Attention California Voters! :) (Irvine, Newport Beach: ski resorts, to rent, house)

[Ultrarunner]

Originally Posted by SandyCo

Yeah, great except if I ever want to move from this apartment! This affects mobile home owners, because if the rental space goes to market rates, then it could make it more difficult for them to sell their mobile homes.

I don't want to stay in this building forever. It had really gone downhill. I hate to think that I'm trapped here. I've been trapped for at least the past three years, but at least I had the option of finding another rent-controlled unit. If this Proposition passes and becomes law, I'll really be stuck here.

I think Prop 98 is fair and here's why...

Part of the reason property in Rent Controlled areas "Go Downhill" is precisely due to the current rent control ordinances... there is no incentive for the owner to make anything but habitability repairs and many renters feel "Trapped" because even a "Downhill" property can be quite a bargain.

My understanding is that Prop 98 removes artificial price controls once a unit becomes vacant... so ALL current renters are protected...

Mobil Homes are a special case because Mobil Homes as a rule depreciate and become functionally obsolete over time... It is not reasonable to expect mobile homes to appreciate... so any appreciation is largely due to below market rent for the space occupied.

[laysayfair]

Originally Posted by Ultrarunner

I think Prop 98 is fair and here's why...

Part of the reason property in Rent Controlled areas "Go Downhill" is precisely due to the current rent control ordinances... there is no incentive for the owner to make anything but habitability repairs and many renters feel "Trapped" because even a "Downhill" property can be quite a bargain.

My understanding is that Prop 98 removes artificial price controls once a unit becomes vacant... so ALL current renters are protected...

Mobil Homes are a special case because Mobil Homes as a rule depreciate and become functionally obsolete over time... It is not reasonable to expect mobile homes to appreciate... so any appreciation is largely due to below market rent for the space occupied.

Thanks Ultrarunner!

[sav858]

I against rent control b/c that BS has driven up the cost of renting in ALL cities that have it. Few people want to build rental housing b/c of it. Look at SF and LA, two of the highest priced rental markets in the country. If rent control is so great then why do those cities have the highest rents? And the same thing with NYC, rent control is big there but rental prices are even bigger. We desperately need more rental housing and rent control does not help encourage the construction of new units.

I'm gonna have to look at those props b/c I know little to nothing about them now. But I am against taking away the powers of eminent domain as well. The problem with eminent domain is crooked politicians and not ED itself. So if voting against restricting eminent domain is also a vote to keep rent control then you'll have my vote, care about ED more than rent control.

[Winston Smith]

Originally Posted by laysayfair

If we rescue you by not voting for 98 then we sacrifice churches, farms, investment properties and others with prop 99...What about them?

In that case, I say vote "no" on 98 and let the authors come back with a more specific proposition leaving rent control out of the bundle. Besides, even if the proposition passes, it might be tied up in court for years. This often happens with propositions -- at great public expense -- only to have the thing overturned in the end as "unconstitutional" or by way of some other legal ground. Just a thought.

[Ultrarunner]

Originally Posted by cre8

Besides, even if the proposition passes, it might be tied up in court for years. This often happens with propositions -- at great public expense -- only to have the thing overturned in the end as "unconstitutional" or by way of some other legal ground. Just a thought.

Anything is possible... and the same was said for Prop 13 way back in 1978.

There is nothing in Prop 98 to prevent cities from creating affordable city owned rental housing stock... Oakland recently has demolished an entire block of City Owned Rent Controlled Housing because so few people would consider living there and instead would rather wait years for a Section 8 Housing Voucher and rent from private entities..

Eminent Domain is still allowed for legitimate government uses... it will however prevent government from using Eminent Domain to take property from one individual to sell to another...

I guess I'm having a hard time understanding how protecting private property rights while permitting Eminent Domain for legitimate public works projects could be considered unconstitutional... but as I said, anything is possible...

Prop 13 only came about because the legislature's failure to act and Prop 98 has only come about because of a general outrage to the Supreme Court's Kelo decision bringing the entire subject of Private Property into question.

Kelo v. City of New London - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[bhcompy]

There was a major eminent domain case in california(city of cypress vs cottonwood church) before this that stoked the fires. cottonwood owned land and wasnt developing on it, so the city used eminent domain to take it back and sell it to build a costco shopping center. the ensuing legal battle(in federal courts) led to an out of court settlement

[SandyCo]

Originally Posted by laysayfair

If we rescue you by not voting for 98 then we sacrifice churches, farms, investment properties and others with prop 99...What about them?

Then another proposition can be written up, one that doesn't simultaneously kill off rent control!

And whoever said that buildings go downhill specifically because of rent control doesn't know my landlord. All he cares about is money, and if he could charge $2,000 per month for each apartment he'd do so without making any improvements to the property. He even turned a large, airy single into a one-bedroom, and I'm sure he never got the proper authority to do this. His maintenance crews are probably paid $8/hour under the table, which is a whole other issue.

[Ultrarunner]

Originally Posted by SandyCo

Then another proposition can be written up, one that doesn't simultaneously kill off rent control!

And whoever said that buildings go downhill specifically because of rent control doesn't know my landlord. All he cares about is money, and if he could charge $2,000 per month for each apartment he'd do so without making any improvements to the property. He even turned a large, airy single into a one-bedroom, and I'm sure he never got the proper authority to do this. His maintenance crews are probably paid $8/hour under the table, which is a whole other issue.

There will always be unscrupulous people and I find it best to avoid dealing with them... let them live the the world they create...

Rent Control really is nothing more than the taking from one and giving it to another... which is at the heart of Prop 98... it is not fair for the Government to take away a person's property for private use... whether it is to build a new shopping center or to give a select group below market rents...

Unlike Federal Housing Programs designed to provide basic housing for the disabled and those in poverty... rent control makes no distinction as to need... San Francisco has many well off individuals that pay only a fraction of market rent by virtue of it's convoluted Rent Control ordinances...

Living in Oakland... I am very familiar with Berkeley's Rent Control system and how the city's rental housing stock state of repair has declined since Rent Control inception.

The world we live in is in large part economically driven... a business would be foolish to invest money without expecting a competitive return...

SandyCo... I appreciate you bringing this issue to the Forum for discussion...

[Soccersupporter]

Originally Posted by SandyCo

Yeah, great except if I ever want to move from this apartment! This affects mobile home owners, because if the rental space goes to market rates, then it could make it more difficult for them to sell their mobile homes.

I don't want to stay in this building forever. It had really gone downhill. I hate to think that I'm trapped here. I've been trapped for at least the past three years, but at least I had the option of finding another rent-controlled unit. If this Proposition passes and becomes law, I'll really be stuck here.

I hate to state the obvious but this is why so many people choose to live elsewhere. If you are relying on rent control to be able to afford CA housing you might want to consider a move. Rent is really cheap in may states. Below is a floor plan of a 700 sq. ft. apt down the street from me in Keller, TX.

It is brand new, granite counter tops, walk-in closets, sun rooms, covered parking, 2 car garages for the 4bedroom 2 bath units, all appliance includes, etc.. This is one of the more expensive complexes in thea area and the rent is $695 a month. The amenities are pretty incredible too.

I sincerely hope things work out for you but CA is not getting any easier to afford to live.

[CENTER]http://enclaveongoldentriangle.com/images/Large_A1.jpg (broken link)[/CENTER]

[laysayfair]

Originally Posted by cre8

In that case, I say vote "no" on 98 and let the authors come back with a more specific proposition leaving rent control out of the bundle. Besides, even if the proposition passes, it might be tied up in court for years. This often happens with propositions -- at great public expense -- only to have the thing overturned in the end as "unconstitutional" or by way of some other legal ground. Just a thought.

I don't think 98 will come back if it loses, I think 99 will get it by default. Ultrarunner, please correct me, but I am under that impression.