Lets Talk About PROP 10
Goto page 1, 2  Next

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


Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 1935

PostPosted: Fri Sep 28, 2018 3:01 pm    Post subject: Lets Talk About PROP 10

Since the Politics Thread is gonna be jammed up for a while I was wondering if we can get this separate thread going. Prop 10 seems to be an important matter to discuss right now. cool?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ChickenBeckerman
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 1935

PostPosted: Fri Sep 28, 2018 3:02 pm    Post subject:

https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_10,_Local_Rent_Control_Initiative_(2018)



California Proposition 10, the Local Rent Control Initiative, is on the ballot in California as an initiated state statute on November 6, 2018.[1]


A yes vote supports allowing local governments to adopt rent control, repealing the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act.


A no vote opposes the initiative, thus keeping the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act and continuing to prohibit local governments from enacting rent control on certain buildings.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ChickenBeckerman
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 1935

PostPosted: Fri Sep 28, 2018 3:02 pm    Post subject:

Overview

What is California Proposition 10?

Proposition 10 is an initiated state statute that would repeal the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act (Costa-Hawkins), thus allowing local governments to adopt rent control ordinances—regulations that govern how much landlords can charge tenants for renting apartments and houses. Proposition 10 would also state that a local government's rent control ordinance shall not abridge a fair rate of return for landlords.[1]

What is the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act?

Costa-Hawkins is a state statute that limits the use of rent control in California. Costa-Hawkins provides that cities cannot enact rent control on (a) housing first occupied after February 1, 1995, and (b) housing units where the title is separate from connected units, such as condominiums and townhouses. Costa-Hawkins also provided that landlords have a right to increase rent prices to market rates when a tenant moves out. Prior to the enactment of Costa-Hawkins, local governments were permitted to enact rent control, provided that landlords would receive just and reasonable returns on their rental properties. The California State Legislature passed Costa-Hawkins in 1995.[3][4][5]

What does the political landscape surrounding housing look like in California?

Candidates in the 2018 gubernatorial election have proposed plans to increase housing in California. Gavin Newsom (D) called for “a Marshall Plan for affordable housing," while John Cox (R) said that some development regulations need to be eliminated to incentivize construction and decrease costs.[6] Neither Newsom nor Cox, however, support a full repeal of Costa-Hawkins. Newsom said he was open to fewer restrictions on rent control, but that outright repeal would "have unintended consequences on housing production that could be profoundly problematic." Cox stated, "I don't believe rent control works."[7] The California Democratic Party's executive committee endorsed Proposition 10, while the California Republican Party's leadership decided to oppose the ballot initiative. Amy Schur, campaign director for the Alliance for Community Empowerment (ACCE), responded to opponents who said that decreasing rents requires more housing, not rent control. She said, "That [building] is slow and expensive. In the meantime, the only policy step that will address the severe displacement crisis in the short term is the expansion of reasonable rent control.”[8]

The state legislature had also looked at rent control in 2018. Rep. Richard Bloom (D-50) introduced a bill to repeal Costa-Hawkins. The Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee rejected the bill because the committee's two Republicans voted against passage and two Democrats abstained from voting. Three Democrats voted to recommend the bill, but four votes were required.[9] Rep. David Chiu (D-17), the committee's chairman, said, "... this will not be the end of the conversation. It’s just the beginning.”[10]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ChickenBeckerman
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 1935

PostPosted: Fri Sep 28, 2018 3:03 pm    Post subject:

Overview

What is California Proposition 10?

Proposition 10 is an initiated state statute that would repeal the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act (Costa-Hawkins), thus allowing local governments to adopt rent control ordinances—regulations that govern how much landlords can charge tenants for renting apartments and houses. Proposition 10 would also state that a local government's rent control ordinance shall not abridge a fair rate of return for landlords.[1]

What is the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act?

Costa-Hawkins is a state statute that limits the use of rent control in California. Costa-Hawkins provides that cities cannot enact rent control on (a) housing first occupied after February 1, 1995, and (b) housing units where the title is separate from connected units, such as condominiums and townhouses. Costa-Hawkins also provided that landlords have a right to increase rent prices to market rates when a tenant moves out. Prior to the enactment of Costa-Hawkins, local governments were permitted to enact rent control, provided that landlords would receive just and reasonable returns on their rental properties. The California State Legislature passed Costa-Hawkins in 1995.[3][4][5]

What does the political landscape surrounding housing look like in California?

Candidates in the 2018 gubernatorial election have proposed plans to increase housing in California. Gavin Newsom (D) called for “a Marshall Plan for affordable housing," while John Cox (R) said that some development regulations need to be eliminated to incentivize construction and decrease costs.[6] Neither Newsom nor Cox, however, support a full repeal of Costa-Hawkins. Newsom said he was open to fewer restrictions on rent control, but that outright repeal would "have unintended consequences on housing production that could be profoundly problematic." Cox stated, "I don't believe rent control works."[7] The California Democratic Party's executive committee endorsed Proposition 10, while the California Republican Party's leadership decided to oppose the ballot initiative. Amy Schur, campaign director for the Alliance for Community Empowerment (ACCE), responded to opponents who said that decreasing rents requires more housing, not rent control. She said, "That [building] is slow and expensive. In the meantime, the only policy step that will address the severe displacement crisis in the short term is the expansion of reasonable rent control.”[8]

The state legislature had also looked at rent control in 2018. Rep. Richard Bloom (D-50) introduced a bill to repeal Costa-Hawkins. The Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee rejected the bill because the committee's two Republicans voted against passage and two Democrats abstained from voting. Three Democrats voted to recommend the bill, but four votes were required.[9] Rep. David Chiu (D-17), the committee's chairman, said, "... this will not be the end of the conversation. It’s just the beginning.”[10]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ChickenBeckerman
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 1935

PostPosted: Fri Sep 28, 2018 3:03 pm    Post subject:

Contributions
Expenditures

Support Committees
$13,550,215.25
$11,838,268.26

Opposition Committees
$45,420,004.53







What other ballot propositions address housing in California?

Voters in California will decide four ballot propositions related to housing on November 6, 2018—the most ever to appear on a state's ballot in one year according to Ballotpedia’s catalog of housing-related ballot measures. Besides Proposition 10, voters will decide the following three housing-related ballot propositions:

Proposition 1 would authorize $4 billion in bonds for affordable housing programs, loans, grants, as well as housing loans for veterans.

Proposition 2 would authorize the state to use revenue from a 1 percent tax on income above $1 million, which was enacted in 2004 to provide funds for mental health services, on homelessness prevention housing.

Proposition 5 would remove restrictions on allowing seniors (ages 55+) and persons with serve disabilities to transfer their tax assessments, with a possible adjustment, from their prior home to their new home.


Sponsors of Propositions 1, 2, 5, and 10 all argue that their ballot measures would help address the housing situation in California, such as rent prices, real estate values, and available housing.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
jodeke
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 44534
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered intelligent.

PostPosted: Fri Sep 28, 2018 3:48 pm    Post subject:

Prop 10 is confusing.

It's my understanding a YES vote would repeal The Costa–Hawkins Rental Housing Act

("Costa–Hawkins") is a California state law, enacted in 1995, which places limits on municipal rent control ordinances. ... 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's my understanding YES benefits owners allowing them to increase rents at their percent want.


NO on 10 keeps act in place allowing for rent control benefiting renters.

I spoke to a friend who owns apartments. If I have it right I'm going to vote NO.
_________________
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
venturalakersfan
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 14 Apr 2001
Posts: 128003
Location: The Gold Coast

PostPosted: Fri Oct 05, 2018 7:48 am    Post subject:

I typically vote no in most propositions since most are written to benefit an individual or company. I remember a “green solar” proposition that passed a few years ago. Passing it required every California municipal organization to purchase solar equipment from one particular Chinese company. I will continue that skepticism and vote no on 10.

I will vote no on any bond issues, especially on 3. We passed the same proposition before and exactly 0 dams have been built. Yes on 6, we don’t need to give corrupt politicians more of our money. No on 11, it is funded by AMR to get them out of lawsuits for not paying their workers. No on 12, it’s intent is to save a few big farms from complying with a previous agreement to have free range animals by 2030. It will do the exact opposite of what the title indicates. I might vote yes on 7, I don’t think we need time changes.
_________________
It’s a girl, my lord, in a flat bed Ford.......
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LarryCoon
Site Staff
Site Staff


Joined: 11 Aug 2002
Posts: 10113

PostPosted: Fri Oct 05, 2018 9:36 am    Post subject:

Agreed. Bond measures are typically band-aid solutions, if not pure throwing good money after bad because previous bond measures failed to do what they promised.

I need to look into 5 and 8 more. I'm no on 6, no on 7, no on 10, no on 12. I'm yes on 11.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Surfitall
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 12 Feb 2002
Posts: 2538
Location: Newport Coast

PostPosted: Fri Oct 05, 2018 9:48 am    Post subject:

venturalakersfan wrote:
I typically vote no in most propositions since most are written to benefit an individual or company. I remember a “green solar” proposition that passed a few years ago. Passing it required every California municipal organization to purchase solar equipment from one particular Chinese company. I will continue that skepticism and vote no on 10.

I will vote no on any bond issues, especially on 3. We passed the same proposition before and exactly 0 dams have been built. Yes on 6, we don’t need to give corrupt politicians more of our money. No on 11, it is funded by AMR to get them out of lawsuits for not paying their workers. No on 12, it’s intent is to save a few big farms from complying with a previous agreement to have free range animals by 2030. It will do the exact opposite of what the title indicates. I might vote yes on 7, I don’t think we need time changes.


My inclination is also to vote no on most bond measures and ballot initiatives. In most cases, I would prefer to hold my elected officials accountable for knowing the nuances of sometimes complex issues and make them stick their neck out to decide whether or not to enact something. Instead, they ask us to vote on issues that I think most of the population doesn't have the knowledge or expertise to truly understand its ramifications. (Myself included.)

The other thing I'll say about rent control is that while there are different ways of enacting rent control, it usually benefits people as they age as long as they never move, and it harms young people because if apartment owners know they won't be able to raise rent for a long time, they will want to charge more for rents up front because they know they won't be able to raise them in the future. If at all possible, we are better off with market forces combined with smart city planning and zoning that accounts for apartment living.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Gimme_the_rock
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 13 Apr 2001
Posts: 11673
Location: Looking outta the window, watching the asphalt grow ...

PostPosted: Fri Oct 05, 2018 9:58 am    Post subject:

Thanks so much for taking the time to dig into this, CB!

This once has caught my interest and I have been very confused about it.
_________________
Maginka doing work
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
K2
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 25 Dec 2011
Posts: 22620

PostPosted: Fri Oct 05, 2018 12:02 pm    Post subject:

Have been following this since Bloom introduced it, will be going with No on 10.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
lakersken80
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 12 Aug 2009
Posts: 30355

PostPosted: Sat Oct 06, 2018 1:48 pm    Post subject:

venturalakersfan wrote:
I typically vote no in most propositions since most are written to benefit an individual or company. I remember a “green solar” proposition that passed a few years ago. Passing it required every California municipal organization to purchase solar equipment from one particular Chinese company. I will continue that skepticism and vote no on 10.

I will vote no on any bond issues, especially on 3. We passed the same proposition before and exactly 0 dams have been built. Yes on 6, we don’t need to give corrupt politicians more of our money. No on 11, it is funded by AMR to get them out of lawsuits for not paying their workers. No on 12, it’s intent is to save a few big farms from complying with a previous agreement to have free range animals by 2030. It will do the exact opposite of what the title indicates. I might vote yes on 7, I don’t think we need time changes.


Most of the politicians in Sacramento realized that asking people for higher taxes is political suicide in a state that is already expensive to live in. So they pass the buck to the voters, which is why most of these propositions are basically additional taxes that you the voter voted on. If you also will notice a lot of the propositions resemble previous propositions that have been voted on in the past.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
tox
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 16 Nov 2015
Posts: 13696

PostPosted: Sat Oct 06, 2018 5:17 pm    Post subject:

Rent control is just bad policy, so I'm a no.
_________________
https://j.gifs.com/Rnqnbk.gif
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
venturalakersfan
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 14 Apr 2001
Posts: 128003
Location: The Gold Coast

PostPosted: Sat Oct 06, 2018 6:35 pm    Post subject:

LarryCoon wrote:
Agreed. Bond measures are typically band-aid solutions, if not pure throwing good money after bad because previous bond measures failed to do what they promised.

I need to look into 5 and 8 more. I'm no on 6, no on 7, no on 10, no on 12. I'm yes on 11.


I was leaning yes on 11 until discussing it with a friend who has been a paramedic for 10+ years. He explained the AMR angle, basically they prefer to spend the money on the proposition instead of on their employees.
_________________
It’s a girl, my lord, in a flat bed Ford.......
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ringfinger
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 21790

PostPosted: Sat Oct 06, 2018 9:31 pm    Post subject:

Definitely no on prop 10 for me.

Don’t like the idea the govt will tell me what I can rent my own house out for (or even potentially a room in my house if I was so inclined).

Thanks for creating a separate thread for this. Hopefully it wont degrade into a cesspool like the other one. (Btw OP your link didn’t work for me, just FYi)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
tox
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 16 Nov 2015
Posts: 13696

PostPosted: Sat Oct 06, 2018 9:43 pm    Post subject:

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.
_________________
https://j.gifs.com/Rnqnbk.gif
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ribeye
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 10 Nov 2001
Posts: 8086

PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2018 7:51 am    Post subject:

I'm leaning to voting yes on 10. Because a local municipality is allowed to implement rent control, does not mean they will do so. Ideally, they should act in the best interests of their citizens and according to what their constituents want. Of course money speaks and developers have great sway, so I would imagine that most municipalities would not be in favor of rent control.

So, it seems, this is either control by the state or control by local government. Generally speaking, the more local the control, the better.
_________________
For the adults in the room only
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
venturalakersfan
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 14 Apr 2001
Posts: 128003
Location: The Gold Coast

PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2018 8:26 am    Post subject:

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.
_________________
It’s a girl, my lord, in a flat bed Ford.......
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
splashmtn
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 30 Aug 2016
Posts: 3017

PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2018 2:49 pm    Post subject:

tox wrote:
Rent control is just bad policy, so I'm a no.

Can you Please explain what rent control is? and then explain why it's a bad policy?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
splashmtn
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 30 Aug 2016
Posts: 3017

PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2018 2:51 pm    Post subject:

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


Joined: 30 Aug 2016
Posts: 3017

PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2018 3:00 pm    Post subject:

https://caltenantlaw.com/rent-control
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
jodeke
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 44534
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered intelligent.

PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2018 3:12 pm    Post subject:

Proposition 10 would repeal the 1995 Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act
Costa Hawkins Rental Housing Act

This seems like a good reason to vote NO on 10

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 cause (such as failure to pay rent). In other words Costa–Hawkins, by now prohibiting "vacancy control" in the above circumstances, mandates that cities allow an apartment owner the right to rent it when vacant at any price (i.e., usually the market price).

Rent control in California is largely the creation of its municipalities. This ability of city governments is limited by the federal and state constitutions, as well as federal and state laws.[5] Costa–Hawkins is a key state statute enacted to manage the power of California cities to regulate their rental markets

_________________
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.


Last edited by jodeke on Tue Oct 09, 2018 5:13 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
K2
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 25 Dec 2011
Posts: 22620

PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2018 4:49 pm    Post subject:

^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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
tox
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 16 Nov 2015
Posts: 13696

PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2018 7:17 pm    Post subject:

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.
_________________
https://j.gifs.com/Rnqnbk.gif
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
venturalakersfan
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 14 Apr 2001
Posts: 128003
Location: The Gold Coast

PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2018 7:24 pm    Post subject:

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.
_________________
It’s a girl, my lord, in a flat bed Ford.......
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 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2
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