What is Prop 33? A look at California's ballot measure on expanding rent control
Вставка
- Опубліковано 24 жов 2024
- In November, California voters will decide if local governments should be given the power to expand rent control if they wanted to. This is Prop 33 explained. READ MORE: abc7.com/post/...
Vote yes on prop 33, you know why? the rent is too dam high and out of control. Vote for your own interest!
Im not a fan of rent control in general but with investors now owning (and still buying!!!) homes im a yes. Supply and demand don’t work when massive investment groups control a resource because they can tolerate empty units effectively limiting supply. California is turning into Pottersville of It’s a Wonderful Life.
How do they profit from empty houses?
@@lg-ii6pm They don't make anything on vacant apartments.
The reason Blackrock and the rest started buying up single family houses is that the government gave them money with the excuse that housing prices couldn't be allowed to go down. I don't know why not. I too would buy lots of houses if the government gave me money to buy them.
Renters will say YES, owners will say NO. Irony is that housing crisis will worsen whether it passes or not. Housing for profit model simply just doesn't work for a society in the very long run.
I say yes as it will make housing more affordable, and those greedy rich people will crease to buy more houses making the demand for houses less expensive.
Less houses for sales in the market make buying the house cost a lot and home owners love it when there house appreciation increased.
It is time for the poor to afford rent and save enough money to buy their own house and when there are more houses on the market, the house will be cheaper when the demand for buying house creased.
It is a win win for the poor people, so those rich people will lay off buying them for rent for their own profit and besides there are ton of apartments for rent but many people couldn't afford it.
@@rollinia7770ohhh no. Be specific. Dont give a whole rhetoric speech… What will limit rent control??? That’s what we NEED in cali.. also you cannot say what a “poor” person should afford …Yes or no on this prop? And simply why…….
There's way more renters than Owners so why did rent control not pass? Corruption, FBI should be looking at this!
It’s because of money hungry landlords, wanting more and more money.
@@Scotty2Hotty1122 Vote yes for the poor, not for the middle class home owners or rich people.
The landlords take all your money through rent and then they can use that money to slam down any kind of laws or propositions that can dent their precious profits. Yes on 33.
I am a big bad landlord and I will make sure bolsheviks like you aspire to be shall not pass! Private property is what it is. You want to live in a nice house and be able to afford it - stop whining, pull yourself up and earn it. If you want to use someone else’s - that’s up for the market to decide the rent you will pay.
Landlords cannot “overprice”, that’s just kindergarten talk. If a landlord sets a price that’s too high - no one will rent it. Market sets the price. Why are prices so high? Well, you can thank your local government for messing up the health of the market. By imposing harsh regulations such as rent control, the only thing they achieve is that no developer in his right mind would want to build there. Supply falls, demand outweighs supply -> you get a disfunctional market like in San Francisco.
Piece of advice, don’t rely on the government or anyone else - work hard and make your own ends meet. Then, one day, you may own a home and, trust me, you will see it very differently when you earn it with your own sweat.
I love how they argue rent will go up. They are already building at a snails pace to artificially inflate the market. Don’t believe the lies they are making up.
Building at a snails pace is not by choice of the developer/builder. It is incredibly difficult to get any project approved. Every one of my clients wishes they could build faster and turn over more units, both for sale and for rent products.
@@cyclingboss469okay but what is your solution? Bc you still not addressing the problem your only talking about It
30 IQ understanding of the problem
@@Scotty2Hotty1122 The argument of my comment is for rent control the fact it is only in place in certain places and not state wide is the reason it doesn’t work.
@@JdmgjnFjahgks I’m sure you have a tremendous iq with the amount of thought you put into this comment.
I’m voting yes. It will guarantee zero new construction in California. Yahooooo. Go away people.
Builders need to build no matter what it all a farce, People are tapped out.
Lmao are you anti immigration then? Because that won't stop a billion Indians from coming
Yes gives government control to allocate funds where they see fit. No gives homeowners who own more than one home to a cap on rent. This is going to unlock a glut of inventory built before 1995. This will also stop investors from going into secondary housings rather leave it for the renter to be able to afford to buy own. Since 1 guy does not have 10 for same competition. Housing is going to collapse in California anyways as 51 of Californians are leaving the state. Fires , heats, insurance, no tech jobs. It’s inevitable. The perfect storm has begun. Inventories have risen by 37%. It hasn’t even begun yet ! Hold on to your cash not your home. Rental and downsizing best solution. Good luck unloading for next 18 months window. 🪟
Which in turn will increase rent and home prices more than it already is.
@@dylanwheaton2785 exactly
I’m voting yes on 33 because slumlords like mine need a wake up call. They raised my rent from $1,600 to $2,300 over the years, and I’m still waiting on an upgrade. Hopefully, I get a pool just kidding!
So renters should vote yes, and home owners should vote no? I'm a renter lol
@@User_92020If you’re voting “yes” on a proposition like the one you’re describing (let’s call it Prop 33 for this example), you are supporting rent control measures that would prevent landlords from significantly increasing rent without making improvements or upgrades to the property.
Here’s what it means and why someone might vote “yes”:
Why Vote Yes:
• Protection Against Unfair Rent Increases: Voting “yes” would limit how much your rent can go up each year, especially if the landlord isn’t adding new amenities or making upgrades like fixing appliances, installing a pool, or modernizing the home. This helps renters avoid large, sudden rent increases.
• Ensures Accountability for Rent Hikes: If a landlord wants to raise your rent significantly, they would need to provide proof that they’ve invested in upgrading or improving the property. Otherwise, they can’t justify the higher rent. This encourages landlords to maintain and improve properties instead of just raising rents without reason.
• Affordable Housing Stability: Rent control can keep housing affordable, especially in high-demand areas where landlords often increase rent just because they can. This measure would ensure that longtime tenants aren’t priced out of their homes.
Example:
Let’s say you’ve been renting a house for three years at $1,800 a month. You notice that your landlord has raised the rent to $2,300, even though nothing has changed about the house-there’s no new pool, no new appliances, no upgraded landscaping, and nothing has been fixed or improved.
If Prop 33 were in place, your landlord wouldn’t be able to raise the rent to $2,300 unless they made significant improvements to the property. If they don’t, the rent might only increase by a small, reasonable percentage (for example, a 3-5% increase per year), which is much easier to manage than a $500 increase.
What a “Yes” Vote Means:
• Your rent would only go up in small, manageable increments unless your landlord makes big upgrades to the property.
• You’d be protected from unfair and unexpected rent hikes that aren’t tied to improvements.
• Landlords would be incentivized to maintain and upgrade properties if they want to raise rents significantly.
So, if you’re tired of paying more for the same old house with no improvements, a “yes” vote would help limit how much your rent can go up each year unless the landlord makes noticeable changes.
@@User_92020If you vote “no” on a proposition like the one you’re describing (Prop 33 in our example), you’re choosing to keep the current system, where landlords have more freedom to increase rent without necessarily making improvements to the property.
Why Vote No:
• Maintaining Market Flexibility: Voting “no” would allow landlords to set rent prices based on the market, which means they can adjust rent based on demand. This approach argues that if rent control is too strict, it could discourage property owners from renting out homes or investing in new rental properties, reducing the overall supply of available housing.
• Avoiding Government Overreach: Some people believe that strict rent control is a form of government overreach, limiting what property owners can do with their own investments. By voting “no,” you’re supporting the idea that landlords should have the freedom to set rent as they see fit, and market forces (supply and demand) will naturally regulate prices.
• Encouraging Property Investment: Landlords might be less willing to invest in property maintenance or improvements if they feel they won’t be able to charge higher rents to cover those costs. A “no” vote would allow them to raise rents as needed to keep up with repairs, maintenance, or even increasing property taxes.
Example:
Let’s use the same situation where you’ve been renting a house for three years at $1,800 a month. The landlord raises the rent to $2,300, but no improvements (like a new pool, appliances, or renovations) have been made to the property.
If you vote “no”, your landlord can continue to raise the rent according to what the market allows. While this might feel unfair in the short term, the argument is that rent control might discourage landlords from improving properties or creating new rentals, and in the long term, it could result in fewer available homes for rent. You might also see that landlords would rather sell their properties than rent them out under restrictive conditions, potentially reducing the housing supply.
What a “No” Vote Means:
• Landlords retain the ability to increase rent based on market demand, even if they don’t make upgrades to the property.
• Rent could increase significantly, but landlords might be more willing to invest in property maintenance or development, keeping the rental market competitive.
• The housing market could adjust naturally without government-imposed limits, theoretically maintaining a balance between what renters are willing to pay and what landlords charge.
In short, a “no” vote supports the idea that rent should be driven by market conditions, giving landlords more freedom to adjust rent prices, while also avoiding potential negative effects of strict rent control, like reduced housing availability or lower quality rentals due to lack of incentive for improvements.
So in my case as a renter i would say YES. And spread the word
Congrats! You will pay even more than now. The real estate owner will sell if the rent price does not compensate for property maintenance, etc. At least property tax will rise according to the market + mortgage, and your price will skyrocket to the moon. Of course, if the new owner decides to rent this property. Otherwise, you'll doomed to search for another place to live.
@@svetlanaklinova4876Your argument assumes that property owners will always sell if they don’t get to raise rents to extreme levels, but that’s not how the market works. Rent control laws like AB 1482 in California strike a balance they allow rent increases that reflect inflation and property maintenance, but prevent landlords from making sudden, unreasonable hikes that harm tenants. If property owners can’t manage their assets responsibly within those limits, perhaps they’re not fit for this business.
Furthermore, selling a property doesn’t necessarily mean rents will skyrocket. There’s always demand for rental properties, and most buyers will continue renting out units, often following similar guidelines. If they raise rent too high, they’ll price themselves out of the market, which means losing good, long-term tenants.
So no, I’m not “doomed” to search for another place to live. I have rights as a tenant, and the law is designed to protect people from exactly the kind of instability you’re describing.
@jasonk3214
2 minutes ago
Rich people who own homes and apartments dont want rent control so they can charge whatever amount they want for rent. Renters which are mostly labor will have to spend more and more for rent can barely survive. Social Security average is $1500-$2000 after working 40 years how can anyone survive. Half the people will end up homeless the rate its going. You need 4k a month to make it paying rent. Soon you will need 6k but pay raises are .50 cent to $1 an hour each year
have you thought of moving to cheaper town or state? If enough people did that the asking rents would stabilize or decrease
People should take finance classes. If someone works 40 years and didn't invest in a home for their retirement years, they made some bad decisions.
I'm voting Yes
The people paying for the insane amount of no on 33 ads are the ones fixing prices and draining all of us on rent. Meanwhile, the yes on 33 also seem to be disingenuous. We need rent control but not to lose limits on what they can charge new tenants for a unit...someone should revamp the 1995 law instead of just repealing it.
This Is the best thing I’ve seen however, you can’t revamp a law/act That’s been already passed decades ago effectively We have to make a new one that is similar, that is a solution.. hopefully that’s within the yes or no side.. because I’m trying to figure out what am I going to vote on for this?
You don't make sense
@@chrislastnam6822wtf do you mean, it makes perfect sense, did you read it?
Yeah if they're going to repeal the law they need to be proactive about setting something in place so people will be guaranteed reasonable rent prices rather than even worse rent hikes on top of the already aggregious unaffordable process already.
@@ollie2111 Virtually all economists think that price controls cause shortages and ultimately higher prices. In the case of rentals developers won't build new apartment buildings if they will not make money. In a free market there will be an abundance of new apartment buildings and rents will come down. One big driver of rent hikes in California is the high cost of bureaucracy. It costs developers almost one million dollars per every one bdr apartment in a building because the government has too many high fees and overpaid underworked government employees .If the cost of building new apartments was reduced and rent control abolished rents would come down. Another problem with rent control is that owners don't have enough money to keep their buildings in good condition.
Nice try Diddy. Smart Californians will vote yes
Rent control is an attempt to address the symptoms of the problem. Rents are high because of zoning laws, NIMBYs, skyrocketing insurance costs, lack of infrastructure, high interest rates, and high building costs tied to various building codes [some of which are unnecessary, such as installing new sidewalks when an existing home is enlarged]. Rent collusion is also a potential contributor, as are hedge funds buying up huge tracts of homes.
I know MANY private owners who REFUSE TO RENT. Too many pro squatter/property tenant laws. Owners pay higher property taxes every year but tenants don't want to.
PRIVATE OWNERS ARE NOT RENTING
BS! This is what they said last time and rent when up ! We need rent control ASAP !
How are rents in SF doing?
We already have rent control.
Buy an house
@@knightowl5729 Houses in the ghetto in Los Angeles cost more than a million dollars.
Of course, yes on rent control throughout California as it benefits the poor and not the greedy governments and besides the cities will continue to build housing for homeless regardless unless the government pockets that money too.
Yes on rent control. Landlords will finally get a clue and stop renting out, thus keeping out riff raff called renters. Fewer renters means less crime.
@yootoobvyooer Yeah and especially stuffed 2 to 4 people in one bedroom and even rent a room stuffed with 2 people so now people can afford their own living space and stop hoarding the streets parking.
What makes it worse is the millions of immigrants that came in adding to the competition
@@ace-lt8ry this is why we need rent control so landlords will stop renting out their property to anyone for fear of losing money. Illegal or citizen, all renters are riff raff.
@ace-lt8ry Those migrants got section 8 and likely welfare for life and they likely will live in any condition.
If they remain poor, we have to pay for them until they get out of poverty.
Might as well we all have cheap rent so we all can buy our own house instead of renting to make money for them to buy more houses or apts to rent it out.
When there are poor people, the middle class suffer anyway because they have to pay for some of their welfare living.
How about local government not making if so hard to build
that's about it; one can have lower housing costs or support leftist electeds can't have both, it's a 'choice'...
It's too expensive thanks to too many regulations and overpaid government hacks. If the supply of housing increased the prices would come down but neither will happen if the government keeps making it unnecessarily expensive to build apartments.
I really don’t think California needs any more new housing.
How bout these old ass apartments stop raising the cost of rent
@@latinace1981 If the supply was increased the prices would go down. Who are you to tell people what to charge. Do you sell your cars after a number of years? Do you sell anything on eBay or Poshmark? What do you charge?
If the government is not paying my rent, you're not going to raise it either. 😂
YES ON 33 !
This doesn’t stop landlords from buying up homes…
0:59 dude is literally labeled as a “no for 33” spokeman. I love how quickly they pass through his credentials lol
If the rent is too high we just gotta get rid of our dumb governor He's to blame for just about everything
Voting "Yes" on Proposition 33 is critical to safeguarding renters' rights and addressing California's deepening housing crisis. Repealing the Costa-Hawkins Act would allow local governments to impose more robust rent control policies, protecting millions of tenants from sharp rent increases. These protections are vital, especially in areas where rent hikes drive vulnerable families to the brink of displacement. Without the ability to control skyrocketing rents, many renters could face eviction, potentially ending up homeless or living in precarious situations. The opposition, which includes MAGA Republicans and business groups like the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, is primarily concerned with protecting landlords' profits. Their "No" campaign often uses scare tactics directed at homeowners even though Prop 33 mainly impacts rental properties, not homeownership. Voting "No" would maintain the status quo, which leaves tenants vulnerable to rent gouging, potentially forcing them out of their homes and even exacerbating the homelessness crisis By voting "Yes" on Prop 33, we can help prevent more people from being pushed into homelessness and ensure renters have the protections they need to stay in their communities.
Absolute yes.
The reality is that renters actually dictate the price of rent. They are "The Market". If the prices are too high they won't pay it, and rents will naturally come down. If you want to lower the cost of rent, then start with the landlord. Lower the landlords taxes, interest rate, provide subsides for landlords. That is the root of the problem. Everyone wants to vilify the landlords but they are caught in the middle of it all. They are trying to survive just like anyone else.
my question is, what would our government set the limit at and would they be able to adjust their limit like they adjust taxes due to rent control? And what is their incentive to even pass this prop? None of our state-wide politicians rent and I have a hard time believing they just do things to better our state. It's almost always been to benefit them.
WHY IS RENT HIGH IN CA?
stop passing nonessential propositions. They are passed as property tax, which GOVERNMENT RAISES ANNUALLY. THAT BECOMES RENT!
How about rent reduction? Controlling rents where they are now just means theyre still too high.
Yes on 33
I was 20 buying my first house with my girlfriend im 25 now and am kind of shitting my pants with these coming up because we really only scrape by, being from a 30k a year house i see why its appealing but as a home owner i see why itd suck
No to everything. Administration trying to continue do things recklessly.
I guess all the people who walk into stores and steal food, clothes, electronics or other things are doing mothing wrong according to people on this thread because prices are too high. .What about the burglar or burglers that nroke into my house and took valuable jewelry. Is it acceptable to commit crimes because you don't like high prices?
8% increase in rent every year is BULLSHIT
1:48 This is a bit of a lie. "Rent Burdened" is calculated by the percentage of income going towards housing. Florida, Hawaii, and Louisiana have a higher percentage of rent-burdened renters than California, which comes in 4th.
Sounds like a personal problem. If you can't afford rent in CA then you probably should move in with family or leave to a more affordable place that's within your budget. VOTE NO!!!!
I still want to know where the billions of dollars spent by the state went
You're like out of the moon. They spent it on illegals. Illegals get 150K non-refundable if they buy a house.
Let voters vote on rent control, but only let property owners vote on proposition that impact property taxes leaving the State and renters out of those votes.
Renters are always increasing property taxes but then it can not be reflected in raising rents with other costs. Where does a property owner cut their loses when they cannot charge for insurance increases, property tax increases, maintenance increases, utility increases?
No matter how I vote, at the end of the day I will get the shaft 😮
They need to make it easier for smaller cheaper spacw alts., and flood the zone with it. use Tax incentives.
No mention of ADU's ????
THAT'S YOU RED TEAM YOU'RE ON MY KID THAT'S YOU YOU'RE ON ULLISES AND DOMINOS HE KNOWS THE OLD GUY THAT'S YOU GUY AT
I have ZERO sympathy for these leaches, I'm on SSDI the same month I get an increase because of the cost of living my rent get increase the same amount. i hope this gets passed
rental home already high, rental home price affected by inflated prices some caused by China and other foreign investors and billionaires buying foreclosure prime rental homes in coastal Real Eststes in prime California cities.
eat the rich
Evicting my disgusting no rent paying hoarding tenant has been a nightmare. The eviction process is a joke. Way too many rights for tenants and no help for landlords with shitty tenants. Mediation is a damn joke.
😊
Stop voting yes on everything people.
No only helps the owners 🤷♂️🤣
@@hans-erik5001That’s right. And we need more owners, not less. If you think think that being a cattle to the government is a better alternative, just look at those countries that experimented with abolishing private property. Because this is exactly what is happening- private property being de-incentivized. Soon, no one will own anything, but the government. Would you like that?
If you would, then maybe USA isn’t the country for you? I heard North Korea has no shortage of housing.
@@filinled this bill is passing whether you like it or not 🤷♂️😂 yes on 33 😉
@@hans-erik5001 Sure gollum, go beg for another precious handout.
Whether it passes or not, the tide is turning. People are sick of this communist woke crap. This is USA. No pain, no gain - that’s how it always worked, that’s how it will work. Want to live in a nice house and be able to afford it - pull yourself up and go earn it!
America will be great, again! ☝️🇺🇸
@@hans-erik5001 Whether it passes or not, the tide is turning. People are sick of this woke communist nonsense. This is USA. No pain - no gain. That’s how it always worked, that’s how it will work.
Want to live in a nice house and be able to afford it - stop whining, pull yourself up and go earn it!
America will be great, again! ☝️🇺🇸
Why would builders want to build new apartments if they think they wont make a profit because of increased rent control?
When the government takes total control of anything, it gets scarce and more expensive. People in communist cuba live in poverty as they do in North Korea.The government makes its cronies rich and throws you a gew crumbs.
The whole state has rent control. The only limit is sfr and new apartments. Why wouldn’t we should be able to raise rents on new tenants.
No on 33
Yes on 33 hurts small landlords with one or two properties. It doesn’t go after the problem of ‘slumlords’ or investment companies. It gives the local government the ability to control rent for single family homeowners.
California has the best climate, so people always want to move here. The only way out of our housing crisis is to build more, and for that to happen, we need government to get out of the way! Rent control just favors the existing renters at the expense of everyone else. No one prop 33!
No , on 33
Soon every neighborhood will be a section 8😢
That’s not what this ballot means 😂
You don’t even know what you’re talking about 😂 probably a Trump supporter too 🤷♂️😂
@@hans-erik5001
I think you are the one who has no clue.
No on 33. Trump 2024! 🇺🇸💪
@@filinled 🤣Trump is fucking joke - a wannabe dictator just wants to be president again for his ego.
Where has this worked? San Francisco is the second most expensive market in the country and has the strictest rent control laws. Ten people applying for each lower priced unit, only the most qualified get the place. Sounds like a great thing for the rest of the state...NOT
1 million people have left California…… a few million more need to leave too…. Bye!… too many damn people… if they are liberal go move to red states where you can turn them blue also 😂
@mr is exactly correct.
ok, rent control was first meant for senior citicenze on tight budget.
It was Not for everyone!
It was for people that im the future will Not be able to keep up with rising rent prices.
It was Only Ever meant for a small percentage of housing in each complex.
It was for the most vulnerable in the bulding , NOT to drive the landlord into poverty!
California voters are smart?😂😂😂😂😂
Smarter than red state voters 😂
Now that’s funny
BRUH!!! I said the same thing 😂
Newsom should’ve been prosecuted for new voters laws in California those prohibit requesting a legal identity for votes registration
stop buying or renting the market will correct itself, it has to or the owner will go bust
That makes no fucking sense. People still need to places to live.
rent control benefits 'no one', reducing government involvement benefits 'all' specifically renters who will repp the benefits of ever increasing market with lots and lots of options -- including lower cost rent...
We all agree on the problem, but rent control will just force rents up for everyone not lucky enough to get rent control. In the long run, those in rent control properties will live in shambles as those landlords are not able to afford the upkeep. Buildings don’t magically last forever if people happen to wish to pay low rents.
Vote NO!!!!!!
Why?
Vote yes!
@ashayacatl I vote yes as I am not a home owner, and I don't care the owners house appreciates goes up or down in fact going down is better and better change for me to buy a house than rent.
Vote YES !!!!!!! 😆
@@User_92020 Voted yes!
Read Thomas Sowell about the negative effects of rent control or Hazlett's Economics in one Lesson. Rent control causes housing shortages.
Rent control will hurt the people in California because landlords will sell out and there will be less places to rent , rent is up only because of inflation and recent over population in California and everyone is now fighting for a place to live but rent control is not going to help, it will only make the problem worse because the state will control what you pay and if the state wants more money you will have to pay more in rent
If landlords are forced to charge low rents, then being a landlord doesn't make sense anymore. It's better to invest in something else.
There isn't much point to invest in low rent/rent control properties.
They already charging too damn much. They need to fucking stop INCREASING rent.
@@iitvoii You can move to the boondocks. They have cheap rent. Or you can buy your own house.
Rent control is just a gift to those happy where they are renting the moment it passes. Everybody else loses.
How does everyone else lose?
@@rsultan25 the next renter gets hit with an even bigger rent increase upfront because the landlord knows aside from the first increase between tenants, they wont be able to increase rent much, so they get it upfront. Also hurts mom and pop renters because they have the older properties, notice it exempts new properties, probably investor owned.
@@Ultrajamzstop spreading misinformation. This is good for the majority which are renters. Rents are out of control for no reason other than greed
Govt controlled food will be next. Then you'll be wondering why you live in a tent city 🤔@@bebec1218
@@bebec1218whatever a proposal sounds good it most likely be super bad. Glad I don’t rent
You wanna fix the housing crisis? Lift the restrictions on building!
Stop these half measures and DECOMODIFY HOUSING
Nope on rent control
a very bad idea as it's genesis is motivated by 'hate', that's right the loathing of high housing costs and even property owners. Very few people comply when there's whip on their back, very little new construction will come if 33 passes.
try a different approach to reduce housing costs; less and less government requirements/regulations/mandates and taxes and watch new housing flourish which equals more and more options which means more and more competition which means less and less housing costs...
I believe that property owners should have more rights than renters. Renters can eventually become property owners and even landlords and realize the lunacy of what rent control is and the notion of squatter's rights as well as having a limit to raising rents to FMV (fair market value) with limitation to increases or grandfathering low rates for long term tenants.
I've heard of so many stories of hard working citizens sacrificing vacations and luxuries to save up and purchase rental properties as retirement investments so they'd have a future with reliable recurring income, only to get laid off of their jobs and face mortgages they can't afford to pay, but could if they were able to raise rent.
For cities to limit how much a property owner can charge or raise is insane. Does the city tell retailers how much they can charge for merchandise or restaurants have limits on what they can charge for food?
Sorry renters, if you can't afford to live in a certain area, it's time to reevaluate your situation and strategy in life and either get a better career job or move a different location. The government should be investing in the lower income areas to improve and expand properties affordable for first time home owners, but not infringe upon the rights of those fortunate enough to own properties in prime desirable locations yet stifle their opportunities to charge whatever they want (laws of supply and demand will kick in and any price gouging will result in vacancies).
We're not talking about protecting slumlords, there should still be contracted agreements and defined terms. However, if a renter can't pay the monthly rent and is overdue, they should be kicked out and have 10 or less days to vacate or any possessions becomes property of the landlord to liquidate in lieu of rent owed. It's simple and fair. The current eviction laws are horribly one sided.
Remember, renters, you're guests in a home, not owners. You're paying customers, so do deserve quality treatment of course. At no point should a renter/tenant have more control over a property than the owner.
That's my opinion 'tho from the perspective of a free marketplace society.
Are we communist? The government shouldn't decide how much owners can charge. Almost all economists on the left and tight agree that price controls are detrimental and cause shortages and ultimately higher prices. Government bureaucracy in California is a cause of high rents. The government overpays employees snd charges sky high fees to developers and that drives up rents. It costs about a million dollarsto build each one bdr unit in a building and much of that cost is payment of fees to the government , not the cost of land, labor or materials. It also takes an inordinate amount of time to get approval throughout the process. Rent control discourages developers from building and leads to blighted poorly maintained apartments . Rent control ultimately causes shortages of apartments and higher rents.
NO ON 33
Thomas Sowell wrote some great analyses about the failure of rent control to liwer prices or increase supply.
Vote yes if you want more government in your business!
This will cost everyone money, they will have to hire an army to regulate and audit all rentals in Ca.
Ma and Pope will have to learn how to fill out forms online.
The cost for an office to handle the state rental audits will drive rents up.
Who’s going to pay for the new buildings and government
Office’s…
Renters should vote yes
@@User_92020 if they are out of mind. Otherwise, they vote No. Find and watch the video on how rent price counts. The problem is not in rent price but in taxes, insurance, etc., costs that rise yearly.
@@User_92020Why do you want to steal someone's property? Does a property owner owe you something?
@@chrislastnam6822
Yes
No, No, No, on everything!!! Yes, on 34, 6, 36, and Measure L??
NO on 33
THAT'S YOU RED TEAM YOU'RE ON MY KID THAT'S YOU YOU'RE ON ULLISES AND DOMINOS HE KNOWS THE OLD GUY THAT'S YOU GUY AT
THAT'S YOU RED TEAM YOU'RE ON MY KID THAT'S YOU YOU'RE ON ULLISES AND DOMINOS HE KNOWS THE OLD GUY THAT'S YOU GUY AT
THAT'S YOU RED TEAM YOU'RE ON MY KID THAT'S YOU YOU'RE ON ULLISES AND DOMINOS HE KNOWS THE OLD GUY THAT'S YOU GUY AT