I appreciated Diana Reddy’s guest perspective “The big lie about California’s housing crunch” in the Tuesday, Aug. 1, edition. She brings up many creative ideas and restates many others in a search for housing solutions. Not mentioned is the need for renter protections from arbitrary evictions. I’d say this should exist regardless of the housing crisis. After spending money to move into a unit and settle one’s kids in the local schools, folks shouldn’t have to worry about a landlord deciding to remove them without good cause and compensation. It’s that plain and simple.
In addition, having no cap that ties rent hikes to the actual costs of maintaining a rental unit leaves the industry at the whims of speculative greed. Tight markets as we now have need control to bring some rationality to a white-hot market where renters are being eyed simply as “income resources” to be maximized and not valued customers to be respected.
The Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act that prevents localities from enabling rent controls on newer structures as well as single-family dwellings and condominiums leaves a gaping hole in any municipality’s efforts in trying to moderate the astronomical housing costs we see currently. Although measures Q and R failed, think we need to revisit the issue statewide and repeal the roadblock that would allow communities to create a balance of interests between renters and landlords.
The spectacle of informing a student in a dorm that he has to move out and so pack his duffel bag, is far from asking a family to pay out hundreds of dollars in moving expenses and remove their children from their school. I’d say it’s far closer to casting refugees onto the water much as we see on the evening news.
Mike- do you realize that you are living in the United States? What gives you the right to seize someone's asset for the benefit of another group of people. That is pure socialism. Many in your community will just not stand for that seizure and fight any proposal by local governments or an election taking private property rights away from owners of real estate. Keeping an eye on those who want to socialize housing and ready for the fight when they try to do it.
Well, should one assume that you read the just cause eviction sections of both Measurers Q & R carefully? If so, it would be readily apparent that the attorney at CLESPA and the folks at FIA have one thing in mind and that is property control. One would have to venture far to find more egregious language as to how many people can be stuffed in a unit, how subletting is allowed without approval let alone credit checks, the vacancy control aspect of holding unit for a previous tenant and so on. When you Mike read of those proposed measures and the creation of a housing commission, the cost, power, structure, and unaccountability of that entity would be disastrous to the City and in essence squash the Fifth Amendments Rights that private property owners have. Also, property control does not add one new unit of affordable housing anywhere! Most of the clients of these advocates are fed a bunch of lies that bolster their feelings that they own the property without ever, ever having put up one dime of risk based capital to acquire the building. Dream your socialistic, Marxist like ideals that income inequality is due to private property. This country is open for opportunity for all but that requires hard work, risk, and many times failure before goal attainment. Here's a novel approach, why don't all these housing advocate groups train their clients on the importance of education and language not vilifying hard working people that are successful. That would be a healthy start.
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!
(3) comments
Mike- do you realize that you are living in the United States? What gives you the right to seize someone's asset for the benefit of another group of people. That is pure socialism. Many in your community will just not stand for that seizure and fight any proposal by local governments or an election taking private property rights away from owners of real estate. Keeping an eye on those who want to socialize housing and ready for the fight when they try to do it.
Well, should one assume that you read the just cause eviction sections of both Measurers Q & R carefully? If so, it would be readily apparent that the attorney at CLESPA and the folks at FIA have one thing in mind and that is property control. One would have to venture far to find more egregious language as to how many people can be stuffed in a unit, how subletting is allowed without approval let alone credit checks, the vacancy control aspect of holding unit for a previous tenant and so on. When you Mike read of those proposed measures and the creation of a housing commission, the cost, power, structure, and unaccountability of that entity would be disastrous to the City and in essence squash the Fifth Amendments Rights that private property owners have. Also, property control does not add one new unit of affordable housing anywhere! Most of the clients of these advocates are fed a bunch of lies that bolster their feelings that they own the property without ever, ever having put up one dime of risk based capital to acquire the building. Dream your socialistic, Marxist like ideals that income inequality is due to private property. This country is open for opportunity for all but that requires hard work, risk, and many times failure before goal attainment. Here's a novel approach, why don't all these housing advocate groups train their clients on the importance of education and language not vilifying hard working people that are successful. That would be a healthy start.
Stop trying to use government powers to control others.
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.