Councilwoman draws fire for political ad
Critics allege inaccuracies in comments for anti-rent control ad
by Mark Noack / Mountain View Voice
41 comments. See comments.
A new online video that paints Mountain View's rent control program as a huge mistake is triggering a swift backlash against City Council member Margaret Abe-Koga.
The councilwoman appeared for less than 30 seconds in a political ad produced by the Measure V Too Costly organization, but critics say her brief comments smack of falsehoods. In the video, Abe-Koga echoed the opposition group's chief complaint that rent control is squandering money for Mountain View.
Margaret Abe-Koga
It is accurate that the city's rent control program established a first-year budget of $2.5 million, of which about $1 million came from loans from the city. The program has now fully paid back those loans, according to its staff. Going forward, the rent control program will draw its funding by charging landlords a per-unit fee, which is set at $155 for this year.
That initial budget was intentionally inflated to cover start-up costs and to ensure the program didn't get overwhelmed if it received hundreds of petitions for rent adjustments. But that workload never materialized, and city staffers say they are now expecting a surplus and significantly smaller budgets and fees in future years.
At the Tuesday, March 27, City Council meeting, a line of speakers blasted Abe-Koga for participating in the video. Critics also pointed out Abe-Koga identified herself in the video as a councilwoman, but she never mentioned that she wasn't speaking on behalf of the City Council.
"It was affirmed that the city has been repaid, so Measure V is not costing the city of Mountain View anything," said Joan MacDonald, a member of the Mountain View Tenants Coalition. "We ask the Councilwoman Abe-Koga to withdraw this video and not keep misleading the residents of Mountain View."
In response, Abe-Koga explained that she hadn't known the money had been repaid when she was filmed for the rent control opposition video. But she said she stood by the rest of her comments.
"It's a costly measure regardless of who pays the bill," she said. "I have my personal beliefs and opinions, same as anyone else."
In an interview with the Voice Abe-Koga went on the offensive, saying tenant advocates also should face scrutiny over the accuracy of their claims. The current controversy over extending rent control protection to mobile homes, she said, stemmed from advocates making exaggerated promises to win support.
"If we get paid back and the budget does go down, then I'm willing to change my opinion," she said. "But at this date and time, I'm not seeing that."
Comments
19 people like this
Posted by The Business Man a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
14 hours ago
The Business Man is a registered user.
WOW,
The insanity of Mountain View City Government doesn't seem to end.
THe fact that a sitting councilmember criticized the City Charter is a blatant violation of the council members requirements to uphold the city charter.
Thus this councilmember has invoked grounds for removal. Any political action made by an ACTIVE member of the City Council that contradicts the City Charter cannot be tolerated and must be rectified.
John Inks is allowed to do so because he is a retired city councilmember. He has no responsibility to uphold the City Charter or any Code of Conduct or Conflict of Interest issues at this time.
BUT Margaret Abe-Koga is an active city councilmember. Thus has many rules she accepted as being a local government office holder she must not violate. This IS a clear violation of those rules and laws and thus she is accountable for her actions.
The insanity of Mountain View City Government doesn't seem to end.
THe fact that a sitting councilmember criticized the City Charter is a blatant violation of the council members requirements to uphold the city charter.
Thus this councilmember has invoked grounds for removal. Any political action made by an ACTIVE member of the City Council that contradicts the City Charter cannot be tolerated and must be rectified.
John Inks is allowed to do so because he is a retired city councilmember. He has no responsibility to uphold the City Charter or any Code of Conduct or Conflict of Interest issues at this time.
BUT Margaret Abe-Koga is an active city councilmember. Thus has many rules she accepted as being a local government office holder she must not violate. This IS a clear violation of those rules and laws and thus she is accountable for her actions.
23 people like this
Posted by Daneela resident of Gemello
13 hours ago
Daneel is a registered user.
@ The Business Man: Can you please be more specific about the rules that councilwoman Margaret Abe-Koga has violated? If member of the city council are not allowed to speak out against the status quo, how can anything be changed at all?
30 people like this
Posted by Darina resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
13 hours ago
Darin is a registered user.
I didn't realize that criticizing the city charter and upholding the city charter were mutually exclusive options.
8 people like this
Posted by vonlosta resident of Cuesta Park
13 hours ago
As dishonest as Abe-Koga seems to be (falsehood and presenting as speaking for the city), I can't criticize her for criticizing the law, as long as she upholds it in her official city acts.
13 people like this
Posted by Odda resident of Monta Loma
13 hours ago
I think it's odd that someone like Margaret Abe-Koga who is so opposed to rent control was elected at the same time when rent control (Measure V) passed. How did a majority of people pass them both!
I suppose that rent-control advocates did a great job campaigning for the Measure but did a poor job telling voters they shouldn't vote for a candidate who would actively try to sabotage it.
One thing to keep in mind: the Rental Housing Committee is 3-2 against rent control BECAUSE of Margaret Abe-Koga. The committee was fixed by late 2016 before she took her seat, but she complained early in 2017 that she didn't get to choose any of the members. She wanted her old colleague Tom Means on the RHC. As a result of her political maneuvering, we got Vanessa Honey, a political neophyte and a questionable chair of the RHC...and Tom. Both are virulently against the very policy they are asked to regulate.
Advocates of Measure V need to step up their grassroots activities to:
A) Work to get Tom Means off of the RHC
B) Work to pressure Margaret Abe-Koga to stop denigrating a law she is sworn to administer.
C) Work to vote in people who support the law.
I suppose that rent-control advocates did a great job campaigning for the Measure but did a poor job telling voters they shouldn't vote for a candidate who would actively try to sabotage it.
One thing to keep in mind: the Rental Housing Committee is 3-2 against rent control BECAUSE of Margaret Abe-Koga. The committee was fixed by late 2016 before she took her seat, but she complained early in 2017 that she didn't get to choose any of the members. She wanted her old colleague Tom Means on the RHC. As a result of her political maneuvering, we got Vanessa Honey, a political neophyte and a questionable chair of the RHC...and Tom. Both are virulently against the very policy they are asked to regulate.
Advocates of Measure V need to step up their grassroots activities to:
A) Work to get Tom Means off of the RHC
B) Work to pressure Margaret Abe-Koga to stop denigrating a law she is sworn to administer.
C) Work to vote in people who support the law.
1 person likes this
Posted by The Business Man a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
12 hours ago
The Business Man is a registered user.
Insofar as the City Council is not permitted to express opinions adverse to the City Chart please refer to the City Council Code of Conduct section 3.4 that states:
3.4 Conflict of Interest
3.4.1 In order to assure their independence and impartiality on behalf of the public good, COUNCILMEMBERS ARE PROHIBITED FROM USING THEIR OFFICIAL POSITIONS TO INFLUENCE GOVERNMENT DECISIONS IN WHICH THEY HAVE A FINANCIAL INTEREST OR WHERE THEY HAVE AN ORGANIZATIONAL RESPONSIBILITY OR A PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP THAT WOULD PRESENT A CONFLICT OF INTEREST UNDER APPLICABLE STATE LAW.
It would appear on its face that this action is a violation of this part of the conflict of interest provisions of the City Council Code of Conduct. The Code of Conduct goes on to further say:
3.4.3 COUNCILMEMBERS SHALL NOT TAKE ADVANTAGE OF SERVICES OR OPPORTUNITIES FOR PERSONAL GAIN by virtue of their public office that are not available to the public in general.
Given that the Website “MeasureVTooCostly” is a for profit website and organization, there must be either financial gains or gains in kind being provided to this City Council member that would not be available to us regular citizens. The Code of Conduct goes on to say also:
3.4.8 To the best of their ability, Councilmembers shall represent the official policies and positions of the City Council. When presenting their personal opinions or positions publicly, members shall explicitly state they do not represent the Council or the City.
Given that she did not make any statement to the effect of not representing the City of Mountain View, MORE TO THE POINT SHE WAS MAKING A STATEMENT AS AN ACTIVE CITY COUNCIL MEMBER, this is a clear violation of the City Council Code of Conduct.
Insofar as the City Council is prohibited from acting against the City Charter please refer to the City Charter Section 506:
Section 506. - Powers vested in the council.
All powers of the city, EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN THIS CHARTER, shall be vested in the council, and said council may establish the method by which any of such powers may be exercised.
Thus if powers are preempted by the City Charter, as the CSFRA has done, the council is prohibited from interfering with the City Charter as a Whole. The public should be aware of this.
Insofar as the limitations on the city council from interfering with the City Charter please refer to section 513:
Section 513. - Council action.
Legislative action shall be taken by the council ONLY BY MEANS OF AN ORDINANCE, RESOLUTION OR MINUTE ACTION DULY RECORDED IN THE OFFICIAL MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL. (As amended November 3, 1998.)
Thus any actions taken outside the City Council are in effect prohibited by the City Charter. NO City Councilmember can actively participate in political action involving any political interests as long as they sit at the City Council
Insofar as the possibility of removal of office please refer to section 1304 of the city charter that states:
Section 1304. - Recall of elective officials.
Every incumbent of an elective office of the city, whether elected by popular vote or appointed thereto to fill a vacancy, SHALL BE SUBJECT TO REMOVAL FROM OFFICE BY RECALL BY THE VOTERS OF THE CITY. THE PROCEDURE TO EFFECT SUCH REMOVAL FROM OFFICE SHALL BE AS PRESCRIBED BY THE ELECTIONS CODE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS THE SAME NOW EXISTS OR MAY HEREAFTER BE AMENDED, RELATING TO THE RECALL OF MUNICIPAL OFFICERS.
It would appear in its face that the Citizens of Mountain View have just cause to recall this City Councilmember at this time. It would be prudent to do so.
Along with investigations to determine if any violations of the California Political Reform Act or Brown Act has been violated.
3.4 Conflict of Interest
3.4.1 In order to assure their independence and impartiality on behalf of the public good, COUNCILMEMBERS ARE PROHIBITED FROM USING THEIR OFFICIAL POSITIONS TO INFLUENCE GOVERNMENT DECISIONS IN WHICH THEY HAVE A FINANCIAL INTEREST OR WHERE THEY HAVE AN ORGANIZATIONAL RESPONSIBILITY OR A PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP THAT WOULD PRESENT A CONFLICT OF INTEREST UNDER APPLICABLE STATE LAW.
It would appear on its face that this action is a violation of this part of the conflict of interest provisions of the City Council Code of Conduct. The Code of Conduct goes on to further say:
3.4.3 COUNCILMEMBERS SHALL NOT TAKE ADVANTAGE OF SERVICES OR OPPORTUNITIES FOR PERSONAL GAIN by virtue of their public office that are not available to the public in general.
Given that the Website “MeasureVTooCostly” is a for profit website and organization, there must be either financial gains or gains in kind being provided to this City Council member that would not be available to us regular citizens. The Code of Conduct goes on to say also:
3.4.8 To the best of their ability, Councilmembers shall represent the official policies and positions of the City Council. When presenting their personal opinions or positions publicly, members shall explicitly state they do not represent the Council or the City.
Given that she did not make any statement to the effect of not representing the City of Mountain View, MORE TO THE POINT SHE WAS MAKING A STATEMENT AS AN ACTIVE CITY COUNCIL MEMBER, this is a clear violation of the City Council Code of Conduct.
Insofar as the City Council is prohibited from acting against the City Charter please refer to the City Charter Section 506:
Section 506. - Powers vested in the council.
All powers of the city, EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN THIS CHARTER, shall be vested in the council, and said council may establish the method by which any of such powers may be exercised.
Thus if powers are preempted by the City Charter, as the CSFRA has done, the council is prohibited from interfering with the City Charter as a Whole. The public should be aware of this.
Insofar as the limitations on the city council from interfering with the City Charter please refer to section 513:
Section 513. - Council action.
Legislative action shall be taken by the council ONLY BY MEANS OF AN ORDINANCE, RESOLUTION OR MINUTE ACTION DULY RECORDED IN THE OFFICIAL MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL. (As amended November 3, 1998.)
Thus any actions taken outside the City Council are in effect prohibited by the City Charter. NO City Councilmember can actively participate in political action involving any political interests as long as they sit at the City Council
Insofar as the possibility of removal of office please refer to section 1304 of the city charter that states:
Section 1304. - Recall of elective officials.
Every incumbent of an elective office of the city, whether elected by popular vote or appointed thereto to fill a vacancy, SHALL BE SUBJECT TO REMOVAL FROM OFFICE BY RECALL BY THE VOTERS OF THE CITY. THE PROCEDURE TO EFFECT SUCH REMOVAL FROM OFFICE SHALL BE AS PRESCRIBED BY THE ELECTIONS CODE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS THE SAME NOW EXISTS OR MAY HEREAFTER BE AMENDED, RELATING TO THE RECALL OF MUNICIPAL OFFICERS.
It would appear in its face that the Citizens of Mountain View have just cause to recall this City Councilmember at this time. It would be prudent to do so.
Along with investigations to determine if any violations of the California Political Reform Act or Brown Act has been violated.
28 people like this
Posted by MVa resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
12 hours ago
I don't see how this is a "a blatant violation of the council members requirements...". If council members can't speak their mind about policy, how would they ever affect any change, for better or worse.
After watching her video, I kinda don't get a lot of the backlash. Why all the hate for suggesting more affordable units and other options which would help the renters?
It sounds like she walked back a bit not knowing that the loan was re-paid, but that money to repay it had to come from somewhere right? It is either taxes or debt, or money pulled from other potential projects, right? It seems like an expensive program, regardless of where the $2.5 million is coming from. I guess we'll see where they drop the budget to next year.
After watching her video, I kinda don't get a lot of the backlash. Why all the hate for suggesting more affordable units and other options which would help the renters?
It sounds like she walked back a bit not knowing that the loan was re-paid, but that money to repay it had to come from somewhere right? It is either taxes or debt, or money pulled from other potential projects, right? It seems like an expensive program, regardless of where the $2.5 million is coming from. I guess we'll see where they drop the budget to next year.
11 people like this
Posted by Renter and Graham Parenta resident of Cuesta Park
12 hours ago
Abe-Koga is also on the record for endorsing School Trustee Gutierrez. Gutierrez has also claimed that Abe-Koga is grooming him for a City Council bid.
I find this all interesting since the communities both Abe-Koga and Gutierrez represent have been supportive of both rent control and the school principals who were just let go for no real reason.
In the end we appear to be witnessing the emergence of a deep state" in local government. That is to say, regardless of our interests and what neighborhood and school communities want, Abe-Koga and Gutierrez are pushing other agendas, no doubt in pursuit of their political longevity..
I find this all interesting since the communities both Abe-Koga and Gutierrez represent have been supportive of both rent control and the school principals who were just let go for no real reason.
In the end we appear to be witnessing the emergence of a deep state" in local government. That is to say, regardless of our interests and what neighborhood and school communities want, Abe-Koga and Gutierrez are pushing other agendas, no doubt in pursuit of their political longevity..
2 people like this
Posted by The Business Man a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
12 hours ago
The Business Man is a registered user.
In response to MV You said:
“I don't see how this is a "a blatant violation of the council members requirements...". If council members can't speak their mind about policy, how would they ever affect any change, for better or worse.”
She is allowed to do so as long as it does not violate the California Political Reform Act, the City Council Code of Conduct or the City Charter. But by taking the Oath of Office and Signing the Code of Conduct, she explicitly accepted significant restrictions of her personal conduct. She should have known this and if she could not prevent her actions that violate the terms defined, she should have refused to take office. There is an explicit restriction requirement in this situation. So she cannot claim ignorance regarding the significant legal problems she just caused the City of Mountain View and herself. You also stated:
“After watching her video, I kinda don't get a lot of the backlash. Why all the hate for suggesting more affordable units and other options which would help the renters?”
The problem that occurred here was the misinformation expressed by her in the video. Given she holds an official office, any false statement she made is in effect subject to discipline unless she resigns from the City Council. John Inks is allowed to make said statements because he does not hold a political office. You also went on to ask:
“It sounds like she walked back a bit not knowing that the loan was re-paid, but that money to repay it had to come from somewhere right?”
It came from the rental fee of $155.00 per unit per year. NOT THE GENERAL FUNDS NOR ANY HOMEOWNER TAXES, You asked
“It is either taxes or debt, or money pulled from other potential projects, right?”
NO, it is a separate fee that is not involved with ANY PROJECTS OR PROGRAMS OF THE CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW. You went on to say:
“It seems like an expensive program, regardless of where the $2.5 million is coming from. I guess we'll see where they drop the budget to next year.”
It is funded by the RHC fees to the landlords, NO HOMEOWNER FUNDS OR HOMEOWNER TAXES ARE USED IN THE CSFRA. The political opponents of CSFRA constantly try to claim otherwise. BUT THEY ARE WRONG.
I hope it is informative
“I don't see how this is a "a blatant violation of the council members requirements...". If council members can't speak their mind about policy, how would they ever affect any change, for better or worse.”
She is allowed to do so as long as it does not violate the California Political Reform Act, the City Council Code of Conduct or the City Charter. But by taking the Oath of Office and Signing the Code of Conduct, she explicitly accepted significant restrictions of her personal conduct. She should have known this and if she could not prevent her actions that violate the terms defined, she should have refused to take office. There is an explicit restriction requirement in this situation. So she cannot claim ignorance regarding the significant legal problems she just caused the City of Mountain View and herself. You also stated:
“After watching her video, I kinda don't get a lot of the backlash. Why all the hate for suggesting more affordable units and other options which would help the renters?”
The problem that occurred here was the misinformation expressed by her in the video. Given she holds an official office, any false statement she made is in effect subject to discipline unless she resigns from the City Council. John Inks is allowed to make said statements because he does not hold a political office. You also went on to ask:
“It sounds like she walked back a bit not knowing that the loan was re-paid, but that money to repay it had to come from somewhere right?”
It came from the rental fee of $155.00 per unit per year. NOT THE GENERAL FUNDS NOR ANY HOMEOWNER TAXES, You asked
“It is either taxes or debt, or money pulled from other potential projects, right?”
NO, it is a separate fee that is not involved with ANY PROJECTS OR PROGRAMS OF THE CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW. You went on to say:
“It seems like an expensive program, regardless of where the $2.5 million is coming from. I guess we'll see where they drop the budget to next year.”
It is funded by the RHC fees to the landlords, NO HOMEOWNER FUNDS OR HOMEOWNER TAXES ARE USED IN THE CSFRA. The political opponents of CSFRA constantly try to claim otherwise. BUT THEY ARE WRONG.
I hope it is informative
9 people like this
Posted by beeliaa resident of North Bayshore
12 hours ago
> Why all the hate for suggesting more affordable units and other options which would help the renters?
Because it was a false, specious statement. She conveniently ignored the fact that the funds to do those things exist only because of Measure V - they are the per-unit fees landlords pay. There are no other funds set aside for that purpose, and she was suggesting that there were. Measure V funds are being used efficiently for those purposes right now! Several people got up during that meeting and testified to that fact - and almost half of MV's renters are benefiting from Measure V, but it has made landlords mad because social justice cuts into their profits.
It is pure political fiction to suggest that Measure V is expensive, when it is doing exactly what it was intended to do with exactly the fees that were raised to do it. People who are on City Council should not be acting on their "beliefs". They should be making it their business to know the FACTS, and to act on them to support the people who elected them.
Because it was a false, specious statement. She conveniently ignored the fact that the funds to do those things exist only because of Measure V - they are the per-unit fees landlords pay. There are no other funds set aside for that purpose, and she was suggesting that there were. Measure V funds are being used efficiently for those purposes right now! Several people got up during that meeting and testified to that fact - and almost half of MV's renters are benefiting from Measure V, but it has made landlords mad because social justice cuts into their profits.
It is pure political fiction to suggest that Measure V is expensive, when it is doing exactly what it was intended to do with exactly the fees that were raised to do it. People who are on City Council should not be acting on their "beliefs". They should be making it their business to know the FACTS, and to act on them to support the people who elected them.
13 people like this
Posted by Johna resident of Monta Loma
11 hours ago
What's the big deal here folks? She exercising her First Amendment rights to speak out. She voted to defend Measure V in court and supported putting tenant friendly members (Emily Ramos) on the Rent Board. The fact of the matter is Measure V has a cost....it cost $2.5-million. Let's remember that. SHe is saying that the program cost money and that money has better uses. That's all she is saying. How can you fault her for saying that?
8 people like this
Posted by Renter in MVa resident of North Whisman
11 hours ago
I am a renter. I support Measure V and rent control but I dont like what's its doing in our community. The lawsuits over mobile homes, developers buying buildings to tear them down, and the fighting between good people.
I voted for Lucas Ramirez in 2016 but what Abe Koga is doing here is sharing her point of view. I'd rather get a few bucks to help my rent or my landlord pay into a fund to help low income tenants than having this less than friendly relationship I now have with my landlord. I get it, landlords are paying the bill, but the city put the price tag on it and sent them the bill. Abe Koga is jsut saying what the price tag is. SHe's not lying.
I voted for Lucas Ramirez in 2016 but what Abe Koga is doing here is sharing her point of view. I'd rather get a few bucks to help my rent or my landlord pay into a fund to help low income tenants than having this less than friendly relationship I now have with my landlord. I get it, landlords are paying the bill, but the city put the price tag on it and sent them the bill. Abe Koga is jsut saying what the price tag is. SHe's not lying.
14 people like this
Posted by Seriously?a resident of Rex Manor
11 hours ago
It is unfortunate that you don't consider housing providers in Mountain View as part of the city. Councilwoman Abe-Koga is exactly right, it is costing those who provide housing a fortune. They are the ones who paid the $2.5 Million so that they could be told how little they can charge for rent. I'm sure there are 100 or more housing providers who would reduce the rent in several of their units as opposed to padding the pockets of lawyers and city employees. The prevailing attitude of those who support rent control is "I want it because it isn't costing me a dime." Take a look at San Francisco, Rent Control in action! They lost 16,000 people just last quarter because of high rents. That is exactly where rent control will take Mountain View. That is a pretty high cost in my opinion!
11 people like this
Posted by Rodgeta resident of Sylvan Park
10 hours ago
I also agree that rent control is wasting my tax dollars, we need to fund more police patrol and investigation for instance not hire lawyers to defend rent control, recently the trailer park tenants are sueing the city because they are not included in rent control.
Rent control is taking other people’s property plus a costly can of worms for us taxpayers. Let’s hope it gets repealed in the next election.
Rent control is taking other people’s property plus a costly can of worms for us taxpayers. Let’s hope it gets repealed in the next election.
11 people like this
Posted by Christopher Chianga resident of North Bayshore
10 hours ago
I know Margaret Abe Koga cares for renters, and her straight shooting views should be welcomed. There is a valid discussion on whether Measure V is achieving its intentions, but those conversations should be a MV-led process.
"Measure V Too Costly" claims to be run by residents, but its organized by Laura Teutschel, a PR consultant from San Carlos. It also falsely claimed in the the MV Voice in a full page ad that the Rental Housing Committee spoke of paying itself, yet there is no one or document that can back their claim.
A landlord lobbyist group claiming to be purely local, when it's not, that blends rumors with truth, and masks its outside origin and funding with high profile resident visuals, is not the honest broker I would want leading a thoughtful discussion on the issue. If current or former city council members wish to be open with their reservations, and I welcome they do, then they should lead local forums in our city, partner with the paper or local station, and not be a front for outside interest that has a record of intentionally misleading residents. Our national democracy is already muddled by such "fake news" lobbying, lets keep that out of local democracy.
"Measure V Too Costly" claims to be run by residents, but its organized by Laura Teutschel, a PR consultant from San Carlos. It also falsely claimed in the the MV Voice in a full page ad that the Rental Housing Committee spoke of paying itself, yet there is no one or document that can back their claim.
A landlord lobbyist group claiming to be purely local, when it's not, that blends rumors with truth, and masks its outside origin and funding with high profile resident visuals, is not the honest broker I would want leading a thoughtful discussion on the issue. If current or former city council members wish to be open with their reservations, and I welcome they do, then they should lead local forums in our city, partner with the paper or local station, and not be a front for outside interest that has a record of intentionally misleading residents. Our national democracy is already muddled by such "fake news" lobbying, lets keep that out of local democracy.
21 people like this
Posted by Measure Vi is just bad policya resident of North Whisman
10 hours ago
Abe Koga understands that Measure V and policies like it only help the renters in place when the legislation passes. As has been demonstrated over and over again throughout history rent control results in higher rents (look at New York and San Francisco) and the acceleration of decay in the Rental Housing stock. If you inquire about the housing situation of the shrill defenders of Measure V you will find almost invariably they are either direct beneficiaries themselves or their friends are. Hypocrites all of them.
Repeal V.
Repeal V.
7 people like this
Posted by LOLa resident of Castro City
10 hours ago
Look at the landlord shill above me. Astroturfed political groups bankrolled by CAA and the Realtors associations need to stay out of our politics. On the other hand, it's been amazing to see the depths our local legislators will stop to for that cash (looking at you Abe-Koha, Kasperzak, Inks, and Means). At least we know now that they have no dignity.
9 people like this
Posted by Much ado a resident of Old Mountain View
9 hours ago
Rent control never really works long term. Worse still, one of the unintended consequences of this law is already appearing in the form of Mountain View property owners selling older apartment rentals they have managed responsibly for decades to developers who build new $1.2-$1.5 million dollar townhouses. This is the only way the owners can recoup their investments. I'm glad Abe-Koga said something. Hopefully reason will prevail again.
10 people like this
Posted by LOLa resident of Castro City
9 hours ago
Christopher Chiang, Abe-Koga doesn't care a whit about renters. If she did, she wouldn't have forced through the North Bayshore plan without any housing before she left office, and we'd have some houses with *gasp* renters living in them up there as we speak. Instead, it took her entire timeout running for higher office for the plan to be redone correctly by the rest of council.
She only cares about her political ambitions, so she needs to make sure she keeps her powerful friends in the CAA happy. Similar to the rest of the illustrious ex-Councilmembers associated with the campaign, who have dragged their own legacies through the mud (Kasperzak, Inks, and Means). Although, Tom Means just took the cash for his trouble.
She only cares about her political ambitions, so she needs to make sure she keeps her powerful friends in the CAA happy. Similar to the rest of the illustrious ex-Councilmembers associated with the campaign, who have dragged their own legacies through the mud (Kasperzak, Inks, and Means). Although, Tom Means just took the cash for his trouble.
Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
9 hours ago
The Business Man is a registered user.
In response to John you said:
“What's the big deal here folks? She exercising her First Amendment rights to speak out. She voted to defend Measure V in court and supported putting tenant friendly members (Emily Ramos) on the Rent Board. The fact of the matter is Measure V has a cost....it cost $2.5-million. Let's remember that. SHe is saying that the program cost money and that money has better uses. That's all she is saying. How can you fault her for saying that?”
Since it is NOT a CITY BUDGET item, SHE clearly MISLEADS viewers into thinking it is paid via HOMEOWNER TAXES or GENERAL FUNDS. It does NOT.
In response to Renter in MV you said:
“I get it, landlords are paying the bill, but the city put the price tag on it and sent them the bill. Abe Koga is jsut saying what the price tag is. SHe's not lying.”
In fact the City of Mountain View has inflated the coast of the CSFRA by $1.5 million if you even bothered to read the budget. Most of you have not. The city has used the RHC budget to subsidize its costs, which is a violation of the City Charter because the RHC and the City cannot be commingled the way it has here.
In response to Seriously? You said:
“It is unfortunate that you don't consider housing providers in Mountain View as part of the city. “
They own the building, but do not necessarily reside in the City, thus they are not citizens of the City, and are only private interests, nothing more.
“Councilwoman Abe-Koga is exactly right, it is costing those who provide housing a fortune. They are the ones who paid the $2.5 Million so that they could be told how little they can charge for rent. I'm sure there are 100 or more housing providers who would reduce the rent in several of their units as opposed to padding the pockets of lawyers and city employees.”
The responsibility of the inflated cost is the City Council and the City Government fleecing the RHC to pay for the services performed by the City. The City must not be contracted by the RHC because it fiscally intertwines the two. They are supposed to be exclusive in service and function.
In response to Rodget you said:
“I also agree that rent control is wasting my tax dollars, we need to fund more police patrol and investigation for instance not hire lawyers to defend rent control, recently the trailer park tenants are sueing the city because they are not included in rent control.”
NOT TAX DOLLARS ARE USED IN THE RHC. When are you going to understand it is self supporting based on the rental fee. You keep on saying the same untruth over and over again.
In response to Christopher Chiang you said:
“Measure V Too Costly" claims to be run by residents, but its organized by Laura Teutschel, a PR consultant from San Carlos. It also falsely claimed in the the MV Voice in a full page ad that the Rental Housing Committee spoke of paying itself, yet there is no one or document that can back their claim.
A landlord lobbyist group claiming to be purely local, when it's not, that blends rumors with truth, and masks its outside origin and funding with high profile resident visuals, is not the honest broker I would want leading a thoughtful discussion on the issue. If current or former city council members wish to be open with their reservations, and I welcome they do, then they should lead local forums in our city, partner with the paper or local station, and not be a front for outside interest that has a record of intentionally misleading residents. Our national democracy is already muddled by such "fake news" lobbying, lets keep that out of local democracy.”
Good observation
In response to LOL you said:
“Look at the landlord shill above me. Astroturfed political groups bankrolled by CAA and the Realtors associations need to stay out of our politics. On the other hand, it's been amazing to see the depths our local legislators will stop to for that cash (looking at you Abe-Koha, Kasperzak, Inks, and Means). At least we know now that they have no dignity.”
Good observation
“What's the big deal here folks? She exercising her First Amendment rights to speak out. She voted to defend Measure V in court and supported putting tenant friendly members (Emily Ramos) on the Rent Board. The fact of the matter is Measure V has a cost....it cost $2.5-million. Let's remember that. SHe is saying that the program cost money and that money has better uses. That's all she is saying. How can you fault her for saying that?”
Since it is NOT a CITY BUDGET item, SHE clearly MISLEADS viewers into thinking it is paid via HOMEOWNER TAXES or GENERAL FUNDS. It does NOT.
In response to Renter in MV you said:
“I get it, landlords are paying the bill, but the city put the price tag on it and sent them the bill. Abe Koga is jsut saying what the price tag is. SHe's not lying.”
In fact the City of Mountain View has inflated the coast of the CSFRA by $1.5 million if you even bothered to read the budget. Most of you have not. The city has used the RHC budget to subsidize its costs, which is a violation of the City Charter because the RHC and the City cannot be commingled the way it has here.
In response to Seriously? You said:
“It is unfortunate that you don't consider housing providers in Mountain View as part of the city. “
They own the building, but do not necessarily reside in the City, thus they are not citizens of the City, and are only private interests, nothing more.
“Councilwoman Abe-Koga is exactly right, it is costing those who provide housing a fortune. They are the ones who paid the $2.5 Million so that they could be told how little they can charge for rent. I'm sure there are 100 or more housing providers who would reduce the rent in several of their units as opposed to padding the pockets of lawyers and city employees.”
The responsibility of the inflated cost is the City Council and the City Government fleecing the RHC to pay for the services performed by the City. The City must not be contracted by the RHC because it fiscally intertwines the two. They are supposed to be exclusive in service and function.
In response to Rodget you said:
“I also agree that rent control is wasting my tax dollars, we need to fund more police patrol and investigation for instance not hire lawyers to defend rent control, recently the trailer park tenants are sueing the city because they are not included in rent control.”
NOT TAX DOLLARS ARE USED IN THE RHC. When are you going to understand it is self supporting based on the rental fee. You keep on saying the same untruth over and over again.
In response to Christopher Chiang you said:
“Measure V Too Costly" claims to be run by residents, but its organized by Laura Teutschel, a PR consultant from San Carlos. It also falsely claimed in the the MV Voice in a full page ad that the Rental Housing Committee spoke of paying itself, yet there is no one or document that can back their claim.
A landlord lobbyist group claiming to be purely local, when it's not, that blends rumors with truth, and masks its outside origin and funding with high profile resident visuals, is not the honest broker I would want leading a thoughtful discussion on the issue. If current or former city council members wish to be open with their reservations, and I welcome they do, then they should lead local forums in our city, partner with the paper or local station, and not be a front for outside interest that has a record of intentionally misleading residents. Our national democracy is already muddled by such "fake news" lobbying, lets keep that out of local democracy.”
Good observation
In response to LOL you said:
“Look at the landlord shill above me. Astroturfed political groups bankrolled by CAA and the Realtors associations need to stay out of our politics. On the other hand, it's been amazing to see the depths our local legislators will stop to for that cash (looking at you Abe-Koha, Kasperzak, Inks, and Means). At least we know now that they have no dignity.”
Good observation
10 people like this
Posted by Christopher Chianga resident of North Bayshore
9 hours ago
While I believe it's not good for Mountain View for any of its city council members to promote outside special interest groups, especially groups with a record of misleading people, I can only speak from personal experience, and I have seen on numerous occasions over the years, Council member Abe-Koga work to represent all residents, renters and homeowners alike.
We want competent representatives in government, yet we then accuse those of serving of being career politicians. I may not agree with her past decisions on North Bayshore either, but she speaks honestly, thoughtfully, and I wouldn't trade those positive character traits just to get someone who agrees with me on policies. That too is what's troubling national politics.
We want competent representatives in government, yet we then accuse those of serving of being career politicians. I may not agree with her past decisions on North Bayshore either, but she speaks honestly, thoughtfully, and I wouldn't trade those positive character traits just to get someone who agrees with me on policies. That too is what's troubling national politics.
11 people like this
Posted by LOLa resident of Castro City
9 hours ago
Christopher Chiang, I don't think I would characterize her depiction of the RHC budget as honest and thoughtful, would you? Do you think she was advocating for renters when she pushed for her former colleague, Mr Tom Means, to be appointed to the RHC?
4 people like this
Posted by Wronga resident of another community
8 hours ago
She just wrong.
7 people like this
Posted by Philipa resident of Cuesta Park
6 hours ago
Ms. Abe-Koga, as a renter, do not let these bullies phase you. You have a first amendment right to speak out against a flawed policy in rent control. And you are not alone! Every credible economist and countless elected officials like Gavin Newsom, our next governor, agree that rent control brings about negative economic results and leads to less investment in affordable housing. My family and I are behind you. Thank you for your public service.
6 people like this
Posted by LOLa resident of Castro City
6 hours ago
Love the AstroTurf posters coming in, "Philip". Renting in Cuesta Park? Not a lot of rentals over there, what's your rent like? How long have you rented?
Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
5 hours ago
The Business Man is a registered user.
Please take the time to read pages 3 to 9 of this document (Web Link)
This document publicly declares that the City of Mountain view used the CSFRA apartment fees to transfer new money into the City Revenues. However this was not supposed to happen under the CSFRA. If you read this portion Section 1709 (j) which stated:
“(j) Financing.
The Committee shall finance its reasonable and necessary expenses, including without limitation engaging any staff as necessary to ensure implementation of this Article, by charging Landlords an annual Rental Housing Fee as set forth herein, in amounts deemed reasonable by the Committee in accordance with applicable law. The Committee is also empowered to request and receive funding when and if necessary from any available source including the City for its reasonable and necessary expenses.
(1) Rental Housing Fee. All Landlords shall pay a Rental Housing Fee on an annual basis. The first Committee convened after the effective date of this Article shall determine the amount of the Rental Housing Fee. The amount of the Rental Housing Fee may differ between Rental Units subject to the entirety of this Article and those that are Partially Exempt. The Committee may adjust the amount of the Rental Housing Fee at its discretion to ensure full funding of its reasonable and necessary expenses, in accordance with all applicable law.
(2) City to Advance Initial Funds. During the initial implementation of this Article, the City shall advance all necessary funds to ensure the effective implementation of this Article, until the Committee has collected Rental Housing Fees sufficient to support the implementation of this Article. The City may seek a reimbursement of any advanced funds from the Committee after the Rental Housing Fee has been collected.”
Nothing in this portion of the CSFRA authorizes the use of funds collected by the RHC to be used to finance services by the City of Mountain View. Also please read the Section 1709(k) which states:
“(k) Integrity and Autonomy of Committee.
The Committee shall be an integral part of the government of the City, but shall exercise its powers and duties under this Article independent from the City Council, City Manager, and City Attorney, except by request of the Committee. The Committee may request the services of the City Attorney, who shall provide them pursuant to the lawful duties of the office in Article 711 of the City Charter. In the period between the effective date of this Article and the appointment of the initial members of the Committee, the City shall take whatever steps necessary to perform the duties of the Committee and implement the purposes of this Article.”
Thus, the City is in fact required to avoid any interference with the function of the RHC. However, if you read the document I linked, you will see material proof that the City did anything possible to steal funds from the RHC to be used as revenue for the City. This in fact is opposite of the criticism that has been made against the CSFRA.
Why this hasn’t been discussed in public is because this action can be considered a misappropriation of funds by the City in order to artificially inflate the costs of the RHC under the CSFRA. The fact no one is investigating this is beyond me.
This document publicly declares that the City of Mountain view used the CSFRA apartment fees to transfer new money into the City Revenues. However this was not supposed to happen under the CSFRA. If you read this portion Section 1709 (j) which stated:
“(j) Financing.
The Committee shall finance its reasonable and necessary expenses, including without limitation engaging any staff as necessary to ensure implementation of this Article, by charging Landlords an annual Rental Housing Fee as set forth herein, in amounts deemed reasonable by the Committee in accordance with applicable law. The Committee is also empowered to request and receive funding when and if necessary from any available source including the City for its reasonable and necessary expenses.
(1) Rental Housing Fee. All Landlords shall pay a Rental Housing Fee on an annual basis. The first Committee convened after the effective date of this Article shall determine the amount of the Rental Housing Fee. The amount of the Rental Housing Fee may differ between Rental Units subject to the entirety of this Article and those that are Partially Exempt. The Committee may adjust the amount of the Rental Housing Fee at its discretion to ensure full funding of its reasonable and necessary expenses, in accordance with all applicable law.
(2) City to Advance Initial Funds. During the initial implementation of this Article, the City shall advance all necessary funds to ensure the effective implementation of this Article, until the Committee has collected Rental Housing Fees sufficient to support the implementation of this Article. The City may seek a reimbursement of any advanced funds from the Committee after the Rental Housing Fee has been collected.”
Nothing in this portion of the CSFRA authorizes the use of funds collected by the RHC to be used to finance services by the City of Mountain View. Also please read the Section 1709(k) which states:
“(k) Integrity and Autonomy of Committee.
The Committee shall be an integral part of the government of the City, but shall exercise its powers and duties under this Article independent from the City Council, City Manager, and City Attorney, except by request of the Committee. The Committee may request the services of the City Attorney, who shall provide them pursuant to the lawful duties of the office in Article 711 of the City Charter. In the period between the effective date of this Article and the appointment of the initial members of the Committee, the City shall take whatever steps necessary to perform the duties of the Committee and implement the purposes of this Article.”
Thus, the City is in fact required to avoid any interference with the function of the RHC. However, if you read the document I linked, you will see material proof that the City did anything possible to steal funds from the RHC to be used as revenue for the City. This in fact is opposite of the criticism that has been made against the CSFRA.
Why this hasn’t been discussed in public is because this action can be considered a misappropriation of funds by the City in order to artificially inflate the costs of the RHC under the CSFRA. The fact no one is investigating this is beyond me.
5 people like this
Posted by Ret controla resident of another community
5 hours ago
General question here, is there one prominent politician who actually supports rent control as a viable solution to the housing crisis? I haven't heard of one but could be corrected. However every single politician I have heard speak in CA says we need more affordable housing units...isn't that exactly what Abe-Koga is championing in this vid? So why are we treating her like she's Roy Cohn reincarnated?
2 people like this
Posted by Philipa resident of Cuesta Park
5 hours ago
Americana apartments bud but good try. I admire that your brave enough to put your name to your word. What an interesting name "LOL" is that amish?
5 people like this
Posted by Hancocka resident of Castro City
5 hours ago
Margaret has the obligation, by virtue of her position, to implement a law that the city voted for. She is doing that. And while she is obligated to implement the law, she has the right to disagree with it and to voice her opinion on the matter. And she is doing it outside the confines of the council chambers. To attack her for voicing that opinion is to attack her right to free speech. The outcry in these comments reflects a concern that what she is saying is correct and you’re afraid of the truth getting out.
8 people like this
Posted by LOLa resident of Castro City
5 hours ago
That ain't Cuesta Park, buddy. Close, but no cigar. Nice that you can afford such rent, though, and not have to worry about others being able to stay.
3 people like this
Posted by Philipa resident of Cuesta Park
5 hours ago
Yea "LOL" im not big on Cigars, but I am big on enacting sensible policies that help our housing crisis... I hope your apartment doesn't get redeveloped into a fancy condo cause thats sure as hell what I would do if I were a property owner. Price ceilings don't work pal, take an economics class!
6 people like this
Posted by LOLa resident of Castro City
4 hours ago
And there it is, all the high-minded talk turns into threats. Communities used to be about people taking care of each other, but it looks like the Almighty Dollar has taken over, in both personal interactions and political actions.
Price ceilings work for precisely what they're meant to do, keep people in their homes during runaway price increases. What's your "sensible policy" that will keep people fully housed in Mountain View?
Price ceilings work for precisely what they're meant to do, keep people in their homes during runaway price increases. What's your "sensible policy" that will keep people fully housed in Mountain View?
4 people like this
Posted by Philipa resident of Cuesta Park
4 hours ago
"LOL" looking at your comments in this thread, you berate and bully people who don't take your side and right them off as being astro turfed, is this indicative of the tenants right movement or the message of "inclusion" Measure V was supposed to bring? You are just proving their point about the divisiveness this has brought into our city. Some wisdom if you want support of MV citizens, accept that not everyone who thinks rent control is bad policy hates tenants or doesn't care about poor people. That is false sir.
4 people like this
Posted by LOLa resident of Castro City
4 hours ago
If that's false, why don't you have a "sensible policy" that accomplishes the goals I laid out?
2 people like this
Posted by Philipa resident of Cuesta Park
4 hours ago
Look up Scott Weiner's Bill in the state senate right now, that calls for higher, denser, affordable housing near transit. Lowering rents is a supply and demand issue, simple as that.
In fact do your self a favor and type into google right now "does rent control work" tell me what the first 10 responses are...go ahead ill wait.
In fact do your self a favor and type into google right now "does rent control work" tell me what the first 10 responses are...go ahead ill wait.
2 people like this
Posted by LOLa resident of Castro City
4 hours ago
Whoa, an interesting tidbit is that Abe-Koga is against SB 827. Does she still have your support?
What's so difficult to comprehend about rent control accomplishing its goals, which aren't to reduce rents, but to insulate communities against rampant rent increases? Do you deny that it accomplishes that goal? I fully grant that it, by itself, doesn't bring down rents because that's not what it's trying to do. You seem to be confused about its goals, and are using your misunderstanding to say "it doesn't work."
What's so difficult to comprehend about rent control accomplishing its goals, which aren't to reduce rents, but to insulate communities against rampant rent increases? Do you deny that it accomplishes that goal? I fully grant that it, by itself, doesn't bring down rents because that's not what it's trying to do. You seem to be confused about its goals, and are using your misunderstanding to say "it doesn't work."
Like this comment
Posted by Philipa resident of Cuesta Park
4 hours ago
Wow this is like explaining economics to my infant nephew. Housing providers don't want to build more housing when you regulate their revenue and their ability to fluctuate with the market. So, city passes rent control---> less housing gets built in that city. You are thinking about the short term while ignoring the consequences (for future renters) of a powerfully inhibitive policy.
As far as 827 goes shes on the wrong side of that issue, but the right side of this one.
As far as 827 goes shes on the wrong side of that issue, but the right side of this one.
2 people like this
Posted by LOLa resident of Castro City
3 hours ago
Certainly, since Measure V passed we've seen the addition of new housing come to a halt. Apartments sit partially built, lots sit empty. If only we repeal Measure V like Margaret Abe-Koga wants, we'll get people to build houses in Mountain View again. Wait, none of that happened. Strange.
Here's a hint, Measure V has done nothing to decrease home-building here. The only thing that's done that is the NIMBY contingent on council, Abe-Koga, Matichak, and McAlister.
Honestly, I've studied a lot more econ than you. If you'd progressed past 101, you'd learn that you need to actually consider multiple effects and you'd have humility in the strength of your predictions. As they say, a little learning is a dangerous thing.
Here's a hint, Measure V has done nothing to decrease home-building here. The only thing that's done that is the NIMBY contingent on council, Abe-Koga, Matichak, and McAlister.
Honestly, I've studied a lot more econ than you. If you'd progressed past 101, you'd learn that you need to actually consider multiple effects and you'd have humility in the strength of your predictions. As they say, a little learning is a dangerous thing.
Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
2 hours ago
The Business Man is a registered user.
The real reason why the CSFRA is costing $2.5+ Million dollars is the following breakdown from ((Web Link)
The RHC Board authorized $686,600 in expenses for only 4 FTE for the staffing of the Program. A FTE for a program manager is $126,000/yr, 2 Administrative analysts which costs $60,489, and Office Assistant Salary of $28,960 which comes to $275,938. This comes to This also includes reimbursement for legal costs that were the caused by the negligent decisions made by the City Council and city Attorney regarding the litigation that happened PRIOR to the RHC establishment. That means the City is charging the RHC for the City Attorney costs of $686,600 - $275,938 or $410,662. Why the RHC voted to pay for this is in my belief incredible.
General Operating Expenses of $161,500. That seems reasonable.
Third Party Professional Services $774,800 described as outside legal services of $200,000, litigation $30,000, Tenant Relocation Services at $20,000, Rental Housing Helpline $124,000, Pre-Hearing Sessions at $60,000, Hearing Officer Services $300,000, based on 300 cases at $1,000 per case, Training services $20,000, Facilitation Services at $20,000. The real insane estimation was 300 petitions in the first year, it seems that we may not get even close to that amount, currently I have heard only about 20 are in the process so one could estimate about 4 times that amount will happen in this year, thus it would come to only $80,000.
City Resources/Administrative Support $256,400. Given that this agency is independent of the city, this item should never been accepted and appoved by the RHC because it commingles the CSFRA and the City Services too much.
Reimbursement of City Expenses of $1,051,677. Given that the City Charter section 1709 (j) does not entitle the City reimbursement based on invalid budget itemization, and audit must be performed first by a disinterested account firm, this is simply a means to steal money from Rental Fees to fleece the landlords and inflate the cost of the program. This is where an additional $190,277 is being charged to the RHC by the City for the previous litigation that was NOT approved by the RHC. Thus the RHC has no fiscal responsibility for it. What is amazing is this document actually states the actual costs to the City was not $1,051,677-$190,277 or $861,400 but $431,595 on page 9 of the report. The City claimed that under Section 1709(j)(2) allows this. However the City has not properly itemized the costs in this matter at all. It in fact is charging in excess of $429,805. Without said itemization of costs, such approval of the RHC was an act of mismanagement. Why the RHC agreed to this was simply in order to inflate the budget.
In a nutshell, the budget is overcharging for the prior litigation of $190,277, there is an unaccounted $429,805 in the budget, there is a cost overestimate of about $220,000 for hearings, and charges incurred by the City Attorney of $410,662. The sum total overcharged in the budget on these issues alone comes to $1,250,744 and this is not dealing with a good audit of the program.
If competent budgeting was performed, the budget should be half the current one. This responsibility falls squarely on the actions of the City Council, City Attorney, and those on the RHC that did not do their due diligence to prevent the overcharge. If the landlords have anyone to blame it is not the tenants, but the above mentioned parties
The RHC Board authorized $686,600 in expenses for only 4 FTE for the staffing of the Program. A FTE for a program manager is $126,000/yr, 2 Administrative analysts which costs $60,489, and Office Assistant Salary of $28,960 which comes to $275,938. This comes to This also includes reimbursement for legal costs that were the caused by the negligent decisions made by the City Council and city Attorney regarding the litigation that happened PRIOR to the RHC establishment. That means the City is charging the RHC for the City Attorney costs of $686,600 - $275,938 or $410,662. Why the RHC voted to pay for this is in my belief incredible.
General Operating Expenses of $161,500. That seems reasonable.
Third Party Professional Services $774,800 described as outside legal services of $200,000, litigation $30,000, Tenant Relocation Services at $20,000, Rental Housing Helpline $124,000, Pre-Hearing Sessions at $60,000, Hearing Officer Services $300,000, based on 300 cases at $1,000 per case, Training services $20,000, Facilitation Services at $20,000. The real insane estimation was 300 petitions in the first year, it seems that we may not get even close to that amount, currently I have heard only about 20 are in the process so one could estimate about 4 times that amount will happen in this year, thus it would come to only $80,000.
City Resources/Administrative Support $256,400. Given that this agency is independent of the city, this item should never been accepted and appoved by the RHC because it commingles the CSFRA and the City Services too much.
Reimbursement of City Expenses of $1,051,677. Given that the City Charter section 1709 (j) does not entitle the City reimbursement based on invalid budget itemization, and audit must be performed first by a disinterested account firm, this is simply a means to steal money from Rental Fees to fleece the landlords and inflate the cost of the program. This is where an additional $190,277 is being charged to the RHC by the City for the previous litigation that was NOT approved by the RHC. Thus the RHC has no fiscal responsibility for it. What is amazing is this document actually states the actual costs to the City was not $1,051,677-$190,277 or $861,400 but $431,595 on page 9 of the report. The City claimed that under Section 1709(j)(2) allows this. However the City has not properly itemized the costs in this matter at all. It in fact is charging in excess of $429,805. Without said itemization of costs, such approval of the RHC was an act of mismanagement. Why the RHC agreed to this was simply in order to inflate the budget.
In a nutshell, the budget is overcharging for the prior litigation of $190,277, there is an unaccounted $429,805 in the budget, there is a cost overestimate of about $220,000 for hearings, and charges incurred by the City Attorney of $410,662. The sum total overcharged in the budget on these issues alone comes to $1,250,744 and this is not dealing with a good audit of the program.
If competent budgeting was performed, the budget should be half the current one. This responsibility falls squarely on the actions of the City Council, City Attorney, and those on the RHC that did not do their due diligence to prevent the overcharge. If the landlords have anyone to blame it is not the tenants, but the above mentioned parties
Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
2 hours ago
The Business Man is a registered user.
The real reason why the CSFRA is costing $2.5+ Million dollars is the following breakdown from ((Web Link)
The RHC Board authorized $686,600 in expenses for only 4 FTE for the staffing of the Program. A FTE for a program manager is $126,000/yr, 2 Administrative analysts which costs $60,489, and Office Assistant Salary of $28,960 which comes to $275,938. This comes to This also includes reimbursement for legal costs that were the caused by the negligent decisions made by the City Council and city Attorney regarding the litigation that happened PRIOR to the RHC establishment. That means the City is charging the RHC for the City Attorney costs of $686,600 - $275,938 or $410,662. Why the RHC voted to pay for this is in my belief incredible.
General Operating Expenses of $161,500. That seems reasonable.
Third Party Professional Services $774,800 described as outside legal services of $200,000, litigation $30,000, Tenant Relocation Services at $20,000, Rental Housing Helpline $124,000, Pre-Hearing Sessions at $60,000, Hearing Officer Services $300,000, based on 300 cases at $1,000 per case, Training services $20,000, Facilitation Services at $20,000. The real insane estimation was 300 petitions in the first year, it seems that we may not get even close to that amount, currently I have heard only about 20 are in the process so one could estimate about 4 times that amount will happen in this year, thus it would come to only $80,000.
City Resources/Administrative Support $256,400. Given that this agency is independent of the city, this item should never been accepted and appoved by the RHC because it commingles the CSFRA and the City Services too much.
Reimbursement of City Expenses of $1,051,677. Given that the City Charter section 1709 (j) does not entitle the City reimbursement based on invalid budget itemization, and audit must be performed first by a disinterested account firm, this is simply a means to steal money from Rental Fees to fleece the landlords and inflate the cost of the program. This is where an additional $190,277 is being charged to the RHC by the City for the previous litigation that was NOT approved by the RHC. Thus the RHC has no fiscal responsibility for it. What is amazing is this document actually states the actual costs to the City was not $1,051,677-$190,277 or $861,400 but $431,595 on page 9 of the report. The City claimed that under Section 1709(j)(2) allows this. However the City has not properly itemized the costs in this matter at all. It in fact is charging in excess of $429,805. Without said itemization of costs, such approval of the RHC was an act of mismanagement. Why the RHC agreed to this was simply in order to inflate the budget.
In a nutshell, the budget is overcharging for the prior litigation of $190,277, there is an unaccounted $429,805 in the budget, there is a cost overestimate of about $220,000 for hearings, and charges incurred by the City Attorney of $410,662, and City Resources charges of 256,400. The sum total overcharged in the budget on these issues alone comes to $1,507,144 and this is not dealing with a good audit of the program.
If competent budgeting was performed, the budget should be half the current one. This responsibility falls squarely on the actions of the City Council, City Attorney, and those on the RHC that did not do their due diligence to prevent the overcharge. If the landlords have anyone to blame it is not the tenants, but the above mentioned parties
The RHC Board authorized $686,600 in expenses for only 4 FTE for the staffing of the Program. A FTE for a program manager is $126,000/yr, 2 Administrative analysts which costs $60,489, and Office Assistant Salary of $28,960 which comes to $275,938. This comes to This also includes reimbursement for legal costs that were the caused by the negligent decisions made by the City Council and city Attorney regarding the litigation that happened PRIOR to the RHC establishment. That means the City is charging the RHC for the City Attorney costs of $686,600 - $275,938 or $410,662. Why the RHC voted to pay for this is in my belief incredible.
General Operating Expenses of $161,500. That seems reasonable.
Third Party Professional Services $774,800 described as outside legal services of $200,000, litigation $30,000, Tenant Relocation Services at $20,000, Rental Housing Helpline $124,000, Pre-Hearing Sessions at $60,000, Hearing Officer Services $300,000, based on 300 cases at $1,000 per case, Training services $20,000, Facilitation Services at $20,000. The real insane estimation was 300 petitions in the first year, it seems that we may not get even close to that amount, currently I have heard only about 20 are in the process so one could estimate about 4 times that amount will happen in this year, thus it would come to only $80,000.
City Resources/Administrative Support $256,400. Given that this agency is independent of the city, this item should never been accepted and appoved by the RHC because it commingles the CSFRA and the City Services too much.
Reimbursement of City Expenses of $1,051,677. Given that the City Charter section 1709 (j) does not entitle the City reimbursement based on invalid budget itemization, and audit must be performed first by a disinterested account firm, this is simply a means to steal money from Rental Fees to fleece the landlords and inflate the cost of the program. This is where an additional $190,277 is being charged to the RHC by the City for the previous litigation that was NOT approved by the RHC. Thus the RHC has no fiscal responsibility for it. What is amazing is this document actually states the actual costs to the City was not $1,051,677-$190,277 or $861,400 but $431,595 on page 9 of the report. The City claimed that under Section 1709(j)(2) allows this. However the City has not properly itemized the costs in this matter at all. It in fact is charging in excess of $429,805. Without said itemization of costs, such approval of the RHC was an act of mismanagement. Why the RHC agreed to this was simply in order to inflate the budget.
In a nutshell, the budget is overcharging for the prior litigation of $190,277, there is an unaccounted $429,805 in the budget, there is a cost overestimate of about $220,000 for hearings, and charges incurred by the City Attorney of $410,662, and City Resources charges of 256,400. The sum total overcharged in the budget on these issues alone comes to $1,507,144 and this is not dealing with a good audit of the program.
If competent budgeting was performed, the budget should be half the current one. This responsibility falls squarely on the actions of the City Council, City Attorney, and those on the RHC that did not do their due diligence to prevent the overcharge. If the landlords have anyone to blame it is not the tenants, but the above mentioned parties
Like this comment
Posted by Davida resident of Bailey Park
1 hour ago
Mthe cost of the rent control program is peanuts compared to the money at stake. If rent xontrol is eliminated, rents will soar by $1,000 to $2,000 per month and keep going up. Margaret Abe-Koga was previously on the city council for two 4-year terms having been endorsed by landlord groups. That is why her political signs appeared at apartment complexes. She was and is a ringer for landlords and is among the 5 or 6 council members that are part of the landlords' plan to place on the November ballot a measure to repeal or "repeal and replace" rent control. JUST WATCH.
Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.