News

Mountain View rent control, school bonds on March ballot

Measure D is City Council-backed revision of rent control law

Mountain View's bid on the March ballot to reform the city's rent control program now has a title: Measure D.

Last week, the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters applied labels to dozens of proposed initiatives for the March 3 primary election, including several that will be of interest to Mountain View residents.

Of those items, the Mountain View City Council's proposed tweaks to the rent control law are certain to remain in the spotlight in the coming months. Among its provisions, Measure D calls for raising the annual rent cap to 4% and allow higher increases for certain housing improvements, such as seismic safety upgrades. The measure needs a simple majority to pass.

The Foothill-De Anza Community College District is proposing Measures G and H, both of which would raise funds. Measure G would issue $898 million in bonds to build and repair college facilities, which would be raised by charging property owners $16 per $100,000 of property valuation. Measure G requires a 55% majority to pass.

The college district's Measure H would also raise funding through a new property tax. The measure would raise about $27 million by levying a $48 parcel tax on all property owners within the district. This money could be used for a wide variety of purposes, including teachers' salaries, science and tech instruction, or programs to aid homeless students. The only exception in the measure is it explicitly pledges that no funding will go toward administrator salaries. To pass, Measure H needs a two-thirds majority.

What's local journalism worth to you?

Support Mountain View Online for as little as $5/month.

Learn more

The Mountain View Whisman School District is also floating a funding initiative, dubbed Measure T. If passed, the measure would issue $259 million in bonds to build and upgrade school facilities. This money would come from charging $30 per $100,000 of assessed value on each property within the district. The measure needs a 55% majority to pass.

Stay informed

Get daily headlines sent straight to your inbox.

Sign up

Follow Mountain View Voice Online on Twitter @mvvoice, Facebook and on Instagram @mvvoice for breaking news, local events, photos, videos and more.

Mountain View rent control, school bonds on March ballot

Measure D is City Council-backed revision of rent control law

by / Mountain View Voice

Uploaded: Wed, Dec 18, 2019, 10:02 am

Mountain View's bid on the March ballot to reform the city's rent control program now has a title: Measure D.

Last week, the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters applied labels to dozens of proposed initiatives for the March 3 primary election, including several that will be of interest to Mountain View residents.

Of those items, the Mountain View City Council's proposed tweaks to the rent control law are certain to remain in the spotlight in the coming months. Among its provisions, Measure D calls for raising the annual rent cap to 4% and allow higher increases for certain housing improvements, such as seismic safety upgrades. The measure needs a simple majority to pass.

The Foothill-De Anza Community College District is proposing Measures G and H, both of which would raise funds. Measure G would issue $898 million in bonds to build and repair college facilities, which would be raised by charging property owners $16 per $100,000 of property valuation. Measure G requires a 55% majority to pass.

The college district's Measure H would also raise funding through a new property tax. The measure would raise about $27 million by levying a $48 parcel tax on all property owners within the district. This money could be used for a wide variety of purposes, including teachers' salaries, science and tech instruction, or programs to aid homeless students. The only exception in the measure is it explicitly pledges that no funding will go toward administrator salaries. To pass, Measure H needs a two-thirds majority.

The Mountain View Whisman School District is also floating a funding initiative, dubbed Measure T. If passed, the measure would issue $259 million in bonds to build and upgrade school facilities. This money would come from charging $30 per $100,000 of assessed value on each property within the district. The measure needs a 55% majority to pass.

Comments

Ok
Sylvan Park
on Dec 18, 2019 at 3:00 pm
Ok, Sylvan Park
on Dec 18, 2019 at 3:00 pm
21 people like this

College and school districts need to learn how to live within their means.


homeowner
Rex Manor
on Dec 18, 2019 at 3:06 pm
homeowner, Rex Manor
on Dec 18, 2019 at 3:06 pm
28 people like this

Measure D is unnecessary. I find it extremely frustrating that the city council is swooping in to "save" the comfortable. The city council stayed out of the rent issue when landlords were raising rents indiscriminately. The CC should at least be consistent and stay out of the same issue just because the other side is now complaining.

Government should be there to protect the least powerful. The powerful have enough resources.

No on Measure D.


Support the students
Rex Manor
on Dec 18, 2019 at 3:10 pm
Support the students, Rex Manor
on Dec 18, 2019 at 3:10 pm
5 people like this

Community colleges are there to provide the skills for tomorrows workers. Those skills enable them to get and hold the good paying jobs of the future.

In California, Community colleges provide a guaranteed pathway to a four year California public university. This is important for students that struggled in high school.

Now more than ever the community college system needs support. Education is not a luxury nor is it optional. California's economy grows because of our talented work force.

Yes to Community College funding


Longview
Registered user
another community
on Dec 18, 2019 at 3:23 pm
Longview, another community
Registered user
on Dec 18, 2019 at 3:23 pm
24 people like this

If Measure D is deceptive - when landlords realize they can pass costs of roofs, plumbing improvements and new driveways on to tenants, what is to stop them? The real limit on rent increases will be 10% - year after year. Who will leave Mountain View? Teachers - and many of them will find new jobs in more affordable locations. Measure D will hurt Mountain View.

The Voice needs to improve its description D is not reform - D is destruction.


Steven Nelson
Registered user
Cuesta Park
on Dec 19, 2019 at 3:00 pm
Steven Nelson, Cuesta Park
Registered user
on Dec 19, 2019 at 3:00 pm
2 people like this

Only voting for 2 of 4 education spending increases: The State Bond (facilities for K-12 + college) and the Community College Special Tax (operations). The local community college district is a very FISCALLY effective way for post-secondary education. It is supported at a very frugal $ rate-per-student. It gets significantly less than University of Calif. system or the Cal State system. Yet - it provides AA degrees and transfer-to-4-yr UC/CSU for those students/families that need and want a less expensive way to a public college degree!

Please Support local MEASURE H. Community College operational needs new tax. 2/3 support needed! As a former "fiscal conservative" (now relabeled "fiscally prudent" :) I support public spending and TAXATION where this clearly "promotes the general Welfare." At less than $250 total over 5 years, each parcel in the Foothill-DeAnza district can easily hold this load. [my sadness - they 'didn't get' the idea that a 1 or 2 cent per-square-foot tax could probably raise more revenue and have a better chance of passage (research on special-taxation-voting out of LaVern).

Please consider supporting STATE School Bond. Yes, it really is PROPOSITION 13 ! This 'authorizes' the state to sell bonds and pay off with general CA STATE revenue (not local). The new rules, in this measure are Much More Equitable - fast-and-rich districts are no longer at an 'unfair advantage' (IMO) to get get most of the money.


No to MeasureT
Gemello
on Dec 20, 2019 at 10:29 am
No to MeasureT, Gemello
on Dec 20, 2019 at 10:29 am
14 people like this

School got MeasureB passed but thet put all the money in builders pocket. Teachers still dont have aids in the classroom. No study/food programs for socially disadvanted students. They put money in builders pocket and bought horrible iready program that teachers don't even like/support. Espacially kids that are left behind are totally ignored.

Did they say "measure would issue $259 million in bonds to build and upgrade school facilities". We don't need new facilities, we need that money to spend on humans. Like teachers, students, aids.

Our schools need money but not for what they want.


Steven Nelson
Registered user
Cuesta Park
on Dec 20, 2019 at 3:59 pm
Steven Nelson, Cuesta Park
Registered user
on Dec 20, 2019 at 3:59 pm
4 people like this

@No Those business interests who pay - get rewarded. The campaign committee contributors supporting T (facilities) can expect, like the measure in 2012, that their contributions to get it passed will be rewarded. About 98% of the campaign money raised for the last bond campaign came from outside Mountain View, and most from bond financing banks, contractors, architects, and trade unions.

None of that money went to the district - to help pay for the elections costs (shy of $100,000?). A contribution to the MVWSD would be tax deductible, but the rate-of-return seems to say "pay for those mailers".

Citizens United / on the local scene (we clear on quid pro quo?). The Voice ran a piece on the 2012 bond campaign political contributors by it's previous education reporter.


Child Therapist+Teacher Household
Registered user
North Whisman
on Dec 23, 2019 at 10:27 pm
Child Therapist+Teacher Household, North Whisman
Registered user
on Dec 23, 2019 at 10:27 pm
9 people like this

NO ON MEASURE D-

As my username shows, myself and my wife's professions are non-tech and also massive contributors to our community.

Were it not for the passing of rent control in Mountain View, we would be living in Oakland right now. That measure saved us by forcing our non-resident, non-citizen landlord to stop jacking up the rent each year. While, at the same time, 'forgetting' about our many complaints that the roof was caving in/leaking.

Once part of the roof eventually fell into the driveway (missing a neighbor's car, thankfully), our landlord then attempted to charge us for the repair! We used a local pro bono attorney to cite relevant city and county law which made our landlord suddenly remember his obligations.

Imagine if Measure D were in effect: We had 3 months oftexts and emails, all urgently requesting this roof issue be fixed. He did nothing. But regardless, the damage occurred and because of the way way Measure D is written, WE WOULD STILL HAVE TO PAY!

We don't own this property, we don't get higher property value from paying for such repairs, we can't use such increased value for tax or credit purposes, etc. So why TF should we have to shell out our money for SOMEONE ELSE'S PROPERTY?! For the wonderous right to continue living there? I think that's called 'Rent'.


Tell me another story
Cuesta Park
on Dec 23, 2019 at 10:53 pm
Tell me another story, Cuesta Park
on Dec 23, 2019 at 10:53 pm
24 people like this

Some how I do not believe you, poster above.

This is just the start of many, mostly made up stories attacking one group of people so that another group can get away from not paying their fair share for a service that benefits the community.

With so many awful landlords, I say we just pass a law that BANS ALL Rentals in our city.

Be done with this issue once and for all. Enough already.


MV renter
Shoreline West
on Dec 24, 2019 at 1:11 am
MV renter, Shoreline West
on Dec 24, 2019 at 1:11 am
5 people like this

I do believe the poster because the story is so similar to mine. My landlords bought my apartment right after measure v was on the ballot and won. After a shocking rent increase was petitioned for through the csfra procedure, we fought and won (only 10% increase). Without csfra, my neighbors and I would be out. None of us are making tech worker salaries, though that should not matter.

Measure D has a few problems. Mainly, with the new proposed rules any landlord can actually raise the rent 10% every year by simply making some improvement to the property. It's not required that the improvement benefit the tenant at all. My rent could be raised because the vacant apartment nextdoor gets new appliances, in theory. Up to 10% every year. That's a slow evection any way you look at it. Or maybe some upgrade has nothing to do with any tenants at all. My landlord could hire his sons to trim the trees and pay them over market rates. I'd also be potentially paying a 10% rent increase because of that.

Measure D includes too many loopholes that thirsty landlords can use to raise rents a lot faster than the description includes.
Please vote NO on measure D.


Yes, Vote No on D!!
North Whisman
on Dec 24, 2019 at 11:17 am
Yes, Vote No on D!!, North Whisman
on Dec 24, 2019 at 11:17 am
19 people like this

I would love nothing more for voters to vote down Measure D.

The city council wants to mandate earthquake retrofit onto these older apt. buildings, but under current law landlords cannot pass that cost thru.

Anyone who disputes that is a liar, pay attention and learn. The Lenny Siegel Job Lopez activists are out and will lie, lie, lie.

In reality, I would love for it to not pass so it would speed up the demolition and removal of these old rentals in our city.

I would like to see more homeowners, not renters/activists.

PAY ATTENTION CITY COUNCIL, IF THE PEOPLE VOTE THIS DOWN, DO NOT MAKE THIS RETROFIT WORK MANDATORY. THE PEOPLE WOULD HAVE SPOKEN AND THEY SAID NO TO IT. LISTEN TO THEM.


Old Mtn View
Old Mountain View
on Dec 25, 2019 at 5:17 pm
Old Mtn View, Old Mountain View
on Dec 25, 2019 at 5:17 pm
17 people like this

Been living in town for 25 years.

Enough with the damn surtax on our property! It’s an endless stream of new tax increases each election!

Tighten the belt, folks. Stop asking for another tax!


Child Therapist+Teacher Household
Registered user
North Whisman
on Dec 26, 2019 at 12:17 am
Child Therapist+Teacher Household, North Whisman
Registered user
on Dec 26, 2019 at 12:17 am
4 people like this

Oh, is it hard to believe that there's a plethora of greedy people who take advantage of those more vulnerable than them? Is it hard to imagine that a landlord with no personal ties to our community, town or country wouldn't want to shell out thousands of dollars for something they don't think is needed? At least until it's too late, that is.

There's a freaking reason why so many of us are angry and speaking out about such issues in MV.


MV renter
Shoreline West
on Dec 26, 2019 at 12:30 am
MV renter, Shoreline West
on Dec 26, 2019 at 12:30 am
3 people like this

@CT+TH This is not the place for thoughts like that. Don't get caught up by comments.

No on D! Find positive outlets for all that and I'm sure I'll meet you along the way.


Prop 13 Repeated??
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Dec 27, 2019 at 5:05 pm
Prop 13 Repeated??, Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Dec 27, 2019 at 5:05 pm
Like this comment

I agree that the LAST thing we should be doing is having alphabet soup ballot measures where we increase taxes even more in an environment of huge surplus. What is Larry Stone doing with all the property tax money given riches from real estate appreciation?

If we must waste money and continually add taxes without ever removing any of the "temporary" taxes, we should at least impose a tax equitably. That means NOT based on the bogus "assessed" value of property. That means the poor guy who bought at the peak of the market in 2018 (i.e., me) pays 10x the Measure G fee vs. my neighbor who pays a one tenth the property tax I do only because she bought decades ago.

At least make the tax based on per person, per parcel, per sq ft, per sq acre of lot....something that isn't giving MORE of a break to people who already pay almost no tax.


@Prop 13 Repeated??
Bailey Park
on Dec 28, 2019 at 11:41 am
@Prop 13 Repeated??, Bailey Park
on Dec 28, 2019 at 11:41 am
36 people like this

You said,

"At least make the tax based on per person, per parcel, per sq ft, per sq acre of lot....something that isn't giving MORE of a break to people who already pay almost no tax."

What about people in RV's? If they send kids to school here, they are not paying one penny into the system.

What about the tent encampments that we will have after Lenny Siegel and Pat Showalther gets elected back into the city council. How should we tax these people? Per square foot of sidewalk space that their tent is on?


Bottom Line
Shoreline West
on Jan 5, 2020 at 8:34 am
Bottom Line, Shoreline West
on Jan 5, 2020 at 8:34 am
9 people like this

Property owners beware especially if you are a senior that that is on a fixed income! If Measure G & T passes you will be paying $46.00 per $100,000 on accessed value of your property. Then if Measure H passes you will be paying an extra $48.00. Since the City of Mountain View is pro-growth the developers should be paying for Measure H. It seems that every other year the Mountain View-Whisman School District is asking for more money from the property owners.

Vote No on G,T & H


Steven Nelson
Registered user
Cuesta Park
on Jan 6, 2020 at 2:15 pm
Steven Nelson, Cuesta Park
Registered user
on Jan 6, 2020 at 2:15 pm
4 people like this

@Bottom Line; taxation is a little more complicated than that. As @Proposition 13 repealed? noted, there are some big equity issues in the current systems (Assessed Valuation = Prop 13's version) and same-for-ALL-parcels.

Measure T (MVWSD new ballot bond authorization)
BUT, local bonds will start TO INCREASE property taxes ONLY WHEN they are sold. Not right away. LASD has had no increase in BOND (facilities) taxes for a good number of years! They just have NOT SOLD any bonds since the last 'authorization' vote. As soon as Bonds are sold, the county property tax system starts collecting new revenue (taxes) to pay for the borrowing.

If the MVWSD intends, as they say, to build ASAP, then if Measure T is passed, property taxes are likely to increase as soon as the next tax year payments start (this November).


landlord
Cuesta Park
on Jan 13, 2020 at 3:59 pm
landlord, Cuesta Park
on Jan 13, 2020 at 3:59 pm
10 people like this

You have not thought through what happens with rent control. The current law will slowly destroy Mountain View. Measure D makes little difference either way. It may hold off some small owners' bankruptcy should the earthquake retrofit mandate occur (circa 20k per unit cost as of 3 years ago).

Someone has to pay for a roof and an earthquake retrofit. Someone must pay for the sewer bills, painting, property tax, and all of the other items. None of these costs are limited to 3.5%. Alone the administration of the existing rent control law costs us thousands of dollars extra per year. Part of the law is that landlords have to pay for all the new staff to enforce the law without passthrough. Don't forget that reducing rent via rent control requires government administration that increases the cost of providing housing. Does that sound like a good way to reduce the cost of housing - by making its provision more expensive. Additionally, our landscaping has tripled and our pool service doubled in the past three years. If costs go up more than revenue, profit disappears and you are bankrupt.

Just cause eviction laws mean that bad tenants are nearly impossible to remove. Sure there is a theoretical ability to remove a neighbor who blasts music all the time, but with just cause this as a practical matter is impossible. Warn them in writing three times, and each time they must verifiably do what they have been warned about. How stupid must they be to do this a third time proximate to having been warned twice? How expensive is this for management? You had better hope that you do not have drug dealers or an apartment brothel move in next to you because management is just about hopeless to handle this now.

The big companies can tear down the building and build new rent control free buildings, but small landlords are stuck. We often live in our properties. This circumstance is forcing us to sell at a loss and leave the area. We are the ones who invested our savings in this area. We bought the property, and the rules were changed by progressive groups backed by Facebook and Google who run this town. What is amazing is that the rules were even changed retroactively. How was that legal? We could not, as a small business, afford to fight the city with attorney fees.

All of these items are enforced by a review board that is, by law, stacked against the landlords. It is mandated to have a 3 to 2 majority for the tenants. It is a modern day star chamber.

The most shocking part is all of these people complaining about rents being expensive, and yes they are but so are the properties, think it is an ethical solution to simply take someone else's property for themselves. That is what rent control is - renters ganging up on landlords and taking their stuff without permission. It is a wealth transfer - legal theft. Adults may no longer contract as they choose, and private property is no longer yours to keep. Why not just take half of everyone's 401k who has saved a million or more over their career? It would be fairer, as there is no test of the property owner's wealth that is that is being preformed. You may have forgotten, but just about everyone with a property buys it with a gigantic loan from the bank. The taking is done arbitrarily, except that the really big guys buy or build the new stuff which is exempt (a regressive tax no less). By the way, the giving is also arbitrary. There is no means test, so we have people who make more than we do, who are richer than we are, whom we support through rent control. We know, as we have seen the rental applications.

The "fair return" test that is supposed to ensure owners do not get totally fleeced is odiously complex, expensive and unfair to its core, being judged after owners spend obscene money and time to put it together by the very packed jury of the star chamber itself.

Studies have repeatedly and over decades shown that rent control is the wrong solution. The most recent out of Stanford's economics department showed that asking rents increase when rent control is initiated. Was that the goal? How about actually fixing the problem of expensive housing by allowing property owners to build. Allow increased density, reduce crazy setbacks and hight limits, stop extorting anyone that builds, and people will build more thus increasing supply. Do you remember what happens when supply increases, or where you too busy getting your degree in Social Justice to know how to achieve it. It that what made you think the government is the best way to fix this problem. The lady at my door on Saturday morning with her pamphlets promoting rent control is an example of the world having become mentally lazy, just plain stupid or, possible worst case, self-serving. In the meantime, Facebook and Google throw money at political groups to promote laws that allow them to pay their employees less by making the landlords subsidize them.


The Business Man
Castro City
on Jan 13, 2020 at 5:30 pm
The Business Man, Castro City
on Jan 13, 2020 at 5:30 pm
Like this comment

In response to landlord you said:

“You have not thought through what happens with rent control. The current law will slowly destroy Mountain View. Measure D makes little difference either way. It may hold off some small owners' bankruptcy should the earthquake retrofit mandate occur (circa 20k per unit cost as of 3 years ago).”

It has been 4 years, and so far no more than 300 units were approved to be removed from the market. But now that AB330 is in effect, that will cease the city from targeting affordable apartments for demolition and in fact are not allowed to be removed. So far there is no proof that CSFRA has destroyed anything. You went on to say:

“Additionally, our landscaping has tripled and our pool service doubled in the past three years. If costs go up more than revenue, profit disappears and you are bankrupt.”.

It sounds like you have a higher quality apartment complex than most that are looking for affordable housing. For example, I do not have a pool in my apartment. You are simply complaining that you cannot force those that want simple housing to rent your property at the price you want to dictate. You went on to say:

“Just cause eviction laws mean that bad tenants are nearly impossible to remove. Sure there is a theoretical ability to remove a neighbor who blasts music all the time, but with just cause this as a practical matter is impossible. Warn them in writing three times, and each time they must verifiably do what they have been warned about. How stupid must they be to do this a third time proximate to having been warned twice? How expensive is this for management? You had better hope that you do not have drug dealers or an apartment brothel move in next to you because management is just about hopeless to handle this now.”

But you are ignoring that the majority of your customers are good tenants. You want to treat the good ones the same as the bad ones? That is why there is due process in evictions, to prevent landlords from arbitrarily claiming any tenant deserves to be evicted for any reason. You said:

“The big companies can tear down the building and build new rent control free buildings, but small landlords are stuck. We often live in our properties. This circumstance is forcing us to sell at a loss and leave the area.”

Not anymore because of AB330 which requires rent controlled units to be provided in all new projects. What you are saying is not correct. You said:

“We are the ones who invested our savings in this area. We bought the property, and the rules were changed by progressive groups backed by Facebook and Google who run this town. What is amazing is that the rules were even changed retroactively. How was that legal? We could not, as a small business, afford to fight the city with attorney fees.”

That is why the Ellis act exists. If you find it unfeasible to be in business, you have the right to sell and leave. Given that most apartments will sell for at least $4 Million. You are trying to make it sound like you are a small “mom and pop”. This cannot really be so given that it takes a multimillion dollar down payment for an apartment building. Especially one with a pool. This doesn’t make sense to me. You said:

“The most shocking part is all of these people complaining about rents being expensive, and yes they are but so are the properties, think it is an ethical solution to simply take someone else's property for themselves.”

The housing market has promised since 1995 that if there was no rent control, there would be ample housing supply. But that is proven false. That is why the state is systemically taking control of the market. The shortage of housing makes it expensive, and this was by design with cooperation with real estate, construction, banking, local governments, and investors. This “supply side” market has caused the problem and not the tenants. Why are you attacking your customers for something they had not control over? You said:

“That is what rent control is - renters ganging up on landlords and taking their stuff without permission. It is a wealth transfer - legal theft. Adults may no longer contract as they choose, and private property is no longer yours to keep.”

You are falling for the myth of private property rights. That is a myth. There is no such thing as private property rights in the U.S. Please understand that our constitution has a provision for “emanate domain” because the land is not private in reality. So land should never be considered an investment. At the same time, even if you “own” a lot of land, it is not yours. How? Because you must pay for property taxes every year. The real history is that there is no exclusive use of land in any state of the U.S. If you read the article titled “There is No Private Property in the United States” (Web Link). You said:

“The "fair return" test that is supposed to ensure owners do not get totally fleeced is odiously complex, expensive and unfair to its core, being judged after owners spend obscene money and time to put it together by the very packed jury of the star chamber itself.”

The courts have made that determination. “fair return” is not a guaranty of profit, it is dependent on the wise decisions made by the investor/owners of a property. The fact is there is no way that the state can guaranty profits, nor should it, that is the “moral hazard” of the investor, they can win and they can lose based on their decisions. Remember also “caveat emptor” at the same time. So you are simply complaining that you made a bad decision or have been not taking all factors into account and depend on raising rents to ensure profits. That is not wise management. You said:

“Studies have repeatedly and over decades shown that rent control is the wrong solution. The most recent out of Stanford's economics department showed that asking rents increase when rent control is initiated.”

However all these studies are based on research that has not disclosed the conflict of interests that is required by the American Economist Association reforms in 2012. The studies you cite are simply meta-analysis of older studies not yet cleaned regarding the conflicts of interest. We need brand new studies that are clean of conflict of interest to be performed. But that has not happened because the science of economics is still corrupted. You said:

“The lady at my door on Saturday morning with her pamphlets promoting rent control is an example of the world having become mentally lazy, just plain stupid or, possible worst case, self-serving. In the meantime, Facebook and Google throw money at political groups to promote laws that allow them to pay their employees less by making the landlords subsidize them.”

Actually now that AB5 is on the books, these companies are going to have to increase benefits of their workers or move operations out of the state of California. These companies have exploited independent contractor versus employee worker status. But the laws are now forcing that to change. You know that is going to happen. Thus the demand for housing is about to dramatically decrease. This is going to dramatically reduce values of properties and force rents to go down because there is less demand for the housing now.


michel rosenstein
Blossom Valley
on Jan 15, 2020 at 5:41 pm
michel rosenstein, Blossom Valley
on Jan 15, 2020 at 5:41 pm
6 people like this

TBM,
You have been predicting this decrese in demand for real estate and drop in prices for years now.
Has not materialized and it won't unless one of the crazy's democrate candidates like Bernie or Liz will get elected.
Then you will have a crash and I guarantee you you will be out of your job ( if you have any).
Good luck predicting!!!!


The Business Man
Castro City
on Jan 15, 2020 at 6:05 pm
The Business Man, Castro City
on Jan 15, 2020 at 6:05 pm
1 person likes this

In response to michel Rosenstein you said:

“You have been predicting this decrese in demand for real estate and drop in prices for years now.”

Actually it is real if you look at the Zillow report found here(Web Link), specifically:

“The median home value in Mountain View is $1,719,536. Mountain View home values have declined -8.8% over the past year and Zillow predicts they will fall -2.6% within the next year. The median list price per square foot in Mountain View is $993, which is higher than the San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara Metro average of $659. The median price of homes currently listed in Mountain View is $1,668,000 while the median price of homes that sold is $1,729,700. The median rent price in Mountain View is $4,200, which is higher than the San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara Metro median of $3,500.”

This is actual proof that prices are dropping. It is not just a prediction.

Maybe you should be tracking the actual property values.

Why did you not see this?


MV Resident
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jan 15, 2020 at 6:26 pm
MV Resident, Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jan 15, 2020 at 6:26 pm
6 people like this

@TBM: I clicked on your Zillow link and it was very helpful in disproving your point. In fact it shows price per square foot to be basically flat over the last year (scroll down a few charts). So the decrease in average home values is due to more supply of smaller homes coming on the market (which makes sense based on what's being built around town, affordable housing, etc), not a decline in intrinsic value. As more affordable housing gets built, one would expect the trend to continue.


Steven Nelson
Cuesta Park
on Jan 16, 2020 at 7:23 am
Steven Nelson, Cuesta Park
on Jan 16, 2020 at 7:23 am
Like this comment

@The Business Man: Thanks for 'the research ethics update.' "However all these studies are based on research that has not disclosed the conflict of interests that is required by the American Economist Association reforms in 2012. The studies you cite are simply meta-analysis of older studies not yet cleaned regarding the conflicts of interest. We need brand new studies that are clean of conflict of interest to be performed. But that has not happened because the science of economics is still ..." $$$.
I also look askance at education economics studies, financed by for-profit companies and only vetted by them. K-12 Inc (NYSE "LRN") and Curriculum Associates LLC (i-Ready) private company

HOWEVER: median sales price, or median per sq foot really means (not much!). AS the market matures/changes the Size of Property being exchanged changes. Guess What - I saw an odd plot, just last night, at a UCSC seminar on Deep Learning AI. The prof just happed to show RESIDENTIAL REAL ESTATE sales in Santa Clara (PSF v. Price Per Square Foot]
It clearly showed a trend - larger property ("improvement" PSF) lower trend of cost per square foot (approx linear - with an asymptote down near $400-500 on the high side for a better non-linear fit)

You CAN'T Really show decline with Median Sales Price. I love Zillow as an estimator. It is their PRIVATE PROPRIETARY algorithm that I find 'useful' not "authoritative." Any Realtor will be using essentially the same monthly sales information.


The Business Man
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jan 17, 2020 at 11:51 am
The Business Man, Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jan 17, 2020 at 11:51 am
1 person likes this

Steve,

Did you also notice that even though prices are dropping, the sales pace is increasing. Meaning that people are most likely moving for work and cannot wait for better prices for their property.

Also one last resource to look at from the home buying institute found here (Web Link)

THe fact is that the area is going to go through a transformation. THe state law regarding contractors is going to change the valley quit a bit becasue more than 50% of the tech work is done by contractors.

People are going to be given big incentives by their companies to leave California.

We shall contiue to watch it.


Steven Nelson
Cuesta Park
on Jan 18, 2020 at 10:59 am
Steven Nelson, Cuesta Park
on Jan 18, 2020 at 10:59 am
Like this comment

thanks TBM. I'm also wondering how the new Federal Tax Law change, about super-expensive mortgage interest payment limitation_on_Itemized_Deduction is going to eventually depress the high-end market here. (I know there must be preliminary studies, and economic model projections)
We live in such an odd_market place and time. Transition / yes.
My Cuesta Park area street, after 66 yrs. as a stable little subdivision, has seen 5 tear-downs in the last 4 years. When the market starts to realize, how big a tax penalty it is to get a $ million+ mortgage, maybe the transition to having many smaller-less_expensive homes will result. (even Christoper Chang's micro home / apartment ideas).


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

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