VOSS Posted April 2 Share Posted April 2 Political provocateur Michael Weinstein has the unlikeliest of allies in his quest to remove statewide limits on rent control: Republicans in Huntington Beach. Weinstein, a nonprofit executive who's poured upward of $100 million into political fights in California, is trying to repeal a law that bars cities from rent-controlling newer apartments — a restriction that's ferociously guarded by developers and real estate investors. Opponents of his November ballot measure — his third such attempt — say it would have such a chilling effect on development that it could essentially allow local governments to skirt state laws requiring them to allow more housing. "On paper, it would be legal to build new homes. But it would be illegal, largely speaking, to make money doing so,” said Louis Mirante, vice president of public policy at the Bay Area Council, a pro-business advocacy group that opposes the measure. That's where Weinstein's effort has apparently found a friend in Huntington Beach Councilmember Tony Strickland, a Republican who's attempting to organize his colleagues behind a measure backed by liberal activists. He has led the city's efforts to fight Gov. Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta in court as the state tries to force the city to comply with housing mandates. Strickland said Weinstein's rent control measure would block "the state's ability to sue our city" because Huntington Beach could slap steep affordability requirements on new, multi-unit apartment projects that are now exempt from rent control. Such requirements, he argued, could stop development that would "destroy the fabric" of the town's quaint "Surf City" vibe. Pro-housing advocates who have long clashed with Weinstein argue affluent cities have already tried to use the guise of affordability requirements to try to prevent new construction — and that this measure would make it easier for them to do so. Soon after California passed a law requiring cities to allow duplexes and lot splits in neighborhoods zoned for single-family homes, several coastal enclaves, including Dana Point and Camarillo, tried to impose stringent rules for such units, requiring below-market rents. Those cities largely backed down after the state threatened legal action. But some pro-housing leaders and Newsom allies say the rent-control ballot measure appears to be similarly motivated. A person close to the governor, who was granted anonymity to speak candidly, said: "They're all patches in the same quilt, which is that there are people in this state who just don't want to see more housing. Source Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Jacobs Posted April 2 Share Posted April 2 I dont understand. Isn't rent control a good thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archetype Posted April 2 Share Posted April 2 (edited) 10 minutes ago, Johnny Jacobs said: Isn't rent control a good thing? Yes! But the way it's been implemented across US cities can also make it very unattractive to redevelop prime locations for more housing, as affordable housing is considered much less profitable for developers. Republicans are joining forces to support rent control in this instance because it will make their neighborhoods unattractive to build affordable housing in I don't really know enough about the nuances in every situation, but in NYC, there are families and people who have been living in my neighborhood for decades and are still paying under 3k for 2+ bedroom apartments in luxury buildings that would go for 7k or more at market rate. It's a steal for them and keeps the community in tact, but *allegedly* buildings with many rent controlled units are making it a sunken cost for building owners to renovate units or perform major fixes on the building itself. They are likely over exaggerating, but there could be some truth. I think the counter proposal from locals is to slightly increase the maximum change allowed on rent controlled units each year to account for inflation. Edited April 2 by Archetype 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VOSS Posted April 2 Author Share Posted April 2 17 minutes ago, Johnny Jacobs said: I dont understand. Isn't rent control a good thing? Rent control proponents are approaching the issue of skyrocketing rents as though it is caused by greedy landlords. Greed certainly contributes to the problem, but at the end of the day rents in a city increase when there are more people who want to live there than there are homes available. This ends up pushing out poorer residents over time. The real solution is to build more housing so there's enough for everyone who wants to live there - this will naturally lower rents as there is less competition between renters for units. However, a lot of groups are opposed to new housing for various reasons. There are definitely benefits to rent control. Existing tenants who want to stay in place will avoid massive rent increases, for example. But it's a bandaid on the real problem, and the result is that it's much harder to make money building new housing because rent is capped. California is in the midst of a horrific housing crisis and the state in recent years has been trying to force cities to build more houses. Republicans in wealthy suburban coastal enclaves have realized that putting rent control rules into effect will lead to less new housing in their neighborhoods, so they are getting behind it. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Communion Posted April 2 Share Posted April 2 37 minutes ago, Johnny Jacobs said: I dont understand. Isn't rent control a good thing? It is. People who don't like it think affordable housing can only be built via "natural market forces" and thus propose that 100 luxury condos be built for every 15 affordable housing units allowed. If people truly thought the issue to the housing crisis was to increase supply, they'd support legislation that did not allow people to own things like more homes than their family size needs or vacant housing legislation that allowed the appropriation of housing by the state for housing that has sat empty for years. Supply doesn't just mean build more when you can also make it so people can only take so much for themselves. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VOSS Posted May 15 Author Share Posted May 15 A pair of top California Democrats and powerful unions are lining up against a ballot initiative on a topic that their party and labor has long championed: removing rent control limits. State Sen. Toni Atkins, the former Democratic leader in the Senate, as well as Assembly Appropriations Chair Buffy Wicks confirmed to POLITICO that they are firmly against the November ballot measure. The initiative, bankrolled by AIDS Healthcare Foundation president and political provocateur Michael Weinstein, seeks to repeal a state law barring cities across the Golden State from rent-controlling newer apartments. Two of the state's largest construction unions, the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Norcal Carpenters Union, are also against the initiative. Those players are fighting the rent-control effort because, they argue, the ballot initiative contains a "Trojan horse" provision. They say it would undermine pro-housing laws by allowing wealthy coastal cities that oppose new development to impose steep affordability requirements that would effectively freeze growth. Atkins, considered to be a leading contender for governor in 2026, said the measure is "as deceptive as it is dangerous," arguing it should be removed from the ballot. "Conspiring with wealthy cities to undermine vital state housing laws is bad enough," said Atkins, who's carried several landmark bills to streamline housing construction. "Lying to voters about it is even worse." Even though Weinstein disputes the notion that his measure could block housing construction, some Republicans are backing it for precisely that reason. Huntington Beach Councilmember Tony Strickland, a conservative Republican, announced in March that he would support Weinstein's measure. He has led the city's efforts to fight Gov. Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta in court over California's housing targets for the wealthy coastal enclave. "Statewide rent control is a ludicrous idea, but the measure's language goes further," Strickland said at the time. "It gives local governments ironclad protections from the state's housing policy and therefore overreaching enforcement." That blunt assessment from a Republican nudged Atkins and Wicks to come out against the measure, the opposition campaign confirmed. The pair didn't take a stance on a similar 2020 ballot initiative that failed. "Make no mistake about it: This ballot measure will end housing production in California full stop," said Wicks, who has championed tenant protections as well as laws to make it easier for developers to build more housing. Source Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
If U Seek Amy Posted May 15 Share Posted May 15 On 4/2/2024 at 2:35 PM, VOSS said: Rent control proponents are approaching the issue of skyrocketing rents as though it is caused by greedy landlords. Greed certainly contributes to the problem, but at the end of the day rents in a city increase when there are more people who want to live there than there are homes available. This ends up pushing out poorer residents over time. The real solution is to build more housing so there's enough for everyone who wants to live there - this will naturally lower rents as there is less competition between renters for units. However, a lot of groups are opposed to new housing for various reasons. There are definitely benefits to rent control. Existing tenants who want to stay in place will avoid massive rent increases, for example. But it's a bandaid on the real problem, and the result is that it's much harder to make money building new housing because rent is capped. California is in the midst of a horrific housing crisis and the state in recent years has been trying to force cities to build more houses. Republicans in wealthy suburban coastal enclaves have realized that putting rent control rules into effect will lead to less new housing in their neighborhoods, so they are getting behind it. Pretty much this. Greed is a part of it for sure, but demand is also driving it primarily. If you begin to cap rent income yes it makes it more affordable obviously, but it really is just a bandaid. They will just stop developing housing there if it really isn't that profitable and go elsewhere. And while I agree with the notion like many that that housing shouldn't be a for profit thing (at least at the basic standard of living level), unless this is implemented federally and country wide it really is just a bandaid and isn't practical at just a state level issue. Now anyone who wants to move there will be able to ever find future housing unless somehow the government is nice enough to subsidize and cover that (which now we are gonna pay more in taxes in exchange for that capped rent anyway so we may not actually save money depending how it is implemented), the people living there already have less incentive to leave, and it really doesn't solve the issue many are seeking a fix for. People really need to look more at addressing restrictive housing development issues. But I do understand why some want rent control now to help with our current cost of living issues Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts