|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
jodeke
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 67631
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.
|
 Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2018 11:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
I almost blew it on prop 10. I talked to friends and some in the forum (thank you) about it. I voted NO. It ain't broke, why fix it? I have friends living in a building recently sold. The new owners are in the process of doing a lot of renovating. They have section 8 recipients who have been living there for years.The new owners aren't going to renew section 8 vouchers. If I have it right prop 10 puts restrictions on how much the new owners can raise rents. Costa Hawkins Rental Housing Act
| Quote: | | If an apartment is under "vacancy control", the city's ordinance works to deny or limit an owner's ability to increase its rent to new tenant(s). It works this way even in cases where the prior tenant voluntarily vacated the apartment or was evicted for a 'just cause' (such as failure to pay rent). In other words Costa–Hawkins, by now prohibiting "vacancy control" in the above voluntary or 'just cause' circumstances, mandates that cities allow an apartment owner the right to rent the vacancy at any price (i.e., usually the market price). |
As one poster pointed out to me YES votes usually benefit the haves.
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ribeye
Franchise Player
Joined: 10 Nov 2001
Posts: 12630
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2018 11:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
This was a big win for landlords, not so much for tenants.
| Quote: | Landlord groups, which funded a nearly $80-million opposition campaign that outraised supporters 3 to 1, said voters made their opinions clear.
|
| Quote: | | Tenant groups responded to Tuesday’s loss by protesting at the Santa Monica offices of Blackstone, the private equity firm that owns thousands of apartments in the state and was a major donor to the campaign against Proposition 10. |
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-proposition-10-rent-control-next-20181108-story.html
I have become more and more against any rewards via our income tax system for flippers. They suck up the supply to the point that the average person has great difficulty affording even a starter home.
The ability to purchase a home has changed drastically since I purchased my first home in 1972. I strongly favor rules, regulations, laws and perks that favor owner occupied first time purchases over flipper purchases.
We should strive to pass on as best we can that which was provided to ourselves.
_________________
"A metronome keeps time by using a Ringo" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jodeke
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 67631
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2018 11:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ribeye wrote: | This was a big win for landlords, not so much for tenants.
| Quote: | Landlord groups, which funded a nearly $80-million opposition campaign that outraised supporters 3 to 1, said voters made their opinions clear.
|
| Quote: | | Tenant groups responded to Tuesday’s loss by protesting at the Santa Monica offices of Blackstone, the private equity firm that owns thousands of apartments in the state and was a major donor to the campaign against Proposition 10. |
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-proposition-10-rent-control-next-20181108-story.html
I have become more and more against any rewards via our income tax system for flippers. They suck up the supply to the point that the average person has great difficulty affording even a starter home.
The ability to purchase a home has changed drastically since I purchased my first home in 1972. I strongly favor rules, regulations, laws and perks that favor owner occupied first time purchases over flipper purchases.
We should strive to pass on as best we can that which was provided to ourselves. |
Houses vs apartments. Which has the more far reaching affect?
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ribeye
Franchise Player
Joined: 10 Nov 2001
Posts: 12630
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2018 11:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| jodeke wrote: | | ribeye wrote: | This was a big win for landlords, not so much for tenants.
| Quote: | Landlord groups, which funded a nearly $80-million opposition campaign that outraised supporters 3 to 1, said voters made their opinions clear.
|
| Quote: | | Tenant groups responded to Tuesday’s loss by protesting at the Santa Monica offices of Blackstone, the private equity firm that owns thousands of apartments in the state and was a major donor to the campaign against Proposition 10. |
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-proposition-10-rent-control-next-20181108-story.html
I have become more and more against any rewards via our income tax system for flippers. They suck up the supply to the point that the average person has great difficulty affording even a starter home.
The ability to purchase a home has changed drastically since I purchased my first home in 1972. I strongly favor rules, regulations, laws and perks that favor owner occupied first time purchases over flipper purchases.
We should strive to pass on as best we can that which was provided to ourselves. |
Houses vs apartments. Which has the more far reaching affect? |
They are too interrelated to isolate one from the other.
_________________
"A metronome keeps time by using a Ringo" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jodeke
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 67631
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2018 11:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ribeye wrote: | | jodeke wrote: | | ribeye wrote: | This was a big win for landlords, not so much for tenants.
| Quote: | Landlord groups, which funded a nearly $80-million opposition campaign that outraised supporters 3 to 1, said voters made their opinions clear.
|
| Quote: | | Tenant groups responded to Tuesday’s loss by protesting at the Santa Monica offices of Blackstone, the private equity firm that owns thousands of apartments in the state and was a major donor to the campaign against Proposition 10. |
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-proposition-10-rent-control-next-20181108-story.html
I have become more and more against any rewards via our income tax system for flippers. They suck up the supply to the point that the average person has great difficulty affording even a starter home.
The ability to purchase a home has changed drastically since I purchased my first home in 1972. I strongly favor rules, regulations, laws and perks that favor owner occupied first time purchases over flipper purchases.
We should strive to pass on as best we can that which was provided to ourselves. |
Houses vs apartments. Which has the more far reaching affect? |
They are too interrelated to isolate one from the other. |
Being interrelated doesn't remove which has the more far reaching affect. 1st time owners number vs apartment renters numbers. IMO volume plays a part. What's the affect on low income housing?
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ribeye
Franchise Player
Joined: 10 Nov 2001
Posts: 12630
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2018 11:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| jodeke wrote: | | ribeye wrote: | | jodeke wrote: | | ribeye wrote: | This was a big win for landlords, not so much for tenants.
| Quote: | Landlord groups, which funded a nearly $80-million opposition campaign that outraised supporters 3 to 1, said voters made their opinions clear.
|
| Quote: | | Tenant groups responded to Tuesday’s loss by protesting at the Santa Monica offices of Blackstone, the private equity firm that owns thousands of apartments in the state and was a major donor to the campaign against Proposition 10. |
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-proposition-10-rent-control-next-20181108-story.html
I have become more and more against any rewards via our income tax system for flippers. They suck up the supply to the point that the average person has great difficulty affording even a starter home.
The ability to purchase a home has changed drastically since I purchased my first home in 1972. I strongly favor rules, regulations, laws and perks that favor owner occupied first time purchases over flipper purchases.
We should strive to pass on as best we can that which was provided to ourselves. |
Houses vs apartments. Which has the more far reaching affect? |
They are too interrelated to isolate one from the other. |
Being interrelated doesn't remove which has the more far reaching affect. 1st time owners number vs apartment renters numbers. IMO volume plays a part. What's the affect on low income housing? |
Rents are determined by a number of factors, one being supply and demand, another being the price of homes in the area.
The effect on low income housing vis-a-vis prop 10 could only be determined by looking at all of the variables of a community. According to the text of the proposition from the attorney general:
| Quote: | Economic Effects. If communities respond to this measure by expanding their rent control laws it could lead to several economic effects. The most likely effects are:
| Quote: |
To avoid rent regulation, some landlords would sell their rental housing to new owners who would live there.
The value of rental housing would decline because potential landlords would not want to pay as much for these properties.
Some renters would spend less on rent and some landlords would receive less rental income.
Some renters would move less often. |
|
The only low income housing in SF are those which were grandfathered in when they went to rent control. My daughter and her boyfriend can only afford to live there because he moved there so many years ago and rent increases can only be minimal. Without rent control, they would pay something like four times more.
_________________
"A metronome keeps time by using a Ringo" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jodeke
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 67631
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2018 12:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ribeye wrote: | | jodeke wrote: | | ribeye wrote: | | jodeke wrote: | | ribeye wrote: | This was a big win for landlords, not so much for tenants.
| Quote: | Landlord groups, which funded a nearly $80-million opposition campaign that outraised supporters 3 to 1, said voters made their opinions clear.
|
| Quote: | | Tenant groups responded to Tuesday’s loss by protesting at the Santa Monica offices of Blackstone, the private equity firm that owns thousands of apartments in the state and was a major donor to the campaign against Proposition 10. |
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-proposition-10-rent-control-next-20181108-story.html
I have become more and more against any rewards via our income tax system for flippers. They suck up the supply to the point that the average person has great difficulty affording even a starter home.
The ability to purchase a home has changed drastically since I purchased my first home in 1972. I strongly favor rules, regulations, laws and perks that favor owner occupied first time purchases over flipper purchases.
We should strive to pass on as best we can that which was provided to ourselves. |
Houses vs apartments. Which has the more far reaching affect? |
They are too interrelated to isolate one from the other. |
Being interrelated doesn't remove which has the more far reaching affect. 1st time owners number vs apartment renters numbers. IMO volume plays a part. What's the affect on low income housing? |
Rents are determined by a number of factors, one being supply and demand, another being the price of homes in the area.
The effect on low income housing vis-a-vis prop 10 could only be determined by looking at all of the variables of a community. According to the text of the proposition from the attorney general:
| Quote: | Economic Effects. If communities respond to this measure by expanding their rent control laws it could lead to several economic effects. The most likely effects are:
| Quote: |
To avoid rent regulation, some landlords would sell their rental housing to new owners who would live there.
The value of rental housing would decline because potential landlords would not want to pay as much for these properties.
Some renters would spend less on rent and some landlords would receive less rental income.
Some renters would move less often. |
|
The only low income housing in SF are those which were grandfathered in when they went to rent control. My daughter and her boyfriend can only afford to live there because he moved there so many years ago and rent increases can only be minimal. Without rent control, they would pay something like four times more. |
You make my point. Yes on 10 removes rent control. Note bold green.
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
K2
Franchise Player
Joined: 25 Dec 2011
Posts: 23529
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2018 12:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| splashmtn wrote: | | K2 wrote: |
Much of this was likely in response to the Linkage Fees passed by the City last year which lead to a deluge of projects submitted before the new fees deadline. At least for a few years, the oversupply in a declining economy should put sustained downward pressure on rental prices in that area, even without Prop 10.
Results - San Francisco County came through for Prop 10
https://vote.sos.ca.gov/returns/maps/ballot-measures/prop/10 |
to the bold print. not going to happen. Because most of those places are luxury apts/condos aka utterly ridiculously highly priced places to live.
Most of these places going up are firms/corporations not individuals. Which means they can take the hit for a very long time and sit and wait. I've seen too many of these new places being built and seemingly never being fully occupied with tenants/residents. Yet the rent isnt going down. The supply demand thing isnt working in this regard. |
No. While corporate landlords can afford to keep their units empty, I've already had to lower my asking rent for a new vacancy as the rental activity in the West LA has slowed down compared to last year at this time. I'd rather adjust the rent than let it sit vacant for an extended period of time.
Many of the non-corporate, mom-and-pop landlords that I've talked to recently say rent prices have likely hit their peak in the West LA area. Scarcity has been the driving force these few years behind soaring rents and the flood of new units in such a concentrated area has apparently started to affect pricing in reaction to the increased competition. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ribeye
Franchise Player
Joined: 10 Nov 2001
Posts: 12630
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2018 12:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jodeke wrote: |
You make my point. Yes on 10 removes rent control. Note bold green. |
(Snipped to avoid the thread police)
I don't believe that is correct. It states:
Repeals state law that restricts the scope of rent-control policies that cities, and other local jurisdictions impose, and that the measure itself does not make any changes in local rent control laws.
It does not say that rent control in local jurisdictions is removed.
Who supported:
SUPPORTED BY CALIFORNIA DEMOCRATIC PARTY; California Nurses Association; Housing California; National Urban League; ACLU of California; AIDS Healthcare Foundation; Property Owners for Fair and Affordable Housing; Painters & Allied Trades 36; Service Employees International Union (SEIU); American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME); Humboldt and Del Norte Counties Central Labor Council AFL-CIO; California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation; Western Center on Law and Poverty; National Action Network-Los Angeles; Central Coast Alliance United for a Sustainable Economy; and tenant organizations throughout the state.
Who opposed:
American G.I. Forum of California, California Senior Advocates League, California State Conference NAACP, California Association of REALTORS, Family Business Association of California, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, California Chamber of Commerce, California Business Roundtable, United Latinos Vote
_________________
"A metronome keeps time by using a Ringo" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jodeke
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 67631
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2018 12:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ribeye wrote: | | jodeke wrote: |
You make my point. Yes on 10 removes rent control. Note bold green. |
(Snipped to avoid the thread police)
I don't believe that is correct. It states:
Repeals state law that restricts the scope of rent-control policies that cities, and other local jurisdictions impose.
It does not say that rent control in local jurisdictions is removed.
Who supported:
SUPPORTED BY CALIFORNIA DEMOCRATIC PARTY; California Nurses Association; Housing California; National Urban League; ACLU of California; AIDS Healthcare Foundation; Property Owners for Fair and Affordable Housing; Painters & Allied Trades 36; Service Employees International Union (SEIU); American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME); Humboldt and Del Norte Counties Central Labor Council AFL-CIO; California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation; Western Center on Law and Poverty; National Action Network-Los Angeles; Central Coast Alliance United for a Sustainable Economy; and tenant organizations throughout the state.
Who opposed:
American G.I. Forum of California, California Senior Advocates League, California State Conference NAACP, California Association of REALTORS, Family Business Association of California, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, California Chamber of Commerce, California Business Roundtable, United Latinos Vote |
What's incorrect? | Quote: | Repeals state law that restricts the scope of rent-control policies that cities, and other local jurisdictions impose. Repealing that law would benefit owners not renters.
|
Look who supports and who opposes 10. I'm one of the bold green. My rent is stable and affordable because of 10. It benefits people like your daughter and her boyfriend. It slows gouging.
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.
Last edited by jodeke on Thu Nov 08, 2018 1:04 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ribeye
Franchise Player
Joined: 10 Nov 2001
Posts: 12630
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2018 1:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jodeke wrote: | | ribeye wrote: | | jodeke wrote: |
You make my point. Yes on 10 removes rent control. Note bold green. |
(Snipped to avoid the thread police)
I don't believe that is correct. It states:
Repeals state law that restricts the scope of rent-control policies that cities, and other local jurisdictions impose.
It does not say that rent control in local jurisdictions is removed.
Who supported:
SUPPORTED BY CALIFORNIA DEMOCRATIC PARTY; California Nurses Association; Housing California; National Urban League; ACLU of California; AIDS Healthcare Foundation; Property Owners for Fair and Affordable Housing; Painters & Allied Trades 36; Service Employees International Union (SEIU); American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME); Humboldt and Del Norte Counties Central Labor Council AFL-CIO; California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation; Western Center on Law and Poverty; National Action Network-Los Angeles; Central Coast Alliance United for a Sustainable Economy; and tenant organizations throughout the state.
Who opposed:
American G.I. Forum of California, California Senior Advocates League, California State Conference NAACP, California Association of REALTORS, Family Business Association of California, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, California Chamber of Commerce, California Business Roundtable, United Latinos Vote |
Look who supports and who opposes 10. I'm one of the bold. My rent is stable and affordable because of 10. It benefits people like your daughter and her boyfriend. It slows gouging. |
What's incorrect? That 10 removes existing rent control. As I stated, the prop states: "that the measure itself does not make any changes in local rent control laws".
Yeah, looks who supports and opposes--the have's sponsor's support; the have not's and the tenants associations don't. That is why I put those in. . . . There is nothing in this that will change your situation unless your local City Council or jurisdiction sees fit to do so.
I still don't think you understand prop 10. It did nothing for my daughter, either for or against--though there was talk in SF to expand rent control if prop 10 passed.
_________________
"A metronome keeps time by using a Ringo" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jodeke
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 67631
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2018 1:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ribeye wrote: | | jodeke wrote: | | ribeye wrote: | | jodeke wrote: |
You make my point. Yes on 10 removes rent control. Note bold green. |
(Snipped to avoid the thread police)
I don't believe that is correct. It states:
Repeals state law that restricts the scope of rent-control policies that cities, and other local jurisdictions impose.
It does not say that rent control in local jurisdictions is removed.
Who supported:
SUPPORTED BY CALIFORNIA DEMOCRATIC PARTY; California Nurses Association; Housing California; National Urban League; ACLU of California; AIDS Healthcare Foundation; Property Owners for Fair and Affordable Housing; Painters & Allied Trades 36; Service Employees International Union (SEIU); American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME); Humboldt and Del Norte Counties Central Labor Council AFL-CIO; California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation; Western Center on Law and Poverty; National Action Network-Los Angeles; Central Coast Alliance United for a Sustainable Economy; and tenant organizations throughout the state.
Who opposed:
American G.I. Forum of California, California Senior Advocates League, California State Conference NAACP, California Association of REALTORS, Family Business Association of California, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, California Chamber of Commerce, California Business Roundtable, United Latinos Vote |
Look who supports and who opposes 10. I'm one of the bold. My rent is stable and affordable because of 10. It benefits people like your daughter and her boyfriend. It slows gouging. |
What's incorrect? That 10 removes existing rent control. As I stated, the prop states: "that the measure itself does not make any changes in local rent control laws".
Yeah, looks who supports and opposes--the have's sponsor's support; the have not's and the tenants associations don't. That is why I put those in. . . . There is nothing in this that will change your situation unless your local City Council or jurisdiction sees fit to do so.
I still don't think you understand prop 10. It did nothing for my daughter, either for or against--though there was talk in SF to expand rent control if prop 10 passed. |
One of us doesn't understand 10. My understanding is, it's rent control. It only allows owners in Los Angeles to increase rents 6% yearly. Removing that percent increase would allow owners to gouge. If your daughter and her boyfriend are haves OK. I'm a have not. It helps me.
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ribeye
Franchise Player
Joined: 10 Nov 2001
Posts: 12630
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2018 1:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Repealing that law would benefit owners not renters. |
I don't know where that (which you added later) came from, but it that is true, why was tenant associations against in and landlord association paying for it.
_________________
"A metronome keeps time by using a Ringo" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ribeye
Franchise Player
Joined: 10 Nov 2001
Posts: 12630
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2018 1:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jodeke wrote: | | ribeye wrote: | | jodeke wrote: | | ribeye wrote: | | jodeke wrote: |
You make my point. Yes on 10 removes rent control. Note bold green. |
(Snipped to avoid the thread police)
I don't believe that is correct. It states:
Repeals state law that restricts the scope of rent-control policies that cities, and other local jurisdictions impose.
It does not say that rent control in local jurisdictions is removed.
Who supported:
SUPPORTED BY CALIFORNIA DEMOCRATIC PARTY; California Nurses Association; Housing California; National Urban League; ACLU of California; AIDS Healthcare Foundation; Property Owners for Fair and Affordable Housing; Painters & Allied Trades 36; Service Employees International Union (SEIU); American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME); Humboldt and Del Norte Counties Central Labor Council AFL-CIO; California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation; Western Center on Law and Poverty; National Action Network-Los Angeles; Central Coast Alliance United for a Sustainable Economy; and tenant organizations throughout the state.
Who opposed:
American G.I. Forum of California, California Senior Advocates League, California State Conference NAACP, California Association of REALTORS, Family Business Association of California, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, California Chamber of Commerce, California Business Roundtable, United Latinos Vote |
Look who supports and who opposes 10. I'm one of the bold. My rent is stable and affordable because of 10. It benefits people like your daughter and her boyfriend. It slows gouging. |
What's incorrect? That 10 removes existing rent control. As I stated, the prop states: "that the measure itself does not make any changes in local rent control laws".
Yeah, looks who supports and opposes--the have's sponsor's support; the have not's and the tenants associations don't. That is why I put those in. . . . There is nothing in this that will change your situation unless your local City Council or jurisdiction sees fit to do so.
I still don't think you understand prop 10. It did nothing for my daughter, either for or against--though there was talk in SF to expand rent control if prop 10 passed. |
One of us doesn't understand 10. My understanding is, it's rent control. It only allows owners in Los Angeles to increase rents 6% yearly. Removing that percent increase would allow owners to gouge. If your daughter and her boyfriend are haves OK. I'm a have not. It helps me. |
No! It is not rent control. It allows local jurisdictions to make that determination if the choose. Most won't. Most won't. Most won't. You want to know why? Because moneyed interests--some reasonable and viable--won't allow it as they want to be able to raise rents as they choose.
And I don't know how your rent is affordable because of 10.
_________________
"A metronome keeps time by using a Ringo" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jodeke
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 67631
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2018 1:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
ribeye wrote:
I don't know where that (which you added later) came from, but it that is true, why was tenant associations against in and landlord association paying for it.[/quote]
You wrote: | Quote: | | This was a big win for landlords, not so much for tenants. |
NO is a win for tenants. Landlords oppose it.
Do you understand what this means? It's in one of you posts. | Quote: | | Repeals state law that restricts the scope of rent-control policies that cities, and other local jurisdictions impose. |
It would eliminate rent control.
I don't know why any you mentioned support or oppose 10. They both have their reasons. I know it benefits ME and those of my ilk. I think it also benefits your daughter and her boyfriend.
You wrote:
| Quote: | No! It is not rent control. It allows local jurisdictions to make that determination if the choose. Most won't. Most won't. Most won't. You want to know why? Because moneyed interests--some reasonable and viable--won't allow it as they want to be able to raise rents as they choose.
And I don't know how your rent is affordable because of 10. |
It is rent control.
It keeps my owner from gouging. It only allows a 6% increase a year.
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ribeye
Franchise Player
Joined: 10 Nov 2001
Posts: 12630
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2018 1:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The above is too screwed up to paginate correctly when quoting ^
*********
My complete statement from above was:
| ribeye wrote: |
I don't believe that is correct. It states:
Repeals state law that restricts the scope of rent-control policies that cities, and other local jurisdictions impose, and that the measure itself does not make any changes in local rent control laws.
|
Both of these clauses are from the text from the attorney general.
I still don't know how 10 benefits you, as it did not pass.
It is not rent control. Please read it and inform yourself.
As for tenants and landlords, you also have that backwards--look at the voter pamphlet, who supports and who does not, and the LA Times article that I quoted. Here it is a second time: http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-proposition-10-rent-control-next-20181108-story.html
I'm not going to go over this with you again.
_________________
"A metronome keeps time by using a Ringo" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jodeke
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 67631
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2018 1:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ribeye wrote: | The above is too screwed up to paginate correctly when quoting ^
*********
My complete statement from above was:
| ribeye wrote: |
I don't believe that is correct. It states:
Repeals state law that restricts the scope of rent-control policies that cities, and other local jurisdictions impose, and that the measure itself does not make any changes in local rent control laws.
|
Both of these are from the text from the attorney general.
I still don't know how 10 benefits you, as it did not pass.
It is not rent control. Please read it and inform yourself.
As for tenants and landlords, you also have that backwards--look at the voter pamphlet, who supports and who does not, and the LA Times article that I quoted.
I'm not going to go over this with you again. |
The bold green underlined is how it benefits me, it didn't pass. Had it passed with a YES it would have removed rent control. Landlords benefit with a YES tenants benefit by a NO vote.
OK
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Juggernaut
Star Player
Joined: 24 Aug 2017
Posts: 4572
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2018 3:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jodeke wrote: | | ribeye wrote: | The above is too screwed up to paginate correctly when quoting ^
*********
My complete statement from above was:
| ribeye wrote: |
I don't believe that is correct. It states:
Repeals state law that restricts the scope of rent-control policies that cities, and other local jurisdictions impose, and that the measure itself does not make any changes in local rent control laws.
|
Both of these are from the text from the attorney general.
I still don't know how 10 benefits you, as it did not pass.
It is not rent control. Please read it and inform yourself.
As for tenants and landlords, you also have that backwards--look at the voter pamphlet, who supports and who does not, and the LA Times article that I quoted.
I'm not going to go over this with you again. |
The bold green underlined is how it benefits me, it didn't pass. Had it passed with a YES it would have removed rent control. Landlords benefit with a YES tenants benefit by a NO vote.
OK |
This is incorrect. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Goldenwest
Star Player
Joined: 28 Nov 2009
Posts: 2801
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2018 3:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ribeye wrote: | This was a big win for landlords, not so much for tenants.
| Quote: | Landlord groups, which funded a nearly $80-million opposition campaign that outraised supporters 3 to 1, said voters made their opinions clear.
|
| Quote: | | Tenant groups responded to Tuesday’s loss by protesting at the Santa Monica offices of Blackstone, the private equity firm that owns thousands of apartments in the state and was a major donor to the campaign against Proposition 10. |
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-proposition-10-rent-control-next-20181108-story.html
I have become more and more against any rewards via our income tax system for flippers. They suck up the supply to the point that the average person has great difficulty affording even a starter home.
The ability to purchase a home has changed drastically since I purchased my first home in 1972. I strongly favor rules, regulations, laws and perks that favor owner occupied first time purchases over flipper purchases.
We should strive to pass on as best we can that which was provided to ourselves. |
Before you had blue collar workers, teachers, accountants and engineers in certain neighborhoods that now are overrun by investors and the rich: same homes, just with updated kitchens and bathrooms. Regulation on flipping, foreign buyers, and investors is definitely needed. The market is in such a heavy up and down cycle for the past 18 years that its the obligation of government to step in with regulations otherwise the masses will be stuck in apartments and homes will be owned by the few. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jodeke
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 67631
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2018 3:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Juggernaut wrote: | | jodeke wrote: | | ribeye wrote: | The above is too screwed up to paginate correctly when quoting ^
*********
My complete statement from above was:
| ribeye wrote: |
I don't believe that is correct. It states:
Repeals state law that restricts the scope of rent-control policies that cities, and other local jurisdictions impose, and that the measure itself does not make any changes in local rent control laws.
|
Both of these are from the text from the attorney general.
I still don't know how 10 benefits you, as it did not pass.
It is not rent control. Please read it and inform yourself.
As for tenants and landlords, you also have that backwards--look at the voter pamphlet, who supports and who does not, and the LA Times article that I quoted.
I'm not going to go over this with you again. |
The bold green underlined is how it benefits me, it didn't pass. Had it passed with a YES it would have removed rent control. Landlords benefit with a YES tenants benefit by a NO vote.
OK |
This is incorrect. |
How so? I'll admit confusion. I'm of the understanding a YES would have removed rent control a NO keeps it in place. Is this or is this not correct? I voted NO.
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Juggernaut
Star Player
Joined: 24 Aug 2017
Posts: 4572
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2018 3:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jodeke wrote: | | The Juggernaut wrote: | | jodeke wrote: | | ribeye wrote: | The above is too screwed up to paginate correctly when quoting ^
*********
My complete statement from above was:
| ribeye wrote: |
I don't believe that is correct. It states:
Repeals state law that restricts the scope of rent-control policies that cities, and other local jurisdictions impose, and that the measure itself does not make any changes in local rent control laws.
|
Both of these are from the text from the attorney general.
I still don't know how 10 benefits you, as it did not pass.
It is not rent control. Please read it and inform yourself.
As for tenants and landlords, you also have that backwards--look at the voter pamphlet, who supports and who does not, and the LA Times article that I quoted.
I'm not going to go over this with you again. |
The bold green underlined is how it benefits me, it didn't pass. Had it passed with a YES it would have removed rent control. Landlords benefit with a YES tenants benefit by a NO vote.
OK |
This is incorrect. |
How so? I'll admit confusion. I'm of the understanding a YES would have removed rent control a NO keeps it in place. Is this or is this not correct? I voted NO. |
You are confused. It was the opposite of what you stated. Rend Control was heavily limited with the Costa Hawkins act. Prop 10 would have repealed that and allowed local govt to decide on rent control. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jodeke
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 67631
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2018 3:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Juggernaut wrote: | | jodeke wrote: | | The Juggernaut wrote: | | jodeke wrote: | | ribeye wrote: | The above is too screwed up to paginate correctly when quoting ^
*********
My complete statement from above was:
| ribeye wrote: |
I don't believe that is correct. It states:
Repeals state law that restricts the scope of rent-control policies that cities, and other local jurisdictions impose, and that the measure itself does not make any changes in local rent control laws.
|
Both of these are from the text from the attorney general.
I still don't know how 10 benefits you, as it did not pass.
It is not rent control. Please read it and inform yourself.
As for tenants and landlords, you also have that backwards--look at the voter pamphlet, who supports and who does not, and the LA Times article that I quoted.
I'm not going to go over this with you again. |
The bold green underlined is how it benefits me, it didn't pass. Had it passed with a YES it would have removed rent control. Landlords benefit with a YES tenants benefit by a NO vote.
OK |
This is incorrect. |
How so? I'll admit confusion. I'm of the understanding a YES would have removed rent control a NO keeps it in place. Is this or is this not correct? I voted NO. |
You are confused. It was the opposite of what you stated. Rend Control was heavily limited with the Costa Hawkins act. Prop 10 would have repealed that and allowed local govt to decide on rent control. |
So you're saying you'd rather have your rent controlled by local government who are influenced by special interests? I'm of the mind that would allow the haves to continue to profit one the backs of the have not's. Do you own or rent?
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.
Last edited by jodeke on Thu Nov 08, 2018 4:19 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ribeye
Franchise Player
Joined: 10 Nov 2001
Posts: 12630
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2018 4:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jodeke wrote: |
So you're saying you'd rather have your rent controlled by local government who are influenced by special interests? I'm of the mind that would allow the haves to continue to step on the have not's. Do you own or rent? |
So, only local government is controlled by special interests now?
And you want the haves to continue to step on the have-nots? I didn't realize you were such an advocate of Republican thinking.
Or is this opposite day?
_________________
"A metronome keeps time by using a Ringo" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jodeke
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 67631
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2018 4:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ribeye wrote: | | jodeke wrote: |
So you're saying you'd rather have your rent controlled by local government who are influenced by special interests? I'm of the mind that would allow the haves to continue to step on the have not's. Do you own or rent? |
So, only local government is controlled by special interests now?
And you want the haves to continue to step on the have-nots? I didn't realize you were such an advocate of Republican thinking.
Or is this opposite day? |
Whoa! Thought you were through discussing this with me.
No, local government is not the only entity controlled by special interests. In this case special interest are being put in check. | Quote: | A yes vote supported allowing local governments to adopt rent control on any type of rental housing, thus repealing the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act.
A no vote opposed the initiative, thus keeping the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act and continuing to prohibit local governments from enacting rent control on certain buildings. |
A NO vote checks greed. It helps me. Do you rent or own?
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The_Dynasty24
Star Player
Joined: 12 Jun 2013
Posts: 2840
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2018 4:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jodeke wrote: | | ribeye wrote: | | jodeke wrote: |
So you're saying you'd rather have your rent controlled by local government who are influenced by special interests? I'm of the mind that would allow the haves to continue to step on the have not's. Do you own or rent? |
So, only local government is controlled by special interests now?
And you want the haves to continue to step on the have-nots? I didn't realize you were such an advocate of Republican thinking.
Or is this opposite day? |
Whoa! Thought you were through discussing this with me.
No, local government is not the only entity controlled by special interests. In this case special interest are being put in check. | Quote: | A yes vote supported allowing local governments to adopt rent control on any type of rental housing, thus repealing the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act.
A no vote opposed the initiative, thus keeping the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act and continuing to prohibit local governments from enacting rent control on certain buildings. |
A NO vote checks greed. It helps me. Do you rent or own? |
I don't think you're understanding. Prop 10 would allow for local governments, like SF, to EXPAND rent control to combat skyrocketing rent & homelessness. Just look at who supported prop 10 versus who was against it. Prop 10 failing benefits owners, not renters.
I think the same confusion you have is the reason why Prop 10 failed to pass. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
