A recent column by Jonathan Madison mentioned the negative impacts of repealing the Costa-Hawkins provisions in California law. For those not fully briefed, Costa-Hawkins prohibits any sort of rent control of properties built after 1995, as well as any single-family structure or condominium of any age.
It is important to look at the problem from the point of view of protecting the enormous portion of our population who happen to be tenants — from rent gouging and arbitrary evictions for those whose leases have expired. Is there social value in protecting long-term tenants in our community? What about tenants with children in the midst of the school year? How about anyone who has spent cash and sweat in moving their worldly goods into an apartment and don’t relish having to do it all over again at someone else’s whim?
When you live in rented housing you naturally have to be part of someone else’s business model unless it’s municipal or subsidized housing. Unfortunately, we have severely distorted markets where enormous demand far outstrips supply. Aside from trying to regulate building density and providing better transportation to enable folks to get from their housing to their jobs, we need to look at the profiteering of those who have units to rent and the inability of longtime, elderly or just plain normal folks who can’t simply write bigger checks to enable lucky landlords to reap their windfalls.
Here is where we look at stepping in to level the playing field a bit. First of all, should anyone be at the mercy of getting the boot with just 60 days’ notice? That means folks with children in school and roots in a neighborhood have absolutely no right to remain in their home regardless of their willingness to pay. Most people would say no. Again, in a market in balance there would be no motivation for a landlord to lose a paying tenant if they had to then try to find another one for similar rent. This is not the case in our distorted situation. Renters are lining up to find homes in our area.
Recommended for you
Critics say they have property rights that should enable them to do as they wish and charge what the market will bear. Nice try. Anyone who owns property has many responsibilities that go with living in society. They can’t build a fireworks factory next to a school. That’s an infringement of their property rights to which most folks would agree. What about telling them how much profit they can expect from their investment? We look at the situation of some drug companies that charge whatever they can with no oversight. Most people aren’t happy with that situation, as no free market is available to counter their unlimited greed. Not a happy place for a society that likes to have healthy people.
Another observation by critics of control is that no one will build rental housing in the future, certainly not affordable housing. If a reasonable return was assured with a just rental rate escalator, why would the market then shrivel up? The climate is still here; the jobs are still here. Demand and appreciation would continue.
So now we’re back to deciding how to regulate our society for the general good. Reasonable provisions for rents to reflect the cost of doing business in a particular location has to figure into any formula; however, no one should have to live at the whim of their landlord. Only a just cause should be grounds for non-renewal of a lease or eviction. We recently had an effort with measures Q, R and C to find a reasonable approach to these issues. While they may not have been perfect, they would have helped to stabilize our communities without any severe effects on our landlord population, as home values keep skyrocketing and the desirability of living here just increases. Unfortunately, huge money bombs and “flash mobs” were dropped on these communities by nationwide organizations to defeat any effort to moderate the distorted and arbitrary rent-gouging situation.
Repealing Costa-Hawkins would be a good place to start so communities can look at stabilizing the rental situation for their populations which, in many cases, is about half their residents. Not a small number. Landlords number far fewer but still need to be considered if we are to be just and reasonable. A statewide rental regulation protocol would be the best way forward.
Cynthia Cornell is a member of Housing for All Burlingame.
"...we have severely distorted markets where enormous demand far outstrips supply"
It just amazes me that (presumably) reasonably intelligent members of society could come up with such a comment.
Of course, repealing C-H - or *any* attempts by government to mess with housing supply/demand - other than building like all heck, of course, will naturally DECREASE the amount of housing available.
Or is this going to be the one time in the world where rent controls actually do what the unicorn and rainbow crowd *think* they will do?
Surely, you're joking. No educated member of society could possibly disagree with that statement.
I wouldn't go so far as to say we should repeal Costa-Hawkins, but the housing market here is so artificially constrained, it's mind-boggling. Years of underbuilding have left us vastly unprepared to deal with the current housing crisis, which was (and continues to be) caused by immutable NIMBY homeowners and landlords seeking to increase their own property values at the expense of others. We need to build as much and as fast as we possibly can, but it's going to be incredibly hard to catch up.
Further: not all rent controls are created equal. See Berlin and British Columbia.
San Mateo County .........COUNTY SIZE:.... 286,982 acres......COUNTY LANDS UNUSABLE AND OWNED BY ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS:.... 117,267 acres (for the Peninsula only.... 80% of the BA is restricted not by NIMBY's or landlords)............So maybe the Coastal Conservancy.... the Mid-Peninsula Regional Open Space District...... and the Peninsula Open Space Trust....could DONATE a few acres for affordable housing........5...10...50 acres?..... They are actually one of the main reasons the cost of housing is so high on the Peninsula.....
When will Ms. Cornell and advocates like her realize that they do not own the property that they are trying to regulate? I think the latest rejection of rent control in Pacifica along with the defeats last year in San Mateo and Burlingame should tell socialized housing advocates that their policies are not welcome or wanted in San Mateo county. There are many individuals in our county who are vigilant in protecting the property rights and ownership of investment property. Socialized housing advocates will not take No for an answer, we will make sure that the door stays shut on the confiscation of private property. Keep in mind a tenant and your government do not own the property they want to control, the person or entity on title does.
This is one sided….just like those who oppose rent control are one sided
There was and still is a reason/need for The Costa-Hawkins law. Just like there is a reason/need for rent control laws.
Most rent control laws start out with good intentions…but they all, to my knowledge turn into monsters that is the ‘why’ of The Costa-Hawkins…that then turn just like rent control
A truly fair and open rental market place would have competition that would level the field for both/all sides. If there were enough rentals available…landlords would have to charge a fair rate…otherwise they will have empty rentals while those who charge a fair rate will gain at their expense.
Supply and demand is a 2-variable formula. If supply can't be increased how about reducing demand? The Googles and Facebooks of the world have built their business on connecting people in distant locations. Why then do they all need to locate in the same valley? A smart employer would locate where they can pay lower wages and provide their employees with a better quality of life.
So there we have it - the stated intent is to strip property rights from property owners statewide. Jonathan Madison correctly stated that these types of strict property controls leave tenants and property owners in poverty and displaced. The writer is anxious to tell homeowners what to do with their property while she enjoys a single occupancy undermarket apartment in downtown Burlingame. Thank you, Jonathan, for your fair and reasoned thinking. http://www.smdailyjournal.com/opinion/columnists/a-world-without-costa-hawkins/article_70fed728-c366-11e7-ad48-5758f8e4c308.html
Burlingame has Measure T which is such a vital protection for homeowners. Measure T protects homeowners from threats like this. Voters of Burlingame are clearly justified when they voted NO on Measure R which included a repeal of Measure T. A repeal of Costa Hawkins is a repeal of Measure T. Say NO to both and be aware of any one or group who wants to overturn them.
Costa-Hawkins is the very definition of crony capitalism. It was written by the biggest real estate interests for the express purpose of disadvantaging renters and small-scale landlords. There will come a day when we no longer put up with the biggest economic interests controlling our lives and we take our freedom back.
Shows how much you know about this law. If repealed the people who will be at a real disadvantage are the mom and pop landlords and renters who won't have any more rentals to rent.
Well Justin, let's get to the basics. The whole notion of rent control is an ongoing movement to expand principles that undermine capitalism. The activists with their bible being the likes of Rules for Radicals are looking to slowly and continually chip away at our capitalistic nation. It's a ground up, up down, side to side, inside out (you know Justin, you've read it) method to bring more Progressive control in governing. The rent control initiative is just a tool, a means to further the agenda by infiltrating local government. Now that that is out of the way, good luck trying to take away one of America's prized ideals and goals, owning property. It has been the goal of most throughout our country. Hey, I got it--let's all just throw up our hands and acquiesce that because someone doesn't have the means to stay in the area without being subsidized we should all just roll over because our hard work to buy something now means nothing. When the government (surely it won't be a proposed unelected housing commission with no accountability) puts into the IRS code, as law, that an owner can fully deduct the delta between market rate apartments and the subsidized discount mandated by property control along with the tenant having to declare that subsidized amount as income, well lets see how that goes. Of course we are talking about income redistribution via a subsidy. Perhaps you learned that in your freshman Socialist 101 Course, Justin.
If anyone wants to shovel sand into the gearbox of progress towards building more housing repealing Costa-Hawkins is a sure bet. Do those in favor of repealing Costa-Hawkins really believe we would have as much new housing being constructed in cities with rent control (think SF, SJ, and Oakland) if those units would be rent controlled? Almost laughable. Repealing Costa-Hawkins would also place every owner of a single family home at risk of having their property rights severely curtailed. This is a problem created, to a large extent, by cities being too eager to rezone land for more intensive uses that has created more jobs than this area can handle. Let's start by addressing this problem at its source.
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO
personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who
make comments. Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd,
racist or sexually-oriented language. Don't threaten. Threats of harming another
person will not be tolerated. Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone
or anything. Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on
each comment to let us know of abusive posts. PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK. Anyone violating these rules will be issued a
warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be
revoked.
Please purchase a Premium Subscription to continue reading.
To continue, please log in, or sign up for a new account.
We offer one free story view per month. If you register for an account, you will get two additional story views. After those three total views, we ask that you support us with a subscription.
A subscription to our digital content is so much more than just access to our valuable content. It means you’re helping to support a local community institution that has, from its very start, supported the betterment of our society. Thank you very much!
(14) comments
"...we have severely distorted markets where enormous demand far outstrips supply"
It just amazes me that (presumably) reasonably intelligent members of society could come up with such a comment.
Of course, repealing C-H - or *any* attempts by government to mess with housing supply/demand - other than building like all heck, of course, will naturally DECREASE the amount of housing available.
Or is this going to be the one time in the world where rent controls actually do what the unicorn and rainbow crowd *think* they will do?
Surely, you're joking. No educated member of society could possibly disagree with that statement.
I wouldn't go so far as to say we should repeal Costa-Hawkins, but the housing market here is so artificially constrained, it's mind-boggling. Years of underbuilding have left us vastly unprepared to deal with the current housing crisis, which was (and continues to be) caused by immutable NIMBY homeowners and landlords seeking to increase their own property values at the expense of others. We need to build as much and as fast as we possibly can, but it's going to be incredibly hard to catch up.
Further: not all rent controls are created equal. See Berlin and British Columbia.
curious- will we be building more land as well to accommodate all this new housing?
San Mateo County .........COUNTY SIZE:.... 286,982 acres......COUNTY LANDS UNUSABLE AND OWNED BY ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS:.... 117,267 acres (for the Peninsula only.... 80% of the BA is restricted not by NIMBY's or landlords)............So maybe the Coastal Conservancy.... the Mid-Peninsula Regional Open Space District...... and the Peninsula Open Space Trust....could DONATE a few acres for affordable housing........5...10...50 acres?..... They are actually one of the main reasons the cost of housing is so high on the Peninsula.....
When will Ms. Cornell and advocates like her realize that they do not own the property that they are trying to regulate? I think the latest rejection of rent control in Pacifica along with the defeats last year in San Mateo and Burlingame should tell socialized housing advocates that their policies are not welcome or wanted in San Mateo county.
There are many individuals in our county who are vigilant in protecting the property rights and ownership of investment property. Socialized housing advocates will not take No for an answer, we will make sure that the door stays shut on the confiscation of private property. Keep in mind a tenant and your government do not own the property they want to control, the person or entity on title does.
This is one sided….just like those who oppose rent control are one sided
There was and still is a reason/need for The Costa-Hawkins law. Just like there is a reason/need for rent control laws.
Most rent control laws start out with good intentions…but they all, to my knowledge turn into monsters that is the ‘why’ of The Costa-Hawkins…that then turn just like rent control
A truly fair and open rental market place would have competition that would level the field for both/all sides. If there were enough rentals available…landlords would have to charge a fair rate…otherwise they will have empty rentals while those who charge a fair rate will gain at their expense.
Supply and demand is a 2-variable formula. If supply can't be increased how about reducing demand? The Googles and Facebooks of the world have built their business on connecting people in distant locations. Why then do they all need to locate in the same valley? A smart employer would locate where they can pay lower wages and provide their employees with a better quality of life.
So there we have it - the stated intent is to strip property rights from property owners statewide. Jonathan Madison correctly stated that these types of strict property controls leave tenants and property owners in poverty and displaced. The writer is anxious to tell homeowners what to do with their property while she enjoys a single occupancy undermarket apartment in downtown Burlingame. Thank you, Jonathan, for your fair and reasoned thinking. http://www.smdailyjournal.com/opinion/columnists/a-world-without-costa-hawkins/article_70fed728-c366-11e7-ad48-5758f8e4c308.html
Burlingame has Measure T which is such a vital protection for homeowners. Measure T protects homeowners from threats like this. Voters of Burlingame are clearly justified when they voted NO on Measure R which included a repeal of Measure T. A repeal of Costa Hawkins is a repeal of Measure T. Say NO to both and be aware of any one or group who wants to overturn them.
Costa-Hawkins is the very definition of crony capitalism. It was written by the biggest real estate interests for the express purpose of disadvantaging renters and small-scale landlords. There will come a day when we no longer put up with the biggest economic interests controlling our lives and we take our freedom back.
Take your freedom back, but leave our property alone.
Shows how much you know about this law. If repealed the people who will be at a real disadvantage are the mom and pop landlords and renters who won't have any more rentals to rent.
Well Justin, let's get to the basics. The whole notion of rent control is an ongoing movement to expand principles that undermine capitalism. The activists with their bible being the likes of Rules for Radicals are looking to slowly and continually chip away at our capitalistic nation. It's a ground up, up down, side to side, inside out (you know Justin, you've read it) method to bring more Progressive control in governing. The rent control initiative is just a tool, a means to further the agenda by infiltrating local government.
Now that that is out of the way, good luck trying to take away one of America's prized ideals and goals, owning property. It has been the goal of most throughout our country. Hey, I got it--let's all just throw up our hands and acquiesce that because someone doesn't have the means to stay in the area without being subsidized we should all just roll over because our hard work to buy something now means nothing. When the government (surely it won't be a proposed unelected housing commission with no accountability) puts into the IRS code, as law, that an owner can fully deduct the delta between market rate apartments and the subsidized discount mandated by property control along with the tenant having to declare that subsidized amount as income, well lets see how that goes. Of course we are talking about income redistribution via a subsidy. Perhaps you learned that in your freshman Socialist 101 Course, Justin.
If anyone wants to shovel sand into the gearbox of progress towards building more housing repealing Costa-Hawkins is a sure bet. Do those in favor of repealing Costa-Hawkins really believe we would have as much new housing being constructed in cities with rent control (think SF, SJ, and Oakland) if those units would be rent controlled? Almost laughable. Repealing Costa-Hawkins would also place every owner of a single family home at risk of having their property rights severely curtailed. This is a problem created, to a large extent, by cities being too eager to rezone land for more intensive uses that has created more jobs than this area can handle. Let's start by addressing this problem at its source.
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.