State Democrats support repeal of Costa-Hawkins' rent control constraints | July 20, 2018 | Mountain View Voice | Mountain View Online |

Mountain View Voice

News - July 20, 2018

State Democrats support repeal of Costa-Hawkins' rent control constraints

The California Democratic Party on Sunday voted overwhelmingly to endorse Proposition 10, the statewide Affordable Housing Act, which would repeal the anti-rent-control Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act and return power to regulate rents to local communities.

This story contains 279 words.

Stories older than 90 days are available only to subscribing members. Please help sustain quality local journalism by becoming a subscribing member today.

If you are already a subscriber, please log in so you can continue to enjoy unlimited access to stories and archives. Subscriptions start at $5 per month and may be cancelled at any time.

Log in     Subscribe

Bay City News Service

Comments

22 people like this
Posted by Kira Erikson
a resident of another community
on Jul 20, 2018 at 12:31 pm

What Proposition 10 actually does is massively expand the ability of local government to tax people, including homeowners and tenants. It gives local government the right to surveil who lives where, how many bedrooms they may have, what income producing activity may be occurring in their homes, and what is everyone's exact name and status in relation to everyone else in the home. It will also open up the ability of organized crime to control vacancies as vacancies will end up being kept on a local govt. list and given to friends. I'm not saying this will all happen instantly everywhere, but I am aware of various localities that have enacted draconian laws. For example, in Seattle one must rent to the first qualified applicant, or you can't look at drug addition or alcoholism or a child molesting past etc. in turning away an applicant. In New York City recently, a woman who moved into her place in 1940, was able to still live there in 2016 and pay only $18.00 a month rent (and if she'd had a caretake, or a child, that child would have inherited the apartment at that rate). Measure 10 will take almost all property rights away from owners and give them to corrupt localities. For example, when Boston had rent control (before abolishing it) a woman went into a nursing home and when she got better, she was not allowed to have her home back as the renters had more right to it than she did. With strict rent control (and if this law passes, Santa Monica, Ca can roll rents back to 1978) you drive small mom and pop businesses out. You then open up massive Russian organized crime type control over real estate (controlling apartments is big in Russia). Don't vote in another law as bad as Prohibition on alcohol was.


Like this comment
Posted by Todd
a resident of another community
on Jul 20, 2018 at 12:45 pm

Demand yes on 10 + $25 Bay Area minimum wage!


11 people like this
Posted by Kira Erikson
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Aug 10, 2018 at 12:25 am

What Proposition 10 actually does is massively expand the ability of local government to tax people, including homeowners and tenants. It gives local government the right to surveil who lives where, how many bedrooms they may have, what income producing activity may be occurring in their homes, and what is everyone's exact name and status in relation to everyone else in the home. It will also open up the ability of organized crime to control vacancies as vacancies will end up being kept on a local govt. list and given to friends. I'm not saying this will all happen instantly everywhere, but I am aware of various localities that have enacted draconian laws. For example, in Seattle one must rent to the first qualified applicant, or you can't look at drug addition or alcoholism or a child molesting past etc. in turning away an applicant. In New York City recently, a woman who moved into her place in 1940, was able to still live there in 2016 and pay only $18.00 a month rent (and if she'd had a caretake, or a child, that child would have inherited the apartment at that rate). Measure 10 will take almost all property rights away from owners and give them to corrupt localities. For example, when Boston had rent control (before abolishing it) a woman went into a nursing home and when she got better, she was not allowed to have her home back as the renters had more right to it than she did. With strict rent control (and if this law passes, Santa Monica, Ca can roll rents back to 1978) you drive small mom and pop businesses out. You then open up massive Russian organized crime type control over real estate (controlling apartments is big in Russia). Don't vote in another law as bad as Prohibition on alcohol was. Walmartone, Walmartone login to the website and register there for gaining quick access to the website..
Web Link


1 person likes this
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Aug 13, 2018 at 11:43 am

The Business Man is a registered user.

In response to Kira Erikson you said:

“What Proposition 10 actually does is massively expand the ability of local government to tax people, including homeowners and tenants.”

No it does not. Taxes are not involved in this proposition. Why say this? You said:

“It gives local government the right to surveil who lives where, how many bedrooms they may have, what income producing activity may be occurring in their homes, and what is everyone's exact name and status in relation to everyone else in the home.”

No it does not, it is simply a repeal of Costa Hawkins, nothing more. You said:

“It will also open up the ability of organized crime to control vacancies as vacancies will end up being kept on a local govt. list and given to friends.”

On what basis is this being determined? You said:

“I'm not saying this will all happen instantly everywhere, but I am aware of various localities that have enacted draconian laws. For example, in Seattle one must rent to the first qualified applicant, or you can't look at drug addition or alcoholism or a child molesting past etc. in turning away an applicant.”

Please provide the law that forces landlords from not doing a background check? You said:

“In New York City recently, a woman who moved into her place in 1940, was able to still live there in 2016 and pay only $18.00 a month rent (and if she'd had a caretake, or a child, that child would have inherited the apartment at that rate).”

Please provide the actual information? I find this one simply impossible to believe. You said:

“Measure 10 will take almost all property rights away from owners and give them to corrupt localities. “

No it won’t, it will simply repeal Costa Hawkins, That’s all. You said:

“For example, when Boston had rent control (before abolishing it) a woman went into a nursing home and when she got better, she was not allowed to have her home back as the renters had more right to it than she did.”

Please provide the resource regarding this story. I need it to be verified because I still find that hard to believe. You said:

“With strict rent control (and if this law passes, Santa Monica, Ca can roll rents back to 1978) you drive small mom and pop businesses out. You then open up massive Russian organized crime type control over real estate (controlling apartments is big in Russia).”

No real property is not taken by Proposition 10, it simply repeals Costa Hawkins. You said:

“Don't vote in another law as bad as Prohibition on alcohol was. Walmartone, Walmartone login to the website and register there for gaining quick access to the website..

Web Link”

There is nothing there?


9 people like this
Posted by Joseph
a resident of North Whisman
on Aug 14, 2018 at 4:16 pm

OR...the enormusly wealthy Democrat Party elitist COULD put THEIR MULTI MILLIONS of dollars where there fat mouths are...and BUY OUT every property owner in the proposed "rent control" area...and then LOWER THEIR new rental properties monthly rentals...thereby suffering financial losses on their investment, yes??? But NO, the democrat party MULTI MILLIONAIRE elitist would have a business person invest their money to buy, build, and maintain PERSONAL PROPERTY, then FORCE THAT PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNER to suffer the financial losses of his/her PRIVATE investment. Typical left wing lunatic libby millionaire elitist of the democrat party. Pathetic socialist who live in private, exclusive, gaited communities, feeding off the government teat..but demand to control YOUR privately owned and earned monies.


1 person likes this
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Aug 15, 2018 at 8:54 am

The Business Man is a registered user.

In response to Joseph you said:

“OR...the enormusly wealthy Democrat Party elitist COULD put THEIR MULTI MILLIONS of dollars where there fat mouths are...and BUY OUT every property owner in the proposed "rent control" area...and then LOWER THEIR new rental properties monthly rentals...thereby suffering financial losses on their investment, yes???”

Why? That sounds like your demanding a bailout for the poor decisions and lack of good judgement that led up to this current situation. You said:

“But NO, the democrat party MULTI MILLIONAIRE elitist would have a business person invest their money to buy, build, and maintain PERSONAL PROPERTY, then FORCE THAT PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNER to suffer the financial losses of his/her PRIVATE investment.”

The consequences of depending on your tenants to support your quality of life without any evidence of showing effective business management is the cause of this problem. That is the responsibility of your investors, not the public. Remember Caveat Emptor. You said:

“Typical left wing lunatic libby millionaire elitist of the democrat party.”

Do you have anything constructive to say? You said:

“Pathetic socialist who live in private, exclusive, gaited communities, feeding off the government teat..but demand to control YOUR privately owned and earned monies.”

First, please provide proof of this statement. Second, what does this have to do with the current housing crisis that is NATIONWIDE?


5 people like this
Posted by mike rose
a resident of another community
on Aug 16, 2018 at 6:09 pm

mike rose is a registered user.

Another proof how rent control without protections for new construction (Costa Hawkins) affects tenants.
Facts from Ontario province, Canada:
Web Link


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Aug 16, 2018 at 10:43 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

In response to Mike Rose you said:

“Another proof how rent control without protections for new construction (Costa Hawkins) affects tenants.

Facts from Ontario province, Canada:

Web Link

The problem with your research is that there is a conflict of interest regarding the authors of this opinion article. The first one was (Web Link) :

“MURTAZA HAIDER

Murtaza Haider is an associate professor at the Ted Rogers School of Management, Ryerson University, in Toronto. MURTAZA IS ALSO THE DIRECTOR OF A CONSULTING FIRM REGIONOMICS INC. DURING 2014-15, Professor Haider was a visiting research fellow at the Munk School of Global Affairs at the University of Toronto.”

Regionomics Inc (Web Link) is described as :

“Regionomics focuses on local economies – their industries, their people, their workforce, and their growth and change. We understand the relationship between economic development and workforce development and know that neither can succeed without the other.

Reports and analyses are written in clear English. But we don’t simply leave you with a report. We work with you to implement the strategies to help you improve your community and the lives of the people in it.

Bill LaFayette, Ph.D., owner of Regionomics, is a skilled economic advisor with nearly 20 years of experience in economic development and workforce strategy.

Founded Regionomics in 2011.

12 YEARS AS VICE PRESIDENT OF ECONOMIC ANALYSIS FOR THE COLUMBUS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE – THE KEY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ENTITY FOR THE CENTRAL OHIO REGION.

BROUGHT UNDERSTANDING OF CENTRAL OHIO ECONOMY TO POLICY INITIATIVES OF THE CHAMBER AND LOCAL COMMUNITIES.

SUPPORTED WORKFORCE INITIATIVES OF THE CHAMBER WITH ANALYSIS AND POLICY COLLABORATION.

PRIMARY CHAMBER MEDIA AND COMMUNITY SPOKESPERSON FOR ECONOMIC ISSUES.”

Specifically, it is a private interest group not an independent objective group. This author has a clear conflict of interest that was not disclosed. The Second Author was (Web Link) :

“Stephen Moranis

Freelance Columnist at Financial Post

Toronto, Canada Area Newspapers

Current

Forest Hill Real Estate Inc, Brokerage, Financial Post, Douglas Elliman Real Estate”

So he also has a conflict of interest regarding this opinion article. And given this was written in Canada, the article does not comply with the disclosure requirements of the American Economist Association requirements. The public should have this disclosed.


5 people like this
Posted by mike rose
a resident of another community
on Aug 17, 2018 at 6:48 am

mike rose is a registered user.

TBM,
Where is the conflict of interest?
I don't see it. You just C&P lots of irrelevant stuff.
I guess it is just your opinion, no proof.
That's all


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Aug 17, 2018 at 8:59 am

The Business Man is a registered user.

In response to mike rose you said:

“Where is the conflict of interest?

I don't see it.”

Of course you wouldn’t because libertarians do not believe that the “conflict of interest” even exists in their perspective. You said:

“You just C&P lots of irrelevant stuff.”

Your opinion, the public has the right to make up its own mind. You said:

“I guess it is just your opinion, no proof.”

An opinion article is not proof either. It is hearsay. You are not an “authority” to demand the public accept your postings as fact. You are assuming facts not in evidence. I am also not in that position either.

That's all


Like this comment
Posted by behind The Business Man
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Aug 17, 2018 at 3:29 pm

@mike rose. Like TBM I also went and followed your Canadian link (thanks) and read most of it. @mike - I also don't find 'really' much of a particular sinister "conflict of interest". BUT (big but) The provinces of Canada mentioned are now, post-rent control, having new apartment construction problems.

So? Provincial new rental investment-construction is harmed by rent control - and California new rental investment-construction is harmed by NO rent control (the current law banning new-construction rent control). HOW IS THAT? This is inconsistency in action. The "market" is complex.

There is an interesting author comment in the link that maybe the economic partnership for successful / profitable investment (and apartment home building) have not been developed yet 'in the provinces'.

The Link - in summary - is an interesting Opinion Piece, by some knowledgeable authors, and not a real research paper.

@The Business Man's own links are usually of a higher quality IMO. 1 point (like), for him.


5 people like this
Posted by mike rose
a resident of another community
on Aug 17, 2018 at 4:24 pm

mike rose is a registered user.

Behind the BM,
The issue of reducing supply of apartments by imposing rent control on new construction is not complex, as you suggest, its very simple.
Developers will go where profits are high and risk is small. Rent control essentially guarantees losses for them, or in the best case tenant (government elected by tenant's majority) determined minimal profits (i.e. SF fraction of CPI). Combined with vacancy control this will cause essential freeze in new construction in CA and withdrawal of many SF homes from the rental market (before CH protection Berkeley lost over 3,000 SF rentals). These are not speculations or opinions, as you suggested, but facts.
Another fact, not opinion, is the graph in Canadian article cited above. It was taken from Statistics Canada which is the Canadian Statistics Agency (I am sure TBM will find them with conflict of interest). It shows huge number of condos developed vs meager number of apartment rentals since the inception of rent control.
I am not saying that exclusion of new construction from rent control by Costa Hawkins law, is going to cause sufficient building of apartments.
If municipalities don't allow these projects to go forward for other reasons, CH is not going to perform miracles.
But without it, housing freeze is guaranteed.


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Aug 17, 2018 at 5:15 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

In response to mike rose you said:

“The issue of reducing supply of apartments by imposing rent control on new construction is not complex, as you suggest, its very simple.”

That is the threat that the private interests routinely state to try to intimidate both politicians and the public. The simple fact is if they act on it, it will be a Cartwright Act violation of law. You said:

“Developers will go where profits are high and risk is small. Rent control essentially guarantees losses for them, or in the best case tenant (government elected by tenant's majority) determined minimal profits (i.e. SF fraction of CPI). Combined with vacancy control this will cause essential freeze in new construction in CA and withdrawal of many SF homes from the rental market (before CH protection Berkeley lost over 3,000 SF rentals). These are not speculations or opinions, as you suggested, but facts.”

Again, if this happens it will demonstrate a collusion or conspiracy of these private interests which would violate the Cartwright Act. Thus this will provide evidence to prosecute these interest for violating it. You said:

“Another fact, not opinion, is the graph in Canadian article cited above. It was taken from Statistics Canada which is the Canadian Statistics Agency (I am sure TBM will find them with conflict of interest). It shows huge number of condos developed vs meager number of apartment rentals since the inception of rent control.”

I do not argue the statistical data, but it’s interpretation by these authors. Data can be shaped by presentation to provide “correlation” for any theory by those with the intelligence to act upon. You know the saying regarding “lies, damned lies and statistics”. You said:

“I am not saying that exclusion of new construction from rent control by Costa Hawkins law, is going to cause sufficient building of apartments. “

Of course it won’t, the market exploits the shortage. You know this. You said:

“If municipalities don't allow these projects to go forward for other reasons, CH is not going to perform miracles. “

If the projects are going to produce affordable housing, then I am certain there will be significant cooperation. But most are simply “luxury” units that are not affordable. The private market is determined to “control” the options of building to their best interests. You said:

“But without it, housing freeze is guaranteed.”

Again, if this happens an investigation regarding the Cartwright Act will likely occur, and the people colluding or conspiring to manipulate the market will find themselves with significant fines to pay. It would be a fools approach.


6 people like this
Posted by mike rose
a resident of another community
on Aug 17, 2018 at 5:49 pm

mike rose is a registered user.

TBM,
Lots of irrelevant BS. Thats all.


Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

All your news. All in one place. Every day.

 

THREE WEEKS TO GO!

On Friday, October 11, join us at the Palo Alto Baylands for a 5K walk, 5K run, 10K run or half marathon! All proceeds benefit local nonprofits serving children and families.

Register now