These three statements on the "prop 10 flaws" website are all true. And bogus. They're deceptive. They're completely bogus, because they bring up a bunch of claims that have nothing to do with Proposition 10.
Proposition 10 repeals the Costa Hawkins act, which prevents rent control from applying to housing built after 1995 and single family residence rentals. This is a statewide law that takes local control away from cities and counties, and deprives them of one possible tool to address rising housing prices.
Prop 10 does not implement rent control. It just allows cities and counties to pass rent control laws, if they want to.
That's it. It's simple. It's a well, written, narrow law.
They say: Prop 10 does not collect tax money for affordable housing. They say that, and it's true. It doesn't. Cities and counties have their own ways to collect that tax. There are laws like measure H, HHH, JJJ, and many others that fund affordable housing.
They say: Prop 10 does not force cities to build affordable housing that's in their general plan. Again, "true", but also bogus. Prop 10 doesn't force cities to do anything.
They say: Prop 10 doesn't provide immediate relief -- but what does that even mean? Prop 10 repeals a law called Costa-Hawkins that impedes cities from regulating out-of-control rent increases. If the local landlords are doing 25% rent increases, many cities have a hard time passing rent control laws to regulate this harmful behavior.
The law, as it exists today, prevents rent control from applying to units built after 1995. So residents in a 20 year old building might see a big rent increase, and the city might want to pass rent control to help... but they cannot.
Voting Yes on 10 will allow cities to do what they want, to deal with their local housing issues.
Vote Yes on 10.
Definitely a strange statement.
Landlords *are* converting units to short term rentals and condos. There really isn't anything preventing it in most of the state.
Prop 10 won't suddenly allow it. It's already happening.
A lot of landlords are eagerly trying to make money on the listing websites like AirBNB.
Prop 10 doesn't deal with them.
Do you know what else Prop 10 allows? It allows me to sing in the shower. It allows me to go camping. It allows me to walk in circles.
This quote was a trip. It was full of "trigger words" to activate old time conservatives.
I happen to live under rent control, and the bureaucracy exists, but you hardly ever hear from them.
Inspections happen. They cost a little money.
On the No on 10 site, a couple quotes mention "affordable housing construction" and say that passing 10 will impede it.
I don't understand that logic.
First of all, according to Rent Cafe, 100% of apartments built in Los Angeles were "luxury" apartments.
So, let's see... what affordable housing construction?
It looks like market conditions, by themselves, have stopped affordable housing construction.
Except for Affordable Housing, of course - that is, LIHTC / tax credit financed products that are subsidized by either tax credits and the government. I don't think that's what they meant.
I suppose it could jeopardize funding if apartment prices stabilized, and profits declined, so that there would be fewer companies buying the tax credits that fund affordable housing. That would be bad.
But that would mean that the masses of tenants are seeing stable rents, which would be good.
The real answer is obvious: acknowledge that the market cannot serve low-income people, and start building public housing again. The struggle to pass Prop 10 is part of that fight - if you ask the people involved, many are for bringing back public housing.
OK, this last quote on the "no" side is a doozy.
First, they perpetuate the mistaken idea that Prop 10 would institute rent control. It would not - it would only repeal Costa Hawkins. Costa Hawkins prevents rent control from applying to buildings built after 1995, and single family residences.
Second, they perpetuate the bogus idea that rent control prevents rents from rising at all.
All the rent controls I've ever seen allow rents to be raised by a rent board. In Los Angeles, they usually raise it 3%, which is higher than the rate of inflation.
Property taxes rise at 2%. Inflation is around 2.3%. So all those costs that she's talking about rise at a rate SLOWER and LOWER than the existing rent control rent increases.
In Pico Rivera, their rent cap is 6%, which is 3x as much at the rise in property taxes, and over 2x the rise in inflation.
These are real world rent control laws. The person being quoted here, is punching against a shadow, a ghost, a fake idea about rent control. Keep swinging, because you won't hit anything.
Rent control is basic business regulation. It's a market reform.
It regulates how much rents can rise. It regulates the quality of a rental unit. It also assures that owners will have a profit, believe it or not - the regulation is allowed, but if the owner can prove that it impedes making a profit, the courts will allow a rent increase, until there is a reasonable profit margin.