Lets Talk About PROP 10
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

 
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> Off Topic Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
tox
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 16 Nov 2015
Posts: 14191

PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2018 7:27 pm    Post subject:

K2 wrote:
^It’s understandable why this is on the ballot, rent has skyrocketed in the last few years and many are looking for solutions. On the surface, it seems “vacancy control” is good idea since there could be a mechanism in place to keep rent prices in check, even after the tenant moves out.

Currently, most landlords are able to make the necessary repairs or upgrades to the home, then re-rent the place at market rate. With vacancy control in place, keeping up with the maintenance and upgrades becomes more difficult over time due to increasingly tighter margins. Some landlords may eventually be forced to pull the rental home from the market, while others who survive will make minimum repairs in order to keep it within code.

With the shortage of housing available in LA right now, having landlords dropping out probably won’t help with the supply situation in the long run. At the same time, the builders who have been adding new apartments to the housing stock these past few years are waiting to see what happens with Prop 10 before they break ground on new housing.

I don't really buy the argument about landlords making repairs and upgrades. It's the same logic that says we shouldn't limit drug costs because Big Pharma uses those profits to research new and better drugs. It's probably true, but much of the money just lines the shareholders' and executives' pockets. That would be OK were there not a competing interest, i.e. that people can't afford lifesaving drugs or generally higher drug prices (and insurance costs) for people who are already struggling. But there is, so we need to make a subjective decision of how much we should hurt drug companies' R&D (and profits) to allow for people to be able to actually afford the medicine.

Likewise, it might be true that more profits allows landlords to better improve their property, but that needs to be balanced against people needing a place to live. Like I said before, I'm against Prop 10 for the simple reason rent control is bad policy and the real issue has to do with housing supply, but I find this particular argument spurious.
_________________
https://j.gifs.com/Rnqnbk.gif
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Lucky_Shot
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 10 Jan 2016
Posts: 2832

PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2018 7:31 pm    Post subject:

tox wrote:
venturalakersfan wrote:
tox wrote:
venturalakersfan wrote:
Yes on 6, we don’t need to give corrupt politicians more of our money.

A gas tax is literally the best kind of tax because it doesn't cause a distortion in the market, instead it corrects for externalities not being charged.

Just saw it's polling at -13% so luckily Californians appear to know what they're doing.


Considering that the last gas tax increase for roadway repairs went to pay pension obligations, not for highway repairs, I’m not eager to contribute more of my earnings.

That is irrelevant. The gas tax is a correction on the market, and it provides a correct incentive (towards not using gas, which is good for the environment).

And anyway, if that is your argument, it sure beats increasing income tax by a fraction of a percent to finance those pensions.


Pensions are one 1/7 of the entire budget (Federal/state/local = almost 1.5 trillion). We spent more on pensions than we did on education or defense. Pensions need to be cut drastically

I will agree a gas tax(a consumption tax) is a much better tax than a income tax(a tax on savings/earnings).
_________________
-------LUCKY-------


Last edited by Lucky_Shot on Mon Oct 08, 2018 7:45 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
tox
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 16 Nov 2015
Posts: 14191

PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2018 7:44 pm    Post subject:

Lucky_Shot wrote:
tox wrote:
venturalakersfan wrote:
tox wrote:
venturalakersfan wrote:
Yes on 6, we don’t need to give corrupt politicians more of our money.

A gas tax is literally the best kind of tax because it doesn't cause a distortion in the market, instead it corrects for externalities not being charged.

Just saw it's polling at -13% so luckily Californians appear to know what they're doing.


Considering that the last gas tax increase for roadway repairs went to pay pension obligations, not for highway repairs, I’m not eager to contribute more of my earnings.

That is irrelevant. The gas tax is a correction on the market, and it provides a correct incentive (towards not using gas, which is good for the environment).

And anyway, if that is your argument, it sure beats increasing income tax by a fraction of a percent to finance those pensions.


Pensions are one 1/7 of the entire budget(almost 1.5 trillion) We spent more on pensions than we did on education or defense. Pensions need to be cut drastically

I will agree a gas tax(a consumption tax) is a much better tax than a income tax(a tax on savings/earnings).

I'm not making a statement about pensions one way or another. The point is we need $X to fund state obligations (including pensions), and you and I both agree a gas tax beats an income tax.
_________________
https://j.gifs.com/Rnqnbk.gif
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Lucky_Shot
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 10 Jan 2016
Posts: 2832

PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2018 7:55 pm    Post subject:

tox wrote:
Lucky_Shot wrote:
tox wrote:
venturalakersfan wrote:
tox wrote:
venturalakersfan wrote:
Yes on 6, we don’t need to give corrupt politicians more of our money.

A gas tax is literally the best kind of tax because it doesn't cause a distortion in the market, instead it corrects for externalities not being charged.

Just saw it's polling at -13% so luckily Californians appear to know what they're doing.


Considering that the last gas tax increase for roadway repairs went to pay pension obligations, not for highway repairs, I’m not eager to contribute more of my earnings.

That is irrelevant. The gas tax is a correction on the market, and it provides a correct incentive (towards not using gas, which is good for the environment).

And anyway, if that is your argument, it sure beats increasing income tax by a fraction of a percent to finance those pensions.


Pensions are one 1/7 of the entire budget(almost 1.5 trillion) We spent more on pensions than we did on education or defense. Pensions need to be cut drastically

I will agree a gas tax(a consumption tax) is a much better tax than a income tax(a tax on savings/earnings).

I'm not making a statement about pensions one way or another. The point is we need $X to fund state obligations (including pensions), and you and I both agree a gas tax beats an income tax.


Fair enough we agree that we would rather have a gas tax than a increase on the income tax. I have a question if there was a prop question to replace the California income tax with a sales tax(like the fair tax) would you vote for it. Just curious
_________________
-------LUCKY-------
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
K2
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 25 Dec 2011
Posts: 22675

PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2018 9:54 pm    Post subject:

tox wrote:
K2 wrote:
^It’s understandable why this is on the ballot, rent has skyrocketed in the last few years and many are looking for solutions. On the surface, it seems “vacancy control” is good idea since there could be a mechanism in place to keep rent prices in check, even after the tenant moves out.

Currently, most landlords are able to make the necessary repairs or upgrades to the home, then re-rent the place at market rate. With vacancy control in place, keeping up with the maintenance and upgrades becomes more difficult over time due to increasingly tighter margins. Some landlords may eventually be forced to pull the rental home from the market, while others who survive will make minimum repairs in order to keep it within code.

With the shortage of housing available in LA right now, having landlords dropping out probably won’t help with the supply situation in the long run. At the same time, the builders who have been adding new apartments to the housing stock these past few years are waiting to see what happens with Prop 10 before they break ground on new housing.



I don't really buy the argument about landlords making repairs and upgrades. It's the same logic that says we shouldn't limit drug costs because Big Pharma uses those profits to research new and better drugs. It's probably true, but much of the money just lines the shareholders' and executives' pockets. That would be OK were there not a competing interest, i.e. that people can't afford lifesaving drugs or generally higher drug prices (and insurance costs) for people who are already struggling. But there is, so we need to make a subjective decision of how much we should hurt drug companies' R&D (and profits) to allow for people to be able to actually afford the medicine.

Likewise, it might be true that more profits allows landlords to better improve their property, but that needs to be balanced against people needing a place to live. Like I said before, I'm against Prop 10 for the simple reason rent control is bad policy and the real issue has to do with housing supply, but I find this particular argument spurious.


It's actually quite common in West LA in recent years as seen on sites like zumper, hotpads, and/or apartmentsdotcom. Once a tenant in a rent-controlled building moves out, building owners have been upgrading the kitchen cabinets/counters, bath faucets/tub, cabinetry, as well as replacing carpets with hardwood/laminate before renting it out at market rates. Often there's a 10%-20% increase which is leased up by a new tenant who doesn't mind paying more for a nicer apartment.

With vacancy control, the unit(s) would be required by law to continue at the rent controlled rate. It's not that hard to imagine owners having second thoughts about spending $5000+ to upgrade the unit when there's no longer an incentive to do so. As for similarities to BigPharma, sure there some, but without a product that's even remotely close to the exclusivity or life-changing innovation being offered, landlords attempting to ask for egregiously high rent would be swiftly shut out by the market naturally.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Huey Lewis & The News
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 18 Dec 2015
Posts: 3958
Location: So what's the uh...topic of discussion?

PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2018 10:10 pm    Post subject:

tox wrote:
K2 wrote:
^It’s understandable why this is on the ballot, rent has skyrocketed in the last few years and many are looking for solutions. On the surface, it seems “vacancy control” is good idea since there could be a mechanism in place to keep rent prices in check, even after the tenant moves out.

Currently, most landlords are able to make the necessary repairs or upgrades to the home, then re-rent the place at market rate. With vacancy control in place, keeping up with the maintenance and upgrades becomes more difficult over time due to increasingly tighter margins. Some landlords may eventually be forced to pull the rental home from the market, while others who survive will make minimum repairs in order to keep it within code.

With the shortage of housing available in LA right now, having landlords dropping out probably won’t help with the supply situation in the long run. At the same time, the builders who have been adding new apartments to the housing stock these past few years are waiting to see what happens with Prop 10 before they break ground on new housing.

I don't really buy the argument about landlords making repairs and upgrades. It's the same logic that says we shouldn't limit drug costs because Big Pharma uses those profits to research new and better drugs. It's probably true, but much of the money just lines the shareholders' and executives' pockets. That would be OK were there not a competing interest, i.e. that people can't afford lifesaving drugs or generally higher drug prices (and insurance costs) for people who are already struggling. But there is, so we need to make a subjective decision of how much we should hurt drug companies' R&D (and profits) to allow for people to be able to actually afford the medicine.

Likewise, it might be true that more profits allows landlords to better improve their property, but that needs to be balanced against people needing a place to live. Like I said before, I'm against Prop 10 for the simple reason rent control is bad policy and the real issue has to do with housing supply, but I find this particular argument spurious.


What would you say to someone who makes the argument that someone who needs a place to live doesn't need to live in the one of the most desirable and expensive markets in the world?
_________________
"All wars are civil wars, because all men are brothers."
http://forums.lakersground.net/profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=13018
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
venturalakersfan
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 14 Apr 2001
Posts: 128747
Location: The Gold Coast

PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2018 7:06 am    Post subject:

tox wrote:
Lucky_Shot wrote:
tox wrote:
venturalakersfan wrote:
tox wrote:
venturalakersfan wrote:
Yes on 6, we don’t need to give corrupt politicians more of our money.

A gas tax is literally the best kind of tax because it doesn't cause a distortion in the market, instead it corrects for externalities not being charged.

Just saw it's polling at -13% so luckily Californians appear to know what they're doing.


Considering that the last gas tax increase for roadway repairs went to pay pension obligations, not for highway repairs, I’m not eager to contribute more of my earnings.

That is irrelevant. The gas tax is a correction on the market, and it provides a correct incentive (towards not using gas, which is good for the environment).

And anyway, if that is your argument, it sure beats increasing income tax by a fraction of a percent to finance those pensions.


Pensions are one 1/7 of the entire budget(almost 1.5 trillion) We spent more on pensions than we did on education or defense. Pensions need to be cut drastically

I will agree a gas tax(a consumption tax) is a much better tax than a income tax(a tax on savings/earnings).

I'm not making a statement about pensions one way or another. The point is we need $X to fund state obligations (including pensions), and you and I both agree a gas tax beats an income tax.


But pensions are the issue. They were promised and are owed, but who should pay? Prop 30 payed billions but unlike the promise, not a cent went to our schools. It was an obvious fraud. California used to be top 10 in education, now they are 47th. We paid the highest gas taxes in the country and we have some of the worst roads in the country. A big part of that is a large population, and another problem is in spending. Billions of dollars in transportation funds have gone to develop a hypothetical bullet train. Where has that money gone? To consultants and special interest groups favored by the administration. I grew up having to deal with the Daleys and corrupt Chicago machine, this is no different. Our gas taxes prior to the recent government shake down were more than fair, the government’s inability to appropriate them shouldn’t be passed on to us.
_________________
Oh when the Saints, come marching in..........
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
tox
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 16 Nov 2015
Posts: 14191

PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2018 6:47 pm    Post subject:

Lucky_Shot wrote:

Fair enough we agree that we would rather have a gas tax than a increase on the income tax. I have a question if there was a prop question to replace the California income tax with a sales tax(like the fair tax) would you vote for it. Just curious

Good question, I know that consumption taxes make more sense from an economic point of view. But I just have some qualms with it in practice.
i) Yes, with some sort of prebate it is progressive at the bottom, but it's still regressive at the top, for the super duper rich. You'd see even more wealth accumulation without a plan to deal with this.
ii) I suspect that the prebate is the sort of thing that gets underfunded and cut, and you end up with something even more regressive.
_________________
https://j.gifs.com/Rnqnbk.gif
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
tox
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 16 Nov 2015
Posts: 14191

PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2018 6:52 pm    Post subject:

Huey Lewis & The News wrote:

What would you say to someone who makes the argument that someone who needs a place to live doesn't need to live in the one of the most desirable and expensive markets in the world?

I would say that expecting people to leave their entire lives (friends and family) behind against their wishes due to finances is unreasonable when we have ways to build more housing for people given how remarkably non-dense Californian cities are (SF notwithstanding).

I realize that response is a bit of a non sequitur in the context of my previous post (which was about limiting landlords' profits), but that would be my answer.
_________________
https://j.gifs.com/Rnqnbk.gif
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
tox
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 16 Nov 2015
Posts: 14191

PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2018 6:57 pm    Post subject:

K2 wrote:

It's actually quite common in West LA in recent years as seen on sites like zumper, hotpads, and/or apartmentsdotcom. Once a tenant in a rent-controlled building moves out, building owners have been upgrading the kitchen cabinets/counters, bath faucets/tub, cabinetry, as well as replacing carpets with hardwood/laminate before renting it out at market rates. Often there's a 10%-20% increase which is leased up by a new tenant who doesn't mind paying more for a nicer apartment.

With vacancy control, the unit(s) would be required by law to continue at the rent controlled rate. It's not that hard to imagine owners having second thoughts about spending $5000+ to upgrade the unit when there's no longer an incentive to do so. As for similarities to BigPharma, sure there some, but without a product that's even remotely close to the exclusivity or life-changing innovation being offered, landlords attempting to ask for egregiously high rent would be swiftly shut out by the market naturally.

The analogy to BigPharma wasn't that it's really similar on its face, but just that we need to balance the benefits of vacancy control (people being able to afford housing) with the benefits of no vacancy control (profits, which both line the landlord's pockets and allows for nicer countertops and hardwood floors).

I don't find either of the latter two convincing of a reason for no rent control; these "improvements" remind me of useless amenity competition in college campuses that is one reason college prices are soaring. If a house needs new cabinets, an upgrade makes sense; if the landowner just wants to improve the aesthetics of the house so he can raise the rent and make more money, that's not necessarily a good thing.

And again, I don't support vacancy control simply because it's a bad solution when the real problem is supply.
_________________
https://j.gifs.com/Rnqnbk.gif
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
tox
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 16 Nov 2015
Posts: 14191

PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2018 6:58 pm    Post subject:

venturalakersfan wrote:

But pensions are the issue. They were promised and are owed, but who should pay? Prop 30 payed billions but unlike the promise, not a cent went to our schools. It was an obvious fraud. California used to be top 10 in education, now they are 47th. We paid the highest gas taxes in the country and we have some of the worst roads in the country. A big part of that is a large population, and another problem is in spending. Billions of dollars in transportation funds have gone to develop a hypothetical bullet train. Where has that money gone? To consultants and special interest groups favored by the administration. I grew up having to deal with the Daleys and corrupt Chicago machine, this is no different. Our gas taxes prior to the recent government shake down were more than fair, the government’s inability to appropriate them shouldn’t be passed on to us.

Like you said, pensions are owed. They have to be paid. If you are going to raise $X for them because you are legally obligated to fulfill those pensions, I'd rather it be $X from the externality-correcting gas tax than $X more from income tax.
_________________
https://j.gifs.com/Rnqnbk.gif
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
K2
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 25 Dec 2011
Posts: 22675

PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2018 9:12 pm    Post subject:

tox wrote:
K2 wrote:

It's actually quite common in West LA in recent years as seen on sites like zumper, hotpads, and/or apartmentsdotcom. Once a tenant in a rent-controlled building moves out, building owners have been upgrading the kitchen cabinets/counters, bath faucets/tub, cabinetry, as well as replacing carpets with hardwood/laminate before renting it out at market rates. Often there's a 10%-20% increase which is leased up by a new tenant who doesn't mind paying more for a nicer apartment.

With vacancy control, the unit(s) would be required by law to continue at the rent controlled rate. It's not that hard to imagine owners having second thoughts about spending $5000+ to upgrade the unit when there's no longer an incentive to do so. As for similarities to BigPharma, sure there some, but without a product that's even remotely close to the exclusivity or life-changing innovation being offered, landlords attempting to ask for egregiously high rent would be swiftly shut out by the market naturally.

The analogy to BigPharma wasn't that it's really similar on its face, but just that we need to balance the benefits of vacancy control (people being able to afford housing) with the benefits of no vacancy control (profits, which both line the landlord's pockets and allows for nicer countertops and hardwood floors).

I don't find either of the latter two convincing of a reason for no rent control; these "improvements" remind me of useless amenity competition in college campuses that is one reason college prices are soaring. If a house needs new cabinets, an upgrade makes sense; if the landowner just wants to improve the aesthetics of the house so he can raise the rent and make more money, that's not necessarily a good thing.

And again, I don't support vacancy control simply because it's a bad solution when the real problem is supply.


I understand where you’re coming from, hopefully there will be a solution other than Prop 10 that can bring more of a balance going forward.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
venturalakersfan
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 14 Apr 2001
Posts: 128747
Location: The Gold Coast

PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 6:34 am    Post subject:

tox wrote:
venturalakersfan wrote:

But pensions are the issue. They were promised and are owed, but who should pay? Prop 30 payed billions but unlike the promise, not a cent went to our schools. It was an obvious fraud. California used to be top 10 in education, now they are 47th. We paid the highest gas taxes in the country and we have some of the worst roads in the country. A big part of that is a large population, and another problem is in spending. Billions of dollars in transportation funds have gone to develop a hypothetical bullet train. Where has that money gone? To consultants and special interest groups favored by the administration. I grew up having to deal with the Daleys and corrupt Chicago machine, this is no different. Our gas taxes prior to the recent government shake down were more than fair, the government’s inability to appropriate them shouldn’t be passed on to us.

Like you said, pensions are owed. They have to be paid. If you are going to raise $X for them because you are legally obligated to fulfill those pensions, I'd rather it be $X from the externality-correcting gas tax than $X more from income tax.


A tax is a tax, we all pay. It doesn’t matter if it is an income tax, or a gas tax, or a tax on milk and bread. The point of the proposition is to allow the people to have a say, not just the politicians. And though the solution is simple (401k plans) our leaders ignore it.
_________________
Oh when the Saints, come marching in..........
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
tox
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 16 Nov 2015
Posts: 14191

PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 6:52 pm    Post subject:

venturalakersfan wrote:
tox wrote:
venturalakersfan wrote:

But pensions are the issue. They were promised and are owed, but who should pay? Prop 30 payed billions but unlike the promise, not a cent went to our schools. It was an obvious fraud. California used to be top 10 in education, now they are 47th. We paid the highest gas taxes in the country and we have some of the worst roads in the country. A big part of that is a large population, and another problem is in spending. Billions of dollars in transportation funds have gone to develop a hypothetical bullet train. Where has that money gone? To consultants and special interest groups favored by the administration. I grew up having to deal with the Daleys and corrupt Chicago machine, this is no different. Our gas taxes prior to the recent government shake down were more than fair, the government’s inability to appropriate them shouldn’t be passed on to us.

Like you said, pensions are owed. They have to be paid. If you are going to raise $X for them because you are legally obligated to fulfill those pensions, I'd rather it be $X from the externality-correcting gas tax than $X more from income tax.


A tax is a tax, we all pay. It doesn’t matter if it is an income tax, or a gas tax, or a tax on milk and bread. The point of the proposition is to allow the people to have a say, not just the politicians. And though the solution is simple (401k plans) our leaders ignore it.

The type of tax matters, it is a disincentive towards whatever is being taxed because people don't like paying more (shocker!). This is like Econ 101.
_________________
https://j.gifs.com/Rnqnbk.gif
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
jodeke
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 45208
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered intelligent.

PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 10:50 pm    Post subject:

tox wrote:
venturalakersfan wrote:
tox wrote:
venturalakersfan wrote:

But pensions are the issue. They were promised and are owed, but who should pay? Prop 30 payed billions but unlike the promise, not a cent went to our schools. It was an obvious fraud. California used to be top 10 in education, now they are 47th. We paid the highest gas taxes in the country and we have some of the worst roads in the country. A big part of that is a large population, and another problem is in spending. Billions of dollars in transportation funds have gone to develop a hypothetical bullet train. Where has that money gone? To consultants and special interest groups favored by the administration. I grew up having to deal with the Daleys and corrupt Chicago machine, this is no different. Our gas taxes prior to the recent government shake down were more than fair, the government’s inability to appropriate them shouldn’t be passed on to us.

Like you said, pensions are owed. They have to be paid. If you are going to raise $X for them because you are legally obligated to fulfill those pensions, I'd rather it be $X from the externality-correcting gas tax than $X more from income tax.


A tax is a tax, we all pay. It doesn’t matter if it is an income tax, or a gas tax, or a tax on milk and bread. The point of the proposition is to allow the people to have a say, not just the politicians. And though the solution is simple (401k plans) our leaders ignore it.

The type of tax matters, it is a disincentive towards whatever is being taxed because people don't like paying more (shocker!). This is like Econ 101.

What am I missing? How is this related to prop 10?
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.

Your prayers are always answered. Sometimes the answer is NO.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
tox
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 16 Nov 2015
Posts: 14191

PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 10:55 pm    Post subject:

jodeke wrote:

What am I missing? How is this related to prop 10?

It's not, we were talking about Prop 6
_________________
https://j.gifs.com/Rnqnbk.gif
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
splashmtn
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 30 Aug 2016
Posts: 3295

PostPosted: Wed Oct 17, 2018 2:52 pm    Post subject:

venturalakersfan wrote:
splashmtn wrote:
venturalakersfan wrote:
tox wrote:
venturalakersfan wrote:
Yes on 6, we don’t need to give corrupt politicians more of our money.

A gas tax is literally the best kind of tax because it doesn't cause a distortion in the market, instead it corrects for externalities not being charged.

Just saw it's polling at -13% so luckily Californians appear to know what they're doing.


Considering that the last gas tax increase for roadway repairs went to pay pension obligations, not for highway repairs, I’m not eager to contribute more of my earnings.
lets assume what you're saying is 100% truth. Who's pensions?

You do realize People work on the roads right? You do realize people manage people who work on the roads right? You do realize people manage people who manage people who work on the roads right?

Should they get paid to do these things? Should they get a pension?


You do realize they sold one thing but pulled a switcheroo. But it wasn’t true, it was Prop 30 and education where the schools got nothing and the administrators every cent. It should be illegal selling pension packages you can’t cover. Sure people deserve their pensions but lying to pay them should result in people being locked up. That is why voting no on any new tax or bonds is a good practice.
i agree with your assessment if that is what actually has happened and does happen. the problem with your logic is this. You never Vote blindly yes or no, no matter the pattern you've seen or thought you've seen. you assess every single thing on its own merit. you have no idea if it's different this time around. Dont take the lazy way out, READ. and if you dont like what you've just read and you understood (clearly) what you've just read, then Vote accordingly.

and back to where did you get your entail from that says that the money didnt go to schools? and did you know what "goto schools" meant? to begin with


https://www.mercurynews.com/2013/11/02/proposition-30-a-year-later-california-schools-seeing-benefits-of-tax-measure/

^^read the article.

http://trackprop30.ca.gov/

http://trackprop30.ca.gov/AuditReport/CDE_EPA_AuditReport2012to2015.pdf

another report from 2016

https://calbudgetcenter.org/resources/what-has-proposition-30-meant-for-california/


Now could that money go to pensions? possibly. you have to realize, pensions are paid to people who served your kids, who served you and I when we were kids or adults(community college). So again. do you think these people deserve pensions or not? they worked a very long time to earn those pensions. this is a part of their benefits package aka their overall PAY.

if you say I dont want that money going to pensions. you are more or less saying I dont want the people running the schools from teachers to janitors to the administrators, etc. to get paid as they were told they would be paid when they were hired. if you dont want them to get their full payments. then you will eventually run these people away from public education (which is really what conservatives want. because they THINK they want charters/private schools and the like to be taken over by businesses/corporations. which is a dumb/bad/stupid idea. But this same DUMB idea is one of many dumb reasons we have trump as president. "He's a business man....he can lead..." STOP IT.

Its the same reason you have that clown running education, and trying to do all she can to privatize it. As if we are not owned by the corporations enough. It would be one thing if these other schools could prove they were way better at educated the kids then the public schools. but there is no statistics that can prove that is the case. what they can do is try and snatch up the best and the brightest from the current public schools (brain drain), then say look at our grades and test scores. You aint fooling anyone that pays attention. anyone can have great test scores, college acceptance and graduation rates when you skim from the top. stop it.

Let me see these privatized schemes actually do a much better job educated hood kids that are not the smart ones, as well as average kids from the the middle class areas. then we can talk. until then. cut it out and come up with a better solution or be quiet.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
K2
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 25 Dec 2011
Posts: 22675

PostPosted: Wed Nov 07, 2018 9:01 am    Post subject:

While Prop 10 did not pass, it will likely be back in some form in 2020.

It would have repealed the Costa-Hawkins Act, which exempts condos and single-family homes from being under rent control. It wouldn't be surprising if most of the votes came from the homeowners to voice their disapproval. The Act also prohibits "vacancy control" which would've denied the homeowners and/or apartment owners the ability to adjust rents to market rate once a tenant moves away.

In West LA, with on-going construction of new apartments and recently permitted projects, there appears to be more than 2,000+ new units coming to a 1 - 1.5 mile radius of the transit stops in the next couple of years. The new rules enacted to allow increased building density (TOC zones) has spurred an abundance of activity in the specific area.

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
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
lakersken80
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 12 Aug 2009
Posts: 30980

PostPosted: Wed Nov 07, 2018 9:09 am    Post subject:

Language is very important in propositions and I think the fact that they wanted to shift rent control from the state level to the local level is why it failed.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ribeye
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 10 Nov 2001
Posts: 8425

PostPosted: Wed Nov 07, 2018 9:12 am    Post subject:

lakersken80 wrote:
Language is very important in propositions and I think the fact that they wanted to shift rent control from the state level to the local level is why it failed.


That is why I voted for it.
_________________
For the adults in the room only
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
The Juggernaut
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 24 Aug 2017
Posts: 2214

PostPosted: Wed Nov 07, 2018 11:19 am    Post subject:

ribeye wrote:
lakersken80 wrote:
Language is very important in propositions and I think the fact that they wanted to shift rent control from the state level to the local level is why it failed.


That is why I voted for it.


Yeah, me too. I'd rather the local municipalities decide for themselves. Doesn't mean they will enact rent control though, and before 1995 many didn't enact it on new developments.

Quote:
Q: If Proposition 10 passes, will my city get rent control?

A: No, but it could open the door to broader local rent control policies down the line. Proposition 10 would repeal a sweeping state law that permanently exempts some properties from rent control and blocks one aggressive approach to rent control that a handful of cities used in the 1980s and early 1990s. If it passes, cities will once again have broad powers to regulate rental prices as they see fit — and some will begin to enforce currently-banned rent control policies that have remained on the books for decades. But it’s worth noting that many smaller cities don’t have any form of rent control today, even though they could under current law.



https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/10/14/californias-rent-control-ballot-measure-explained/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 41595
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

PostPosted: Wed Nov 07, 2018 8:08 pm    Post subject:

The Juggernaut wrote:
ribeye wrote:
lakersken80 wrote:
Language is very important in propositions and I think the fact that they wanted to shift rent control from the state level to the local level is why it failed.


That is why I voted for it.


Yeah, me too. I'd rather the local municipalities decide for themselves. Doesn't mean they will enact rent control though, and before 1995 many didn't enact it on new developments.

Quote:
Q: If Proposition 10 passes, will my city get rent control?

A: No, but it could open the door to broader local rent control policies down the line. Proposition 10 would repeal a sweeping state law that permanently exempts some properties from rent control and blocks one aggressive approach to rent control that a handful of cities used in the 1980s and early 1990s. If it passes, cities will once again have broad powers to regulate rental prices as they see fit — and some will begin to enforce currently-banned rent control policies that have remained on the books for decades. But it’s worth noting that many smaller cities don’t have any form of rent control today, even though they could under current law.



https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/10/14/californias-rent-control-ballot-measure-explained/


Which is exactly why this was a bad Prop. It eliminated existing rent control with absolutely no provisions for ensuring that it would be replaced on the local level.

It reeked of a con job. "Let's get rid of this regulation, but it will be fine because it will get replaced with 'better' regulations . . . just trust us."
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames


Jason Isbell
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
splashmtn
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 30 Aug 2016
Posts: 3295

PostPosted: Thu Nov 08, 2018 9:44 am    Post subject:

K2 wrote:
While Prop 10 did not pass, it will likely be back in some form in 2020.

It would have repealed the Costa-Hawkins Act, which exempts condos and single-family homes from being under rent control. It wouldn't be surprising if most of the votes came from the homeowners to voice their disapproval. The Act also prohibits "vacancy control" which would've denied the homeowners and/or apartment owners the ability to adjust rents to market rate once a tenant moves away.

In West LA, with on-going construction of new apartments and recently permitted projects, there appears to be more than 2,000+ new units coming to a 1 - 1.5 mile radius of the transit stops in the next couple of years. The new rules enacted to allow increased building density (TOC zones) has spurred an abundance of activity in the specific area.

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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ribeye
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 10 Nov 2001
Posts: 8425

PostPosted: Thu Nov 08, 2018 10:17 am    Post subject:

DaMuleRules wrote:
The Juggernaut wrote:
ribeye wrote:
lakersken80 wrote:
Language is very important in propositions and I think the fact that they wanted to shift rent control from the state level to the local level is why it failed.


That is why I voted for it.


Yeah, me too. I'd rather the local municipalities decide for themselves. Doesn't mean they will enact rent control though, and before 1995 many didn't enact it on new developments.

Quote:
Q: If Proposition 10 passes, will my city get rent control?

A: No, but it could open the door to broader local rent control policies down the line. Proposition 10 would repeal a sweeping state law that permanently exempts some properties from rent control and blocks one aggressive approach to rent control that a handful of cities used in the 1980s and early 1990s. If it passes, cities will once again have broad powers to regulate rental prices as they see fit — and some will begin to enforce currently-banned rent control policies that have remained on the books for decades. But it’s worth noting that many smaller cities don’t have any form of rent control today, even though they could under current law.



https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/10/14/californias-rent-control-ballot-measure-explained/


Which is exactly why this was a bad Prop. It eliminated existing rent control with absolutely no provisions for ensuring that it would be replaced on the local level.

It reeked of a con job. "Let's get rid of this regulation, but it will be fine because it will get replaced with 'better' regulations . . . just trust us."


While I do not know if better regulations would replace the existing ones, I do believe my city council, who must answer to its constituents and who are familiar with the demographics patterns of the area and zoning laws, is better suited to make decisions than would the entire state, with jurisdictions much different than my district. SF has much different housing considerations than Sacramento and Sacramento is much different than Bakersfield or Alpine county.
_________________
For the adults in the room only
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 41595
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

PostPosted: Thu Nov 08, 2018 10:44 am    Post subject:

ribeye wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
The Juggernaut wrote:
ribeye wrote:
lakersken80 wrote:
Language is very important in propositions and I think the fact that they wanted to shift rent control from the state level to the local level is why it failed.


That is why I voted for it.


Yeah, me too. I'd rather the local municipalities decide for themselves. Doesn't mean they will enact rent control though, and before 1995 many didn't enact it on new developments.

Quote:
Q: If Proposition 10 passes, will my city get rent control?

A: No, but it could open the door to broader local rent control policies down the line. Proposition 10 would repeal a sweeping state law that permanently exempts some properties from rent control and blocks one aggressive approach to rent control that a handful of cities used in the 1980s and early 1990s. If it passes, cities will once again have broad powers to regulate rental prices as they see fit — and some will begin to enforce currently-banned rent control policies that have remained on the books for decades. But it’s worth noting that many smaller cities don’t have any form of rent control today, even though they could under current law.



https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/10/14/californias-rent-control-ballot-measure-explained/


Which is exactly why this was a bad Prop. It eliminated existing rent control with absolutely no provisions for ensuring that it would be replaced on the local level.

It reeked of a con job. "Let's get rid of this regulation, but it will be fine because it will get replaced with 'better' regulations . . . just trust us."


While I do not know if better regulations would replace the existing ones, I do believe my city council, who must answer to its constituents and who are familiar with the demographics patterns of the area and zoning laws, is better suited to make decisions than would the entire state, with jurisdictions much different than my district. SF has much different housing considerations than Sacramento and Sacramento is much different than Bakersfield or Alpine county.


I don't disagree with you about local governments being more in tune with the communities needs. That said, the idea of removing existing safeguards and trusting local leaders to appropriately replace them strikes me as a horrible idea.
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames


Jason Isbell
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> Off Topic All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 2 of 4
Jump to:  

 
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






Graphics by uberzev
© 1995-2018 LakersGround.net. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy. Terms of Use.
LakersGround is an unofficial news source serving the fan community since 1995.
We are in no way associated with the Los Angeles Lakers or the National Basketball Association.


Powered by phpBB