Thursday, October 15, 2015

Rent control is good for both local business and the City

Image result for rent control picture
Fairness for people who rent
I'm glad to see the city council is seriously considering rent control. This needs to happen fast. It will only apply to apartments so homeowners really have no reason to oppose it. And it can't be said that rent control drives down values, just look at San Francisco or NYC who have had rent control for decades.

This will also be good for local businesses and the city. The more money renters have to spare the more they can afford to spend.

The only negative is that landlords have less incentive to fix up their units. But at the rates they are getting now that won't be an issue for a long time. The sooner the better. this needs to be fast tracked before more long time Pacifica families are driven out of town.

Submitted by Bob Hutchinson

Note:  the above text was printed as a Pacifica Tribune Letter to the Editor from Bob Hutchinson, titled "Rent Control", 10/13/15.  Photograph image from King 5/Seattle.

Posted by Kathy Meeh


Anonymous said...

Carlyle Group will just sue us if we mess with their S42m investment.

We can't afford another lawsuit and we should be very careful to not do anything too scary legally.

The Local Libertarian said...

Rent control is a well intentioned approach that has resulted in wild peaks in rental prices for those renters not covered by rent control.

For instance, in the same building in SF, you can find a similar apartment being rented for $800/month (covered by rent control) or $2400/month (not covered by rent control).

Over time the cost of maintenance goes up which then can force the owners to charge the new rental higher to compensate for rent controlled low value renters. The benefits are dubious at best. The problem of high rents is because of in affordability due to falling real wages. So that is a separate problem to solve and "fixing" prices is not it.

For most workers, real wages have barely budged for decades

Anonymous said...

Years ago legislators ignored homeowners losing homes because of market based property taxes.Prop 13 taxing limits was enacted.

Pacifica cannot ignore renters being unfairly taken advantage of.

Rent stabilization and evictions is a local issue.

Council members with real estate rentals or interests affected by rent stabilization or eviction ordinance should disclose that fact in order to get fair hearings.

Anonymous said...

Agree. Why do you think our Mayor is so obsessed about being sued?

Anonymous said...

Who says this will affect Carlyle Group? Rent control would be for apartments. Too late to enact this for the trailer park. Just more scare tactics from those in the real estate biz.


Rent and home prices will always be determined by location, supply and demand and people's ability to pay.
Many bay area cities are "exploring and discussing" rent control, which is fine. However the smart ones are focusing on ways to increase housing stock (including affordable and high density), connectivity to public transit, job creation and public safety.
If Pacifica continues to naively believe that restraining growth and adding rent control will solve this problem we will insure our place as the biggest losers in the bay area.

Anonymous said...

How do these renters propose the city of Pacifica will set up a rent control board? Do you realize how much money the city of SF spends to run the rent control department.

You people are dreaming or smoking too much pot.

Anonymous said...

There is already a rent stabilization ordinance for the mobile home park in the Pacifica Municipal Code. You can look it up online. That's why the owner wants to get rid of the current residents, so they can raise the rents higher than the code allows.
CHAPTER 1. - MOBILE HOME PARKS, Article 2. - Rent Stabilization Regulations

Anonymous said...

"Why do you think our Mayor is so obsessed about being sued?"
.....because she has a brain in her head and knows that messing with other people's legal rights and investments will result in our bankruptcy. Pacifica can't even fill it's potholes let alone withstand a gigantic lawsuit that has absolutely no merit to begin with.
Thanks Mayor Ervin for being sensible with our public trust.

Anonymous said...

Mayor Ervin hasn't done a thing to Palmetto.

Therefore she still gets an F from me!

Anonymous said...

Mayor is obsessed with being sued because you hippies keep sueing her.

Anonymous said...

And what should/can she do for Palmetto?

Anonymous said...

Get rid of all those trailers on the beach for starters.

Palo Alto would never allow that.

We've been complaining about those trailers since Karen Ervin Was in high school.

Have some vision for Pete's sake and stop being strictly reactionary.

Pacifica is the only beach town around with a trailer park blocking the view.

Anonymous said...

6:31 - that would be "taking". If you want the trailer-homes cleared, you'll have to make just compensation to the owner. Carlyle paid upwards of $42 million. And City of Pacifica cannot.

However, I do think CCC has become a curse and a hindrance. Actually, it quite resembles a shake down organization. I can understand control/stewardship of un-developed coast-line. But that coastline which is already developed, we should consider further development and optimizations.

Anonymous said...

California. Coastal Commission taking property rights from land owners. .

If i don't want the public using my beach property they can't make me give up my rights.

They don't have any authority over the trailer park because it's city property.

Anonymous said...

Wrong 7:48. Coastal Commission has authority over all development in the city west of highway 1. City property has nothing to do with it.

Anonymous said...

748pm you need to do a little research before you post any further.

You are wrong three for three

Anonymous said...

"If i don't want the public using my beach property they can't make me give up my rights." You don't own the beach below the mean high tide line. It's not your beach property, it's public property.