In the interest of "transparency" I thought it would be interesting to see who signed the argument for rent control.
John Keener
Evelyn Stivers
Zenaida Cortez
Carolyn Jaramillo
Jerome Foley
It will be interesting to see who signs their rebuttal to argument against Measure C.
http://www.fixpacifica.com/docs/RentControlSigners.pdf
Submitted by Jim Wagner
70 comments:
THIS IS AN OUTRAGE! You cannot have people signing petitions on a measure you cannot vote on.
Yes on C needs to find other signers. Or can you? I guess you can....LOL
Interesting that the people at the catholic church have taken such an interest in housing. This is the same group that blocked a senior citizen complex on site some years back saying it wouldn't fit. Bologna. Classic NIMBY stance. Maybe they don't realize that for every senior that moves from their home to the facility a unit is opened up. Creates a dynamic that eventually can lead to a rental unit opening up.
If they are so interested in this "social justice" issue let them revisit housing on site. Come on, St Pete's, walk the walk.
This is a ballot argument, not a petition. These frequently have signers who represent large endorsing organizations. In this case, it's the Executive Director of the Housing Leadership Council and the President of the California Nurses Association.
Heavens no!! Out of town signers. The sky is falling. So I get why the housing group would be an endorsing group but I wonder if good ole Zenaida received permission to sign on representing all the nurses in the state as their co-president. Things that make me go hmmmm.
Don't forget to give Deirdre Martian credit for Rent Control.
You know how much she craves attention and adoration plus she's really, really smart.
Plus, plus she's a landlord. She should instruct all of the landlords in Pacifica how she provides below market rents so the poor can afford a dwelling and she get's to keep and maintain her building.
How interesting. I wonder where her rental is. In a rent controlled city? If it isn't I wonder if she's called the council there and shared a copy of the rental ordinance she wants to cram down our throats.
Is she really a landlord? I've always been amazed at how many people who say they're for rent control also claim to be landlords. Not sure I believe them.
Yes, she and her husband are evil, greedy landlords. Public records.
Rent control is going to cost the city (us) a million plus dollars a year. Where's it coming from? Landlords, tenants (heaven no!), taxes, perhaps. What's going to get cut to fund their "rent board"? We have no fat in our budget. Cut road repair? Already done. Cut salaries? Talk to the unions. Cut police and fire? They're bare boned now. Hmmmmmmm, perhaps float a tax. hmmmmmmmmmmmm, what to tax. Good luck with that one.
People running this town have gone insane. They have lost sight of what they need to do to run a city. Their progressiveness has clouded their eyesight. +
Deirdre's has more than once used a narrative publicly: That tenants who put her signs up were persecuted by their landlords because she supported rent control. I'm rolling my eyes over the assertion that she herself is a landlord. And if there are landlords trying to control political signs in windows, this should be looked into. Fake news??
You've got your right-wing wackos controlling Washington, and your left-wing wackos controlling Pacifica. Both are more interested in social engineering than running an effective government.
I am moving to exclusive Hillsborough. The city council was able to score me a mansion to live in. They had it built just for me. Why? Why not. I wanted to live there. But I have no money. Who cares? Not me. I just want to live there. Leave me alone, but move out of my way. If you don't like it leave.
Instead of illegally taxing a sliver of the population to underwrite the under housed, Martian, Keener and Digre should donate their homes for the cause they pretend to so self-righteously support. They're thiefs and soon they will be coming after you.
Larry (and anon 4:55) You will be happy to know nobody will be taxed for rent stabilization, and the city won't pay a dollar, it will be paid for entirely by affected renters, with a $19 monthly fee per unit. (It's written into the ballot and cannot be changed.) As a renter myself I would gladly pay $19 each month for what amounts to renters insurance.
Marijuana money will pay for rent control.
4:55, what are you smoking! Simple math will expose the fallacy that Keener and Deirdre spew.
And, what if the renters don't pay it?! You can't kick them out for non payment. How does the city then collect it? What if the landlord tells the city to go get it from the tenant. How does the city plan to do that. What about the cost of collection and tabulating this "fee"? No one knows because no one paid attention to the details. If the city liens the property is it not then a tax?
Don't bogart that joint, my friend.
First of all the estimated cost of funding this phony cause is far above $500,000. Add one piece of litigation, try some enforcement and the cost will easily double. Just check with other cities who have tried this. The $19 dollar a month fee is entirely a lowball estimate and completely inadequate to cover this new burden on our already faltering economy. If tenants don't want to pay it, it falls on the landlord. The city is already a breath away from bankruptcy and now they want to add $100,000's maybe millions to our debt.
They should use their new boy, Danny Stegink on the Planning Commission, to fast track some affordable housing. That's the real cause of this mess.
The City Attorney says:
Total start-up and on-going program costs are estimated to be $697,300. Approximately $200,000 of this amount is onetime costs, which includes election costs. The remaining approximately $497,000 in on-going costs include two program analysts and one administrative assistant. It also includes estimates for necessary professional contracts to administer the program such as a Hearing Officer for tenant petitions, supplies and services, and community education, etc. These costs will be offset by the initial and ongoing per-unit fees discussed in the Ordinance.
As the program costs are estimates only, actual costs that may exceed the estimate will be
amortized and included into the fee in future years by City Council action.
If three people can terminate you at your place of employment if you don't do your job the way they want it done what would you do? Our "city attorney" has one set of bosses back at her office and they have a set of bosses which are the three stooges on our council. Don't do as Moe, Larry, and Curly want and your contract is terminated and since this town is a lucrative fee generator, and soon to be even more lucrative, what would you do?
Question for the rent control brainiacs out there:
There will be substantial start-up costs for this program beginning on day one. Where will that money come from?
What a bunch of crap. Don't let these NOBY's fool you Pacifica. This is a scam which illegally taxes a sliver of the population to subsidize affordable housing without a 2/3 majority.
A class action lawsuit naming Keener, Martian, Digre and Verby is more and more likely the only cure for this farce.
The rent stabilization ordinance is not illegal and is not a tax. These are lies being fed to you by the landlords lobby, the California Apartment Association and the San Mateo County Association of Realtors. Rent control and rent stabilization ordinances have been challenged in the courts numerous times and have been been upheld. Good luck with a class action lawsuit. It will be laughed out of court.
Property values are being hurt right now because of just the talk of Rent Control in Pacifica.
Council should care the most about this problem because property tax is by far the BIGGEST contributor to the city's budget. Too bad they don't know the difference between being social directors and the competent workings of a real life city.
Oh yea, these incompetent fools need to be sued and they will be. It's illegal to steal other people's money no matter how you lie and relabel it.
The California Apartment Association dropped its lawsuits of voter-approved rent stabilization ordinances in Mountain View and Richmond because they knew they would lose. The courts decided years ago that rent control is not illegal. The US Supreme Court rejected a rent control challenge. The legality of these ordinances is not in question.
There's no evidence that property values are being hurt. Property values are increasing all the time.
1:37 and 4:05 are delusional and probably the same person. This rent control has added sections that step all over the rights of property owners. It's 20 pages long and there are so many parts that refer to future council action that it's an opened ended invitation for the 3 goof ball council members to pass more devastating restrictions and fees on Pacifica property owners. Beware Pacifica, perdition be coming.
6:31 see you in court.
Notice that the rent control advocates avoid answering the question (because there is no answer):
Lorenzo Hines stated that the city is projected to have a $1.5 million+ deficit in the upcoming fiscal year; so where is Pacifica going to get the hundreds of thousands of dollars to get the rent control program up and running?
Don't believe the smoke they're blowing up your ass; the $19/unit/month will be collected down the line. In the meantime, there are several hundred thousand dollars to come up with. Where will it come from?
[cue the crickets]
Question, your question was answered above.
Owners of multiple unit buildings are feeling the pain of shrinking property values right now.
Would be buyers do not want to get caught up in Pacifica's NOBY Reign of Terror.
They already know that there is little to no respect for Private Property Rights in Pacifica. Development of any kind is verboten (including affordable housing).
Rent Control will become just one more weapon in the NOBY arsenal to take away rights of others and protect what they perceive belongs only to them.
Over the years they have promulgated phony endangered specie emergencies, traffic congestion or no (depending on what outcome they want), sea level rise and now they are exploiting our housing shortage by imposing Rent Control on a sliver of the population to subsidize their real goal which is to not allow any housing to be built, affordable or not. These people are the true enemies of Pacifica. They manipulated the election to get their 3-2 "nothing for Pacifica" illegitimate majority back and they are wasting no time to further mire Pacifica in an economic meltdown to keep outsiders away.
Selfish, unethical, dishonest and cold hearted is the only way to characterize this cult.
They've got theirs, screw everyone else.
Can anyone provide any names of the people in this so called "NOBY Cult"?
Notice that 4:24 refuses to answer the question. No surprise.
Where is the $200-300k for the startup costs coming from, 4:24?
(note: for the slower NIMBIES among us, the startup costs are incurred long before any fees will be collected from renters)
The $19 rent control assessment will be collected and then placed in a Time Machine, to be sent back six months to cover the program's startup costs. DUH!
List the nobies! Start the St Peter PIA list all the way up to their priest who signed the supporting ballot for rent control. Of course you could make the argument that he represents all 1800 or so families and individuals that belong to that parish. Did they all sign on or did a small group of nobies, see PIA list, pressure the priest to put his name on the ballot? Then go to Pacifica Progressives. There's a classic nobie group. Re-distribute middle class income and property to anointed groups. The classic vallemartians, Bohner, Verby, Hall, Laure (she who shall not be named) and a little farther south, Loeb. The list goes on and on. 2-300 people driving their agenda for 40,000 residents. They adhere to the strategy that they who yell loudest win and anything is fair. Unethical, morally corrupt, lies are all strategies. It helps to be unemployed or retired since the majority of Pacificans are trying to make an honest living.
The question was answered. The city will be reimbursed for the startup costs through the fees. It's called budgeting. If the fees don't cover the costs, the city council will raise the fees.
If tenants don't want to pay the fee it falls on the landlord who won't have any enforcement power. In other words, yet another illegal tax on private property owners without the required 2/3 vote for approval. Your land is THEIR land, from Fairmont to Pedro Point to Linda Mar.
Surrender to the NOBY cult.
Oh my dearest 12:35, you are so close to achieving enlightenment. As you just said, the startup costs will be reimbursed. So ponder this: where does the city get the $600K up-front money before it's reimbursed?
Please remember that the city just barely made payroll and will be facing a $1.5 million deficit (per L. Hines).
I guess rent control proponents don't understand how time operates because in order to collect the fees to pay for the program, the program has to already be in place. Are supporters planning using a time machine to make this work or are they going to print a few hundred thousand in phony currency, cuz P-Town ain't got the cash to front for this. Both?
Hello, class. After the summer, I can see that some of our slower students need a refresher. Here's today's word problem:
12:35 advertises his car for sale.
I call him up and offer him $10,000 in cash if he will drive it over to my house.
"Sorry, the gas tank is empty and I don't have any money," says 12:35.
I tell him, "No problem, just drive it over here and you can fill it up after I give you the $10,000."
QUESTION: HOW LONG DOES 12:35 SIT IN HIS DRIVEWAY STARING AT HIS STEERING WHEEL UNTIL HE 'FIGURES IT OUT?'
Class, here's another word problem for extra points:
12:35 has no money or credit, but he does have a great plan: he's going to get clothing from Ross and sell it online as "vintage" for a significant markup. Just think of all the profit!
Out of Ross he walks with an armful of merchandise, ready to put his plan into action.
"Sir, sir! You need to pay for that!" yells the Ross security guard, chasing after him.
"Pay for this? Ha-ha, no worries! I'll be selling it all in a few months and I'll have the money for you then," 12:35 smugly responds.
QUESTION: HOW MANY TIMES IS 12:35 TAZED BY THE POLICE BEFORE HE FINALLY 'FIGURES IT OUT?'
12:35 has a great plan. He's going to bake bread and sell it to friends and neighbors around town. The trouble is, he has no money to buy the ingredients.
"That's no problem," says the Rent Controller, "Just buy the ingredients with all the bread you sell."
"Brilliant!" says 12:35.
How long does 12:35 stand in the checkout line at Safeway before he 'figures it out?'
GREAT MOMENTS IN NIMBY ACCOUNTING HISTORY, 2017 EDITION
"The program startup costs will be paid for by the fees collected after the program has stared."
Good times, good times; thanks for the laugh. Yep, that one's a doozy. What's the weather like on your planet?
It's evident that somebody on here doesn't understand anything about municipal finance.
My friend wants to buy a new car. He doesn't have the money right now but he has a good job at Google with a very good salary. The car dealer told him he could get the car now and based on his future income he could pay for it later. I'm not very smart so I can't understand how this works. I told my friend he wouldn't be able to buy the car unless he had the money first. He went ahead and bought the car anyway. I don't understand how this is possible. Somebody please explain it to me.
I'm going suggest that the know-it-alls take a field trip to Lorenzo's office and get the real story about how close a thing it is for the city to make payroll every two weeks.
Then you can explain how Pacifica's going to front the money for the rent control program. A bridge loan is one way, I suppose, but let's get real: we don't have the money and until the rent control advocates nail this issue down, it ain't passing.
From the city of Pacifica rent stabilization page:
How will the City pay for this new program?
The ballot measure would establish a $6 per unit one-time registration fee to cover start-up costs and would initially establish a $19 per month fee to cover ongoing operational costs for each unit covered by the ordinance. Landlords would be allowed to pass the fees on to tenants. The fees are intended to pay for the costs of the program.
http://www.cityofpacifica.org/depts/planning/rent_stabilization.asp
Yes, yes, 11:23, I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today. I guess the people administering and collecting the $6/unit startup fee will be working for free. How nice of them!
It's looking more and more like the real answer is: "We have no idea how the program will be paid for on day one."
Yes, talk to Lorenzo and have him explain to you how the rent stabilization start-up costs will be financed.
That's a bargain. The tenant pays $6 and get's a guarantee for life that they can never be evicted. Then they can refuse to pay the $19 monthly fee which certainly go up to cover the REAL cost of this bureaucratic boondoggle and the landlord can't to one fucking thing about it.
Ask Deirdre if this is how it works with her rental?
Well, 11:23, explain this quandary that David put forth:
David said...
4:55, what are you smoking! Simple math will expose the fallacy that Keener and Deirdre spew.
And, what if the renters don't pay it?! You can't kick them out for non payment. How does the city then collect it? What if the landlord tells the city to go get it from the tenant. How does the city plan to do that. What about the cost of collection and tabulating this "fee"? No one knows because no one paid attention to the details. If the city liens the property is it not then a tax?
Don't bogart that joint, my friend.
August 28, 2017 at 7:12 AM
Real time challenges not addressed by the city or the ordinance. How would you go about this? None of the cost associated with this have any kind or real world vetting done. Staff was told do it and they complied.
Oh, and the city has never put forth bad info. i.e. tar balls on the beach. Those tar balls are one of the reasons we're forced to spend millions to dig a hole behind the community center.
"Ask Lorenzo" LOL
The rent-controllers are going to have to figure out how to explain it, not Lorenzo, if they want this thing to pass in November.
There's no point in discussing something that's been explained several times with people who either can't or won't understand.
Refer them to this city web page: http://www.cityofpacifica.org/depts/planning/rent_stabilization.asp
You can post that link all you want, BUT STILL...nobody can answer the simple question:
Where is the money coming from to pay for the administrative services to collect the start-up funds?
Just remember this all you that want to negate private property rights: Rent control is an attempt to get the benefits of homeownership without responsibilities.
9:44 The question has been repeatedly answered. If you can't understand it, the problem is with you, not with the program. Most people can understand how you budget for services from future revenues, especially in a multi-million dollar city budget with many funds and revenues sources. Apparently you can't grasp that.
Rent control and rent stabilization ordinances have been passed in many cities in California and the U.S. The courts have upheld them as legal.
What's so hard to understand? The fees would begin to be collected, bringing in $50,000 a month or so, upon passage of the measure.
That's not hard to understand at all, but you're missing the point.
The program will take at least $200K to set up, with maybe another $50 - $100K before any funds can be collected and administered. (And that ignores the possibility of any lawsuits or other, unforeseen costs.) In a city facing a $1.5M budget deficit next year, where do you find a quarter million - and maybe much more - to fund this? What would YOU like to make deeper cuts to? Cops? Firemen? Public works? All three?
That would be how a well run city would finance the program, but this is Pacifica. The budget presentation given a few months ago projected a $1,600,000 deficit in FY 2018.
Pacifica doesn't have the funds to "loan" any startup money to kick off this dumb scam.
Rent control has been passed in a handful of cities (primarily large cities with far more resources than the city of Pacifica; in the entire Bay Area we have SF, Oakland, Berkeley, San Jose, East Palo Alto, and recently Richmond, and Mountain View) not many others. The EPA program is largely underwater due to lack of resources. In California, there are only 15 out of 482 cities with rent control (3.1%). One can argue that it hasn't helped many in SF, Berkeley, San Jose or Oakland, but has elevated rents in remaining non-rent control apartments. No other city in San Mateo County has enacted. Why...because the almighty real estate moguls have said it is bad? No, it hasn't passed because it doesn't work, has multiple unintended consequences to the welfare of the city in which it is enacted - including raising the costs to housing that isn't under rent control (supply and demand), because it deters businesses from investing in the city where it is enacted, it disincentivizes rental ownership, and it creates a distrustful relationship between owner and tenant, in addition to other issues. Renters need stability and a system that can work and that will help them with the current gentrification issues we are facing. This isn't the answer and I think we are wise to heed the recommendations of the large majority of economists and housing specialists on this issue and start pursuing other solutions in partnership with San Mateo County and the entire Bay Area.
The Rent Controllers want you to believe that the program will be fully paid for and solvent the second it comes into existence. Like...somehow the money will have been collected to pay for the administration of the program in its first nanosecond.
It's a window into Rent Controllers' thinking that they can't grasp the concept that a group of people will have to work and organize and administer the program that identifies renters and collects the fees from them long before the money actually comes in to city coffers.
Do Rent Controllers think these people will be working for free until the money comes in months later? As numerous city officials have stated on the record: there are going to be several hundreds of thousands of dollars that must be spent before a single nickel comes in from renter fees. And this in a year when Pacifica's budget will be $1.6 million underwater. So yeah, good luck with that.
But it's a dumb program to begin with, all the moreso because there's no evidence that the City of Pacifica can successfully manage a program of this scope. Hell, Pacifica can't even manage it's own sewer system, pavement and budget, or police its own roads!
It doesn't matter what any of you people think. Keener, Martian and Digre promised their puppet masters that they would institute rent control.
BONUS .... it will harm the evil rich people who dare to make investments for their retirement instead of sucking off the government.
As a current tenant and concerned about rent increases, can someone explain to me a couple questions:
1. If I currently live in Pacifica and have been a long term tenant, am I guaranteed a rent controlled apartment? This would be a great incentive. As a long term tenant how does this benefit me?
2. My daughter lives in a rental on LM Blvd - is this going to affect her rent? I understand that she won't be affected by this initiative but people have told me a possible effect is that her rent will increase due to an increased demand for housing. This concerns me.
3. I have a friend that wants to move to Pacifica because she has been offered a job but she doesn't have a place to stay as of yet. I am assuming rent control won't help her because she is new to the area and isn't wanted?
Feedback wanted and appreciate the fact I can ask these questions anonymously as I know this can be a contentious issue!
An ordained priest is not permitted to persuade voters or get involved in local politics. Five Our Fathers and ten Hail Marys for Father Foley. I am sure the Archbishop would like to have his own copy showing the signers. Maybe he'll whack him over the head with it to knock some sense into him.
9:36, if you live in a building with 3 or more apartments, and the building was built before February 1, 1995, then you'd be covered by rent control.
From what I've observed, rents in places not covered by rent control end up being higher than they otherwise would be. There's less turnover in rent controlled apartments, so there's more competition for non-rent controlled apartments. That drives rents up.
It's probably too late for your friend to benefit from rent control if she moves to Pacifica. Since landlords are worried that rent increases in the future will be limited, they've been raising rents so they don't get stuck renting out a property at far-below-market rates.
Thank you father Foley for adhering to a true and compassionate Christian gospel by showing concern for protecting the less privileged.
The landlords are spreading lies and hate in an attempt to exploit the current housing crisis. Thank goodness the Pacifica City Council is an independent voice for the People of Pacifica and have put Measure C on the ballot to allow the people of Pacifica to decide on Rent Stabilization and Just cause eviction.
Joe Hill, possibly, just possibly it has more to do with the fact that rent control doesn't work and has more negative consequences than good? This has nothing at all to do with religion or good versus evil so please get off your high horse. Why the constant badgering of the people who disagree with the best way to address gentrification? Why exactly would it benefit real estate agents to fight so hard against rent control? How does it hurt or benefit them to have or not have rent control? I don't like rent control because I feel it is the wrong solution - it absolutely does not benefit people that need it the most, but benefits people currently in rent controlled apartments. If in a couple years my parents who have lived here their entire life, need rent control there will be no places available. This has nothing to do with protecting people who have lived here their entire life and has more to do with protecting those that have been lucky enough to be currently renting an apartment in Pacifica. It creates a terrible and contentious relationship between landlord and tenant, and disincentivizes rental ownership in Pacifica so we will see lots of conversions of apartments into condos. This is simply a disagreement in terms of the best way to address this issue. Stop demonizing people who disagree and please lets start talking about a multitude of solutions that may benefit all parties. Just hoping for some higher level, fact-based discussions about a very serious issue.
Keener, Martian and Digre will surely maneuver to prevent condo conversion as well. They don't know what they are doing and neither do their puppet masters.
What they do know how to do is completely screw up the market, create blight, halt investment and ultimately degrade a woefully inadequate supply of affordable housing.
Oh yea and don't forget that this is the same group of geniuses who have been preventing any construction of housing for the last 30 years. They caused the problem and now they want to steal our money and screw with private property rights to put a band-aid on their malpractice.
Oh, poor deluded Joe. Why don't we ask the good parishioners of St Peters, with all that vacant land, to build low income housing on their grounds. It would be the right thing.
Yea, and watch those same people go bat-shit crazy along with the heather people of park Pacifica. Nimbyism at it's best.
There is a very real mathematical explanation in regards to how rent control affects the economy - some may not care because they believe there are things more important than economics ( and it's not their money anyway) but it is a good place to start: Salman Khan does an excellent job in describing. Let's talk facts first and then we can discuss solutions: https://www.khanacademy.org/economics-finance-domain/microeconomics/consumer-producer-surplus/deadweight-loss-tutorial/v/rent-control-dead-weight-cost
Post a Comment