Eminently Logical

I am a renter and am opposed to Prop 98. The argument that thousands of apt's will magically appear isn't persuasive to me. What condition are they in? What are the guarantees that landlords won't still try to get incredibly high rents, regardless of median apt. prices? And how is that median set and at what point does it become apparent? And why does anyone think private speculation (which is a big part of determining rents in uncontrolled markets)is answerable to logic? House prices remained unbelievably high for a while after the bubble burst.

On one hand you're right: the amount of regulation over development in SF has stunted it's proper growth and contributed to the high cost of housing in the City. The neighborhood groups (and even the affordable housing "industry") are way, way too powerful. For example, why aren't there mid-rise apartments all up and down Geary where they belong?

But to think that the elimination of rent control would lower rents is naive at best. Rent control only applies to units built after 1978, so we *should* have seen a bunch new non-rent controlled units - that hasn't happened.

The elimination of rent control would need to occur in conjunction with the reduction in development controls you write about, but that just will not happen. Therefore, we need to keep rent control to provide the last vestiges of affordable housing in SF.

Vote NO on 98 on June 3rd.

Yes on 98. Renters, you have nothing to worry about. First, all rent controlled units are grandfathered. You will still have your rent control as long as you live there. Second, remove the rent control and housing and rents become more affordable for all except those whose rent is held at artificially low rates. You help those who are poor and seek housing.

Prop 99 exists only to protect the government from 98. If you want to protect private property and help the poor you should support 98.

interesting premise, but, um, don't you suppose that if california's zoning controls were overturned, San Francisco would more closely resemble a city without zoning such as, say, Houston. Is that your ideal of urbanism and density???

Incidentally, don't you suppose that the dearth of construction in the early 1980's could have been related to the recession and the high interest rates of the era? mortgage rates reached heights of about 18%. god knows what construction interest rates were!!!

Also, don't you suppose that the loss of population in sf in the post-war era could have been related to national trends, in which nearly every major urban metropolis lost population due to white flight to the suburbs???

personally, i am going to assume that the landlords and right-wing property right zealots know what they are paying for and will vote no on 98.

I thought that Prop 98 specifically eliminated rent control, but your article made me realize it may not; I will have to read Prop 98 closely. However, even though Prop 98 may not specifically eliminate rent control, I'm not persuaded by your logic.

See, even the current (and quite draconian) rent control doesn't apply to post-78 construction. So if Geary and 19th Avenue were going to be lined with six- and seven-story apartment buildings, it would have happened already. Oh, but the Byzantine permit application process, you might say. Maybe, but even without the costs of permits (including the time value of money), I see no evidence of developers in a rush to build construction for the purpose of renting it. What I see is evidence of developers wanting to build expensive condominiums.

Now, you say that there is no evidence of an "infinite demand" for housing in San Francisco, but all those condo towers going up in SOMA are evidence enough. Despite the real estate downturn, they're still selling quite well. There is no shortage of yuppies and wealthy retirees who want to live in San Francisco.

I'm also not persuaded that Prop 98 would remove San Francisco's Byzantine building permit application. Law or no law, nothing prevents people from suing, and nothing prevents courts from issuing injunctions. The usual NIMBY suspects will still sue, and the ultra-liberal judges will still issue injunctions. Overturned on appeal? Sure, three years later, at which point NIMBYs sue again, and friendly judges issue another injunction. After all, no matter how you interpret Prop 98, it can't possibly remove ALL construction barriers. Environmental studies will still have to be done, and not only do those studies take time, but also they are open to interpretation that, again, lets NIMBYs sue and stop things in their tracks.

Yes, I benefit from rent control. My rent is $725 for a 350-square-foot studio. I've lived here 24 years, and it's a rat hole. It always was a rat hole. When it rains, walls with no windows leak water. My toilet is so unstable that you literally cannot put any weight on it or water starts leaking through the base (yea, gross). My hardwood floors are 80 years old, all warped and splintery. My stove has one working burner and the oven doesn't work. Most of my windows don't open, and the ones that do, must be propped open. I realize that is because of rent control, but what are my options? I can barely afford the $725 as it is. Move? To where? I think I'll just vote no on Prop 98 and hope it doesn't pass. But I'll read it and try to understand it first.

Does anyone really think that sprawl tract housing in the exurbs competes with luxury high rise condos in SOMA and that the production of the latter would induce a reduction in the former? Houston has no zoning and is a pit. San Francisco needs to cut a good business deal if we are to entitle new market rate luxury housing, that is new construction should pay for itself, not just on impacts, but on operations and city services. It is unclear as to whether new luxury housing generates enough tax revenue to pay for itself.

Rent control is imperfect. I'd liken it to a frozen river. Removing rent control over time involves breaking up the ice floes. But as we've seen in other instances, whenever a controlled economy is allowed to revert to laissez faire, extreme economic dislocation can often result. As the ice floes are broken up, lives will be ground up between them as the free market river flows forward. We've seen this in the boom and bust cycles in San Francisco, where viable job producing businesses such as the 20 Tank are out competed and displaced by nonviable yet wealthy dot.coms.

Again, so much of Matt Smith's economic prescriptions are researched at the level of scrawl on the back of a cocktail napkin, a marked departure from some of his more insightful, researched work. After we dispense with the economic arguments that are substantiated with "the waving of the hands," maybe we can get a full lifecycle analysis of how market rate housing impacts San Francisco both from a development and an ongoing operations perspective.

It would be interesting to see how The Hunters Point Shipyard project, Prop G and Prop F, would fare under such scrutiny.

And we need to be conducting a full life cycle economic analysis that brings environmental inputs and outputs onto the balance sheet rather than asserting out of thin air that building luxury condos stops sprawl. Show me the numbers.

As far as eminent domain goes, curing the Kelo decision, preventing politicians from seizing private homes to give to developer contributors at a firesale price is a good thing, irrespective of whether or not that is practiced in California at this time.

-marc

How can Matt Smith's try to convince us the end of rent control is all for the best -- best for who? Just look at one example of a senior citizen in their home of 20 to 40 years, who worked hard in the SF marketplace during their work life, and now on a fixed income that cannot compete with the income of workers today -- where are they to go when they have no protection? There are hundreds of examples like that in the city. Rent control is here to protect residents of San Francisco. There are plenty of apartments available at market rate in the city -- and rent controlled apartments immediately boost their rental costs to market rate when that apartment is turned over. The loss of rent control would be devastating for many. Save rent control for the future of our residents. Vote "no" on 98.

And just reminder -- if anyone thinks that Prop. 98 is about mom and pop homeowners with one or 15 units that they rent, think again. This is about land speculators waiting to swoop in and buy up property that is no longer subject to rent control, so that they can convert the units into condos and sell them or rent them at exorbitantly high prices.

Good article. Vote yes on 98 to protest the city's ridiculous development regulations.

The saddest truth revealed in this article was Matt Smith's observation about the ethos that guides present-day San Francisco: "Our best days are behind us. So don't change anything." That pretty much sums up the attitude of the powers that be in this town. Long-gone is the can-do spirit that motivated fortune-seekers from around the world who came to California for the Gold Rush to build a world-class city. If it weren't for tourism, SF, the "city that knew how," would by now be another economically destitute Baltimore. But hey, the ruins would still look beautiful, even if no one could find work.

The point of requiring government to provide fair compensation to people when its regulations destroy the value of their property or deprive them of its use -- which Matt Smith unfortunately misses entirely despite dancing all around it -- is not just a matter of economic justice and civil rights, although it is that, too. It's to make it more difficult for government to pass the kind of regulations that slowly stifle and kill once-great cities and create the mentality that our best days are behind us.