Prop 98 v 99 - Slumlords – Can’t Live With Them, Can’t Live Without Them!

I received my Official Voter Information Guide this week, and as usual I reluctantly read my way through the drab legal wording presented in the arguments and rebuttals... this time for Propositions 98 and 99 in the cheaply mass-produced 24-page guide.

After reading it the big issue this June 3, 2008 primary election is do you believe landlords should be able to arbitrarily increase rent for new lease agreements, in any city of the California?

That's a simplistic analysis of the question, but that is what all those smudgy little pages really boil down to... Do you feel that landlords should have their property rights "trampled" upon by the state government, limiting their ability to increase rent to whatever amount they "claim" is a fair market rate?

Proposition 98 - Vote No
While this proposition's arguments and actual legal text focus heavily on preventing local and state governments from misusing Eminent Domain for the purpose of economic redevelopment by purchasing property and then transferring to private developers (and this is really all that Proposition 99 covers), the crux of the issue is tacked on the actual law at the last minute. Thrown in at the very end, it attempts to rid landlords the "head-ache" of rent control laws. While there is a provision to sustain laws for tenants who currently reside in properties under rent control, new tenants would not fall under rent control anymore.

For Los Angeles, new developments that begin renting after October 1, 1978 are already excluded from rent control laws. But there will always need to be some type of support for low-income families and so it is already in place that many new developments provide a percentage of their tenancy to low-income families and are allowed to avoid limitations on rent increases for other tenants. LA Housing Dept - Rent Control

Proposition 99 - Vote Yes
This proposition cuts to the chase and is straight forward. Local and state governments may not abuse eminent domain by purchasing private property and then transferring it to private developers. There is no sneaky provision tacked in on the end, trying to eradicate rent control.

Whether you're for rent control or not, a clear and easily understandable law should be presented, not a misleading Proposition such as 98. If landlords and/or renters (yeah right) want to call a vote on eliminating rent control, call it for what it is and let the people vote.

I've been a tenant, a property manager, and I've been a landlord so I feel that while eminent domain is necessary but must be checked (I am absolutely against governments using eminent domain to transfer property to private developers), rent control laws must be in place.

Finally, my solution would be to allow a hybrid rent control law, allowing for landlords to increase rents for long-term tenants by percentages decided by the city (as current Los Angeles Housing Laws mandate now), but at the same time have a time-frame built-in where the rent control laws expire at 5 or 10 years.

There needs to be some protection from greedy, slum-lords running out tenants but on the reverse there also needs to be protection for landlords to prevent tenants from living in their property for an infinite amount of years.