U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > Los Angeles
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 05-26-2008, 04:34 PM
 
Location: CA
2,464 posts, read 5,926,398 times
Reputation: 2606

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by marilyn220 View Post
If the landlords and real estate industry is behind it, then it's NOT a good thing for regular citizens.
Wrong.

From the New York Times (also from a thread similar to this one):

"Economists argue passionately about most issues, but not about rent regulation. When the American Economic Association polled its members in 1992 on a variety of topics, the proposition that elicited the greatest consensus -- 93 percent agreement -- was that ''a ceiling on rents reduces the quality and quantity of housing.'' The most quotable summary of the research comes from a Swedish economist, Assar Lindbeck, the former chairman of the Nobel Prize committee for economics: ''Next to bombing, rent control seems in many cases to be the most efficient technique so far known for destroying cities, as the housing situation in New York City demonstrates.''

 
Old 05-26-2008, 05:54 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles (Hollywood)
174 posts, read 472,322 times
Reputation: 193
One source I always look to for recommendations on ballot initiatives is Church Impact – an agency run by many mainline protestant churches and social justice oriented Catholic groups. Here is a copy and paste portion of what they had to say about Proposition 98:

“This proposition, in addition to challenging the Kelo decision on the governmental acquisition of private land for other private uses, sets a broad prohibition on virtually all forms of government intervention. One of the initial supporters, the Farm Bureau, has strongly divided membership since the proposition language is so broad it would prevent the construction of waterways that benefit agriculture. It would also prohibit rent control which is a key issue in affordable housing in mobile home parks where many seniors reside. It would bar many environmental protections, would curtail protection of wetlands, would bar species protection, would eliminate urban limits on development and sprawl, and could seriously inhibit even zoning regulations that prohibit ‘big box’ stores in residential areas, restriction on polluting industries and power plants, adult businesses, and other issues conventionally evaluated and limited by cities and regions in the best interests of all people. If Proposition 98 were to pass, individual property owners would have unlimited rights to challenge any governmental action that curtailed their private property such as violations of our state’s path-breaking AB 32 environmental regulation of greenhouse gasses, and the numbers of lawsuits by property owners would escalate exponentially. This initiative, like several of its predecessors, is aimed at curtailing all government actions and thus places the rights of private property entirely ahead of any notion of the Common Good. Rather than address just the Kelo decision, it over-reaches and is a genuine threat to all of our ability for government to function in the best interests of society.”

See: Church Impact Ballot Recommendation (http://www.calchurches.org/2-Ballot-Recommendation.htm - broken link)
 
Old 06-01-2008, 02:55 PM
 
636 posts, read 2,445,305 times
Reputation: 256
Quote:
Originally Posted by marilyn220 View Post
I'm voting NO. If the landlords and real estate industry is behind it, then it's NOT a good thing for regular citizens.
Bump! VOTE ON TUESDAY - kill off 98.
 
Old 06-01-2008, 02:57 PM
 
636 posts, read 2,445,305 times
Reputation: 256
Quote:
Originally Posted by JTGJR View Post
98- No
99- Yes

what jtgjr said.
 
Old 06-01-2008, 05:19 PM
 
27,075 posts, read 54,279,688 times
Reputation: 21277
Default Read Prop 98 and 99 and then decide...

Quote:
Originally Posted by LALady View Post
Bump! VOTE ON TUESDAY - kill off 98.
I respectfully have to disagree...

Prop 98 IS a Property Rights Initiative providing much greater protection than Prop 99's limited attempt.

Prop 98 goes much farther by also protecting Business Property, Farms and Places of Worship from Eminent Domain AND from Rent Control.

Prop 99 only protects individual home owners...

44 States already ban Rent Control outright... Why should Los Angeles, San Francisco and the 13 other California cities have the legal right to take away property owner's rights through Rent Control?

Many Cities, such as San Francisco, don't even allow owners to increase rents by the Consumer Price Index... how can this be viewed as anything but confiscatory?

Rent Control makes no distinction based on need... Rent Control in San Francisco continues to allow very wealthy long term "Renters" to pay only a fraction of Market Rent... and offers little to new low income renters

Prop 98 phase in could easily take 25 to 30 years to fully implement... because EVERYONE currently under rent control REMAINS under RENT CONTROL as long as they stay in their Rent Controlled unit...

Only Prop 98 stops Government from taking all private property and giving it to Developers...

My friends at Reveli Tire in Oakland lost their family business of more than 50 years because there wasn't a Prop 98 to stop it.

Please Read Prop 98 and 99 and then decide for yourself...

Last edited by Ultrarunner; 06-01-2008 at 05:35 PM..
 
Old 06-01-2008, 06:00 PM
 
Location: Sherman Oaks, CA
6,294 posts, read 15,771,894 times
Reputation: 8353
Any proposition that says it's one thing but is also sneaking in another agenda is an automatic "no" in my book. "No" on 98!
 
Old 06-01-2008, 06:58 PM
 
1,753 posts, read 6,213,430 times
Reputation: 1613
Quote:
Originally Posted by LALady View Post
what jtgjr said.
Sorry. I'm re-researching. So I'm back in the undecided corner. Nothing that anyone has said on this thread, frankly, just getting more of the info.
 
Old 06-01-2008, 07:09 PM
 
2,024 posts, read 3,837,433 times
Reputation: 597
No on both 98 and 99.
 
Old 06-01-2008, 07:40 PM
 
636 posts, read 2,445,305 times
Reputation: 256
Quote:
Originally Posted by JTGJR View Post
Sorry. I'm re-researching. So I'm back in the undecided corner. Nothing that anyone has said on this thread, frankly, just getting more of the info.
Nothing to research. Just vote No.
 
Old 06-01-2008, 08:27 PM
 
3,413 posts, read 6,558,044 times
Reputation: 1430
Quote:
Originally Posted by LALady View Post
Nothing to research. Just vote No.
There's always something to research.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > Los Angeles
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2020, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top