Rent Control Part 15: Please sir, may I cover my costs?

Recall B'game sent the last rent control proposal to a resounding defeat.  You can read about it here.  But that doesn't mean the group that loves to play with OPM  ("Other People's Money") has gone away--and neither has the Voice.  Weekend reading of the SF Comicle yielded this little gem about the Board of Stupervisors taking up yet another rent control issue.  For our purposes, we'll skip the ordinance details--you can click through, but rather highlight the idiotic backdrop

A proposed ordinance to blunt the ability of landlords to raise rents so they may pay down mortgage loans and property taxes is headed to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors after winning unanimous approval from the Rules Committee on Friday.

As in many cities, when the costs of operating and maintaining an apartment building in San Francisco runs higher than the allowable rent increases set by the city’s Rent Board each year, landlords may request to pass on some of those expenses to tenants. Landlords may, for example, request a so-called operational and maintenance “pass-through” to help cover the cost of a new roof, or to keep pace with rising water or garbage-collection rates.

Do you realize how dangerously stupid this sort of thing is?  We dodged the local "Rent Board" bullet which we highlighted here as being rigged from the start.  Can you imagine having to individually go to some Board to raise the rent enough to cover things like water, garbage or maybe school bond costs?  This is the sort of thing that happens in socialist countries.  I'll repeat:  I'm not a landlord and have never been a landlord in Burlingame.  Twenty five years ago, I once rented out my house in Connecticut for a year when the market was really slow and I couldn't sell it, but today's post is driven by simple fairness and a concern for what actually works, not what might make some people feel good.

Comments

[resident]

OPM. Good one.

[[email protected]]

Thanks for sharing your background Joe.

[J. Mir]

"would eliminate debt-service and property tax pass-throughs, as Berkeley, Oakland and San Jose have all done in recent years. Landlords would still be able to apply for pass-throughs for capital improvements" ... sounds like this is already a thing elsewhere. Well, it's not Burlingame :-)

[Laura]

This happened in Fremont. They passed rent control and you have to now go before a board to justify any rent increase, even a dollar! Have a friend that after that passed, gave 60 day notices to their renters and put their two homes on the market and have now invested in commercial properties. The actions of Council have consequences and in this case, resulted in two renters now looking for homes.

[Joe]

Here's something from a Steven Greenhut of R Street Institute in Sacto:

Not long ago, I quoted Swedish economist Assar Lindbeck’s conclusion about the results of rent control. He wrote that in many cases, it “appears to be the most efficient technique presently known to destroy a city — except for bombing.”

Lindbeck, however, seems to have missed an even better way to wreak havoc on major cities. It would be rent control combined with massive subsidies for renters. Rent control dramatically limits the supply of new housing units by discouraging people from building new apartments and punishing landlords for offering them for rent by limiting the price they can charge. But if you throw in government rent credits, the results on the housing stock will be even more extreme.

This two-pronged approach not only limits supply, but it increases demand at the same time. So you have fewer apartments for rent and more people who want them. Rent control might be as effective as bombing, but this approach is the equivalent of carpet bombing. Naturally, California’s progressive Democrats are now trying to put this scheme into place. The only hope is that the state’s voters reject a coming rent-control initiative and the U.S. Congress will put the kibosh on the new legislation that would give renters a federal tax credit.

[hollyroller@gmailcom]

Interesting comment. However, the land lords have all the money.
They make the rules.
Anyone who is "forced" to rent at "Market Rate" in Burlingame will never, ever be able to purchase a home in Burlingame.

Lets talk about something that effects us all..
Fires and Climate change.
Mills Canyon is one firecracker away from burning down one third of Burlingame.
What is the POV from the Burlingame Voice?
What is the "Official Stand" from the City of Burlingame City Managers Office?
I was told by a friend, that Sean Spicer has applied for a PR position.
I guess that is better than nothing.

[hillsider]

Another comment you will be apologizing for tomorrow?

[resident]

Saw this in the Daily Journal. I guess Cynthia Cornell thinks the public and taxpayers are two separate groups of people

Editor,

Housing for All Burlingame is enormously appreciative of the recent letter by U.S. Rep. Jackie Speier, D-San Mateo, to the Peninsula Health Care District (PHCD), strongly suggesting that they change course on their plans to build market-rate housing on public land at the old Peninsula Hospital site.

advertisement
We have worked for over three years to get the PHCD to change its course on the wellness center, but were met with stern refusals to build affordable housing on the site. The district has already built The Trousdale, an assisted living facility that was paid for by taxpayer dollars and is unaffordable to the majority of residents. A recent estimate from Cheryl Fama, CEO of the district, states that a basic studio in The Trousdale will start at $6,800 a month.

Public land needs to be used for the public good; market-rate housing doesn’t belong on public land. Congresswoman Speier exemplifies the courageous moral leadership we have lacked on the local level when it comes to addressing our housing crisis. It is our hope that the PHCD changes its course for the benefit of all residents of the district.

Cynthia Cornell

Burlingame

"market rate housing doesn't belong on public land" Why not? Don't taxpayers already pay enough in taxes without more handouts?

[Bruce Dickinson]

What a waste of the "public's" time.

Let's face it economics and property rights were never this person's forte.