Editor:
Measure V opponents spent thousands on mailers refuting “Rent Control.”
Lies of omission abound. They failed to mention “mobile home parks” in regular font regarding the measure because they want you to think it is about all rentals.
Statement: Counties are rejecting ordinances. Truth: More than 90 municipalities have such ordinances in effect successfully for decades, including the city and county of Sonoma. Statement: Carson must pay millions after losing a case. Truth: Carson is appealing, paying nothing. Statement: Humboldt doesn’t know long-term impacts. Truth: The county report estimates $6,000, a paltry sum to preserve more than 1,000 affordable housing units! Statement: Studies point to ineffectiveness. Truth: Studies, including Arcata’s, show that ordinances are effective.
Humboldt is losing discretionary spending in its local economy now as wealthy park owners suck it from the wallets of thousands of county residents and losing affordability in its mobile home parks. Yes on V!
Hilary Mosher, McKinleyville
Editor:
I am the treasurer of the “Yes on Measure V” committee. I was aghast when more than $165,000 came into the county to fight the few grandmothers who are trying to preserve their housing and, thus, live out their lives in dignity. But in the last week thousands of dollars came into the “No” side from park owners who don’t even have a park in Humboldt.
Since I have gone public with my support, my landlord has retaliated and I fear what will happen if we lose. I also fear for other low income folks who stand to lose more than just dollars. I am dumbfounded by the amount of money parks must generate if the owners can throw so much at the few that have dared to stand up to protect the future of unsubsidized low-income housing in Humboldt. Please, vote yes on measure V.
Patti Rose, McKinleyville
Editor:
I love Arcata. It’s the city that drew my husband and me to Humboldt.
When Arcata began looking into mobile home rents, I thought, “Great, a responsive government listening to its residents.”
But now that I’ve started reading its consultant’s draft report, I am mystified.
The report examines five possible responses to rising rents. Instead of describing the pros and cons of each, something actually helpful for a city’s decision making, it singles out just one alternative for one description of any possible downside.
The summary of a different alternative was so glowing I followed the footnotes. It turns out the glow comes from a consulting firm that represents property owners and mobile home park owners. It guides them in maximizing returns and getting their “entitlements.”
Now this oddly loaded report is being aimed at Measure V. A $160,000 out-of-area campaign is holding the propaganda gun.
Arcata … huh?
Carrie Peyton Dahlberg, Trinidad
Editor:
I am the treasurer of the “Yes on Measure V” committee. I was aghast when more than $165,000 came into the county to fight the few grandmothers who are trying to preserve their housing and, thus, live out their lives in dignity. But in the last week thousands of dollars came into the “No” side from park owners who don’t even have a park in Humboldt.
Since I have gone public with my support, my landlord has retaliated and I fear what will happen if we lose. I also fear for other low income folks who stand to lose more than just dollars. I am dumbfounded by the amount of money parks must generate if the owners can throw so much at the few that have dared to stand up to protect the future of unsubsidized low-income housing in Humboldt. Please, vote yes on measure V.
Patti Rose, McKinleyville
Editor:
I love Arcata. It’s the city that drew my husband and me to Humboldt.
When Arcata began looking into mobile home rents, I thought, “Great, a responsive government listening to its residents.”
But now that I’ve started reading its consultant’s draft report, I am mystified.
The report examines five possible responses to rising rents. Instead of describing the pros and cons of each, something actually helpful for a city’s decision making, it singles out just one alternative for one description of any possible downside.
The summary of a different alternative was so glowing I followed the footnotes. It turns out the glow comes from a consulting firm that represents property owners and mobile home park owners. It guides them in maximizing returns and getting their “entitlements.”
Now this oddly loaded report is being aimed at Measure V. A $160,000 out-of-area campaign is holding the propaganda gun.
Arcata … huh?
Carrie Peyton Dahlberg, Trinidad
This article appears in CLOSED.
Ms. Mosher’s letter is full of inaccuracies and purposely misleading omissions. Remember, Ms. Mosher — a non-retired business owner — has a vested interest in not telling the truth because she financially benefits if Measure V passes.
MISLEADING OMISSION: 90 municipalities have ordinances.
FACT: 447 don’t have any form of rent control and 17 jurisdictions have actually rescinded their rent control ordinances in recent years! AND over the past ten years, 13 Northern California cities and counties have considered rent control and officially rejected it, including neighboring Lake County and Mendocino County.
INACCURATE: Carson taxpayers are paying nothing for rent control.
FACT: Carson continues to pay expensive lawyers to appeal their devastating $7.4 million rent control judgement. Every day they fight to prop up their failing rent control program, their legal bills mount exponentially. Money that could be spent on services for the community.
MISLEADING OMISSION: $6500 is a paltry sum to preserve affordable housing.
FACT: $6500 is only the start as Measure V caps the $5 tax charged to mobile home owners. This deficit will only increase. If a park owner asks for a hearing from the county, the county has to pay for that lawyer. On top of that, if the park owner wins, the “losing” residents have to pay all the expenses incurred by the park owner for this hearing and all will have their rents raised as ordered by the Hearing Officer.
INACCURATE: Arcata study, as well as others, show that ordinances are effective.
FACT: Economist after economist agree that rent control is not the right answer. Study after study, including the Arcata study, show that rent control will hurt the neediest and poorest residents among us.
The fact is that rent control is not needed in Humboldt County. Especially not in the form of Measure V.
To get even more facts, please visit nomeasurev.com and Vote NO On Measure V.
Hilary Mosher, the disgraced author of Measure V who was forced to resign from her own rent control campaign has finally admitted that she lied when she denied being the writer of a January 2016 email offering to quit all rent control efforts in exchange for $150,000 in land and an interest-free loan. Mosher told the Mad River Union newspaper: “I will not dignify this scurrilous libel with a response.” Mad River Union Update 10.25.16: “According to an article in todays Times-Standard, Hilary Mosher confirmed that she did, in fact, write the email. This contradicts statements made by Mosher to the Union in which she denied writing the email and suggests that the email was just a campaign dirty trick.” Mosher’s two remaining campaign lieutenants, Patti Rose and Carrie Peyton Dahlberg, refused to condemn the greed and self-interest of their boss; instead, they thanked and praised Mosher. Humboldt County voters cannot trust people like this. Vote NO on Measure V.