Wednesday, September 20, 2017

Some reasons for my opposition to Measure C rent control

Assar Lindbeck is Professor of Economics at Stockholm University

First, I don't believe in price controls. Government regulation to allow for fair competition - yes. Price controls - no. We're not Venezuela, even though at times the rhetoric from the NIMBYS and Pacifica Progressive Alliance folks makes me wonder. Our economy was designed so that when demand and prices are high, new supplies are allowed into the market to drive down those prices. The NIMBYS are not allowing new housing supplies into the market, so demand and prices stay high. 

Did rent control solve the problem of high rents in places like SF, San Jose, Berkeley, or Manhattan? Considering they have among the highest rents in the country, it's tough to say anything other than, "No." 

Second, people think rent control solves the issue of high housing costs, and therefore they ignore the need to increase housing supply. That's what happened in SF. The city finally recognized the problem, and for the last several years has been on an accelerated program to add housing. That's when rents started to stabilize. 

Third, I've known plenty of mom and pop landlords who invested a lot of their savings into buying their rental property, and who work hard to maintain it. Many of them don't have the money to hire a property manager, so instead of relaxing during their free time, they're at their rental properties fixing things, painting, cutting the grass, trimming the bushes. Yet the NIMBYS characterize them as wealthy, greedy property tycoons who can easily afford to take a hit when it comes to rental revenues. 

Fourth, rather than pinpointing people who really need help, it's a lottery. People who could use the help but don't live in affected units don't get a break. Renters who have good incomes and don't need the help end up being subsidized by landlords who could very well have less income than the renters. 

Fifth, in order to make up for limited revenues from existing tenants, landlords have to jack-up rents for new tenants beyond what they otherwise would be. Rent control doesn't solve a problem. It merely pushes the problem from one group of renters onto the backs of other renters and landlords. 

Sixth, landlords lose an incentive to maintain their properties. That brings down property values in the neighborhood, and makes those neighborhoods less desirable places to be. 

Seventh, the rent increases are capped so low that costs could easily exceed revenue from rent. And I don't believe landlords should be made to grovel before a city board for permission to raise rents to cover costs, any more than any business should have to ask the city for permission about what they can charge. I've been in Pacifica long enough to know that any city rent control board will purposefully make it so difficult and expensive to ask for a rent increase that landlords won't even bother. 

Eighth, I hate seeing the NIMBYS that have caused the problem in the first place escape responsibility for their actions. They need to recognize they're a big part of the problem and stop blocking new housing. 

Finally, as brutal as it sounds, if you can't afford to live here, you can't afford to live here. I used to rent and moved out of apartments because of rent increases. It sucked and was stressful, but I survived. If businesses can't find workers because workers can't afford to live here, it's up to the companies to increase pay. It's not the responsibility of landlords to provide a supply of workers to businesses. And again, it would sure help if NIMBYS stopped working to prevent increases in the housing supply. 

All that said, I've publicly commented in council chambers and at rent control study sessions that I'd go for rent control that capped rent increases at 15% per year, and required longer notification times for rent increases. Seems like a decent compromise between those of us who would prefer no rent control, and those who want a more onerous version.

Posted by Steve Sinai


Jim said...

Thanks Steve. Well thought out and presented. It's a welcome breath of reality to the hysteria going on surrounding this issue.

Curious George said...

Anyone attend the Pacifica Democrats meeting? I'm curious how that went down...Did the club endorse Measure C?

Anonymous said...

Steve, your letter should be required reading for all City Councils. I hope that the voting public in Pacifica and elsewhere take heed of your expression. I suggest you also submit it to the San Mateo Daily Journal for dissemination.

Anonymous said...

Assar Lindbeck is Professor of Economics at Stockholm University

That makes him qualified and "in the know" of the market trend in Pacifica real estate.

Find an article from someone from UCSF or USF.

Anonymous said...

UCSF is a medical school.

Anonymous said...


UCSF on 19th Avenue is a State University.

USF is a private school with many different major.

Professor Steve Sinai said...

The school on 19th Ave is SF State, not UCSF.

Anonymous said...

Pacifica real estate does not follow traditional economic models and the city's market trends can only be comprehended by those sitting on their thumbs in university offices no further than 30 miles from it.

Why am I'm not surprised that the dude who doesn't know jack about local universities believes this?

mike bell said...

Curious George...The Pacifica/Daly City Democrats Club was exactly as billed:
a panel discussion to help citizens make an informed decision on Measure C.
There were no endorsements for or against.

President Connie Menefee did an excellent job moderating the panel discussion held between two supporters of Measure C and two opponents of Measure C. Questions submitted in writing at the beginning of the meeting were presented to the panel for in-depth discussions. All four panelists were given equal time to make their points. The standing room only audience was very polite and attentive for the entirety of the two hour meeting.

Unfortunately the meeting was marred by the Cynthia Kaufman contingency who hissed when the No on C panelists spoke followed by a very loud "YOU'RE LIARS!" insult shouted from the back of the room. Several people who opposed Measure C also felt intimidated by the video phone recorders aimed at them for the entire meeting. Connie Menefee's polite request of them to be more respectful was ignored as they refused to stop recording.
To my knowledge, Jane Northrop of the Pacifica Tribune, who was sitting with this same group, did not report any of this childish and belligerent behavior. Why not?

Thursday Roberts, the Campaign Manager for Measure C and one of the panelists, kept accusing the No on C proponents of using fear tactics to frighten voters into opposing the measure. In a very strange twist of irony, she would tell the audience in the very same sentence, that Measure C must be passed so tenants can protect themselves against the greedy and indifferent landlords and real estate professionals who want to callously evict them for no cause and raise rents to un-affordable heights. Fear tactics anyone?

A very noticeable dodge came from councilman John Keener at the end of the meeting. When asked what would prevent council from expanding Measure C after it was approved, to include duplexes, condos, single family homes, etc. and raise the monthly fees to cover a much higher bureaucratic expense than they are currently selling, he replied, "no changes can happen without a vote"...He was very slyly referring to a vote by council, NOT THE GENERAL PUBLIC, but the meeting was over and there was no time for follow-up questions.

This is the very same 3-2 majority council who has been very quickly passing a flurry of measures and actions while granting consultancy contracts to supporters of their thinly veiled ideologies. Instead of rolling up their sleeves and doing the hard work of competently enhancing Pacifica for the safety and benefit of all, they prefer to waste our time and taxes on social engineering, managed retreat, squashing revenue generation and placating their narrow constituency.

All in all, a very revealing meeting.
I sure hope Pacificans are paying attention and planning to vote.

Curious George said...

Thank you Mike Bell for the report. could not attend.

Anonymous said...

Just a quick comment regarding the Pacifica Fishwrap, sorry... Tribune, and Mr. Bell's above comment. During the 2002 recall attempt, we tried to get the message out to the voters/public through the Tribune, specifically about the egregious fiscal malfeasance of Pacifica spearheaded by 4 of the 5 Councilmembers (i.e., Vreeland, Dejarnatt, Lancelle, Digre; Cal Hinton excluded). We had documents, invoices, memorandum, etc. to back our assertions. The FW/Trib, led by editor Chris Hunter and followed without question by his supporting cast (e.g., Larsen, Northrop), ignored all of it. Instead, they preferred to cover the feel good stories that promoted the Gang of 4 aforementioned Councilmembers. The FW/Trib has always been in the tank for the extreme environmentalists and the no-growthers of Pacifica. Chris Hunter, the editor at the time, was a regular guest at Jim Vreeland's home. No chance of objective reporting there.

I strongly recommend those of you with convictions, ethics, morals and a general concern for the solvency and future of Pacifica, to send a message to the FW/Trib. The best message is always through the pocketbook. I suggest that you cancel your subscriptions with an explanation. Until we get fair balance and objective reporting in our local paper (which will be reflected at the ballot box through a much more informed constituency), why even bother with a local paper? Seriously.

PhD in Blog-ology said...


You didn't make the marks to get into either.

City College, maybe!

Sharon said...

This is the 2nd time I've either experienced or heard of intimidating tactics being used at local meetings by Pacifica's NIMBYS and extreme enviromentalists. It's really quite disturbing. It would probably be a good idea for local meeting planners to be sure to plan for good video coverage of all future meetings and remind all attendees to wear their jack boots.

Kant said...

I attended the Saturday fairy tale reading myself. The no side attempted to make their case by using examples from the verbiage of the ordinance and explaining what it meant. It was so scary. I rather listen to the prattle by Keener and the fairy godmother next to him. Much less scary. We must "trust" them. Yes, master.

There are no passions quite as hot and pleasurable as those of the deluded. 
Compared to the bliss of delusion, its vivid colors, blazing lights, explosions, 
whistles and liberating joys, the search for evidence is a deadly bore. 
                                                                                    — Arthur Miller

Steve Sinai said...

@9:11AM, While it does feel like Jane Northrop is very sympathetic to the NIMBY point of view, the current Tribune publisher seems to lean conservative. Elaine Larson would write editorials critical of the grip NIMBYS had on Pacifica. I hate the idea of boycotting the Tribune simply because it doesn't tow a particular party line.

The 2002 recall was very misguided. I was no fan of Vreeland, Digre, DeJarnatt and Lancelle, but trying to recall them right after they were elected was a big mistake. It looked like a case of sour grapes more than anything, and it ultimately ended up strengthening the four council members that were the subject of the recall effort.

Anonymous said...

The reasons for the recall attempt were sound as documented at The fact that you and the community at large did not support it was more a statement as to wholesale political apathy of Pacificans or the fact that the Pacifica Tribune made every effort to discredit it on behalf of their NIMBY constituents.

I suppose you are blaming the strength of the current Pacifica City Council NIMBY/NOBIE/extreme environmental majority on the 2002 failed recall also?

Anonymous said...

The Pacifica Trib is little more than a pile of junk coupon shopping inserts. It's a mirror of our pathetic little un-involved community that the loony lefties have figured out how to use for their selfish propaganda.
If we really want to change our town for the better, boycott this goofy cult and their mean agenda. Start with John Keener, Deirdre Martian and Sue Digre. Hold them accountable. Call out their lies. Don't let them be vague or fuzzy about their agendas.
Boycotting the Tribune makes no difference so don't waste your energy.

amy vegan said...

Elaine Larsen with an E. Not on O. RIP, dear friend.

mike bell said...

Elaine was a tough little cookie, unafraid to stand up to bullies and tell it like it is.
I miss her.

Anonymous said...

I heard that Ian Butler was announcing the names of the people in the Fog Festival parade and when Sue Vaterlaus and Mike O'Neill went by he announced them and then said they are realtors to the crowd. Can someone confirm this please.

Anonymous said...

Not sure, but PCT will have the video up in the next day or two.

Steve Sinai said...

I wouldn't be surprised if Ian announced them like that. He also insists Deirdre Martin ran a clean campaign.

Only a small group of NIMBYS/hippies is obsessed with realtors. Most everyone views being a realtor as just another job. Sue and Mike probably appreciated the free advertising.

Kathy Meeh (vote progress, not NIMBY) said...

117,405, good. Then thanks to Ian Butler for advertising two good Realtors. And thankfully Realtors have been able to provide valuable, essential, needed services for this community.
Only wish at least one (1) more non-NIMBY (pro-community progress) member were elected to City Council (trending back to a positive, stable City commercial and residential infrastructure).

Steve's article #8 "..I hate seeing the NIMBYS that have caused the problem in the first place escape responsibility for their actions. They need to recognize they're a big part of the problem and stop blocking new housing."

wake up Pacifica said...

The fact that realtors are just regular working folks paying their bills and taxes and providing for their families and community is what really ticks these NIMBY's off.
The Pacifica NIMBY faux-enviro cult values the "appearance" of:
community concern
However they thoroughly recoil if it doesn't benefit them directly or serve their goal of selfish entitlement. They have to villanize realtors to keep the spotlight off of their own extremely unethical behavior. These hypocrites see nothing wrong with gaming the system to dump Mary Ann in order to install their little puppet Deirdre. These are the real enemies of Pacifica.

Anonymous said...


Anyone who makes money is the enemy of the dirty nasty Hippies, noobees, and nimby's

Anonymous said...

Mike O'Neil was never a full time realtor. He was a bus driver who came to his office for the comradery and took a listening when someone he knew wanted to sell.

Sue was/is a full time realtor.

wake up Pacifica said...

Sooner or later the average middle of the road, hardworking, taxpaying Pacifican will open their eyes and realize that these phony, self righteous hypocrites who look down their noses at everyone not in their cult are despicable people. Their pretend concern for the environment is nothing but a ruse to drive "outsiders" away. They don't care how much damage they do to our economy and infrastructure, as long as they've got theirs.
It's time to call these freaks out and expose their nasty little schemes. They gotta go!

Joe Truth said...

Ian Butler, would never have anyone on hi TV show who has a different opinion than he and his hippie pot smoking base.

The Reaper said...

9:17, you're an ignorant asshole. There was absolutely no reason for the post other than an ugly attempt to validate your miserable life. You failed.

Steve Sinai said...

When it first started, I was on Ian's show a couple of times. Back then he'd have people with opposing opinions on, although the show would generally be slanted toward his own viewpoint. Haven't watched it in years, so I have no idea what's going on with it these days.

Anonymous said...

Don't agree with everything posted on Fixpacifica - socially, I am an extremely liberal Dem, and a fiscal conservative. Having said that, this talk about rent control has me got me frustrated. Wish Nihart and Ervin were still in office - they had a middle of the road balanced view of things that this Council doesn't seem to have. Didn't agree with them on everything, but they were fair and reasonable and compassionate individuals and concerned about the future of all Pacificans. Don't get that from the current majority council. I am not a fan of rent control because I don't think it helps those it is meant to help. Sadly, it won't help those on a fixed income or the most in need for all the reasons Steve has pointed out. I have my own house and will never be a landlord or a renter, but believe this initiative will do more harm than good.

Anonymous said...

All of the above is why we need Eric Ruchames on Council in 2018 in Sue Digre's seat.
Let's plan and give Eric our support.

Anonymous said...

Eric Ruchame,s want the city to go $35,000,000 to $40,000,000 in debt to build the pipe dream library at the sea.

Pacifica can't afford this. No way! No How!

Steve Sinai said...

I sent a few comments regarding Ian Butler to the spam folder. To the person who want to make all kinds of accusations against Ian, you're going to either have to figure out how to make your point without the personal insults, or use your real name when you post.

Anonymous said...

Hey Reaper.... only an asshole calls other people assholes, you big rectum.

Anonymous said...

I've heard a few things about Measure C that are making me nervous. Is it true that if the landlord wants to allow a family member to move into a rent-controlled apartment they own under the just-cause eviction clause they can only do so if the family member is also a 50% owner? So if I want my son or daughter (or mom or dad) to move in I have to give them half the property? What if I have more than 1 child or want to sell for my retirement one day?
I also was told that if the tenant is 62 or has been there for 5 years or longer, under no circumstances can I evict them to move my own parent or child in? And this is all on top of a three-month rent relocation fee. This just sounds so unfair -it's my apartment and I may have bought it for a time that my parent or child needs it! I worry that landlords in this situation will be less likely to rent to the elderly or those that are likely to stay for more than 5 years. This has turned me into a No vote.

Anonymous said...

I've seen so many good families and freinds leave Pacifica do to rent increases, not to mentions good teachers. I don't know any solution to the problem. New building could help, but you would also need immigration control. Sanctuary City status certainly does not help.

Anonymous said...

Here is a link that describes the consequences of rent control in two minutes:
The pro-rent control people like to blame it on the greedy landlords/realtors and dismiss the idea that it doesn't work or can actually hurt those most in need. All it takes is a tiny effort to see the overwhelming evidence that it is not a good policy and hurts communities.

Anonymous said...

The activists behind property control do what they do in order to preserve their own jobs. It’s not all about altruism that they would like for one to believe. In the simplest of terms what is proposed by voting for C is a redistribution of income because the majority of tenants aren’t in a position to earn their way to a better financial outcome. And much of that should lie at an individuals feet for decisions made and time spent. Instead a rally cry is announced to demonize property owners and place much of a person’s economic situation on them as being the cause of their economic condition.

Anonymous said...

I still have hope and trust that property owners will keep the rents reasonable on there own. having a good relationship with tenants will benifit them as will the tax code.The overpopulation in California, thanks to politicians has contributed to this crisis.

Steve Sinai said...

Ironically, the property owners who try to keep rents low are the ones who get most punished by rent control. Measure C says that what landlords can charge in the future is based on what they were charging when Measure C went into effect. That's why landlords felt the need to increase rents when Measure C was first put on the ballot.

That goes to show how poorly thought-out and unfair Measure C is.

Anonymous said...

I understand that if Measure C passes, rent will be rolled back to the price charged as of February 2017. So that means if individual landlords were charging rents far below market value they are stuck with that going forward. It also means we will be seeing plenty of challenges/lawsuits. I have no skin in this game but I do have a house I rent. Currently, I rent far below market value and deeply resent that this could happen to me if the rules were to change. This is simply unfair and in order to help the situation, I will encourage the Council to support affordable housing, more housing in Pacifica, in-law units, and also to work with commercial entities to bring commercial businesses to Pacifica so people can work and live here, and encourage working from home. Population deniers are similar to climate change deniers - growth is going to come whether we like it or not. Better make it something we can live with.

Anonymous said...

Deirdre Martian is a landlord.
Ask her what she's doing to provide housing cost relief for her tenants.
She ran her campaign on this issue and should be giving nothing less than the taxpayers of Pacifica.

Anonymous said...

10:12 Quit sniveling she is on city council and you are not!

Anonymous said...

Trump is in the White House and we are not. Should we also stop sniveling about that?
Ms. Martian and her commie handler, Cynthia Kaufman, is a true menace to Pacifica.

Anonymous said...

Cynthia Kaufman will be the next city council member. She will take Sue's spot.

Cry in your beer, Yesie's!!

Anonymous said...

How is this thing going to get enforced? What happens if the landlords don't pay the $19/month (or the tenants don't)? Is there a late fee? Will they tell the landlords they can't rent out their apartment? How are they going to enforce a higher fee when this isn't enough to pay for the program? How often will they collect the fees? What is going to get cut from the General Fund budget to cover the costs in the meantime? Don't we already have a budget shortfall? Does this mean cuts to the police and fire depts - the biggest expenses to the current budget or to the Resource Center or Senior Services? Cuts will come from somewhere that is for sure. Don't we still have some emergency infrastructure problems to take care of? How about those roads? Whether it costs $1,000,000 or $2,000,000 (depending on how many lawsuits we have and how much staff time is devoted to this program), the money isn't there. Good luck collecting it.

Unknown said...

How do I get a big huge "NO On C" sign for my yard?

Ronnie said...

You want to know who the real Cynthia Kaufman is, read the table of contents and the first few pages of her Saul Alinsky inspired boot she was teaching in a college. Eye opening and a little scary.

"Getting Past Capitalism begins with a critique of the impacts of capitalism on human society and the environment. By taking a fresh look at what capitalism is and at how it is reproduced, it is able to offer realistic and inspiring ways to move beyond capitalism to already existing alternatives."

Now who do you think wrote that glowing review, Cynthia?

Steve Sinai said...

You can get a No on C sign at Jim Wagner's office.

1005 Terra Nova Suite A

Better to call first to make sure someone's around: 738-4900.

Steve Sinai said...

Given the fact that Cynthia "Let's get our opponent kicked out of the race rather than campaign for votes" Kaufman was Deirdre Martin's campaign manager, and seems to be the person running the Pacifica Progressive Alliance, her anti-Capitalism book does help explain why Martin, Digre and Keener are more interested in running a far-left social engineering experiment than running a city.

But I gotta say, when I see someone throwing "Saul Alinsky" into their comment, I immediately discount them as a far-right wing-nut.

Saul said...

Mr. Steve, I beg to differ. Alinksy's rules are alive and well in New Pacifica!

Alinsky’s 12 Rules:
1. “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.“ Power is derived from 2 main sources – money and people. “Have-Nots” must build power from flesh and blood.
2. “Never go outside the expertise of your people.“ It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone.
3. “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.“ Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty.
4. “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.“ If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules.
5. “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.“ There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.
6. “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.“ They’ll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They’re doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones.
7. “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.“ Don’t become old news.
8. “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.“ Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new.
9. “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.“ Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist.
10. “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.“ Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog.
11. “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.“ Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem.
12. “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.“ Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions

mike bell said...

"Bring non-capitalistic economic forms to where you live by starting a co-op, supporting co-ops, or by trying to get your local government to use community capital to serve community needs". GETTING PAST CAPITALISM by Cynthia Kaufman (page 154)
Cynthia Kaufman is the mentor and campaign manager of her protege, Deirdre Martin.
According to her manifesto, "community capital" is our private property.

Pissed of Paul said...

These rules sound like the campaign strategy of the yes on C people. I kid you not. Ridicule, attack, and any number of other disgusting actions have occurred and then they have the audacity to immediately accuse the opposition of the same.

Joseph said...

How many of you have actually read the ordinance? Here it is .
First off, the rent control in San Francisco allows for landlords to change the rent before renting out a property. This is why the rents still are so high. Some protections are better than none
This doesn't apply to mom and pop landlords since it doesn't apply to single-family homes.
To say that the problem isn't rent increases while people get $600 rent increases is simply illogical.
The reason that the ordinance doesn't apply to single-family homes is that of the very argument you made. the same is true for duplexes. The ordinance doesn't apply to units newer than 1995 because of the Costa-Hawkins Act, which is state law, not exclusive to the ordinance.
Landlord's don't have to jack up rents $600 in one month because they aren't making enough money on their 3 or more rental unit apartment building.
it has been shown time and time again in cities like Berkeley that rent control doesn't lower property values.
The rent increases are capped at the rate of inflation, or how much the property actually increased in price.
The problem is rent being high because of the tech industry. Building more housing won't bring rents down, it will just make room for more techies.
If you can't afford to live in Pacifica after spending your whole life here, you shouldn't be forced out of your home just because your landlord thinks 2,000 dollars for 0 maintenance over 20 years is costing him too much.
You have also failed to acknowledge any existence of just cause for eviction which makes it so that you can only evict a tenant if they breach the lease, fail to pay rent, cause nuisance, criminal activity, failure to give access, necessary and substantial repairs requiring temporary vacancy, owner move in, permanent withdrawal of the property from the rental market, and demolition.
Now that you have the actual facts and the ordinance, you can make a more accurate decision.

Anonymous said...

"This doesn't apply to mom and pop landlords since it doesn't apply to single-family homes".
Your ignorance and/or naivete is showing. Plenty of the small apartment buildings are owned by mom and pops trying to secure a retirement that is above the poverty level.
No on C. Stop stealing our private property and rights.

Anonymous said...

Joseph, your comment is very condescending with the assumption that we simpletons against rent control just don't get it. It does nothing to garner support for rent control and is rude and elitist, in addition to being wrong. First off, I have fully read (repeatedly) the ordinance, and disagree with a number of points (although I am sure your side will call foul/fake news/ alternative facts - I can back up the statements I make, albeit anonymously because I am simply tired of being treated like an evil, greedy money-hungry landlord even though I will continue to provide whatever I can to those in our community in need.

To make it simple, I am against rent control because it doesn't work. It creates scarcity by creating two separate pools of renters -those who have rent control, and those who don't. Those who don't will end up paying more for rent because of scarcity. Additionally, some of the stipulations in this ordinance are extremely unfair to owners:

1) In order to allow one's family (parent/child/self/sibling) to move into the property they would need to be 50% owner - just bizarre. My child couldn't move into my apartment unless he had ownership? My parent couldn't move in?
2) If my tenants lived in the rental apartment for longer than 5 years, were 62 years or older or disabled (definition?) there is no cause for eviction. Being that we are now signing life-long leases to tenants I am sure the people who need rent protection the most will be the least likely to qualify.
I have no doubt something is needed, but this is not the solution. So unfortunate that this Council chose such a destructive alternative.
3) Why would anyone choose to invest in a rent controlled apartment complex in Pacifica where rents are limited vs. investing in any other city in SMC where rents are not limited, to sell and buy a townhouse/duplex or single family home for a better investment? Where is the benefit of investing in rent controlled apartments? Why not sell and buy outside of Pacifica (anywhere else in San Mateo County?)

Lastly, this ordinance does nothing for the huge majority of individuals that can't find housing because nothing is available. So many in Pacifica are against further housing. Similar to climate change deniers are the population deniers. There are many refuges and displaced people all over the world -we need to make room whether it is comfortable or not. The people in Pacifica most against additional housing are the same individuals fighting so hard for rent control. Get your head out of the sand - let's figure this out together - we all need to be part of the solution.

Unknown said...

Building more housing does has not stabilized rents in SF. .... this is ludicrous, the new housing in SF is million dollars properties that nobody who does not me 6 figures can afford. ...