How are you voting on Prop 10 regarding rent control? (violent crime, neighborhoods)

[CaliRestoration]

Originally Posted by man4857

Depends on the detailed regulations. I wouldn't be opposed to the idea of mandatory solar panels, but it depends on which is more practical to get housing units constructed per 2018-specs. Safety standards, insulation standards, minimum room sizes, water efficiency requirements, etc.. are all good to having an acceptable quality of life and balance out other negative effects as best we can. Solar panels I would agree is not the best idea to make mandatory, but it helps with conserving electricity and the need for more generation (mostly driving SCE mad), which is a good thing. Maybe if solar panels were cheaper, making it mandatory wouldn't be such an issue.

Depends on what specific regulation you're talking about.

Mandatory solar panels seems like a good idea until you realize it literally adds tens of thousands of dollars to the cost of new construction. Guess where those cost get passed to? Certainly not the builder.

Like I said, safety standards, etc are all what I would call impactful ways of minimizing externalities. But things like Solar Panels, or other regulatory mish mash that doesn't meaningfully address externalities in the market just raise cost for consumers.

[CaliRestoration]

Originally Posted by TheFlats

Do you really think this is how rent control works? That the government, local or otherwise, just tells landlords what dollar figure they have to rent a unit for?

That was a simplified example of how a price ceiling works in a market. But yes, very simple.

Explain how rent control works TheFlats. I want others to learn from a guy who obviously has many rentals and experience in the market.

Please for the audience who is reading, continue!

I'm voting against 10 btw but still think we need to do a lot of heavy lifting on housing in California. Rent control just isn't the right mechanism.

Oh and for people that think rent control equals some dystopian future, NYC has had it for ages and has no trouble supporting profitable landlords or building new housing.

Funny you bring up New York. Before 2017, New York had nearly 20 years of uninterrupted rises in rent on an annual basis between the five boroughs (excluding 2001, 2002). In 2017, rent began to drop, and in 2018, it has dropped even more. Was it because of rent control? Nope.

It was competition from new units being built.
https://www.newsweek.com/rent-declin...rk-city-791175

The Free Market again accomplishes in a few years what the government could not do over decades. Rent control is never the right "mechanism" to fix anything.

Also interesting the amount of people that are for prop 13 for homeowners but against rent control

I'm only for Prop 13 because Democrats have proven to be money hungry a-holes who spend without end in sight on do-nothing projects like HSR. If I had it my way, the government wouldn't even get to collect property tax.

[semispherical]

I voted against Prop 10, mostly because it won't increase supply (the only real cure) and will benefit whoever happens to be occupying the premises for the long term -- almost certainly NOT those who are homeless or couch-surfing now.

One troubling aspect of rent control that I have not seen mentioned: regulations, even at the city or county level make the market even less elastic than it already is. If there needs to be a fast correction (e.g., it becomes obvious that apartments are being converted wholesale to condos in response to rent control regs) having some City Council or Board of Supes to dither about it for a while is only going to make matters worse.

Originally Posted by CaliRestoration

I'm only for Prop 13 because Democrats have proven to be money hungry a-holes who spend without end in sight on do-nothing projects like HSR. If I had it my way, the government wouldn't even get to collect property tax.

Ya know, I am SO TIRED of seeing comments like this. I'm a Democrat and have been for a while. I could be a Republican if they were the party that promoted unity and compassion for people who don't happen to be wealthy, white, male and so-called "Christian." If "Democrats [are] money-hungry a-holes who spend without end" then I submit the current crop of Republicans are money-hungry a-holes who believe the function of government is to facilitate them grabbing as much as they can for themselves. I voted for Mr Brown but I'm not a fan of his tunnels at all, and IMHO the high speed rail project has been badly bungled. But I'm right there with him on keeping guns out of the hands of teenagers and the mentally ill, for making sure that people are treated equally no matter their sex, religion or skin color, and for keeping the government out of my genitalia.

What the state of CA (and the US) needs right now is people of good will to repudiate the current poisonous atmosphere generated by the incumbent president and his minions (which include Mr. Cox, and that's why he didn't get my vote) on the radical right. Maybe many of these good people used to call themselves Republicans and will work for their party to be sane again.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by CaliRestoration

Mandatory solar panels seems like a good idea until you realize it literally adds tens of thousands of dollars to the cost of new construction. Guess where those cost get passed to? Certainly not the builder.

Like I said, safety standards, etc are all what I would call impactful ways of minimizing externalities. But things like Solar Panels, or other regulatory mish mash that doesn't meaningfully address externalities in the market just raise cost for consumers.

Why should anyone expect the cost be borne by the builder anyway? Of course it isn’t. It’s not a builder benefit. It is, theoretically, a buyer benefit as well as societal benefit.

ALL costs get “passed to” buyers ... that’s the nature of capitalist business.

[CaliRestoration]

Originally Posted by semispherical

wealthy, white, male and so-called "Christian."

Yes, the people who live in the neighborhoods you covet and want to live in. Why do you consider "white people" such a bad thing yet save and scrimp every penny to live in neighborhoods which are full of them? Seems kind of hypocritical IMO.

If "Democrats [are] money-hungry a-holes who spend without end"

Do you deny this?

[CaliRestoration]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

ALL costs get “passed to” buyers ... that’s the nature of capitalist business.

Yup, simple concept.

[semispherical]

Originally Posted by CaliRestoration

Yes, the people who live in the neighborhoods you covet and want to live in. Why do you consider "white people" such a bad thing yet save and scrimp every penny to live in neighborhoods which are full of them? Seems kind of hypocritical IMO.

You don't know anything about my ethnicity or where I live or want to live. I find your assumption that only white people live in desirable neighborhoods to be sad and awful.



Do you deny this? [/quote]

This is as unthinking a generality as saying "Catholic priests are all pedophiles." And of course it isn`t accurate. Sorry that the world is a lot more nuanced than you would like it to be.

[artillery77]

Vote no on 10. Rent controls don't work and if it passes I'm going to have to raise my rental rates on my tenants so I don't get locked in too low.

[CaliRestoration]

Originally Posted by semispherical

This is as unthinking a generality as saying "Catholic priests are all pedophiles." And of course it isn`t accurate. Sorry that the world is a lot more nuanced than you would like it to be.

Is it as unthinking and unnuanced as believing all Republicans are "wealthy, white, male and so-called Christians"?

Asking for a friend.

[semispherical]

Originally Posted by CaliRestoration

Is it as unthinking and unnuanced as believing all Republicans are "wealthy, white, male and so-called Christians"?

Asking for a friend.

Go back and read my post again and please don't misquote me.