No to both Prop. 98 and Prop. 99

" Actually, I think outlawing rent control is a great idea and we ought to tell the "affordable housing advocates" to go jump in the lake.

First, let's get off the "affordable housing" high horse. It's time to let the air out of that balloon. Housing is NEVER "affordable" because we all stretch to buy or rent a little better than we can afford. I can't "afford" housing in Ross or Belevedere. Is there a list I can get on so I can buy a house there that I can "afford" with the difference paid for by my fellow citizens? Sign me up!

(In case you haven't figured it out yet... the people who buy the eight market rate condos in a development are paying the difference for the two "affordable" below market rate condos the deveolper "agreed" to provide. Not much of a way to make housing affordable, now, is it?)

There will always be Americans who can't afford housing in one community or another, given the prevailing costs of living. To be sure, there are places in the world where every citizen is entitled to affordable housing, but they all have red flags flying over them and you wouldn't want to live there. Where does it stop? "Workforce housing?" Another farce when you consider the actual pay realized by "first responders" and civil service employees in California these days. If a community can't find enough cops and school teachers, the solution isn't "affordable housing," it's paying its employees a living wage! Of course, as we know from experience, for the same price, they will opt to commute from a single family home with a pool in Vacaville, rather than a condo in Novato anyhow.

"Affordable housing" was always a scam pushed by developers to overcome limits on suburban sprawl and by those in the "non-profit" sector who created high paying "executive director" positions for themselves by pimping poor people. Ask yourself how many people profit from "affordable housing" besides those who can't afford that housing. Follow the money.

As for rent control, really only another form of socialized housing, there are a lot of people who are far from impoverished, especially in tony urban areas, who are enjoying rent controlled housing simply by virtue of the fact that they haven't moved in a while. Why should they spend money on buying a home when they are paying peanuts for their rent controlled apartment? Rent control keeps home buyers out of the market.

At the same time, rent control devalues rental property and discourages further capital investment in rental housing resources. Obviously, fewer rentals means less "affordable" rental housing. And, less valuable rent controlled rental properties means less property taxes to run our cities.

Now, if rent control goes "bye-bye," I expect that 1) a lot of people who CAN afford to buy and were just taking advantage of rent control will enter the market. This will prop up the sagging residential real estate market and bring a new crop of properties assessed at their selling prices onto the tax rolls. 2)The formerly rent controlled units will appreciate in value because they are now able to produce more income. Hence, they will pay more of their share of the taxes and... because owing rental property is made more profitable without rent control... the market forces will naturally make more rentals available. Those rental units will, as defined by market forces, be as "affordable" as they might be, given what things really cost.

People need to realize that "affordable housing" means you rent where you can afford to rent so you can save money to put down on the nicest home you can afford to buy. If you can't "afford" the rent or the price of a home in any given community, then you just have to face the fact that it just isn't someplace you can afford to live. Anyone who can't think of a dozen places they can't afford to live isn't thinking very hard. "Affordable housing" is a "straw man" created by those whose profits are curtailed when unbridled suburban spraw is limited. No, we don't HAVE to build more houses at all. (Soon enough, it won't matter one way or the other because there won't be enough water around here to service that development, anyway.)

"Affordable housing" and "rent control" are concepts that have a nice warm fuzzy populist feel to them, but they aren't so "affordable" when you consider the hidden costs to society and who it is that's really profiting from it all. "

" I forwarded Bob Cleek's comments to a friend of mine; here were his two thoughts in response:

"(1) Your reader does not understand how owner occupied affordable
requirements work. Often under 'inclusionary housing' statutes, which
require the provision of affordable units, developers are given a density
bonus, i.e. they are allowed to build more homes than are typically allowed
under prevailing zoning stipulations. The other buyers don't pay 'more'; the
developer simply has more units to sell. Think about it: why would people
pay above market rates for housing? If you were looking at two developments
and one had higher housing prices because the developer, as your reader
claims, increased the prices on the remaining units, which one would you
buy?

"(2) Its interesting that your reader would inveigh against affordable
housing, but support "living wage," a non-market wage! Ironically,
developers/contractors often rail against living wage, which they often have
to pay if they are using any type of government funds, as the cost of
construction goes up significantly." "

" 1) Yes, I recognize that a "density bonus" is also used ot offset the cost of subsidized housing. This only exacerbates the costs I mentioned. Surely, developers cannot sell houses that cost more than the market will bear, but the subtle reality cannot be ignored. Developers ARE going to pass the costs of subsidized housing onto the consumers. Surely, they aren't paying the cost out of their own pockets alone. The inescapable fact is that without the requirement for subsidized units, developers will be able to sell the same product for LESS at the same profit margin, which they will do because it permits them to turn over their supply more quickly, thereby reducing their construction financing costs and increasing their profits.

2) The "living wage" I referenced was not intended to refer to a "non-market wage." Quite the contrary. I was simply stating the obvious. Instead of wringing hands over the "lack of affordable workforce housing," simply let the market dictate wages. As I said, if a community finds it cannot recruit enough police officers or school teachers, it must raise the salaries it offers people to do that work to a point where the salaries attract enough cops and teachers to fill the positions needed. This is a rather fair approach. Wealthy communities with high costs of living and housing expenses will have to pay more to attract employees, and they can best afford to do so. Higher taxes in those communities may reduce their attraction, thereby lowering property values somewhat. In such fashion, a certain balance is maintained. A town where the average home costs two and a half million bucks can't really expect to pay its police and teachers the same wages paid by towns down the road where the average home costs half a million and expect that its civil servants are going to be able to live within the city limits. Ray Charles could see that! "