Wanna_Know_More

http://www.reddit.com/user/Wanna_Know_More

Highest Rated Comments

Wanna_Know_More566 karma

When considering things like this, I like to think of the worst way it could go wrong.

So... how would you account for or address the following scenario:

  1. Corporate developers and landlords see their bottom line impacted by these rent control limits.

  2. They turn all of their existing units into condominiums to sell, and do not renew the rental leases of their current occupants.

  3. They use the money from the condos they sell to buy cheaper apartment units in poorer areas, and bump up rent prices to account for the rent control limitations.

  4. The supply of cheaper rental units tanks. New supply is priced higher in poorer areas.

  5. Rental prices and property values increase in these poorer areas, accelerating gentrification.

  6. Suddenly, the poor and/or disenfranchised population you hoped to help find themselves in a weird situation. Their rent may be controlled, but if their landlord ever decides to sell or not renew their leases, they have no options, as they're priced out of their area and displaced. Property values and rent prices are now increasing more rapidly.

Can you please explain why this wouldn't happen or how it will be prevented? It sounds like the language of the proposition undermines its own stated objectives, and it makes housing even more expensive for the next generation of renters.

Wanna_Know_More98 karma

Right, so if the system of rent control adds to gentrification, which will displace more disenfranchised renters, this proposition then undermines its own objective.

In places like LA, this would exacerbate already overwhelming supply shortages and dramatically increase rent and housing prices in a market that already has low vacancy rates and high population growth.

Newer generations of renters will be priced out of California and add to the already large numbers of Californians leaving the state for cheaper places.

I can't find any winners in this proposition. Even if it accomplished its goal of allowing all poor families to stay in their apartments forever, what happens to their kids when they grow up and need to find a place to live? What happens if the poor family needs to move for a new job or other reasons?

The downsides are so horrible and the stated upsides so unrealistic that I have to imagine the writer of this proposition is either uninformed or has some weird political agenda that I can't fathom.