http://banktalk.org/2008/06/02/mixed-messages-examining-the-duality-of-proposition-98/ Exploring the Finances of the Unbanked Thu, 17 May 2012 04:33:18 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 http://banktalk.org/2008/06/02/mixed-messages-examining-the-duality-of-proposition-98/comment-page-1/#comment-44 Digit Wed, 04 Jun 2008 04:23:01 +0000 http://thisismyhomebook.wordpress.com/?p=166#comment-44 When I read the California's sample ballot, a red flag went up after reading the text of proposition 98. The first line of proposition 98 relates solely to eminent domain. As mentioned in the article above, many states introduced anti-Kelo propositions after the 2005 decision. Kelo was an extremely controversial decision, as the Court had never before held that private property could be taken to further an economic redevelopment plan, such as a shopping mall. The second line is the "rent control" text. Immediately I began to wonder...why are they piggybacking rent control on an eminent domain proposition? Do landlords believe that rent control is a form of taking? That idea, to my mind is ridiculous. Rent control ordinances do not deprive property owners of any rights flowing from land ownership. These ordinances are a legitimate exercise of local government control over the rental market, creating stability for renters, especially those on fixed incomes. I live in Los Angeles County, where our rent control ordinance is extremely deferential to landlords. For example, in my building (built in the 1950s) the rent may be raised to market level when a tenant leaves. The stabilization aspect of rent control ordinances only impacts how much the rent may be raised each calendar year. What do landlords need more rent for? So they can build themselves another McMansion in the valley? I only hope voters will show up at the polls and defeat proposition 98. Los Angeles should be a city for everyone, not just for wealthy people who think nothing of paying thousands of dollars a month for rent. When I read the California’s sample ballot, a red flag went up after reading the text of proposition 98. The first line of proposition 98 relates solely to eminent domain. As mentioned in the article above, many states introduced anti-Kelo propositions after the 2005 decision. Kelo was an extremely controversial decision, as the Court had never before held that private property could be taken to further an economic redevelopment plan, such as a shopping mall. The second line is the “rent control” text. Immediately I began to wonder…why are they piggybacking rent control on an eminent domain proposition? Do landlords believe that rent control is a form of taking? That idea, to my mind is ridiculous. Rent control ordinances do not deprive property owners of any rights flowing from land ownership. These ordinances are a legitimate exercise of local government control over the rental market, creating stability for renters, especially those on fixed incomes. I live in Los Angeles County, where our rent control ordinance is extremely deferential to landlords. For example, in my building (built in the 1950s) the rent may be raised to market level when a tenant leaves. The stabilization aspect of rent control ordinances only impacts how much the rent may be raised each calendar year. What do landlords need more rent for? So they can build themselves another McMansion in the valley? I only hope voters will show up at the polls and defeat proposition 98. Los Angeles should be a city for everyone, not just for wealthy people who think nothing of paying thousands of dollars a month for rent.

]]>