Rent Control - Part 11 Theft AND Vandalism

I've been following B'game politics including lawn and commercial signs for a loooong time.  And I have back posts on the Voice to prove it.  I have to say, I have never seen as concerted an effort to steal and deface signs as we are seeing with the pro-Rent Control crowd.  It's gotten past ridiculous.  Here is a brazen bit of vandalism right on El Camino.  These signs have since been replaced, but the shame on Measure R supporters will live on in infamy here.

In checking with the BPD about a question I got off-line, I received this answer in email

Please advise anyone that contacts you with information not to confront anyone stealing or vandalizing the signs, but instead to be a good witness and contact BPD right away by calling 911.  I would hate to have any of our residents try and confront anyone and become a victim or put themselves in jeopardy of being sued or unnecessarily hurt by someone.

I probably would not have used 911 for this, but you now have BPD's OK to do so.

Comments

[Joe]

Comrade Cornell felt the need to post this NY Times article to Nextdoor:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/14/us/california-today-rent-control.html?_r=1

Suggesting it was about some "fraudulent mailer" sent out by the CA Apartment Owners.

I don't normally waste my time on such drivel, but tonight is rainy, quiet and I have the time, so here is my response:

What a sad little rag the NY TImes has become. I'm not sure Herb Caen would even let it qualify as fishwrap. We have the strongest job market in the country and they seem surprised that the cost of living is jumping. Where is the article about what an abysmal failure rent control has been in NYC for three decades or more?

[Mike]

Bravo!!

[Mike]

The Daily Post in Palo Alto released their recommendation yesterday and they came to the same conclusion as the San Mateo Daily Journal which is the measures R& are completely flawed and indicate that to VOTE NO on R&Q is the right thing to do.

[Mike]

The out of town organizations Tenants Together, Faith in Action, Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto (part of the the Tenants Together Legal Network) and Urban Habitat AREN'T necessarily the champions of affordable housing. As a matter of fact, many publications such as the SMDJ have unearthed the flaws these measures are full of and how they can damage our communities.

What is announced on the Face Book pages of the proponents of these measures is a stated fact that the goal is to control the rental housing market through the state of California. What isn't mentioned is that the unregulated Rental Housing Commissions that these entities strive to establish in our cities are a ripe funding means to gather money for their unspoken agendas statewide. Since these Housing Commissions would be unregulated entities, with unlimited taxing power, and no accounting oversight by any representative governmental agency, monies collected by these “feeder” Housing Commissions could be transferred to assist the affiliated organizations listed above in funding untold agendas far beyond rental housing and no one would know! That alone is reason enough to vote NO on R&Q.
Do you know where your tax money is going and for what reasons? What do East Palo Alto, Oakland, and San Francisco have in common? Well these are the location headquarters of Tenants Together, Faith in Action, CLSEPA, and Urban Habitat. So much for the professed local grassroots mantras.

[Joe]

The Commission is already rigged by virtue of its composition:

http://www.burlingamevoice.com/2016/09/rent-contol-part-3-rigging-the-commission.html#comments

[Mike]

From the San Mateo Daily Journal

Editorial: No on measures R and Q
October 07, 2016, 05:00 AM Editorial

Voters of two core Peninsula cities — San Mateo and Burlingame — will be facing a choice on two ballot measures that seek to introduce rent control, just cause eviction and other tenant protection measures through creating a rent board, the members of which will be named by the city councils. The measures would also charge rental property owners an annual fee to run the commission with a specific membership depending on the city and all that will entail through its life span.

For many facing escalating rents, these measures are necessary to ensure the socioeconomic diversity of the area. Opponents, however, see the measures are far-reaching and potentially troublesome for a number of different reasons.

So what should voters do? The short answer is to vote no on both Measure Q in San Mateo and Measure R in Burlingame. The flaws of the measures outweigh the benefits.

[Charlene]

Those of you who had your No on R signs stolen last night for Halloween please get another one. We need to show them they cannot intimidate us.

[resident]

Does anyone know where I may recycle my lawn signs? I have several and want to get rid of them.