Letters to the editor: Rent control, President Trump



What gives Donald Trump the right to insult, demean and degrade publicly any who cross him or fail to pay him the proper "respect"?

What respect is due a multiply accused rapist, adulterer, serial liar and thief who steals from workmen by denying them the wages they have earned by working on his company's projects.

The foregoing actually points to someone who, rather than twittering madly against others, should instead be by the side of the road picking up trash in an orange jumpsuit,

Ed Taub

Devoto Street

Rent control subcommittee

In an article published June 28 ("Subcommittee to propose rent control changes"), you reported that the Mountain View City Council on June 25 had created a three-member subcommittee to consider proposing amendments to the rent control law just approved by city voters in November 2016 (Measure V). The subcommittee includes two council members (Margaret Abe-Koga and Chris Clark) who opposed Measure V. Indeed, both of them supported a deceptive alternative measure (W) placed on the 2016 ballot by the City Council majority to split the vote and forestall any real control over apartment rent increases.

Your article reports that Councilwoman Abe-Koga had raised the prospect of amending Measure V in a goal-setting meeting and had cited, as her concern, the displacement of some tenants in connection with a few cases of old apartments being replaced by new condos. The suggestion is that it would be better to eliminate rent control on 15,000 old apartments and force tens of thousands of renters out of Mountain View than to see more applications to demolish a few hundred apartments and build condos instead.

That would be a poor deal for our city. And, in fact, apartment owners do not even have the "right" to replace apartments with condos. The City Council majority has just been going along. Some might think that the City Council would leave it to the landlords to campaign to repeal Measure V through their own "sneaky" initiative that finally gathered enough signatures to qualify for the ballot. But what most readers don't know is that I wrote the City Council months ago about the likelihood that the landlords' initiative would be declared invalid for its internal misrepresentations in contravention of California Elections Code section 18600 as occurred in the legally binding case of San Francisco Forty-Niners v. Nishioka ( 1999) 75 Cal. App. 4th 637, 645.

While I hope to be proven wrong, it appears that the pro-landlord City Council majority is up to no good. We shall see.

Gary Wesley

Continental Circle

What is democracy worth to you?
Support local journalism.


2 people like this
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jul 14, 2019 at 11:19 am

The Business Man is a registered user.

Here is the REAL SOLUTION of affordable housing:

The State must create a database of ALL existing residential units that ACTUALLY EXIST! THIS IS MANDATORY TO ALL PROPERTIES!

Then they must create a database of all OWNED residential units that ACTUALLY EXIST! THIS IS MANDATORY TO ALL PROPERTIES!

Then they must create a database that accounts for all USED residential units that ACTUALLY EXIST! THIS IS MANDATORY TO ALL PROPERTIES!

Then they must create a database consisting of all UNUSED residential units that ACTUALLY EXIST! THIS IS MANDATORY TO ALL PROPERTIES!

OF COURSE the Housing industry will oppose this. Why?

This will provide the public the ACTUAL manipulated SHORTAGE of HOUSING in California.

Also there can be taxation designed so that for those properties NOT USED to be levied to fund public housing projects. This will be because the housing crisis allows for this extreme action as long as these units are not listed or used because it is against the state anti-trust and price manipulation laws.

It can be avoided if the properties are made available to the market.

But I will not be surprised that there is as much as an additional 10-15% of units just being withheld from USE because it makes other properties more valuable. And given Proposition 13, they pay pitiful property taxes on units that just sit and decompose due to intentional neglect. No upkeep means that the taxes are the only cost.

Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.


To post your comment, please login or register at the top of the page. This topic is only for those who have signed up to participate by providing their email address and establishing a screen name.

Stay informed

Get daily headlines sent straight to your inbox.

After experiencing harassment, owner of Zareen's restaurants speaks out about Islamophobia, racism
By Elena Kadvany | 28 comments | 6,923 views

Don't Miss Your Exit (and other lessons from an EV drive)
By Sherry Listgarten | 13 comments | 2,345 views

Goodbye Food Waste!
By Laura Stec | 5 comments | 2,236 views

Premarital and Couples: Tips for Hearing (Listening) and Being Known
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 743 views


Register today!

On Friday, October 11, join us at the Palo Alto Baylands for a 5K walk, 5K run, 10K run or half marathon! All proceeds benefit local nonprofits serving children and families.

Learn More