News


City rejects rent hikes for Del Medio Manor

Rent control officer sides with tenants in dispute

A petition to raise rents on dozens of apartments at the Del Medio Manor in Mountain View was denied this week by a city hearing officer.

The case was the most hard-fought conflict so far to wind its way through a public hearing process created by the city's nascent rent control law. For many observers, the case was seen as a bellwether for how future disputes would be adjudicated by the city.

Los Altos resident Elizabeth Lindsay, who owns the Del Medio apartments with about 12 other family members, had sought to raise rents on about two-thirds of the family's 105-unit apartment complex. In their initial petition, they proposed increases ranged from $125 to $900 a month in additional rent.

These proposed rent increases were later softened in a revised petition. The final request was to increase rents on about half the apartments in amounts ranging from $100 to $500 a month.

In total, the rent hikes would have increased annual profits by $170,000 on a property that was already generating more than $1 million in net income, according to the petition filings.

In response, a number of Del Medio tenants organized to protest the increases. Several longtime renters told the Voice the rent hikes would have priced them out of Mountain View. The nonprofit Community Legal Services of East Palo Alto took up the tenants' cause on a pro bono basis.

In the written decision made public on Tuesday, July 17, city hearing officer Jil Dalesandro sided largely with the tenants, rejecting nearly all claims made by the Del Medio owners. She denied a request by Lindsay to grant a so-called Vega adjustment, a special increase intended for severely underpriced rental properties that are operating at a net loss.

In the city's petition process, landlords are entitled to an extra rent increase if they can prove their upkeep costs are shrinking their profit margins. Under normal circumstances, landlords are allowed to increase rents only by the annual cost of inflation.

In the case of Del Medio, city officials highlighted numerous accounting errors that resulted in inflated expenses on the books. For example, the bookkeeping provided to the city counted Lindsay and her husband, Wilson Walch, as salaried employees for Del Medio. But the same labor was also counted in their petition as "managerial expenses" and as "owner labor," and it was unclear how these costs could be distinguished.

Dalesandro determined that many of work expenses at Del Medio were actually counted twice, or more. In some cases, Lindsay and her husband couldn't provide time records to show how their labor was benefiting the property. Lindsay and her family own multiple rental properties in the area, but they could not separate out which work hours were spent at which property. At a public hearing in May, Lindsay suggested one way to solve this would be to take their listed labor costs and divide it by three.

On top of that, Dalesandro pointed out that many of the expenses included in Lindsay's petition benefited neither the tenants nor the Del Medio property. As part of her costs, Lindsay expensed $3,000 for her time spent at Mountain View City Council and Rental Housing Committee meetings, in which she was advocating against the city's rent control law. The petition also included $17,000 in attorney fees that stemmed, in part, from a lawsuit brought last year by Lindsay and other landlords seeking to overturn Mountain View's voter approved Measure V rent control law in court.

After eliminating many of the expenses listed in the petition, Dalesandro concluded that Lindsay did deserve a small rent increase of about $5 per unit based on inflation adjustments.

Tenant advocates celebrated the decision as vindication for the city's rent control law, which has faced intense opposition since its passage in November 2016. Nan McGarry, a Community Legal Services attorney who litigated the case, said her group was currently working with tenants to fight against other rent increase petitions in the city.

The city currently has nine active petitions for rent increases, according to city staff.

"This sends a clear message to Mountain View tenants that if they fight to enforce their rights, then they'll win," she said. "Mountain View voters have been hearing a lot of misinformation about (rent control) not protecting vulnerable residents. This decision shows that is false."

Lindsay has repeatedly warned that an adverse decision could lead her to sell off her property.

"Unfortunately, the decision does not allow for a fair rate of return based on the expenses of an older building and the value of the asset," she said to the Voice. "We will evaluate our options and make a business decision to determine the future of the building."

Lindsay and her business partners have 10 days to file an appeal of the decision.

== An earlier version of this story cited proposed rent increase figures from an earlier version of the petition. Updated figures were added to the story. ==

Comments

32 people like this
Posted by Curious
a resident of Rex Manor
on Jul 20, 2018 at 5:02 pm

Does the Law Services of E.P.A ever work with landlords pro bono or are they completely biased? Just curious. Often landlords can't afford the legal fees to recoup costs from tenants who damage units and then walk away. Landlords usually eat those costs themselves since the legal fees to pursue would be too much.


15 people like this
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jul 20, 2018 at 7:46 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

In response to Curious you said:

“Does the Law Services of E.P.A ever work with landlords pro bono or are they completely biased?”

NO, For Profit business are never entitled to public pro bono representation unless it is done by a private attorney voluntarily. Simply put, a for-profit business has plenty of financial resources if it is making a profit. Tenants are not “for-profit” businesses, they work for their earnings, especially at a time where wage growth is almost nothing. The stock market has gone up every time the Department of Labor shows that wages are NOT increasing. You said:

“Just curious. Often landlords can't afford the legal fees to recoup costs from tenants who damage units and then walk away.”

First, you really need to provide evidence to the public that said damages are performed by tenants and run away. Making an unsubstantiated claim is only designed to distract from the issue. Second, that is what the security deposit is designed to pay for, so you get that money up front when the tenant moves in. The CAA and their membership attempt over and over again to deceive the public regarding how “ethical” they behave. Especially given the Pacifica campaign and the one still occurring here in Mountain View.

That if these landlords are in fact as bad off as you claim, that they do not operate professionally with professional representation, it is confusing how they stay in business. It almost sounds like an admission that these landlords really do not know how to operate their business competently. You know that if a person enters into a business and really doesn’t understand how to effectively manage it, that is a troubling situation.


11 people like this
Posted by She wants too much profit
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jul 20, 2018 at 7:58 pm

Ms Lindsay has filed an appeal. The tenants received notice of the appeal in an email today.


20 people like this
Posted by Lock her up
a resident of another community
on Jul 20, 2018 at 9:15 pm

These mistakes sound like outright Fraud to me. There should be some penalty for lying on such applications. Maybe a $25 per unit discount per month for the next year....

How can anyone take such a complaint seriously if the facts are being so distorted that this alleged need for a $900 per unit hike goes down to $5. Something is very wrong.

If this family does all their accounting this way, then they are probably having other issues with their State and Federal tax forms. I wonder if this could be reported as a whistleblower complaint to the IRS. The reporter would get a percentage of whatever is recovered. Be my guest everyone. The data is right here in the article. Maybe if they get 4 or 5 reports, they will actually look into this.


8 people like this
Posted by Lock her up
a resident of another community
on Jul 20, 2018 at 9:17 pm

Here we go! There's a form to report suspected tax fraud to the IRS. It's 3949-A.
See Web Link


28 people like this
Posted by Curious
a resident of Rex Manor
on Jul 20, 2018 at 10:01 pm

I'm thinking of my parents who have one rental that they worked and saved for to help fund their retirement since they did not get pensions and they knew social security would only pay a small amount. They are not a for-profit business so I guess then they would qualify for some pro bono work from this organization. They are on a fixed income, tight budget so in the past have had to eat costs when tenants have damaged the property beyond the security deposit amount because the lawyer fees were just too much. Next time they have an issue like that I hope this organization can help and won't turn them away since they are a landlord and not a tenant. Not all landlords are rich.


9 people like this
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jul 20, 2018 at 10:28 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

In response to Curious you said:

“I'm thinking of my parents who have one rental that they worked and saved for to help fund their retirement since they did not get pensions and they knew social security would only pay a small amount.”

I understand this part but you went on to say:

“They are not a for-profit business so I guess then they would qualify for some pro bono work from this organization.”

Your claim doesn’t make sense, if the earnings of the rent provides them with an income above the expense of the rental, it is a profit. What did you not understand regarding the definition of a profit? You went on to say:

“They are on a fixed income, tight budget so in the past have had to eat costs when tenants have damaged the property beyond the security deposit amount because the lawyer fees were just too much.”

Again, that is what the security deposit is supposed to take care of. What is it about a security deposit you do not understand? You said:

“Next time they have an issue like that I hope this organization can help and won't turn them away since they are a landlord and not a tenant. Not all landlords are rich”

But if one is getting more money in return for the expense of the “rental unit” it is a for profit business. Thus public legal resources designated to represent citizens and not a “company” or a “business” are not allowed to act on those behalf. You should go to a private attorney and request a pro bono representation, unless the public legal aid is required to represent businesses.


8 people like this
Posted by @curious
a resident of another community
on Jul 21, 2018 at 3:42 am

There are no rent controls on single units! The Mountain View rent control requires an individual property have more than 4 rentable units to be included. Your parents could own 13 4 unit properties and have no effect from the rent control. But they would not make a $1 Million annual profit most likely.


19 people like this
Posted by cc-r
a resident of North Bayshore
on Jul 21, 2018 at 10:02 am

cc-r is a registered user.

I have a question that maybe someone could answer....I notice how people here and on other articles about rent control/stabilization have said as an owner "in the past have had to eat costs when tenants have damaged the property beyond the security deposit amount because the lawyer fees were just too much." or something to that effect that they have to pay for large damages done by departing tenents. Many, many years ago my parents owned an apartment building in Palo Alto and they had insurance on the building....so if there were excessive damages to the place the insurance would cover what the security deposit did not. Does that still exist...don't these owners have insurance? and doesn't it cover damages? or are they just crying foul for sympathy? Also, the owners in this article sound like out-and-out crooks...


6 people like this
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jul 21, 2018 at 12:05 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

In response to cc-r:

Well put, I didn't even remember that factor. Insurance costs should be very small.

Thanks


18 people like this
Posted by mvrenter
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jul 21, 2018 at 1:36 pm

My sincerest congratulations to the residents! After enduring what I'm sure was an excruciating, months-long ordeal, wondering where/what your home will be, and doubting the city's brand new and untested CSFRA, I hope you can all enjoy this moment.


9 people like this
Posted by The Successful Businessman
a resident of Whisman Station
on Jul 21, 2018 at 6:09 pm

The Successful Businessman is a registered user.

Subsequent to November's election when Costa-Hawkins will most likely be repealed, and the MV RHC decides to add Vacancy Control to MV's multifamily housing, landlords will then realize their fair rate of return only by diminishing the value of their asset on the books in order to realize the current cap rate on multifamily housing (+/- 5%). In Elizabeth Lindsay's case, with $1M annual net income on 105 units and a current cap rate of 5%, that means her property is worth $20M. Had she gotten out three years ago before rent control came into being, her family would have likely realized something beyond twice that amount. Them's the breaks. Is it landlord greed or is it the taking of property? One thing's for sure, the first principal of real estate appraisal is in full bloom--economic obsolescence. And if the city decides to issue a moratorium on any further scraping of sites where MV's most "affordable" apartment complexes exist, these landlords are relegated to the unenviable position of owning privately held public housing.

By diminishing the value of the real estate, it makes it more feasible for the nonprofit housing sector to come in and buy these severely depressed assets at their lowest price point in a generation.


2 people like this
Posted by Curious
a resident of Rex Manor
on Jul 21, 2018 at 7:07 pm

I have never heard of insurance that covers the damages that tenants cause. Maybe it's not offered any more? Or maybe it's only offered to corporations that own many units not individuals who own and rent one? But I will mention it to my parents, so thanks for the tip. They are not a landlord corporation, just simple people trying to live in retirement so they are not very sophisticated.


1 person likes this
Posted by Nice try
a resident of another community
on Jul 21, 2018 at 9:57 pm

The Mountain View rent control law won't let the rental board add vacancy control. Why would it? Even if it would do so, they would never do that. It's all run by landlord preferred members.


15 people like this
Posted by Howard
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Jul 22, 2018 at 9:55 am

Howard is a registered user.

cc-r,

Yes, all Landlords are required to carry property insurance on their properties if there is a mortgage and yes only a fool landlord would stop after the property is paid off.
This insurance is typically for fire or flood/water damage.
Some property owners carry earthquake insurance but it is so expensive and the deductibles are usually hundreds of thousands for the owner so most can't afford it.

The problem with making a claim on ones insurance policy for tenant damages unless they are seriously extensive is that it increases the premiums of those policies to the point that the landlord pays more for the damage in using the insurance.

So, forget it. I just cleaned up a apartment 5 months ago that was being used as a meth lab and spent $60,000 with my employees at my costs which are at 1/3 of a market contractor.
I paid for it without using insurance because my premiums would go up more than the repairs cost.

The guy had 2 fires in there and the San Mateo County Court wouldn't let me throw him out for 7 months of non payment of rent. The police knew this guy and what he was doing and let him have the fires under other tenants units that had small children in them.

Sometimes tenants are worse than animals and you got too eat it so that's why I got out of Mountain View so I can return my profits to that 8 - 20% range to pay for the animals.


11 people like this
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jul 22, 2018 at 12:12 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

In response to Howard you said:

“So, forget it. I just cleaned up a apartment 5 months ago that was being used as a meth lab and spent $60,000 with my employees at my costs which are at 1/3 of a market contractor. “

And what background checks did you or your property management do to prevent this? To me that sounds like somewhere the screening process failed terribly, or the management's failure to exercise “commercially viable” preventative measures. So how does that factor in the argument you make here? Are you saying that the processes are so unreliable that you accept the bad performance? Who’s fault is that? You went on to say:

“The guy had 2 fires in there and the San Mateo County Court wouldn't let me throw him out for 7 months of non payment of rent. The police knew this guy and what he was doing and let him have the fires under other tenants units that had small children in them.”

If what you’re saying is true, then somehow you did not take actions that were in your power to correct. However, can we readers be provided evidence that the police had evidence against him? You have made a lot of hearsay claims, but no evidence to back it up. Please provide access to the police reports or any current prosecution? You said:

“Sometimes tenants are worse than animals and you got too eat it so that's why I got out of Mountain View so I can return my profits to that 8 - 20% range to pay for the animals.”

To me, a lot of what you said here simply doesn’t make sense. Unless we can see the records to back up your complaints, we can only take it as rhetorical argument. I hope you understand. But on top of this, you and your peers seem to be looking to find problems or even cause them upon yourselves by being simply hostile to everyone, even your customers. Remember, modeling your behavior and practicing goor preventative measures tends to avoid these problems. But it appears you’re not taking any of these steps. But of course it is only an appearance.


17 people like this
Posted by Just be Fair
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jul 22, 2018 at 1:53 pm

Business Man
Until you have owned and managed multi family real estate you have no clue what you are talking about. I have experienced the same abuse of an apartment and ended up having to pay the tenant $10,000 to leave, even after 4 months of non payment of rent. He distroyed my apartment and it was off the market for 9 months. Unfortunately no one puts "meth addict" on their application and Information laws are very strict when doing background checks. Landlords take big risks with every tenant they rent to. That is why returns must be greater than you would get on a CD which is what the city is allowing. There are no longer laws that protect housing providers, only tenants, and they get all their representation for free.


7 people like this
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jul 22, 2018 at 3:32 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

In response to Just be Fair you said:

“Until you have owned and managed multi family real estate you have no clue what you are talking about. I have experienced the same abuse of an apartment and ended up having to pay the tenant $10,000 to leave, even after 4 months of non payment of rent. He distroyed my apartment and it was off the market for 9 months.”

Again, until you provide some kind of proof that this situation in fact occurred, it is hearsey. Why is it that so many claims are made, but you refuse to provide some evidence that it happened. You said:

“Unfortunately no one puts "meth addict" on their application and Information laws are very strict when doing background checks. Landlords take big risks with every tenant they rent to.”

I am certain you can do so much better than that. Here is such a service you can use (Web Link)

It looks like you can get great information here at $49.95 per tenants at this location. So you do not seem to be providing a good case here, you said:

“That is why returns must be greater than you would get on a CD which is what the city is allowing. There are no longer laws that protect housing providers, only tenants, and they get all their representation for free.”

The facts are here are some laws you ignored:

The landlord may charge a non-refundable screening fee equal to his actual out of pocket cost, not to exceed $30 per applicant who is entitled to a copy of any credit report generated included in the charge. { Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 1950.6}

There is no longer a formal distinction among tenant deposits, i.e., security, cleaning, last month rent, pet, key, waterbed deposits, etc. California recognizes only a unitary security deposit. This is defined as any advance payment to the landlord to be used to remedy defaults in rent payments, repair of damage to the premises exclusive of normal wear and tear, cleaning upon vacation by the tenant, or to restore damage to specified landlord personal property in the custody of the tenant where the rental agreement so provides. Landlords may not charge any non-refundable deposits or "fees" {Civil Code Sec. 1950.5}.

The security deposit may not exceed three months' rent if the premises are rented furnished, two months rent if they are rented unfurnished. An amount equal to an extra one-half months rent if the tenant has a waterbed {Civil Code Sec. 1950.5}.

The tenant’s obligation is to maintain his rental household in a clean, sanitary and undamaged condition {Civil Code Sec. 1941.2}

In the case of nonpayment of rent, the tenant must be given a three day notice demanding that the rent in default be paid or, in the alternative, that the property be surrendered to the landlord. The exact amount of rent in default must be specified. In the case of a breach of another lease covenant, the tenant must be given a three day notice demanding that the lease covenant be performed and the breach be stopped, if that is possible. For example, in the case of a no pet clause, the tenant must be given three days to remove the pet {Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 1161}.

The notice must be properly delivered to the tenants. A 30 day termination notice may be served by registered or certified mailing {Civil Code Sec. 1946} In addition, this and the default and nuisance notices mentioned above may be served by three methods only: 1. hand delivery, 2. substituted service and mailing, or 3. posting and mailing. Substituted service of the notice may only be resorted to when the landlord has first attempted service at the tenant’s home and any known place of employment {Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 1162}.

Where the landlord reasonably believes the tenant has abandoned the leased premises (skipped), and the rent has been in default for at least 14 consecutive days, then the landlord may terminate the tenancy and retake possession by way of a 15 day notice under {Civil Code Sec. 1951.3}.

Upon the termination of a lease of a default nature, then the landlord is entitled to recover from the former tenant any rent in default, any rent loss suffered as a result of the breach and early termination of the lease, plus anything else the landlord has suffered as a result of the default. The landlord is under a duty to take reasonable steps to minimize this loss {Civil Code Sec. 1953.2}. In rare instances, the landlord may, if the lease so provides, elect not to terminate the tenancy and allow the premises to remain vacant, and attempt to collect the rent as it comes due for the duration of the lease {Civil Code Sec. 1951.4}.” (Web Link)

To me this seems to prove that you do have some significant protections under the laws. Why do you make it appear that you are being taken advantage of by claiming no legal rights? This is what you said.


6 people like this
Posted by mvresident2003
a resident of Monta Loma
on Jul 22, 2018 at 5:35 pm

mvresident2003 is a registered user.

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]


8 people like this
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jul 22, 2018 at 6:12 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

In response to mvresident2003 you said:

“TBM, the fact that you cannot and will not ever acknowledge the costs and risks associated with owning property and being a landlord completely and utterly detracts from your credibility.”

In what way? I have always pointed out that people have to be very careful with regards to getting into this industry. You cannot transfer the responsibility of poor judgement performed by those people ont me simply because I point out the problems that they may not take into account. In what way does what I present get discounted simply because I am not in the industry? I have had many opportunities to invest, but I never could understand why one would invest in the California Apartment Industry when there is a clear picture that the properties are inflated way above their value. You said:

“You take so much time to come up with all your statistics and "facts" and statements....but those don't always reflect real world which you obviously do not live in.”

Please demonstrate how my research is not reflecting the “real” world? You know that there is no way to claim that “reality” changes simply by who you are or what business you are in. Please demonstrate how my information is inaccurate or is presented with malicious intent? I am simply being educational. You said:

“You are tiresome and you are absolutely, incredibly insulting to those who put out risk and very hard work.”

Please demonstrate how I am being insulting? I never make statements that are personal attacks toward anyone. You know that. You just find it difficult to swallow the information I provide because of the ramifications it has on the current Apartment Industry. You stated:

“Shame on you.”

I have great appreciation regarding all businesses. Especially where they take on significant risks. But you cannot in effect require others who are not responsible for the difficulty of such a business to pay the price for any poor decisions. That is NOT BUSINESS. You want to eliminate the consequences of “Moral Hazard”, and in effect “Socialize” the failures of businesses, but “Privatize” the gains the businesses earn. You simply cannot have these occur simultaneously. Either you “Socialize” the losses AND “Socialize” the gains. OR you “Privatize” the losses AND “Privatize” the gains.

Isn’t this a universal “Reality”


5 people like this
Posted by mvresident2003
a resident of Monta Loma
on Jul 22, 2018 at 8:15 pm

mvresident2003 is a registered user.

so at what point does a "smart investor" know that his purchase is safe? At what point do you, as a tenant, take any responsibility for YOUR choice?

You say you've always stated investors need to be very careful getting involved in this industry. At what point do YOU need to be very careful about YOUR choices? Shouldn't you assume some level of responsibility as well? [Portion removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]

Investors need to be very careful getting involved in this industry. Any investor purchasing property here prior to 2 years ago purchased with knowledge of the market at that time. YOU are the one changing it. RENT CONTROL has altered the investment. I would almost (not quite, but almost) be able to understand your argument if you were to suggest that your new rules only affect those purchases going forward. Then any investor could make their decision based on complete information. But to come in AFTER THE FACT and now say that hey guys, you made a purchase based on these market rules but we're going to change them now because we don't like it......not right.

Totally not right. And you'll note that I'm not saying that it's not fair.....it's not only not fair it is NOT RIGHT.

I don't find it difficult to swallow any information you present. I also don't agree with the majority of your information, it's subjective, it's biased and it very clearly points to your socialist agenda. [Portion removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]


6 people like this
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jul 22, 2018 at 8:48 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

In response to mvresident2003 you said:

“so at what point does a "smart investor" know that his purchase is safe? At what point do you, as a tenant, take any responsibility for YOUR choice?”

WE do take responsibility, we pay our rent that is our responsibility. You said:

“You say you've always stated investors need to be very careful getting involved in this industry. At what point do YOU need to be very careful about YOUR choices? Shouldn't you assume some level of responsibility as well? What about YOUR choice to live somewhere that is obviously out of your element?”

As long as we pay our rent, you do not seem to be in any position to dictate where we live, do you? You said:

“Investors need to be very careful getting involved in this industry. Any investor purchasing property here prior to 2 years ago purchased with knowledge of the market at that time. YOU are the one changing it. RENT CONTROL has altered the investment.”

Uncertainty is part of the business. You cannot argue that an investor is guaranteed to succeed in the investment. Where do you get the idea that rules cannot change. Any business is fully aware that the business can experience significant change. Why should Apartment Investors be treated special? You said:

“I would almost (not quite, but almost) be able to understand your argument if you were to suggest that your new rules only affect those purchases going forward. Then any investor could make their decision based on complete information. But to come in AFTER THE FACT and now say that hey guys, you made a purchase based on these market rules but we're going to change them now because we don't like it......not right.”

The reality is that you cannot make any assumptions regarding any market. The Crisis of 2007-2008 clearly indicated that even real estate can suffer a catastrophic change. If the situation was to your benefit, you would work to be silent and take advantage of a fortunate turn in events. But in this case it is working to your detriment. That is unfortunately par for the capitalism as well. To me all you are saying is the customer is responsible for all of your problems. You said:

“Totally not right. And you'll note that I'm not saying that it's not fair.....it's not only not fair it is NOT RIGHT.”

To every competition in any industry, there are winners and losers. You would say if it was the reverse, “LIFE IS NOT FAIR” to us. Since when can you be allowed to not live with the same potential? You said:

“I don't find it difficult to swallow any information you present. I also don't agree with the majority of your information, it's subjective, it's biased and it very clearly points to your socialist agenda.”

I simply point out, none of what I provide is from any “socialist” resources. In fact it is from the fact I have 2 B.S. in Business Administration degrees from San Jose State University College of Business, an accredited College of Business Science. Please provide us with your education or resources. Oh yes, you have not provided any research yet. You said:

“Again, shame on you. You clearly haven't made wise choices in life and now you're bitter and angry that you didn't think ahead and make smarter choices.”

It appears that in fact I did make the right decision. By sticking out during a temporary raise in my rent to see it return to my original level. The only reason it went up was a new owner wanted to “Socialize” his loss for buying my building at 4.5 times its tax assessment level. My original landlord knew the right “Intrinsic” value of the property and service and did not try to punish use for any mistakes on their part. But your solution is whatever happens, the investor MUST NOT PAY FOR THEIR MISTAKES. Is that reasonable?


4 people like this
Posted by mvresident2003
a resident of Monta Loma
on Jul 22, 2018 at 8:57 pm

mvresident2003 is a registered user.

but you're not paying your rent. You're paying your forced, reduced rent.

"uncertainty is part of business"? How about "uncertainty is part of renting" Why isn't that the case? How is it that the one who PUT MONEY ON THE TABLE, the one who TOOK THE RISK is responsible and the one who sits back and has the "easy route" of "just paying rent" gets off?

We have one point we agree upon, that real estate can suffer catastrophic change. So where's your assertion that if an investor can't count on the positives going forward, why should they be responsible for the loss if it happens. If renters are now guaranteed a fixed cost, why don't you support that owners are guaranteed no loss?

Answer that. If renters are guaranteed their costs, why aren't owners guaranteed no loss?


3 people like this
Posted by mvresident2003
a resident of Monta Loma
on Jul 22, 2018 at 8:58 pm

mvresident2003 is a registered user.

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]


8 people like this
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jul 22, 2018 at 9:22 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

In response to mvresident2003 you said:

“but you're not paying your rent. You're paying your forced, reduced rent.”

It is our LAWFUL rent, so you cannot claim it is not being paid. You just do not like being told what is lawfull. You said:

“uncertainty is part of business"? How about "uncertainty is part of renting" Why isn't that the case? How is it that the one who PUT MONEY ON THE TABLE, the one who TOOK THE RISK is responsible and the one who sits back and has the "easy route" of "just paying rent" gets off? “

We tenants are not responsible for your problems. If you do not want the problems, use your Ellis Act rights. You are NOT FORCED to be in the business, are you? You said:

“We have one point we agree upon, that real estate can suffer catastrophic change. So where's your assertion that if an investor can't count on the positives going forward, why should they be responsible for the loss if it happens. If renters are now guaranteed a fixed cost, why don't you support that owners are guaranteed no loss?”

We are not guaranteed a fixed cost. You have the right to petition and achieve an increased rent as long as you can provide the preponderance of evidence that your petition is going to achieve a “fair rate of return”. But remember a “fair rate of return” depends on every separate case. In fact, no one is guaranteed a fixed cost under CSFRA. So your claim is not correct, and you know it. You said:

“Because you only want it in favor of YOU. The hell with anyone else who worked, labored, saved. You want it in favor of YOU. Someone who apparently can't save enough to buy but has all the time in the world to sit on anonymous message boards and post copious amounts of cut and pasted BS.”

If you can provide a preponderance of evidence that your costs require an adjustment of rent, you will get it. But you cannot cheat by trying to inflate costs, padding expenses, or worse. Why do you like to make factually incomplete statements?


3 people like this
Posted by @Fedup
a resident of Sylvan Park
on Jul 23, 2018 at 9:23 pm

@Fedup is a registered user.

Rent increase of up to $900 per month? That is ridiculous, is that because they never raised rent in 20 years? If yes, then they are lousy business people and deserve what they get.


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

Babka bakery to open Thursday in Palo Alto
By Elena Kadvany | 10 comments | 7,026 views

Ten Tips for Teens and Young Adults to Survive a Dysfunctional Family
By Chandrama Anderson | 2 comments | 1,420 views

UCSB's CCS program
By John Raftrey and Lori McCormick | 1 comment | 1,335 views

Farm Bill Passes Congress
By Laura Stec | 1 comment | 962 views

What is a Life?
By Aldis Petriceks | 3 comments | 514 views