|
Bodhidharma posted:Governor Brown signed SB 822 into law today. Aaaaand we're already being sued over it: https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/1046559313404284929
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2018 02:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 08:19 |
|
|
Bodhidharma posted:Governor Brown signed SB 822 into law today. Nice, can't wait for the lawsu- Admiral Ray posted:Aaaaand we're already being sued over it: 
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2018 02:25
|
|
|
The party of states’ rights unless it is California
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2018 02:34
|
|
|
Snipee posted:I have been reading more on Prop 10 this afternoon, and my understanding is that everyone seems to agree that there are both significant disadvantages and advantages to rent controls spread out among different segments of the population. Rather or not people think that the trade off is worthwhile is much more debatable, and I find it worrying that the defenders of rent control are oftentimes left in the position of arguing “well yeah, this isn’t great policy on its own, but if paired with x, y, and z...”. I am specifically talking about the 2017 Stanford study and the responses from tenant advocates. now most rent control is tied to allowable increases based on CPI, and you could argue that fed's willfully designed CPI to underestimate inflation and it's not a good proxy for actual inflationary costs, and at some pont landlords could be losing money renting a unit, sure so maybe it could be tied to a local inflation index but that's p minor detail. But of course the root of all issues that needs to be addressed is lack of housing. I don't believe that rent control discourages new housing in any appreciable quantity because most everyone recognizes the precarious state of their own situation; however, Prop 13 actually does that in spades and causes way more economic inequality by many many orders of magnitude that rent control isn't even a footnote-level in regards to current lack of supply. im 100% all for removing local authority's ability to nimby housing, and a creating a multi trillion $ CalHousing Authority to build, maintain, and lease mass apartments all over by the state. that will take longer to make an appreciable dent. but it's still important to keep what little slices of communities are left in the mission and elsewhere from being utterly destroyed in the short term until that happens.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2018 03:03
|
|
|
Admiral Ray posted:Aaaaand we're already being sued over it: Welp, federalism doesn't work.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2018 03:21
|
|
|
Tuxedo Gin posted:The party of states’ rights unless it
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2018 03:40
|
|
|
Xaris posted:Because there is a huge communal and social aspect to rent that cant be just be beep boop free-marketed way. That's really what it's about, community stabilization. Inflation of rents, which is solely driven by essentially speculation-esque bubble and has almost nothing to do with landlord's expenses driving up rents, disproportionately effects poor and old people since they just cannot get up and move to a new place after their rent goes up 20% in a year, and often puts them further out of range of transit and upping other costs and loss of community that they might have relied upon. Adding more financial insecurity and uncertainty is not good. And hell, it's not even just "poor" and giant slice of people fall under 'not-quite-poverty-defined poor but generally are poor' My concern is that unless the future rent control ordinances adequately close all of the existing exploits that the landlords have to get around rent-control such as evicting tenants, turning the designated rent controlled housing into luxury condos, and so on, the landlords’ response to rent control could make the situation even worse than the status quo. This is not even mentioning other forms of bullshit that they might come up with in the future. Rents could rise for those tenants that were not lucky enough to be in rent-controlled housing. If that happens, I don’t know if the trade off is worth it. It is true that speculation and various other factors such as zoning laws have a much bigger impact on the affordability crisis than the overly dramatized negative consequences of rent control. I am all for curbing the speculative capital flows into our real estate market and upzoning wherever that makes sense. I suppose that I don’t know if I agree that maintaining these “slices of community” is worth expanding the wall of unaffordable housing that is keeping out potential migrants. I don’t want to make that wall even higher. Neighborhoods change all the time. Trying to freeze things in place and many resistance efforts against gentrification also sound to me like more subtle forms of xenophobia coded in progressive language.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2018 04:46
|
|
|
FYI, prop 10 is about repealing the law that forces any alowable rent control to be the shittiest kind imaginable.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2018 05:29
|
|
|
gently caress claifornia and their states rights. Next theyll sue us for our climate standards
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2018 05:50
|
|
|
LeoMarr posted:gently caress claifornia and their states rights. Next theyll sue us for our climate standards We exist and are not a blasted hellscape despite not being maximum the capitalism (emphasis maximum; we are distressingly capitalist even compared to the first world we play at being a part of, let alone anything suited for actual humans). The GOP MUST destroy California because it discredits everything they stand for, and the DNC are only technically better. dont be mean to me fucked around with this message at 06:21 on Oct 1, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2018 06:17
|
|
|
Snipee posted:I have been reading more on Prop 10 this afternoon, and my understanding is that everyone seems to agree that there are both significant disadvantages and advantages to rent controls spread out among different segments of the population. Rather or not people think that the trade off is worthwhile is much more debatable, and I find it worrying that the defenders of rent control are oftentimes left in the position of arguing “well yeah, this isn’t great policy on its own, but if paired with x, y, and z...”. I am specifically talking about the 2017 Stanford study and the responses from tenant advocates. My understanding: If it includes vacancy control, a rent control ordinance would benefit young and old equally because the price wouldn't re-set to market rate when a tenant moves out. Costa Hawkins bans vacancy control.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2018 06:53
|
|
|
A highly realistic scenario in one act: Landlord: "Ah, my tenant has left. I will put this 1BR apt with parking back onto the market. By law I may only charge $850 for this unit." Ten thousand prospective tenants: "MEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEME PLSSS" At least one prospective tenant: "Dear Mr. Landlord I propose that you let me rent this unit and I will pay more, how about $2500/mo?" Landlord: "Oh no sir, I could not do that, for it would be illegal!" Tenant: "Ah sir, I understand, how about I give you a check every month for $850, and then perhaps an envelope containing $1650 mysteriously happens to slip into your mail slot at the same time each month?" Landlord: "Oh goodness, no, I could never do that, for I am an upstanding citizen and that would be wrong, even though I own many units for rent and could easily add this money to my income stream without being audited or caught." Tenant: "Well, I guess I was wrong! I thought whenever the government puts artificial limits or price caps on something that people desperately want, black markets inevitably develop, but that requires people to be willing to break the law, especially when it is highly difficult to enforce. I guess on balance it's a good thing we live in a society where people refuse to take part! Good day to you, sir or madam." -fin
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2018 07:17
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:A highly realistic scenario in one act: Two municipalities had rent control with vacancy control before Costa-Hawkins passed, stripping all vacancy control from the books. Unless you can find evidence that this was common in the 1980s in Santa Monica or Berkeley prior to Costa-Hawkins, I don't know that I'd classify it as highly realistic. Your argument is that rent would continue to increase because landlords would be willing to do something illegal (very plausible) but which the tenant would either be able to immediately violate the verbal agreement after signing the lease because it's illegal or follow it but with massive power shifting because now they have all the receipts to prove the landlord was breaking the law and can sue the landlord at whim.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2018 08:04
|
|
|
no, no, you don't get it, people can either ignore or find ways to circumvent rules and therefore we should never have any, trust me i am very smart
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2018 08:09
|
|
|
fermun posted:Two municipalities had rent control with vacancy control before Costa-Hawkins passed, stripping all vacancy control from the books. Unless you can find evidence that this was common in the 1980s in Santa Monica or Berkeley prior to Costa-Hawkins, I don't know that I'd classify it as highly realistic. anyways vacancy control vs rent control are two different things. repealing costa hawkins is good and cool and allowing less watered down rent control is good. vacancy controls is way too late and will just be really out of whack and i doubt we'll see any new enacting of it anyways.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2018 08:47
|
|
|
Also -- doesn't prop 10 just remove the restriction on rent control? Once that's done, it doesn't mean any specific rent control policy is in place. It just means municipalities can have their own debates over which course is correct, and then get to function as "laboratories of democracy" and you can see the results and use that information to make more informed decisions going forward. So even if you have some concerns about specific ways of doing rent control, it's still a no-brainer to remove the restriction
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2018 14:59
|
|
|
If it was regional control of rent control ordinances I'd be okay with that, but allowing NIMBY policies to be decided on the city level has worked out really terribly so far. Jobs and housing and transportation issues are really about the metro level, if you let cities decide it they largely try to push all the "problems" onto other cities in the metro area while benefitting from the successes that the metro area has.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2018 15:51
|
|
|
Saying yes to Prop 10 is good because it's getting rid of regulation, duh.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2018 16:05
|
|
|
Republicans have given up on Prop 6 already it seems.quote:Campaign to repeal gas tax short of cash as California Republican leaders focus funds on other contests
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2018 16:17
|
|
|
lol my republican assembly member couldn't even be bothered to vote against it in the legislature
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2018 16:22
|
|
|
all the same,  josh newmanand gently caress ling ling chang
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2018 16:25
|
|
|
Also in extremely cool and good news: Get hosed Vinod Khosla https://twitter.com/Surfrider_CA/status/1046774294355664901
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2018 16:33
|
|
|
FCKGW posted:Also in extremely cool and good news: Get hosed Vinod Khosla Holy loving poo poo lmao good Honestly I was loving sweating that as “violation of free speech for property owner” non sense that keeps getting pushed and ruled on. It’s chuddy enough to easily do it
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2018 16:48
|
|
|
fermun posted:Two municipalities had rent control with vacancy control before Costa-Hawkins passed, stripping all vacancy control from the books. Unless you can find evidence that this was common in the 1980s in Santa Monica or Berkeley prior to Costa-Hawkins, I don't know that I'd classify it as highly realistic. My point is that when it's a case of a long-time tenant trying to not get kicked out or have their rent be raised, they are in a position of being very willing to access legal resources to protect themselves and report on a landlord trying to charge them more rent. But when it's a case of a vacancy with rent control carried over to the next tenant, who is going to be chosen from among a large pool of people which certainly includes people willing and able to pay the market rate, then the tenant and the landlord have a strong incentive to collude to break the law. The tenant can put themselves at the head of the pack of people who want and can afford the rent-controlled unit by offering something close to (or equal to) the market rate. And the landlord obviously would prefer to collect the market rate. Presently, tenant protections rely very heavily on tenants reporting abuses. Here, we create a black market, which typically involves both suppliers and consumers having good reason to avoid the law. In these situations, lawbreaking becomes rampant. I don't know how things went in 1980s Santa Monica or in Berkeley back then. I suspect the delta between market rate and rent-controlled rate was not as severe, and I suspect the pool of prospective tenants with very high paying jobs who were desperate to rent pretty much anything, anywhere, and able to pay market rate, was also smaller than it is in the current bay area and especially san francisco.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2018 17:15
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:lol my republican assembly member couldn't even be bothered to vote against it in the legislature They do this intentionally since no votes are just as permanent as yes votes in terms of career points.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2018 17:33
|
|
|
LeoMarr posted:They do this intentionally since no votes are just as permanent as yes votes in terms of career points. no she voted in favor of the gas tax. granted baker represents a district that went 65% for hillary lol. the dems in this district are so bad
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2018 17:46
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:But when it's a case of a vacancy with rent control carried over to the next tenant, who is going to be chosen from among a large pool of people which certainly includes people willing and able to pay the market rate, then the tenant and the landlord have a strong incentive to collude to break the law. The tenant can put themselves at the head of the pack of people who want and can afford the rent-controlled unit by offering something close to (or equal to) the market rate. And the landlord obviously would prefer to collect the market rate.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2018 18:58
|
|
|
Xaris posted:Holy loving poo poo lmao good That's the US Supreme Court. The Cali Supreme Court ain't down with that poo poo, and this was a question of California law.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2018 19:05
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:A highly realistic scenario in one act: Encore: Landlord: "Where is my 1650 check for this month" Tenant: "What check? It would take you months to get me out of here and I'll just show my bank records when I sue you over this and say you forced me to do this illegal thing. Screw off" Landlord: "But what about your Econ 101 idea that government regulation makes rent control worthless, you sound like a very smart person that I should definitely listen to?" Tenant: *wet farts*
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2018 00:07
|
|
|
bawfuls posted:Yes but the moment lease is signed and the tenant moves in, they lose all incentive to continue the black market scheme and instead have every incentive to not participate. The landlord then has no recourse to enforce the black market scheme. Most people don't intentionally destroy the relationship they have with their landlord the day after they move in, though I see your point... for it to possibly work, enforcement mechanisms will have to be really strong. And tenants have to feel empowered. I still feel like while rent control can work in some cases, the larger the gap between affordability and the market rate, the less well it works; and if rent control persists across tenancies, it becomes a permanent attachment to a unit. The increasing pressure to find a way around the law can't just be handwaved away.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2018 00:47
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:My point is that when it's a case of a long-time tenant trying to not get kicked out or have their rent be raised, they are in a position of being very willing to access legal resources to protect themselves and report on a landlord trying to charge them more rent. If you're in a prisoner's dilemma situation with your landlord, always betray your landlord.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2018 01:09
|
|
|
Salmonella James posted:If you're in a prisoner's dilemma situation with your landlord, always betray your landlord.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2018 02:32
|
|
|
The scenario also presupposes there's only one rent controlled apartment becoming available at a time, which is certainly not going to be the case.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2018 03:04
|
|
|
Tuxedo Gin posted:The party of states’ rights unless it is California I think states' rights to legal pot anywhere are also anathema to Sessions.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2018 19:22
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:I think states' rights to legal pot anywhere are also anathema to Sessions. Legal weed makes money for white people now so republicans don't mind it as much anymore but Sessions still wants to do a racism.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2018 19:26
|
|
|
Tuxedo Gin posted:The party of states’ rights unless it is California "States rights" is code for "freedom to be bigots", they don't actually care about state rights.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2018 19:41
|
|
|
RevKrule posted:Legal weed makes money for white people now so republicans don't mind it as much anymore but Sessions still wants to do a racism.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2018 19:49
|
|
|
I've seen a bunch of really good No on 6 ads which basically show renders of the construction it would pay for and then have them disappear when the funding goes away. A nice way to show you how tax money and infrastructure spending can directly improve your life
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2018 20:03
|
|
|
that logo with the 6 just smashing a road in half is pretty great, props to whoever the graphics designer is
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2018 21:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 08:19 |
|
|
Brown vetoed safe injection sites
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2018 21:27
|
|
