Correspondence - #33 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-"imposing rent control will will [sic] reduce the interest of investors in building new rental units or investing in existing buildings" This argument regularly made by the opposition fails to understand exactly what rent stabilization means while simultaneously conflating it with lust Cause protections. It also fails to outline how this might be true. The interest of investors to invest in something is dependent upon possible return. Thus, in areas where the possible returns are lessened, then absolutely, there may be lessened interest to invest. But any return is better than no return or negative returns which is what absolutely takes place in regions where housing markets tank (remember 2008?). In rent cap -subject subject cities in 2008, rent cap subject units remained afloat and those tenants remained housed and investors still got their returns. The tenants and residents deserve stabilized economies and housing costs so that the local economy can more easily recover during periods of economic downturn. -"Every community where rent control has been imposed has overall had a negative effect i.e. poor upkeep, deferred maintenance, slum conditions, etc." Again, where's the proof? Additionally, in Santa Ana, poor upkeep and deferred maintenance is the norm without any "rent control" in place. The proposal will thus allow residents to be able to hold their landlords accountable to their business and legal obligations to provide safe and decent housing. -"I'm a good landlord and don't raise rents above three percent nor harass, bully, or evict without reason" Well then great! The proposed ordinance will continue to allow you to do so. In years where you may need to raise the rents past three percent, you can petition for such because the issue isn't good landlords, it's bad ones. This way all landlords are held to the same legal and moral standards in our City. -"The proposal allows people to move in without owner approval" Actually, it doesn't. It would serve the opposition best to read through the ordinance. -"the proposal will enable squatting without recourse" This is false. -"Let the free market do its job. Our Country developed very nicely under free enterprise" The issue is that the free market has failed time and time again to address the health and welfare of all individuals who are a part of our Country. The free enterprise that developed in the USA since its inception was based largely in part upon the exploitation of non -white individuals. Even in more contemporary history, we still see large patterns wherein the most success "free" enterprises don't represent people who have the same lived experience as the people who have made Santa Ana the great place that it is today. It's time to make the system work for us too. -"rent control in Brooklyn NY led to derelict unmaintained building that were eventually condemned and all tenants displaced" Landlords make a conscious choice to not maintain buildings and not petition for rent increases above the legally allowed cap. It was the landlord of this particular building which resulted in disrepair, not the tenants nor any local law. A restaurant owner who constantly cuts corners and fails to find ways to keep food and patrons happy will eventually go out of business. It is devastating when this occurs. This comment from the opposition also fails to show understanding or a definition of what "rent control" is. The proposal here in Santa Ana will allow for tenants to hold landlords accountable to a local regulatory agency. -"I won't be able to make my mortgage if there's a cap on rent" Not all units will be subject to the rent cap. For those that are, Landlords can petition for increases above and beyond the max.