Prop 98 - How are you voting? (Oakland: renter, how much, purchase)

[Ultrarunner]

Originally Posted by f_m

I voted no on 98 because I don't think the eminent domain and rent control issues should be attached.

Oddly enough I was talking to someone about San Francisco, even before I read what 98 is, and he was talking about rent control. He said that if there were no rent control there then only rich people would live in SF, but the character of SF is due to the diversity of the people that live there. Also, he mentioned that if the owner put in ~20% improvements on the property then the rent could be raised more than the standard level allowed by rent control, so if there were no rent control then I figure that would be a way to force people out by continually doing the improvements. This person went to law school in SF and lives there, so I figure he knows what he's talking about.

Rent Control shifts the burden of providing below market rate housing to property owners and not to Society.

A large number of well to do also get the below market rents on apartments that could easily afford to buy... but why should they?

If SF Rent Control had any semblance of fairness, owners would not be restricted to increases of 60% of Consumer Price Index...

[BRinSM]

I think that if rent control is going to be banned, then prop 13 should be repealed.

[Ultrarunner]

Originally Posted by BRinSM

I think that if rent control is going to be banned, then prop 13 should be repealed.

I'm not sure I follow? Prop 13 provides for 2% annual increases and can be over ridden with special assessments... the mechanism already exists for voters to permit higher taxes...

Eminent Domain, Rent Control and Prop 13 are all property rights issues.

Prop 13 mandates a 1% tax on assessed value which applies to private Real Property... the actual tax rate I pay is near 1.4% when all of the voter passed assessment are included.

The Voters of my City, Oakland, have passed just about every school funding, mass transit and park district revenue request in excess of Prop 13...

The right to private property is in the constitution and is what set America apart from the European System...

Property Taxes in Europe can be very, even extremely low... in the neighborhood of severl hundred dollars on million dollar homes..

So why would you want to repeal something put on the ballot, by the voters of California and withstood numerous legal challenges?

I would be in favor of a European style VAT system of sales tax... this way, everyone pays based on usage or consumption... people that live frugally and modestly are rewarded...

[JTGJR]

Originally Posted by BRinSM

I think that if rent control is going to be banned, then prop 13 should be repealed.

I don't understand the rationale. One who rents, doesn't pay property taxes. One who rents, doesn't pay capital gains taxes when they leave the place in which they live. I'm all for giving the people the right to vote for or against bonds that can benefit everyone. I'm not for the state to arbitrarily decide how much my property is worth so that the coffers can be filled for whatever pork project they deem important.

I once had a neighbor get in my face because I wasn't sure I wanted to support a school bond. "How could you . . . I can't believe you . . . etc." I then told this person that I already help pay for his child's education, but he doesn't pay a dime for my child to go to private school, so don't lecture me. I made the choice and I don't "bliss" and moan about the taxes that I pay.

You want uncontrolled state expenditures without regard to the electorate wishes? Go work to repeal Prop. 13.

Regardless, comparing rent control to Prop 13 is apples and laxatives.

[JTGJR]

You know, why do local stations even bother to have websites. I think they have gradeschoolers as webmasters. From the KNBC website just now:

Elections results have starting coming into the KNBC newsroom.

With 858 out of 23,617 precincts reporting, Proposition 98 was failing with 55 percent voting no and 55 percent voting yes.

[Christine Joan]

Yippee. It is almost 11 p.m. and channel 9 news is reporting that Proposition 99 is winning and it looks like 98 will fail. I am so happy that with such a low turn out, the vote is against 98. The scary part though is that the Proposition 98 folks are saying that this is merely their first shot at this. They are regrouping and planning to put together another initiative. So, everyone here who is against 98, I hope you all will remain alert and ready to vote to defeat the next measure too.

Thanks everyone. Your votes really helped a lot of people who don't usually get much attention or help: the elrderly, the disabled, and the working poor.

[f_m]

Originally Posted by Ultrarunner

Rent Control shifts the burden of providing below market rate housing to property owners and not to Society.

A large number of well to do also get the below market rents on apartments that could easily afford to buy... but why should they?

If SF Rent Control had any semblance of fairness, owners would not be restricted to increases of 60% of Consumer Price Index...

If someone wants to invest in property that may be subject to rent control that is their choice, they don't have to do it. That's not really my concern anyway.

My concern is that if someone posts:

"If Prop 98 passes... it could very well take 30 years to fully implement because ALL existing Rent Controlled Tenants are protected for as long as they continue to live in their Rent Controlled unit."

Which is not really an accurate statement. The facts should be pointed out. Facts are very important for people, and it should not be glossed over.

Here is an article discussing this point in the SF area:

Rent Control Doesn't Help Tenants When Landlords Add a New Roof (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2000/05/17/HO99488.DTL - broken link)

The rent can be increased for improvements, as I indicated, making it much faster to force out people, since they would not be completely protected from paying for costs of improvements. When the property can be rented out at market value (when no rent control exists), then there would be no reason not to continually make improvements in preparation for offering the property at market value (since these properties likely need improvements), hence raising the rents on existing renters. So there is not protection for the renters as you indicated in your advocacy of 98.

[SandyCo]

Prop 98 went down in flames. I guess the people who voted weren't so easily hoodwinked by the "bait and switch" routine.

[NewToCA]

Originally Posted by SandyCo

Prop 98 went down in flames. I guess the people who voted weren't so easily hoodwinked by the "bait and switch" routine.

Yes, my wife and I voted against it up here in Sacramento too. If they want to have a ballot discussion about rent control, it should be done as a separate and specific initiative. Though I understand and can support some of the arguments against rent control, it needs to be voted upon as a single and separate measure.

[LAGuy]

What i really don't like about Prop 98 was the way it was HIDDEN behind another measure. To me, that seems VERY deceptive and as a Voter, i don't like deception.

Besides, if prop 98 passes, a landowner/SLUMlord, can kick out any tenant he wishes based on ANY reasons at all, simply by raising rent. Let say a landowner doesn't like a person based on skin,nationality, religion, income, age, sexual orientation or had an argument with the tenants over repairing a broken pipe, the landowner could just raise rent to unreasonable rate and claim he was raising rent and not doing anything to "discriminate" people.

Do you think that fair? I don't. There would be too many abuses by landowner.

Some may argue, the landowner has a right to set a price to earn profit. They DO earn profit. If the landowner is not earning profit, he/she shouldn't have brought the unit in the first place. It is the landowner responsibility to research his purchase and make sure it profitable to him , NOT the tenants.