The future of a large senior citizens mobile home park in California is in play right now, its residents and owners unable to settle a dispute over the “fair” price for lot rents in the community.

Besaro Mobile Home Park in Fremont, California has 236 spaces.  The park is only for residents age 55 and older.  The park is under a rent control agreement for Alameda County that limits rent increases to 3 percent per year. Rents currently average about $669 per month.  The owners propose to raise rents to $895 per month – an increase of about 33 percent.  For some residents who are grandfathered in at lower rents, though, the increases could be as high as 49 percent.   At these prices, rents are relatively low.  (more…)

Yesterday, voters in California said that they support curbs on the authority of public entities to use eminent domain, but that they want to keep rent control rules in place.

The decision is a blow to landlords and others who supported Proposition 98. The ballot measure would have phased out rent control not just in apartments, but also in mobile home parks across the state. Prop 98 wasn’t just defeated — it only got a “yes” from 39 percent of voters.

Proposition 99 passed with 62.5 percent of ballots cast. Moreover, only Colusa County voters rejected the measure.

There were some trends in turnout against 98. In Yolo County, where Woodland has passed a strong set of protections for renters in mobile home parks, 98 got 30.7 percent of votes while 99 got 57.1 percent.

In large urban areas, it was much the same story. Alameda (30.4 for 98, 66.7 for 99), Los Angeles (31.5 for 98, 63.6 for 99), and most notably San Francisco (25.3 for 98, 71.3 for 99) all split heavily against dropping rent control while still supporting eminent domain restrictions.

Just as we live in a country of blue and red states, California’s counties diverged on the measures in ways that show great geographic linkages. Inland counties were much more likely to support 98.

The only county with a coast that voted in favor of 98 was Del Norte, and by a slim 51 percent margin.

If both measures had earned more than half of all votes, as was possible, then the measure with more votes would have been enacted.

If Proposition 98 does not pass, then the strategists who decided to pair eminent domain reform with the gradual abolition of rent control will have a lot of questions to answer.

In the year after the 2005 Kelo v. New London decision, twelve state ballots initiatives set to limit the potential expansion of eminent domain set out under Kelo. In ten of those states, the referenda passed.

In the nine states where eminent domain was the sole issue within the ballot initiative, all nine passed. However, when eminent domain was linked with another issue, voters reacted differently. In those three states, eminent domain was successfully curbed only once.

This would suggest that eminent domain reform, by itself, is very viable with voters.

Why pair the two?  A number of theories are plausible.  One is that this is not a case of rent control reform coming along to supplement eminent domain, but just the opposite.  Perhaps the gradual phase out of rent control is really the dog wagging this tail.  Funding patterns hint at this.  Most of the big money for 98 comes from landlords.

A subsequent conclusion from such an analysis would then be that Proposition 99 is less about providing an alternative to Prop 98 for eminent domain reform, than it is about neutralizing rent control.

Rent control initiatives can be successful with voters. Massachusetts, hardly a conservative state, passed an initiative against rent control in the 90s. This study, by a conservative think tank, seems to suggest that getting rid of rent control did increase both the quantity and quality of available housing in Cambridge.

Eminent domain, in the era after Kelo, seems to get a lot of people worked up. Transferring property to the government for a public purpose is one thing, but transferring to a private company in the wisdom that some public benefit will disseminate indirectly, appears to hold less satisfaction. Kelo did include language that said that “nothing in our opinion precludes any State from placing further restrictions on its exercise of the takings power.”

California’s Proposition 90, which added regulatory takings powers to its eminent domain reform, failed by a small margin in 2006. Regulatory takings are ones that limit the economic viability of a property as a result of a government regulation. This would have great impact in environmental protections, for example.

Proposition 98 represents another mixed proposal. Its perhaps even more complicated, though, because rent control is also very provocative and attracts some support among groups that might otherwise not be energized to even participate in a referendum on a non-general election day.

It appears to be the issue that is holding up the success of Proposition 98. Many renters, as well as female voters, are identifying themselves against 98 in polling.

On June 3rd, voters in California will go to the ballot box to decide upon two initiatives on eminent domain.  One, Proposition 98, would also establish provisions to gradually phase out rent control in California.

There are many counties and municipalities in California that have utilized some kind of rent control in the mobile home communities.  One list, from 2005,  attempts to catalog those communities here. (pdf)

This list is interesting for a number of reasons:

• In most places, rents are not fixed, but instead controlled in the speed of increases.   Many tie rent increases to changes in the consumer price index.
• Rent control is an idea that has lost some of its ability to draw new converts.  While Alameda County led the way with its 1965 ordinance, the last community to adopt a rent control ordinance on mobile homes was Pleasanton in 1993.
• Most were adopted as a city ordinance.
• Some allow rent increases upon a vacancy already.  This is one of the issues in Proposition 98.

Proposition 98 and 99 might appear very similar to the casual voter.  Since this is not a general election, turn out may be light.

One question that is worth asking is what would happen if both initiatives passed?  Since they both govern some of the same situations, it would not be possible to use both.  The answer is that only one can become law.  If both pass, the one with the most votes will be enacted.

A new survey suggests that California voters want to put restrictions on the use of eminent domain in their state, but they are not interested in simultaneously eliminating rent control.  The poll, conducted this spring by the Public Policy  Institute of California, hints that Proposition 99 will emerge as the preferred Amendment in the June 4th voter referendum in (more…)