Response to Lempert’s take on the election

She objects to “special interests,” namely the National Association of Realtors and the California Apartment Association, for having influence in the San Mateo council election. Both groups, however, collectively represent and are financially supported by countless individual property owners or real estate professionals in the city.

As a former member of school boards, Lempert should understand that kind of representation of individuals. As a member of school boards, she dealt with the California Teachers Association — a statewide organization representing countless local teachers — for many years.

She apparently forgets having won the endorsement in her 2001 council campaign of the Tri-County Apartment Association, a constituent member of the statewide California Apartment Association.

Lempert indicates a willingness to relitigate last year’s rent control elections in San Mateo and Burlingame. She fails to mention the out-of-area pro-rent control groups active in that election and the resounding defeat of the rent control measures.

This November election was not a good one for rent control advocates. Charlie Drechsler, backed by the statewide Service Employees International Union, finished poorly in the San Mateo council election, along with Chelsea Bonini, who had promised voters to reopen the rent control question. Pacifica voters convincingly defeated a rent control ordinance with 62 percent opposed.

Lempert also considered the possible enactment of “temporary rent control.” Note: the “temporary” New York City rent control ordinance was enacted in 1943.

Discussing rent control, the well-respected economist Assar Lindbeck wrote: “next to bombing, rent control seems to be the most efficient technique so far known for destroying cities.”

Gordon M. Seely

Belmont