apartment therapy changing the world, one room at a time

the SF Chronicle does not endorse Prop. 98:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/news/focuspage/june2008endorsements

Thank you for posting this important message. The graphics are confusing as you have a point of view on the proposition yet your graphics are also saying, "Yes, on 98"
These propositions have been so confusing for voters, 98 perhaps intentionally so.
So, if there's still time, perhaps you could unify your graphics and your message on 98.

Oh please please please vote NO on 98!

I think I'd rather vote no on both 98 and 99 and hope they write something better.

If you are interested in the eminent domain issue, you vote yes on Prop 99.
Prop. 98 is a Trojan Horse. It purports to be protecting homeowners from eminent domain events, but apparently the real intent of 98 is to eliminate rent control in entire state of California (plus other renter protections, such as protection from unwarranted evictions). If 98 were to pass, it would directly become part of the state constitution.

If you go to http://www.noprop98.org/
you find out the many organizations (incl. League Women Voters, AARP) and politicians (the governor and both senators), etc. feel 98 is a NO!

colleen: thank you for the additional information; I've clarified the info in the post above.

franceska: I posted both graphics since I wanted both sides to be represented and for the readers to make the decision. I shared my own opinion because I think it represents many folks out there who are torn between the issues of eminent domain and rent control. I think they got a little too greedy at the heart of prop 98; if they only kept it about private property protection, instead of trying to tack on the rent control elimination.

gregory

Yes, I saw my error afterwards.

Debra J. Saunders--HMPHH.

Studies in cities like Boston showed that when rent control was removed, the market didn't "adjust itself"--rents went through the roof.

Just look at New York--the number of rent-controlled units have gone down astronomically just over the past 15 years, turning it into a playground for the rich.

why not mention 99 in this post? it has many of the same provisions but does not act on rent control or affordable unit requirements (which you also have not mentioned). i do not necessarily support 99; unfortunately, it seems people are scared enough to vote for it regardless in some cases because it would block 98 if passed. i will probably vote yes on 99 for that reason.

Nice Sophie's Choice there. Protect homeowners and screw over renters, or protect renters and screw over homeowners.

No on 98. Yes on 99. My understanding is that if both 98 and 99 pass, 99 prevails and 98 is nullified. So yes on 99 is important as that means there are 2 paths to kill 98.

Erika - the eminent domain issue is not really the point of these proposals. The point was to cloak the elimination of rent control into an issue that most people feel passionately about (eminent domain) and trying to sneak it by the voters. Neither proposal would do much about eminent domain. That wasn't their true intent. It's just a sneaky bit of marketing designed to fire up support for 98.

The folks who underwrote prop 98 could give a rat's ass about eminent domain protection. In fact, you can bet several of them are the kind of developers who would think nothing of using local government to grab land from homeowners to develop "luxury" condos and such.

Additionally, the fact that the Howard Jarvis Taxpayer's Association endorses 98 is galling since one of the provisions of Prop 13 was that property taxes could only be 1 percent of a property's assessed value - but here's the clinker - the assessed value can only be raised by 2 percent a year - regardless of the actual market value of a property!

That's LESS than the average rent increase in rent controlled properties, folks. And when was the last time CA real estate only appreciated by 2 percent? Excepting this brief crash, which comes after 10 years of skyrocketing appreciation?

So much for the sanctity of "market forces" all you "hardworking, property-owning" snotrags. Yes, the assessed value of a private property doesn't hit market value until oh, guess! It's sold and someone new moves in! Which is when property is re-assessed to reflect the current market rate and then, increases are again held to 2 percent per year, until the property changes hands and the cycle starts over again.

Sound like rent control? It is, only better, since when you sell, you reap the benefits of the market without being subject to any of the disadvantages. Nice way to game the system...

So, the Howard Jarvis members are happy to have their property taxes protected (or subsidized) from market forces (which they can then exploit at time of sale) but renters who seek the same protection are welfare scum. Puhleeze...

Proposition 98 is nothing more than a scam to screw hardworking people out of any home security they now enjoy. Further, it's the height of hypocrisy for the Howard Jarvis' Tax Avoiders Association to endorse it.

Hi,

I am an avid visitor of AT and I just created an account to be able to give my input on the issue of rent control not exactly on the prop 98 or 99.

Rent Control is actually a form of price control. To give you a simplified way of putting it, advocates of price control believes that government intervention helps consumers through price control. The same thing goes with Rent Control. The biggest economic mistake people are doing now is only looking at the short-term benefits and only on a group of people as opposed to considering short AND long-term benefits and the rest of the people in the country. Rent prices are up due to the meddling of the government through rent control. The most ideal way is to let the market set the price as the normal social behavior balances everything out.

By putting price ceilings on rent, wasteful space usage is encouraged as opposed to the situation when the market determines that the price should go up (where people are encouraged to economize space). By economizing space, and the prices naturally up, incentives for people with capital are present to build more apartments. Because of this, the supply goes up, demand goes down – then the prices go down. People can now, again, be able to afford bigger places. Rent control favors the old tenants (who never leaves their current apartment even if the size of their family increases or decreases relative to the space they occupy – to take advantage of the lower rent). This leaves, not only the landlords to subsidize the old renters, but also the new renters who actually cannot look for an apartment due to the set up.

Now, the politicians, thinking that luxury condos/apartments can only be afforded by the “rich”, they remove the price ceiling on the said apartments while leaving rent controls on the rest (because lower and middle class consumers cannot afford rent). Now, more incentive is present for people with capital to create more luxury apartments because there is no price ceiling on its rent - thus the occurrence of only having new luxury apartments springing up while no new middle/lower class apartments being built, which in turn does not satisfy the demand of the lower/middle class. What happens is a reaction by the landlords not to “take care” of their buildings because they have no incentive to. Eventually, slums appear because they could not even sell or give these rent-controlled apartments anymore because it is not profitable. You will see the occurrences of slum areas here in New York.

If only the free-market was allowed to reign free, the prices would have been much lower than how it is now as far as renting is concerned. The fallacy that short-term consequences ONLY and that only one group of people should be considered as far as economic planning is really doing much harm.

The politicians who say that they are for free markets and that they recognize the evil of rent control, when it comes down to it, do not even try to follow through with their beliefs for the fear that by attacking rent control, they may not get enough sympathy from the majority which makes their political careers a little unstable. (There are more renters than landlords). What should be done is that rent control should be abolished BUT in a way that those who got dependent because of the misleading claims of certain groups should be taken care of through a “transition phase” and just let the free market do its work.

Now, this is not an attack on the renters, nor is it an attack on the landlords. It is just a statement of fact and that by getting the government out of our economic lives, it will be much better for all due to the fact that the market is stronger than any artificial intervention.

For an interesting read on this, there is a chapter on what Rent Control really does in the book “Economics In One Lesson” by Henry Hazlitt who wrote a lot about the Austrian School of Economics (Ludwig Von Mises, Rothbard, etc.)

I hope I was able to add to the discussion.

No on 98!

I'm sorry, Freedom Liberty, but I've done the reading and I've seen the results. We've heard this "let the market work its magic" crap over and over and over. It's a crock. It's a crock because again and again, the only group the markets work their "magic" FOR are those who have the resources to create and game the markets in the first place. And the group the markets work their "magic" ON are those of us who don't have those kinds of resources.

I'll believe that folks like you are serious when I see our government stop bailing out mismanaged Wall Street firms, end subsidies to Big Oil and stop subsidizing homeowners (and landlords) with enormous tax breaks (like the kind Prop 13 put into law).

I think Americans are finally catching on to the game you folks have been running on the rest of us. I sure hope so.

mcQuaidLA,

Thank you for reading my comment and for replying. You actually proved my case.

The government actually NEVER the market to work its magic - the government is doing the opposite (but saying otherwise). Just like you said, the government should stop bailing out mismanaged firms (let the debt liquify), end subsidies to Big Oil (and other welfaristic projects), and not only should we stop subsidies, but we should also enforce unnecessary spending by the government - which leads to all these problems - which leads to MORE government intervention (just like those you mentioned).

You actually proved my case. What is wrong with the majority's knowledge about the government's economic handling is that they buy in the government's announcement that they are allowing the market to do its magic. But unfortunately they actually are NOT for the free market as they have been intervening with the market for years and years because of the Keynesian School of Economics' hold on them. So the problem that you see, and that you actually dictate in your posts is the problem of - the government starting all these bubbles and intervening with the market (by subsidies, taxes, bail outs etc). You misconstrue the present actions of the government as "PRO free market" but in fact, it is NOT. The problems you just stated, the examples you just gave is directly because the government has been meddling with the market. As I said, you just proved my point.

I've done my reading, I've seen the results too mcQuaidLA. In fact, I've been studying these things very very carefully for quite some time now and I respectfully disagree with you and "folks like you". I understand your passion and concern about the topic but unfortunately, you are gravely misinformed - though it is understandable due to the way information (should I say misinformation) is disseminated these days. I am quite passionate and concerned about these topics too. Thanks again for your reply. If you wish to on the type of materials you should be reading when it comes to these topics, let me know, I can give you a list. By the way, I offer this list with the most honest of intentions and I am not trying to be antagonistic.

FreedomLiberty