Mountain View, California, Rent Control City Charter Amendment, Measure V (November 2016)
| Measure V: Mountain View Rent Control Charter Amendment |
|---|
|
| The basics |
| Election date: |
| November 8, 2016 |
| Status: |
 Approved
|
| Topic: |
| Local rent control |
| Related articles |
| Local rent control on the ballot November 8, 2016 ballot measures in California Santa Clara County, California ballot measures Local charter amendments on the ballot |
| See also |
| Mountain View, California |
A rent control measure was on the ballot for Mountain View voters in Santa Clara County, California, on November 8, 2016. The measure was approved.
| A yes vote was a vote in favor of limiting annual rent increases to Consumer Price Index percentages (minimum of two percent and a maximum of five percent) and prohibit evictions without just cause for multifamily rental units built before February 1, 1995. |
| A no vote was a vote against this proposal to limit annual rent increases to Consumer Price Index percentages (minimum of two percent and a maximum of five percent) and prohibit evictions without just cause for multifamily rental units built before February 1, 1995, thereby leaving no city-imposed restriction on the rent that a landlord could charge. |
Aftermath
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Constitutionality of the measure; violates due process clauses of the U.S. Constitution | |
| Court: Superior Court of Santa Clara County | |
| Ruling: Lawsuit suspended by plaintiff | |
| Plaintiff(s): California Apartment Association | Defendant(s): City of Mountain View |
| Plaintiff argument: Measure V violates due process clauses of the U.S. Constitution and runs counter to California's Fair Employment and Housing Act. | Defendant argument: The measure does not violate any laws. |
Source: California Apartment Association
The California Apartment Association (CAA) filed a lawsuit against Measure L in December 2016 and requested a temporary restraining order to stop enforcement of the measure. The restraining order was approved by the Santa Clara County Superior Court. However, the lawsuit was eventually suspended by the CAA in May 2017.[1][2]
Election results
| Measure V | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
| Yes | 15,393 | 53.57% | ||
| No | 13,341 | 46.43% | ||
- Election results from Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters
Text of measure
Ballot question
The following question appeared on the ballot:[3]
| “ |
Shall a Rent Stabilization CITY CHARTER AMENDMENT be adopted enacting rent regulation and prohibiting amendments except by Citywide election, with annual rent increases limited to the Consumer Price Index (minimum 2%, maximum 5%) for most multifamily rental units built before February 1, 1995; prohibiting evictions without just cause for rental units built before this measure becomes effective; creating a Rental Housing Committee authorized to enact regulations, hire staff, expend funds, and charge landlords fees to implement this amendment?[4] |
” |
Impartial analysis
The following impartial analysis of the measure was prepared by the office of the Mountain View Senior Assistant City Attorney:
| “ |
This measure is a charter amendment that would limit the amount that landlords could increase the rent, and prohibit landlords from evicting a tenant except for specified reasons. The City of Mountain View does not currently regulate the amount of rent that a landlord may charge. Under the measure, a landlord could not raise the rent in any year more than the percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index, and the annual increase could not be less than 2% or more than 5%. A landlord could "bank" rent increases. This means that if a landlord does not increase rent as much as legally permitted in a particular year, the landlord could accumulate and impose unimplemented rent increases, provided the rent increase in any 12-month period does not exceed 10%. Single family homes, condominiums, companion units, duplexes, and certain other housing units would be exempt. Rental units with a certificate of occupancy after February 1, 1995, and certain affordable housing units, would be exempt from rent regulation but would be subject to just cause eviction provisions. A landlord who failed to comply with the measure's provisions, maintain rental units or make repairs could not increase rents. The City Council would appoint a five member rental housing committee ("Committee"). Only two members could own or manage rental property, or be a realtor or developer. The Committee would set the base rent; establish regulations; determine allowable annual rent adjustment; establish the amount of penalties and go to court to enforce the measure. The Committee would exercise its powers and duties independent from the City Council, City Manager and City Attorney, except by request. Landlords and tenants could petition the Committee to adjust rent. For rent increases, a landlord would be required to show that increases are necessary to provide a fair rate of return on the landlord's investment. The Committee could not consider cost of debt service, penalties for violations, income taxes, or the cost of capital improvements unless they were necessary to bring the property into compliance with law. Rent could be decreased when a landlord fails to maintain units as liveable, decreases housing services or maintenance, or charges unlawful rents. Either party could sue to have a court could review the Committee's decisions. Landlords could only evict tenants for just cause, which would include failure to pay rent; breach of lease; nuisance; criminal activity; failure to grant a landlord reasonable access; necessary repairs; owner move-in; withdrawal of the unit from the rental market; and demolition. Landlords must pay relocation assistance in certain circumstances. Tenants have the first right of return in some circumstances. Landlords could not retaliate against tenants for reporting violations, exercising tenant rights or participating in tenant organizations. If the average annual vacancy rate of rental units covered by the measure exceeds 5%, the Committee could suspend the measure.[4] |
” |
| —Mountain View Senior Assistant City Attorney[5] | ||
Support
Supporters
The following individuals signed the official argument in favor of the measure:[5]
- Monique Kane, Landlord, Former Director of Mountain View's CHAC
- Ayinde Rudolph, Superintendent of the Mountain View Whisman School District
- Lenny Siegel, Homeowner, Mountain View City Council Member
- Michael Love, Pastor of Mountain View's Trinity United Methodist Church
- Evan Ortiz, Mountain View Human Relations Commissioner (title for
identification purposes only)
Arguments in favor
Official argument
The following official argument was submitted in favor of the measure:[5]
| “ |
Vote YES on Measure V to protect Mountain View from the biggest threat facing our community: skyrocketing rents. Hard working families are losing their homes. Valued teachers, nurses, and tech employees are leaving Mountain View as rents become unaffordable. To landlords who keep rents reasonable, thank you! Vote YES on Measure V to stop opportunistic rent increases and unwarranted evictions by others. Measure V makes housing costs predictable and stable, freeing seniors and others from constant fear of losing their homes. Rents have skyrocketed 54% since 2012. Wages have not kept pace, putting profound stress on our community. As we lose beloved family and community members, we lose Mountain View's quality of life. Vote YES on Measure V to protect over 14,000 renting households, while being fair to landlords:
For many hard working families, Measure V is their last hope to remain a part of our community. Measure V is our chance to protect our community and quality of life. Join teachers, tech employees, nurses, landlords, retirees, homeowners and the Mountain View Tenants Coalition in voting YES on Measure V. Vote YES to protect Mountain View's future. Vote YES on Measure V.[4] |
” |
Opposition
Opponents
The following individuals signed the official argument against the measure:[5]
- Pat Showalter, Mayor, City of Mountain View
- Michael Kasperzak, Former Mayor & City Council Member, City of Mountain View
- Chris Clark, Former Mayor & City Council Member, City of Mountain View
- John Inks, Former Mayor & City Council Member, City of Mountain View
- Ken Rosenberg, Current Vice Mayor & Council Member, City of Mountain View
Arguments against
Official argument
The following official argument was submitted in opposition to the measure:[5]
| “ |
Because sharply rising rents have created terrible economic and social hardships, two rent stabilization measures are proposed. Whether you support rent stabilization in Mountain View or not, enacting it by CHARTER AMENDMENT such as Measure V is a serious mistake. Errors or unintended consequences cannot be corrected except on the ballot of a General Election which only happens every 2 years. The ballot costs of each measure are over $75,000 of taxpayer dollars. Mistakes CANNOT be fixed by the City Council you elected. Measure V sets up a defacto independent agency within the City of Mountain View. After the City Council appoints the Rental Housing Committee, they set their own rules and budget without oversight of the City Manager or City Council. This includes hiring staff and setting fees. There isn't even a provision for recalling committee members. This lack of oversight is unacceptable. The administration costs of Measure V will be covered by a per unit fee estimated at over $150 per unit. That estimate is rough, because the amount of staff needed to administer this comprehensive program is still unknown. The legal cost of Measure V is also unknown. Rent control measures are often challenged in court. If Measure V passes, the City will be forced to defend the law with your tax dollars. It won't be possible to settle the lawsuit by amending the law because the law cannot be amended without an election. The City may need to defend the law all the way through trial and appeal which could cost millions. If you favor rent regulation, Measure W includes many of the same renter and landlord protections, includes better oversight and can be amended by the City Council. Measure V does not include the oversight and flexibility the residents of Mountain View need. Vote NO on Measure V.[4] |
” |
Path to the ballot
This measure was put on the ballot through a successful initiative petition campaign.
Recent news
The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms Mountain View Local rent control. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.
See also
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ San Francisco Chronicle, "Lawsuits’ end could spur other cities to try rent control," May 8, 2017
- ↑ California Apartment Association, "Court puts Mountain View rent control on hold," December 22, 2016
- ↑ Santa Clara County, "List of Local Measures Presidential General Election November 8, 2016," accessed October 3, 2016
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 Santa Clara County, "E110-Measure V," accessed October 23, 2016
 |
State of California Sacramento (capital) |
|---|---|
| Elections |
What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2024 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures |
| Government |
Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy |
