|
|
|
May 12th, 2008
08:51 am - No on 98 ( a continuing series until June 3)
You may be tired of seeing me write about Prop 98, but the June 3 election is coming soon. Absentee ballots have already been mailed.
For fun, let’s take a look at a pro-98 letter that was recently printed in the Chron:
Editor - I urge all property owners and renters to vote Yes on Proposition 98/No on 99.
First, to all renters, please note that the most expensive rents in California are in the cities that have rent control.
Why do you think the price of purchasing property has gone down whilst rents increase? Renters, have no doubt, you are subsidizing your neighbors whose rents cannot be raised to current market value because of rent control.
I should know. I own three rental properties in San Francisco and whenever a unit becomes vacant, I boost the rent hundreds of dollars to subsidize the low rentals I cannot raise.
If rent control were eliminated, I could and would return the rent to current market, which would benefit all renters. So if you like paying your neighbors' rent, go ahead and vote the contrary, but stop complaining about high rents.
And to all property owners, grow a backbone, stand up for your rights, get proactive and support the passage of 98 and defeat 99.
Let’s look at what this absentee landlord wants us to believe:
1. Landlords really, really, really want to lower your rent. Evil tenants won’t let them.
2. It’s not that rent control has been enacted where there are already relatively high rents and low vacancy rates. It’s that somehow rent control causes higher rent.
3. Owning property should enable you to not have to obey laws voted on by the majority of citizens living in the county where you own property.
4. “Current market” rate is a concept that exists independent of the, uh, current market rate.
5. The price of purchasing property has gone down due to rent control. Wait, is she really saying that?
I’ve lived in my apartment for 14 years. When the first landlord I had sold it to the second landlord it was for about $400,000. The second landlord sold it to the third landlord a few years later for $1.2 million. That $800,000 made for collecting rent for a few years and not doing much else isn’t enough? Forgive me if I can’t feel much pity for the landlords speculating on San Francisco property.
As for the concept of rent control* making rent high, according to a NY Times article, in the four years after rent control was fully ended in Boston, the Mayor’s office reported that rents (on two-bedroom apartments) had risen 75%. That seems a more likely motive for why all the landlord money is coming into this campaign than the idea that landlords want to lower rents.
Please Californians. Vote no on 98. Tell your friends. Post about it. Write letters to the editors. Talk to your neighbors.
There’s a benefit for the no on 98 campaign at the Makeout Room this Saturday. I’ll be at work, but the reading will be awesome and I hear there are t-shirts free with donations.
*There also seems to be some misunderstanding, at least among internet libertarians in certain LJ communities, about what rent control in California really is. It differs from county to county somewhat, but basically it controls the amount the landlord can raise your rent every year after you sign an initial lease. There is no vacancy control legal in California, so while units will be covered every time a new leaseholder moves in, those units go to “market rate” and the increases are controlled from that new amount. One big advantage to tenants and to the communities they live in, (and thanks to ![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif) fightingwords for pointing this out elsewhere), is that it means that in places where there is rent control, landlords have to have “just cause” (landlord moving in, non-payment of rent, illegal activity, damage etc.) to evict folks rather than just tripling their rent and making them move away.
|
Comments:
i appreciate you writing about this because, honestly, the wording used in ballot measures often confuses the shit out of me! i just got my absentee ballot so i was going to go back through your entries to make sure i was voting the way i really wanted to. this entry made it much easier on my brain. so thanks!
![[User Picture]](http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/1367961/478458) | | From: | gordonzola |
|---|
| Date: | May 12th, 2008 04:17 pm (UTC) |
|---|
| | and yes on 99 | (Link) |
|
Also, if 99 passes with more votes than 98, 98 will not go into effect.
![[User Picture]](http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/69382443/311508) | | From: | ayebee |
|---|
| Date: | May 12th, 2008 04:12 pm (UTC) |
|---|
| | | (Link) |
|
You should write a letter to the Chron! You should send them this, exactly.
If I were still in California, I'd vote against this; as it is, if it's ok with you, I'd like to cut & paste everything you've written here and send it to my California compatriots.
please do! That's what it's here for. I'm counting on you to bring home the North of Bay Area votes. See if you can convince your Dad to be No on 98 Yes on 99! ;)
| | From: | ayebee |
|---|
| Date: | May 12th, 2008 04:47 pm (UTC) |
|---|
| | | (Link) |
|
Hah! I can do my best. Just sent it out. . .
Since I've been living out of the country for, oh, a gazillion years now, I rarely hear much about the CA ballot initiatives. Your posts on Prop. 98 have been super helpful (and a reminder that I need to send in my absentee ballot too!). I'll talk to my mom about it; hopefully there will be a few more OC voters I can convince to vote no.
If we can get only 20%* of the OC to vote against 98 we have a chance. ;)
*I just made that percentage up. But the pro 98 folks are definitely counting on the non-urban parts of California to carry the vote.
Thanks for this, I always appreciate your explanations of the issues.
Thank you. Go make that big house of yours vote!
Thankfully our own house is in Trust so the rent can only go up if we as a group decide we need to add more money to the house for some expensive renovation or if the price of utilities increases exponentially...
But I just drew a big sign that says "VOTE NO ON 98!!" on the chalkboard in the diningroom.
![[User Picture]](http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/65127598/184313) | | From: | slit |
|---|
| Date: | May 13th, 2008 12:06 am (UTC) |
|---|
| | | (Link) |
|
I should know. I own three rental properties in San Francisco
I think that says it all, doesn't it?
I own three rental properties in San Francisco therefore I know what's good for tenants!
![[User Picture]](http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/33344324/1266531) | | From: | lapsed |
|---|
| Date: | May 13th, 2008 02:00 pm (UTC) |
|---|
| | Re: Ha! | (Link) |
|
I lost so much money on the first one, due to rent control, I had to buy two more!
reposted all over my myspace. i'll do what i can with my interwebz and personal charms.
Honestly, I had to click on the link just to make sure this wasn't written by my scummy first landlord in SF. (It wasn't.)
I've lived in the south bay (no rent control) since 2000, and have lived in four different rentals. Each time i've moved, i've lived in a nicer place with lower rent than the previous, and my rent has never gone up.
Landlords do not WANT to lower your rent, but when there is a larger supply of rentals available, the are forced to lower rent to stay competitive. Rent control decreases the supply of available rentals, causing prices on available rentals to be high. It's not a direct subsidy, but with rent control, long-term residents pay lower rent and new residents pay higher rent (meaning that most blue-collar workers cannot afford to move to the city unless they already live there).
San Francisco's rent control is a number, about 2%/year (60% of CPI increase), that rent can be increased. As a thought experiment, do you think that number should be increased or reduced? What if it were raised to 10%? What if it were set to -5%? Which one of these is best for the people? Which one of these is morally right?
mmm cheese
well, of course. Rents hit their height in most places in 1999 for all but the cheapest places. But your comparison of the South Bay isn't valid because your situation does not translate to here. Why should voters in very different realities be able to vote on this issue that would NEVER pass in SF?
without rent control there is no just cause eviction, only dependence on a landlord's whim. housing is a human right and there need to be limits on the greed of people who provide it. It is in the community interest.
Landlords do not WANT to lower your rent, but when there is a larger supply of rentals available, the are forced to lower rent to stay competitive.
If rent control didn't control rent then landlords would not be pouring money into passing this proposition. Whether blue collar people can afford to move into SF is hardly an issue of rent control. It's an issue of availability. There would be no more apartments available if there was no rent control. Vacancy rates were very low when it went into effect in the first place.
|
|
