Newsom announces deal to Cap Rising Rent Prices (apartments, rental)

[aslowdodge]

Originally Posted by HereOnMars

Making a promise like that might work. Some people are very gullible. I remember a similar promise from a candidate some years back about giving every student 20K for tuition. He ended up getting quite a few votes. The students, however, got nada, zip, zero. My biggest hope is that people will stop believing promises and ask, "And Mr/Ms candidate, how will you achieve that?" Find out how they'll do it instead of believing the rabbit in the hat story.

Yep. Seen a lot of young people blaming everyone else for their problems including housing . Entitlement makes them feel they should get it for free and if they can stick it to the older generation a double win.

[Des-Lab]

Originally Posted by aslowdodge

Yep. Seen a lot of young people blaming everyone else for their problems including housing . Entitlement makes them feel they should get it for free and if they can stick it to the older generation a double win.

And given how many of there are who feel this way and as loud and persistent as they are, they may actually get it. See my previous two posts.

[bad debt]

Originally Posted by Des-Lab

Newsom absolutely wants to outright steal the homes from the middle class and give it to illegals and poor. And this is one way I can see him doing it:

Step 1: Repeal Prop 13. He can-and probably will-eventually do it by Executive Order. Again...in this one party state, due process and legality be damned. Who's going to challenge, much less stop him? Nobody.
Step 2: Slap a 500k tax bill on the property due immediately 'or else'.
Step 3: Owners, who would now be powerless to stop it, just mail the keys 'as payment' and move out or find an apartment.
Step 4: Place all of those properties into a newly created 'holding' agency (which would represent a newly minted bureaucracy with hundreds or thousands of pensioned positions) and auction them off. Or sell them on a Lottery basis to low income people-for say:150K; the state could break even on cost of procurement for probably as little as 20k since they technically didn't have to buy the property.

"problem solved" with both 'affordability' and 'availability'.

Of course the people from whom the properties were stolen from had to suffer thievery on an unimaginable scale and are royally screwed and there won't be a thing they can do about it except pick up, pack out, and start over somewhere else. But as far as Newsom is concerned, "they owed it" and "aren't welcome" anyway.

I wish I was making up a scenario like this. But I can actually see it happening, since it's already halfway legal inasmuch as the Supreme Court has ruled that it's legal to confiscate a home through Eminent Domain solely to re-assess it at a higher tax rate; that qualifies as "for the common good".

If you own a mansion in Beverly Hills, you'll be left alone. If you own a slum in East LA, you'll also be ignored.

Own a SFH in Eastvale, West Covina, or San Jose: Watch out. That's who he wants to go after.

Oh wow.

[JGC97]

Originally Posted by aslowdodge

Yep. Seen a lot of young people blaming everyone else for their problems including housing . Entitlement makes them feel they should get it for free and if they can stick it to the older generation a double win.

I see too and wonder where on earth did they ever get the idea that life owes them something.

[TacoSoup]

Originally Posted by Des-Lab

Newsom absolutely wants to outright steal the homes from the middle class and give it to illegals and poor. And this is one way I can see him doing it:

Step 1: Repeal Prop 13. He can-and probably will-eventually do it by Executive Order. Again...in this one party state, due process and legality be damned. Who's going to challenge, much less stop him? Nobody.
Step 2: Slap a 500k tax bill on the property due immediately 'or else'.
Step 3: Owners, who would now be powerless to stop it, just mail the keys 'as payment' and move out or find an apartment.
Step 4: Place all of those properties into a newly created 'holding' agency (which would represent a newly minted bureaucracy with hundreds or thousands of pensioned positions) and auction them off. Or sell them on a Lottery basis to low income people-for say:150K; the state could break even on cost of procurement for probably as little as 20k since they technically didn't have to buy the property.

"problem solved" with both 'affordability' and 'availability'.

Of course the people from whom the properties were stolen from had to suffer thievery on an unimaginable scale and are royally screwed and there won't be a thing they can do about it except pick up, pack out, and start over somewhere else. But as far as Newsom is concerned, "they owed it" and "aren't welcome" anyway.

I wish I was making up a scenario like this. But I can actually see it happening, since it's already halfway legal inasmuch as the Supreme Court has ruled that it's legal to confiscate a home through Eminent Domain solely to re-assess it at a higher tax rate; that qualifies as "for the common good".

If you own a mansion in Beverly Hills, you'll be left alone. If you own a slum in East LA, you'll also be ignored.

Own a SFH in Eastvale, West Covina, or San Jose: Watch out. That's who he wants to go after.

Good grief. Just like I pointed out to you that he can’t change the voting age because it’s in the state’s constitution, the same goes for prop 13. Any change to the state constitution must be put before the voters. I have nothing to say to the rest of your “theories” except for wow!

[cttransplant85]

Are the CA politicians totally oblivious to basic economics? supply and demand? Obviously this will cause shortages, raise the price of rent overall and price the middle working class out of rent. Why would any middle income working class person who doesn’t use social services live in California? I can not think of a single reason.

[expatCA]

Originally Posted by HereOnMars

I see too and wonder where on earth did they ever get the idea that life owes them something.

Because they have been given everything when growing up, so figure someone still owes them everything.


Note not every single one, just wayyy too many feel that way.

[CaliRestoration]

Originally Posted by PhoenixSomeday

I'm assuming this only applies to existing tenants and does not apply when the rental changes tenants? In that case it's easy, landlords are just going to evict tenants for a reason that marginally satisfies the law such that a lawsuit also won't stand up, then offer it up for rent at the price they really want. Rinse / repeat whenever the "market value" gets too far above the existing tenants cap.

Bingo.

[CaliRestoration]

Originally Posted by max210

The impending prop 13 repeal will cause property ownership to fluctuate. It's possible we won't be able to pass on the cost to renters with this cap.

It's like the worst of both worlds. Newsom knows that the repeal of Prop 13 will hurt property owners, but they could possibly pass it to their tenants which would alienate a lot of his voting base. So he's giving them some downstream protection leaving him free to dismantle Prop 13 with much less fight.

If Newsom wasn't an evil socialist, I might actually applaud his skill in approaching this Prop 13 fight.

[Finper]

Originally Posted by CaliRestoration

It's like the worst of both worlds. Newsom knows that the repeal of Prop 13 will hurt property owners, but they could possibly pass it to their tenants which would alienate a lot of his voting base. So he's giving them some downstream protection leaving him free to dismantle Prop 13 with much less fight.

If Newsom wasn't an evil socialist, I might actually applaud his skill in approaching this Prop 13 fight.

He didn't think up that brilliant plan on his own. He has a squad of evil minions that plot Californias demise.