Split (1)

train · 2.59M rows

text stringlengths 10 37.6k
Her owner had passed away, and she was struggling to carry her body on her little legs. Not the best time for poor Bertha.
However, when she was adopted in August 2017 by 35-year-old Allison Hackett, things turned right around for her.
Bertha has now lost almost half of her body weight, and has a loving home where she can run around and play.
Allison, a mergers and acquisitions associate says that when she was rescued, ‘She was unable to move well and she was definitely hindered by her weight. She looked like a sausage.
The vet advised Allison to feed the 11-year-old pooch just a quarter of a cup of food per day.
Although she wasn’t sure what she’d been eating before coming to Muttville, it was likely considerably more than this.
Now, Bertha enjoys low-carb dog food, and has even gotten in to eating carrot and apples as well as no ‘people food or high-calorie treats’.
She continues, ‘Now she can go up and down the stairs, she can stand on her hind legs, she can run around.
Apparently her love of food has remained, and Bertha is constantly on the lookout for her next snack. For Allison to resist those puppy dog eyes, she deserves a medal.
All worth it though to see her happy and healthy dog loving life.
A Santa Clara County Superior Court judge this week rejected arguments by Mountain View mobile home tenants that they should also be covered under the city’s rent control program. Voice file photo.
A Santa Clara County Superior Court judge this week rejected arguments by Mountain View mobile home tenants that they should also be covered under the city’s rent control program.
In his decision, Judge Mark Pierce upheld a February vote by the city’s Rental Housing Committee to not protect mobile homes under the city’s Community Stabilization and Fair Rent Act (CSFRA).
The decision comes as a setback for a coalition of mobile home tenants, centralized at Santiago Villa, who have been clamoring for limits on their rising space rents. Many mobile home residents pinned their hopes on the CSFRA after getting assurances from advocates that the rent control law was written so it could also encompass mobile homes. Voters passed the measure in 2016, but city officials implemented rent control only for apartments.
The case for including mobile homes wasn't so clear-cut. City attorneys pointed out that the CSFRA language never once mentions mobile homes, and it contains numerous conflicts with state laws specifically tailored for mobile homes.
Despite those shortcomings, city legal staff advised the rental committee that a stronger case could be made that mobile homes should be included. Because none of the explicit exemptions in the CSFRA applied to mobile homes, the committee’s legal team said it was reasonable to cover them under the law.
Despite that legal advice, a majority of the committee indicated they were uncomfortable with restricting rents on about 1,100 more homes in one fell swoop. Committee members Vanessa Honey, Tom Means and Matthew Grunewald voted 3-2 against covering mobile homes. Mobile home residents later filed a lawsuit with Fenwick & West attorneys, who provided pro-bono representation.
In rejecting the lawsuit this week, Pierce said it wasn’t enough for mobile home tenants to show that the CSFRA could be construed to include mobile homes. In order to overturn the decision, tenants would need to show that the rental committee’s decision was “fundamentally flawed,” he wrote. This suit did not pass that bar, he indicated.
The Mountain View Mobile Home Alliance, a tenants group that includes the plaintiffs in the case, said in an emailed statement that they were disappointed by the judge's ruling but they would continue pursuing the matter.
"We are considering the next steps we might take, both legal and legislative, to protect the residents of the last affordable housing in Mountain View," Mobile Home Alliance spokesman John Waters said.
Mobile home tenants could appeal the case, or they may seek a political solution by pushing for future rental committee members who are sympathetic to their issue. Earlier this week, committee member Tom Means announced his resignation, leaving a tie-breaking seat up in the air.
But even if the committee decided to cover mobile homes in the future, it would hardly settle the issue, said Anthony Rodriguez, an attorney who represented mobile home park owners in the lawsuit. His clients would have a strong case that the CSFRA was never intended to cover mobile homes, he said.
I have been to an RHC meeting and it is obvious that three three of them mentioned in this article hate renters and are trying to undermine the law. Why does the City Council let them do this?
I can't believe this judge. He must be in collusion with the RHC. How else could you explain his adopting the same argument as the RHC members? He totally ignored the vague wording of the ordinance?
I'm pleasantly surprised to see a neutral account of the matter from this publication. I'm more accustomed to seeing a strong editorial bias in articles touching on the subject of rent control.
As a single-family homeowner, not currently a landlord, I have no skin in this battle. (I will for Prop 10, which I may support). It seems clear from a previous Voice article, on Prop 10 / CSFRA interactions, that the lawyers crafting the ballot measure for the tenant's coalition made some political/wording decisions that have resulted in a situation that is legally, "at best ambiguous" (The JUDGE).
So - after Prop 10 (passes or not) it is clear that a revised CSFRA should go back on the Ballot. The CAA (California Apartment Association?) has their idea, I think most of the rest of MV/Council has their idea(s).
The curent wording of our CSFRA seems an obvious "compromise to get it passed". It will be interesting to see how the law at the state and city level evolves!
Rent control in Mountain View has already nuked those old rickety apartment houses with inadequate lower floors to the highest and best use. Rent controllers have shot themselves through the head. There is an investors' strike now underway. Invest in Seattle, Portland anywhere but California with an insatiable demand for subsidies on the part of the Hamlet like democratic socialist.
The article explains that the issue decided by the judge was whether the Rental Housing Committee had and exercised discretion (aka decicion-making authority) given by Measure V to interpret the reach of the measure and apply that interpretation through the Committee's rule-making authority. The issue decided was NOT strictly whether the measure applies to mobile home park rents. The judge's ruling is linked to the article and shows that the reporting is accurate. The measure reportedly (I have not checked its language myself) left the interpretation to the 5-member Committee. As such, the Committee could (with its new member) change its rules to include mobile home park rents. Then, the park owners or operators would surely sue and the new interpretation could be rejected as plainly wrong or upheld by the same or another judge. .
We hear from folks like the social studies teacher above who implies rent control imposes an undue burden on landlords who were making ends meet just fine before the bonanza triggered by Google's expansion. Absent documentation that costs for renovation, maintenance, appliances, etc have skyrocketed I see little here but "it's a gold rush and I've gotta get mine too".
Did the judge order Fenwick & West attorneys, and the plaintiff to pay the legal cost for the city's legal fees-expenses? I am assuming no since it was not mentioned in the story.
What this shows is the law firm retained by the city to give legal advice to the rental housing committee should be fired and legal representation should be sought from a competent law firm who would only offer legal advise based on the law, and not the tenant rights activist law firm which the current committee has retained who only gives a one sided opinion that is always on the tenants side.
Fine to consider and reconsider which attorneys to use. But the judge's decision linked to the article reveals that the matter of whether Measure V applies to mobile home park spaces is unclear was NOT DETERMINED by the court. It was determined by the Rental Housing Committee and may be reconsidered by that Committee. Read my earlier post. Or wallow if you prefer.
"..I see little here but "it's a gold rush and I've gotta get mine too...".
Investors who invest in a rental residential market take a RISK with their investment.
This is an essence of capitalism, the only system that works.
No one, no government, no tenants will step up to the plate and help limit investors losses when they occur.
But they are all eager to curtail the profits to zero once the market turns for better.
It would be insane to invest in such a enviroment, and passing of the prop 10 virtually insures this.
mike, you can't even define what a "free market" is, so let's just say you're not a great authority on what is "the essence of investing in the free market."
Please share your success story, oh guru of economics. It will add some weight to your otherwise troll-like posts.
[Portion removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language] You know you have no actual argument to make in favor of usury-like rent hikes, so you throw garbage instead.
What exactly is "garbage" in the leftists world?
Working hard, saving money, buying property, providing housing to others, charging market rent?
I think feeling somehow entitled to free handouts, stealing equity from someone else's property is a real "garbage".
Trying to get rich off people's basic needs through no effort of your own sounds pretty bad to me. Gouging is not "providing." You're a grocer marking up all their food and water during a natural disaster and have the audacity to consider that "providing."
The disdain you have for your tenants is fascinating, which I why I like your posting so much. You make it so easy for tenants to organize politically because you post over and over again how much you don't care about them or their struggles. You're an absentee, out-of-town landlord who looks at our community as a way to get rich, not as people with needs who deserve respect.
" no effort of your own"
This just shows me how clueless you are.
How do you know how much effort did take one to acquire a property?
All you can show for is that you pretend to "care".
Of course God forbid if your own money and work were involved.
But someone else's? Free for all.
The skyrocketing rent increases have nothing to do with any labor performed by you. In fact, it's exclusively through the hard work of others, performing the actual labor that has made our community so economically vibrant. If you disagree, what effort of yours justified raising rents during the crisis?
You're an absentee, out-of-town landlord who looks at our community something to squeeze every last penny from, not as people with needs who deserve respect.
The mobile homes are regulated under state laws completely differently to apartments because it is a very much more complicated issue. It is called the 2017 CALIFORNIA MOBILEHOME RESIDENCY LAW.
Unfortunately what needs to be done is for mobile homes is the same action regarding Proposition 10 the repeal of Costa Hawkins.
The people of California should mobilize and put a measure on the ballot to eliminate the distinction of Mobile Homes and rental properties. Why?
Because even though you may OWN your mobile home, the net result is that someone else can interfere with your ownership and a mobile home park owner.
Mike rose, this IS in fact theft because “mobile” homes are owned by their mortgage. But the extreme cost of removing them puts the mobile park owner in the position of in effect taking that property away where the only services being provided is a Power, Gas, Sewage, and Water hookup, and maybe some other amenities like a common pool, park, roads etc..
My suggestion is to first get rid of Costa Hawkins, then work on reforming the Mobile Home laws to make them identical to apartments.
I have been very conservative with rent increases for my tenants throughout years.
Before rent control average increase was less than $50 every 3 years. After the rent control was imposed, I decided to sell. My tenants asked me to reconsider and offered more rent money under the table. I refused.
I respect them and they do the same.
But this my choice, I own my properties free and clear and I can afford this.
So don't stick it personally to me.
However what the tenants activist are doing with private property owners, depriving them of most rights, extorting huge sums for "relocation payments" is discussing to me, maybe because I spent decades under communist rule.
I hope the owners of Santiago Villa and other mobile home parks are paying attention... sell! Some developer will pay decently to turn your property into townhomes for sale. I know many of my friends would like the opportunity to own a place. Who wants to be a long term renter anyways?
You’d have to be insane right now to invest in rental properties in California, much less Mountain View. So much risk.
You know better, watch more fake news, maybe brain washing will be complete one day.
See, incapable of even using reason, you just fall back to quoting Dear Leader. What went so wrong with you, mike?
Let's all listen to the clear-headed, rational actor that is mike rose. All of their rent increases, as they stated, were unaffected by Measure V, but once it passed they emotionally and impulsively sold the property. Nothing in their business changed, except for their fear of "Communism". It'd be funny that they hurt themselves for no reason other than they watch too much Fox News, if they weren't also hurting their former tenants in the process.
I don't believe legal fees have come up yet, although the defendants could certainly seek to get those repaid.
Could you elaborate how did I hurt my tenants?
Be specific, and why did you incorrectly assume that I sold my property when I said only that I decided to sell.
You write a lot of BS that is simply not true.
“Could you elaborate how did I hurt my tenants?
To me this is an attempt to do what you criticized me regarding being at least not very clear regarding your discussion. You know that was an intentional to give a false impression regarding your words.
Given the nature of your strategy to be ambiguous, you cannot make such a claim. Because you are responsible for the grammar you used and the interpretation of others.
The "defendant" is actually called a "respondent" in a writ proceeding. Here the respondent is a public entity: the Rental Housing Committee. The public entity cannot recovery attorney fees from the other side - unless the case were frivolous (which it is not). In contrast, the petitioner MIGHT have been awarded attorney fees incurred if petitioner had prevailed (or yet prevails after an appeal).There is a danger that the petitioner's attorney(s) will urge an appeal in hope of ultimately winning the case and recovering fees. My impression is that the judge may have gotten it right. But I have only read the decision linked to the article. Judges are usually right. Appeals are usually unsuccessful.
I should add that technically the City was also named as a respondent and that the court allowed a mobile home park owner to intervene. It is possible for a private intervenor to seek and receive an award of attorney fees under a special statute designed to encourage the public to litigate importamt issues; however, I doubt the statute could be used in this case where the intervenor was just protecting its own substantial financial stake in the matter.
Was it the intent of those who proposed and drafted the legislation to include mobile homes? In an ambiguous situation like this, intent is extremely important. "City attorneys pointed out that the CSFRA language never once mentions mobile homes". If mobile homes were not mentioned or discussed, then how can one prove intent?
Congratulations to Talk 702 presenter Redi Tlhabi on the birth of her daughter, Neo, yesterday. She tweeted the news early this morning saying, “Now hearing it from horse's mouth not self appointment messengers. Our daughter Neo has arrived. Thanks for wishing us well on this journey”.
Several people tweeted earlier this week that she had already given birth a couple days ago.
She also tweeted, “Congratulations @_Dame_ and @Fentse92 on the birth of your little sister Neo. She is so cute :-) & has the best big sisters in the world” to Lesego and Fentse, husband Brian’s daughters from his previous relationship.
The Hidden Language of Insects Radio Expeditions travels to a remote part of the Amazon rich with biodiversity to explore a surprising discovery: Some of the smallest residents of the jungle are communicating with each other, and their messages can be very complex.
May 25, 2006 Evidence suggests at least one group of insects, the tiny treehopper, communicates using sound vibrations. Researcher Rex Cocroft has scoured a biologically rich piece of the Amazon in eastern Ecuador to record the sounds of the tiny insect.
May 24, 2006 The jungle and rain forest surrounding the Tiputini Biodiversity Station is still incredibly wild, even by the standards of the Amazon. There are tantalizing hints that it also may be full of insects that talk to each other.
May 24, 2006 NPR engineer Flawn Williams kept a diary of his journey to eastern Ecuador to capture the sounds of the Amazon — hear his own report on his quest to record the spectacular bellows of the howler monkey.
Dozens of construction projects still are on the books for the Lafayette Parish School System, creating a wide-ranging list that includes everything from new paint to repairing air conditioning systems to more parking.
--Additions and renovations at David Thibodaux STEM Magnet Academy, costing $705,766. This is expected to include more student parking, an expanded engineering lab and a new science wing.
--Additions and renovations at L.J. Alleman Middle, costing more than $2 million. This will include a new cafeteria/auditorium.
--Renovations at Lafayette High, costing more than $1.1 million, including bathroom renovations and an addition for band and chorus storage.
Where would a new high school be built?
Other capital improvements projects that are on the list, but still a ways off, include $150,000 for computer labs at Carencro High's Academy of Information Technology, $20,000 for security cameras at Milton Elementary/Middle and $10,000 for more parking at Westside Elementary.
In addition, a self-funded construction fund also provides nearly $17.8 million for other projects. Among those that have already started or are scheduled to start before June 30 are $22,500 for a covered walkway at Ernest Gallet Elementary, $502,844 for Career Center renovations and $180,000 for a car rider lane and more teacher parking at Milton Elementary/Middle.
President Trump can tweet all he wants, but he has few options to get the cartel to change their oil-cutting ways.
The moral of the story is that environmental extremism is costing New York business and jobs. Do we want that for the country as a whole?
Venezuela lost out on one of the biggest oil price rallies in history.

Subsets and Splits

No community queries yet

The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.