Ballot measure. Failed to get enough votes.
1 Like
I used to work with the former mayor Steve Schmidt.
He was a draftsman in my old office…One of the dumbest people I have ever met.
1 Like
Reform = eliminate. Right?
1 Like
Well, I am a realist, so I just want the conversation to begin. That’s all that I want at this point. I want our leaders to start understanding the “other side” of rent control. I do not expect full elimination anytime soon…
2 Likes
1 Like
Like her work million times! Where’s her Facebook page or Twitter tag? Let’s storm her with millions of likes
Tanvi Mista for CityLab covering urban demographics, inequality, and culture. Her work also appears in The Atlantic, NPR, and BBC.
Tanvi Misra is Ivy educated and she is the smartest mellenial ever. Someday she’ll come to SF and help eliminate SF rent control
Part of the problem in SF is the 1% limit. There’s a HUGE difference between a 10% limit and 1%.
1 Like
RC may be coming to Chicago…
1 Like
Obviously Mr. Chiu woke up on the wrong side of the bed…
http://www.sfexaminer.com/california-lawmakers-propose-new-eviction-protections-renters/
What’s the point of imposing just-cause eviction on places where there is no rent control? If landlord raises rent to above market can tenant sue for ill intention?
I don’t agree with her but she does do a decent job of providing some of the history on the subject matter. What gets me is how otherwise smart people are not willing to at least give the law of supply and demand a try. All they want is a handout, and that is point blank unfair.
1 Like
The purpose of just cause eviction is to create many frivolous lawsuits. Tenants can sue you for wrongful eviction if they think rent increase is too much.
Any extra regulation will make housing more expensive. It would reduce supply, discourage people to consider landlording, adding legal cost to business.
Commies will destroy the most effective mechanism for supply to meet demand. So a housing shortage is guaranteed to worsen with more and more regulation.
This piece is pure propaganda. If anyone honestly believes this is all true then I don’t know what to say.
The part that stands out the most is this. Now that the Costa-Hawkins repeal efforts are well under way, if the repeal passes then each city is free to enact/expand rent control to include newly-built housing stocks. So whoever invested in these housing stocks, believing that these are not subject to rent control, will be “gouged”. In fact whoever owns rental properties before rent control was/is enacted, is gouged by suddenly falling under rent control for a problem completely unrelated to their own behavior. Why is that not a problem?
1 Like
Agreed, and I wouldn’t have posted this if there weren’t some useful information for someone just learning about rent control.
I am just always amazed at how pro rent control people never concede on anything. Don’t they go shopping for groceries or gas or whatever, and aren’t they seeing increased prices? So, why would anyone think it is fair to make owners (many mom and pop) have to essentially eat most of the increases in housing costs? Oh, because by default all owners have money? Yeah, right. Of course, better you pay than me, I get that, but I as an owner want an equitable situation that both owner and renter can live with. I will say it again, income means testing is needed. It is fair. You don’t make a lot, you don’t pay a lot. You make a lot, you shouldn’t be paying way below market. I don’t care what the reason is, in both scenarios.
1 Like
Commies never give up. If you give your house to them, they may still want more from you
1 Like
Ok, let’s not vote for her…
http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article204015334.html
1 Like
A crazy 70 year old lady with 170k public pension income. Forget this crazy lady and she’ll lose disastrously. Forget her and totally ignore her so that her voice will have zero effect.
Ignore her totally