HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted Nov 8, 2018, 4:11 AM
jtown,man jtown,man is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Norfolk, Va
Posts: 1,339
California rejects rent control

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."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted Nov 8, 2018, 4:16 AM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 7,576
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtown,man View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted Nov 8, 2018, 4:43 AM
the urban politician the urban politician is offline
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Libertyville, IL
Posts: 15,554
I would hope Illinois does the same
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted Nov 8, 2018, 4:57 AM
mhays mhays is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 16,925
Smart. Sometimes voters do the right thing. Rent control does the opposite of what it intends, except for a relative few.
__________________
"Alot" isn't a word.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted Nov 8, 2018, 2:30 PM
dimondpark's Avatar
dimondpark dimondpark is offline
Pay it Forward
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Piedmont, California
Posts: 6,704
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pedestrian View Post
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.
__________________

"Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—I took the one less traveled by, And that has made all the difference."-Robert Frost
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted Nov 8, 2018, 5:59 PM
Obadno Obadno is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,095
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted Nov 8, 2018, 7:16 PM
Khantilever Khantilever is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 288
Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted Nov 8, 2018, 7:43 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is offline
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Libertyville, IL
Posts: 15,554
Quote:
Originally Posted by Khantilever View Post
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"
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted Nov 9, 2018, 12:11 AM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 13,333
Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician View Post
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.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted Nov 9, 2018, 12:29 AM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 7,576
Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila View Post
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
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted Nov 17, 2018, 11:14 PM
Chico Loco Chico Loco is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by Obadno View Post
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."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12  
Old Posted Nov 18, 2018, 12:11 AM
saybanana saybanana is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Southern California
Posts: 115
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13  
Old Posted Nov 18, 2018, 2:53 AM
BrownTown BrownTown is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,210
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14  
Old Posted Nov 18, 2018, 4:35 AM
mt_climber13 mt_climber13 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,184
San Francisco has rent control and is the most expensive city in the country. That’s why I voted against it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15  
Old Posted Nov 18, 2018, 4:43 AM
LouisVanDerWright LouisVanDerWright is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,775
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...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16  
Old Posted Nov 18, 2018, 8:06 AM
sopas ej's Avatar
sopas ej sopas ej is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: South Pasadena, California
Posts: 3,587
Quote:
Originally Posted by saybanana View Post
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

__________________
I'm just a soul whose intentions are good.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #17  
Old Posted Nov 18, 2018, 6:45 PM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 7,576
Quote:
Originally Posted by mt_climber13 View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18  
Old Posted Nov 18, 2018, 7:32 PM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 7,576
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrownTown View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #19  
Old Posted Nov 18, 2018, 7:50 PM
mhays mhays is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 16,925
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.
__________________
"Alot" isn't a word.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #20  
Old Posted Nov 18, 2018, 8:56 PM
BrownTown BrownTown is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,210
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhays View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 5:05 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.