CORRESPONDENCE - 65A - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Key Findings on the Impact of Rent Control in Oceanside • Oceanside taxpayers have spent and lost $7.5 million from 1999 through 2011 • Oceanside will spend and lose $8 million over next decade • Unreported additional staff costs are unknown • Outside legal cost related to rent control is unknown Executive Summary The City of Oceanside enacted rent control in 1983. There are 17 mobile home parks with over 2500 units. As the voters are asked to consider modifying the current rent control restrictions in June, it is relevant to analyze the past and ongoing costs and fiscal impacts of rent control on Oceanside's taxpayers. It is also worth noting that as part of this study, it was clearly determined that the City of Oceanside has NOT adequately tracked all of its rent control -related staff and legal costs. Lost Taxes Since rent control was enacted, no additional mobile home parks have been built in the city. This non -growth in mobile home parks is in extraordinary contrast to the explosive population growth and the construction of thousands of new housing and apartments units. This stagnation led to depressed property values on these 17 properties, resulting in a potential property tax loss of over $3.2 million. It is estimated that this under -valuation will mean that Oceanside will not realize $4 million in additional property tax revenues over the next decade. Increased Costs The costs associated with rent control are only partly tracked by the City of Oceanside in its "Mobile Home Rent Control Fund." Whether as a simple oversight, or as an intentional way to hide the full costs, this lack of detailed accounting has made it impossible to determine the complete and accurate impact to the taxpayers. In addition, the financial data which IS available only goes back to the 1999 fiscal year. 15 previous years of rent control related expenditures are a mystery. According to city Rent Control Fund, since 1999 the Oceanside has collected $1.7 million in rent control fees, while spending $2.4 million in staff and other costs. However, it is estimated that an additional $1.9 million in unreported personnel costs were expended as well, bringing full staff rent control costs to $4.3 million. Additional rent -control related staff and legal expenditures are unknown.