|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
A landlord-backed campaign spent more than $260,000 in an unsuccessful effort to weaken Mountain View’s rent control law. That money was primarily spent on collecting signatures for a measure intended to be placed on the November ballot that was criticized as a sneaky attempt to overturn renter protections.
The campaign spending was revealed Tuesday in mandatory financial reports filed by the “Mountain View Residents for Renter, Homeowner & Taxpayer Protections.” The group, better known as Measure V Too Costly, has been working for most of the year to lay the groundwork for a political campaign by coordinating a social media effort, web presence and political rallies.
Presenting itself as a grassroots effort, Measure V Too Costly took aim at the city’s rent control program that was approved by voters in 2016. The landlord group portrayed rent control as an expensive mistake, arguing that it rewarded a small minority of renters to the detriment of everyone else.
In March, the group revealed its plans for a November 2018 ballot measure, which representatives described as a softened version of rent control. Tenant advocates immediately called out the measure as a Trojan horse, pointing out it had buried language that would have nullified nearly all renter protections except under rare conditions.
The financial disclosures show that despite being billed as grassroots, Measure V Too Costly was actually being directed by the California Apartment Association, a lobbying group. Since the start of the year, the landlord-backed group raised more than $265,000, mostly from large apartment companies with a strong presence in Mountain View. Major contributors included Spieker Companies ($55,000), Prometheus Real Estate Group ($65,000) and Acco Management ($36,950). The California Apartment Association (CAA) was frequently listed as an intermediary, meaning it made the contributions on behalf of specific members with the understanding that CAA would be repaid.
Nearly $220,000 of those funds went to a focused effort to collect signatures, which picked up steam starting in April. Nearly all that money was paid to Arno Petition Consultants, a Rancho Cordova-based company specializing in on-the-ground politicking. To get the initiative on the ballot, the group needed to collect 5,150 signatures, preferably with a few hundred extra to offset any invalid names.
As previously reported in the Voice, the signature-gathering campaign began to generate complaints as it became more aggressive. Signature gatherers pitched the initiative as a pro-tenant policy, falsely saying it would extend renter protections to more of the city’s housing, or prevent the law from sunsetting. Many residents who signed the petition later said they felt duped.
The Mountain View Tenants Coalition began an opposition effort to encourage people who felt misled to withdraw their names from the initiative petition. Nearly 300 requested their names be rescinded, according to the City Clerk’s Office.
In its own financial statements, the Tenants Coalition disclosed it was operating on a shoestring budget of $7,600 — a fraction of the sum raised by their adversaries. Tenants Coalition spokesman Steve Chandler described it as a David-and-Goliath situation.
“They’ve accumulated so much money, and now they turn around and want to take away our rights and protections,” he said. “Naturally, they had to purchase these signatures because few people would look at this measure and support it.”
Last month, the Measure V Too Costly group announced it was suspending its effort to place the initiative on the November ballot, with spokeswoman Laura Teutschel saying the campaign was short by a few hundred signatures. Last week, California Apartment Association Vice President Joshua Howard announced he was taking over press inquiries about the measure, but he declined to say how many signatures had been gathered.
Any signatures collected would be used to place the measure on the 2020 ballot, he said. Those signatures remain valid for 180 days, meaning the group has until mid-October to submit them to the city, he said.
“We find voters are eager to sign the petition once they understand this measure protects all apartment renters,” Howard said in an emailed statement. “The effort to qualify the amendments to Measure V continues with the goal of having this measure go before the voters in November 2020.”
Correction: Following publication, the California Apartment Association indicated they had made an error reporting the contributions made by Speiker Properties. The firm donated $55,000, not $165,000 as previously reported. They intend to file an amended report with the city.
This article fails to mention what the measure in circulaton would do. When I read the measure, I believe it to be worthy of discussion. Let’s remember this measure will do the following
1) give some protections to renters in post 1995 buildings
2) make it easier to evict criminal tenants
3) prevent the RHC from paying itself a salary
4) ensure rent control is there for low income families not $250,000/year Google engineers
I’m looking forward to the 2020 ballot measure and a good discussion on this.
Did I miss something here? Doesn’t Protected Political Speech include money spent on promoting candidates and legislation? What’s the problem? Is it illegal to promote one’s own self-interests?
We need to discuss FACTS about this measure that might get on the ballot and what it does as this article fails to state that:
This measure ensures ALL apartment renters are protected from price gouging by landlords and seeks to limit rent increases to 7% or less per year and ensures renters can only get one rent increase per year
This measure helps our most vulnerable populations because it targets rent control protections to those most in need like a senior citizen on a fixed income, a veteran, or a teacher NOT high income earners. It also gives NEW rights to all apartment renters regardless of the year their apartment was built.
The Rental Housing Commission adopted a $2 Million Dollar budget and asked the City for $1 Million dollars – This measure adds protection for the city. It prevents excessive budgets and protects funds for vital services like public safety, road repairs, parks, libraries, and fire safety.
In the past two years, we’ve seen nearly several hundred affordable apartments become at risk of being torn down to make way for multi-million dollar townhomes. Like the 56 apartments being torn down in the North Whisman area.
Measure V imposes significant bureaucracy to remove a tenant who is committing crimes or disturbing the neighbors. This measure eliminates layers of red tape so housing providers can quickly evict tenants who commit crimes or are a nuisance to their neighbors.
Preserve our community’s affordable housing and prevent displacement of Mtn View families
Several small property owners affected by Measure V have chosen to sell their properties leading to apartments now at risk of being torn down to make way for million-dollar condos. Measure V is unfairly displacing hundreds of families out of their homes and forcing some senior citizens who provide rental housing to sell the investments they hoped would sustain them in retirement.
According to the Brookings Institution, policies like Mtn View’s rent control law discourage landlords from maintaining apartments and encourages them to convert apartments to condominiums, thus reducing housing supply
We’ve already seen dozens of apartments on Walker Drive, Calderon Ave, Bonita Street, and West Middlefield slated for demolition.
Sign the petition to protect existing affordable housing and working families, senior citizens, and veterans aren’t displaced to make way for million-dollar condos.
Let’s look at what the measure does as this article didn’t spell it out:
This measure ensures ALL apartment renters are protected from price gouging by landlords and seeks to limit rent increases to 7% or less per year and ensures renters can only get one rent increase per year
This measure helps our most vulnerable populations because it targets rent control protections to those most in need like a senior citizen on a fixed income, a veteran, or a teacher NOT a computer science engineer making $250,000/year. It also gives NEW rights to all apartment renters regardless of the year their apartment was built.
The Rental Housing Commission adopted a $2 Million Dollar budget and asked the City for $1 Million dollars – This measure adds protection for the city. It prevents excessive budgets and protects funds for vital services like public safety, road repairs, parks, libraries, and fire safety.
In the past two years, we’ve seen nearly affordable apartments become at risk of being torn down to make way for multi-million dollar townhomes. Like the 56 apartments being torn down in the North Whisman area.
Measure V imposes significant bureaucracy to remove a tenant who is committing crimes or disturbing the neighbors. This measure eliminates layers of red tape so housing providers can quickly evict tenants who commit crimes or are a nuisance to their neighbors.
Another very biased article by MVV. No surprise here.
this measure protects all apartment renters against price gouging, discourages rental units from being converted to million dollar condos, eliminates endless red tape and bureaucracy so needed improvements can be made to the city’s rental housing, and ensures lower income seniors, veterans, and teachers have access to rent control.
I for one applaud the effort to modify the initiative. It was originally drafted in the dark and now we’re seeing the unintended consequences. This initiative addresses the problems of measure v, Something tenant groups have ignored. Let’s leave it to the voters to determine if the proposed changes are right for us in mountain view.
Several small property owners affected by Measure V have chosen to sell their properties leading to hundreds of apartments now at risk of being torn down to make way for million-dollar condos. Measure V is unfairly displacing hundreds of families out of their homes and forcing some senior citizens who provide rental housing to sell the investments they hoped would sustain them in retirement.
According to the Brookings Institution, policies like Mtn View’s rent control law discourage landlords from maintaining apartments and encourages them to convert apartments to condominiums, thus reducing housing supply
We’ve already seen dozens of apartments on Walker Drive, Calderon Ave, Bonita Street, and West Middlefield slated for demolition.
Let’s sign the petition to protect existing affordable housing for working families, senior citizens, and veterans aren’t displaced to make way for million-dollar condos.
In response to mike rose you said:
“Another very biased article by MVV. No surprise here.”
Sometimes reality can be very harsh to particular people doing particular things.
Almost reminds me of how Donald Trump claims that the press is unfair against him.
The press is not against anyone, it just reports documented proof as it stated here:
“The campaign spending was revealed Tuesday in mandatory financial reports filed by the “Mountain View Residents for Renter, Homeowner & Taxpayer Protections.” The group, better known as Measure V Too Costly, has been working for most of the year to lay the groundwork for a political campaign by coordinating a social media effort, web presence and political rallies.”
What is biased about this? It goes on to say:
“Presenting itself as a grassroots effort, Measure V Too Costly took aim at the city’s rent control program that was approved by voters in 2016. The landlord group portrayed rent control as an expensive mistake, arguing that it rewarded a small minority of renters to the detriment of everyone else.”
This is absolutely true, YOU also state this. What is biased about it? It said:
“In March, the group revealed its plans for a November 2018 ballot measure, which representatives described as a softened version of rent control. Tenant advocates immediately called out the measure as a Trojan horse, pointing out it had buried language that would have nullified nearly all renter protections except under rare conditions.”
What is untrue or biased about this? It goes on to say:
“The financial disclosures show that despite being billed as grassroots, Measure V Too Costly was actually being directed by the California Apartment Association, a lobbying group. Since the start of the year, the landlord-backed group raised more than $265,000, mostly from large apartment companies with a strong presence in Mountain View. Major contributors included Spieker Companies ($165,000), Prometheus Real Estate Group ($65,000) and Acco Management ($36,950). The California Apartment Association (CAA) was frequently listed as an intermediary, meaning it made the contributions on behalf of specific members with the understanding that CAA would be repaid.”
What about this is biased? It goes on to say:
“Nearly $220,000 of those funds went to a focused effort to collect signatures, which picked up steam starting in April. Nearly all that money was paid to Arno Petition Consultants, a Rancho Cordova-based company specializing in on-the-ground politicking. To get the initiative on the ballot, the group needed to collect 5,150 signatures, preferably with a few hundred extra to offset any invalid names.”
What is biased here? It goes on to say:
“As previously reported in the Voice, the signature-gathering campaign began to generate complaints as it became more aggressive. Signature gatherers pitched the initiative as a pro-tenant policy, falsely saying it would extend renter protections to more of the city’s housing, or prevent the law from sunsetting. Many residents who signed the petition later said they felt duped.”
What is biased here? It went on to say:
“The Mountain View Tenants Coalition began an opposition effort to encourage people who felt misled to withdraw their names from the initiative petition. Nearly 300 requested their names be rescinded, according to the City Clerk’s Office.
In its own financial statements, the Tenants Coalition disclosed it was operating on a shoestring budget of $7,600 — a fraction of the sum raised by their adversaries. Tenants Coalition spokesman Steve Chandler described it as a David-and-Goliath situation.”
So far, what is biased? I don’t see any. IT went on to say:
“They’ve accumulated so much money, and now they turn around and want to take away our rights and protections,” he said. “Naturally, they had to purchase these signatures because few people would look at this measure and support it.”
That is NOT the Mountain View Voice making an opinion. That was a quote from Steve Chandler. That cannot be the basis to claim the Mountain View Voice is biased. It goes on to say:
“Last month, the Measure V Too Costly group announced it was suspending its effort to place the initiative on the November ballot, with spokeswoman Laura Teutschel saying the campaign was short by a few hundred signatures. Last week, California Apartment Association Vice President Joshua Howard announced he was taking over press inquiries about the measure, but he declined to say how many signatures had been gathered.”
Again, what is biased? It went on to say:
“Any signatures collected would be used to place the measure on the 2020 ballot, he said. Those signatures remain valid for 180 days, meaning the group has until mid-October to submit them to the city, he said.
“We find voters are eager to sign the petition once they understand this measure protects all apartment renters,” Howard said in an emailed statement. “The effort to qualify the amendments to Measure V continues with the goal of having this measure go before the voters in November 2020.””
You have not provided any basis to determine that the Mountain View Voice is biased. Why are you making such a statement that cannot be supported?
I was a never a fan of Measure V so I gladly welcome the effort to fix it — especially if the improvements would save the city millions which could be better spent on affordable housing.
When the current situation charges landlords $2.5 million a year just to tell them they can’t raise their rents it seems like a good investment if it could modify a law that is costing them 10X that amount each year. The city is kicking their landlord to the curb and evening there will be no affordable housing. It’s interesting that anything that doesn’t favor tenants and provide them with below market rent is called “sneaky”. There needs to be a modification and if there were any real leadership in the city, the council would draft their own modification for the November ballot. At the very least a means test that gives affordable rent to those who need it and not a free ride at the expense of landlords for those who don’t.
Under the current law, nothing stops the Mtn View Rental Housing Committee (RHC) from paying themselves a salary or pension. And last year the RHC spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on lawyers and high-end computer systems.
I signed the petition to protect city finances from an unelected commission paying itself whatever salary it wants and demanding millions from the city’s budget taking money from parks, libraries, and public safety
Measure V allows bureaucrats and an unelected commission to decide what they think is fair market value for every rental unit. It gives them the power to significantly change the cost and availability of local housing – with no requirement that they listen to detailed public input.
Let’s make it easier for housing providers to invest in the city’s rental homes without having to go through layers of bureaucracy, numerous hearings, and red tape
The Voice left out too many details of what the measure does. For instance, this measure helps keep rental properties available for renters, encourages rental housing providers to invest in their properties and make quality homes available for renters, not incentivize housing providers to remove rental units from the market to convert those units to condominiums.
In response to Adamsingh you said:
“The Voice left out too many details of what the measure does.”
Previous reports gave a good detailed account of the Landlord Measure was written to do. Granted it did not repeat the previous text. But it provide a link to the actual Landlord Petition. So “Technically” you may not be correct, because in included the entire text for the public online. The Landlords could afford to pay to publish the entire text in the Mountain view Voice on hard copy. But you cnnot claim it was not provided. The opposition paid for advertising in opposition, thus there was equal access to the press. The text states:
“SECTION 3. Purposes.
The purposes of this Initiative are to enact reforms to the Act to:
Place common sense limits on the unelected Rental Housing Commission, including a prohibition on paying themselves a salary;”
Does the text provide the basis of you claim that “For instance, this measure helps keep rental properties available for renters, encourages rental housing providers to invest in their properties and make quality homes available for renters, and not incentivize housing providers to remove rental units from the market to convert those units to condominiums.” I don’t see it accomplish any of this. It stated:
“Prohibit the Commission from making funding demands on the General Fund of the City of Mountain View, which provides funding for critical city services such as public safety, road and infrastructure maintenance, parks, libraries and elder care services, without City Council approval;
First, the CSFRA has repaid the loan given to start the process. Second, does the text provide the basis of you claim that “For instance, this measure helps keep rental properties available for renters, encourages rental housing providers to invest in their properties and make quality homes available for renters, and not incentivize housing providers to remove rental units from the market to convert those units to condominiums.” It goes on to say:
“Require the Commission to be transparent and accountable to the citizens of Mountain View;”
It already is, all petitions and filings are available to all of the City of Mountain View along with all hearings are public and you can get free copies of the hearings, and the RHC meetings are open to the public except where attorney/client meetings occur regarding litigation. Does the text provide the basis of you claim that “For instance, this measure helps keep rental properties available for renters, encourages rental housing providers to invest in their properties and make quality homes available for renters, and not incentivize housing providers to remove rental units from the market to convert those units to condominiums.” It goes on to say:
“Encourage property-owners to keep rental properties on the market and available for renters, rather than to mothball units or convert those units to condominiums;”
Yes that text is here, but what it does not state is HOW. There is no text following this one that establishes the method proposed to achieve this idea. The proposed idea was:
(C) The cost of planned or completed capital improvements to the Rental Unit (as distinguished from ordinary repair, replacement, and maintenance), (BUT STRIKES OUT) BUT ONLY WHERE SUCH CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ARE NECESSARY TO BRING THE PROPERTY INTO COMPLIANCE OR MAINTAIN COMPLIANCE 1NITH APPLICABLE LOCAL CODES AFFECTING HEALTH AND SAFETY, AND where such capital improvement costs are properly amortized over the life of the improvements;
You provide no proof that striking out “BUT ONLY WHERE SUCH CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ARE NECESSARY TO BRING THE PROPERTY INTO COMPLIANCE OR MAINTAIN COMPLIANCE 1NITH APPLICABLE LOCAL CODES AFFECTING HEALTH AND SAFETY, AND” will accomplish your claims. Why should the public assume that that will happen? It went on to say:
“Encourage property-owners to maintain and improve residential rental properties;”
The above text simply only exists in text only. The promoted change simply cannot be assumed to achieve the claims you make. You are going to provide some kind of scientific proof exclusive of any that has the appearance of a conflict of interest. The text went on to say:
“Increase public safety by allowing timely eviction of tenants who commit criminal acts;”
The laws and CSFRA allows this to occur. Why mention this when you know nothing regarding the CSFRA protects any “criminal activities”. This doesn’t materially contribute to your argument given the significant minority of said issues. Please provide examples of how much criminal activity is occurring in Mountain View? It went on to say:
“Allow landlords to quickly evict tenants who engage in disruptive behavior to fellow renters or other tenants who cause willful property damage or dangers; and”
I have no argument with this idea except that what criteria is used to determine when the tenant crosses the line from protected free-speech or political actions, and what is “disruptive”. Still to what extent do you have proof that this prevents the objectives you claim in your comment? It went on to say:
“Ensure that middle and lower income Mountain View residents have access to safe, clean, stable, and affordable housing, without subsidizing wealthy residents;”
HOW does this initiative do this? You haven’t established a policy to benefit correlation here. In fact many argue landlords criticize the idea that “stable” housing is not in the public interest. I have shown that even the LAO claims people not moving from apartments is a cause of unaffordable housing. This does not make any sense. It goes on to say:
“All while continuing to protect low-income and elderly renters from unfair rent increases and evictions and confirming that the Act is not intended to reach single family homes.”
At least at this time, Single Family Homes are exempt. The text of this initiative makes it quicker to remove rent increase controls, not expand them.
In the end, what does the initiative do to achieve ““For instance, this measure helps keep rental properties available for renters, encourages rental housing providers to invest in their properties and make quality homes available for renters, and not incentivize housing providers to remove rental units from the market to convert those units to condominiums.”
Mountain View residents reported that signature gatherers for the Sneaky Repeal of Measure V renter protections were back on the streets today. People generally expect anyone who knocks on their door to tell the truth, but the CAA signature gatherers offer distortions at best, if not out right lies.
As to CAA’s Josh Howard’s comment, the proposed amendment would end the current effective rent stabilization, and replace it with non-binding useless fake rent control.
No wonder Josh Howard and landlords support this. No one else should. Don’t Sign!
It’s so strange that the CAA has taken over the signature gathering. I thought this was a grassroots coalition of homeowners and renters! Now all these people posting pro-repeal comments under multiple names. I’m shocked that this doesn’t seem to be on the level.
I can’t figure out landlords that don’t get it?
Who would continue to business in a non-viable business environment?
Would Mcdonalds sell hamburgers in Mountain View for $1.00 when it costs them $1.25 to make? No, they would move to Los Altos and sell the same burger for $$3.00 and make money instead of lose it.
Landlords, you are stuck with measure V because 70% voters in Mountain View are tenants and they are going to take every dime they can from you and you will never get them to vote measure V out. Get it straight!
Move your money to other markets as I did and you will start receiving appreciation and higher rents again.
This is what i did and I am back on track earning 15-20% ROI again buying Houses in San Ramon.
Let them have Mountain View and pay to run their own housing on their money instead of yours.
Just a word of advice…
Yes, Measure V is stupid and counter-productive, but I appreciate MV Voice demonstrating how this is not a grass roots effort to overturn Measure V.
So how can landlords complain about rate of return on their investment but still have tens of thousands of dollars to spend on repealing rent control in Mountain View?! Seems that Mountain View landlords are still making plenty of money in this rental market even with rent control in place if they have so much extra money to donate for signature gathering. Don’t fall for lies being told by greedy landlords and Don’t Sign the Sneaky Repeal of Measure V!
Don’t sign sneaky Repeal,
Thank you for demonstrating my point. You believe that because landlords “have so much extra money to donate for signature gathering”, landlords are not entitled to a “Fair Rate of Return” on their investments?
This is the new emerging socialist society we see in California that believes that “they”, landlords are not entitled to a free market and redistribution of wealth to the tenants is necessary and right.
I think its funny when someone says, “greedy landlords” when they are the GREEDY ONES, advocating that someone else is making too much and shouldn’t be allowed a reasonable return of profit on their investments.
I would think the socialists would try to conceal who they are and their beliefs a little better than this in a capitalists society?
In response to Howard you said:
“This is what i did and I am back on track earning 15-20% ROI again buying Houses in San Ramon.
Let them have Mountain View and pay to run their own housing on their money instead of yours.
Just a word of advice…”
And:
“Thank you for demonstrating my point. You believe that because landlords “have so much extra money to donate for signature gathering”, landlords are not entitled to a “Fair Rate of Return” on their investments?
This is the new emerging socialist society we see in California that believes that “they”, landlords are not entitled to a free market and redistribution of wealth to the tenants is necessary and right.
I think its funny when someone says, “greedy landlords” when they are the GREEDY ONES, advocating that someone else is making too much and shouldn’t be allowed a reasonable return of profit on their investments. “
Just to illustrate that your expectations are more than unrealistic but toxic please read:
Please consider the following information from Investment News (http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20180730/FREE/180739993/schorsch-reit-listing-a-billion-dollar-disaster-for-investors) It specifically states:
“The history of nontraded real estate investment trusts is littered with stories of companies that appear to have value and promise one day only to reveal a hideous portrait the next.
Several REITs that raised money in the years before the 2008 credit crisis and stock market crash repeatedly proved this rule. Sold by a broker for $10 per share in 2005 or so and listed on a client’s account statement for the same amount for years, those REITs’ value plummeted in 2009, 2010 and 2011.
Known as zombie REITs, THESE REAL ESTATE COMPANIES DUG THEIR OWN GRAVES BY OVERPAYING FOR REAL ESTATE AT THE TOP OF THE MARKET, taking on bad debt and paying high fees to their management.
Some of the REIT managers who saw their companies take savage hits in value included Behringer Harvard, Cornerstone, Inland and KBS.
As regular readers of InvestmentNews know, we covered the collapse of these companies closely. Financial advisers in the mid-2000s promised many of their clients that investing in nontraded REITs was reasonable and stable. Real estate never lost value, was the pitch, COMBINED WITH PROMISED RETURNS ANNUALLY OF 6% TO 7%.”
Compare this with your 15-20% you claim the market supports? WOW. What do you do to that house that increases the value that much? To anyone, it appears we are doing the same thing we did in the past. What do you expect will eventually happen? What happened is:
“For their trust, investors lost millions.
New industry rules have addressed the issues dogging REITs, most specifically making what investors actually pay for the product much more transparent. Fat commissions have been cut, and brokers have run away from the product. Sales have dropped accordingly.
But the REIT marketplace got a reminder earlier this month of how disastrous certain nontraded REITs can be for investors when a company associated with Nicholas Schorsch, the former nontraded REIT czar, listed on the Nasdaq.
So far, the listing of American Finance Trust Inc., which was sold in 2013 during Mr. Schorsch’s money-raising heyday, has “eroded approximately $1 billion of” the company’s equity value, according to a report last Thursday by Robert A. Stanger & Co. Inc., an investment bank. The listing of AFIN has turned into an ugly “belly flop,” according to Stanger.
The performance of the company since it started trading on July 19 is particularly galling given that the company published an “estimated per share” net asset value of $23.56 just last month. Earlier today, shares of American Finance Trust, with the ticker symbol AFIN, were trading at $14.80 with a market capitalization of about $1.6 billion.
To recap the promise that turned into an ugly portrait: Brokers sold AFIN five years ago at $25 per share. The company recently published an estimated value of $23.56. The market is telling us, today, that AFIN is really worth $14.80 per share.
That’s 40.8% less than what a broker sold it for, and 37.2% less than the company’s independent board last month said it was worth.”
This seems to indicate that the “PRIVATE” investment market also knows there are real problems occurring independent of any “Rent Control” problems. It went on to say:
“Despite the pain felt by investors, AFIN’s management inexplicably sounded pleased with the REIT’s results. AFIN shares closed at $15 after its first day of trading, or $10 less than what brokers sold it for.
“This event also demonstrates the commitment we share with our independent directors to creating a liquidity event designed to deliver optimal results for shareholders,” said AFIN’s CEO Michael Weil, in a statement on July 19.
How on earth is the listing of AFIN an “optimal result” for its shareholders? To call it anything less than a disaster is a joke.”
To me, it looks like the “Housing Market” knows a lot more than what it publishes regarding the health of the current and future markets. Costa Hawkins simply is a law to socialize the losses of investors that have the knowledge that their practices are leading to a disaster.
There is this information also from the Motely Fool website found here (https://www.fool.com/investing/2018/02/17/6-things-that-could-cause-a-stock-market-crash.aspx) :
“6 Things That Could Cause a Stock Market Crash
The stock market has crashed several times throughout history, including the infamous Crash of 1929, Black Monday in 1987, and the financial crisis of 2008. While the exact cause of each of these crashes can get a bit complicated, stock market crashes are generally caused by some combination of speculation, leverage, and several other key factors.
Here’s a rundown of six different stock market crash catalysts that could contribute to the next plunge in the market.
1. Speculation
Many market crashes can be blamed on rampant speculation. The Crash of 1929 was a speculative bubble in stocks in general. The crash in tech stocks in the early 2000s followed a period of irrational speculation in dot-com companies. AND THE CRASH OF 2008 CAN BE ATTRIBUTED TO INVESTOR SPECULATION IN REAL ESTATE (AND BANKS ENABLING THE PRACTICE).
The point is that when irrational euphoria about a certain asset class or industry exists, it’s not uncommon for it to end very badly.
2. Excessive leverage
When things are going well, leverage (a.k.a. “borrowed money”) can seem like an excellent tool. For example, if I buy $5,000 worth of stock and it rises by 20%, I made $1,000. If I borrow an additional $5,000 and bought $10,000 worth of the same stock, I’d make $2,000, doubling my profits.
ON THE OTHER HAND, WHEN THINGS MOVE AGAINST YOU, LEVERAGE CAN BE DOWNRIGHT DANGEROUS. LET’S SAY THAT MY SAME $5,000 STOCK INVESTMENT DROPPED BY 50%. IT WOULD STING, BUT I’D STILL HAVE $2,500. IF I HAD BORROWED AN ADDITIONAL $5,000, A 50% DROP WOULD WIPE ME OUT COMPLETELY.
Excessive leverage can create a downward spiral in stocks when things turn sour. AS PRICES DROP, FIRMS AND INVESTORS WITH LOTS OF LEVERAGE ARE FORCED TO SELL, which in turn drives prices down even further. The most notable occasion was the Crash of 1929, in which excessive purchasing of stocks on margin played a major role.
3. Interest rates and inflation
Generally speaking, rising interest rates are a negative catalyst for stocks and the economy in general.
THIS IS ESPECIALLY TRUE FOR INCOME-FOCUSED STOCKS, SUCH AS REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUSTS (REITS). Investors buy these stocks specifically for their dividend yields, and rising market interest rates put downward pressure on these stocks. As a simplified illustration, if a 10-year Treasury note yields 3% and a certain REIT yields 5%, it may seem worth the extra risk to income-seeking investors to choose the REIT.
ON THE OTHER HAND, IF THE 10-YEAR TREASURY’S YIELD SPIKES TO 4%, THE REIT’S DIVIDEND WILL (ROUGHLY) NEED TO RISE PROPORTIONALLY TO ATTRACT INVESTORS. AND LOWER STOCK PRICES TRANSLATE TO HIGHER DIVIDEND YIELDS, ON A PERCENTAGE BASIS.
From an economic standpoint, higher interest rates mean higher borrowing costs, which tends to slow down purchasing activity, which can in turn cause stocks to dive. So, if the 30-year mortgage rate were to spike to, say, 6%, it could dramatically slow down the housing market and cause homebuilder stocks to take a hit.
6. Panic
It’s important to point out that crashes aren’t generally caused by one or more of these factors all by themselves. It’s typically a combination of a negative catalyst and investor panic that causes a sharp dive in the stock market.
For example, the steepest market drop during the financial crisis occurred during September and October 2008. YES, IT WAS REAL ESTATE SPECULATION AND EXCESSIVE LEVERAGE THAT LED TO THE TROUBLE, BUT FEARS THAT THE U.S. BANKING SYSTEM COULD POTENTIALLY COLLAPSE SENT INVESTORS INTO A PANIC, WHICH LED TO THE ACTUAL CRASH.”
So are we going to see another bank bailout after 2007? I simply don’t know. The politics would say NO because it was given a break just 10 years ago. But YES given that the damage to the “Market” itself is so large, we cannot “afford” the “market” to fail. I would gamble that it will be a YES.
@Howard, you seem to have a difficult time with reading. What I wrote was that “Mountain View landlords are still making plenty of money in this rental market even with rent control in place if they have so much extra money to donate for signature gathering.” My point is that landlords are indeed making a reasonable return of profit on their investments in Mountain View with rent control in place. Investing does inherently have risk and I would think landlords in Mountain View could see that they are investing in an area that is mainly populated by renters. Measure V passing was inevitable but clearly the market is still bearing lots of profits for landlords and they have lots of extra money to spend on signature gathering that will ultimately be a waste of money. Some advice for Mountain View landlords: 1) Take time to work through your disappointment with the risk you took by investing in an area that does want rent control in place. 2) Use the profits you are still currently making to ensure that your investment properties are well maintained versus paying for signatures that won’t yield any results – this will help with future profits. 3) Get ready for some more disappointment when the Costa Hawkins Act is repealed this November and all cities in California pass rent control laws so that the vast majority of people living in this state can afford to live here. 4) Enjoy all the profits you are still making in this market and spend more time being grateful rather than greedy for more.
Businessman,
First of all, seasoned investors would never over encumbered their investments to the point their in jeopardy of foreclosure. Your argument is that if you buy inflated property with 10% down, you can lose. NO KIDDIN!
Most investors and landlords that have been in business for more than 10 years have learned the rules of the game. In my case, I have portfolios of properties that have between 35% equity and 90% equities to balance the great depression if one arises.
These portfolios are back with investments in real estate, mutual funds, gold and government bonds totaling over $50 million. I also keep an extra $2 million in cash in liquidable assets that can be accessed within 24 – 48 hours if needed.
I am not advocating for someone to go out and buy a $10 million apartment building with $1 million cash. No, what I’m saying is to get out of losing rental markets like Mountain View and get into unregulated free markets that are easily available to these investors through tax free 1031 exchanges so they can regain their appreciation again on their investments. Mountain View is a loser deal for real estate investors!
Don’t Sign Sneaky Repeal,
I understand your point that you believe landlords are making what you call a reasonable rate of return. When you get your own money, say $10 million cash and invest in a city, would you want someone else to decide how much you should make?
America is built on a free market system that keeps its own balance by supply and demand. If you and other socialists want to break the free market, get ready for the consequences of that. If you thought supply is short now, just wait especially if Costa Hawkins is repealed. That will end all non government financed residential building across this state.
Your going to make me richer by doing so..Thank you.
Could this be true?
…..Quantity and quality of the rental units are the first casualties in communities with rent control. According to the September 1993 Report to Update the General Plan, there were 4,900 rented single family homes in Berkeley. According to Marjorie Gelb, the director of the Rent Stabilization Board, there remained fewer than 800 as of spring 1999. According to the 1990 Housing Element, approximately 2,250 rental units had been converted to Tenancies In Common. Thus, minimally, this city has lost 6,350 units in the past 20 years, from its original stock of 27,821 at the beginning of the rent control experiment…..
Hahaha, mike just copy-pasted an op-ed from the president of the Berkely Property Owners Association. Never an original thought in his head.
In response to Howard:
No doubt leverage is a judgement call.
But you still didn’t address this important factor:
To remind you:
As regular readers of InvestmentNews know, we covered the collapse of these companies closely. Financial advisers in the mid-2000s promised many of their clients that investing in nontraded REITs was reasonable and stable. Real estate never lost value, was the pitch, COMBINED WITH PROMISED RETURNS ANNUALLY OF 6% TO 7%.”
COMPARE THIS WITH YOUR 15-20% YOU CLAIM THE MARKET SUPPORTS? WOW. What do you do to that house that increases the value that much? To anyone, it appears we are doing the same thing we did in the past. What do you expect will eventually happen?
It would appear that this resource in effect states that even a 7% ROI would be considered on the HIGH ROI in this market. Many landlords complain that the ROI is too low regarding rent control. Realize that only the Rent is regulated. The SKILL of the business is the CONTROL over ROI, NOT RENT.
But in the last two years in Mountain View 3.4% and 3.6% AGA rent increases yearly were established. If you compare that with the HIGH level reported at 7% a year. These are in effect right in the middle of the HIGH 7% ROI which in effect has been determined unsustainable. It would in fact be a good argument that the AGA process is in fact fair.
The real problem we have here is that investors were convinced that the market would provide significantly higher ROI. Isn’t that what got a lot of investors into a mess because a “promise” is only a “best-case” result?
Instead of investors taking responsibility for their actions, they use their money to craft legal regulations to control the “risks” in the market. Costa Hawkins and Ellis acts are the result.
What happens in life is a pendulum swings right, and the supply side market forces dictate the terms. But the more you pull the pendulum to the right, it eventually must fall and the momentum will cause an equal swing to the left. In this case demand-side market forces take control. That is what we are experiencing today.
Is that a biased observation?
LOL,
Sorry for your misunderstanding, I thought it was obvious this was a quote.
And actually from Daily Californian.
Hahaha you can’t even read either. The author of that 20-year-old piece is: “Robert Cabrera is president of the Berkeley Property Owners Association.” Did you just mash into Google the query “rent control bad” and randomly cut and paste quotes?
Daily Californian is an independent student run newspaper in Berkeley (this source will not be good enough for TBM, I guarantee it, we will see a mile long response how biased is this source)
LOL,
I didn’t say it was a brand new piece, but actually it ws closer to the time that the statistics were cited.
Do you disagree? If so why?
You concede now that it’s an opinion piece written by the president of Berkeley Property Owners Association, right? I’ll let TBM dismantle the stats that guy cherry-picked.
LOL,
This is from the City of Berkely report, will provide link in the next post (page 26):
ABAG Regional Housing Needs Determinations for Berkeley: 1988 – 1995
Between 1960 and 1990, dramatic changes took place in Berkeley housing. From 1960 to 1974, 7,164 units of new housing were built, mostly by tearing down single-family houses and replacing them with
apartment buildings.
Subsequent passage of the Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance (NPO) in 1973
caused private apartment construction in Berkeley to decline sharply. It took 15 years from 1975 to 1990 to build another 1,105 new rental units in Berkeley, the majority of them federally subsidized for lowincome
people.
Between 1980 and 1990 Berkeley actually lost some 3,300 rental units, going from
27,821 to 24,512. Most were lost due to conversion to owner-occupied units.
Here is the link to the original report for the above, page 26:
http://www.cityofberkeley.info/uploadedFiles/Planning_and_Development/Level_3_-_Commissions/Section_V_compiled_with_attachments_20080708.pdf
In response to mike rose you said:
“…..Quantity and quality of the rental units are the first casualties in communities with rent control. According to the September 1993 Report to Update the General Plan, there were 4,900 rented single family homes in Berkeley. According to Marjorie Gelb, the director of the Rent Stabilization Board, there remained fewer than 800 as of spring 1999. According to the 1990 Housing Element, approximately 2,250 rental units had been converted to Tenancies In Common. Thus, minimally, this city has lost 6,350 units in the past 20 years, from its original stock of 27,821 at the beginning of the rent control experiment…..”
What research produced this information? Did you perform this research?
I think I found it it was published by the Daily Californian the articlae was Another Side of Housing written by Robert Cabrera is president of the Berkeley Property Owners Association and a UC Berkeley alumnus. Monday, April 9, 2001 Category: Opinion Respond at opinion@dailycal.org. (http://archive.dailycal.org/article.php?id=5181)
However mike rose did not disclose this portion of the article:
“No studies have been done on the effects of Berkeley rent control on the quality of housing. However, a study by the chairman of the Hunter College Planning and Urban Studies Department comparing New York rental housing with other cities found that the rent rules reduced incentives to maintain housing so much that New York buildings had, on average, more broken boilers, outmoded wiring, cracked walls and other problems than other cities’ buildings had.”
Simply put research must be performed on Berkeley, you cannot assume what happens in New York occurs in Berkeley. That is not research. It also said:
“For about a century, economists have understood in clear mathematical terms why price control does not work-except for a few obvious cases such as those involving monopolies, price supports are rare. The desires of producers and consumers of goods and services seem to be irreconcilably opposed. One group wants higher prices and the other lower. The market price is set by the desires of both consumers and producers. NEITHER DICTATES A PRICE TO THE OTHER.”
But the Costa Hawkins law in effect allows the producers to dictate prices based on their inability to control their business practices. It went on to say:
“There will always be fewer producers than consumers since that is the nature of the division of labor. Individual consumers-in our case tenants-may feel overshadowed by big producers, BUT THOSE VERY PRODUCERS FEEL INTIMIDATED BY THE BUYING PUBLIC-TENANTS IN THE CASE OF HOUSING. Neither is completely satisfied. When rent control is instituted and this balance is rendered moot, those who politically profit from it have a stake in marginalizing owners.”
Really, given the comments that landlords made here under anonymity, I would say there is proof that that is not true. There is in fact a “sellers” market where the “seller” dictates who can rent an apartment and the terms of which the tenant must satisfy in order to be a customer. Especially with such a “shortage” of housing today. It goes on to say:
“Berkeley’s rent control is the backbone of its “progressive” majority, and the university’s 30,000 potential voters must be constantly reminded and re-educated about this politically correct factor of city politics. IT BOILS DOWN TO FOCUSING ON THE DEEP-SEATED ANTIPATHIES TOWARD LANDLORDING AND ON UNFAIRLY BLAMING THE UNIVERSITY FOR FAILING TO MAKE UP FOR RENT CONTROL’S CONSEQUENCES-THE HOUSING SHORTAGE. As a result, student safety takes a backseat.”
The University is not responsible for the “mixed market” situation given that the market is still for-profit and it can be argued that Berkeley is subjected to an illegal Boycott by suppliers under the Cartwright Act. Mike, I will skip the cut and paste here, but if you try to claim I am making a false claim, I will be happy to do it again. It says:
“I am a landlord and do some of my own repairs, so I get to see firsthand some conditions that could undermine the safety of those living in a building. A common issue is using hallways as storage of bicycles, blocking firefighter access in emergencies. Last year, when fixing a leaky faucet, I noticed that tenants were using the water heater enclosure for storage of flammable items.”
My questions are: Why are there no bike storage cabinets on the site? That would prevent the problem and they are cheap. Why is the water heater enclosure unlocked? A tenant should not need access to the water heater unit, that is maintained, managed and controlled by the landlord. This complaint made no sense to me. It went on to say:
“Rolling blackouts present new hazards. I recently responded to a request from a tenant to estimate how much “damage” he had caused to the carpet. When I arrived I was dismayed to find a large burn hole in it-luckily the carpet was on a concrete slab. I asked about how it happened and he responded that he had used a candle and gone out for a while-when I checked his smoke detector, the battery was missing. Another tenant mentioned that when he began hearing intermittent beeping he thought that the detector was malfunctioning and removed the battery. In most detectors this is merely the sign that the battery needs replacing.”
Well, as far as the smoke detector is concerned, the landlord is responsible for the proper functioning of the units. Simply put, give a tenant either instructions on how to use it correctly with their signature and yours as a record. Or simply every 6 months provide a replacement battery to the tenant with instructions to swap the battery. As far as the burned rug, that seems to be a single case and the tenants was expressing they would pay for it. What was your problem? It went on to say:
“The skyrocketing price of natural gas may also create new hazards. I recently noticed that a local hardware store sold propane heaters that are mounted on a pressurized tank. Tenants may be tempted to use these rather than their natural gas heaters because propane is cheaper. These devices not only use the oxygen in the air for combustion but also may produce carbon monoxide, an odorless gas that caused the death of Brad Evans in the house fire this past January. Another energy crisis-related safety concern is that those with electric stoves may be tempted to use camping stoves or even worse, use charcoal indoors.
Another factor to consider is that of increased density in units. As the number of students attending Cal increases, many will opt to share apartments, thus increasing the density that in turn increases the potential for accidents. However, it is not only up to landlords and tenants to provide and maintain safe housing. The recent tragic death of a teenager from carbon monoxide poisoning from a blocked heater vent could have been prevented if the roofing contractor or the city inspector had taken notice. City officials and licensed contractors are part of the safety puzzle as well.
The tenant-landlord relationship is a continuum where you cannot hurt one without affecting the other. Cooperation is the only option, and that is what Berkeley should be all about-when it comes to safety, it could save someone’s life.”
The rest indicates some problems, but it is not clear are these problems involving a private apartment or a university residence hall. If it is a private unit, the owner of the unit is responsible for those issues regarding the use of “Gas” heating. That is why we now have CO alarms in every apartment. In any event it was written in 2001.
LOL,
Now I expect you to concede that this is NOT a statistic presented by the evil president of Berkeley Property Owners Association, but an official report by tenent friendly City of Berkeley.
Wow TBM,
I expected response only mile long and on the topic.
In response to mike rose you said:
“Now I expect you to concede that this is NOT a statistic presented by the evil president of Berkeley Property Owners Association, but an official report by tenent friendly City of Berkeley.”
I only point out it is an “opinion” column. It does quote an official report. It said:
“…According to the September 1993 Report to Update the General Plan, there were 4,900 rented single family homes in Berkeley. According to Marjorie Gelb, the director of the Rent Stabilization Board, there remained fewer than 800 as of spring 1999. According to the 1990 Housing Element, approximately 2,250 rental units had been converted to Tenancies In Common. Thus, minimally, this city has lost 6,350 units in the past 20 years, from its original stock of 27,821 at the beginning of the rent control experiment…..”
But that quotation can easily be taken out of context by the author. The author did not cite the actual report so the public can confirm its accuracy.
The Author also pointed out :
“No studies have been done on the effects of Berkeley rent control on the quality of housing. However, a study by the chairman of the Hunter College Planning and Urban Studies Department comparing New York rental housing with other cities found that the rent rules reduced incentives to maintain housing so much that New York buildings had, on average, more broken boilers, outmoded wiring, cracked walls and other problems than other cities’ buildings had.”
How can the author say in one sentence :
“.Quantity and quality of the rental units are the first casualties in communities with rent control.”
But then say:
“No studies have been done on the effects of Berkeley rent control on the quality of housing.”
The simple fact is that author was not a journalist, but graduated from Berkeley but is not affiliated with it. This “opinion” was simply to issue a political position held by the Property Owners Association. All I ask is that you provide the actual official report resource so that WE can be EDUCATED. That’s all I am saying. You said:
“Wow TBM,
I expected response only mile long and on the topic.”
All I do is represent the omissions you continue to make in order to justify your position. I am simply making sure the public has the BIG PICTURE. It can be easy to make claims without evidence in a short paragraph, but it can take a paragraph to prove a false claim written in a sentence.
TBM,
You must have missed my post and links above which is not an opinion.
Hahaha, the Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance had nothing to do with rent control. You need to actually read things instead of just randomly copy-pasting blocks of text you don’t understand, mike.
Hahaha LOL,
1978 rent control passes.
The City of Berkeley report says from 1980 to 1990, 3300 rental units lost due to conversion from rentals to owner occupied units.
Why?
Try using your brain for a sec, and you will get your answer, I’m sure.
This must be really embarrassing for you. Did you actually read the block of text you pasted into the comment box? It says that the Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance caused it. Read the things you’re posting further than just the first text you find when searching “rent control bad.”
In response to mike rose you said:
“You must have missed my post and links above which is not an opinion.”
Your “report” does not indicate who wrote it. The link only provides a URL indicating it was published on thecityofberkeley info server stored on a hard drive with the designation of uploadedFiles/Palnning_and_Development/Level_3_Commission/Section_V_compiled_with_attachments_20080708.pdf. It only titled itself as “V. Housing Supply, Demand, and Need” and “Housing Element “ and “General Plan”.
The document simply does not disclose the authors. Without disclosure of the Authors of said report you claim is written by the City of Berkeley, you are making an assumption. Please provide the identity of the authors? I read the entire document, and it does not indicate who wrote it, and most importantly what methodology or research was it based upon. I need this in order to give it proper consideration. Charts and Tables are in the document but some are provided by the Institute for Real Estate Management found here (www.irem.org)
“They are an official affiliate of the National Association of REALTORS®”, we add value to our members, who in turn add value to their teams, their workplaces, and the properties in their commercial and residential portfolios.”
SO, this shows a financial conflict of interest in the use of those studies in this document. The City of Berkeley may not have understood that it was being given data designed to support a public policy to benefit those private interests. Why should we take this report for face values based on good reason to be skeptical?
LOL,
I actually googled “rent control good” initially, but all I got was a blank screen.
Wow, I’ve never heard someone admit to being literally blinded by ideology. No wonder you have such trouble reading the things you’re pasting in!
LOL,
You were high school bully weren’t you. You know there is help, and you do not have to continue to be an internet bully.
I am not going to be intimidated for one second.
I will repeat this again:
The City of Berkeley Report quoted above clearly states that between 1980 and 1990
3300 rental units were lost (almost 1 aevery day) due to conversion to owner occupied units.
This does not have anything to do with the Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance of 1973 which restricted NEW CONSTRUCTION.
The article does NOT say, as you are suggesting, that NPO caused these conversions.
Coincidently, during that time period rent control was rampant WITHOUT Costa Hawkins limitations, and applied to SF homes and condos.
Sorry, do you need a safe space? Your ideological blinders are fascinating to me. You blame all the ills of the world on rent control, primarily because it eats into your bottom line. What we have established is that the normal replacement of old apartment housing with new construction was halted by the NPO. The NPO has nothing to do with rent control. Nowhere in your blindly copy-pasted screeds have you established any linkage to rent control because you don’t understand what you read and your salary depends on not understanding it.
LOL,
All of your comments about me are assumptions (quoting TBM words.. haha)
But you are still deliberately avoiding to explain why 3,300 Berkeley rentals were converted to owner-occupied units, between 1980 and 1990. If you think NPO caused this, please explain why.
I for one, think the reason was that the rent control without CH protection was “eating into property owners bottom line”, as you promptly noticed.
How many conversions occurred prior? How many conversions occurred post-Costa-Hawkins? How many conversions occurred in similar cities without rent control in the same time period? In previous and subequent periods? Cue mike furiously googling for another landlord op-ed.
LOL,
1960-1974 7,164 (mostly rental) units built NO RENT CONTROL, NO NPO
1980-1990 3,300 net rental unit loss !!!! RENT CONTROL without CH protections, NPO
2000-2010 1,442 net rental unit gain RENT CONTROL with CH protection, NPO (census data)
Worst period clearly after the introduction of rent control and before CH passed.
NPO had definitely negative effect on creation of new rental units too, but this shows that landlords will still build with some zoning restrictions (to lesser degree) but definitely will not build, nor continue to provide housing without
Costa Hawkins protections.
Your chosen windows are clearly cherry-picked since you have gaps and they’re arbitrarily sized. Where’s the comparison to similar cities in the region? What are the comparable changes in non-rental housing units? Your facile analysis doesn’t cut it unless you’ve already assumed your conclusion. Yours is an object lesson in motivated reasoning.
LOL,
Frankly, for you and TBM nothing is going to “cut it”.
Who is blinded by ideology here? I am not attempting to convert you, but this info could be helpful to other readers.
I still can’t get over the fact that you are a regular poster on a local news website comments section for a city you don’t even live in. You write more words here than the staff writers. How sad is your life that you think this is a good use of your time?
LOL, you are getting tricked to being in a opinion contest.
No one can win an opinion contest, everyone can have 3 opinions related to one topic and all are valid. Simply it is dependent on point of view. mike rose has his, you have yours. We are allowed to express them.
mike uses personal attacks to get others to react. I try not to respond to them but I get tricked too.
I simply agree to disagree with him. He cannot accept that, to him he must get the last word, whether or not is can be fully substantiated. I am guilty regarding this too. But many here can see that I do not personally attack anyone, just read and respond directly to the comments.
Let mike express his opinion, just do some research and demonstrate the problems that his point of view doesn’t understand.
In response to mike rose you said:
“1960-1974 7,164 (mostly rental) units built NO RENT CONTROL, NO NPO
1980-1990 3,300 net rental unit loss !!!! RENT CONTROL without CH protections, NPO
2000-2010 1,442 net rental unit gain RENT CONTROL with CH protection, NPO (census data)”
I would like to find this research. You did not provide the citation. I cannot understand the statistics outside the context. Please provide the link to it?
“NPO had definitely negative effect on creation of new rental units too, but this shows that landlords will still build with some zoning restrictions (to lesser degree) but definitely will not build, nor continue to provide housing without Costa Hawkins protections.”
My only comment is that given the needs, to have the number of units only achieve 144 units a year seems like a poor performance. Say that the average number of floors is 4 and there are 10 units per floor, you are talking about maybe 4 buildings. I cannot yet provide any information whether politics was a barrier or that the industry simply did not propose new units on its own. I will try to find out more.
But you have not proven that Costa Hawkins repeal FORCES THE INDUSTRY to stop building. Given that a 7% ROI historically is NOT SUSTAINABLE without causing economic bubbles, it would appear that the industry should be safely successful at say a 4% ROI.
However, the industry has controlled the increase of units by requiring higher ROI before building any units. Historically proven at the 6-7% levels. Or as howard stated 8-20%. My theory is that if investors expected the 4% ROI there would be a lot more units built, thus not requiring any concept of Rent Controls. Especially since such a lower ROI would have an equally less risk given risk is proportional to gain. That is solely the power and the responsibility of the Private Sector.
“Berkeley is asking voters to approve updates to the city’s rent-control ordinance in November, to go into effect only if the California law restricting rent control is repealed.”
Nothing brings private building to a halt like rent control.
Berkeley finally gets “it”. Whether the voters get “it” remains to be seen.
“If approved by voters, the measure will return Berkeley to its system of rent control, but exempt newly constructed buildings for 20 years, and exempt both in-law units and the main houses they’re attached to permanently.”
http://www.berkeleyside.com/2018/08/02/berkeley-puts-rent-control-update-measure-on-november-ballot
Mike Rose and all other Landlords,
Businessman and I have been arguing the same points but with 2 different opinions of the economic outcomes for investors in Mountain View.
Businessman claims real estate investments in Mountain View are still economically viable at 3-4% ROI where I say it is not when factoring in all the work and risks.
He believes in lower returns and I believe in higher returns for investors in real estate.
My point is that a prudent investor should sell and get out at ANY point even after taking the loss that rent control caused them and move on to a free market. It would have been better to sell in 2016 or even 2017 and get the top of the market but think of rent control like a economic natural disaster that will continue year after year on your investment.
It’s like the firestorm that hit Santa Rosa last year or the Loma Prieta earthquake on the Marina in S.F in 1989 but worse. Some people lost everything in those disasters or had just the land value left. They either sold out or rebuilt. The ones that rebuilt at least had the comfort to know that it was a 1 time event that will probably never happen again to them.
Rent control happens every year and if they get Costa Hawkins repealed, watch out because of the loss of vacancy decontrols!
In the begining, rent control hurts your bottom line but after years you end up with tenants living in $5000.00/mo apartments for $1500.00/mo. while your expenses have increased 2 or even 3 fold. What’s your investment worth then?
The best time is now to sell out and return your investment equities into higher returns in cities where the majority of the voters are homeowners that don’t want rent control in their cities. There are many of them.
Regain control of your money because these tenants are going to demand you subsidise their housing. They believe it is their right to have cheap housing as long as it’s your money that buys it. This mindset isn’t going to change but get worse. It’s the have nots greed for the haves money and they will vote you out of it.
There is a socialists movement in California that I believe is gaining steam and the wealthy businesses better prepare for this new generation of voters.
In response to howard you said:
“Rent control happens every year and if they get Costa Hawkins repealed, watch out because of the loss of vacancy decontrols!
In the begining, rent control hurts your bottom line but after years you end up with tenants living in $5000.00/mo apartments for $1500.00/mo. while your expenses have increased 2 or even 3 fold. What’s your investment worth then?”
First, howard, before you claim an apartment is worth $5,000./mo. You are going to have to have proof it is that valuable. Second, any apartment costing that much must be a “First-Class Luxury” apartment. Since when have I ever promoted the idea that that kind of apartment should be rented for $1,500? You love to turn this issue into the most EXTREME concepts. Granted the CURRENT inventory of apartments ARE the “First-Class Luxury” type (WITH THE CORRESPONDING COST OF MAINTENANCE), but that is because those building “Gambled” that the control of the “Preferred-Customer” would always be in their hands. By not proportionately providing the “Spectrum” or housing alternatives, you dug yourselves your own proverbial graves. You said:
“The best time is now to sell out and return your investment equities into higher returns in cities where the majority of the voters are homeowners that don’t want rent control in their cities. There are many of them.”
Ah yes, that is good advice, but the waves of properties up for sale will happen anyway. The current market analysis shows the property values are going to decline, whether or not Costa Hawkins or Rent control policies are enacted. That is completely independent of this issue and is even the more ugly future because it will hit everything even if the property is in a “Rent-Control” region or not. You said:
“Regain control of your money because these tenants are going to demand you subsidise their housing. They believe it is their right to have cheap housing as long as it’s your money that buys it. This mindset isn’t going to change but get worse. It’s the have nots greed for the haves money and they will vote you out of it. “
Howard, the idea you repeat over and over again simply is wrong. “Rent-Control” is NOT a subsidy. The opposition of “rent Control” persist to use that term in error given that definition of the word simply doesn’t apply to the process of “Rent Control”. As far as have nots “greed”, the haves and have nots are “EQUALLY” guilty of the deadly sin. And again, no one has a “Constitutional” right to “Money” given it is a “Floating” currency. A dollar’s value itself is unstable, and can experience both an increase or a decrease. So for example you have $1,000,000 dollars today, but if the value of the dollar goes down today by 3%, then your $1,000,000. Just changed to $970,000. So trying to say that “Rent Control” takes away your money doesn’t even take into account money is just an abstract mode of transactions, nothing more you said:
“There is a socialists movement in California that I believe is gaining steam and the wealthy businesses better prepare for this new generation of voters.”
Here we go again, claiming that all “market reform” ideas are “Socialist”. There are plenty of “Pro Capitalists” that can and do support “Market Reforms” Please read this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_economy) :
Capitalism
Capitalism generally refers to an economic system where the means of production are largely or entirely privately owned and operated for a profit, structured on the process of capital accumulation. In general, in capitalist systems investment, distribution, income, and prices are determined by markets, whether regulated or unregulated.
There are different variations of capitalism with different relationships to markets. In Laissez-faire and free market variations of capitalism, markets are utilized most extensively with minimal or no state intervention and regulation over prices and the supply of goods and services. IN INTERVENTIONIST, WELFARE CAPITALISM AND MIXED ECONOMIES, MARKETS CONTINUE TO PLAY A DOMINANT ROLE BUT ARE REGULATED TO SOME EXTENT BY GOVERNMENT IN ORDER TO CORRECT MARKET FAILURES OR TO PROMOTE SOCIAL WELFARE. In state capitalist systems, markets are relied upon the least, with the state relying heavily on either indirect economic planning and/or state-owned enterprises to accumulate capital.”
And:
“Welfare capitalism
“Welfare capitalism refers to a capitalist economy that includes public policies favoring extensive provisions for social welfare services. The economic mechanism involves a free market and the predominance of privately owned enterprises in the economy, but public provision of universal welfare services aimed at enhancing individual autonomy and maximizing equality. Examples of contemporary welfare capitalism include the Nordic model of capitalism predominant in Northern Europe.[9]
This is exactly why “Capitalism” and “Market Reforms” are not opposites and in fact “Market Reforms” are part of at least a third of the definition of “Capitalism”. Many just assume that “Market Reforms” MUST be either “Socialist” or “Communism”. You have the right to that assumption, but you cannot require the public policies to be based on just an assumption.
It is truly inevitable that the “Market” is going to go through another rapid change, not for the good. That simply cannot be prevented either with the prevention of “Rent Control” or the lack therof. Capitalism has its downside as described here:
“Criticisms
The economist Joseph Stiglitz argues that markets suffer from INFORMATIONAL INEFFICIENCY and the presumed efficiency of markets stems from THE FAULTY ASSUMPTIONS OF NEOCLASSICAL WELFARE ECONOMICS, particularly the assumption of PERFECT AND COSTLESS INFORMATION, and related incentive problems. Neoclassical economics ASSUMES STATIC EQUILIBRIUM, AND EFFICIENT MARKETS REQUIRE THAT THERE BE NO NON-CONVEXITIES, even though nonconvexities are pervasive in modern economies. STIGLITZ’S CRITIQUE APPLIES TO BOTH EXISTING MODELS OF CAPITALISM AND TO HYPOTHETICAL MODELS OF MARKET SOCIALISM. However, Stiglitz does not advocate replacing markets, but states that there is a significant role for government intervention TO BOOST THE EFFICIENCY OF MARKETS AND TO ADDRESS THE PERVASIVE MARKET FAILURES THAT EXIST IN CONTEMPORARY ECONOMIES.”
The simple fact is that at least in the US, the market suffers from INFORMATIONAL INEFFICIENCY meaning that investors depends on those selling them the investments PERFECT AND COSTLESS INFORMATION. But NOTHING is PERFECT. As it has been described, many examples of. The IMPERFECT INFORMATION given to those making investments wind up in serious trouble. But don’t claim I am against Capitalism because this problem equally applies to Market Socialism. I am saying again “caveat emptor”.
Businessman,
Everything I stated is true and backed by historical facts in San Francisco and Berkeley.
There are many tenants in San Francisco paying $1200/month on Apartments with a market value of $4-5K/month. I know many of these landlords that have tenants that end up grandfathering these cheap units to their children or roommates, sometimes receiving money for their position.
The laws are clear in California regarding tenant/Landlord law and if a landlord accepts payment from a non tenant..a child or roommate, he is now a tenant regardless of all the policies that are written into Measure V.
California law takes precedence over Mountain Views Measure V and any pro tenant lawyer can win against a landlord in court on this! I have been there and see how landlords are treated like criminals under the law.
I told you about the meth addict that didn’t pay his rent for 8 months that I had to give free rent to even after he had 2 fires in the apartment cooking his meth costing $40k in damages and the judge even had the nerve to asked me to return his security deposit too!
this is why Landlords deserve high returns and need them.
Anyone who is following this should be able to see that Howard is an actual investor who speaks truths and realities and BM is one who speaks cut-and-paste articles and theories.
In response to howard you said:
“Everything I stated is true and backed by historical facts in San Francisco and Berkeley.”
But you provide no evidence, that is all I asked for? You said:
“There are many tenants in San Francisco paying $1200/month on Apartments with a market value of $4-5K/month. I know many of these landlords that have tenants that end up grandfathering these cheap units to their children or roommates, sometimes receiving money for their position. “
To make a “claim” like this, please provide some evidence to prove it? These claims appear to only be designed to malign ALL potential renters. There may be some cases that exist, but you cannot malign ALL tenants or ASSUME that all tenants should suffer for the exploitations of a few. You also said:
“The laws are clear in California regarding tenant/Landlord law and if a landlord accepts payment from a non tenant..a child or roommate, he is now a tenant regardless of all the policies that are written into Measure V. “
Please provide the case? I never heard of someone “taking” over an apartment by simply paying the rent. I saw the page called landlordology found here (https://www.landlordology.com/never-accept-rent-from-a-non-tenant/). It simply doesn’t explain the law or case in this answer. It was written by a landlord, but it was lacking a legal reference or an attorney’s approval. You know there are many websites out there that provide information that can be questionable. Even my websites can be questioned. I would simply request you provide the California Law or Law Decision that supports this claim. You said:
“California law takes precedence over Mountain Views Measure V and any pro tenant lawyer can win against a landlord in court on this! I have been there and see how landlords are treated like criminals under the law. “
Please provide some evidence that a landlord was treated like a criminal? Remember any case in court or legal proceeding provides what is called “cross-examination”. That process does not treat landlords like criminals, because it is applied to ANYONE TESTIFYING IN COURT OR LEGAL PROCEEDING, along with challenges regarding documentary claims being presented in court. No one is mistreated if ALL are treated “EQUALLY”. If what you said had occurred, surely an appeal would reverse that injustice. You said:
“I told you about the meth addict that didn’t pay his rent for 8 months that I had to give free rent to even after he had 2 fires in the apartment cooking his meth costing $40k in damages and the judge even had the nerve to asked me to return his security deposit too! “
I really want to know about this story, please provide me with some way to read the case itself, you do not need to disclose it publicly. But also understand, by in effect treating every tenant as if they did this to you, simply is punishing Tom, who was in a different town and did nothing to you, for what Jerry did to you. At least you are not providing any “presumed innocence” on any tenants at this time. Is this reasonable? You said:
“this is why Landlords deserve high returns and need them.”
You still have not provided REAL evidence regarding “deserving high returns”. You have made a lot of claims (so far not legally evidenced or proven). You may have had a really bad tenant in the past (the Meth tenant). But that is not evidence that supports your conclusion.
As far as “needing them”, you haven’t established that “need” regarding any evidence other than they CHOOSE to invest into a investment that has well known high costs of maintenance. That is a consideration that is chosen to take by the investor, they are responsible to make sure that they can handle it.
In response to mvresident2003 you said:
“Anyone who is following this should be able to see that Howard is an actual investor who speaks truths and realities and BM is one who speaks cut-and-paste articles and theories.”
It would appear that we are both are EQUALLY guilty in that respect. I only represent information that contradicts howard. You so far have not demonstrated that my “cut-and-paste articles and theories” are either false, deceptive, or wrong. I am only demonstrating that there is information out there that the public has the right to see. Just like you have the right to make determinations on my writing. We are EQUALLY allowed to do so here. That’s all.
Businessman,
I have no enemies and I deal with business as business. I need not explain my experiences with you because I have no dog in your fight about what’s true and not true. I am above that and you can take my word for it or not.
The facts are clear for those that are Landlords and I have experienced 40 + years of landlording in the Bay Area, California and throughout the United States.
My message is to Landlords and investors of residential real estate in Mountain View.
Pick up, move out and reinvest in free markets to regain control over your assets!
How dare you compare investment losses to those natural disasters? How the ef dare you? People lost everything in those fires, floods etc.! And you think, (while bragging about your financial decisions) that comparing an income loss to people losing everything is reasonable? I am facing loss of my home, my medical care and … I will not go on and I’m still helping people with less. Anyone who bothers reading this far is probably to biased to care about this comment, but that is despicable. And you deserve all of my physical handicap X10.
In response to howard you said:
“I have no enemies and I deal with business as business. I need not explain my experiences with you because I have no dog in your fight about what’s true and not true. I am above that and you can take my word for it or not.”
If you have ever gone to court about anything, you surely will have what can be described as an enemy. You said:
“My message is to Landlords and investors of residential real estate in Mountain View.
Pick up, move out and reinvest in free markets to regain control over your assets!”
You always have that control. It doesn’t matter regarding any “market regulations”.
I respect your decision and advice.
Just understand that this problem in Mountain View is simply occurring practically in every City and State. It is becoming a nation-wide issue, and it is said that for certain states, like California, they tend to set the standard of the nation. And that as of now, rent control is not unconstitutional.
So you will have to put in a lot of effort or “opportunity cost” to “evade” markets simply because they will not result in the ROI you feel you are “deserving”.
Please understand that the “opportunity cost” of evasion itself can be enough to in effect negate any benefit of said action. You could inflict more harm to yourself, or your family if you have one. I cannot be sure of this, and I do simply wish to be constructive and express my respect to you. That’s all.
How dare you,
I am truly sorry for your situation. I mean no harm to those that are truly in need.
In fact, I donate to many charities because I can and feel it is a duty for those that can give to people and charities that are legitimately helping society.
I don’t know you but I hope the best for you!
Businessman,
I make decisions on gut feelings and plenty of research and never gamble on my well being. Thank you for caring.
I understand the problem facing Mountain View and most communities in California and until the politicians fix it..by doing the right things instead of the political thing.. I will do what I do.. Make as much $$ as I can, where I can!
So good seeing Howard getting called out on his usual posturing, to give the feeble “um, I, uh, totally give to lots of, hm, charities that I won’t name here. I, um, truly am sorry for you.” Bullies always back down when you stand up to them.
Do you need safe space from bullying LOL?
Hahaha, it’s adorable watching you try to mock others, mike. You can’t even string together original insults, and you need The Business Man to come in and defend you because you’re incapable of defending yourself. How badly did your life get off track that you ended up posting on a local news comments section of a city you don’t even live in? Did young mike rose envision this as success later in life? Where did things go so wrong?
In response to LOL you said:
“So good seeing Howard getting called out on his usual posturing, to give the feeble “um, I, uh, totally give to lots of, hm, charities that I won’t name here. I, um, truly am sorry for you.” Bullies always back down when you stand up to them.”
Just understand that howard (I suspect he is Joshua Howard of the CAA) appears to only be able to make his living off of the “Housing” market. It appears because any mention of “Rent Control” will result in a significant negative reaction. His only strategy to make his living is “gaming” the customers, meaning he will only play in the “sandbox” where he has the power to create, revise, and enforce his rules. Now if that fits the definition of a “bully” so be it.
In response to mike rose you said:
“Do you need safe space from bullying LOL?”
It would appear that your actions, specifically trying to publically ridicule and waging personal attacks on those supporting an opposing market point of view, would qualify as the same as the above. Again, I attempt to not have the majority of your point of view removed or censored because you tend to “shoot yourself in the foot” when you do. Why should I stop that?
In response to LOL you said:
“Hahaha, it’s adorable watching you try to mock others, mike. You can’t even string together original insults, and you need The Business Man to come in and defend you because you’re incapable of defending yourself.”
Technically, I defend his right to express himself. But you know my responses tend to illustrate an opposing point of view. Sometimes it is good for someone to be given all the rope they want, if they are not capable of managing the rope in such a way that they “hang themselves with it”. Mike cannot hold me responsible for his written point of view here. You said:
“How badly did your life get off track that you ended up posting on a local news comments section of a city you don’t even live in? Did young mike rose envision this as success later in life? Where did things go so wrong?”
This is where I will in fact “defend” mike rose. That is exactly the game he is trying to play in the sandbox. Don’t play his game. Just present any independent information that tends to support that his argument is either weak or not supported by independent research.
I am trying very hard to drive “down the center” and sometimes I fail miserably. But just a point, I never said that the housing industry must be “non-profit”.
I simply point out that the “investment” promises tend to create unrealistic expectations on those induced to invest. The people who oppose my point of view simply say if the investment doesn’t live up to the promises it is the “tenants” fault. NO, it was the lack of understanding in the “investors” part, believing in “promises” made by those who had a “conflict of interest” in making them the “best case” picture regarding the “ROI”.
That is the real problem, those with an opposing point of view simply want to avoid it. Just like they tried in 2007.
And here again, LOL is smearing and posting nonsense, nothing of value. It’s ironic how many of you feel so confident and smug telling these two (Howard and Mike) how they should run heir businesses. You who have absolutely no risk, no skin in the game. It’s astounding actually.
You don’t think the people of a city should be able to tell businesses how they should be run? If Howard or mike decided they didn’t want to rent to black people, you think that’s ok? If not, then you’re just quibbling over what level of telling them how to run their businesses is acceptable.
I don’t think you should be able to dictate how much they make. How much do you make LOL? Are you really worth it? Perhaps the time you spend on this message board should be deducted by your employer?
So it is ok to tell people how to run their businesses? Or should Howard or mike be allowed to choose their tenants on the basis of race?
In response to mvresident2003 you said:
“I don’t think you should be able to dictate how much they make.”
BUT NO ONE CAN DICTATE HOW MUCH THEY EARN ANYWHERE. If this is in fact been allowed under the laws like Costa Hawkins and Ellis, then your logic has been proven flawed. Why is it that you want the “market” to allow you to “dictate” your earnings, but at the same time not let the “market” equally “dictate” your earnings? You said:
“ How much do you make LOL? Are you really worth it? Perhaps the time you spend on this message board should be deducted by your employer?”
My only response WOW.
For once I have to agree with THB.
The free market should dictate landlords earnings.
However the definition of “free market” is one that TBM and LOL don’t get.
So I copied and pasted (yes) this definition from Wikipedia:
“In economics, a free market is an idealized system in which the prices for goods and services are determined by the open market and consumers, in which the laws and forces of supply and demand are free from any INTERVENTION BY A GOVERNMENT, price-setting monopoly, or other authority”.
And TBM, don’t even try to spin that the rental property owners are a monopoly.
There are thousands of them competing for tenants throughout the state independently.
The shortage of the goods (housing), caused by excessive and inefficient government regulations does not create a monopoly.
Mike, what you’re saying is that because the government prevents you from selecting tenants based on race, this is not a free market? Am I misunderstanding? To me that sounds like we should not want a free market!
This is not what I AM saying, this is economics definition of “free market” that the TBM was referring to, and acknowledged that this is what should “dictate” landlord’s earnings.
And I totally agree.
LOL,
If you don’t want free market, there are still places that don’t have it.
Venezuela is the one that comes to mind immediately. I think they are resorting to eating ZOO animals by now.
Did you just say you want America to legalize racial discrimination in housing? By your definition, America won’t have a free market until we legalize racial discrimination in housing. I certainly don’t want that, do you? You said you want the free market to dictate your earnings, so it’s important you clarify this.
LOL,
The laws that regulate discrimination apply to all businesses in our state and country regardless of it being housing or transportation a restaurant or whatever.
Now people are allowed to be racists and have a right to do so but when you start applying it to business, it’s regulated. This has nothing to do with a free market
or income. I don’t even get where you’re going with that one?
The free market is, as established above: “in which the laws and forces of supply and demand are free from any INTERVENTION BY A GOVERNMENT.” Mike wants the free market to dictate landlord returns. You yourself have admitted racial discrimination in housing is regulated by the government. Because of this, we cannot and will not have a “free market” in housing, and I’ve demonstrated that a free market in housing is something most people, aside from mike (and yourself?), do not want.
In response to mike rose you said:
Posted by mike rose
a resident of another community
50 minutes ago
mike rose is a registered user.
For once I have to agree with THB.
The free market should dictate landlords earnings.
However the definition of “free market” is one that TBM and LOL don’t get.
So I copied and pasted (yes) this definition from Wikipedia:
“In economics, a free market is an idealized system in which the prices for goods and services are determined by the open market and consumers, in which the laws and forces of supply and demand are free from any INTERVENTION BY A GOVERNMENT, price-setting monopoly, OR OTHER AUTHORITY”.
And TBM, don’t even try to spin that the rental property owners are a monopoly.”
I am not going to touch MONOPOLY, but you have to admit the CAA and the CAR qualify as OTHER AUTHORITY. The fact that these bodies work to inflate property values way out of realism, in effect have destroyed their own “Free Market”. You cannot claim you advocate the free market if there is an “OTHER AUTHORITY” alters the laws and forces of supply and demand. Please realize that? You said:
“There are thousands of them competing for tenants throughout the state independently.”
Not when you have an organization like the CAA that provides “trade secret” information to its membership, provides discounted services to their members, and use the funds also for political influence purposes. In fact, the CAA claims:
Who we reach
We have 13,000 members, representing more than 50,000 owners and industry professionals. California’s most successful property management companies, developers, real estate investment trusts and thousands of independent apartment owners depend on CAA to defend their investments. Download our brochure to learn more.”
Thus your “Free Market” simply already doesn’t exist. You said:
“The shortage of the goods (housing), caused by excessive and inefficient government regulations does not create a monopoly.”
No it doesn’t, but coordinated conspiracy to manipulate the forces of supply and demand by OTHER AUTHORITY results in the same problem. You are going to have to provide some preponderance of evidence that there is no manipulation of the supply is NOT contributed by actions of the CAA or CAR. This is the doctrine of Comparative negligence. Which is defined as:
Comparative negligence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_negligence)
Comparative negligence, or non-absolute contributory negligence outside the United States, is a partial legal defense that reduces the amount of damages that a plaintiff can recover in a negligence-based claim, based upon the degree to which the plaintiff’s own negligence contributed to cause the injury.[1] When the defense is asserted, the factfinder, usually a jury, MUST DECIDE THE DEGREE TO WHICH THE PLAINTIFF’S NEGLIGENCE AND THE COMBINED NEGLIGENCE OF ALL OTHER RELEVANT ACTORS ALL CONTRIBUTED TO CAUSE THE PLAINTIFF’S DAMAGES.[2] It is a modification of the doctrine of contributory negligence that disallows any recovery by a plaintiff whose negligence contributed even minimally to causing the damages.[1]”
That can apply in this case, does any actions practiced by the CAA or the CAR contribute to the problems of lack of building? That question must be answered in order to determine how the idea of “governmental regulations” are the sole cause of the lack of housing. So you are trying to distract the public.
I think LOL is so desperate for arguments to support his indefensible posision that he must resort to framing me as a racist. Sad.
LOL,
Only says forces and laws of SUPPLY and DEMAND should be free of any government intervention.
Discrimination is NOT a supply and demand force.
mike, I know it’s hard to face, but telling landlords that they cannot choose their tenants on the basis of race is clearly interfering with supply and demand. This is not hard to comprehend.
TBM,
I disagree strongly with your wild strech of extending the definition of AUTHORITY to CAA or CAR (trade associations). By this logic every trade association in the state would create monopoly in their trade. Frankly your logic here is stupid.
Authority has a right to give orders and enforce them.
I am small landlord, and I am sure I can speak for many others: we do not take orders from CAA or CAR. In fact, believe it or not, I am not even a member of these organizations.
Get real TBM
LOL,
I must be stupid, I totally don’t comprehend how the anti-discrimination laws became supply and demand forces?
Could you enlighten us more?
I’ll walk you through it slowly. Let’s say the government told you, landlord, that they would decide who you could or could not take on as a tenant. This affects supply and demand, both overall and for the affected groups. Some landlords will choose to get out of the business entirely, as they would rather not rent to these people. On the other side, some of those who would be denied housing in a free market due to discrimination would now be able to participate. If you understood what supply and demand meant, this would not be difficult to grasp.
In response to mike rose you said:
“I disagree strongly with your wild strech of extending the definition of AUTHORITY to CAA or CAR (trade associations). By this logic every trade association in the state would create monopoly in their trade. Frankly your logic here is stupid.”
I NEVER SAID THEY ARE A MONOPOLY, YOU ARE SIMPLY WRONG. I said they have an INFLUENCE on the SUPPLY of the MARKET. THAT ESTABLISHED THERE IS NO FREE MARKET. Why can’t you understand that? You said:
“Authority has a right to give orders and enforce them.”
That is one definition but you cannot expect that it is the only one. However if the CAA were to enforce an order, it can eliminate the service discounts, remove access to the trade secrets, and cut off the ability to conspire to inflate rent. So there are means to enforce orders here. You said:
“I am small landlord, and I am sure I can speak for many others: we do not take orders from CAA or CAR. In fact, believe it or not, I am not even a member of these organizations.”
It really doesn’t matter whether your particular business benefits. Believe it or not any beneficiary of any conspiracy whether or not you participated are equally subject to either legal or political consequences. You said:
“Get real TBM”
What did I say that is not REAL?
TBM,
Conspiracy, trade secrets….. what the hell are you talking about?
You need to get some fresh air.
LOL,
You have to walk me slower.
All of the hypotetical regulations you cited, affect supply and demand. So do many other things, weather, natural disasters, construction costs and regulations, demographics, etc.
Up to this point the market is still free, it will adjust the price to achive equilibrium, even given these restrictions.
My problem is that, given the regulations which affect the supply and demand, the market is not allowed to determine the equilibrium price. The government determines the price instead.
A free market is one “in which the laws and forces of supply and demand are free from any INTERVENTION BY A GOVERNMENT.”
“All of the hypotetical regulations you cited, affect supply and demand.”
If regulations (“INTERVENTION BY A GOVERNMENT”) affect supply and demand, the market is not free. Do you understand the words you copy-paste into these text boxes?
LOL, so according to your line of thought free markets do not exist.
I’m using the definition you gave, which more highlights your lack of understanding what you mean when you say “free markets” than anything else. Try reading and understanding your copy-pastes next time? If you want to mean something else when you say free market, you need to define it.
I’m missing something here on this “racist” talk and really trying to understand how that’s part of this discussion. Was someone discriminated against based on their color? Because that is not good, not right, and most definitely should not be tolerated.
You kicked this off with “It’s ironic how many of you feel so confident and smug telling these two (Howard and Mike) how they should run heir businesses.” This is clearly false, since we tell people how they should run their businesses all the time.
Mike with that even further, saying landlord return should be governed only by the free market. He doesn’t understand what “free market” means, since, as you illustrated, there are restrictions that all conscientious people believe should be placed on the market. Racial discrimination in housing was a convenient, clear example that I thought would clearly illustrate my point, but here we are!
So, since cats are not allowed to rent apartments and the government says they can’t sue me for discrimination..there is no free market??
If my property has code violations(government interference) then there is no free market??
I think a few of you “Just up and walked off” when they were passing out the brains or maybe someone’s been using too much medicinal herb?
What the heck are you all squabblin about?
Howard, enlighten us as to what a free market is, in that case. Odds are you can’t because it’s a phrase you only know through Fox News, detached from any real meaning behind it.
Well first of all a market is defined by supply and demand. If there is no supply or no demand of something then there is no market for it.
If anyone wanted to buy gold from Pluto but there isn’t any of it, there is no market for it.
If anyone had gold from Pluto but no one wants to buy it, there’s no market for it.
Definition of free market is when there are buyers and sellers of something that is accessible and the price is determined by what one will sell it for and one will pay for it.
Even at the end, you defined a market, not a free market. What we have, and what everyone wants, is a regulated market, not a free market. Regulated markets include things like property codes, taxes, fees, plan approval, etc. This has been my whole point, no one wants a free market since that entails plenty of things we find morally repugnant.
Your point is interesting but my interpretation is that those “restrictions” your referring to on any goods or services, or both, that’s being bought or sold, are part of the the goods or services itself and not part of the free market it’s being sold in.
The free market is referring to the “PRICE POINT” of something in regard to buyers and sellers and already takes into account the restrictions, requirements, warranties and all other aspects of what’s being bought or sold.
On the other hand, a Black Market also has a price point but is a underground economy, or shadow economy that allows for illegal behavior on the part of the buyer and seller regarding restrictions or requirements on goods or services like taxes, imposed by law.
In the free market, when I purchase property, I accept the costs of property taxes, Homeowners dues, insurance costs as part of the overall deal when negotiating purchase price. Buyers and sellers are free to offer or demand what they want on price in a free market.
Rent control is nothing like this because the City government restricts landlords from asking what they want for their services when the agreement term expires whether it’s a month to month or lease.
This is so very wrong to impose this on a landlord unless it was disclosed at the time of sale of that property so it could be negotiated by price. This is what is wrong with rent control because it imposes restrictions on the property that were not disclosed to the buyer at the time of purchase.
What if you bought a home and 6 months later the city restricted the value of your home to 3% a year increases when all other homes in different cities values were increasing 10-12% a year? You probably would have wanted to negotiate that when offering a price, huh?
That’s why I tell Landlords to move their money out of that city because I’m a big believer in “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.”
Repeal of Costa Hawkins would have been “Fool me twice” That’s why I moved all my money out of there.
In response to mike rose you said:
“Conspiracy, trade secrets….. what the hell are you talking about?”
Nice try, feigning a lack of knowing what has been happening in California. Just read the following by the CAA website:
“Whether in city halls — or under the dome of the state Capitol — we have a proven track record of defeating onerous proposals that threaten the rental housing industry. We remind policymakers of our vital role our members serve in providing homes to the state’s workforce, PROVIDING LAWMAKERS WITH KEY INSIGHTS AS THEY FRAME KEY DECISIONS. We provide members with up-to-date information on new and pending legislation, keeping our members abreast of California’s complex web of laws and regulations. We help you navigate legal issues, master risk management and put best business practices in place. We help you better serve your customers and grow your business.”
Key insights indeed, like providing a significant amount of funds to run for office, or informing the governmental officers that if the do not support their interests, they will support any opposing candidate. THAT IS REALITY AND YOU KNOW IT.
You said:
“LOL, so according to your line of thought free markets do not exist.”
You do realize that in effect they do not exist. Please provide us any product or service that is provided that exists in a “free market”. I think you might be surprised that you may not find any. It is just an “ideal” that failed miserably causing the “Great Depression”. Why can’t you remember your history?
Just realize that with all the laws involving “warranty of habitability” let alone other “minimum standards of practices” they make the apartment market categorically not a “Free Market”. There simply is nothing you can do to discount the fact that without laws like these, the apartments would be unsafe and unmanaged.
What you “WANT” is to mislead the public regarding the current state of the market. What you “WANT” is to reverse all laws and regulations regarding the apartment industry. The only way to have a “free market” is to rescind all laws regulating it. And in fact, Costa Hawkins, in a way is a “market regulation”, so if you want to make a true free market, you would have to eliminate Costa Hawkins as well.
Organizations like the CAA like to claim they are for “ethical” practices. See this from their own website (https://caanet.org/caa/):
About CAA
The California Apartment Association is the nation’s largest statewide trade group representing owners, investors, developers, managers and suppliers of rental homes and apartment communities. Our staff — based in Sacramento and with strategic hubs throughout California — includes experts in rental housing law, legal analysts, state and local lobbyists, member-service representatives and media-outreach specialists. For more than 75 years, CAA has served rental home and apartment owners and managers through tireless work in public affairs, education and customer service.
We represent the ETHICAL MEMBERS OF THE RENTAL HOUSING INDUSTRY IN ALL ASPECTS OF GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS WITHIN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, and we provide information, products and services which contribute to the success of their businesses.
For more than 75 years, we have served rental housing and apartment owners and managers in California. We are proud to be the definitive voice of the single and multifamily housing industry in California.
What we believe
CAA recognizes its ETHICAL DUTIES TO THE COMMUNITIES WE SERVE AND INSISTS ON UPHOLDING THE UTMOST INTEGRITY IN THE MULTIFAMILY HOUSING FIELD. Our Code of Ethics guides our dealings with all people, and we encourage all rental-housing professionals to abide it.”
They were found to have employed unethical services like the signature gatherers in Pacifica. They are responsible for the actors they hired, if not “legally”, clearly “ethically”. Thus they break their own code of ethics. But since it is a private “trade organization” there is no one but their own peers to hold them accountable. That is like using a known burglar to judge the actions of a thief.
And you wonder why I question anything the CAA supports? For you, you just happen to benefit from their actions if you are not a member of it. But you are a participant in the market they use their power to regulate via laws like the Costa Hawkins and Ellis Acts. So it simply doesn’t matter whether you are a CAA member or not, in the REAL WORLD.
I guess you didn’t get that memo.
TBM,
Your comments above are again off subject, where is the CONSPIRACY AND SECRETS that you alleged? Don’t try to wiggle yourself out of straight answer by copying and pasting mile long truisms like this:
“Key insights indeed, like providing a significant amount of funds to run for office, or informing the governmental officers that if the do not support their interests, they will support any opposing candidate.”
This is obvious and there is nothing wrong with the fact that entities support candidates who consider their interests.
Mike,
Your trying to make sense to someone that doesn’t believe that a free market exists in the United States because there are laws and ordinances that property owners must follow and that CAA is some kind of a criminal entity.
This guys delusional, give it up!
Howard, thank you for clarifying, but that is a baffling definition of free market. Under your definition, buyers are always operating in a free market, regardless of level of regulation. For sellers, the market isn’t free once a new regulation is promulgated, but becomes free again once their first transaction clears. This is certainly not the definition used by economists, most lay people, or even Mike. I believe you’ve confused the concepts of markets and free markets in your head, which is unsurprising given your Fox News habit.
In response to mike rose you said:
“Your comments above are again off subject, where is the CONSPIRACY AND SECRETS that you alleged? Don’t try to wiggle yourself out of straight answer by copying and pasting mile long truisms like this:
“Key insights indeed, like providing a significant amount of funds to run for office, or informing the governmental officers that if the do not support their interests, they will support any opposing candidate.”
This is obvious and there is nothing wrong with the fact that entities support candidates who consider their interests.”
First, thanks for admitting that that action is “TRUE”. Second lets looks at the definition of CONSPIRACY which is defined by the Cornell Law Website as:
“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.”
Bribery is a crime and is defined as (https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/bribery) :
“Bribery
Corrupt solicitation, acceptance, or transfer of value in exchange for official action.”
Overview
BRIBERY REFERS TO THE OFFERING, GIVING, SOLICITING, OR RECEIVING OF ANY ITEM OF VALUE AS A MEANS OF INFLUENCING THE ACTIONS OF AN INDIVIDUAL HOLDING A PUBLIC OR LEGAL DUTy. This type of action results in matters that should be handled objectively being handled in a manner best suiting the private interests of the decision maker. Bribery constitutes a crime and both the offeror and the recipient can be criminally charged.
PROOF OF BRIBERY REQUIRES DEMONSTRATING A “QUID PRO QUO” RELATIONSHIP IN WHICH THE RECIPIENT DIRECTLY ALTERS BEHAVIOR IN EXCHANGE FOR THE GIFT. Because the relationship does not occur directly enough, campaign donations from corporations or individuals to political candidates do not constitute bribery. ANOTHER ELEMENT OF PROVING BRIBERY INCLUDES PROVING INTENT TO INFLUENCE THE DISCHARGING OF ANOTHER’S OFFICIAL DUTIES. Some statutes also require proof that both parties understand and agree to the arrangement. Attempts to bribe exist at common law and under the Model Penal Code, and often, the punishment for attempted bribery and completed bribery are identical. Solicitation of a bribe also constitutes a crime and is completed regardless of whether the solicitation results in the receipt of a valuable gift. ECONOMISTS CONSIDER BRIBERY TO NEGATIVELY IMPACT ECONOMIC GROWTH BECAUSE IT ENCOURAGED RENT SEEKING BEHAVIOR. RENT SEEKING BEHAVIOR REFERS TO AN INDIVIDUAL’S OR CORPORATION’S ATTEMPT TO ILLICITLY INFLUENCE THE OPEN MARKET IN ORDER TO PROVIDE THAT INDIVIDUAL OR CORPORATION WITH A DISPROPORTIONATE AMOUNT OF WEALTH. Such an environment results in a sub-optimal allocation of resources, which results in depressed economic growth.
Bribery is not an unreasonable cause of action that would qualify the actions of the CAA to be a conspiracy. As well as extortion which is defined by Shouse California Law Group as :
“Under Penal Code 518 PC, the California crime of extortion (also known as “blackmail”) occurs when a person does any of the following:
uses force or threats to compel another person to give you money or other property,
USES FORCE OR THREATS TO COMPEL A PUBLIC OFFICER TO PERFORM AN OFFICIAL ACT, OR
if it is a public official, acts under color of official right to compel another person to give up money or other property.1
This may sound fairly complicated. And, in fact, California extortion charges can be brought in a wide variety of scenarios. Just a few examples of behavior that could be considered extortion/blackmail under California law include:
A real estate developer threatens to expose a city council member’s extramarital affair to the media if the city council member does not vote to approve a project that the developer wants to build; and
Politicians, celebrities, and sports stars are frequent targets of extortion. For example, one well-known former basketball player and current basketball coach was involved in a prominent California extortion case…in which a former stripper threatened to release nude photos of the married athlete unless he paid her thousands of dollars.3
That said, anyone can be a victim of — or find themselves accused of — the crime of blackmail.
Penalties
Extortion in most cases is a California felony. The penalties are two (2), three (3) or four (4) years in county jail, and/or a ten thousand dollar ($10,000) fine.4
Victims who pay the money or property extorted can also bring a lawsuit to recover damages for “civil extortion” in California.”
It is not unreasonable to connect the actions of the CAA to fall within definition of Extortion, which also would qualify as a criminal act. Thus as long as the CAA perpetrates such an act, it is a conspiracy. In this case the threat of taking actions that would put a politician in significant risk of exposure, then this Criminal law could be violated. Finally I Again I remind you of the Cartwright Act which Grirard Gibbs LLP law group states:
“The Cartwright Act is the primary California state antitrust law prohibiting anti-competitive activity, mirroring federal antitrust laws the Sherman Antitrust Act and the Clayton Antitrust Act. The Act prohibits any agreements among competitors to restrain trade, fix prices or production, or lessen competition.
Under the Cartwright Act, private parties may pursue litigation against companies violating the Act.
Prohibited Antitrust Activities under the CA Cartwright Act
The Cartwright Act prohibits combinations of two or more persons’ CAPITAL, SKILL, OR ACTS TO RESTRICT TRADE OR COMMERCE. Where the Sherman Act prohibits only “restraints of trade,” the Cartwright Act is more detailed in its list of prohibited actions. These include:
PRICE FIXING: AGREEMENT BETWEEN COMPETITORS TO BUY OR SELL PRODUCTS, SERVICES, OR COMMODITIES AT A FIXED PRICE OR RATE
GROUP BOYCOTTING: COMPETITORS AGREEING TO BOYCOTT A CERTAIN ENTITY
MARKET DIVISION SCHEME: AGREEMENT BETWEEN COMPETITORS TO DIVIDE MARKETS, PRODUCTS, CUSTOMERS OR TERRITORIES AMONGST THEMSELVES
EXCLUSIVE DEALINGS: REQUIRING A BUYER OR SELLER TO DO BUY OR SELL ALL OR MOST OF A CERTAIN PRODUCT FROM A SINGLE SUPPLIER
PRICE DISCRIMINATION: SIMILAR GOODS TO BUYERS AT DIFFERENT PRICES
TYING: SELLING A PRODUCT OR SERVICE ON THE CONDITION THAT THE BUYER AGREES TO ALSO BUY A DIFFERENT PRODUCT OR SERVICE”
It can and eventually be demonstrated that the CAA by use of its actions violates the Cartwright Act, it has not yet happened due to Co-Conspirators in government office. I do not bias that claim, everyone in government are equally guilty of not pursuing this kind of investigation.
As far as SECRETS goes, there is no transparency regarding funding of candidates. I refer to the following article “Council Candidates Reveal Financial Backers (https://www.mv-voice.com/news/2018/08/03/council-candidates-reveal-financial-backers): Specifically:
“Campaign filings were not immediately available for former Councilman John Inks or Alison Hicks, who have also declared candidacy in the race.”
John Inks has a long time partnership with the CAA, given that he was the sponsor of this initiative. Along with his affiliation with the MeasureVTooCostly website, which is funded by the CAA (http://measurevtoocostly.com/). Specifically:
“Paid for by Mountain View Residents for Renter, Homeowner & Taxpayer Protections, sponsored by the California Apartment Association. Committee major funding from: Tod Spieker & Spieker Companies Inc. Mariposa Club”
First, there is no such thing as the Mountain View Residents for Renter, Homeowner & Taxpayer Protections group. All you have to do is google, and there isn’t any resources regarding any group with that name, except for the filings regarding the initiative. It simply does not exist.
Second, His continual refusal to disclose income and donors are SECRETS. His history of exploiting public office for his benefactors are clear. I can only imagine what any GOOD investigator could find regarding the rest of the local, county, and state politicians. I am NOT a GOOD investigator.
Nonetheless, this is simply a distraction to avoid discussing the points presented by those you oppose.
LOL,
I will quote the definition again:
“In economics, a free market is an idealized system in which the prices for goods and services are determined by the open market and consumers, in which the laws and forces of supply and demand are free from any INTERVENTION BY A GOVERNMENT, price-setting monopoly, or other authority”.
Rent control removes the price determination by open market and consumers, government determines the price.
As to the second part, like I stated earlier supply is not an abstract. It is affected by many factors, including government regulations even remotely related to the property. i.e building permits, estate taxes or anti discrimination laws as you suggested. Same thing applies to the demand.
But once you factor in these external factors or regulations you establish given supply demand force and free market laws should govern this force by establishing an equilibrium price, not the government.
Once again to be clear, the regulations could be affecting the supply and demand separately, but once the supply and demand forces are established (reflecting the regulations and other factors) they should be free from any government price regulation.
mike, my earlier laughing at you continues to be proven to be prudent. You have no idea what you’re talking about, and, having been backed into defending a position you don’t understand, are making things up as you go. You don’t even understand what supply and demand are! All you know is that Fox News told you “free market good” and now try to work backwards into that position. Try thinking for a few moments in your life.
LOL,
This is a typical response of a person who is cornered and run out of arguments.
Bullying.
Go on.
LOL,
Fox news competes in a free market and has Number 1 viewership over all network news groups by a longshot.
FOX News Channel (FNC) continuing its dominance, marked 65 consecutive quarters as the highest-rated cable news channel in both total day and primetime with P2+, according to Nielsen Media Research. … During 1Q’18, FNC averaged 1,445,000 million in total viewers and 300,000 with A25-54 in total day.Apr 3, 2018.
In prime time, Fox News destroyed its competition, with an average total audience of 2.381 million viewers, compared to MSNBC’s 1.384 million and CNN’s 835,000.
So, I guess its OK to be a loyal Fox news watcher and we all LOVE TRUMP and will be voting in November!!
I’m not sure why you’re describing your own posts. All you have to say is that you want a well-regulated market, but disagree with the policy chosen. Trying to pretend you have some deeper understanding just shows how poorly informed you are, especially when you try to toss around terms like “free market” and “supply and demand” without knowing what they mean.
Yet another copy-pasted block of text. This time from Howard. Why can’t the Fox News watchers think in terms that aren’t just parroted lines?
In response to mike rose you said:
“”In economics, a free market is an idealized system in which the prices for goods and services are determined by the open market and consumers, in which the laws and forces of supply and demand are free from any INTERVENTION BY A GOVERNMENT, price-setting monopoly, or other authority”.
I repeat:
I am not going to touch MONOPOLY, but you have to admit the CAA and the CAR qualify as OTHER AUTHORITY. The fact that these bodies work to inflate property values way out of realism, in effect have destroyed their own “Free Market”. You cannot claim you advocate the free market if there is an “OTHER AUTHORITY” alters the laws and forces of supply and demand. Please realize that? You said:
“There are thousands of them competing for tenants throughout the state independently.”
Not when you have an organization like the CAA that provides “trade secret” information to its membership, provides discounted services to their members, and use the funds also for political influence purposes. In fact, the CAA claims:
Who we reach
We have 13,000 members, representing more than 50,000 owners and industry professionals. California’s most successful property management companies, developers, real estate investment trusts and thousands of independent apartment owners depend on CAA to defend their investments. Download our brochure to learn more.”
Thus your “Free Market” simply already doesn’t exist. You said:
“The shortage of the goods (housing), caused by excessive and inefficient government regulations does not create a monopoly.”
No it doesn’t, but coordinated conspiracy to manipulate the forces of supply and demand by OTHER AUTHORITY results in the same problem. You are going to have to provide some preponderance of evidence that there is no manipulation of the supply is NOT contributed by actions of the CAA or CAR. This is the doctrine of Comparative negligence. Which is defined as:
Comparative negligence (Web Link)
Comparative negligence, or non-absolute contributory negligence outside the United States, is a partial legal defense that reduces the amount of damages that a plaintiff can recover in a negligence-based claim, based upon the degree to which the plaintiff’s own negligence contributed to cause the injury.[1] When the defense is asserted, the factfinder, usually a jury, MUST DECIDE THE DEGREE TO WHICH THE PLAINTIFF’S NEGLIGENCE AND THE COMBINED NEGLIGENCE OF ALL OTHER RELEVANT ACTORS ALL CONTRIBUTED TO CAUSE THE PLAINTIFF’S DAMAGES.[2] It is a modification of the doctrine of contributory negligence that disallows any recovery by a plaintiff whose negligence contributed even minimally to causing the damages.[1]”
That can apply in this case, does any actions practiced by the CAA or the CAR contribute to the problems of lack of building? That question must be answered in order to determine how the idea of “governmental regulations” are the sole cause of the lack of housing. So you are trying to distract the public. You said:
“Rent control removes the price determination by open market and consumers, government determines the price.”
That is not correct where the supply has been manipulated into not just a small deficit, but a record setting one. The private industry claimed that with laws like Costa Hawkins, this would not take place. Thus the EXTREME lack of supply removes the idea that it is an “open market”. In fact, housing and real estate can be argued as a very “closed” market given its “high cost of entry” Why do you make these statements? You said:
“As to the second part, like I stated earlier supply is not an abstract. It is affected by many factors, including government regulations even remotely related to the property. i.e building permits, estate taxes or anti discrimination laws as you suggested. Same thing applies to the demand.”
But you haven’t proven scientifically that government regulations even remotely related to the property. i.e building permits, estate taxes or anti discrimination laws have been the cause of the housing crisis. Simply put, you are going to have to provide scientific proof that your point is valid. The CAA and CAR constantly use political propaganda in the form of “economics research” to try to establish the correlation. But for it to be scientifically valid, you have to prove “cause and effect” and have said research done by “independent” or “unbiased” sources. But as you know there is a lack of such research. Even some of the research you discussed doesn’t disclose who the persons writing the report are or establish no “conflict of interest”. You went on to say:
“But once you factor in these external factors or regulations you establish given supply demand force and free market laws should govern this force by establishing an equilibrium price, not the government.”
But you neglect to indicate that the industry has manipulated the “market”, thus the “equilibrium” is controlled by the supply side forces. You haven’t proven otherwise. You said:
“Once again to be clear, the regulations could be affecting the supply and demand separately, but once the supply and demand forces are established (reflecting the regulations and other factors) they should be free from any government price regulation.”
If you can establish that the supply is keeping up with demand, I have no argument. But when it comes to the idea that builders won’t build unless they get “gifts” of any kind, then your approach completely falls apart like a “house of cards”. And even when they get the “gifts” they stop production like in this story (https://www.sanluisobispo.com/news/local/article191070634.html) it stated:
“Why plans fell through
Armstrong, the land management firm CEO, said the Smiths’ DECISION HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CITY’S CONCERNS. He said the development consistent with THEIR VALUES JUST WOULDN’T PENCIL OUT, no matter how they looked at it.”
This was AFTER a plan was approved, and that initially the project was going to start, out of nowhere the development was “the development consistent with THEIR VALUES JUST WOULDN’T PENCIL OUT, no matter how they looked at it”
The CAA and the CAR have turned this industry into a game where they make up all the rules by controlling the local, county and state government. And even when they win, they say, it is not good enough and walk away.
From doublewides in Tennessee to Hicks in the sticks we are the NRA and Anti abortionists that just got 2 new Supreme Court Justices that believe Fox news and that there is a free market!
We infiltrated the democrat party and the independents and brought many of them over with our movement. What do ya think of them apples?
Hahaha, it’s so easy to trigger folks like Howard. Sent into an unhinged rant by just mentioning Fox News.
LOL,
You are the one who does not understand the definition of free market.
I think reading would be much more rewarding activity for you if you read whole sentences, not just every other word.
This is a copy of your posting:
“A free market is one “in which the laws and forces of supply and demand are free from any INTERVENTION BY A GOVERNMENT.”
“All of the hypotetical regulations you cited, affect supply and demand.”
If regulations (“INTERVENTION BY A GOVERNMENT”) affect supply and demand, the market is not free. Do you understand the words you copy-paste into these text boxes?”
End of quote.
You cleverly removed the key words from the definition “laws and forces”.
The definition of free market quoted by me did not say “…in which supply and demand are free of any intervention by the government”
To the contrary, I said that many regulations affect supply as well as demand (i.e.zoning, tax laws).
I suspect this nuiance is difficult for you to comprehend. So in short, market that has regulations that affect supply and demand is still a free market because its “laws and forces” will account for these regulations by adjusting the price to equilibrium.
However if the goverment interferes with these “laws and forces” then the market is no longer free.
Hahaha holy cow, this is amazing. You keep trying to backfit a definition onto this so you’re not wrong, rather than just admitting it. Please, keep posting and post through it, you’ll definitely show everyone how smart and well-informed you are.
My favorite part reading this comments section is seeing you furiously like your own comments every time you refresh the page.
Interesting. I’ve been liking Mike and Howard’s posts as are others I’m sure. And I don’t believe you can like again when you refresh although I’ll give it a try 🙂
LOL, the last FIVE posts from you have been nothing but sneering personal assaults (I would have gone back further however I would have had to scroll past BM’s latest diatribe and don’t want to waste my time).
LOLs last FIVE POSTS: no facts. No discourse. Just jeering snide commentary.
Telling.
mvresident, you were a big fan of Howard’s Fox News rants?
Telling.
The antenna on my double wide down here in Memphis got stuck and only points at FOX News network.
See, mike, Howard is at least playing a character and doesn’t really believe most of what he posts here. You, on the other hand, are genuine and waste most of your precious life posting on the local news website of a city you don’t live in. Where did your life get off track?
In response to Posted by mike rose you said:
“LOL,
This is a typical response of a person who is cornered and run out of arguments.
Bullying.
Go on.”
And:
LOL,
You are the one who does not understand the definition of free market.
I think reading would be much more rewarding activity for you if you read whole sentences, not just every other word.
This is a copy of your posting:
“A free market is one “in which the laws and forces of supply and demand are free from any INTERVENTION BY A GOVERNMENT.”
“All of the hypotetical regulations you cited, affect supply and demand.”
If regulations (“INTERVENTION BY A GOVERNMENT”) affect supply and demand, the market is not free. Do you understand the words you copy-paste into these text boxes?”
End of quote.
You cleverly removed the key words from the definition “laws and forces”.
The definition of free market quoted by me did not say “…in which supply and demand are free of any intervention by the government”
To the contrary, I said that many regulations affect supply as well as demand (i.e.zoning, tax laws).
I suspect this nuiance is difficult for you to comprehend. So in short, market that has regulations that affect supply and demand is still a free market because its “laws and forces” will account for these regulations by adjusting the price to equilibrium.
However if the goverment interferes with these “laws and forces” then the market is no longer free.”
My response is that you have NOT proven the following:
“A free market is one “in which the laws and forces of supply and demand are free from any INTERVENTION OTHER AUTHORITY.”
Your own posting complete says:
“”In economics, a free market is an idealized system in which the prices for goods and services are determined by the open market and consumers, in which the laws and forces of supply and demand are free from any intervention by a government, price-setting monopoly, OR OTHER AUTHORITY”.
“All of the OTHER AUTHORITIES affect supply and demand.”
If regulations (“OTHER AUTHORITIES”) affect supply and demand, the market is not free. Do you understand the words you copy-paste into these text boxes?”
By the way it seems interesting that you prefer to TARGET your postings to one that PLAYS your game of OPINION. You choose not to respond with any research of your own that does contradict mine. I feel you HAVE THE RIGHT TO EXPRESS YOUR OPINION. I do not attempt to prevent this. However, it would appear that you find it easier to “publically ridicule” others. You said:
“However if the goverment interferes with these “laws and forces” then the market is no longer free.”
I propose that if OTHER AUTHORITIES interferes with these “laws and forces” then the market was never free. You have not established proof that the CAA and the CAR has not “lobbied” and “successfully crafted laws” to the benefit of the suppliers. In fact any “law” that specifically benefits those who are in the industries represented by the CAA and CAR financially is proof of this. Thus, the only conclusion is that the CAA and the CAR interferes with the “laws and forces” Thus your argument is a “Double edged” sword as long as the indefinite language of OTHER AUTHORITIES are part of what disqualifies a “FREE MARKET”.
Of course you will claim that all other laws that “benefit” tenants are also a disqualification of the “free market”. I do not argue this point of view. But in most cases, they are also concurrently beneficial to the “public” as a whole due to that they are based on issues like “unsafe” residences, or proven public health problems like toxic molds, bed bugs, CO pollution, safe electrical wiring, seismic tolerance (which applies to homes as well) and I can go on much longer.
Simply put, the National, State, County and Cities simply understand that without the laws, these aspects would simply be not required. And if a Limited Liability Company were to get into the housing business without these laws, there would be a lot of housing but would not be required to uphold simple basic protections of the customer. And when the LLC is confronted with having to take any liability for not doing so in Common Law, they will declare Bankruptcy and leave the customer to deal with the consequences. THAT IS REAL FREE MARKET.
If you consent to “some” legal regulations, you have explicitly also consented to any legitimately enacted legal regulations. The simple reality is there is no rational or reasonable expectation or basis that this industry is in a “FREE MARKET”.
In response to howard you said:
“Your trying to make sense to someone that doesn’t believe that a free market exists in the United States because there are laws and ordinances that property owners must follow and that CAA is some kind of a criminal entity.
This guys delusional, give it up!”
I have provided to this board the linkage between CONSPIRACY and the coupling of BRIBERY and EXTORTION, and violations of the CARTWRIGHT ACT. I am not saying CONCLUSIVELY that the CAA and the CAR are criminals. BUT I LAY THE GROUNDWORK FOR INVESTIGATING IT. My observations are not “delusional” because they would have to be avoid of all possible reason to qualify under the definition of delusion (Merriam Webster) which is :
“Definition of delusion
1 a : something that is falsely or delusively believed or propagated under the delusion that they will finish on schedule delusions of grandeur”
Not applicable the next one:
“b psychology : a persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary the delusion that someone was out to hurt him; also : the abnormal state marked by such beliefs”
However there is no “indisputable evidence” to the contrary that you have presented. In fact you have demonstrated evidence that you are “out to hurt” the public, not just myself. By working to provide housing resources ONLY where the “rules” or “laws” are to your benefit.
So I simply propose that a reasonable objective person will eventually come to the conclusion that this situation REQUIRES INVESTIGATION. Is that delusional?
In response to howard you said:
“Your trying to make sense to someone that doesn’t believe that a free market exists in the United States because there are laws and ordinances that property owners must follow and that CAA is some kind of a criminal entity.
This guys delusional, give it up!”
I have provided to this board the linkage between CONSPIRACY and the coupling of BRIBERY and EXTORTION, and violations of the CARTWRIGHT ACT. I am not saying CONCLUSIVELY that the CAA and the CAR are criminals. BUT I LAY THE GROUNDWORK FOR INVESTIGATING IT. My observations are not “delusional” because they would have to be avoid of all possible reason to qualify under the definition of delusion (Merriam Webster) which is :
“Definition of delusion
1 a : something that is falsely or delusively believed or propagated under the delusion that they will finish on schedule delusions of grandeur”
Not applicable the next one:
“b psychology : a persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary the delusion that someone was out to hurt him; also : the abnormal state marked by such beliefs”
However there is no “indisputable evidence” to the contrary that you have presented. In fact you have demonstrated evidence that you are “out to hurt” the public, not just myself. By working to provide housing resources ONLY where the “rules” or “laws” are to your benefit.
So I simply propose that a reasonable objective person will eventually come to the conclusion that this situation REQUIRES INVESTIGATION. Is that delusional?
Very poor try TBM,
First of all we already went through this subject, if you don’t have anything new to say just stay put for a while.
We discussed the fact that CAA is not an AUTHORITY by any standards, but you keep coming back to that.
We also discussed the fact that market can be free, even with regulations of supply and demand, as long as forces and laws of the (presumably regulated) supply and demand are free from govermnmental intervention (essentially free from price regulation).
This last statement is little nuianced, but I hope, in contrast to LOL, you can grasp the difference.
This is not mine, but Wikipedia definition.
I suspect in your next sensless tyrade you will attack the Wikipedia authors.
mike, you don’t even know how to spell “nuance” or “tirade”, so perhaps you could admit your knowledge of economics as a field is a little limited? No, that can’t be it, keep posting. Show all of us how smart and well-educated you are! I’ll give you another starting point, lay out the distinction between supply and demand and the forces of supply and demand. This should be adorable.
LOL,
I am surprised you have not caught this yet, but it should be obvious that english is my second language (I am sure you speak many foreign languages too, without any mistakes).
So I do make mistakes, sometimes typos, but the fact that you think that I am only uneducated and born in the US, I take as a complement to my language skills.
As to the distinction you mentioned above, I already explained it 3 times, and if you did not get it 4th time is not going to help.
In response to Posted by mike rose you said:
“Very poor try TBM,”
First of all, I never make disrespectful comments like this, it simply is inappropriate, that’s all I have to say about that. You said:
“First of all we already went through this subject, if you don’t have anything new to say just stay put for a while.”
Another simply disrespectful, if not insulting comment, why do you try to enrage the public with such commentary? You said:
“We discussed the fact that CAA is not an AUTHORITY by any standards, but you keep coming back to that.”
Yes we discussed it, but you have not proved that it DOES NOT ACT AS AN AUTHORITY. That simply is disputable. I provided plenty of evidence to show there is “Authoritative” actions and that an “Authority” needs not be constrained to “Government”. Why do you persist to claim to be an “Authority” yourself. The public makes that decision, NEITHER YOU OR I CAN FORCE OUR AUTHORITY ON THE PUBLIC. You said:
“We also discussed the fact that market can be free, even with regulations of supply and demand, as long as forces and laws of the (presumably regulated) supply and demand are free from governmental intervention (essentially free from price regulation).”
Again, you propose that the only factor on the market is “Governmental intervention”. I simply point out that your definition was broad enough to include “Other Authority” and that my observation is that the CAA and the CAR both act in furtherance to be the “Ultimate Authority” by requiring the public to either comply with their “Will”, or be punished by “Controlling the Supply” of the market. You said:
“This last statement is little nuianced, but I hope, in contrast to LOL, you can grasp the difference.”
I do not criticize the definition you present, nor make any judgment on Wikipedia. I interpret the “WHOLE TEXT” and not try to PARSE only what is convenient to me. I already did not claim that a Monopoly exists NOR that the CAA and the CAR make the market a MONOPOLY. It can be argued that it is an “OLIGOPOLY” but I will not discuss that now.
I just point out that any government regulation will make a price impact on the market. You know that. So if it is just requiring minimum standards on the “PRODUCTS” sold by the apartment industry, that simply can and does extend in cases regarding price controls. Given that “Rent Control” is constitutional and is legal except for Costa Hawkins at this time
I simply do not constrain my interpretation to the one that best suits your point of view. You are not in the “Authority” to determine what the “public” must think or believe in. I am fully in the right to provide another point of view, no matter how much you try to ridicule or criticize it. Again, you step over the line when you make those kind of comments. Simply provide your evidence, and leave your ego out of it.
You’ve never actually explained your understanding of it, only said that it exists. Unless your contention that the only thing that stops a market from being free is rent control?
Getting you to try to turn your Fox News catchphrases into explicit answers really pays dividends, so have at it.
LOL,
I just threw some humor out there for you.. you know the double wide and antenna thing. I probably should have mentioned the tornados too to get you to laugh?
Anyway, I think it is obvious your trying to change reality regarding the existence of Free Markets in America. That’s cool and Businessman tries to bury the truth in pages and pages of cut and paste.. that’s cool to. I can go with that.
I’m not sure if the audience.. if there is one, really believes this extrapolation or your concepts are the truth versus the basics of the economic structure we are so happy to have in this great Country, the Free Market?
Even foreigners recognize this basic understanding of the “Free Market” and move here to invest in it because they want better and don’t have it in their Country.
It’s almost a slap in the face for someone born here to not acknowledge the fortune you were given and to try to break it down for something most people want throughout the world.
We as Americans, strive to be the best and always have succeeded in what we want to because we work together, vote and believe in one thing, One Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
This is the most important part of being American and I know the lines get blurred by the politics in Washington but it is the truth about our Country. Stop trying to break it into some Socialistic society. America won’t stand for it and I as one will say so!
Just FYI:
How can you perform infinite “Likes” regarding discussions:
One Method:
Use IPAD safari
Pull up the the discussion page and tap the like button on the post, it will show activated you cannot retap it.
Got to settings and tell safari to purge all web site data and history
Go to Mountain View Voice Town Square and choose the topic
You should see the topic, but the like button is reset, you can tap it again. THIS DOES NOT TAKE OFF THE ORIGINAL LIKE.
Thus you have done 2 likes, but if you do it again, you can like a comment as many times you want.
I believe it will work for any web browser as well. It simply means that you can HACK the LIKES.
That is why I simply do not care about that “metric”. It is not scientific and is unreliable.
And you missed the whole message over this “Likes” thing?
Sounds like someone is evading my comment?
Maybe it was too American for them?
It’s amazing, Howard, that you spend so many words rambling about a free market, but you are unable to actually define it. The disconnect between Fox News talking points and real logic and reason is striking. Or maybe you’ll surprise me and give a definition of the free market aside from “free market, good.”
TBM,
The fact is that you don’t have a single like on this topic thread. Didn’t it occur to you that maybe if your postings had been shorter and more logical then some people would actually read them?
Hahaha, mike, for someone who cries about bullying so much you try so hard to pick on The Business Man. That’s the classic bully move, you try to pick on people who won’t fight back, then run to the teacher when people dish it out to you. Sad! On top of that, you’re wrong, The Business Man has a bunch of likes and he doesn’t do what you do where you like all of your own posts on every refresh. Where did things go so wrong for you?
In re3sponse to howard you said:
“Anyway, I think it is obvious your trying to change reality regarding the existence of Free Markets in America. That’s cool and Businessman tries to bury the truth in pages and pages of cut and paste.. that’s cool to. I can go with that. “
No changing reality here my friend. My issue is that in reality there is no such thing as a “free market” especially after the Great Depression” which has been accepted as was caused by out of control speculation, a bubble in the stock market, unstable banks, and Lassiez-faire market practices, just read Wikipedia Great Depression (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression) and Encyclopedia.com (https://www.encyclopedia.com/education/news-and-education-magazines/causes-crash-1919-1929). There is plenty of information to digest, I cannot expect you to read the 30 pages of text if I paste it here. You are just saying you don’t like the fact that I present a different point of view with citations and objective resources, which is all. You said:
“I’m not sure if the audience.. if there is one, really believes this extrapolation or your concepts are the truth versus the basics of the economic structure we are so happy to have in this great Country, the Free Market?”
So now you are trying to say I am NOT PATRIOTIC, or worse that my proper skepticism regarding the blind faith if the FREE MARKET is good reason to discredit my point of view. NO ONE should base their decisions based on BLIND FAITH, that’s all I am discussing here. I AM NOT CLAIMING OUR COUNTRY IS NOT GREAT. That is just a political jargon. You said:
“Even foreigners recognize this basic understanding of the “Free Market” and move here to invest in it because they want better and don’t have it in their Country.”
I actually agree with you. But investments for investment sake is a scary idea when it is done based on “promises” and “presentations” that should always be presented with the key disclaimer “past performance does not predict future performance”. That has been happening here in California. You said:
“It’s almost a slap in the face for someone born here to not acknowledge the fortune you were given and to try to break it down for something most people want throughout the world.”
What have I written down that substantiates that personal criticism? You know I never made any position that makes that argument. WOW. You said:
“We as Americans, strive to be the best and always have succeeded in what we want to because we work together, vote and believe in one thing, One Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”
Interesting, you just pointed out one key phrase “with liberty AND justice FOR ALL.” Wouldn’t that mean that if there is a documented INJUSTICE to ANYONE, that governments are REQUIRED to PREVENT that INJUSTICE. Just asking? You said:
“This is the most important part of being American and I know the lines get blurred by the politics in Washington but it is the truth about our Country. Stop trying to break it into some Socialistic society. America won’t stand for it and I as one will say so!”
Again, I never made any claim that the U.S. should be made a Socialistic Society. I just point out that we work with a “mixed market” economy. That is REAL. And to clearly state that you have the Authority” to dictate to us by saying “America won’t stand for it and I as one will say so!”. All I say is that is your opinion and you have the right to it. But you don’t have the right to DICTATE through AUTHORITY that everyone agree with you. Simply put.
Mike,
I think we just pulled a hedgehog out of a hole here.
Businessman quote of the day:
“Interesting, you just pointed out one key phrase “with liberty AND justice FOR ALL.” Wouldn’t that mean that if there is a documented INJUSTICE to ANYONE, that governments are REQUIRED to PREVENT that INJUSTICE.”
Yes, Are you implying that is not so, Businessman?
Love it…..you made me laugh my head off.
FYI, mike, Howard was making fun of you.
LOL,
Are all your comments incorrect including the ones on Free Market?
Howard: If anything you say is true and you charge 4-5k AND raise the rent 15-20% per year, you’ve got the most unhappy and disrespectful tenants there are. A situation that you created. It doesn’t surprise me a bit that they regularly trash your place. Try treating tenants like equals and not profit generating devices and your going to find much more agreeable renters. Or take your winnings and go off quietly, please.
LOL: I love your enthusiasm, but you are getting aggressive and off topic this time. But please don’t stop posting.
Business Man: I love your research and your posts. They reflect an admirable self restraint with all these nasty conversations.
Mike Rose: Your angry, baiting posts are disgusting to me and I wish you would just lay off. You aren’t serving your agenda well at all posting like you are.
mvresident: I sincerely hope that you are not as classist as your comments suggest.
How dare you,
I’m happy to see your still here and I sincerely hope the best for you.
As far as my business dealings go, no I don’t rip off tenants because I wouldn’t be successful if I did so. The rents I have do consist of 4-5k rents and these lucky tenants are living in Million $$ homes and very happy having me as their landlord.
My 15%-20% profits take into account appreciation which has been 12-15% of my profits which is not paid by the tenant. Now we all no that some of that can evaporate with a recession but I factor all of that in and either pay cash for my homes or have 50% LTV on them. Most are puchased with cash from my other properties income.
For example, today, I wrote 2 offers totalling 1.8 million on 2 homes and will pay cash for those. I Just found out were in contract on both an hour ago.
Good luck and hope the best for you.
LOL,
A brain fart?
In response to Howard you said:
“Mike,
I think we just pulled a hedgehog out of a hole here.
Businessman quote of the day:
“Interesting, you just pointed out one key phrase “with liberty AND justice FOR ALL.” Wouldn’t that mean that if there is a documented INJUSTICE to ANYONE, that governments are REQUIRED to PREVENT that INJUSTICE.”
Yes, Are you implying that is not so, Businessman?”
Just realize, the petition process and the courts are the adjudicators here. I am not a court judge, hearing officer, or attorney. As far as I know neither are you. I let those Hearing Officers and Judges make the call. That is our Due Process of Law. So what did I say that was wrong, or biased in any way? You said:
“Are all your comments incorrect including the ones on Free Market?”
That is your opinion, you are in no position of “Authority” to pass judgement. Again, I let the Hearing Officers and Judges make the call. But you simply are not one of them. I cannot argue against a belief or an opinion, and I simply will not try.
In response to mike rose you said:
“LOL,
A brain fart?”
Granted I would not be inclined to use the comments LOL have used. But I do not ridicule them publically, or be insulting to them either. You have to admit, I have done well to restrain myself regarding the language and disrespect you use. Because I know simply you have the right to your opinion.
mike, if you can’t tell that Howard was mocking you, it’s not really my problem. Just trying to clue you in.
@How dare you? Not sure what you mean by classist. I’ve been very consistent in my opinion that if one can’t afford to live here then they should look elsewhere, and I’ve also said that upon retirement (and quite possibly even sooner) we will not be able to afford to stay here and will have to make the tough choice to move.
I don’t think I have a RIGHT to live here. I don’t think others should subsidize me to live in one of the most expensive real estate areas of the world. I frankly don’t understand why someone would stay here and scrabble to eke out a minimal class of living when there are actually many many other places that are quite nice to live. Places with great jobs and opportunities too I might add. I know, I’ve lived in a lot of them. We happen to have jobs here that require that we stay in this area but given the radical ideas and philosophies that have sprouted in the last few years I’m actually, for the first time in many many years, Thinking it’s time to leave. And LOL, before you say it, no, I won’t let the door hit me on the way out, I’m leaving willingly.
So @How dare you….I am not “classist”, rather I live my life on personal responsibility and making smart choices. So far it’s served me and my family quite well.
mvresident, the whole point is that you shouldn’t have to make that choice, and Mountain View should be a home for all who want to live here. There’s nothing stopping it except for folks who want to pull the ladder up and not build enough houses. If that’s a “radical” idea, well, then call me a radical. It’s certainly classist to want or accept Mountain View as a place for only the wealthy to live, wouldn’t you say?
And this is exactly where we can agree to disagree. I DONT think Moubtain View can be a place for everyone. I think there is a point where too many people is too much. It’s too much traffic (which has horrible effects on our quality of air and our quality of life). It’s too much for our natural resources, we were on rationing from the drought, how can you encourage highly densifed growth?
So no, I wholeheartedly disagree that anyone and everyone can live here. Some people (like myself) were fortunate enough to be here earlier and others are fortunate enough to have money and income to afford it. But again, it’s not an inherent right to be here.
And I strongly believe you’re wrong, people DO have to make choices. And not always easy ones..
Dense living reduces traffic and environmental impact; those are simply facts. It’s the only way we’ll appreciably slow climate change. The rest of your comment is that classism writ large: from your viewpoint, people like you, the wealthy, should be the only people living in Mountain View.
So anyone who can’t afford outrageous rent increases should move to the Central valley. Or another nice place. Well, I guess you and your family don’t buy groceries, go to movies, enjoy trash pickup or ever need emergency services like police fire or ambulances. I’m sure you’ll do fine removing the wrecked cars if there’s ever anything accident. And you won’t be able to eat out either so I hope the grocery store in the Central valley will deliver to you; but it’s going to be ex-pen-sive. Luckily for me, all the hospitals and doctors will go with me to the Central valley, and I’ll be able to get my ac or car or laundry fixed, unlike you and your lucky neighbors. mvresident’s mountain view will be just fine once landlord are free to double the rent and everyone who can’t afford a home is locked outside of the gates. It’ll be fine, don’t worry about it.
LOL,
How am I mocking Mike, enlighten me.
I don’t mock anyone I just have my opinion which I believe is correct and everyone has theirs. I believe in 2 things here:
1. Rent control is bad for the landlord and for the tenant and is a socialist concept that should not exist.
2. America was built on Capitalism and should continue to do so.
Oh I guess there is a 3rd,
3. Business man writes wayyyyyyyyyyyy to much stuff and should have his key board taken away!.
How dare you,
When I moved to Mountain View in 1968 I had a job that paid $750/month as an engineer.
I came into town driving a 1957 4 door Ford with a mattress tied to the top and a trunk load of dishes, towels, clothes, a night stand with a 19 inch black and white TV and some nicknacks.
Soon after, my parents passed away in an auto crash outside of Redding, Ca and I inherited $21,000 from their estate.
Within 6 months, I met someone at work that was a landlord in Sunnyvale that owned 4-4 plexes on Helen Ave that was losing all of them in foreclosure and I took over his position by paying 5K per building to the bank.
By 1970, I had a 2nd loan of $5K on the properties to stay afloat in a rental market that paid $65/month for a 2 bedroom apartment and had 20% vacancies.
By 1971 I had a 3rd loan to buy furniture that I had no idea how I was going to pay for to offer furnished apartments to beat out my competition so I wouldn’t lose them in foreclosure.
By 1972, my rents increased $20/month and I never looked back!
From that point on I kept reinvesting and by 1978 I owned a 60 apartments in San Mateo County which took off in the early 80’s making me millions!
I have continued to this day reinvesting.
My point is this, everyone has opportunities out there and need to look for them and follow their game plan through thick or thin!
Very few people are born rich and if they were, they wouldn’t know how to manage it and lose it anyway.