One year ago this month, Mountain View voters approved Measure V, a rent-stabilization law meant to put the brakes on the out-of-control escalation of rental housing costs that was driving far too many of our neighbors from the community. The ordinance called for the appointment of a five-member Rental Housing Committee (RHC) that would implement the rent-stabilization program; the committee is charged with crafting policies vital to carrying out the renter-protection intent of Measure V while ensuring that landlords could receive a fair return on their investments. Once appointed, the members cannot be arbitrarily removed before their terms expire.

The City Council appointed two renters, one landlord and one property manager to the committee, which appeared to be a reasonable course. But the appointment of the fifth committee member, Tom Means, waved the red flag for Measure V supporters — and for us. Means, a former City Council member, had forcefully spoken out against the citizen-driven measure, and has publicly stated his opposition to rent-control laws in general. It didn't take long for those initial concerns about Means' appointment to be proven valid, and the recent revelation of his paid work to help defeat another community's rent-control ballot measure makes his presence on the RHC unacceptable.

Since the committee began meeting last spring, Means has dominated many of its discussions, challenging staff and consultant recommendations and advocating actions that undermine the spirit of Measure V. A key example: Means was responsible for pushing through a rule that gives landlords wanting to exceed the Bay Area CPI-based cap on rent increases an almost slam-dunk strategy for doing so. The voters' intent was to limit rent increases to the CPI; Means led the successful charge to undermine that intent.

Last month, campaign finance reports filed by the San Mateo County Association of Realtors revealed that Means was paid $1,500 to provide material used to oppose a rent-control measure going before Pacifica voters next week. This revelation serves to underscore Means' unsuitability to serve on a committee intended to uphold Mountain View's renter-protection ordinance. And what's more, his actions may have violated city policy and state law governing public officers.

Without excusing Means' questionable ethics in accepting payment to oppose the same type of program, in another community, that he has been entrusted to fairly administer in this city, we must also question the judgment and motives of City Council members who voted to appoint Means in the first place. The excuses given for appointing an outspoken opponent of rent-control law to a body that exists to implement such a law are specious, and council members who supported his appointment have damaged the public's trust.

Tom Means should resign immediately. If he doesn't, the City Council should instruct the city attorney to conduct a legal review of whether Means violated state and/or city restrictions in working, for pay, for an anti-rent-control campaign while serving on the RHC — and include in the review the existing options for removing him from the committee if it is determined that he did.