California rejects rent control

[jtown,man]

https://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/...positions.html

"Almost 62 percent of California voters rejected this measure, which would have given cities the ability to expand rent control.

The California real estate community rallied its troops — and tens of millions of dollars — to defeat the measure, arguing that rent control only exacerbates the affordability crisis by discouraging development of new homes in housing-starved California."

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

https://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/...positions.html

"Almost 62 percent of California voters rejected this measure, which would have given cities the ability to expand rent control.

The California real estate community rallied its troops — and tens of millions of dollars — to defeat the measure, arguing that rent control only exacerbates the affordability crisis by discouraging development of new homes in housing-starved California."

I voted against it. Outside a few dense, high cost cities like SF which already have rent control, I don't see any reason for it in CA. Where there's room to build housing, that's the solution--more supply--rather than attempts to control rents/prices.

[the urban politician]

I would hope Illinois does the same

[mhays]

Smart. Sometimes voters do the right thing. Rent control does the opposite of what it intends, except for a relative few.

[dimondpark]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

I voted against it. Outside a few dense, high cost cities like SF which already have rent control, I don't see any reason for it in CA. Where there's room to build housing, that's the solution--more supply--rather than attempts to control rents/prices.

I voted no too for the exact same reason.

Newsom promised 3.5 million new housing units, I hope he delivers.

[Obadno]

Rent control does not solve the issue which is lack of housing. It really just makes the problem worse even if it seems to soothe some of the symptoms for a while.

[Khantilever]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

I would hope Illinois does the same

Pritzker said during the primaries that he supports lifting the rent control ban. I’m really, really hoping that was just some campaign bull.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Khantilever

Pritzker said during the primaries that he supports lifting the rent control ban. I’m really, really hoping that was just some campaign bull.

Me too.

It might be. It's easy for politicians to talk about supporting something but then find ways to block them without taking the blame.

One way is to just have the bill stuck in committee indefinitely. That way, he can just say "Well, I would sign it, but they never sent it to me"

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Me too.

It might be. It's easy for politicians to talk about supporting something but then find ways to block them without taking the blame.

One way is to just have the bill stuck in committee indefinitely. That way, he can just say "Well, I would sign it, but they never sent it to me"

Rent control passed in a landslide in the handful of Chicago wards where it was on the ballot as a non-binding referendum. Surprisingly different than the Califonrnia results.

I can't find Prop 10 voting results broken down by county or precinct, though, so you might find Chicago levels of support or stronger in urban SF or LA with weaker support in Bakersfield, Sac, etc.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by ardecila

I can't find Prop 10 voting results broken down by county or precinct, though, so you might find Chicago levels of support or stronger in urban SF or LA with weaker support in Bakersfield, Sac, etc.

Not much to see. It lost in every county except SF which already has it:


https://vote.sos.ca.gov/returns/maps...asures/prop/10

[Chico Loco]

Originally Posted by Obadno

Rent control does not solve the issue which is lack of housing. It really just makes the problem worse even if it seems to soothe some of the symptoms for a while.

Lack of housing is a problem, not an "issue."

[saybanana]

I think homeowners/property owners, that were not landlords to multi-unit buildings, didn't like the idea of rent control could possibly extend to their homes/condos. Single family homeowners are maybe 99% of the voting property owners while "bad"and "greedy"landlords are maybe 1% of the voters but own the vast majority of rental units. A lot of landlords dont even live in California and maybe not even in the U.S.

What the proposition would do is repeal the current law which limited rent control and exempt most single family homes and condos. It would place control in local hands to create rules the see fit.

I think because of this exemption, a lot of homeowners voted no on Prop 10 to keep it that way. They didn't want government telling them how much they can rent a room or the whole house or other rules. There were some studies that maybe half of Californians favored rent control, but maybe there is this group assumption that all landlords are bad and greedy and making people homeless. I felt thats how the pro-10 group liked to portray it. But a lot of single family owners are also grouped into this bad and greedy stereotype, too.

I know the subject is more complicated with different arguments. But reading lots of comments on different groups on facebook, I noticed a pattern about a few weeks before with lots of renter types in rent control areas with strong comments pro10 while the no10 were largely real estate agents. Then the week before, you start hearing more from actual homeowners.

[BrownTown]

Only sort of rent control I can support is not letting landlords charge different amounts for different tenets. Like jacking up long-term tenets rents and giving new tenets good deals. You know, the sort of shit that the TV and Internet companies do.

[mt_climber13]

San Francisco has rent control and is the most expensive city in the country. That’s why I voted against it.

[LouisVanDerWright]

For once the American public voted for something simply because the factual evidence was overwhelmingly in favor of one outcome.


Rent Control Does. Not. Work.


End of debate, anyone who supports it is a damned fool or pushing their own agenda on people more ignorant than themselves...

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by saybanana

I think homeowners/property owners, that were not landlords to multi-unit buildings, didn't like the idea of rent control could possibly extend to their homes/condos. Single family homeowners are maybe 99% of the voting property owners while "bad"and "greedy"landlords are maybe 1% of the voters but own the vast majority of rental units. A lot of landlords dont even live in California and maybe not even in the U.S.

What the proposition would do is repeal the current law which limited rent control and exempt most single family homes and condos. It would place control in local hands to create rules the see fit.

I think because of this exemption, a lot of homeowners voted no on Prop 10 to keep it that way. They didn't want government telling them how much they can rent a room or the whole house or other rules. There were some studies that maybe half of Californians favored rent control, but maybe there is this group assumption that all landlords are bad and greedy and making people homeless. I felt thats how the pro-10 group liked to portray it. But a lot of single family owners are also grouped into this bad and greedy stereotype, too.

I know the subject is more complicated with different arguments. But reading lots of comments on different groups on facebook, I noticed a pattern about a few weeks before with lots of renter types in rent control areas with strong comments pro10 while the no10 were largely real estate agents. Then the week before, you start hearing more from actual homeowners.

Bingo. One of the largest contributors to the "No on 10" campaign was the California Association of Realtors. Can we say "agenda"? On TV, I saw way more "No on 10" ads than "Yes on 10." Unfortunately, many voters base their decisions on ads they see, because

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by mt_climber13

San Francisco has rent control and is the most expensive city in the country. That’s why I voted against it.

I'm not at all sure it wouldn't be the most expensive without rent control. For one thing, we have vacancy decontrol meaning when a tenant leaves, the landlord can raise rents to market levels. Second, rent control only applies to certain buildings built before the 1970s, not to new construction. So there is not much disincentive (except the possibility of rent control being broadened in the future) to build new supply.

I agree with you government plays a large part in raising housing costs in the city but by other means that do affect new construction such as the horrendous process by which new projects are approved and the implacable pressure to downsize everything meaning what does get built is smaller and contains fewer units than market forces might dictate.

Regardless of what you can blame on it, I voted against the measure because I agree it won't help even though it may not do the harm some blame it for.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by BrownTown

Only sort of rent control I can support is not letting landlords charge different amounts for different tenets. Like jacking up long-term tenets rents and giving new tenets good deals. You know, the sort of shit that the TV and Internet companies do.

Rent control as it's done in SF is just about the opposite. In the buildings affected--only those built before the late 1970s--rents get controlled beginning when a new tenant moves in. When they move out, it can go to market levels (nearly always higher) for new tenants.

[mhays]

There are winners and losers. Rent control has taken a large percentage of the housing units in SF off the market. That's great for the people on the RC list, but everyone else is competing for (wild guess) 150,000 rental units instead of 300,000 units.

[BrownTown]

Originally Posted by mhays

There are winners and losers. Rent control has taken a large percentage of the housing units in SF off the market. That's great for the people on the RC list, but everyone else is competing for (wild guess) 150,000 rental units instead of 300,000 units.

The even more pernicious part about all this is that many of those rent controlled housing units are owned by older individuals who bought a long time ago and don't even work. In other words: they don't even need to be in the city whereas the younger workers HAVE to be there because that's where their jobs are. You can bet your ass if San Fan got rid of rent control a whole lot of old people would be migrating to Florida like they from all the expensive East Cost states.