California
Related: About this forumVOTE NO ON PROP 10, OR I COULD BE HOMELESS.... not kidding
Last edited Tue Oct 9, 2018, 03:36 AM - Edit history (16)
I live in a rent controlled Apartment in San Francisco. If PROP 10 passes, my Land lady can make me leave by raising the rent so high that I would have to move out, and I would have no where to go. No where...
http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/propositions/10/
WHAT YOUR VOTE MEANS
Repeals state law that currently restricts the scope of rent control policies that cities and other local jurisdictions may impose on residential property. Fiscal Impact: Potential net reduction in state and local revenues of tens of millions of dollars per year in the long term. Depending on actions by local communities, revenue losses could be less or considerably more.
A YES vote on this measure means: State law would not limit the kinds of rent control laws cities and counties could have.
A NO vote on this measure means: State law would continue to limit the kinds of rent control laws cities and counties could have.
https://prop10flaws.com/
Prop 10 Is Bad For Renters
“Tens of thousands of renters, including seniors and others on fixed incomes, could be forced out of their apartments and communities under Prop 10, which allows wealthy corporate landlords to turn apartments into condos and short-term vacation rentals. It will increase the cost of renting and make it even harder to find affordable housing.”
~ Alice Huffman, President, California State Conference NAACP
THE SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE SAYS VOTE NO ON 10!!
https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/editorials/article/Chronicle-Recommends-No-on-Prop-10-13231228.php
SAN DIEGO UNION TRIBUNE
Proposition 10: Vote no on rent control, a 'solution' that worsens housing crisis
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/editorials/sd-prop-10-rent-control-20180913-story.html
The severity of California’s housing crisis is difficult to exaggerate. Stories about people with decent jobs having no choice but to live in vehicles are increasingly common. So are stories about people who have to commute several hours from cheaper inland communities to costly urban areas, and about single professionals who basically have no other option but to pack into large homes like sardines, just as some college students do. With average rents for two-bedroom apartments in excess of $2,000 and median home prices topping $600,000, it’s no surprise to see a strong push for Proposition 10, an initiative that would throw out a state law that bans rent control on all housing built after Feb. 1, 1995, and that gives landlords the right to raise the rent to a market rate after a tenant moves out. The measure would allow cities and counties to impose permanent price controls on rental units.
The problem for advocates is that rent control has a long history that shows not only that it doesn’t work, but also that it makes housing problems worse. That’s why Nobel Prize-winning economist and longtime The New York Times columnist Paul Krugman wrote back in 2000 that “rent control is among the best-understood issues in all of economics, and — among economists, anyway — one of the least controversial.” He cited a 1992 survey of the American Economic Association that found that 93 percent of members agreed that “a ceiling on rents reduces the quality and quantity of housing.”
Nothing has changed since then. A study of rent control in San Francisco three Stanford academics published in January found that while those in rent-controlled units benefited dramatically, rent control led to a scarcity of available rentals, much higher rental costs for newcomers to the city, and a sharp decline in rent-controlled units as owners converted property to types of housing not subject to rent limits. The study also found rent control may have accelerated the gentrification of once-poor neighborhoods. The study is based on a massive database of real-estate transactions after 1994, when San Francisco expanded rent control in ways not affected by the 1995 state law limiting local rent control.
As Krugman notes, this is utterly predictable when government gets in the way of the law of supply and demand. But the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, the well-funded Los Angeles advocacy group driving Proposition 10, has taken an unusual position. On its website and in meetings with journalists, representatives of the group and its allies simply declare that the economic conventional wisdom is wrong. They flatly assert that “rent control encourages new construction and maintenance.” Picking and choosing from statistics from across the nation, they suggest that rent control correlates with construction of new apartments. But that would mean the developers, business leaders and economists who say basic incentives and disincentives matter deeply in housing construction are all wrong.
There is one valid point that Proposition 10 supporters make: It could take decades to see a payoff from efforts to bring down housing costs by sharply increasing new construction. That’s why it’s urgent that the California Legislature pass more bills making it easier and cheaper to build housing and that local authorities become far more insistent about developers meeting requirements to include affordable units in larger projects. It’s also why it’s time to consider a steep increase of state and federal rental tax credits for renters in expensive areas.
Enacting such an agenda is more difficult that embracing rent control. But adding considerable new housing is ultimately the most constructive, enduring way California can address its housing crisis. It’s the only way. Vote no on Proposition 10.
THE FRESNO BEE
VOTE NO ON PROP 10!
When it comes to rental costs, Proposition 10 is not the answer. It deserves a no vote
Read more here: https://www.fresnobee.com/opinion/editorials/article219315885.html#storylink=cpy
VENTURA COUNTY STAR
VOTE NO ON PROP 10
https://www.vcstar.com/story/opinion/editorials/2018/10/06/editorial-vote-no-prop-10-and-rent-control/1540076002/
VOTE NO ON PROP 1O
https://www.votenoprop10.com/
LOS ANGELES TIMES
Column: California's housing situation is a mess. Proposition 10 isn't going to help
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-sac-skelton-proposition-10-20181008-story.html
SAN JOSE MERCURY NEWS
https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/08/25/editorial-prop-10-would-exacerbate-californias-housing-crisis/
Vote No on Proposition 10: It makes a bad problem worse
https://advocacy.calchamber.com/elections/ballot-measures/no-on-proposition-10/
PROP 10 FACTS: https://prop10flaws.com/facts/
vote NO ON Prop 10!
https://www.pressdemocrat.com/opinion/8809909-181/pd-editorial-no-on-prop
Our View: No on Prop. 10 — More rent control really means less housing
https://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/news/2018/09/27/our-view-no-on-prop-10.html
vote
ON prop 10!!
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Iliyah
(25,111 posts)
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)if it loses rent control continues to be restricted to the few cities where it's allowed --it's very restricted now.
Prop 10 allows rent control to be expanded.
JuJuYoshida
(2,253 posts)
Polly Hennessey
(8,834 posts)am voting no. 🤗
David__77
(24,735 posts)Proposition 10 will allow jurisdictions to implement rent control.
yuiyoshida
(45,416 posts)YOU GOT A PLACE I CAN LIVE OTHER WISE I CAN BE UNDER A DAMN BRIDGE.
JuJuYoshida
(2,253 posts)yuiyoshida
(45,416 posts)omg..I am just sick thinking about it..
FBaggins
(28,706 posts)Democrats heavily favor Prop 10... landlords are the ones asking for a "No" vote.
IOW - You're about to stab yourself in the back.
DBoon
(24,989 posts)It repeals a state law passed during the republican 1980s. That law prevent municipalities from implementing stricter rent control. The law was basically an FU to Berkeley and Santa Monica who had very strict rent control laws.
Prop 10 will allow municipalities to pass stronger rent control laws.
It will not weaken any existing rent control law or other tenant protection
yuiyoshida
(45,416 posts)the PROP IS BULLSHIT.. don't fuck with rent control...
This will add more people to THE HOMELESS in San Francisco including me. I WOULD SOONER kill myself than live like this.
DBoon
(24,989 posts)prop 10 repeals the Costa-Hawkins bill, passed in the 1980s which is anti rent control (signed by Pete Wilson).
Here is what Prop 10 will repeal:
Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act
The Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act (Costa-Hawkins) is a state statute that limits the use of rent control in California. Costa-Hawkins provided that:[8][9]
Cities cannot enact rent control on housing first occupied after February 1, 1995, and housing units where the title is separate from connected units (such as free-standing houses, condominiums, and townhouses).
Housing exempted from a local rent control ordinance before February 1, 1995, must remain exempt.
Landlords have a right to increase rent prices to market rates when a tenant moves out (a policy known as vacancy decontrol).
Prior to the enactment of Costa-Hawkins, local governments were permitted to enact rent control, provided that landlords would receive just and reasonable returns on their rental properties.[8]
The California State Legislature passed Costa-Hawkins in 1995. Costa-Hawkins was named after Sen. Jim Costa (D) and Rep. Phil Hawkins (R), who led the effort to pass the bill. Approved as AB 1164, the state Assembly passed the statute 45-18 and the state Senate passed the statute 24-11.[10] Gov. Pete Wilson (R) signed the bill into law.[8]
State policies on rent control
Prop 10 will allow stronger rent control. Costa Hawkins was passed at the behest of the real estate industry to stop cities like Santa Monica and Berkeley from passing strong rent control. I was active in Santa Monicans for Renters Rights at the time and know this first hand.
yuiyoshida
(45,416 posts)I WOULD SOONER KILL MYSELF than live homeless...
DBoon
(24,989 posts)Prop 10 will not weaken your rent control.
It will remove republican-era restrictions put into law by the real estate industry in the 1980s to weaken local rent control and prevent cities from passing stronger controls.
PROP 10 WILL NOT MAKE YOU HOMELESS!
yuiyoshida
(45,416 posts)I WILL NOT LIVE on the streets. The city is expensive enough, and I have no where to go. NO WHERE...do you even get that?? My income is not enough for me to live in a more expensive place. The city has few apartments where I can live, and there is no where else to go, not Berkeley not anywhere in the bay Area....
Tiggeroshii
(11,088 posts)Rent control is virtually illegal at the moment. If it passes your municipality will be allowed to put more requirements on your landlord including quality of life.they cannot do that right now because of the republican law in the 1980s which prop 10 will repeal.
yuiyoshida
(45,416 posts)IF YOU VOTE YES, my landlady can raise my rent so high, I will be forced out...I WILL BE ON THE DAMN STREETS. I know many of you live in nice house, or apartments...maybe you got great jobs and make decent money, BUT I DON'T!!! I have a fixed income because of disabilities and my landlady is greedy.. She has been trying to get me to move out so she can raise the rent on the entire building and if she does.. THIS is where I will be...
and I would sooner die, than live like this.
Tiggeroshii
(11,088 posts)Last edited Tue Oct 9, 2018, 04:30 AM - Edit history (1)
Place.
I live in los angeles and we have rent control o buildings built in 1979 and earlier. The law that prop 10 wants to repeal is what keeps LA (and every other city) from being allowed to chamge that. Vote yes.
yuiyoshida
(45,416 posts)Prop 10 Is Bad For Homeowners
“Prop 10 could hurt homeowners by authorizing a new government bureaucracy that can tell homeowners what they can and cannot do with their own private residence. It could make homes more expensive for future buyers and hurt families trying to purchase their first home.”
~ Steve White, President, California Association of REALTORS
Prop 10 Is Bad For Renters
“Tens of thousands of renters, including seniors and others on fixed incomes, could be forced out of their apartments and communities under Prop 10, which allows wealthy corporate landlords to turn apartments into condos and short-term vacation rentals. It will increase the cost of renting and make it even harder to find affordable housing.”
~ Alice Huffman, President, California State Conference NAACP
The Truth About Proposition 10:
Prop 10 will NOT increase funding for affordable housing.
Prop 10 will NOT force local communities to build the housing approved in their
general plans.
Prop 10 will NOT provide any immediate
relief for people facing higher housing costs.
Tiggeroshii
(11,088 posts)Rent control has had little to do with how well landlords maintained their properties and more to do with the kind of landlord and whether local provisions required them to. Homelessness is only increasing in california and letting rent prices continue to sprial out of control will do nothing to help it.
still_one
(98,883 posts)it does NOT change anything. What it does is expand rent control state wide.
As for the argument that all these apartment houses will suddenly be turned into condos and vacation rentals, that is not an accurate statement. First of all that can be done currently. Nothing changes on that, except the fact that they have to get It approved through city planning, and that is an involved process. They don't just approve a request to convert to a condo or rental, there are a lot factors that need to be met, and a conversion hurts the community it will not be approved. The point is, that doesn't change under the new or old law.
In fact the arguments they are presenting have actually nothing to do with Proposition 10. Essentially what proposition 10 does is expand rent control to the entire state, and limits the maximum amount a landlord can increase rent per year
As for hurting homeowners, that is also terribly misleading. The only way it would affect a home owner is if they want to convert that single family home to a rental, then they would have to abide by the rent control rules in that particular district. Otherwise it has absolutely no bearing on single family home owners.
CountAllVotes
(22,215 posts)n/t !!
still_one
(98,883 posts)Tiggeroshii
(11,088 posts)Based on the law that prop 10 wants to repeal. For all other buildings and municipalities that are not rent co trolled, there is virtually no limit on the rate at which they can impose rent on tenants once a contract is expired.
still_one
(98,883 posts)rent in a rent control area will not be impacted by Proposition 10, and it actually would protect current renters in other areas of the state currently not under rent control
It is a reasonable first step to protect current renters in areas not under rent control
stopbush
(24,808 posts)than live in the streets will garner you no sympathy.
Asking people to vote a certain way because of how it effects YOU is the height of selfishness. The fact that you would rather kill yourself than consider moving outside of the SF area is ludicrous. Tens of thousands of people across the country have to move every month because they can no longer afford their housing. Yet you’re asking Californians who may well benefit from stricter rent control to forego those benefits because YOU won’t consider moving out of SF? Selfish.
yuiyoshida
(45,416 posts)but I AM GLAD YOU ARE GOOD WITH THAT.
stopbush
(24,808 posts)yuiyoshida
(45,416 posts)fuck do you think I should go? RENTS WILL BE too high and THIS IS MY city. I WAS BORN Here.. YEAH maybe I should leave the STATE..but who is going to pay for that? What fucking city should i go to, cause I don't know anyone outside this STATE.
Unlike NYC, this happens to be a great place to grow up, I shouldn't have to leave it.
Tiggeroshii
(11,088 posts)Either way you stack it, prop 10 will help keep rent from continuing to skyrocket like it already has. I paid 850 in LA for my apartment in 2014. Last year it reached 1650. That is almost a 100% increase in 4 years and still below market rate. Average rent in LA for a studio is around 2200. Most people cannot afford that on a single income and we could barely scrape by on a dual income. This needs to change because we are on the verge of losing our home.
yuiyoshida
(45,416 posts)Tiggeroshii
(11,088 posts)As is evident in that article by the california apartments association. But I do, so i am voting yes. Every argument made against prop 10 has been pure speculation. The reality is that people are at exponential rates, being kicked out of their homes because they cant afford them. All because of the crazy law that rethuglican Pete Wilson signed making rent control virtually illegal. Repeal the crazy repug law! Vote yes on 10!
stopbush
(24,808 posts)just because you were born there. Your attitude is really disappointing. Maybe you need to consider a career change and getting a job that pays you enough to afford the going rate in SF, which happens to be THE most-expensive place to live in the whole country. OR, you might move somewhere that’s cheaper. Don’t know anyone anywhere else? Try moving - that problem will go away within the week. New place, new friends. It sorta happens.
Move to Orange County. Much cheaper and turing purple. We can use more Ds down here.
Tiggeroshii
(11,088 posts)As it will allow them to pass rent control laws. Im a little baffled about what exactly is being argued here at the moment. Almost like there is a framing of the argument antithetical to what the law is actually doing...
Prop 10 would repeal a repug law signed by the right wing governor pete wilson. Not sure how that can be a bad thing...
stopbush
(24,808 posts)Tiggeroshii
(11,088 posts)Not a fan of repug laws 
CountAllVotes
(22,215 posts)So, yep, I packed it in an left a # of years ago. The rent was 1/2 my monthly income and it was a dump!
There were no options in S.F. so I moved.
I got my name on a waiting list for a house. After 10 years my name came up. Qualified for the loan and got the house. It is much better than renting!
And after looking at the lovely pictures posted, I really don't care to ever live in S.F. again.
My what a hell hole it has become!
It was bad enough when I left and it sure has not improved any.
I hope that whoever took these pictures gave the people living on the streets a few bucks for taking their pictures and posting them on the internet for everyone to view. 
California_Republic
(1,826 posts)Calm down and read the proposition
Yes on 10
yuiyoshida
(45,416 posts)READ THE NEWSPAPER LINKS.. are you saying its FAKE NEWS?
YOU probably live in a nice house, where I LIVE in poverty... I don't tell people how or what kinds of CONDITIONS i live in. I BET you don't see big RATS in your living room do you? Well I been fighting my slum lord land lord for years and she wants me out, Present Rent control keeps me in this place cause I have no where else to go. ..I am 3 FEET FROM THE DAMN STREET... as far as homelessness goes.. SO DON'T TELL ME TO CALM DOWN. If this passes she can force me to leave by raising the damn rent.
still_one
(98,883 posts)The only thing Proposition 10 does is essentially expand rent control statewide
There may be reasons that someone opposes Proposition 10, but using the argument that the landlord can force you out by raising the rent is not an accurate statement. If you currently live in a rent controlled city, nothing changes.
Response to yuiyoshida (Original post)
Stargleamer This message was self-deleted by its author.
DBoon
(24,989 posts)Why?
Tiggeroshii
(11,088 posts)Prop 10 will allow cities to pass steonger rent control laws.
yuiyoshida
(45,416 posts)I don't know how MANY California newspapers are AGAINST THIS...BUT THERE are alot.
shanti
(21,799 posts)
DBoon
(24,989 posts)We have a ballot proposition that will give cities back the option to legislate strong rent control.
It will give cities the same authority they had to impose string rent control they had before the republicans took over the CA legislature and governorship in the 1980s,
Yet a see all these supposed progressive DU members saying they will vote no on this.
Have we become free-market advocates of unrestricted real estate markets or something?
yuiyoshida
(45,416 posts)
Tiggeroshii
(11,088 posts)still_one
(98,883 posts)Last edited Sun Oct 14, 2018, 12:14 PM - Edit history (1)
For one thing it is ambiguous. While it would limit the rental rates that property owners may charge for new tenants, construction, and single family homes, it isn't specific. It leaves open what is meant by a fair financial return on rental property.
I need more details what is to keep current people on fixed incomes from being forced out of their apartments, because as I understand it, it allows landlords to turn apartments into condos and even vacation rentals.
I also need to understand how this will not only make rent more afforable, but also more available.
Response to still_one (Reply #38)
Tiggeroshii This message was self-deleted by its author.
DBoon
(24,989 posts)They oppose anything that might possible affect their interest. Building trades are notorious for opposing environmental laws. I am not going to stop supporting environmental laws because of this. I just accept that some unions that are very powerful at the local level see things differently.
Local government officials the same. I'm not suggesting something crass like money from the real estate industry - just when you work in certain circles you make alliances. Real estate and construction are very powerful at the local level. At some level even progressive elected officials need to pay attention to them.
Any decent local rent control includes strong eviction protection and protection against demolishing or converting rental housing. The Berkeley and Santa Monica laws (before Costa Hawkins gutted them) provided just this. They also discourage landlords from allowing their units to be under maintained, and allow for investment in required maintenance, providing a fair rate of return for maintenance.
I am VERY familiar with the Santa Monica law. These provisions were all very effective at the time. They were designed to allow low income individuals on fixed incomes to stay in their housing.
Rent control is about preserving affordable housing. The free market simply will not build new affordable housing. We have a boom in luxury apartments in Los Angeles now. Constructing one bedroom rentals that go for $3000 a month does not help any moderate income person. We need to preserve the affordable housing we have now. Rent control does this.
still_one
(98,883 posts)have reviewed from the comments of others in this thread, and reading the proposition in full, I am supporting it.
There is a lot of misunderstanding on this proposiion.
For one thing it does NOT change anything for peopole who currently live in a rental where there is rent control. In other words there rent will NOT go up because of this. What it does is expand rent control throughout the state, and limit the amount a landlord can increase rent based on the local rent control board.
It isn't a complete solution, but it will help renters in communities that currently don't have rent control prevent exorbedent increases
For vacant or new construction, that is unoccupied rentals, the landord can set the price to whatever they want, but to current tenents and renters they can't do that, and they set a cap on the maximum increase in rent they can charge
It is a reasonable first step.
I will edit my post above to take out labor unions, who actually support Proposition 10
Thanks
CountAllVotes
(22,215 posts)I plan to vote the ticket.
It says to vote YES on prop. 10 and I will do just that.
Have lived in rent-rigged S.F. for many years, it may help. They have rent control in S.F. already anyway.
I don't get what the issue is in S.F. re: prop. 10 being rent-control is and has been in place for close 40 years now!
Wake up is what I have to say re: this other than this has brought a lot of attention to a subject that is not especially all that important if you live in a rent controlled building already in S.F.! 
still_one
(98,883 posts)currently renting under rent control nothing changes for them. However, if they want to move to another place to rent, that is where they may end up paying significantly more rent, but that is the way things currently are now.
Why this is a positive thing I believe is because it expands rent control state wide, so it actually gives protection to current renters from price gouging rent increases in those areas that don't have rent control
I agree with your assessment, and admit I was initially misled by the no ads until I read the text of the proposition very carefully
It is a good first step, but it is not going to solve the high cost housing in California, but that was never its intent. It is simply to expand rent control statewide, and place a cap on how much landlords can increase rent
CountAllVotes
(22,215 posts)I'm looking at what the California Democratic Party recommends for the proposition votes.
It clearly says to vote YES on prop. 10. It has a photograph of Gavin Newsom on the card they sent with indicates to me that he too says to vote YES (not NO) on prop. 10.
David__77
(24,735 posts)This is a very limited measure.
Tiggeroshii
(11,088 posts)What?
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)that's the most selfish kind of posting i have seen here lately.
still_one
(98,883 posts)JuJuYoshida
(2,253 posts)I'll never be broke but my girlfriend would be homeless, have a little compassion
Tiggeroshii
(11,088 posts)And allows the continued rapid expansion of rent prices all over california.
yuiyoshida
(45,416 posts)Prop 10 Is Bad For Renters
“Tens of thousands of renters, including seniors and others on fixed incomes, could be forced out of their apartments and communities under Prop 10, which allows wealthy corporate landlords to turn apartments into condos and short-term vacation rentals. It will increase the cost of renting and make it even harder to find affordable housing.”
~ Alice Huffman, President, California State Conference NAACP
https://prop10flaws.com/
THE SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE SAYS no on PROP 10!!
https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/editorials/article/Chronicle-Recommends-No-on-Prop-10-13231228.php
By suppressing the supply of homes through restrictive zoning and other means, local government officials have done more than most to plunge California into the current housing crisis. Proposition 10 would entrust another vast swath of housing policy to the very same officials — and probably yield similar results.
California’s housing shortage is often said to show that the state is a “victim of its own success,” namely its booming economy and employment. This analysis requires ignoring the state’s distinct failure to produce housing for the people who live and work here, which has saddled it with the fewest homes per person on the United States mainland. That, in turn, has led to superlative-defying increases in the cost of housing.
Rapidly rising rents are the most pernicious symptom of the shortage, contributing in the worst cases to evictions and homelessness. Stopping or slowing rent increases by fiat is therefore a viscerally appealing response. Enter Prop. 10, a November ballot initiative asking voters to lift California’s long-standing limits on local rent control laws, freeing San Francisco and other cities to extend price ceilings to more of their housing stock.
Prop. 10 would repeal the 1995 Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act, which protects properties built that year or later from rent control. The law also prevents cities with preexisting rent control laws from extending them to newer units; San Francisco’s ordinance, for example, remains limited to housing built before 1980. And Costa-Hawkins exempts single-family homes from rent control while guaranteeing property owners the right to raise rents to market value when units are vacated.
more...
https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/editorials/article/Chronicle-Recommends-No-on-Prop-10-13231228.php
Tiggeroshii
(11,088 posts)Last edited Tue Oct 9, 2018, 02:51 AM - Edit history (1)
And this from the santacruzsentinel:
The assumptions about what would happen if we have "extreme rent control" (aka "rent control" ) are completely unfounded and in actuality the current law is the explanation for massive rent hikes.
RandySF
(84,329 posts)CountAllVotes
(22,215 posts)A puke paper indeed. The late W. R. Hearst can tell the OP all about it. 
Not that the "Examine Your Neighbor (S.F. Examiner)" is any better.
Best to know the source cited indeed!!
David__77
(24,735 posts)...
David__77
(24,735 posts)Do you oppose rent control?
cwydro
(51,308 posts)San Francisco is a city for the very wealthy.
Lots of beautiful and cheaper places to live in this big country.
CountAllVotes
(22,215 posts)If she calls and reports the rats they'll come and do an inspection.
That is just one of several bldg. violations that were in existence when I turned the landlord I mention in. The other violations were just as serious and they actually did something about it!
That is why I left. Such a dump! To hell w/it!
flamingdem
(40,899 posts)In fact it's the opposite, it puts a cap on rent when an apartment is vacated.
The only downside to this for renters is if the landlord decides they can't make enough money raising rents when a tenant moves out - and then they sell the building - and then it only hurts a tenant if it's turned into condos. If it's still a rental they can stay.
Many landlords already have some higher priced units so it's not that much of a burden. It depends of course.
yuiyoshida
(45,416 posts)
flamingdem
(40,899 posts)certain areas like Santa Monica so rents just go up.
That leaves long term renters vulnerable since landlords are greedy, developers are greedy, or as greedy as they can be.
Rents can't be tied to markets. It leads to instability.
Most landlords have benefitted from Costa Hawkins and they have a mix of higher and lower rents in Santa Monica. That's healthy. It keeps Santa Monica from turning into Beverly Hills.
The editorial is bullshit mostly. Landlords are getting enough rent now to manage a cap on the super high rents that have come into places like Santa Monica. They do the necessary repairs and still make plenty of money.
I don't see a big downside to Prop 10. You haven't really articulated the downside.
still_one
(98,883 posts)Last edited Tue Oct 9, 2018, 12:32 AM - Edit history (1)
are sure a lot of ads on it.
Gavin Newsom, NAACP oppose it which already puts me toward the NO camp, though I will read it again.
After the California Democratic party decided to endorse de Leon instead of taking a neutral stand on the Senate race, adds more weighting for me to vote NO on it also
Everything I have seen and read so far tells me that this proposition is too ambiguous, and may hurt a lot of people, so I am inclined to vote no.
I really don't know what is going on with the California Democratic party, things seem in more choas than usual
Thanks for the heads up
This will be a very divisive issue for sure not only among California Democrats, but Californians
yuiyoshida
(45,416 posts)
David__77
(24,735 posts)My local central labor council supports it: https://www.sacramentolabor.org/politics
All it does is permit local governments to implement rent control as they were permitted to do prior to 1995. It in itself does not implement rent control.
David__77
(24,735 posts)I don’t like Costa Hawkins. People like my mother don’t benefit from rent control, and cannot because of Costa Hawkins. Her rent has gone up tremendously. Repealing Costa Hawkins is reasonable, in my opinion.
yuiyoshida
(45,416 posts)VOTE no on 10.
David__77
(24,735 posts)Why do you oppose rent control?
yuiyoshida
(45,416 posts)THERE IS THE LA TIMES.. how many newspapers do you need to tell you to vote NO.
David__77
(24,735 posts)Most of California cannot get rent control without this. I suppose allowing Sacramento to choose to have rent control. Proposition 10 will allow that.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)because all you're thinking about is yourself.
still_one
(98,883 posts)are a lot of information that is not specific, and I need to see more details
still_one
(98,883 posts)what does it do to those who are currently under rent control on fixed income?
David__77
(24,735 posts)I’m not aware of it doing anything other than allowing local governments from instituting rent control in the manner they could before 1995.
I don’t think there are any legal protections renters would lose under proposition 10 passing. That said, I imagine that some landlords may be threatening various things if proposition 10 passes. I do think it passing could exert some downward pressure on housing prices. I suppose that might be why the realtors group opposes it.
still_one
(98,883 posts)tough one David, and I am definitely going to have to do a lot more analysis on this
I think part of the problem with housing prices is foreign investment, at least in the bay area. Though I don't rent, I believe there is a shortage in the rental market, and from what I have observed a lot of people commute in from Tracy, Stockton, Lodi areas into the SF Bay area.
Unless one got in a long time ago, or you made a killing in the market, it takes at least a two incomce family to afford a House.
In the South Bay near the new apple campus, a two bedroom apartment in Cupertino goes for around 4K a month.
I have no idea what it would take to bring housing prices down, and precipitate a housing crash, because unfortunately I think that is the only thing that would do it. If that happened a lot of people would lose their homes
Anyway, appreciate your input
I have a lot more homework to do obviously
Thanks
LenaBaby61
(6,991 posts)I'm voting .....
on proposition 10.
yuiyoshida
(45,416 posts)
Tiggeroshii
(11,088 posts)Are you again stricter rent control?
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)that's just bass ackwards.
Prop. 10 doesn't change yuiyoshida's rent control. In fact San Francisco can't even strengthen that rent control for her unless Prop. 10 is repealed.
but keep posting the Republican talking points!
Tiggeroshii
(11,088 posts)Thos whole rhetoric about more rent control creating less housing for minoroties is completely unfounded and fear mongering on favor of real estate tycoons who are cashing out on rent controlled slums and massive rent hikes on newer buildings. I was recently evicted as a result of the cureent laws and if cities could impose stricter regulations on propertt owners, we would not be in the situation we are.
yuiyoshida
(45,416 posts)Rent control has long been a poster child for the law of unintended consequences. Yes, it holds down rents for one group of tenants, but it tends to raise them for the rest. It gives landlords an incentive to skimp on building maintenance. It discourages mobility, reducing housing availability. By far the most damaging of all, rent control pushes existing housing out of the rental market while making it harder to build the new housing that California so badly needs.
The flaws surrounding rent control are no secret, a major reason why it largely went into reverse after its heyday in the 1960s and ’70s (San Francisco being an obvious exception).
Prop. 10, on November’s ballot, is intended to usher in a new era of rent control across California. But Prop. 10 addresses none of rent control’s underlying flaws; indeed, it adds complications of its own.
Prop. 10 embraces the “local control” that underpins California’s housing shortage: More than 500 cities
and counties each could adopt virtually any form of rent control they liked, with few standards or limits. It could, for example, be extended to single-family homes. “Vacancy control” could freeze old rents even for a new tenant.
That’s where Prop. 10’s biggest danger comes into focus. If future returns on residential construction are tightly constricted, but costs are not, thousands of units of new housing would become financially infeasible. They wouldn’t receive loans or investment, so they won’t get built. (Wall Street analysts, paid to get forecasts right, have already started marking down stocks of California homebuilders, citing risks that rent control will roll back production.)
Make no mistake: Rents rising at the rate they have in recent years are an urgent and serious issue. Rising rents impose a severe financial hardship on millions. They contribute to displacement and gentrification while they depress the quality of life for those forced to live long distances from jobs.
If Prop. 10 was a stopgap to provide breathing room while we undertake the only real solution to the housing crisis — a massive, sustained building effort — we’d support it. Likewise, if its costs as well as its benefits were broadly shared, it would be worthy of consideration.
Prop. 10 is neither. It’s not intended as a complement to housebuilding at scale, but as an alternative to it. It’s an illusory opportunity to deny the causes of our underlying reality, to kick the can down the road and hand the bill to someone else. Vote no.
https://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/news/2018/09/27/our-view-no-on-prop-10.html
mr_lebowski
(33,643 posts)Because it will lead to less houses being built in California?
It seems like you're only reading to the end of the articles for the 'No' result that you've made up your mind is 'better for you', and not really taking in the substance of what's being said, or the angle of the author.
It would very much appear that 'Yes On 10' = 'Yes on Better/More Rent Control' ... and yet somehow ... you're missing this, most *basic fact*, of the situation re: this proposition.
Just my humble opinion.
BTW, I grew up in the Bay Area too. Born in Oakland. In my life (starting in the 1960s), I've lived in Martinez, Pleasant Hill, Walnut Creek, Concord, Lafayette, and Orinda. My mom and stepdad live in Walnut Creek. My Dad lives in Dublin (in Rent Controlled Housing), my brothers live in San Ramon and Dublin ...
I know SF like the back of my hand, been there many 100's of times. I LOVE LOVE LOVE The City. I've worked there a number of times, BTW.
And BELIEVE ME when I say ... I WISH I could afford to live back there. I'm missing out on all kinds of shit, my niece and nephew growing up, time with my folks before they pass, etc.
Instead I live in the friggin DESERT. Why? Because I can afford to live here. And I don't know anyone here 'cept my ex-wife, and the people I work with at my job.
You know what? MY CHANCES of 'getting home' ... depend on the possibility of MORE rent control, not LESS. Yes on 10 ... means MORE rent control.
Sorry for your plight, but if I had the right to make a vote ... i'd vote Yes. And quite honestly? I think Yes is probably better for you, too.
RandySF
(84,329 posts)Tiggeroshii
(11,088 posts)RandySF
(84,329 posts)
DonaldsRump
(7,715 posts)on other points are usually right on. I hadn't really focused on this issue, but I am going to now because of the real concern she and others are displaying. For that reason alone, thank you to her for bringing this to my attention.
One thing to factor in: Trump's tax cut REALLY put the screws on states like California, NY etc. I've been reading some articles in the business papers that there is already a migration out of California because of the state and local taxation/SALT limitations that the tax changes put into effect on deductability.
The other very clear thing that is happening, AFAIK, is that there is a national "correction" already happening in residential real estate. In states like California, I think this is going to be exacerbated because of the SALT deduction limitations.
Assuming, for the sake of argument, that it is true that there is a start of migration out of California (and I don't have any way of really knowing that except what I read), how do those who are smarter than me see Proposition 10 playing out if passed or if not passed.
Please help, as I am going to do early voting this week or early next week!
yuiyoshida
(45,416 posts)I DON'T know how many newspapers in this state have said to vote no...I AM not the only one saying this, but I will assure you, if it passes, I MAY as well start packing my shit up and finding some HOMELESS SHELTER to park my ass into.
DonaldsRump
(7,715 posts)I am going to vote no on this after reading some of the articles. I will wait to see how the "correction" and the tax cut affect CA real estate, which will take awhile.
I would never have really thought about this without your advocacy.
Peace.
Tiggeroshii
(11,088 posts)It is the reason we do not have effective rent control in california and a source of the exponential rate of homelessness in California as landlords have full control of their rent prices inthis state for non rent controlled units.. Please reconsider. Thank you
BigmanPigman
(55,171 posts)None of them could tell me anything about it. So I went home and did some reading. Here is an article about it.....
https://sandiegofreepress.org/2018/09/california-2018-propositions-10-12-are-they-really-about-rent-control-lunch-breaks-and-cage-free-eggs/
Also, today I looked at a Dem CA voter guide I got in my gmail today and it says YES to prop 10.
On a diff topic, I know you were really upset about CA being divided into 3 states. An article in the same link said this...
"If you’re wondering about Prop 9–aka the billionaire scheme to split California into three parts–you won’t find it.
The “Three States Initiative” was removed from the ballot by California Supreme Court” because significant questions have been raised regarding the proposition’s validity and because we conclude that the potential harm in permitting the measure to remain on the ballot outweighs the potential harm in delaying the proposition to a future election.”
Alas, venture capitalist and cryptocurrency investor Tim Draper has declared he’ll no longer be interested in this form of political tinkering by 2020.
yuiyoshida
(45,416 posts)DU WON'T HAVE TO WORRY about me any more, I WILL NOT BE any where near a computer... i WILL BE HOMELESS..SO GO vote yes.
stopbush
(24,808 posts)Justbthought I’d mention that.
yuiyoshida
(45,416 posts)Allows Regulation of Single Family Homes
Allows government to dictate pricing for privately owned single-family homes,
controlling how much homeowners can charge to rent out their home – or even just a room.
It may even lead to bureaucrats charging homeowners a fee for taking their home off the rental market
– even when they go to sell their home.
Places Bureaucrats in Charge of Housing with the Power to Add Additional Fees
Puts as many as 539 rental boards in charge of housing
and gives government agencies unlimited power to add fees on housing
that will be passed on to tenants in the form of higher rents –making homes and apartments even more expensive.
Puts Taxpayers at Risk for Millions in Legal Costs
Requires California taxpayers to pay the proponents of the initiative’s legal bills
if homeowners, tenants or voters challenge the law in court.
Even if the proponents lose in court, taxpayers will still be on the hook to pay their legal bills.
Adds Tens of Millions in New Costs to Local Governments
The state’s non-partisan legislative analyst says the measure could increase costs for local
governments by tens of millions of dollars per year and cost the state millions
more in lost revenue, which could mean diverting funds from other vital state services.
Drives Up the Cost of Existing Housing
New government fees and regulations will give homeowners a huge
financial incentive to convert rental properties into more profitable uses like short-term vacation rentals –
increasing the cost of existing housing and making it even harder for renters to find an affordable place to live.
Prop 10 has too many flaws and will make the housing crisis worse.
Vote NO on November 6th!
stopbush
(24,808 posts)as outlined in the voter guide? Why quote all the anti-Prop 10 crap from RW newspapers?
yuiyoshida
(45,416 posts)read the LINKS! READ WHAT THEY ARE SAYING... there are NO RIGHT WING TALKING POINTS. THIS IS MY survival I AM TALKING ABOUT.
stopbush
(24,808 posts)to your insistence that you have some god-given right to live in San Francisco, and that right is so important to you as an individual that people who would be greatly helped by the passage of Prop 10 need to vote against their own interests so YOU can continue to live in the most-expensive city in the country.
RandySF
(84,329 posts)She said in her OP that she lives in a rent controlled unit. This, she would not be impacted.
jodymarie aimee
(3,975 posts)perhaps take some of your blogging time and check out other cities or even states....I would love to live in SF, but I live in a city where it is 30 below zero and I am in a HUD bldg with bedbugs....yet it never dawned on me to yak about it here !!
I walk to the gym each morning at 4:30AM and pass the homeless shelter. The greet me and likewise...they are lovely people and none of them complain like you do.
Put it this way, you have it better than me or my homeless pals...we just choose to be happy.
stopbush
(24,808 posts)Prop 10 has a broad coalition of support throughout California
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
City of Berkeley
City of Beverly Hills
City of Oakland
City of San Francisco
City of Santa Monica
City of West Hollywood
City of Berkeley Rent Stabilization Board
PUBLICATIONS
Los Angeles Times
Sacramento Bee
AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROVIDERS
Housing California
Affordable Housing Alliance
Affordable Housing Network of Santa Clara County
Berkeley Student Cooperative
Council of Community Housing Organizations (CCHO)
East LA Community Corporation
Esperanza Community Housing Corporation
Mission Economic Development Agency
Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California (NPH)
Oakland Community Land Trust
Southern California Association of Non-Profit Housing (SCANPH)
Thai Community Development Center
TRUST South LA
Venice Community Housing Corporation
Women Organizing Resources Knowledge and Services (WORKS)
TENANT/HOUSING RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS
Housing NOW! California
Tenants Together
Affordable Homeless Housing Alternatives
Alameda Renters Coalition
Anti-Eviction Mapping Project
Arcata Lazy J Homeowners Association
Asian Law Alliance
Berkeley Tenants Union
Beverly Hills Renters Alliance
Bill Sorro Housing Program (BiSHoP)
California Coalition for Rural Housing
Causa Justa / Just Cause
Chinatown Community for Equitable Development
Coalition for Economic Survival
De Rose Gardens Tenant Association (DRGTA)
East Bay Housing Organizations
Equity Housing Alliance
Gamaliel CA
Glendale Tenants Union
Golden State Manufactured-Home Owners League
Homes for All
Homeless Student Advocate Alliance
Housing 4 Sacramento
Housing Long Beach
Housing Rights Committee San Francisco
Hunger Action Coalition Los Angeles
Inquilinos Unidos
Isla Vista Tenants Union
LiBRE (Long Beach Residents Empowered)
Los Angeles Community Action Network (LA CAN)
Los Angeles Tenants Union
Manufactured Housing Action
Mountain View Tenants Coalition
Oakland Tenants Union
Orange County Mobile Home Residents Coalition
Pasadena Tenants Union
People of Color Sustainable Housing Network
People Organized for Westside Renewal (POWER)
Poverty Matters
Property Owners for Fair and Affordable Housing
Renters of Moreno Valley
Sacramento Housing Alliance
Sacramento Tenants Union
Sanctuary of Hope
San Diego Tenants United
San Francisco Anti-Displacement Coalition
San Francisco Tenants Union
Santa Ana Tenants United
Santa Monicans for Renters Rights (SMRR)
Shelter for All Koreatown
Sonoma County Manufactured-Home Owners Association
Sonoma Valley Housing Group
Strategic Actions for a Just Economy (SAJE)
Students United with Renters
Union de Vecinos
United for Housing Justice (SF)
United Neighbors In Defense Against Displacement (UNIDAD)
Uplift Inglewood
Urban Habitat
TENANT LEGAL SERVICES
Advancing Justice – Asian Law Caucus
BASTA
California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation
Center for Community Action & Environmental Justice
Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto
East Bay Community Law Center
Eviction Defense Center
Eviction Defense Network
Inner City Law Center – Los Angeles
LA Center for Community Law & Action
Law Foundation of Silicon Valley
National Lawyers Guild – Los Angeles
Public Advocates
Public Counsel
Public Interest Law Project
Western Center on Law and Poverty
LABOR & WORKERS RIGHTS
California Labor Federation
AFSCME California People
AFSCME Local 3299
AFT Local 2121
AFT Local 1521
Bay Area Labor Committee for Peace & Justice
California Nurses Association
California Teachers Association
Central Coast Alliance United For A Sustainable Economy
Employee Rights Center San Diego
Humboldt and Del Norte Counties Central Labor Council AFL-CIO
Jobs with Justice San Francisco
Koreatown Immigrant Workers Alliance
Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy
Los Angeles Black Worker Center
Oakland Education Association (OEA)
National Union of Healthcare Workers
Painters & Allied Trades 36
Pajaro Valley Federation of Teachers Retirees
SEIU California
SEIU Local 1021
SEIU Local 99
SEIU Local 221
SEIU Local 721
SEIU Local 2015
SEIU USWW
UC Student-Workers Union UAW Local 2865
UFCW Local 770
Unite HERE Local 11
Unite HERE Local 2850
Unite HERE Local 2
United Educators of San Francisco
United Taxi Workers of San Diego
United Teachers of Los Angeles (UTLA)
Warehouse Worker Resource Center
POLITICAL ORGANIZATIONS
California Democratic Party
Alhambra Democratic Club
Americans for Democratic Action Southern California
Bernie Sanders Brigade
Democratic Socialists of America East Bay
Democratic Socialists of America Los Angeles
Democratic Socialists of America Orange County
Democratic Socialists of America Peninsula
Democratic Socialists of America Sacramento
Democratic Socialists of America San Diego
Democratic Socialists of America San Francisco
Democratic Socialists of America Santa Cruz
Democratic Socialists of America Silicon Valley
East Area Progressive Dems
Feel the Bern Democratic Club Los Angeles
Harvey Milk LGBT Democratic Club
Humboldt County Democrats
Inland Empire for Our Revolution
International Socialist Organization
Los Angeles County Democratic Party
Napa County Green Party
North Valley Democratic Club
Our Revolution
Our Revolution East Bay
Our Revolution Santa Ana
Party for Socialism and Liberation – SF
Peninsula Young Democrats
Progressive Democrats of America San Fernando Valley
Progressive Democrats of the Santa Monica Mountains
Richmond Progressive Alliance
San Bernardino Young Democrats
San Diego County Peace and Freedom Party
San Francisco Latino Democratic Club
San Pedro Democratic Club
Socialist Alternative – LA
Stonewall Democratic Club
UC Berkeley Young Democratic Socialists of America
Wellstone Democratic Renewal Club
CIVIL RIGHTS/LIBERTIES ORGANIZATIONS
ACLU of California
ACLU of Northern California
ACLU of San Diego and Imperial Counties
ACLU of Southern California
Advocates for Black Strategic Alternatives
African American Cultural Center
American Indian Movement Southern California
APGA Tour
API Equality – LA
Black Community Clergy & Labor Alliance
Brotherhood Crusade
Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights Los Angeles (CHIRLA)
Dellums Institute for Social Justice
Fannie Lou Hammer Institute
Institute of the Black World 21st Century
Latino Equality Alliance
Los Angeles Urban League
MLK Coalition of Greater LA
National Action Network Los Angeles
National Urban League
Showing Up for Racial Justice (SURJ) Bay Area
Showing Up for Racial Justice (SURJ) at Sacred Heart in San Jose
Southern Christian Leadership Conference of Greater Southern California
Urban League of San Diego County
HEALTH ORGANIZATIONS
AIDS Healthcare Foundation
APAIT (Special Service for Groups)
Black Women for Wellness
Latino Health Access
Sierra Foothills AIDS Foundation
Women Organized to Respond to Life-Threatening Diseases (WORLD)
SENIOR ORGANIZATIONS
California Alliance for Retired Americans
Senior and Disability Action
Social Security Works
FAITH INSTITUTIONS
AME Ministerial Alliance – NorCal
Bend the Arc – Southern California
Berkeley Fellowship of Unitarian Universalists Social Justice Committee
Cheryl Ward Ministries
Church Without Walls – Skid Row Los Angeles
Clergy & Laity United for Economic Justice – Los Angeles (CLUE)
Congregations Organized for Prophetic Engagement (COPE)
First AME Church – Los Angeles
Holman United Methodist Church – Los Angeles
Inland Empire African American Pastors
Interfaith Movement for Human Integrity
LA Voice – PICO Affiliate
PACT: People Acting in Community Together – PICO Affiliate
PICO California
Sojourner Truth Presbyterian Church
Unitarian Universalist Faith in Action Committee
STATEWIDE, REGIONAL & LOCAL ORGANIZATIONS
ACTICON
Alliance for Community Transit – Los Angeles (ACT-LA)
Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment (ACCE Action)
Allies for Life
ANSWER SF
Asian Pacific Environmental Network (APEN)
Associated Students of UC Santa Barbara
Block by Block Organizing Network
Brave New Films
California Calls
California for Progress
California Partnership
California Reinvestment Coalition
Californians for Justice
Coalition to Preserve LA
CDTech
Communities for a New California
Consumer Watchdog
Courage Campaign
Creating Freedom Movements
Crenshaw Subway Coalition
D5Action
Dolores Huerta Foundation
The East Oakland Collective
Ensuring Opportunity Campaign to End Poverty in Contra Costa County
Environmental Health Coalition
The Green Scene TV
Ground Game LA
The Hayward Collective
Hyde Park Organizational Partnership for Empowerment
Inland Empire United
Inland Empowerment
InnerCity Struggle
Justice House
Kenwood Oakland Community Organization
LA Forward
Latino Economic Development Center
Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability Central Valley
League of Women Voters of California
League of Women Voters of Los Angeles
Liberty Hill Foundation
Million Voter Project
Mission Neighborhood Centers, Inc.
Mobilize the Immigrant Vote
Neighbors United – San Francisco
North Bay Organizing Project
Orange County Civic Engagement Table
Organize Sacramento
Pasadenans Organizing for Progress
People for Mobility Justice
Places in the City
PolicyLink
Pomona Economic Opportunity Center
Progressive Alliance – San Bernardino County
Progressive Asian Network for Action
Public Bank LA/Revolution LA/Divest LA
Rampart Neighborhood Council – Los Angeles
Right Way Foundation
Rubicon Programs
RYSE Youth Center
Sacred Heart Community Service
Sero Project
SF Neighbors United
The Sidewalk Project
Silicon Valley De-Bug
Sociedad Organizada de Latinas Activas
Solidarity – Bay Area
SolidarityINFOService
STAND LA
Strategic Concepts in Organizing and Policy Education (SCOPE)
University of California Student Association
Urban Tilth
Wilshire Center Koreatown Neighborhood Council – Los Angeles
Xochipilli Latino Men’s Circle
Y Vote
BOLD = Statewide Organizations
Partial List As of 9/18/18
yuiyoshida
(45,416 posts)During a televised round-table discussion of Proposition 10 last week, Debra Carlton of the California Apartment Association recalled the days before the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act.
In 1995, the Legislature passed Costa-Hawkins to protect against extreme forms of rent control, including rent caps on single-family homes, individually owned condominiums and new construction. Before those protections were in place, many landlords were quitting the rental-housing business.
“Property owners were getting out,” Carlton, senior vice president of public affairs for CAA, said during an episode of KQED Newsroom. “Even in Berkeley, we lost about 3,000 single-family homes because owners said, ‘I’m not going to work under this system.’ If Prop 10 passes and turns it over to the cities, I think that, unfortunately, we’re going to see that again.”
The debate over Proposition 10, which will appear on the Nov. 6 statewide ballot, aired Friday, Aug. 9, on KQED Public Television 9 in San Francisco. To watch, scoll down to the YouTube video embeded below.
Prop 10 would repeal the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act, allowing cities and counties to once again impose radical forms of rent control.
Representing repeal proponents during the discussion was Joseph Tobener, a San Francisco tenants rights attorney.
If Costa-Hawkins is repealed, it won’t just be small towns that bring single-family homes under rent regulations, according to Tobener.
“I think the reality is, in big cities, we’re going to see single-family homes and condos return to rent control, which is important to local communities,” he said, adding that, “Our city has been gentrified, and Costa-Hawkins will return a huge amount of units to rent control to keep people housed in The City.”
Carlton, however, pointed out that radical forms of rent control actually cause gentrification. Because rent control has no means testing, she said, landlords tend to rent to wealthier applicants — people more likely to pay the rent on time over the long term.
“[If] the owner has the choice of the guy who drives the BMW or the person they’re not really sure who can pay the rent going forward,” Carlton said, “you’re going to take the sure bet, and I think that’s most unfortunate, because we’ve never been able to talk about means testing.”
In addition to applying rent control to single-family homes and new construction, the return of extreme rent control includes vacancy controls — policies that prevent owners from ever raising rents to market levels, even after changes in tenancy.
The return of extreme rent control, Carlton said, will lead to an another exodus from the rental market, particularly among mom-and-pop owners.
Added Carlton, “They’ll sell their homes, and tenants are going to get an eviction notice instead of a rent increase, and I think that’s so unfortunate.
https://caanet.org/caa-warns-that-prop-10-would-cause-exodus-from-rental-market/
stopbush
(24,808 posts)would be taken off the rental market?
Sure, some people who own multiple homes and rent them out might choose to sell those properties if they were no longer able to gouge their tenants (who are basically paying their landlords mortgages without receiving any benefit tax- or investment-wise), but that is already happening.
yuiyoshida
(45,416 posts)stopbush
(24,808 posts)and neither is anyone else.
I’ve posted the list of endorsements for a yes vote on Prop 10. I’ve read the voter guide. I’m a Yes vote on 10. Your attempts at boogeyman scare tactics are best ignored.
Response to stopbush (Reply #88)
Post removed
stopbush
(24,808 posts)
SoCalNative
(4,613 posts)The above says the group is the California Apartment Association, yet the only rental properties referenced in the article are single-family homes, which are not apartments.
stopbush
(24,808 posts)RandySF
(84,329 posts)The California Apartment Association is the nation’s largest statewide trade group representing owners, investors, developers, managers and suppliers of rental homes and apartment communities. Our staff — based in Sacramento and with strategic hubs throughout California — includes experts in rental housing law, legal analysts, state and local lobbyists, member-service representatives and media-outreach specialists. For more than 75 years, CAA has served rental home and apartment owners and managers through tireless work in public affairs, education and customer service.
https://caanet.org/caa/
mr_lebowski
(33,643 posts)CreekDog
(46,192 posts)CreekDog
(46,192 posts)there hasn't been an exodus from the rental market, nor from Berkeley where there's also rent control.
what you're doing is refusing to believe Democrats, unions, teachers and progressives about rent control (while enjoying it yourself)
but you 100% believe what Republicans and conservative realtors say about rent control.
that's pretty conservative thing to do.
Pachamama
(17,564 posts)As a general rule, I never vote YES without lots of research on the propositions because I am very suspicious of who was driving them and their real objective. I stopped signing petitions to get propositions on the ballot outside of grocery stores when it became obvious in CA this system was being abused. This doesn't mean there aren't good propositions backed with the right intentions, but one has to really look closely at who initiated them, sponsors them and backs them - and who opposes them.
Nobody wants anybody to become homeless....and I see the argument from our fellow DUer on this....San Francisco is a special case in our state....
I also question some of the actions by the CA Democratic State Party in last year, especially them backing Leon. I even have the benefit of knowing Gavin Newsom and his father a retired Judge for decades and while I support him, I know his history especially when it comes to his personal ties and real estate. I also know that as the candidate for Governor of CA who wants to win, he has to often take some middle/conservative positions to maintain that vote of money supporters he has. So while I agree personally and politically on about 98% of things Gavin supports, I still am not convinced if he opposes something then I better join that train.
I need to really research the issue on this Proposition before I vote on it either way. But I will admit, when I see the organizations such as the CA Teachers Association and Nurses Associations and so many more that I really respect backing to vote YES on Prop 10, I can't help but feel it isn't all bad and while it may do some harm to some, will do much good for many more. If I and others don't vote or vote without understanding its real impact, it will pass or not pass based on a few deciding.
My recommendation is for all CA voters to really study the issue close and to vote as your brain tells you to do the right thing.
still_one
(98,883 posts)is it seems to generalized. From what I read It doesn't specify how much local governments can allow rent to go up. The language says something to the effect to cover expenses and a fair and reasonable profit. I would have thought they would at least key it to a formula based on inflation or the cost of living, and at least to me it isn't clear what happens to those folks who currently reside in rentals, especially those on a fixed income
It is those ambiguities that I need to get addressed before I can vote on this
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)Last edited Wed Oct 10, 2018, 01:45 AM - Edit history (1)
and so i'm reconsidering my strong response to your first post.
still_one
(98,883 posts)The good news is that for existing renters it will limit the amount landlords can increase rent each year determined by the respective local rent control board. Therefore the net effect is a positive, so that I fully appreciate it, and I will be voting yes on it, because it at least it addresses a problem for existing tenents
Unfortunately, it is only a bandaide. Vacant or new rentals can charge whatever they want, or as some would say, what the market will bear, before rent control would kick in for vacant or new rentals.
The biggest problem with real estate prices in California is that locals are competing against foreign investors, and while I don't think it will happen, it would be nice if they would restrict real estate purchases to citizens. It is a big problem in the bay area, because local people are priced out. Foreign investors come in, offer a high cash price, and its over.
However, in that respect Proposition 10 may cool the rental real estate market, unless it is new rental property construction, and that may have a depressing effect on real estate prices in general
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)you keep thinking that the current limits on rent control will persist if Prop. 10 passes.
but NO, Prop. 10 means that cities can expand rent control to cover the situations you're talking about.
It is WITHOUT PROP. 10 that these loopholes in rent control persist because cities aren't allowed to close them.
So, the vote for it will help.
And where people don't want rent control, they don't have to adopt it in those cities.
DBoon
(24,989 posts)THEY ALL WANT YUIYOSHIDA TO LIVE ON THE STREETS!!!!
BigmanPigman
(55,171 posts)
Obviously Prop 10 will help more people than hurt them. It will help those with an income that isn't in the top 5% of the state. No debate. This thread is ridiculous at this point. Some people don't want to understand the prop, perhaps time to chill and have a calm head will allow a re-read of the prop and better comprehension.
RandySF
(84,329 posts)The annual allowable increase amount effective March 1, 2018 through February 28, 2019 is 1.6 %. The annual allowable increase amount effective March 1, 2017 through February 28, 2018 is 2.2 %.
There is no limit on the amount of rent a landlord may first charge the tenant when renting a vacant unit. Rent increases in rental units outside of San Francisco are not within the San Francisco Rent Board’s jurisdiction. There is no commercial rent control in San Francisco.
To receive a complete list of past annual allowable increases, you can visit our website at www.sfrb.org. The list is also available at our office.
And that WOULD NOT change under Prop 10. The only likely downside is that homeowners might take their properties off the rental market IF municipalities include single family units.
still_one
(98,883 posts)allowable increase is determined. Is it cost of living index, inflation, etc.?
I see landlords increasing the amount of rent to the maximum each year whether they need to or not.
A landlord who has an adjustable mortgage on their rental property I would assume could increase the rent beyond the maximum if they can show the increase in interest rates or other costs exceeds their income from the rent.
By the same token I could see a landlord whose expenses do not increase increasing rent by the allowable maximum, to increase their profit. I know the proposition indicates something to the effect of a fair and reasonable profit, but it is not clear how that is determined to me
Thanks
CountAllVotes
(22,215 posts)This ordinance has not disappeared!
It used to be a flat 4%!
Glad to know it is now inflation adjusted!
doxyluv13
(247 posts)Prop 10 allows the expansion of rent control. If OP values the rent control they have it's odd that they post a bunch of arguments against it. Also, maybe the rest of the renters in California deserve the same kind of safeguards the OP now has.
DBoon
(24,989 posts)It was a terrible bill pushed through a Republican CA legislature and signed by a republican governor to cripple rent control in a handful of leftish progressive California cities
It should have been repealed the moment the legislature and governor went Democratic.
Now is our chance for the voters to repeal it
CreekDog
(46,192 posts) CreekDog
(46,192 posts)Last edited Wed Oct 10, 2018, 01:53 AM - Edit history (1)
She doesn't see her position as hypocritical but it is very much so.
Prop. 10 doesn't affect her rent control, it finally allows others outside San Francisco and outside apartments like hers to get rent control.
By voting against Prop. 10, nobody who doesn't have rent control already can have it.
By voting for Prop. 10, folks who don't have it, can get rent control if their cities or counties adopt it.
still_one
(98,883 posts)currently is renting, Prop 10 should NOT have any impact on her. It changes nothing in that case.
What Prop 10 does is it expands rent control to the entire state. That is a good thing. For EXISTING TENENTS, it will limit the amount of rent increase that can be raised. That is a good thing.
The net effect of Prop 10 is positive for existing renters, which is why a Yes vote would beneficial
While Prop 10 is definitely a step in the right direction, more needs to be done to address the high prices of real estate in general in California. That isn't the purpose of Prop 10 though.
The bottom line is that for renters who are currently renting, the only thing that would change with Proposition 10 is that it would cap the price increase that a landlord can increase rent determined by the local rent control board, and that is a good thing for existing renters in places where there isn't rent control
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)thank you.
still_one
(98,883 posts)lot of misinformation being spread out there on this.
I am not sure how easy it will be to convince folks if they are just reading editorial opinions or ads on this. They have to take the time and read the actual proposition and what it does.
I admit that was where I was jumping to the wrong assessment myself, until I got into the full text of the proposition.
Appreciate your persistence dog
Tiggeroshii
(11,088 posts)still_one
(98,883 posts)CountAllVotes
(22,215 posts)Currents://www.sftu.org/rentcontrol/
>>Rent Increases
Tenants with rent control can only be given rent increases based on what the law allows. Each year, a landlord can give tenants an annual rent increase, which is based on the Bay Area Consumer Price Index (i.e. inflation). Landlords can also pass on some costs to tenants automatically (without having to petition the Rent Board), including 50% of recently adopted bond measures, increases in PG & E costs (when paid by the landlord), and a portion of the annual “Rent Board Fee” which funds the Rent Board. In addition, landlords can petition for “capital improvement” rent increases and “operating and maintenance” rent increases. If tenants believe they have received an illegal rent increase (now or in the past) you should come in to the SFTU drop-in clinic and you can file a Unlawful Rent Increase petition at the Rent Board to get your rent overpayments refunded and your rent set correctly.
Annual Rent Increases
The annual rent increase (document 571) can be imposed on or after the tenant’s “anniversary date.” The rent increase cannot be given sooner than 12 months from the last increase, the “anniversary date.” It can be given after, in which case that date becomes the new anniversary date. Annual increases can be “banked” by the landlord and imposed in later years.
***********
The rent control law went into effect in the late 1970s. I know, I went before the above named "board" to fight a landlord that tried to double my rent in 1978.
I ended up moving next door to get away from that dump (and yes, it was a dump as are many of the rentals in S.F. because they can get away with it).
The building I mention ended up being condemned after I called and reported it for being in violation of several very serious building codes. The landlord lost the building and it was sold to some one else after it was deemed unfit for human inhabitancy.
That was an I *gotcha* moment for me. The sign was large and posted on the door of the garage that read:
THIS BUILDING HAS BEEN CONDEMNED -- CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO.
Buh bye greedy landlord! 
You might try contacting the rent control board and see what they have to say.
still_one
(98,883 posts)CountAllVotes
(22,215 posts)If you are disabled, this may pertain to you:
https://www.sftu.org/rentcontrol/#Hardship_Exemption
*******
Hardship Exemption
The Tenant Financial Hardship Application (available from the Rent Board in multiple languages) can be filed at any time after receipt of the notice of rent increase or the decision from the Rent Board is issued, whichever is earlier, for petitions for capital improvement passthroughs, water revenue bond passthroughs, utility passthroughs, and operating and maintenance expense increases. The tenant need not pay the approved rent increase while the appeal is being processed and considered.
Each tenant in the unit who is at least 18 years old, except for subtenants, must submit documentation under penalty of perjury that the approved rent increase will constitute a financial hardship for one of the following reasons:
Tenant is a recipient of means-tested public assistance. Or
(a) Gross household income (this would include all roommates) is less than 80% of the current Unadjusted Area Median Income as published by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for the “Metro Fair Market Rent Area” that includes San Francisco (income limits on the Rent Board form). And
(b) Rent is greater than 33% of gross household income. And
(c) Assets, excluding retirement accounts and non-liquid assets (such as automobiles, furniture, etc.), do not exceed asset amounts permitted by the Mayor’s Office of Housing when determining eligibility for below market rate home ownership (asset limits on Rent Board form). Or
Exceptional circumstances exist, such as excessive medical bills.
DBoon
(24,989 posts)
still_one
(98,883 posts)would like to see what happens if you turn into a Rhinoceros
Retrograde
(11,419 posts)Tikki
(15,141 posts)This is a bad proposition, careless and poorly written.
There will be changes to the rental schemes in the future. It is inevitable...but not this way, not with this proposition.
Tikki
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)so why are you against it? oh wait, here's why and it's because you're against rent control!
now you could have said that here, but then it would make it look like your position was self-serving (it's not a crime).
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1040&pid=19377
Tikki
(15,141 posts)And what part of my statement says I am against rent control?
Tikki
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)Prop. 10 allows rent control to expand, without it, rent control is kneecapped and only permitted basically in the current grandfathered cases.
CountAllVotes
(22,215 posts)Rob the poor & feed the rich.
Good catch!
miyazaki
(2,651 posts)Plenty on him. So many illusions.
