Property tax is communist.
Voted by mail today.
2 Likes
Blackstone is bankrolling the No on 10 campaign.
Typical fake news . Blackstone supposedly owns 14k homes in California. Insignificant considering there are over 10m homes in California. And if Prop 10 passes, nobody will build any more. We need to build 250k homes a year. So the leftists come up with prop 10 as we are only building 100k homes( because of environmentalists and nimbyies).We now have a deficit of over 1m homes.
1 Like
This AIDS Healthcare Foundation should be investigated. It uses its non-profit status to do bad political campaigns. They are supposed to help AIDS patients, instead it milks AIDS patients for hundreds of millions and then pour the dollars on many political campaigns all over the United States. Is it legal for a healthcare non-profit to engage in expensive political campaigns every year?
â Meanwhile, the [much smaller Yes On 10 campaign] is still principally funded by one source, the LA-based AIDS Healthcare Foundation.â
Is there any support behind your claim?
1 Like
Ballot initiativesEdit
2016 California Proposition 61 âCalifornia Drug Price Relief Actâ - failedEdit
AHF spent $19 million supporting the California Drug Price Relief Act, a statewide 2016 ballot initiative that would have revised California law to require state programs to pay no more for prescription medications than the prices negotiated by the United States Department of Veterans Affairs (notwithstanding any other provision of law and insofar as permissible under federal law), while exempting managed care programs funded through Medi-Cal.[44] It failed by a 6% margin.
2016 California Proposition 60 âAdult Film Condom Requirementsâ - failedEdit
AHF spent $4.6 million supporting an initiative which would have allowed Cal/OSHA) to prosecute an enforcement action anytime a condom is not visible in a pornographic film.
Ohio Drug Price Relief ActEdit
On August 3, 2015, Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine approved petition language for a drug pricing 2016 statewide ballot initiative to enact Section 194.01 of the Ohio Revised Code to seek United States Department of Veterans Affairs prescription drug pricing for state programs. On August 13, the Ohio Ballot Boardapproved the proposed statute as a single issue. As a result, that measure, backed by AHF and Ohioans for Fair Drug Prices, was cleared for signature gathering to begin collecting the 91,677 signatures of registered Ohio voters required to put the issue before the Ohio General Assembly.
According to the Ohio petition language, âThe Ohio Drug Price Relief Act would ⌠require that notwithstanding any other provision of law and in so far as permissible under federal law, the State of Ohio shall not enter into any agreement for the purchase of prescription drugs or agree to pay, directly or indirectly, for prescription drugs, including where the state is the ultimate payer, unless the net cost is the same or less than the lowest price paid for the same drug by the U. S. Department of Veterans Affairs.â[45]
2017 Los Angeles city Measure S âNeighborhood Integrity Initiativeâ - failedEdit
In 2016, the foundation sponsored and provided more than 95% of the funding ($5.5 million)[46] for an anti-development ballot initiative, Measure S, which was rejected with 70.4% voting against.[47] This initiative would have imposed a two-year moratorium on spot zoning as well as developments requiring height and density variances and other changes that would, it claimed, prevent the city from gentrifying and growing too fast. âAs we work to house patients in L.A., City Hall focuses on approving $3,500 apartments that sit empty,â Weinstein wrote in a Los Angeles Times op-ed.[48] Opponents, who included many advocacy groups for the homeless as well as the cityâs business community, building trades unions, and developers, said that while the measure addressed some real problems, it went too far and would have not only prevented the construction of new affordable housing but made the cityâs overall quality of life worse by aggravating an existing housing shortage.[49]They questioned whether the money spent by the AIDS Healthcare Foundation to get the initiative on the ballot was related to the foundationâs mission, and suggested that it was motivated by AHF director Michael Weinsteinâs desire to block a development that would have dominated the view from his office window.[50][51]
2018, Costa-Hawkins RepealEdit
As of August 2018, the AIDS Healthcare Foundation has contributed over $12 million to the campaign for Proposition 10, a ballot initiative which seeks to repeal the 1995 Costa-Hawkins Act.[44] Passage of the measure would enable the expansion of rent control to single-family homes statewide.
See also
An extremist political activist is hiding under a nonprofit AIDS Healthcare Foundation.
I think you are right, why would an AIDS non-profit org be donating money to support Prop 10?
2 Likes
This non-profit AIDS Healthcare foundation initiated Prop 10, wrote Prop 10, and single handedly donated to it. Nobody else asks for it and nobody else is behind it.
I think itâs inappropriate for a non-profit healthcare organization to use the tax exempt profit to engage political wars against the good people.
2 Likes
Encouraging news, but letâs make sure this is an overwhelming blowout win!!!
Go and vote NO!!!
Looks like prop10 will make being a landlord less profitable - means more inventory for people buying and lower house prices, no? Isnât that a good thing if the aim is for more supply and more affordable housing?
1 Like
Depends on how low the house price goes. If goes very low, yield hence cap rate/ cash flow improves significantly, good for landlord 
Donât forget, property tax is based on house price 
My personal take on this is that rent control removes flexibility which will affect supply. Hereâs how we do our calculus when we are buying:
Since wifey and I buy MFH, we assume worst case that rent control may come to pass. So every purchase needs to be cashflow positive or cashflow positive in a fairly conservative timeframe (with conservative changes). However, itâs cashflow positive in the current market where the economy is good and demand for units are strong. Now if rent control with vacancy decontrol passes, and the economy turns sour, we will have a problem.
If a unit becomes vacant, and we have trouble finding a tenant, itâs not in our interest to cut rents to below costs as we can never recover rents as long as the tenant is in place (or ever with vacancy decontrol). If there was no rent control, we can do that to at least tide over till the economy turns around, but with rent control I have zero incentive to do this. This will reduce supply at especially the worst time (when the economy is turning sour). So it will put a floor to rent prices. Further rent control will restrict new building which will add more pressure on the rental market.
The net (if we play this out long enough), rent control will actually benefit those who are already vested in the market with a number of rental properties (in good areas) as rents will go up faster then without rent control.
All that said, I will be voting against Prop 10
1 Like
I think Prop 10 will push up rent because there will be a lot fewer rentals. Maybe it will push house price down, maybe not, but the vast majority of renters will never be able to buy in prime Bay Area. Renting is their only housing option. If we made that even less affordable many will be hurt and so will our economy.
1 Like
No if market behaves like what opamp said since you lost a lot in house price. Think of the scenario of having 2-3% yield and house price tumbled 30-50%. Higher rent not enough to compensate for your loss in house price.
Btw, I was responding to his assertion. You should be responding to his assertion and not my statement, I was merely pointing out his logic may not played out, not commenting on impact of Prop 10.
Supply should mean new construction, right? Existing homes trading hands are not new supply in the big picture.
So supply is the total number of houses, demand is the total number of households.
Prop 10 will discourage new construction, there would be very few new rental homes. Plus many existing rental homes would be converted to owner occupied home.
Overall, Prop 10 will make rental housing scarce will make it imporossible to rent a home when a young Indian engineer comes to the Silicon Valley.
Prop 10 is anti immigration and itâs worse than Trump.
Prop 10 is anti young people and it will make Californiaâs pension crisis unmanageable.
Prop 10 is anti relocation and it bans good people from moving to California.
Yah wasnât paying attention to start of thread.
I would assert behavior in price decline would be different between SFH and MFH. Also different drivers for people. I would believe price depreciation would be more for SFH then MFH.
Also what would happen with MFH is the market will lock up. No one wants to buy (rent control) and no one wants to sell (long term rents will appreciate faster in good areas)
Since our (wifey and I) investment philosophy is for cash flow and not appreciation, rent control may actually help us
1 Like