Renters make up about a third of Pacifica households and more than half of the tenants are low-income earners.
Ok, you Pacifica owners, if this gets on the ballot you know what to do right? If every owner votes, this should go down easily. But then again, I thought Hillary would win easily…
Rent control will eventually cover the whole Bay Area, at least the pricey parts. Landlords can’t say they are not warned.
Also this dude seems to be my soulmate…
I don’t know about that. Pricey parts include those tony towns down in the peninsula where there are more owners than renters. I can’t imagine some place like Atherton would have a renter majority where such legislation could in theory creep in. I could be wrong…
Like I posted above regarding Pacifica, only ONE THIRD of the population is renter. If the rest of the population gets off their arses to vote it down, rent control would not see the light of day in Pacifica, right?
I heard the same over NPR news. Are they trying to limit 3.5% / year?
Pacifica is a dump, run by nimbys without a clue…I tried to explain to the mayor, that their anti homeowner no growth policies made her town less attractive than EPA…Of course she unloaded on me…but I was right
I can easily see how rent control and any attempts to restrict owner property rights will blow back and in some time in the future Bay Area will turn into patchwork of owner majority towns (for example Hillsborough/Atherton) intermixed with renter majority cities. In owner majority towns owners will vote for measures that minimize rentals in fear of renter majority that can introduce rent control. It will be interesting to see how mom and pop landlords and larger apartment building associations will have to balance need to have renters as customers with needs to keep voter majority as owners.
I guess Pacifica homeowners will defeat this rent control proposal. I drove by Pacifica on a clear day and really liked the city. From what I see, rent control will be defeated.
Pacifica is not a city really. .It is a series of unconnected neighborhoods. .Sharp Park, Pedro Point, Linda Mar, Rockaway. …all seperated by hills or highway 1…A weird place with even weirder people
Nooo, it is not that bad at all. My big boss lives there and I know he can afford to live anywhere around these parts easily. He is an outdoorsman so likes the water. Some parts are actually very nice. One issue with Pacifica is that certain times of the year, the fog is soooo thick that when you drive say from 280 to skyline it can literally be so thick you could cut it with a knife.
I hike Montara Mtn at least twice a month but never go into Pacifica.
I used to surf in Pacifica 40 years ago…Too cold for me now…This is the warmest place in Pacifica. …A very unique and special place…
Never underestimate the stupidity of Pacifica politics…
Isn’t rent control implemented for multifamilies in general? Atherton is owner occupied, and if you had the money to pull the rents on a mansion, you might as well have some for buying it.
In the case of Mountain View, the town has many many multiunits (which probably means residents get to vote in their own interests).
Same probably will happen to sunnyvale and some other nearby cities. I don’t know if menlo park has many multi units. Not sure about redwood either
(sorry - i decided to ask/learn about this relatively old answer here).
A quick search on the internet suggests the origins of rent control (US and abroad) were in response to WWII shortages. So, not sure if the main focus was multifamilies per se. I am sure in general, people back then did have more dependents than perhaps now.
In the Fab 7x7, I am sure there are plenty of single folks who benefit greatly from owning rent controlled apartments. This allows them to stay in a city that is fairly expensive whether they “really need it” or not. Economists have pretty much universally sided against rent control and how it causes distortions in the marketplace yet we see even more jurisdictions wanting to implement it. The fact is, we are a renter nation even more so now, and that bloc is a huge voting decision maker.
I think we all agree that if we were able to implement more fairer rules on rent control, like the often mentioned means testing, we would be better off in that probably more owners would not be as incentivized to keep units vacant and outside of the rental pool. I don’t have an issue with a tenant who is low income and pays accordingly, but does it really make sense, or is it fair, that say a professional couple who makes say $300K in salary be able to keep a rent controlled apartment that is way under market price and oh they may be owning investment properties themselves elsewhere or even in the same city that they rent out at say even market rent? What is wrong with allowing two parties (owner and renter) to contract for whatever agreeable rent amount and then once the contract period has expired then allowing them to either keep the same terms or at the discretion of the owner to simply move on to someone else? Why do owners have the extra burden of bearing the increased costs that are not partially or fully transferable to the renters who are the actual utilizers of those services? I don’t understand why our Supreme Court has continued to take the position that rent control is legal when you have these types of flaws in the system.
Good news for landlords to many renters too little supply.
Bad news for landlords too many renters that vote… lol
Exactly. That’s why rent control eventually might take over most of bay area where multifamilies do exist.
I am somewhat familiar with MV rent control, and i know it’s not applicable to SFR. I can see this trend spreading other “renter voter” places.
Don’t worry the rent control commies are after shfs too
You all are next… 4th Amendment under assault… All you liberals out there will be smacked down by the radicals taking over the Democratic Party… These left radicals have no respect for property rights just like the Mayor of NYC
Fear the tyranny of the majority
According to SFGATE, “Pacifica voters also rejected Proposition C, a plan to limit rent increases in older buildings and specify conditions under which a tenant could be evicted. That plan was rejected by 65 percent to 35 percent.”