Prop. 98 debate: Is rent control worth saving?

A number of smart people have been encouraging me to post on the dueling eminent domain propositions, Proposition 98 and Proposition 99. Because I could not get an appointment for an elective root canal today and was turned down in my bid to volunteer for jury duty, it appears a political discussion cannot be avoided (Aside: there is an election coming up, on June 3, in California).

Naturally these are somewhat complicated propositions, and there is a slim chance that over time I will do justice to the subject. Slim. But not now, not here. My question is this: is rent control worth keeping?

Proposition 98 would outlaw new rent control laws and phase out the old ones. From the Legislative Analyst's Office summary: "The measure generally prohibits government from limiting the price property owners may charge others to purchase, occupy, or use their land or buildings. This provision would affect local rent control measures. Specifically, government could not enact new rent control measures, and any rent control measure enacted after January 1, 2007, would end. Other rent control measures (those enacted before January 1, 2007) would be phased out on a unit-by-unit basis after an apartment unit or mobile home park space is vacated. Once a tenant left an apartment or mobile home space, property owners could charge market rate rents, and that apartment unit or mobile home space would not be subject to rent control again."

Good idea or a bad idea? Make your case. E-mail story tips to peter.viles@latimes.com.

Comments

[Todd]

Great idea. I am a supporter and contributor to this cause. Apartment Owners Association is leading the fight. May Prop 98 win and kill rent control for ever.

[IToldu2CashOut]

I don't know about rent control here in LA but I know in NY there have been a number of negative consequences from it. For example, it can cause people who are non-rent control to end up paying more rent because it changes the natural economics of supply and demand. People who end up with really great deals often will never give up their apartment even if they leave the city, thus decreasing the supply of apartments. They often keep the rent control place as a second home or rent it out to someone else on the sly. Of course i feel bad for renters who get forced out by greedy landlords, but I'm not sure these laws have a positive effect over many years. I've heard of people who had the same place for like 15 years and are paying like $300 for a $1800/month apartment. This doesn't really seem fair to anyone. Maybe they should create a cap of like 7 years for a rent controlled apartment as a compromise.

[Larry Gross, Coalition for Economic Survival]

Proposition 98 is a deceptive doomsday measure that a group of wealthy landlords spent millions to put on the ballot. These landlords want you to believe the measure is only about “eminent domain,” but Prop. 98 is full of hidden provisions that would hurt all Californians.

• Prop. 98 attacks renters by eliminating renter protections and rent control.

• Prop. 98 guts important environmental protections like laws we need to combat global warming, and protect our land, air, water and coasts.

• Prop. 98 jeopardizes the quality of our drinking water and our ability to secure new water sources to protect our environment and fuel our economy.

• Prop. 98 will result in frivolous lawsuits, higher taxpayer costs, and hurt our economy.

That's why a broad coalition including AARP, League of Women Voters of California, the Coalition to Protect California Renters, Golden State Manufactured-Home Owners League, Inc. (GSMOL), California Professional Firefighters, California Alliance for Retired Americans, California Teachers Association, California Police Chiefs Association, California Chamber of Commerce and a long list of others all oppose Prop. 98.

Many of these same groups are also supporting a real eminent domain reform on the June 3rd ballot.

Proposition 99 is the straightforward solution we need to protect against eminent domain abuse. Prop. 99 prohibits government from using eminent domain to take a home to transfer to a private developer. Unlike the landlords’ Prop. 98, Prop. 99 is eminent domain reform with NO HIDDEN AGENDAS.

Please be sure you have the facts and vote NO on 98 and Yes on 99 on June 3rd.

[Vindicated]

So a person owns something and then the government is able to manipulate what you can do with it and how much you can sell it for? I think it's pretty obvious how fascist rent control is. Funny thing is I've lived in a rent-controlled apartment for 8 years! Ultimately though, rent control does little to benefit investment and progress. And since we are in the United States, it's something that has nothing to do with the principles this country was founded on.

[Randy Adams]

Yeah, Apartment Owners Association. There's a real grassroots group for you. I'm a property owner and I am in favor of the current form of rent control. This one will die a death.

[John]

98 won't pass because most Californians lack critical thinking skills.

Since the passage of 99 overrides the passage of 98 due to the "poison pill" provision of 99, 98 is pretty unlikely to pass, unless a majority of CA voters are smart enough to vote yes on 98 and no on 99.

It's a shame though, as L.A., has so much land that developers would start another housing bubble for apartment buildings, tearing down dingbats and throwing up 5-10+ story buildings, and then supply would outweigh demand and there would be more cheap rentals available.

Oh well, we'll just have to wait for all those unsold condos to convert to apartments if we want the rental supply boosted.

[dclogang]

In this market will rent control make much of a difference anyway? Although I keep reading two sides of rent rates. One day I'm reading rent will go up and another rent will go down. which is it and how will this affect these two Props?

[jerome]

LA Rent control changes as proposed here won't
effect anyone until they move. The phasing out
starts with new tenants moving in under non-
controlled pricing and increases. It will increase
landlord harassment of long term holdouts and
any bill needs to add special penalities for such behavior. I know of a landlord who came in to
fix a toilet, took the toilet, and never returned
with a replacement. Another took off the front
door and never returned with a replacement. In
both cases the tenants had to leave the unit
as they could not live there. What they should have done is document the repairs they did themselves in replacing these items and deduct from rent. Tenants in this readership need to protect themselves more against the hardball games of motived landlords.

[Laker]

I don't think this has a chance to pass. I think there are little more apartment renters than building owners....
Also, if you do cancel rent control, it would reward speculators and investors to buy more RE for renting purposes, that will increase the pressure on pricing to go up as demand for that will increase. However, on the other hand, if rent get very expensive, it will simply drive people out of LA and/or out of CA.
supply and demand need to meet somewhere.

[Andy]

Commuinism has collapsed everywhere ELSE in the world - hopefully California will stop dabbling in it before economic catastrophe overtakes it.

If there aren't eniough apartments people can afford, the state could always try reducing the insane amount of taxes and regulation on businesses so they can create more good jobs, and simplifying the building code and permitting process so more dwellings can be built.

[David]

we need rent control ! It is good for society and business. Business benifits from being able to fill low wage postions and society benifits from having those postions filled. Massachusetts recently abolished rent control and it had a devastating effect on neighborhoods and communites. Hawaii is so expensive they have to fly in low wage food service workers because working people cannot afford to live there. The result is a two tierd society. Is this what we want? The current form of rent control is fair to owners, allowing market rate rentals after tenant vacancy and including cost of living icreases in rent for the landlords.

[Paul]

Eliminating rent control would do much to help alleviate the housing shortage in Southern California and incentivize property owner's to invest in their existing properties, particularly those currently affected by rent control laws; including the clearly political and void of all common sense Rent Control Ordinance the exists in the City of L.A..

[TakeFive]

Long, long overdue. Rent control is wrong in principle and is damaging to both neighborhoods and landlords.

Much like communism, it got a fair try, and was found wanting.

[Paul C]

Obviously owners are going to be for 98 and renters aren't. Pretty simple.

pbc

[Mike P.]

I worry that getting rid of rent control will push the middle class out of LA even faster. Our demographics are unsustainable if recent migration trends continue.

I usually tend towards letting markets (here renters vs landlords) work themselves out, but maybe because I rent (full disclosure), I have a more vested interest.

Renters are at the mercy of their landlords, unlike homeowners, who know the terms of their future house payments in advance (the terms of the mortgage). I think that was part of the justification for instituting rent control in the first place.

Either way I'm voting 'No' & 'No' on the dualing props.

[Against 98]

Economically, one can argue that old-fashioned rent control is ultimately bad both for owners and many tenants. But given the transaction cost of moving (and the difficulty of getting back a security deposit in non-rent control communities even when you've taken good care of the unit), something like the present West Hollywood situation seems like a practical compromise: landlords can negotiate as much rent as the unit will bear initially, but then rent increases are determined by a city board for the life of occupancy, and there's a government machine in place to handle disputes between tenants and landlords.

Imagine if renters were subject to the kind of boom and busts owner/speculators are going through now...

[KateNonymous]

Would an end to rent control mean that property managers would maintain properties better? For example, would it still take four years to get cold water in my kitchen?

[Scott]

Todd, are you a landlord or something? Please. Prices are completely out of control WITH rent control. When house prices finally come down, we should implement control over that too so that prices can never be out of whack with incomes EVER again. I don't know WHY people think they're entitled to $1200 of my hard earned money for an apartment that should be $700, or $1,000,000 for a house that should be at most $250,000.

This free market foolishness must go, it's all just completely out of control.

[Theron]

I don't think rent control is worth saving. While there may be people who society wants to help with their housing costs it seems most unfair to force this burden onto the shoulders of apartment owners.

[Matt]

Rent control is needed. This will be defeated. Rent control is critical to preserving Los Angeles for any working class family. If this passes, there will be a mass migration from the city. Since the "market" was not good enough for Bear Sters, I see no reason why it should be trusted with people's homes. But, this will fail hard, so I am not too worried about it. Think what would happen if landlords who got in over their heads with buying buildings cheap could just jack up the rents for their own mistakes.

[Dan]

I doubt 98 will win, but it would make prices more reasonable/fair here in Santa Monica if it did pass. Too bar so many politicians disregard economists.

[Kathy]

No, rent control is not worth saving, and I've lived in rent controlled buildings. I know a lot of folks will say that a city as expensive as Los Angeles needs it, but it really hasn't helped keep costs down, if you look at all the owners who were allowed to sell their buildings and evict tenants during the recent bubble. Rents are at an all time high in most of L.A. The percentage of rent controlled units has declined steadily in the last 5 years. I'd rather see the city try the co-op approach with rental buildings; with the recent downturn, I bet a few developers who are now stuck with condos and townhouses might consider that option.

[why is the roof still leaking]

In the space of three years my rent increased from $800 to $1200, keeping pace with market rates. However, in that time, the property owner has yet to replace the a/c filter, sweep the chimney, clean the outside windows, or perform any other maintenance save for changing the 9-volt battery on the smoke detectors (something I could easily do myself). I'm not sure how the rent increase is being used, but it certainly isn't being used to improve or maintain the property, and I find it hard to believe that paying for my water or trash has increased by $4800/yr. Living in a non rent-controlled area, I can only say I wish there were more protections for renters from being gouged. It's easy to raise rent, and it's hard to move, especially since it requires more money and time; property owners take advantage of that fact because the law lets them.

[toby]

Depends on what kind of Los Angeles you want?

Do you want a Los Angeles that doesn't have workers to work at...oh...I don't know...the gas station, tellers at banks, workers at restaurants-fast food-Best Buy...

Do you want a Los Angeles were a landlord can finically evict you (raise you rent 500 dollars with a 30 day notice) just because he has a friend moving to town?

Do you want a Los Angeles where deposits are only in name alone. In actuality, it's an addition months rent (that you don't get to use against rent) that you must pay before moving in and don't get back because...well...THE LANDLORD RULES ALL!

Well then by all means, vote yes on Prop. 98 & 99.

[perks]

Haven't made up my own mind on the issue yet. Personally, I tend to think it's more a decision that should be left to the cities than usurped by the state. I do have to wonder, though, how many homeowners who vote in favor of repealing rent control would strongly oppose any similar effort to repeal Prop. 13 (and how many of them would fail to notice their hypocrisy)...

[MyLessThanPrimeBeef]

I am in favor of gas control - how much a gas station can charge for gas and how much a person can discharge his/her gas, which, I was told once, by a doctor not less, is the main culprit for the excess methane in the atmosphere and a huge factor in Global Warming.

[Liz Wetzel]

My father has has a 12-uint in Glendale and this is what he does, he would rent a new apartment at a very high price. If he likes the tenants he wouldnt raise the rent for a long time. One of the units are occupied by a Filipino couple, both professionals and have two children both born while they are his tenants. My father hasnt raised their rent for 8 years now. In return, the couple treat the unit like their own, like changing the countertop on their own, keeping a clean yard, doing his taxes for free, etc. They also painted the inside on their own. He said the couple reminds him of my Mom and him when they were just starting and he has never seen a more hardworking and grateful couple. Frankly, my father is the most annoying perfectionist, racist person i have ever lived with. I cant live with him even if its a rent-free arrangement.

[Eliza]

Considering how high rents are even WITH rent control, phasing out or eliminating rent control is a bad idea. Los Angeles is quickly becoming one of the most expensive cities in the world and eliminating rent control will make it even less affordable for renters to live in Los Angeles.

[Todd]

In replying to Scott, YES, I am a landlord. Being a landlord has been quite good to me. I am tired of seeing landlord treated like the oil companies. We provide a hell of a product to the market place. Like oil companies, we are in a capital and labor intensive building. Landlording and owning incoming property is far from being glamorous or clean. It is dirty and filled with headaches and takes years for revenue streams to really produce.

Who is to say what a 2 bedroom in Silverlake is. Remember, landlords do not set rents....tenants do. I have plenty of example of me trying to get $1,200 for a 1 bedroom and not getting one phone call until it hit $1,095. The renters told me what it was worth, it was worth $1,095/mo. Landlords do not set rents, tenants and the market place do.

Rent control exists in very, very ,very few places. Phoenix and Chicago are two cities to mention. Locally, Burbank does not have RSOs. Why are building with CofO's dated after October 1978 are free of rent control? This law benefits owners who have the capital to afford newer buildings or to build their own. The "Mom and Pop" or those who are not extremely well capitalized, cannot afford non-RSO inventory. We can see how rent control laws have a greater effect on the smaller owners more than the big well healed and capitalized ones.

The rich dudes like Sterling and developers of Hollywood and Downtown do not care about RSO....for virtually all their inventory is non-RSO. A commerical or industrial building converted to R use is automatically non-RSO.

Most landlords are not well heeled and rich. They all sure hope to be.... and may they all get there. Most landlords are a paycheck or two, or a building emergency or two from losing their crap and becoming a tenant themselves.

[tew]

Rent control is a terrible idea and imposes arbitrary revenue losses on owners and arbitrary benefits to tenants. Why should one tenant pay half or less what a neighbor pays just for being there first? Why should one building owner get half the revenue of somebody else just because his/her building has tenants who won't budge?

That said, why should owners get Prop 13 benefits unless they also keep rents in line with the Prop 13 cap? Prop 13 is kind of like a rent control for owners...

[the problemwithcaring]

Free markets don't really exist - anywhere. So the argument here is that apprently they should exist only for the poor, broke and/or landless?

Seems like there are already plenty of allowable rent increases now - http://www.lacity.org/LAHD/increase.pdf

[Dave]

I live in West Hollywood with stringent rent control and during my tenancy:

My landlord, in response to my having called to say I had no hot water, told me he could get it fixed in a few days, said, that in the old country, when he was young, they had to bathe in puddles.

The refrigerator that came with the unit went out and he only agreed to replace it if I paid half the cost of it.

My roommate and I replaced the kitchen tile and put new hardware on the drawers and added a decorative walllpaper border. No comment from him.

The law requires him to repaint the walls every four years and that the carpets be replaced every five years. Neither had been done before we moved in and we've long exceed those deadlines.

He someone come in to hardwire the smoke dectector in the apartment. That handyman put the detector too close to the outvent of the heater, making the alarm go off every time the heater went on. We waited for him to fix it and we took it off after a few weeks. We're still waiting.

The list goes on. With the market as bad as it is in Los Angeles, there's no incentive but the law for SOME landlords to maintain their properties. I shudder to think what removing the law will encourage them to do.

[Susan Hilton]

Being from Texas I don't understand rent control at all. Why should anyone tell me how much I can charge for my property? Why not allow free market handle it and take the government out?

[Angela Haward]

My building is under rent control protection, so our "smartass" landlord, who inherited the building just a year ago, figured a way around it by changing all the windows in the building, repainting it and ....passing the cost on to tenants. It doesn't bother anyone that nobody asked tenant's opinion at the time, or discussed the matter beforehand. Tenants took the matter into a court, which ruled out the cost should be proportionate to the number of windows in each appartment, but overall rent increase is legitamate.

The bottomline, however ,is this-as homeowners are pushed out from their properties and demand for rental appartments increases, landlords and developers smell new possibility for profiting and actively pushing for a new, so-called 98 proposition.

[JohnnyB]

Many years back I lived in a west side rent control apartment where I was paying many times what other neighbors were paying. And, some of those others were not the original tenants... they just happened to know the original tenants and got in on the sly to maintain the ultra cheap unit.

I didn't like rent control then and I don't like it now. It's inherently unfair, biased and flawed in it's implementation.

All depends on your perspective... if you're one of the select few who get to live for 20 cents (or whatever) on the dollar it's probably pretty sweet. The reality is that everyone else directly and indirectly subsidizes those "previous residents" living on the cheep in mixed rent controlled apartment buildings.

What DOES make sense and what is CRUCIAL is to have and maintain annual rent increase CAP limits that prevent owners from gouging renters, driving tenants out, etc. etc. with unreasonable increases after the tenant has moved in. But, to establish parity, those currently in rent controlled apartments should be subject to several times that mandatory cap limit until things even out.

So much has changed regarding living spaces in California in the last 20 years. The huge disparities in rent payments within buildings - and the way the rent controlled units are manipulated - make zero sense as is (unless you’re in one of those units).

[rob]

I am a property owner, a business owner, and a renter. I think rent control is a fair system that helps keep the cost of living down for some people who would otherwise not be able to afford living in the city or close to work.

For my rental property I have some long term tenants that I know will not move out because they have below market rents. This is good because then I do not need to worry about renting the unit, paint, etc all of that stuff when it becomes vacant. Of the units that are paying market rent I have a much higher turnover. I make good money on them, but maintenance on this units is higher.

As a business owner I am happy that rent control has let some of my employees prosper as the salary increases that I have given them over the years has not always gotten eaten up by rental inflation.

As a renter I am in someplace that is not under rent control, but when negotiating a lease renewal I am able to use the city rent control guidelines for increase during the year as part of my bargaining.

[Enlightenment]

I think all the metro counties (LA, OC, SB, V) should have stronger rent laws to protect the renters:
- Law to cap the percent incease in rent per year.
- Law to create an independent agency to hold deposit money, so bad landlords can't scam people when they move out. All of the deposit money would be invested in bonds or interest drawing fund to help pay for the service.

I don't belive in freezing rent, but I do believe that rent increases should be capped!!!

Renters need more protection!!!

[Elle]

How can people who have lived in rent-control building want to vote for prop 98? Where did the logic come from?

[left of lefty]

i see rent control for renters as similar to prop 13 for owners. both protect the occupants from unforeseen price increases beyond their control.

i'm willing to let go of rent control for renters as long as owners are willing to give up prop 13.

disclaimer: i'm both an owner (not a landlord) and a renter (not under rent control). i own a home, but rent somewhere closer to work.

[Enlightenment]

We need to cap the rent increase to some percentage a year, like 5% or 7%, or possibly the published USA inflation rate for each year plus some flat amount of percent. I'm cool with all increase caps, but I don't believe in freezing rent prices.

[RayDeluxx]

I own two small apartment buildings. One has rent control the other does not. Guess which one gets maintained? Hint, its not the rent controlled building. You see, I am subsidizing the rent of a single mom that does not work and just has another child. She pays $1000 for a 3 bd/2ba unit.The city of Los Angeles just raised my taxes and utilities which do not have price controls. My other building has new paint and carpet. Why?because I use the rent income to maintain it. I can not willy nilly raise the rent because I will have a vacant building. All I want is a fair return on my hard earned investment.

[AK]

"98 won't pass because most Californians lack critical thinking skills."

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Vote YES on 98 and NO on 99 on June 3rd.

[Julie L]

Let's not forget that the landlords were all in favor of Proposition 13 back in 1978 and claimed that high property taxes were driving rents up, and that rents would go down if Prop 13 passed.

How'd that work out?

[Bubblewatcher]

More and more, living here in West Hollywood where something like 300 renters lost their homes to condo development last year, I'm seeing the detrimental effects of rent control. Many of these displaced renters have been in their homes for 30 or more years, with rent control creating a stronger and stronger incentive not to buy themselves a home of their own. Now, at an age when having some equity -- perhaps even a paid-off mortgage -- would be ideal, they're forced to pull up stakes and pay several times the monthly rent, in most cases in an unfamiliar neighborhood.

Conversely, you've got the detrimental effect of rent control on these older buildings, which are falling apart from deferred maintenance since their owners are (in inflation-adjusted terms) collecting less and less rent as the structure requires more and more maintenance. Just the other night, our City Council approved the demolition of an unkempt but lovely 1924 courtyard building, displacing several long term tenants, in favor of yet more million dollar condos (with nine months of condo supply on the market already).

At some point, I think rent control needs to go. This may not be the proposition to do it, though -- the environmental concerns are a bit scary and sweeping.

[renterinmidwilshire]

With the exception of those who took out adjustable ARM loans (to afford a house they couldn't afford), homeowners don't see their mortgage jump at least 5% every single year after year. 5% is the current maximum increase allowed under current RENT CONTROL laws. That wasn't such a big deal when rents were $800 a month. But now that they're more like $2000 a month (for a 2 bed in a decent neighborhood) you're looking at an annual rent increase of $1200 a year. (Year after year). No one claims foul when the guy who bought a house 25 years ago only pays $900 a month in mortgage. His mortgage doesn't jump up.
Renters are the biggest byproduct losers in this whole Los ANgeles real estate bubble. Renters do not get any tax write offs, unlike homeowners. Nor do they get any equity. Nor do they have the privledge in living someplace they can truly call their own. Rents have SKYROCKETED here, not so much on supply on demand but because since house values were escalating 25% annually, landlords felt, hey, let's make rents skyrocket along with it. (Again, with renters not allowed any of the benefits of homeowners).
And by the way, I am a renter in a non rent control building. I'm all for rent control. Landlords are businessmen and they will squeeze renters for as much as they can get, just like the people selling their home are trying to ask ridiculous price for their crappy little property. THe real estate bubble has changed the landscape of LA for the worse. Just like home prices, rents are not in line with people's incomes. There needs to be MORE to protect renter's rights.

[Santos Aviles]

Why should landlords be abligated to supply subsidized housing for low income workers? Shouldn't it be the employers? Or we could spread the burden to all businesses in the city of Los Angeles. For example, gas stations charging less for gas based on income, same for grocery stores etc. etc. Why is the state forcing socialist/communist practices in a free market economy? If the state is interested in subsidizing housing, it could send direct subsidies to the tenants or subsidies to the landlonds? Rent control makes no sense.

[Tokyo Temp - ex LA Renter]

Susan from Texas,

That's because Texas has reasonable rents. The quality of rental units in LA for any reasonable amount of money is nuts here LA is a lot like Tokyo. A lot of apartments, but most of it is old, junky and over priced.

That being said, I think Rent Control is ridiculous and has caused rents to increase. Though I doubt it will have any affect on the maintenance of the existing apartment stock. The current lot of landlords in LA seem to care not one whit about their buildings.

[Joe Oliva]

Yes on 98
NO on 99

nobody who has rent control now loses that protection

this is just permanent decontrol
right now we have decontrol recontrol
Rent control is bad for the community. It makes landlords and tenants into adversaries.
In what other business is there such hostility to customers or businessmen?
Freedom to bargain is an important freedom
The big losers will be the rent control bureaucrats.
They will need to find new jobs. That is why they are ferociously against 98

[Belle]

I would vote in favor of outlawing rent control if I could get a rate hike cap for rent. I live in a non-rent control area. At my last place, my landlord raised the rent by 18% after my first year there. I see something like 5-10% annual cap being reasonable.

The rent hike wasn't my only motivation for moving (story below) but I definitely saw it as a tool used to try to force us to move out and get one of her friends into our place. She even gave us a dollar incentive to move out early so she could get her friend in earlier.

Storytime!
My landlady would send us a list of the things we needed to clean to maintain her property or she would hire someone to clean for us and bill us. I thought she was pretty nutso so we decided to move with extra motivation from the rent increase. We're paying more money for a nicer place but at least the landlord doesn't have ridiculous expectations. Not only that, she required we had the carpets professionally cleaned yearly at our expense.

[gary]

what a bunch of idiots, its more than just rent control, god almighty I bet you all plan to vote for mccain also.

[sheila]

people here don't seem to understand that RENT CONTROL = CAPS ON RENT INCREASES. period. what do you think it is? in Santa Monica, rent goes up to "market rate" at every vacancy, but the new rent is subject to the CAP on rent increases (usually about 3%). That is it. The Big Communist Manifesto. From the outrage, you'd think we were subsidizing Big Oil and socializing the environmental costs of it, while privatizing the enormous profits or something! or paying millionaire non-farmers not to grow crops on their vanity ranches. you know, interfering with the free market... woops!

If you stay longer, and provide stability for the landlord, your basis is probably lower than your new neighbor, assuming rents keep increasing, but how is that more unfair that getting an airline ticket cheaper than the seat next to you? Nobody's forcing someone to be your landlord. If they don't like it, they don't have to buy the building, or they can sell it. It's a free market, after all. Buying it with delusions that everything will change is the epitome of irresponsible real estate investing - i would think people would be opposed to that here.

landlords aren't taken by surprise with rent control. they buy a property knowing it's controlled. Occupancy is nearly always 100% and as noted, repairs are minimal, so anyone who doesn't buy at the height of a bubble does quite well as landlord of a RC building. Or else, why do they keep doing it?

[renterinmidwilshire]

Everyone's talking about how to rescue poor homeowners whose ARMS will reset and their monthly payments will increase. Well, what about the renters whose rents can be randomly raised 5, 10, 25 % at a whim with no rent control board to stop them. Is THAT fair? No one talks about bailing renters out of the situation. Both rents and home prices need to come down dramatically in LA as they have been artificially raised for no good reason other than greed. There are some very decent, fair landlords out there, but in general if you take away rent control it will perpetuate high rents no one can afford.

[ted]

to susan from texas--------- nobody cares what someone from texas has to say. most likely your infected with bushism and please dont touch anything so we californians cannot become infected.

['nuf]

Ted:

You're a jerk. Susan makes valid points. You're just a greedy biggot (most likely a commie Democrat).

[ted]

Well I aint no redneck war loving american killing spineless fool from texas, ye ahhhhhhh for LBJ and vietnam and bush 1 and 2 for the middle east. Oh, BTW I am a vietnam vet and GW1 vet and have the wounds to prove it. So yeah, anything from texas is nobody I care to hear from.

[Bill]

I'm a landlord with pre-1978 property in the City of Los Angeles and I support rent control. The city sets the "cap" on increases which is usually between 2-4%. I include language in my rental agreements forbiding subletting (re-renting on their own) of the unit. I don't automatically raise the rent the max possible each year. Tenants who pay rent on time and take care of their unit might not get an increase at all. Tenants who pay late, bounce checks, cause problems with other tenants...they will get the maximum increase every year. Plus late fees for paying rent late.

[Ryan]

My wife and I are graduate students at local large universities and we moved here in 2005 from out of state. We are currently employed as teaching assistants and to keep costs down we purchased an older mobile home near Claremont. We live in a city that has rent control for mobile home parks. While I understand that we will still be subject to rent control if 98 passes, the potential sales price of our mobile home will surely decrease if it does. The passage of 98 will result in a significant loss in equity for all mobile home owners in California who live in cities with rent control for mobile home parks.
I can understand those who think that rent control is a bad idea in general for apartments. But mobile home parks are different. Unlike apartments where tenants can leave if rent gets raised significantly, mobile home residents are 'stuck' with their landlords. In order to move, we have to sell our homes. But selling our homes becomes more difficult as lot rents rise. I hope this is clear. Out here in the Inland Empire, why should there be a massive equity shift from mobile home owners (generally poor) to park owners (generally less poor)? Maybe rent control is a bad idea, but the rules were already in place by the time most MH purchasers had decided to purchase. I hate to see what I feel is one of the last sources of affordable housing disappear.
On a side note, my wife and I would have happily bought a house rather than a mobile home, but since home prices were *ridiculous* in this area when we moved out here, that was simply not a realistic option. We were able to purchase a clean older mobile home for approximately 1/12th of what a similar size tract home in this area was running in 2005.

[Martin]

I'm a landlord in the City of Los Angeles. I do not, however, own units that fall under the jurisdiction of the city rent control ordinance because my units received their certificate of occupancy after the Oct., 1977 law became effective. Thank heavens. Or thank my foresight.

There is no other industry in the U.S. in which prices are regulated by a government. Indeed, rent control is socialist, anti-free trade in nature. Anybody should be able to understand this simple comment.

Propositon 98 will not affect current renters. Like New York City, they will still have the rent control commodity ... something New Yorkers who rent $3000 apartments for $650.00 a month enjoy. Of course, that $650.00 rental will eventually be a blight on the urban landscape.

I have a second cousin in Brooklyn who lives in one half of duplex her grandfather purchased in 1928. The other half is rented to a family that also has lived there for three generations. The current rent is $375.00 a month. Similar apartments in this neighborhood rent for $1600.00 a month.

Why would anyone think this is good or fair government? It's quite the opposite.

[Inland Empire]

All you renters be sure to vote to get rent control. This way you will have limited selection of available properties. The landlord won't have money to paint, update, really clean well or anything to make the property attractive or do anything but the most minimal of repairs. He can then pick the prospective tenant that will do the least wear and tear on the property such as a single person who travels all the time for business leaving you and your family still looking.
With no rent control, you have a choice. With rent control, you shoot yourself in the foot.

[Fuddy Duddy]

That is totally true. For example, San Francisco now has more dogs than children. It has become a childess, family-less, city. Small property owners are Ellis Acting their buildings or leaving units vacant. Larger family-owned buildings are being bought out by big real estate companies. Leases are 13 pages long and you better have excellent credit and a full time job if you want to rent a place! When you rent to someone in SF it's the commitment is worse then marriage or giving birth to someone. To say the least Landlords are very picky.
Vote YES on Prop. 98

[Becca]

Speaking of free-markets, who exactly held a gun to the head of landlords who purchased properties covered by rent control?

Buy a house next to an airport, then complain about aiport noise? Buy a building with rent-control laws and then whine about how you can't make a living at it?

I've seen plenty of landlords keep apartments vacant for months at inflated prices rather than let them go to "market rate" because they don't want poorer people in there.

Why is it the "free market" is always attacked by the side that doesn't get rich off other people? My landlady sucks and refuses to make repairs even though I DO pay about market rate for my apartment (only been there 3 years). If I do complain, she knows there's high demand for the apartment because it is rent controlled and others will want it.

Sorry, but I don't see how rent control violates the free market at all. If someone was stupid enough to buy a rent-controlled building w/o knowing it, I'd say that's a different type of natural selection.

[Laker]

Some have mentioned that PROP 13 was supported in 1978 by many landlord...well sure.

what i don't understand is why rented property should have this subsidy for the tax payers....and in LA they are the majority.
Same thing as commercial property protected by prop13.
Wake up guys and gals, and you see the reason why in CA but mainly LA, where there is demand, there are far more renters than owners. This is just highlighted if you look at national levels or renters/owners.
I see why prop 13 is a good thing but it should only apply to 1st home, and owner occupied. For all others it should be canceled and property taxes should be able to freely adjust to reflect market value. With doing that, all the investors and speculators would not get rewarded for speculating on many people, and thus actual property taxes for the general tax payers would be reduced.
Also it will promote home ownership and will readjust the supply/demand and the renters/owners ratio to more like the national level.
Prop13 reduced number of owner and increases the number of renters in ares of high demand. Think about it.

[fuddy duddy]

becca, in San Francisco anyway, nobody is buying rent controlled units to rent them out, They now buy them to turn them into TICs. The landlords who are angry are the ones who bought before 1979 for 6-10 unit buildings and 1994 for 2-4 units buildings. Since 1979 SF has amended it's rent control ordinance over 30 times. Each time taking some right from the owner. Rental units are not being built in SF, condos are and they are not covered by rent control thanks to Costa Hawkins. So your right no ones holding a gun to anyones head. Ppl buying rent controlled buildings are emptying them of tenants, decreasing the rental stock and causing rents to increase. The City of Berkeley is pro prop 99. What does that tell you? Vote Yes on 98, No on 99.

[Jamothy]

The current rent control for Los Angeles went into effect in about 1979/78. It only effects owners of buildings built prior to 1978. So no one in 30 years has had rent control forced upon them. No one is making new land.

[kinsela]

Vote NO on 98.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/09/business/
09rent.html?hp

[JohnnyB]

Sheila wrote; “RENT CONTROL = CAPS ON RENT INCREASES. Period.”

That’s absolutely correct… the problem (IMO) is that over very long periods of time the disparities between initial/early renters and those of renters 20 years later (at market rates) are way too disparate and wildly uneven… and impossible to justify and perpetuate. Without mechanisms for resetting to market rates AT SOME POINT IN TIME whether that’s every 5 or 10 years, the implementation becomes totally unfair and also subject to manipulations. It also shifts direct/indirect costs to later renters disproportionately.

If owners/renters knew that this program wasn’t locked in for life, but rather allowed for a reasonable time frame for stability in rent increases (5-10 years) and then has a mechanism for market adjustment, everyone has advanced notice for planning ahead and the program doesn’t get so out of whack after 20 years – like it is now.

The one-time airline ticket example ($100 or so bucks here or there) doesn’t compare to a lifetime of savings (in the multiple thousands) for these initial renters. Now it’s more like the initial renters get 1st class seating and global travel at cargo prices for life and later renters get cargo hold place mats and local travel at 1st class pricing for their rental duration.

Laker; excellent point on prop 13... This supposed 3rd rail of political discourse has run it’s course (as is). Wiki has an excellent summary of prop 13’s negative impacts and folks should at least brief themselves.

[yours truly, Johnny Dollar]

If market forces were allowed to function without interruption, there would be no need for things like
Prop 13, 98 and 99. But, "little things" like the housing
pressures placed by the illegal populations (and I had
to clean that term up) cause this market to be
disrupted (and I had to clean that term up).
For the moment, things are reverting back to a pure
market economy thanks to $4.29 point 9 prices for
87 octane and thanks to $4.79 point 9 prices for diesel
(see posting at Union 76 station corner of Barrington
and Pico). Think of flushing the toilet.
Things will work itself out. There are capitalists and
there are communists. If you're not a communist, you
are a capitalist (and vice versa).
Prop 99 bottles of beer on the wall; prop 98 bottles of
beer; take one down........

[Valley Observer]

"the problem (IMO) is that over very long periods of time the disparities between initial/early renters and those of renters 20 years later (at market rates) are way too disparate and wildly uneven… and impossible to justify and perpetuate."

You could say exactly the same thing about Prop 13 vis a vis property taxes. The property tax on my mother's house in Santa Monica worth perhaps $2 to $2-1/2 million is *less* than I pay for my 1950 Van Nuys tract house , because hers was purchased in 1961 and mine in 1985.

BTW, the correct solution IMHO to the problem of ballooning property taxes that Prop 13 addressed was to determine the tax rate for a jurisdiction through some sort of index involving things like population growth and inflation, and then recompute the rate every year -- when total assessed values increase faster than the index, reduce the tax rate accordingly. If cities like Santa Monica had had the wit to do that, Prop 13 wouldn't have happened.

[Anthony Brancato]

Ask yourself this question: If rent control is abolished, who will be able to afford to take jobs bussing tables in restaurants, cleaning hotel rooms, etc.?

The answer is obvious: Kids still living at home with their parents! Do we then assure such businesses of a plentiful supply of such workers by repealing the child labor laws?

Another possibility is that illegal aliens will crowd into apartments, with individuals working different shifts and sleeping in the apartment in shifts. This would destroy the quality of life in entire neighborhoods, and cause all sorts of public health and safety hazards, such as fires.

And don't buy this "phase-out" stuff for a minute: When Massachusetts did away with rent control by means of a similar ballot measure in 1994, landlords in Boston hired goons from the infamous Winter Hill gang founded by now-fugitive Whitey Bulger, to intimidate established tenants and force them to move out. There were also widespread reports of nitpicking evictions against tenants who were one day late in their rent payments, and so on.

I live in San Francisco, and if this thing passes on June 3rd, I'll be giving my employer (a hotel) two weeks' notice on June 4th, and I'll be in either Albuquerque or the Quad Cities area by the 18th.

[Rent Control Beneficiary]

All apartments will automatically go to market rate when vacated with rent control already. Isn't everyone feeling the pinch with the increase in gasoline, food, and utilities? Let those who are living on fixed incomes not be forced out of or into higher rent because of greedy developers. Vote NO on 98.

Yes. There is disparity...because of prop 13!

[Santa Monica renter]

I think what many owners forget is that, as an owner on a fixed morgage, your payments are locked no matter what. Prices go up? No big deal, you're locked in at a lower price! I'm sure everyone would love to have that luxury, and in most markets the typical family can eventually buy if they save up.

The problem happens in areas where most renters will never be able to buy because it's simply too expensive. In places like that, you're screwed as a renter because you'll never be able to buy, and you have no guarantee that you won't get priced out at any month down the road. Your only other option is to move out of the area and commute in from a less expensive one... and that causes all sorts of problems for you, the communities and the cities.

So that's where rent control comes in: it gives the local work force the option to give up on owning their own property (that's a BIG deal by the way), and instead lock into a rental price, similar to how a fixed mortgage might work.

If landlords are able to reset prices once a tenant leaves, and they are able to increase rent a modest amount every year to maintain profit, then it seems like a win/win to me!

... unless of course your goal as a landlord is to fleece your tenants for as much money as possible with no ethical consideration. In that case, screw you too; I'll be voting no on 98 and 99.

[househunting]

Wnat to know the truth about rent control?
Here are excerpts on what a 30-year career expert in Rent Control, with experience in Rent Control on both coasts and all over California, has to say about Rent Control. What I find amazing is that if prop 98 passes, this expert will be out of a well paying job! Yet he, once a strong proponent of Rent Control (before it became the twisted mess it is in California today), is STILL willing to be honest and explain why Rent Control is wrong and should end.

"Why I Support Ending Rent Control

BY Greg McConnell

...As a disclaimer, I have made a career out of rent control. If I wake up on June 4 and it is still the law in Berkeley and Oakland, there is a very good chance that I will continue this career and my son may join my business and become the next generation of McConnell Group rent control experts....

I started my career as executive assistant to the District of Columbia’s rent control program. I believed then, as I do now, that it is appropriate and responsible for government to ensure that landlords provide safe and decent housing to tenants. I knew then, as I know now, that there are plenty of landlords who take money from their properties, let their buildings rot and thereby reduce low income tenants to making a choice between living in squalor or in the streets. Government should make landlords keep their properties in compliance with basic habitable living codes...

IF that was the focus of rent control, I would support it to this day....

The Case Against Rent Control

Is there any question that poor people need help? Absolutely not! But does rent control help them? If it did, I would support it. But, after nearly 30 years in this field, I am convinced of the following:

* Rent Control does NOT help people based upon need.
* Rent Control is NOT assistance from the government; it is a burden imposed on individuals.
* Rent Control is NOT a short-term solution for people who need time to adjust to bad situations.

Rent control limits prices on housing WITHOUT REGARD to the tenant’s ability to pay. [For example] In Berkeley, many of the “needy students” of the early 1980’s are now professors and they continue to occupy rent controlled units and pay rents that are often as low as one third of market rates. The same is true in Oakland, San Francisco, AND RENT CONTROL CITIES THROUGHOUT CALIFORNIA, where WELL P AID young professionals and middle class residents occupy rent controlled apartments and take the benefits of rent subsidies that were intended for the poor....

Even when rent control helps intended beneficiaries, it does so wrongly by making one individual pay the cost of another’s hardship. This has been devastating to small minority owners who started with nothing and pinched together nickels and dimes in a futile effort to secure their retirement and take part in the American dream of wealth building only to have the government transfer their meager profits to others.

As a consequence, many minority property owners have left Berkeley and the people they rented to, other minorities, have been driven out in the process. We proved this in 1995 when Michael St. John showed that, since the adoption of rent control, virtually every targeted beneficiary group in Berkeley had seen their numbers DRAMATICALLY DECLINE.

When we pointed this out, phony advocates tried to turn the truth on its head. They rallied poor people to show up and claim that modifying rent control would drive little old ladies out into the street. They hid behind race baiting and class fear mongering and claimed that rich people would gentrify neighborhoods and blacks and Latinos would be displaced. [MUCH LIKE THE BS THEY ARE SPREADING NOW] What garbage! It was RENT CONTROL THAT DID THIS, not rent control reform.

Rent control ... is a fraud. It creates and perpetuates the false promise of an ongoing entitlement to assistance. In so doing, it only ensures that the reliant and compliant poor will forever remain that way.

NO ONE HAS AN ENTITLEMENT TO EVERLASTING SUPPORT. NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT TO HAVE THEIR BURDEN PLACED ON THE BACK OF ANOTHER INDIVIDUAL. Under no circumstances is it fair or responsible to maintain a system of controls that on its face and in its practice is NOT DIRECTED to helping people who need help and which is really nothing more than a spoils system for poverty pimps. [i.e. THE BUREACRATS WHO RUN THE RENT CONTROL SYSTEM]....

To be sure, ending rent control will not make poor people wealthy or end the divide between the haves and the have nots. But what it will do is end the phony baloney poverty pimping of those who know damn well that RENT CONTROL IS NOT ABOUT HELPING BPPOR PEOPLE. And maybe, just maybe, after we dump this loser, we can get on with trying to figure out ways to improve schools, create jobs, develop ladders up and end other systemic failures that lock people into poverty.

Conclusion

Let me say it loud and clear, I have a really big problem with people who use race and class baiting to hide their true agenda which is to keep themselves employed and to keep rents cheap for themselves and their cronies. I am beyond sick and tired of this BS...

Like you, I will cast my vote on June 3. When I awake on June 4, I will see what the voters of California have decided. Today, I can only encourage you to support an end to this bad system."

[Rent Control is Stupid]

What people don't realize is that Rent Control actually makes rents higher. I know, its hard to believem but think about it for a minute...

in cities without rent control, more people are willing to invest to build apartments. If rents go up, people see the chance to make money and build more units, bringing up the supply to meet demand. That in turn keeps a check on prices going too high. There is actual competition between landlords to attract the best tenants, so they have to maintain the buildings. There are actually incentives to tenants as well, like those "one months free" signs you see at times. Supply and Demand are kept in balance by the market.

In cities WITH Rent Control, what you see is that investors are unwilling to build more units. Year after year, fewer and fewer units are available for rental. Even in LA, it wasn't until Costa Hawkins went into effect around 1995 making SOME NEW CONSTRUCTION BUILDINGS PARTIALLY EXEMPT from RENT CONTROL that builders were more willing to develop. Well duh, who wants to make such a big investment if they won't be allowed a profit from it???? If you have a million bucks you sure don't want to tie it up in a rent control town if you can take your money elsewhere and get a better return. Rent Control actually DECREASES units available and INCREASES the SHORTAGE of units available. Result? More people comnpeting for fewer units. Prices on a limited, decreasing commodity always go UP. If there was enough supply to meet demand like in normal towns, renting would be like any other business, where the customer (renter) has to be kept happy or the business owner (landlord) risks lowing that customer... and having a vacant building is no fun for a landlord.

Rent control doesn't even help the poor. It is stupidly applied to the UNIT, not the RENTER, so ANY RENTER in that unit, regardless of HOW MUCH MONEY the renters make or any other financial circumstances, will pay the same amount of rent. How does that help the poor?

Who DOES get helped by rent control? Mostly, the city bureacrats who are paid to "oversee" the program. Go ahead, ask them how much of your rent goes to pay their salaries, full benefits, expense accounts.... And for what? To keep the system in place so they keep their JOBs.

Vote YES on 98. This stupid system needs to be wiped out so we can start fresh with something that WORKS. A system which will give INCENTIVES instead of PUNISHMENT for investing in your town.

[Rent Control is Stupid]

LAKER SAID "Also, if you do cancel rent control, it would reward speculators and investors to buy more RE for renting purposes, that will increase the pressure on pricing to go up as demand for that will increase"

ACTUALLY, THIS IS A MISCONCEPTION MANY PEOPLE HAVE AND PERPETUATED BY THE RENT CONTROL BOARDS. IF SPECULATORS AND INVESTORS BUY MORE RE FOR RENTING PURPOSES, THAT MEANS THE SUPPLY OF RENTAL UNITS WOULD INCREASE, MUCH LIKE THE SUPPLY OF NEWLY BUILT HOMES INCREASED IN THE PAST 4 YEARS. WHAT HAPPENED WHEN THE SUPPLY OF HOMES WENT UP? ITS HAPPENING RIGHT NOW... THE PRICE OF HOMES WENT DOWN... CRASHED, ACTUALLY. AND WHO DOES THAT BENEFIT? THE RENTERS!!! IF SOME INVESTORS AND SPECULATORS ALSO HAPPEN TO MAKE MONEY ALONG THE WAY TO INCREASING THE SUPPLY OF RENTAL UNITS, HOW DOES THAT HURT THE RENTER?

and LAKER ALSO SAID: "Some have mentioned that PROP 13 was supported in 1978 by many landlord...well sure.... what i don't understand is why rented property should have this subsidy for the tax payers....and in LA they are the majority. PEOPLE NEED TO UNDERSTAND THAT RENTAL PROPERTY OWNERS ARE IN BUSINESS. IN ANY BUSINESS, ALL COSTS ARE PASSED ON TO THE CONSUMER. IF PROPERTY TAXES, A COST OF DOING BUSINESS, GOES UP, WHO DO YOU THINK THAT COST GETS PASSED ON TO???? THE CUSTOMER. WHO IS THE PROPERTY OWNER'S CUSTOMER? THE RENTER. THINK ABOUT IT.

Angela Haward said: My building is under rent control protection, so our "smartass" landlord, who inherited the building just a year ago, figured a way around it by changing all the windows in the building, repainting it and ....passing the cost on to tenants. It doesn't bother anyone that nobody asked tenant's opinion at the time, or discussed the matter beforehand. Tenants took the matter into a court, which ruled out the cost should be proportionate to the number of windows in each appartment, but overall rent increase is legitamate.
LIKE I SAID, RENTAL PROPERTY OWNERS ARE IN BUSINESS. THEY NEED TO KEEP THEIR CUSTOMERS HAPPY ON ONE HAD, BUT THEY ALSO NEED TO PROTECT THEIR BUSINESS/INVESTMENT (THE BUILDING) BY DOING THINGS LIKE, SOMETIMES (GASP!) CHANGING WINDOWS, PAINTING, REMODELING, RE-ROOFING, WHATEVER NEEDS TO BE DONE. MOST OF THESE THINGS NEED TO BE DONE ON A REGULAR BASIS AND COST THE BUSINESS OWNER MONEY. TENANTS GENERALLY DON'T REALLY CARE OR NOTICE IF THEIR ARE SMALL PROBLEMS LIKE THE WINDOWS LEAK A LITTLE, AS LONG AS THEY ARE PAYING CONTROLLED RENTS, THEY HAVE BEEN PROGRAMMED TO CARE ABOUT NOTHING ELSE BUT KEEPING THEIR RENTS LOW AT ALL COSTS. POORLY SEALING (LEAKING) WINDOWS CAN END UP CAUSING THINGS LIKE MOLD AND MILDEW, ROT, AND WATER DAMAGE TO THE STRUCTURE. THIS COSTS THE LANDLORD ALOT MORE DOWN THE ROAD. AND WHEN THE MOLD SETS IN, WOULD YOU AS A RENTER JUST LIVE WITH IT? ?? I'D BET $1000 THAT EVERYONE IN YOUR BUILDING WOULD HAVE SUED THAT LANDLORD FOR MOLD SO FAST IT WOULD MAKE YOUR HEAD SPIN...

ALSO, DID NO ONE EXPLAIN THAT YOUR LANDLORD DOESN'T "MAKE MONEY" BY CHANGING THE WINDOWS? NO? BECAUSE HE ONLY GETS TO PASS ON THE COST HE PAID SOMEONE TO DO THE WINDOW WORK, THERE IS NO PROFIT FOR HIM. YOUR RENT INCREASE ONLY GOES TO PAY FOR THE WINDOWS, (NOTHING LIKE GETTING YOUR $5,000-$10,000 INVESTMENT PAID BACK TO YOU $50/MONTH WITH NEGLIGIBLE IF ANY INTEREST). SO WHAT REALLY HAPPENED? YOU "SMARTASS" TENANTS GET TO ENJOY YOUR NEW WINDOWS; YOUR "SMARTASS" LANDLORD JUST SPENT SEVERAL THOUSAND DOLLARS... FOR LITTLE OR NO PROFIT.

WHEN PROP 98 PASSES AND RENT CONTROL IS PHASED OUT, THERE WOULD SOON BE MORE PEOPLE IN THE RENTAL BUSINESS AND MORE BUILDINGS AND UNITS FOR RENTERS TO CHOOSE FROM... PROBABLY EVEN ONE WITH LEAKY WINDOWS IF THAT'S WHAT RENTERS WANT.

Anthony Brancato said" Ask yourself this question: If rent control is abolished, who will be able to afford to take jobs bussing tables in restaurants, cleaning hotel rooms, etc....The answer is obvious: Kids still living at home with their parents! ...
IF MORE PEOPLE LEARNED ABOUT MONEY MANAGEMENT BY LIVING WITH THEIR PARENTS UNTIL THEY WERE FINANCIALLY ABLE TO GO OUT ON THEIR OWN, WE PROBABLY WOULDN'T HAVE THE NATIONAL NEGATIVE SAVINGS RATE, RECORD CREDIT CARD DEBTS, AND THE CURRENT FINANCIAL CRISIS DRIVEN BY IRRESPONSIBLE MONEY MANAGEMENT.

"Another possibility is that illegal aliens will crowd into apartments, with individuals working different shifts and sleeping in the apartment in shifts. This would destroy the quality of life in entire neighborhoods, and cause all sorts of public health and safety hazards, such as fires." YOU'RE KIDDING ME, RIGHT? WHAT LANDLORD IN HIS RIGHT MIND IS GOING TO LET THIS HAPPEN TO HIS BUILDING??? BUT YOU KNOW WHAT? I HAVE SEEN THIS TYPE OF THING HAPPEN --- IN RENT CONTROLLED CITIES BECAUSE IT IS VERY DIFFICULT AND EXPENSIVE FOR LANDLORDS TO EVICT PROBLEM TENANTS, LIKE DRUG DEALERS, ILLEGAL ALIENS, WIFE BEATERS, CHILD MOLESTERS, ETC.. I ACTUALLY KNOW A FORMER PROPERTY OWNER WHO WAS NOT ALLOWED TO EVICT THE SEVERELY ALCOHOLIC TENANT WHO BURNED DOWN HALF HIS UNIT WHILE ON A BENDER. WHY? BECAUSE THE RENT BOARD IN THAT CITY OPPOSED THE EVICTION AND SAID THE LANDLORD WAS JUST TRYING TO GET RID OF THE TENANT IN ORDER TO RAISE RENT FOR THAT UNIT... THE TENANT HAD TO PAY FOR THE DAMAGE... ABOUT $75 A MONTH AT A TIME. THE FRIEND SOLD THE BUILDING RIGHT AFTER THAT BECAUSE THE OTHER TENANTS IN THE BUILDING WOULD HAVE SUED HIM TO HIS LAST DIME FOR WRONGFUL DEATH OR PERSONALY INJURY LATER ON WHEN THE ALCOHOLIC TENANT EVENTUALLY SUCCEEDED IN HURTING SOMEONE OR KILLING THEM ALL.

RENT CONTROL IS STUPID. IT DOESN'T HELP THE POOR AND IT DOESN'T HELP ANY RENTERS BECAUSE IT ACTUALLY DECREASES THE SUPPLY OF RENTAL UNITS. RIGHT NOW, HOUSING EXPERTS THINK RENTS WILL GO DOWN A BIT. WHY? BECAUSE ALOT OF BUILDERS OVERBUILT TOWNHOMES AND CONDOS WHICH ARE NOT SELLING RIGHT NOW, AND MIGHT BE TURNED INTO RENTAL UNITS. MORE SUPPLY=LOWER RENTS FOR EVERYONE.

IF YOU ARE A RENTER AND YOU VOTE NO ON 98, YOU ARE JUST ENSURING THAT LESS QUALITY HOUSING WILL BE AVAILABLE TO YOU IN THE FUTURE, THAT INVESTORS WILL NOT BUILD IN YOUR CITY, AND THAT PRICES ON RENTAL UNITS WILL JUST KEEP GOING UP. TALK ABOUT SHOOTING YOURSELF IN THE FOOT.

[Tired of the Greedy Slumlords]

Susan Hilton,

I am also from Texas and you are right no one should tell you how much you should charge for your property. Just please consider what you are asking people to pay. The ren pricees are outreagous here in LA. Espically when you need to wear a bulletproof vest in most of the neighborhoods. Landlords want to charge 1200 -1500 for a 2-bedroom in a crime infeisted neighborhood. My kids can't play outside for fear of being shot. bldg. are not properly kept up. You can't get the own to fix anything. They want to lock you in Leases cause they know after about 2 months your not gonna want to stay their anymore. They charge you for all of these things that they really don't offer. Now they don't want rent control. So now you want to be able to raise my rent KNOWING good and well you haven't lived up to your end of the bargin. You keep my 1400 sec deposit because some blinds were broken. Well did you forget that 1 year ago you never put them in liked you promised. BUT you wanted your rent on time every month. While I had to worry abour getting reaped and shot because, you never fixed the blinds. So please don't tell me anything about being able to charge people what YOU want. Maybe if most land loards would keep up their end of the deal and treat their tenants like humans they wouldn't have to wory about the Government stepping in and making provisions for them. BUT since your all greedy little liars take the good with the bad like we do!!!

[Rick G.]

If Prop 98 is approved, it would absolutely KILL any value that people have in their manufactured homes. The homes in Silicon Valley are more expensive than the average home across the nation, but owners only own the home and not the land.

This Prop would mean that these home owners could not even give their homes away! The fact that the lease would only go up if the "tenant moves" would affect anyone who wants to sell their manufactured home in one of these parks.

VOTE NO ON THIS TERRIBLE PROP! IT WILL KILL YOUR INVESTMENT!!

[don mattern]

page 18 & 19 of ca voter pamphlet, section 19a says:
'private property may not be taken ... for private use'.
19/b/1 defines in effect rent control as a taking.
19/b/3/ii defines one private use as 'regulation of ...occupancy or use of privately owned real property...in order to transfer an economic benefit to ...private persons at the expense of the property owner'.
in other words private property may not be taken for rent control at the expense of landlords. but who is taking here? what is taken? whose private use? renters or landlords? abolishing rent control benefits landlords at the expense of renters.
lastly, no one forces landlords to buy rent controlled property. why are they complaining?
vote no on 98!.

[Leon Rogson]

Proposition 98

Prop 98 was created by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. It asserts a more general right than simply Eminent Domain. It asserts the right of an individual to own and control the property that he owns.
1. It forbids the state from transferring his property to others (for example a developer) which are not the state, or a public utility. This would prevent a home to be transferred to a developer, but would permit the house to be taken to construct a freeway, a park, a power station, etc. Only public purposes would be permitted as a reason to take someone's property.
2. Even when property is legally taken, a person would have to be paid fair market price. If there is a disagreement, the owner could sue, and would be reimbursed for legal costs if he obtains a higher price than offered by the state from these legal proceedings. This right would not be prejudiced by the acceptance of payment in accordance with the state's appraisal.
3. Emergency action by the governor are exempt from this amendment.
----------------------
Proposition 99

Prop 99 was created by
Christopher K. McKenzie, Susan Smart, Kenneth Willis, I could not get any more information about these people. The Legal Firm used is one specializing in re-districting and the political arena (Nielsen, Merksamer, Parrinello, Mueller & Naylor, LLP). I tried to see what cases they were involved with, but was unsuccessful.

1. While it states: "The State and local governments are prohibited from acquiring by eminent domain an owner-occupied residence for the purpose of conveying it to a private person."
It weakens this by stating that the above does not apply when "protecting public health and safety; preventing serious, repeated criminal activity; responding to an emergency; or remedying environmental contamination that poses a threat to public health and safety. Or "for the purpose of acquiring private property for a Public work or improvement."
2. The definitions seem OK. The following is suspect:
By enacting this measure, the voters do not intend to change the meaning of the terms in subdivision (a) of Section 19, Article I of the California Constitution, including, without limitation, "taken," "damaged," "public use," and "just compensation," and deliberately do not impose any restrictions on the exercise of power pursuant to Section 19, Article I, other than as expressly provided for in this measure.
The following is section 19. It has no "subdivisions"

SEC. 19. Private property may be taken or damaged for public use only when just compensation, ascertained by a jury unless waived, has first been paid to, or into court for, the owner. The Legislature may provide for possession by the condemnor following commencement of eminent domain proceedings upon deposit in court and prompt release to the owner of money determined by the court to be the probable amount of just compensation.
==============================
I support proposition 98
Leon