by Michael Weinstein
California is the land of milk and honey. We are blessed with magnificent natural beauty from the ocean to the desert to the mountains and beyond.
Our weather is the envy of much of the world. However, the magic of California is a dream of opportunity, equality, and fresh ideas. From Silicon Valley to Hollywood, we are a gateway to the world. Most importantly, California is a place that looks to the future with courage and optimism. We celebrate diversity as enriching our economy, our culture, and our communities.
Our culture is “can do.” We are not afraid to tackle big problems and invent world-changing solutions. We attract talent from across the globe who want to be where the action is in our state. While there are those who make fun of us—perhaps out of jealousy—we love California for the very things that make us different.
And so, let’s ask: Why can’t we solve the homelessness and housing affordability crises?
California today is not the place it always was before. Today, our state is facing a severe crisis: The lack of affordable housing. We are the poorest of the 50 states based on the cost of living. A dozen of the 25 highest-cost cities in the United States are in California.
Rents are strangling California’s 17 million renters. It is a far cry from freedom when your rent eats up half your income. We aren’t a land of opportunity when most renters have little hope of ever owning a home. We aren’t a shining example of equality when we have 178 billionaires versus more than 180,000 homeless people.
As with my family that I love, I will always rise to the defense of California when it is attacked by outsiders. But, as when in our families we know something is not right—when there is someone feeling sick—we must come to terms with it. When there is trouble, the family comes together to give whatever aid is needed.
My extended family of California is suffering a debilitating economic illness. We are being robbed blind by billionaire corporate landlords. Far from caring about the impact on our state or its residents, they are committed to squeezing everything they can out of us regardless of the consequences.
It is high past the time for patriotic Californians to rise up against Big Real Estate cartels. About one million people have already fled California because the rent is too damn high. We are running a severe $68 billion deficit, and we are bummed out. We must take our precious state back from the likes of the California Apartment Association, which represents the billionaire landlords. We must tell our politicians that, if they sell out to Big Real Estate, they will be punished at the ballot box.
Our Golden State has a golden opportunity to right the ship by voting Yes on Proposition 33 for rent control come November 5. The many can defeat the powerful corporate interests of a few when we unite.
California is not a swing state in the presidential election. We are decidedly blue. However, we can strike a mighty blow for this land we love in a matter of weeks.
Michael Weinstein is the president of AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF), the largest global HIV/AIDS organization, and AHF’s Healthy Housing Foundation.
Disclaimer: Opinions are those of the writer and do not reflect those of The Vanguard or its Editorial Staff. The Vanguard does not endorse political candidates and is committed to publishing all public opinions and maintaining an open forum subject to guidelines related to decency and tone, not content.
Someone doesn’t understand how rent caps work. Do you think that putting a rent cap on a a big bad real estate cartel’s rental units is just going to magically make rental rates less? Does the author believe that the big bad real estate cartels will just accept taking in less profit on their properties because of rent caps? Hmmm….no…they will just increase the rental rates for all new rentals. So if the natural market rate for a rental is $3000 and there’s a rent cap that is keeping rental rates depressed for 5 out of 10 units for an average depressed rental rate of $2,000. That means that the newer rental rates for the other 5 units need to make up for that $5000 difference. So the new units will rent for about $4000 about month. Essentially you’re robbing Peter (new renters) to pay (subsidize) Paul (incumbent renters).
Rent caps help seniors and other long term renters. But it puts a stranglehold on market rate rentals and can adversely effect a local economy that is constantly trying to lure new talent but faces inflated rental rates that their new perspective employees must pay for market rate rentals.
There are some other factors…
First, we have seen recently a federal investigation into collusion.
There is also the fact that during times of scarcity of supply, you end up with the “sellers” making windfall profits. That kind of negates your reasoning that caps will lead to what you suggest. There is enough data out there that negates it.
Another point is that in places like Davis, a good deal of renters are students who are renting for a year or at the very least short term allowing for more turnover anyway. The rent cap would prevent longer term renters – people who tend to be on the low end of the wage scale to get prices out of their units.
That said, for the most part I think rent caps are a band aid and what we really need is more supply to equalize and stabilize the market.
“There is also the fact that during times of scarcity of supply, you end up with the “sellers” making windfall profits.”
What do you mean by this comment? Scarcity of supply? Of course that’s when someone with supply makes their most profits. How does that negate what I said about Rent Control?
“Another point is that in places like Davis, a good deal of renters are students who are renting for a year or at the very least short term allowing for more turnover anyway. The rent cap would prevent longer term renters – people who tend to be on the low end of the wage scale to get prices out of their units.”
What does this mean? The original article spoke about Rent Control. I answered by saying “Rent Cap” but my answer was about Rent Control. The differences between the two are bit fuzzy. Rent Cap is a more general term for controlling rents but by itself means limiting rent increases to both existing rental units and rental units on the market. But usually Rent Control means only controlling the rents of units off the market. So I don’t know how your reply fits with my mixed up comment.
Rent Control (only capping the off market unit rental price increases) wouldn’t really work very well in Davis anyway because of the higher turnover rate of units because of the student population. I think you meant “priced out of their units” which is what I said when that rent control works for seniors and longer term renters. But we have to consider the viability of market rate rentals. Not for students but for prospective people that work in and (more likely) around Davis. If market rate rental prices are artificially inflated; it will make attracting workers to local businesses that much harder.