I can see so many loopholes to this.
We need to force high income people to buy homes. If this DBX guy never buys a home, he can require rent control when he is 80 years old and faces an eviction in his SF rent controlled apartment. Need to prevent future social burden at the young age.
Actually this DBX guys liked a pro-Prop 10 article. He is a danger to social stability 
1 Like
Um, you don’t need to force us to…
1 Like
Based on your excellent input, my proposal is Modified as follows:
In rent controlled cities, high income renters are required to buy a primary home within 3 years of the tenancy. If not, they lose their rent control and will need to pay a homeless prevention tax of 20% of the market rent. The homeless prevention tax is used to help tenants who lose the housing due to no-fault evictions.
Loop hole: I buy a home, do i need to move out? How about my inlaws? Or a cousin?
This loophole is defeated easily. You’ll lose rent control and continue to pay 20% homeless prevention tax even if you buy an investment property. Only if you buy a primary home and phycically live in your primary home, your homeless tax would stop.
The purpose of rent control is to prevent homeless, it’s not intended for high income renters to buy investment properties or engage in luxuries at the expense of low income renters and landlords.
To prevent abuse, all the relatives in the same rental house have to move with the high income buyer.
I would simply have it that you cannot be under rent control if you make enough to pay market rent. At the same time, Prop 13 should only apply to rent controlled properties. The result would be an increase in taxes for non-rent controlled properties rented at market rents. That would keep the rent-controlled properties in the hands of the people who need them.
You can’t prevent homelessness without building more homes though. Or one-way tickets to LA.
3 Likes
Terri for Mayor 
1 Like
Terri for president.
NOooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!
Only crazy people want to be president.
I am not crazy.
It sounds like some form of means testing is the way to go. Someone making X times the average for the area can not say have a rent controlled unit at a rent below Y amount.
1 Like
Terri for senator, kick Feinstein out
1 Like
Rent control is city policy And proposition 13 is a state law. Dog and cat; or fish and bird.
NYC uses income level to phase out rent control. I think that’s a pragmatic way to correct historic mistakes. It would be easier than a Supreme Court ruling.
again, let’s also get rid of prop 13 then
1 Like
Fish and bird. Unrelated topic for next session. Just a heads up, keep the total property tax amount the same, distribute more fairly between older and younger owners.
how is it unrelated… you are talking from your own point of view again
1 Like
Repetition:
Rent control is city policy And proposition 13 is a state law. Dog and cat; or fish and bird.
All cities have prop 13. Only a few cities have rent control.
Similar to FDA policy and your wife’s Nutrition guide.
SF can change its rent control regulation by a 11 person meeting. Prop 13 needs 30 million people to change.
1 Like
Oh dude, so you are using state law argument, only thing you have for it is it’s state law. great. Looks like no real argument besides it being status quo.
Rent control and prop 13 are unrelated, no cause and effect.
Toronto has rent control but no prop 13. Sacramento has prop 13 and no rent control. I can’t figure out how the totally unattached two could be a married couple.
Convince me
Noone said rent control and prop 13 are cause and effect, nor is “cause and effect” the only way to provide relationship You must not know much about relations, i guess, it’s ok.
Prop 13 is landlord’s rent control. why would government subsidize your business by giving you cheaper taxes, come on.