Comments on: SF and Daly City: Rent Control Soon to be Uncontrolled?

By: Deborah

Deborah — Wed, 28 May 2008 21:13:15 +0000

We should consider why rent control was instated in the first place. If all it does is drive up rent, why did it pass in the beginning? Because, like Manhattan, we can’t rely on landlords to set reasonable prices and KEEP them from lease expiration to lease expiration. Yet the city relies on its vast majority of renting residents to STAY PUT.

Enter rent control.

NO ON 98!

By: scott

scott — Wed, 28 May 2008 02:09:16 +0000

I also think this prop is convoluted- why include eminent domain with rent control? And can we ever really regulate eminent domain? If the Fed wants land, it’ll take it. If the State wants land, it’ll find a way. Owners get reparations- just like now. Why do we need this proposition?

By: Henry

Henry — Tue, 27 May 2008 22:36:23 +0000

Another empty and duplicitous prop– agree with DAvid– these ballots are a jok and this measure the funniest of all

By: Maggie

Maggie — Sun, 25 May 2008 22:17:21 +0000

I am really tired of everyone pretending that the abolition of rent control will solve the problems we as renters face. In fact, if landlords had no controls, we’d be more screwed than we already are. Greed can’t be allowed to run unchecked.

By: anna

anna — Sun, 25 May 2008 17:22:27 +0000

Interesting comment, Margaret- it’s not the first thought I’d had, that landlords would actually want to keep rent control, but you are surely showing the benefit.

From reading everyone’s comments (and thanks for them), I have a feeling this prop is doomed.

By: David

David — Sun, 25 May 2008 14:17:58 +0000

Smurf–

I understand it perfectly, and I also understand that my scenario is unlikely. However, as in Kelo, people have had their houses taken to give to Pfizer and a hotel developer. That’s unfair, and little different than my extreme scenario.

Detroit has turned into a shell due to failed urban policy and massive employment displacements. It sure could happen here, but as our employment base is more diversified, I find your extreme case probably as likely as mine. Although if the gov’t continues to increase the costs of doing business here, we could turn into Detroit. (never mind unreliable, 3rd world power grids, etc).

As for voting, it’s my policy to vote “no” on every proposition, begun when the ultimate in stupid propositions–the banning of horsemeat for human consumption–passed. The whole proposition process is flawed, and I thought the reason we elected legislators was to, well, legislate. We pay state reps $117K/year, plus $170/day when the legislature’s in session (half the year) plus cars, etc. Maybe they should try doing something once in awhile.

So, you might be surprised to learn I’ll be voting ‘no’ anyway, as a matter of principle, and there will be no proposition from me. Even though it’s close to trumping my limited gov’t philosophy, I dislike this and all other propositions more.

By: margaret

margaret — Sun, 25 May 2008 00:05:01 +0000

As a landlord, I know I have benefited from rent control. With rent control suppressing supply and demand, I am able to rent my 3 bedrooms for $4,200/mo.

By: anna

anna — Sat, 24 May 2008 18:26:41 +0000

sorry about the typos. i have been swimming too much and my eyes are blurred by chlorine. yay, vacation! hope i still made my point clearly enough.

By: anna

anna — Sat, 24 May 2008 18:23:28 +0000

when i said i was “protected” by rent control, i meant that though my apartment might be more than it should be (it is) and that might be because of rent control (maybe. other issues play in too though), at least i know that when the lease is up, it can’t shoot up to 3000 or whatever. because of rent control i can settle in to the home, can do a budget and stick to it, can unpack and fell like i actually live there, not wondering if i will have to leave come year’s end.

with rents as they are now (again, partially driven up by rent control, but not that alone), if i did not have this protection, i’d be very nervous indeed. i know that prop 98 does not affect people living in rentals now, but i was trying to make fair point about the fact that as a renter now in the city, i enjoy the benefits of rent control.

now, i do see rent control’s part in the prices being so high in the first place. that’s why i said: both sides of the issue have a strong stance. i think the best opinions are those that take opposing views into consideration– those are the educated opinions. those are the type i try to cultivate.

By: James

James — Fri, 23 May 2008 23:05:41 +0000

Yes- BB Smurf nails it. And I think Anna’s blog did the same since she is pointing out the hidden legal snafus soon to follow if it does pass and that rent control and eminent domain ARE NOT the same thing and don’t belong on the same initiative at all.

Read the text and you will have to agree. Too many people vote based on “oh, rent control; I’m against that so I must be for Prop 98.” That’s like saying that the existence of one beautiful woman means therefore that all women will be beautiful- the logic doesn’t carry through if you take it all the way.