Last Friday at 5:00 p.m. (which he's apt to do when releasing bad news), San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom vetoed three pro-tenant ordinances designed to help renters facing hard times. He even nixed a relatively mild proposal to limit "banked" rent increases to 8% - despite this being consistent with existing policies at the Mayor's Office of Housing. Newsom's record on tenant issues in San Francisco has always been bad, and his latest act does not bode well for next year's statewide elections. California's 14 million renters need a champion in the Governor's Mansion after six years of a hostile Republican Administration, but Newsom currently only has one opponent for the Democratic primary - California Attorney General Jerry Brown. Based on his record as Mayor of Oakland, Brown can be counted on to be just as anti-tenant - if not worse - than Newsom. There is no excuse why a deep blue state like California can't have a pro-tenant Governor, and the current field of Democratic candidates creates an opening for a new person to jump into the fray.
Chicago does not have rent control. In 1997, the Illinois legislature passed - and Republican Governor Jim Edgar signed - SB 531 (the Rent Control Preemption Act), which prohibited local jurisdictions from passing it. At the time, no city in Illinois had rent control - but the real estate lobby had a national effort to quietly stop it in places before it starts. SB 531 passed with little fanfare: the State House voted for it 96-18, and the State Senate approved it 46-6. One of the six senators who voted "no" was Barack Obama - although many liberal Democrats voted with landlords and the Senate's Republican majority. Obama's vote - when one considers how few people stood up with him - is an example of his core progressive principles. While it's valid to say that he should have done more to defeat it, consider that Obama was a freshman in a very hostile climate - and as a community organizer had learned to pick his battles.
With all the hype today on the 30-year anniversary of Prop 13 -- today's SF Chronicle wouldn't stop talking about it -- it's incredible that NOBODY is talking about rent control and how Prop 13 paved the way for it. In today's Beyond Chron, I take my alma mater to task for hosting a one-day conference on Prop 13 without mentioning rent control.
I majored in political science at Cal - and while I had an excellent education, the Political Science Department was always a bit out of touch. Today, UC Berkeley's Institute of Governmental Studies will host a one-day conference on the 30th Anniversary of Prop 13 - where a field of experts will evaluate its "political, economic and fiscal impacts." Incredibly, none of them will talk about rent control (at least none of them are experts on it), although one of Prop 13's most significant effects was the passage of rent control ordinances in cities throughout California. Tuesday's crushing defeat of Proposition 98 - sponsored by the same Howard Jarvis Taxpayers' Association that pushed Prop 13 in 1978 - demonstrates a statewide mandate for laws that protect tenants. Any serious reflection on Prop 13's thirty-year legacy must involve rent control.
I do some work for No on 98. The Field Poll (PDF) on the statewise propositions came out this morning. Prop 98 is down 33% Yes-43%No, while Prop 99 is up 48% Yes, 30% No. The splits across almost every line oppose Prop 98. Homeowners, renters, poll voters, mail voters all oppose Prop 98. The exception? Why, it is Republicans and conservatives, of course.
However, given the variability of turnout for the election next Tuesday, nothing is certain. From Janis Hiroshima of the League of Women Voters:
Despite the millions being spent on deceptive ads, the numbers show voters are smarter than the landlords think. They are rejecting Prop. 98 as a landlord scheme and supporting real eminent domain reform in Prop. 99. Our focus now is on making sure all these people actually vote on Tuesday.
Turnout is important for these statewide initiatives as well as local races. You can be sure the streets of areas with contested primaries will be flooded with canvassers and visibility operations. I'm sure the tenant activists will be out in force.
UPDATE: The Capitol Weekly has a story about Thomas Coates dropping about a million into the Yes on 98 campaign. Coates is a real estate investor who would dearly love to reap the windfall that he would see if rent control were eliminated. The landlords certainly don't think this is over.
UPDATE 2: Video of LA Protest at Apartment Association of Greater LA over the flip.
Proposition 98 claims to be about eminent domain and protecting the little people. But here at Calitics, we have reason to question the motives of Jon Coupal and the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers' Association. And once again, they are trying to hoodwink California voters.
Proposition 98 eliminates rent control and other renter protections, making living in California's cities out of reach for a greater percentage of our population. Prop 98 would also make protecting California's environment even harder than it is presently. The effects on governance, the environment, and tenants are simply disastrous. NO on 98.
Prop 99 is not ideal, but it is tolerable. It simply blocks the use of eminent domain to transfer owner-occupied homes to private developers. Nothing fancy, but it does have a nice provision that overrules Prop 98 if it gets one more vote. It also has the potential to do the state a great favor by removing the issue of eminent domain from the ballot. YES on 99.
The newspaper editorial boards have been coming out overwhelmingly opposed to the Landlords' Scheme to end rent control and environmental protections. Just today, four newspapers have come out in opposition to Prop 98:
Of course, some had speculated about the independence of the LA Times' Editorial board becuase Times owner Sam Zell is a major donor to Prop 98 and stands to make a tidy sum if 98 passes. However, they came out strongly against 98:
With the ill-considered Proposition 98, property rights advocates once again have undermined themselves and poorly served homeowners, businesspeople and real estate investors by overreaching. It would have been so easy to give Californians what they need: assurance that no city, county, other local government or the state can condemn property, evict the owner and turn the land over to a developer who donated to elected officials and then convinced them that he could make the plot prettier and more productive. ... The Times urges a no vote on Proposition 98 and a yes vote on Proposition 99. LA Times
This is what leaders and organizations throughout California have been saying for months: Prop 98 is a deceptive scheme in favor of landlords. That's why groups like the AARP, the League of Conservation Voters, and the California Democratic Party all urge a NO vote on Prop 98 and a Yes vote on Prop 99.
If you want to learn more, please visit our website at NoProp98.org.
By this time, I hope you've heard about Prop 98. But that's not the case everywhere, so much attention has been paid to getting the word out about the really negative effects that Prop 98 would have upon California. A great group of people came together in SF to talk about the Landlords' Scheme to eliminate rent control, tenant protections, and affordable housing regulations.
Several folks came with cardboard boxes to make the point that many people living in rent controlled units would be forced to the streets. Many units would be converted to luxury condo conversion projects and housing supply in San Francisco would dwindle further. Affordable housing is already tough enough to come by (just look at Craigslist if you don't believe me), the last thing we need is Prop 98 eliminating much of the affordable supply.
You can watch the entirety of the rally on YouTube over the flip, but some of the comments lept out at me. Some people expect that these propositions won't really affect their lives, but Prop 98 is very different. From June 4, 2008, landlords will have carte blanche to do what they please to tenants. "Just Cause" eviction will be a thing of the past, and renters will have to prepare for an onslaught. As Ted Gullicksen of San Francisco Tenants Union said, "San Francisco would become a city not just for the wealthy, but for the very, very, very wealthy. ... San Francisco would lose its character and its diversity."
It is not all that surprising that landlords' would try this, really. After all, they are businesses trying to maximize their shareholder and/or owner's pocket books. Heck, this is a great investment for people like Sam Zell, who stands to make $15 Million from a Prop 98 win. The problem is that they are using deceptive means to overturn the will of the people. The people in several cities across California have determined that they favor rent control. And practically every locality has chosen to require a "just cause" for eviction (as well as some state regulations).
But the landlords weren't able to get rent control overturned at the local level, at least totally. So instead of trying to convince localities to end it or to get state legislators to overrule the localities, the landlords' go with deception. They hide under the cover of eminent domain to end tenant protections. That's why this is so important to defeat June 3. We just can't let Prop 98 sneak by us, it would be the third leg of the stool. Prop 13, the 2/3 rule, and this. But that stool is one that doesn't support all Californians, only the super-wealthy.
Follow me over the flip for the videos and more. You can also get more photos at my flickr set.
The SF Bay Guardian released their endorsements for local races and state propositions. These tend to be some of the most influential endorsements in the City, and to a lesser extent, in the region. As always, they do a laudable job presenting a thorough analysis of each race and the relative merits of each position. Hats off to Tim Redmond and the crew at the SFBG. Here's a summary of their positions, and I'll discuss some of them over the flip.
Prop 98: No, No, No
Prop 99: Yes, Yes, Yes
SD-03: Mark Leno
SD-09: Loni Hancock
AD-13: Tom Ammiano
AD-14: Kriss Worthington
CA-08 (Pelosi): No Endorsement
The LA Daily News takes a look at some of the people that could be harmed by Prop 98's odious landlord power grab. This isn't just some hypothetical, but real people living here in California. People will be forced to leave the cities and head out to the exurbs or out of state. For example:
He's a disabled Vietnam veteran. She's a retired teacher who spends most of her pension on health insurance.
Arnie and Marilyn Bernstein are among an estimated 1million Angelenos with a rent-controlled apartment.
But if voters kill rent control in a June ballot measure, the Bernsteins say, their monthly payment would jump from $876 to $1,300 - a 48 percent increase.
"We couldn't afford another apartment," said Marilyn Bernstein, 62, of Canoga Park, who has lived in the one-bedroom unit for 21 years. "We'd be living under a bridge - like `Tent City, here we come.' The possibility of lifting rent control would be devastating."
Emphasis my own. The fact is that while this is permanent vacancy decontrol, the rent control ends when the tenant moves out, Prop 98 makes it a heck of a lot easier to do evictions. Tenants are generally in a lot worse place if Prop 98 passes. So, Jon Coupal, head of the local Destroy Gummamint Set (HJTA), has to defend this turdblossom. Let's see what he comes up with. Ah, yes, he lies.
"It doesn't make it easier to evict anybody," Coupal said. "All the protections under existing law remain in effect. Only when that unit is vacated can anybody raise rents. We actually take the existing protections against evictions and make them part of the California Constitution."
Naysayers insist, however, that the landlord-backed measure would essentially end rent control in California.
Oh, those naysayers, always coming in with their facts and messing up your spin. You can read the proposition on the Yes 98 site. Look at Section 3, the part that would be grafted onto the California constitution. Do you see tenant protectsions there? Not so much. In fact the only time the word "tenant" is mentioned comes in the Sec. 5, where it eliminates rent control.
In reality, Prop 98 slashes into the heart of tenant protections. It is a dangerous ruse to use the issue of eminent domain to dramatically increase property rights in a way that was never envisioned in the past.
The Yes on Prop 98 folks have launched what I think might go down as one of the most melodramatic ads ever. It starts with a couple of kids, who we are made to believe who are siblings who have been ruthlessly forced to move by the big, bad "gummamint" through their evil eminent domain. They'll never get to see their friends again! Too bad the ad is entirely misleading.
Unfortunately, they didn't get to talk to the kids of renters who will be forced to move when the landlords who funded this measure kick them and their families out of their apartments. To the children who will be pushed out of California's major cities because rent control is ended and eviction protections are obliterated. Apparently, only kids whose parents own a house matter.
Of course, relatively few homes (typically on the order of a few dozen in the state per year) are actually purchased through the use of eminent domain. Furthermore the vast majority of these incidents involve public uses of the land, roads, fire stations, that kind of thing. But the truth was never really an obstacle the right-wingers cared much about.
But the tide is clearly turning against the Landlords power grab. Even Republicans, like former Governor Pete Wilson, and the odious and ineffective George Radonovich (R-Mariposa), are turning against this stinker of a proposition. But these ads are going up across the state, and turnout will be shockingly low. So, we need to turn out voters from LA and SF. Check out the No on Prop 98 Website for what you can do to help.
The ABC affiliate in SF did a story about one of the mobile home parks in San Rafael tripling rates after San Rafael's rent control ordinance was overturned. You can view the story here. Unsurprisingly, the landowner, Sam Zell's Equity Lifestyle immediately almost tripled the rents at the Contempo mobile home park. The decision itself is probably bad law as other courts have found rent control to be a valid exercise of a city's power, but that doesn't change the consequences for many of Contempo's residents.
If we Prop 98 passes, the advocates say, the old tenants will be grandfathered in. That's true, but only so long as they stay in the house. In addition to permanent vacancy decontrol, Prop 98 eliminates much of the protections against evictions. So, landlords can just evict long-standing tenants and rent the unit at the higher market rents and poof there goes rent control for those renters. We can see how this traumatizes a community, just for the sake of a few landlords.
As I said Monday, June will be a low turnout election. We need to make sure the progressive voters turnout to save rent control and tenant protections.
UPDATE: I neglected to include information about the case. It is MHC Financing Limited Partnership v. City of San Rafael. Apparently MHC likes to challenge rent control in California, as they also challenged the City of Santee's rent control ordinance. The Court of Appeal for the fourth district overturned a trial court decision striking down Santee's rent control ordinance. But, MHC did not give up. Nope, they sued San Rafael too, and won in the trial court. Now let's see if they can get the federal circurit court to agree with them too. If so, it would be a disaster for tenant rights.
The Yes on Prop 98 released their financial data, and not a lot of shockers in there. Guess who is financing the campaign. Really, guess, because I'll bet you will get it right.
If you guessed landlords, you get a gold star! Good job! The Yes on 98 campaign loves to talk about how it's all 'bout eminent domain, and destroying tenants rights is just a happy coincidence. It's funny how the money never lies: Prop 98 is all about ending rent control and tenants rights. Of the approximately $2.7 million raised for Yes on 98, almost $2.2 comes from landlords. 83%! A quick breakdown of where that's coming from, and you can see that the apartment and mobile home park owners really, really want to see the end of rent control:
$1,009,918 from apartment owner interests, including $291,329 from the Apartment Owners Association PAC, $183,450 from individual apartment owners and managers, $124,164 from local apartment association organizations and PACs and $410,974 from the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. The Jarvis Association has long historical ties to apartment owner interests, including three current board members with direct ties to the Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles.
$1,252,852 from mobile home park owner interests, including $1,006,832 from individual mobile home park owners, $204,020 from the Western Manufactured Housing Communities Issues PAC, and $42,000 from the Manufactured Housing Education Trust.
These landlord interests are betting tenants and pro-tenant voters won't bother to show up at the June primary. Heck, Jon Coupal, head of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, aka the Prop 13 people, out and out says it at one of their meetings that I found a clip of online. We have to make sure that every progressive voter in SF, LA, and the rest of the tenant-heavy communities shows up and votes on June 3 (or before by using their VBM ballot). Check about 50 seconds into the clip where he talks about the "other good thing". Yup, for conservatives, low turnout is always a good thing. We simply cannot have Prop 98 passing for a litany of reasons, many of which have been spoken here before. But, just in case, here are some links here, here, here, and here.
Finally, if you are a video person, the No on 98 campaign has a video contest with a $1,000 reward. Videos are due on March 28 (this FRIDAY!) so get them in soon.
To learn about Proposition 98's agenda, look no further than Dan Faller, President and Founder of the American Owner's Association (AOA) - the largest landlord group in California. In a nine-page essay published in the association's magazine, Faller complains heatedly about rent control, calls pro-tenant elected officials "terrorists" and "suicide bombers," compares the effort to pass Prop 98 with World War II, says that renters "choose not to provide for themselves," and - with rhetoric that channels George Bush - tells landlords: "you are either for us or against us in this fight for your freedom and property rights." We cannot dismiss Faller as just another right-wing kook, for his organization has already contributed $325,000 to the "Yes on 98" cause - and the AOA has plans to raise even more money in the coming weeks. And with voter turnout in June expected to be very low, Faller's fringe beliefs might actually become public policy in California - if we don't act now.
I don't often get to praise the CA Chamber of Commerce, but today is that lucky day. The California Chamber of Commerce has voted to go NO on the landlord scheme, Prop 98. Prop 98 eliminates rent control, other protections for renters, and could harm our ability to protect our environment.
Given that the main supporters of this initiative has been the nutso Howard Jarvis Association, which actively campaigned for Prop 98 at the CRP convention, this endorsement should eat into the Republican support for Prop 98. While the Chamber stayed neutral on Prop 99, the coalition against Prop 98 and for Prop 99 has grown further.
Check the flip for the full list.
UPDATE: Also, I hear some folks will be picketing an Apartment owners meeting in Oakland this morning. You want to join them? I'm sure it will be a rocking good time. Dean Preston of Tenants Together will be joined by leaders for seniors and other tenants groups. Political blotter link here.
Dozens of seniors, tenants and community rights activists from Oakland/Bay Area will protest and march outside the Rental Housing Association of Northern Alameda County (RHA) convention on Saturday, March 15 at 11:00AM, 4700 Lincoln Ave, Oakland (in front of Greek Orthodox Church on the sidewalk.)
A while back, I mentioned a lawsuit against AG Jerry Brown regarding the ballot title for prop 98, "EMINENT DOMAIN. LIMITS ON GOVERNMENT AUTHORITY." You see, that really doesn't clearly articulate what Prop 98 does. But, let's just think about the amount of people this actually impacts. Eminent domain? A few hundred per year. Rent Control? Several hundred thousand.
So which one should be in the ballot title? Hmmm. Nonetheless, the judge ruled that Brown, while perhaps wrong, didn't actually overstep his authority. Under the law, being wrong isn't enough, but rather you must be super-wrong. So wrong that you didn't have authority to be that wrong. So, when you get that June ballot in the mail, for prop 98 it will say "Eminent Domain. Limits on Government Authority." despite the fact that it will impact far more people through its rent control provisions than through eminent domain.
You know, the thing that I don't get here is why Brown wouldn't include it. After all, it's pretty clear he has designs on reliving the 80's by running for governor again. You'd think he wouldn't try to intentionally mess with the tenants organizations. But, alas, the enigma that is Jerry Brown continues.
So, this could be some serious good time fun. The No on 98 Campaign is planning on running a little video contest, with the winner getting $1,000! The object will be to make light of some of the nasty, nasty stuff that Prop 98 will do to the state of California (like eliminate rent control) or just highlight some of the crazy shenanigans going on in the Yes on 98 campaign. And if you choose the latter, well, let's just say I'd take a look at Capitol Weekly, the Save Rent Control blog or some of the other great news sites around the state.
The goal is for YouTube videos of about a minute in length. They'll be judged by the crack Yes on 98 Video Team (a lofty group I assure you) and some great videos will be highlighted on NoProp98.org. It will be a blast, I'm sure. For full details, check out the No 98 website here.
Today, a lawsuit was filed in Sacramento to change the ballot title for the Bad Prop 98. The ballot title as circulated was "Government Acquisition, Regulation of Private Property. Constitutional Amendment." For the ballot, as it stands, it will get "EMINENT DOMAIN. LIMITS ON GOVERNMENT AUTHORITY." Yikes, that's a cheery sounding name for a not-so-cheery initiative. That's why today several tenants organizations have filed the suit:
"By far, Proposition 98's greatest impact will be the provisions abolishing rent control and renter protections," said Nan Brasmer, President of the California Alliance for Retired Americans. "Currently, more than 1 million renters are protected by rent control, and this initiative will negatively impact millions of renters in the state. When voters read the title - which is all that many voters read - they should be informed up front that Prop. 98 abolishes rent control. It's a principle point of the initiative. Voters have a right to know."
Now, I know many of us read much, much more than just the title, but that's not the case universally. For many voters it's how they vote. "EMINENT DOMAIN. LIMITS ON GOVERNMENT AUTHORITY." doesn't mean a whole lot to most voters. And if it's confusing doesn't "limits on government authority" sound kinda ok, especially in the age of warrentless wiretaps? The trouble is that the Bad Prop 98 does so much more.
The interesting thing is that there's some evidence on intent. According to plaintiff's they have a document that indicates that the real purpose of the initiative is to eliminate protections for millions of California's renters. Not only the over 1 million Californians who reside in rent-controlled units, but also renters who just want their security deposit back in a timely matter. The thing is that this proposition is really hard to quantify in 6 words or less. It's a beast of a proposition that does many, many things, and "EMINENT DOMAIN. LIMITS ON GOVERNMENT AUTHORITY." just doesn't really make it clear that the intent of the funders was aimed at renters.
"The overwhelming majority of funding behind Prop. 98 comes from landlords. The only reason they're funding this measure is to abolish rent control and other renter protections," said Dean Preston, Executive Director of Tenants Together. "Even the proponents' own ballot arguments list rent control as a principle provision of the initiative. We're simply asking that the title reflect the primary provisions so voters can make an informed decision."
I'm thinking perhaps something along the lines of "Sticking it to the Renters. Freeing Developers to Pillage California. Constitutional Amendment." I suppose I could settle for something in the middle though.
That's the BAD Prop 98 that will be on the ballot in the June primary, not the good Prop 98 from 1988. Still sounds kind of weird to see the California Teacher Association opposed to Prop 98, though. But the AARP and the CTA are not the only members of what is a growing coalition against the Hidden Agendas embodied in the BAD Prop 98. You can get the full list of groups that oppose these hidden agendas on Friday here or over the flip. But, it's quite an impressive list, running the gamut from all areas, including environmental groups, senior groups, education groups, labor, religious organizations, homeowner's groups, business, and even farming groups.
I think it's also important to note that several good government groups, such as the League of Women Voters, have come together with organizations across the state to reject Prop 98. A lot of propositions get a lot of pushback, but few get this depth and this breadth of pushback. In this video, you see Senator Carole Migden (D-SF) talking about the long, hard fight that we're going to have wage against the Bad Prop 98.
The Bad Prop 98 will eliminate rent control in California, make governance of our state even harder, and generally be a problem for Californians. This Bad Prop 98 is really, really bad for progressives and bad for California.
Now also in orange. Recs and comments appreciated there as well.
Today, in the LA Times, Patrick McGreevy has an article about the funders of what will become, unfortunately Prop. 98. A sidebar real quick about the ballot designation of propositions. I've always felt that the initiatives that are particularly noteworthy should have their ballot designations retired. Take 98 for example. When somebody says Prop 98 to you, what do you think of? Education, probably. Well, now you're going to have to start thinking of the the Hidden Agendas Scheme as well, so for the next 4+ months, you're going to have to remember No on 98/Yes on 99. Put them together, remember them both. It's vitally important that, just for these few months, we hear, we know, and we repeat the phrase: "This is the WRONG Prop 98!"
So, back to the LA Times story. Basically, the fact that this is about rent control, pure and simple, is made plainly clear by the sources of funding: Apartment and mobile home owners. And coincidentally, Sam Zell.
In the spring, voters will decide whose interests prevail. More than 100 owners and operators of apartment buildings and mobile home parks spent nearly $2 million to put an initiative on the June 3 ballot to phase out California's rent control laws. About 1.2 million people statewide are covered by such laws.
***
Big financial backers of the California Property Owners and Farmland Protection Act include the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn., which gave $100,000 to the effort and lent the campaign $200,000; the Western Manufactured Housing Communities Issues PAC, which contributed $150,000; and the Apartment Owners Assn. Political Action Committee, which put in $100,000.
Among the donations is $50,000 from Equity Lifestyle Properties Inc., which owns 27 mobile home parks in California, and many more in other states. Equity Lifestyle's chairman is Sam Zell, chairman of Tribune Co., which owns the Los Angeles Times.(LA Times 1.29.08)
Today, in the LA Times,