Your expertise was to provide housing and designs that would not negatively impact neighborhoods, but that proved to be untrue. That is the cause of the problem. You simply wanted to dictate the terms of your projects and the communities simply said you can’t. And you refused to correct for the problems in the designs saying “its my way or the highway”. See what that led to? Your empty promise of providing housing was illustrated when you couldn’t achieve your dictated terms. You said:

“Clearly not. Will additional draconian regulations provide for more cheap housing to be build?”

Real proof has indicated that under rent control, more development not less occurs given the economic studies not performed by, sponsored by, or approved by the private landlords, investors, real estate, and developers seen here (Web Link) And here (Web Link)” The simple truth is all research you use are not using the disclosure requoirements requirered by the American Economist Association to disclose publically any conflict of interest found here (Web Link). So the publich has the right to question its validity. You said:

“Very clearly not. Just the opposite.”

Again an empty threat, YES you and YOUR friends will not, as well as members of the California Apartment Association and the California Association of Realtors will not. But do THEY OWN the market? If they do, isn’t that a Sherman Anti-Trust situation begging to be prosecuted? The fact is SOMEONE will fill your shoes when you toss them, and they will be rewarded. Simple enough.

As far as Howard you said:

“I don't need to show you my books. You will see the accounting in Mountain View by what happens to the housing in your town. It's called tear down the not economically viable rent controlled units and build expensive housing on top of the expensive dirt!”

Again the failure to use that term “economically viable”. You forget that by imposing or dictating the terms on the market you will eventually cause the market to be unsustainable. Given the current research that nearly half of the Bay Area region want to leave, and that their employers are investing in out of state locations, even if only 25% of the 46% actually leave, you will have to have at least another 11.5% of that population move into the area. But divesting away from the area will reduce jobs, so that is not very likely. The fact is your strategies has caused the serious risk to the “economic viability” of the State of California. THAT is why Costa Hawkins will likely be repealed. You said:

“You better start saving your money if you want to stay there. “

Not if Costa Hawkins is repealed, or your strategy causes the businesses in the area to leave for “cheaper” pastures taking their employees with them. The Demand Supply equilibrium you manipulated will correct itself on steroids. Thus you will have paid too much for properties that will not return the profits YOU DEMAND FROM IT. You said:

“It's gonna be about a 500k down payment. See ya at the bank:)”

It just seemd to demonstrate the short vision that the current private landlords, investors, real estate, and developers have is DETREMENTAL to the state of California. The could even be described as a malignancy that threatens the life of California. Sometimes you have to surgically remove it, or with chemo or radiological therapy destroy it to prevent the death of the patient.

Either change your strategy to prevent getting this diagnosis, or find those you and who call your peers will wind up considered a threat. In effect that seems to be all you do is threaten. So take a lesson from Dale Carnegie’s class “How to Win Friends and Influence People”. It appears you never took that class. Instead of making it worth the community’s efforts to cooperate, you threaten, belittle, or dictate down to them. That is not going to get you anywhere.


7 people like this
Posted by mike rose
a resident of another community
on Jun 4, 2018 at 10:48 am

mike rose is a registered user.

I love when the tenant activists like BM cite the fact that developers like to build in the rent controlled cities and conveniently omit the fact that tis is due to 2 factors:
1. The demand and rent controlled cities is extremely high precisely due to the rent control. (Shortage and hoarding of units combined with landlord exodus from rental market)
2. The very existence of Costa Hawkins which explicitly PROTECTS the new construction from rent control.
These two factors are virtually assuring the profits for new develpments.
Then BM and his kind illogically advocate for Costa Hawkins repeal which, if passed, would essentially freeze new construction in California.
They will NEVER cite research from pre Costa Hawkins Berkeley, where hundreds of SF homes were lost from a rental market and no new units were built.
BM has a proven history of thinly veiled attempts to hide his greed which was proven by him by a lawsuit against his landlord for triple damages, which he promptly lost.


5 people like this
Posted by LOL
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Jun 4, 2018 at 11:02 am

LOL is a registered user.

Howard, why'd you stop posting as Bob?

I'm a big believer in never interrupting your opponent when they're making a mistake, so please tell me more about how happy you are that people will be unable to afford living in Mountain View.


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jun 4, 2018 at 11:37 am

The Business Man is a registered user.

In response to Mike Rose you said:

“I love when the tenant activists like BM cite the fact that developers like to build in the rent controlled cities and conveniently omit the fact that tis is due to 2 factors:

1. The demand and rent controlled cities is extremely high precisely due to the rent control. (Shortage and hoarding of units combined with landlord exodus from rental market)

2. The very existence of Costa Hawkins which explicitly PROTECTS the new construction from rent control.

These two factors are virtually assuring the profits for new develpments.”

Granted, Costa Hawkins allows this to happen You said:

“Then BM and his kind illogically advocate for Costa Hawkins repeal which, if passed, would essentially freeze new construction in California.”

Again the current private landlords, investors, real estate, and developers threaten, belittle, or dictate down to them. You said:

“They will NEVER cite research from pre Costa Hawkins Berkeley, where hundreds of SF homes were lost from a rental market and no new units were built.”

Please provide the research you are describing, I am aware of many of them, and the ones you describe simply do not uphold the disclosure requirements required by the American Economist Association to disclose publically any conflict of interest found here (Web Link). So the public has the right to question its validity. You said:

“BM has a proven history of thinly veiled attempts to hide his greed which was proven by him by a lawsuit against his landlord for triple damages, which he promptly lost.”

Again you love to not accurately describe the timeline, and instead “spin” it into a false narrative. Here are the facts:

CSFRA was voted for on November 6th, 2016

The City certified the vote on December 13th, 2016

The CAA filed a complaint which the City supported that stopped the rent rollback via a temporary restraining order on December 22nd, 2016.

The CAA challenge was heard on April 5th, 2017 and the court promptly denied the preliminary injunction on April 6th, 2017 and dissolved the temporary restraining order.

Promptly the CAA and the intervenors dismissed the case within a week.

The City nor the RHC acted to perform the required retroactive enforcement of the enactment date of December 23rd, 2016.

April 28th, 2017 the tenant demanded the overpayment to be refunded.

Thus the tenant went to court after 90 days of a demand for the refund. This occurred August 8, 2017.

After September 13th, 207 the RHC finally declared that the rent overpayment was required.

But that occurred after the tenants paid over $200 on August 8, and 11th, 2017 to pursue the small claims court case.

The refund was paid in about a week. But the question remained, what legal basis did the landlord have to withhold the refund after the tenant demanded a refund? Since the court fee was paid, the tenant had no choice but to continue the case. The simple fact was that was a legitimate question for the court to consider.

Eventually the court decided that the “VERY LATE” refund was sufficient enough, but provided no legal basis, only that the “defendant” was no liable for the complaint.

I hope this “FALSE NARRATIVE” will finally cease because the facts simply do not support your contention.

But thanks for bringing it up again, demonstrating that you want to personally attack people that have objective questions and sufficient reasoning to challenge the arguments proposed by the current private landlords, investors, real estate, and developers. This simply does not demonstrate you have a sound basis for your “opinions”


5 people like this
Posted by mike rose
a resident of another community
on Jun 4, 2018 at 11:44 am

mike rose is a registered user.

I'd for one will love if the tenants activists and those who voted for rent control tasted the bitter fruit of their actions.
Otherwise they will never learn.


5 people like this
Posted by mike rose
a resident of another community
on Jun 4, 2018 at 11:59 am

mike rose is a registered user.

BM you cannot pick court cases or researches that suit your fancy.
You feel entitled to triple damages, court did not. Have guts to admit you screwed up.
You cannot pick and choose researches to suit your fancy,
Show me ONE pre Costa Hawkins research that would support the notion that developers love to build in rent controlled jurisdiction.
Otherwise you intentionally mislead readers with post Costa Hawkins research to undermine Costa Hawkins itself.


2 people like this
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jun 4, 2018 at 12:09 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

In response to mike rose you said:

“I'd for one will love if the tenants activists and those who voted for rent control tasted the bitter fruit of their actions.”

OK, so you do not address the falsity of your argument and instead just lash out because “tenant advocates” are “out to get you”. You and your peers built the house, planned the built the bedroom, designed and built the bed, bought and coordinated the mattress and pillows, chose and made the bed, NOW you are sleeping in it. You said:

“Otherwise they will never learn.”

OK, the UPPITY tenants and their advocates won a serious battle for their rights in Mountain View, and it appears that they will again a bigger battle regarding Costa Hawkins in the state. Your answer is if YOU can’t win the war, assure absolute destruction so the victors are left with nothing. Talking about a demonstration that there is no negotiating with a tiger when your head is in its mouth as Churchill said. The only just action for us regarding our heads is to kill the tiger. Otherwise it will simply eat you anyway.

Report Objectionable Content


3 people like this
Posted by mike rose
a resident of another community
on Jun 4, 2018 at 12:53 pm

mike rose is a registered user.

BM,
I think more accurate comparison here would be a Pyrrhic victory rather than man killing a tiger.


2 people like this
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jun 4, 2018 at 1:00 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

In response to mike rose you said:

“I think more accurate comparison here would be a Pyrrhic victory rather than man killing a tiger.”

I remember the song “The World Is Not Enough” the line goes:

“If I can’t have it all, then nobody will”

That seems to be your point of view.

Also, the landlords have been “eating” tenants for decades, it is just time to stop the carnage.

You still have not yet apologized for the misrepresentation of the tenant’s lawsuit, nor addressed the questions being asked. Is it because you don’t like the answers?



2 people like this
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jun 4, 2018 at 1:13 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

To Howard, Mike Rose, Clearthinker,

I am sooo blind, please look at the article (Web Link)

In the article I found there, I completely overlooked a statement regarding the CAA public affairs officer

“The California Apartment Assn. says it’s OK with limiting annual rent hikes to the cost of inflation plus 5% alongside property tax breaks for apartment owners who convert residences to low-income rentals. UC Berkeley researchers proposed both ideas this week.

“We like the direction where there’s a combination of anti-price gouging with tax incentives,” said Debra Carlton, the association’s senior vice president of public affairs.”

So did the CAA concede that they are aware of “price gouging” and are claiming they will only prevent it when they get the public to “give” them tax incentives? Isn’t that extortion? I can only imagine what her bosses at the CAA had to say after she made that statement. It was in fact a declaration of knowledge that the price gouging prevention laws are being violated and they know about it. But did not report it to the legal authorities. Thus making themselves accomplices after the fact. I sure hope a prosecutor saw this.


2 people like this
Posted by Castro Street
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Jun 4, 2018 at 1:34 pm

Castro Street is a registered user.

I was stunned to see that a representative of the CAA (from PR, no less) used the term 'price-gouging'. Wouldn't want to be her right now.

I also think it's incredibly sad that they estimate spending in the range of $60M to defeat this measure.

Just think of all the GOOD that could be accomplished in Mountain View with $60M, instead of having it wind up in the attorneys' pockets.


9 people like this
Posted by mike rose
a resident of another community
on Jun 4, 2018 at 2:51 pm

mike rose is a registered user.

BM, blindlness is not the only one of your virtues.
I strongly recommend you hold your horses and not run to the nearest attorney yet.
FYI price gouging in California is only illegal when an emergency is declared by the government due to natural disaster. The prices cannot increase by mor than 10% then.
In all other cases technically you can call any substantial increase in market price a gouging, but it is perfectly legal.
You must have skipped that class somehow during your law courses.
Now, I will be returning in to the country now so if you don't see my comments any more it means my home IP address is still censored by MVV.


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jun 4, 2018 at 5:57 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

In response to mike rose you said:

“BM, blindlness is not the only one of your virtues.”

I will not even address this statement. You said:

“I strongly recommend you hold your horses and not run to the nearest attorney yet.”

NO I won’t, I will address the California Department of Justice regarding criminal conspiracy to facilitate “price gouging” by the CAA and landlords. Given so many have increased rents so dramatically. You said:

“FYI price gouging in California is only illegal when an emergency is declared by the government due to natural disaster. The prices cannot increase by more than 10% then.”

When the rent that was originally $1300 was raised to $2200, that was a increase of 70%. The lack of housing can be and has been determined as a “disaster” in California. Are you in fact declaring that rent increase of 70% in the “housing disaster” would be a violation of price gouging laws?. You said:

“In all other cases technically you can call any substantial increase in market price a gouging, but it is perfectly legal.”

Given that the state of California is in a housing disaster as described in this article Web Link .

Also if you read this information from (Web Link)

“What is price gouging?

Price gouging refers to sellers trying to take unfair advantage of consumers during an emergency or disaster by greatly increasing prices for essential consumer goods and services.

Is price gouging illegal in California?

Yes, in certain circumstances. California’s anti-price gouging statute, Penal Code Section 396, prohibits raising the price of many consumer goods and services by more than 10% after AN EMERGENCY HAS BEEN DECLARED.”

Mike what this means as long as a housing “emergency” is in place whether natural or man-made, the prices for the market are restricted to 10%. So I think you didn’t understand the term “emergency” versus the term “disaster”. They are clearly different. That page also says:

“Local laws may also contain their own prohibitions on price gouging.

When does California’s anti-price gouging statute apply?

The statute applies immediately after the President of the United States, the Governor of California, or city or county executive officer declares a state of emergency resulting from any natural or MANMADE DISASTER, SUCH AS AN EARTHQUAKE, FLOOD, FIRE, RIOT, OR STORM.”

That only involves the IMMEDIATE APPLICATIONS of price gouging laws. But that does not prohibit any enforcement of price gouging laws in the event of a MANMADE DISASTER caused by the market manipulation of the housing industry in California. It also stated:

“Who is subject to the statute?

Individuals, businesses, and other entities must comply with the statute.

What goods and services are covered by the statute?

The statute applies to the following major necessities: LODGING (INCLUDING RENTAL HOUSING, HOTELS AND MOTELS); food and drink (including food and drink for animals); emergency supplies such as water, flashlights, radios, batteries, candles, blankets, soaps, diapers, temporary shelters, tape, toiletries, plywood, nails, and hammers; and medical supplies such as prescription and nonprescription medications, bandages, gauze, isopropyl alcohol, and antibacterial products.”

So it can directly apply to the apartment industry, thus the CAA failure to warn or prevent their members from violating the law, or worse coordinated it, will place the CAA in significant jeopardy. It goes on to say:

“How long do the restrictions of the statute apply?

The statute generally applies for 30 days after a declaration of emergency, although for reconstruction services and emergency cleanup services, it applies for 180 days after a declaration of emergency. The state legislature and local officials may extend the effective period of the statute beyond these timeframes.

What if I experienced price increases outside of the city or county where the emergency or disaster is occurring or occurred?

The statute does not restrict its protection to a city or county where the emergency or disaster is located. It is intended to prevent price gouging anywhere in the state where there is increased consumer demand as a result of the declared emergency. For example, if a fire in San Diego County causes residents to evacuate to neighboring Imperial County, hotels in Imperial County may not raise rates by more than 10% to take advantage of the increase in demand for lodging.”

So, you may want to seek some advice regarding the current accountablilty regarding the price gouging occurring in the state of California. It goes on to say:

“What if a seller increased the price of a good or service because the seller’s costs of providing the good or service increased?

If the seller can prove that the increased price is directly attributable to increases in the cost of labor or materials needed to provide the good or service, the seller may not be liable under the statue.”

I cannot argu with this, but they also could still be in trouble because any services or supplies directly related to this market if it has been “price gouged” means that the CAA and members are required to seek the same protection as the tenants. It goes on to say:

“What are the consequences of violating the statute?

Violations of the price gouging statute are subject to criminal prosecution that can result in one-year imprisonment in county jail and/or a fine of up to $10,000. Violations are also subject to civil enforcement actions including civil penalties of up to $5,000 per violation, injunctive relief and mandatory restitution.

The Attorney General, local district attorneys, and private individuals can bring actions for violations of the statute.

Can the Attorney General’s office assist me with a claim against someone who price gouged me?

Our office cannot give you legal advice or represent you. If you believe that you might have a claim for price gouging, you might consider contacting an attorney to explore your options. For referral to a lawyer, you may contact the State Bar at (866) 442-2529 (toll-free in California) or (415) 538-2250 (from outside California), or through its website at: Web Link. If you cannot afford to pay an attorney, you may consider contacting your local legal aid office. For a referral, visit Web Link and click on the Find Legal Assistance tab, or go to Web Link.

Should I report price gouging to the Attorney General’s office?

Even though our office cannot represent individuals, the Attorney General may, on behalf of the public, investigate or prosecute someone who has engaged in price gouging. Anyone who has been the victim of price gouging, or who has information regarding potential price gouging, is encouraged to immediately file a complaint with the Attorney General's Office by going to the Attorney General's website or by calling (800) 952-5225.”

This information seems to contradict your opinion that you made :

“You must have skipped that class somehow during your law courses.”
To me, it looks like the CAA and the apartment industry can be in serious jeopardy regarding “price gouging” protections.


5 people like this
Posted by mike rose
a resident of another community
on Jun 4, 2018 at 8:42 pm

mike rose is a registered user.

This is not necessary. In short the price gauging is illegal ONLY if the government declares emergency due to natural disaster, not like in this case due to a disaster caused by the government itself.
No necesary to write this long and misinform. Anyone can Google it


6 people like this
Posted by Lan
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jun 4, 2018 at 8:55 pm

Lan is a registered user.

Question for Business Man, Howard, Mike Rose, and others who regularly interact via posting comments on the MV Voice:

Have you ever considered meeting in person at perhaps Starbucks and having a real conversation? You all have a lot to say, you certainly learn from each other and you can invite others into your conversations as well. You might enjoy each other's company (and I am being positively serious, not snarky).


Like this comment
Posted by LOL
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Jun 4, 2018 at 9:47 pm

LOL is a registered user.

Lan, sounds like you enjoy posting here. Which of us would you like to meet in person?


1 person likes this
Posted by Howard
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Jun 4, 2018 at 10:14 pm

Howard is a registered user.

Lan,

You're right, I enjoy Businessman's comments even LOL's and others like theirs because it reminds me as a businessman how different many people in the Bay Area think.

I feel it is important to stay in tune with the liberal mindset to keep an edge on my investment strategies. It has helped me to see both sides of the coin sorta say.

Sometimes I need to move money around to avoid the pitfalls of certain regions due to business climates and as in this case the political environment of rent control in Mountain View. I know what I want and knowing what they want or others like them helps me financially decide what to do.
That's the best I can explain it but I do exceptionally well and information is everything in business.


Like this comment
Posted by LOL
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Jun 4, 2018 at 10:21 pm

LOL is a registered user.

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]


3 people like this
Posted by Howard
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Jun 4, 2018 at 10:53 pm

Howard is a registered user.

Let me explain it to you LOL.

I pulled 10 million of investment capital out of Mountain View last October based on tenant sentiment and the measure V vote. Why?
Because the tenants in Mountain View had become so passionate in their beliefs that the landlords were screwing them over and the tenants controlled nearly 70% of the voter base.

Now I don't think that landlords have screwed anyone over and would never come to that conclusion on my own but it isn't about what I think that is important. As a investor I need to keep in touch with the business environment and when you have a political environment so energized like the rent control issue in Mountain View it can create a very unstable situation for investors and it has.

What did I learn... Don't invest in communities in the Bay Area that have more than 30% rental based voters. The Bay Area is very liberal and they'll vote to take your money from you just because you have it and they don't.


Like this comment
Posted by LOL
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Jun 4, 2018 at 11:06 pm

LOL is a registered user.

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]


1 person likes this
Posted by Howard
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Jun 4, 2018 at 11:16 pm

Howard is a registered user.

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]


Like this comment
Posted by LOL
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Jun 4, 2018 at 11:24 pm

LOL is a registered user.

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]


3 people like this
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jun 4, 2018 at 11:29 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

In response to Howard you said:

“I pulled 10 million of investment capital out of Mountain View last October based on tenant sentiment and the measure V vote. Why?

Because the tenants in Mountain View had become so passionate in their beliefs that the landlords were screwing them over and the tenants controlled nearly 70% of the voter base.”

YES, you were the fastest and smartest to leave because you knew you were exploiting the market and when CSFRA equalized the market power, you simply said, I quit and leave. You said:

“Now I don't think that landlords have screwed anyone over and would never come to that conclusion on my own but it isn't about what I think that is important. As a investor I need to keep in touch with the business environment and when you have a political environment so energized like the rent control issue in Mountain View it can create a very unstable situation for investors and it has.”

That is incorrect, CSFRA actually makes the market more stable because rents in the older buildings are “stabilized”. Unless the owners are going to try to evade the controls, increasing their costs, but not necessarily succeeding. The most efficient choice is to simply follow the laws and regulations accurately. But most submitting petitions have not followed the laws and regulations well, leaving them will little chance of success. You said:

“What did I learn... Don't invest in communities in the Bay Area that have more than 30% rental based voters. The Bay Area is very liberal and they'll vote to take your money from you just because you have it and they don't”

If what you said is correct, you are actually leaving all of California because I found this resource (Web Link) which indicated that the average percentage of renters in the population of California is 46.36%. That is 16% plus your standard. The census data found here (Web Link) indicates that home ownership is only 54.1% which indicates that 45.9% are renters or about 16% plus your standard. As far as regions if you read this articlke (Web Link), the Southern CA is majority renters at 58.3%, a plus of 28.3%.

To me, you in effect pulled completely out of California, because there is extremely small areas that will have less than 30% renters in comparison to home owners.

So, why are you complaining about the situation? You are a competitor investor. You should only want to out-invest everyone else? So you should enjoy when your competitors are failing.


4 people like this
Posted by Howard
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Jun 5, 2018 at 12:15 am

Howard is a registered user.

Businessman,

There ya go again. You never cease to amaze me and I learn so much about how people like you think..You consider rent control creates stability?

See my view looks very different and I guess if you call losing money stable..O.K but I don't want to be stable, losing money on a property in my investment portfolio.
Nice try though.

By the way, there are many cities in the bay area that have 30% or less rentals in them. Typically, there affluent areas and they don't want rent control in their town because it could affect the prices of their McMansions. That's where I now invest.


2 people like this
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jun 5, 2018 at 3:11 am

The Business Man is a registered user.

Howard,

To use your method of choosing which City to do business in Santa Clara County from statistics from (Web Link)

Santa Clara County Renters by City and Percentage: Campbell 49.9%, Cupertino 37.4%, Gilroy 39.2%, Los Altos 16.2%, Los Altos Hills 8.7%, Los Gatos 37.0%, Milpitas 33.1%, Monte Sereno 10%, Morgan Hill 28.7%, Mountain View 58.3%, Palo Alto 43.3%, San Jose 41.5%, Santa Clara 54.1% , Saratoga 13.8%, and Sunnyvale 52%

Out of 12 cities only 5 in Santa Clara County your requirements limits your investments to only Los Altos 16.2%, Los Altos Hills 8.7%, Monte Sereno 10%, Morgan Hill 28.7%, and Saratoga 13.8%.

Those are the ones with the vacancies of rent housing at Los Altos 4.1%, Los Altos Hills 5.7%, Monte Sereno 5.9%, Morgan Hill 4.1%, and Saratoga 3.5%.

Those are the ones with populations of Los Altos 28,976, Los Altos Hills 7,922, Monte Sereno 3,341, Morgan Hill 37,822, and Saratoga 29,926.

In effect at least in Santa Clara County, you limit your business to only 4,695 people in Los Altos, 690 people in Los Altos hills, 335 people in Monte Sereno, 10,855 people in Morgan Hill, 4,130 people in Saratoga. A total market of 20,705. A VERY significant minority of customers versus the entire county that rents which is the county population which is 1,781,642 times the county percentage of renters which is 42.4% that comes to 755,416. You chose to invest in only 2.7% of Santa Clara County. And that is the total population, not the ones you can invest in because they already are not “invested” into.

Such a minority investment indicates you are really missing out on a lot of economic opportunity in Santa Clara County. Only because you use such a poor tool like investing only in cities with less than 30% renters.

I can do the same research regarding San Mateo County and other counties. I will not be surprised if I find the same results. Sometimes what you think is preventing you from losing money in fact is killing your opportunities to make money. Economists constantly try to create “formulas” to predict positive results, but they do not test them to see if they actually work better than an alternative.

Also requiring an unrealistic ROI can produce a significant opportunity LOSS because by limiting your investments to only those that “promise” a high rate in return, which tends to increase the risk. Many financial managers understand that.

The typical realistic range of ROI percentage is between 5 and 10%

For example you chose to only invest in ROI’s that are 7% or higher, but that allows you only to invest in say $10 m because the rest of the investments do not promise that rate. So say the investment has no failures, then you result in $700,000 in ROI income.

But say you are satisfied with 4% ROI and it provides you with $30 M in investment opportunities because more investments can be promised to achieve that rate, and they all work out, then you have $1.2 m in ROI income.

But the ROI percentage risk difference is typically proportional to the ROI, thus the difference of 4% to 7% which is 3% will be your increased risk by a factor of 3. So if the risk of 4% can be ascertained as 80% probability of success, the 7% can be assumed to be 80% to the 3rd power which results in 51.2% probability. So you multiply the ROI income from the 7%, which is $700,000 by .512 and your risk accounting reliable income would be $358,400. The same process done with the 4% ROI reliable income would be $960,000. Thus you wind up with a good conservative dependable income difference between them as more than twice the cash flows.

Since this ROI takes into account the expenses for the investments in the process, you can see that sometimes making assumptions that the higher ROI justifies the lack of opportunity income can be false.

This demonstrates that attempting to use any “simple” rules regarding investments can result in serious opportunity loss. This example showed that this approach can cost you $601,600 in income. By simply altering your standards of ROI, you in fact collected more cash in the process and increases the chances of achieving that increased cash flow.

This is what a real investor does in trying to find the optimal investment strategy, maximizing the ROI income itself taking into account the risk of failure probability. The ROI percentage can be a false predictor.

If you took Financial management in college you might be aware of this issue.


4 people like this
Posted by Howard
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Jun 5, 2018 at 9:17 am

Howard is a registered user.

Businessman,

There are two different sources of ROI in residential investments that I watch.

One is actual or cash profit and the other is paper profit which is appreciation. Rent control affects both in different ways.

Cash profit losses are minimal in the short term but become increasingly a problem in the long term under rent control and can create actual losses considering the expenses rise at higher percentage rates than the income. Each investor is impacted differently by this depending on their equity position in the property.

Me, I have low LTV's maybe only 20 - 25% so I can ride it out and only see a decline in cash profitability with no risk of foreclosure. Also, my income is high enough from owning so many buildings both residential and commercial that I don't worry about having enough income to meet my needs. I can live where I want and buy all the toys I want.

Many of the landlords though have higher LTV's in comparison either because their newer to the business or they are leveraging for higher profits and have difficulties in covering the expenses and being able to make a living from that business. I know, these are the ones that you say, "tough luck" to.

But what really affects me under rent control is the Paper profits which are immediately frozen or even worse, negatively impacted and remain non existent over the long term.

The reason rent control is so bad for me as an investors is that the paper profits are non taxed and this is where my real money is made. I can and usually make 3-4 million per year just on paper, free from taxation in capital gains which is non taxed and can trade with a 1031 exchange from property to "like" property, tax free.
You see the beauty of this is that I can borrow against that paper profit after it is established as a real profit over time and still pay no taxes. Then I can leave it to my trust fund children which will pay some inheritance taxes which they just increased the exemption to 22 million, but will have the capital gains on 10's of millions of dollars of taxes owed, wiped clean. You see.


Like this comment
Posted by LOL
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Jun 5, 2018 at 9:47 am

LOL is a registered user.

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]


Like this comment
Posted by Howard
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Jun 5, 2018 at 10:15 am

Howard is a registered user.

Yes I did, now I do short term leases. It keeps it real.


Like this comment
Posted by LOL
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Jun 5, 2018 at 11:04 am

LOL is a registered user.

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]


1 person likes this
Posted by mike rose
a resident of another community
on Jun 5, 2018 at 11:15 am

mike rose is a registered user.

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]


Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

All your news. All in one place. Every day.

Su Hong 2.0? Former waiter reopens Chinese standby under new name in Palo Alto
By Elena Kadvany | 9 comments | 5,810 views

What gives you hope?
By Sherry Listgarten | 8 comments | 2,475 views

Living as Roommates? Not Having Much Sex?
By Chandrama Anderson | 1 comment | 2,460 views

 

Support local families in need

Your contribution to the Holiday Fund will go directly to nonprofits supporting local families and children in need. Last year, Voice readers and the Wakerly, Packard and Hewlett foundations contributed a total of $72,000.

DONATE