Anonymous user
Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act reform: Difference between revisions
Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act reform (view source)
Revision as of 06:05, 12 January 2018
, 6 years agono edit summary
imported>Tmccormick No edit summary |
imported>Tmccormick No edit summary |
||
Line 6:
#rent control on any building built after 1995, or after a city established its own earlier rent control law. (e.g. in San Francisco, 1979).
Repeal efforts include [http://www.yimby.wiki/wiki/Costa-Hawkins_Rental_Housing_Act_reform#AB_1506_bill_to_repeal_Costa_Hawkins '''AB 1506'''], a California State Assembly bill, and a ballot initiative, '''[http://www.yimby.wiki/wiki/Costa-Hawkins_Rental_Housing_Act_reform#2018_ballot_initiative_to_repeal_Costa-Hawkins California Local Rent Control Initiative]. '''
Line 12:
== Costa Hawkins Act terms ==
=== Single-family homes exclusion ===▼
*The Act exempts single family dwellings, and new construction.<sup id="cite_ref-37">[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Costa-Hawkins_Rental_Housing_Act#cite_note-37 [37]]</sup> ▼
*It prohibits local government "vacancy control" in most situations.<sup id="cite_ref-38">[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Costa-Hawkins_Rental_Housing_Act#cite_note-38 [38]]</sup> ▼
*Costa-Hawkins also addresses subtenancies,<sup id="cite_ref-41">[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Costa-Hawkins_Rental_Housing_Act#cite_note-41 [41]]</sup> and other issues.<sup id="cite_ref-42">[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Costa-Hawkins_Rental_Housing_Act#cite_note-42 [42]]</sup> ▼
*The Act was amended in 2002 to close a loophole related to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condominium condominium] conversion.<br/> It prevented owners of apartment buildings, who obtained a certificate for conversion, to avail themselves of the Act's exemption to rent control law, without actually<br/> selling any of such apartments as condominiums.<sup id="cite_ref-43">[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Costa-Hawkins_Rental_Housing_Act#cite_note-43 [43]]</sup> ▼
=== Prohibition of vacancy control ===
▼
=== Exclusion of new buildings (after 1995 or when city rent-control law passed) ===
▲== Single-family homes exclusion ==
=== Other ===
▲*
== Issues / Concerns ==▼
▲*It
▲*Costa-Hawkins also addresses subtenancies,<sup id="cite_ref-41">[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Costa-Hawkins_Rental_Housing_Act#cite_note-41 [41]]</sup> and other issues.<sup id="cite_ref-42">[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Costa-Hawkins_Rental_Housing_Act#cite_note-42 [42]]</sup>
=== Expanding rent control could disincent creation of new rental housing ===▼
▲*
[NAR 2018].▼
=== <br/> Should these rent-control aspects be determined by the state or local governments? ===▼
▼
=== Rent control encourages conversation of apartments to condos (owned units) ===▼
Kenneth Stahl @kookie13 1[https://twitter.com/kookie13/status/951549329675771904 2:20 PM - 11 Jan 2018]<br/> what's the point of repealing C-H if landlords can just convert to condos?<br/> Don't we need to amend the Ellis Act to limit condo conversion before repealing C-H?▼
also [CAR 2018]. ▼
▼
=== Rent control encourages leaving apartments vacant ===▼
[CAR 2018]▼
▼
=== <br/> Costa Hawkins repeal could provide NIMBYs a New Tool to block housing ===▼
[CAR 2018]▼
also [https://caanet.org/caa-assembly-select-committee-nimbys-drive-costs-housing/. https://caanet.org/caa-assembly-select-committee-nimbys-drive-costs-housing/. ]▼
▼
=== Problems with using intiative process ===▼
Assemblymember Richard Bloom (D-Santa Monica), sponsor of [[AB1506|AB1506]] repeal bill: ▼
<blockquote>''“At the same time, while I understand why some want to put this change on the ballot, it is never ideal to address a complicated issue like this through the initiative process,” Bloom said. “First and foremost, the initiative process is a simple up or down vote that does not allow for any public input, shuts down dialogue amongst stakeholders, and prevents anyone from making changes to address any concerns raised by those impacted by the proposal.'' ''“Secondly, if there are unintended consequences down the road that need to be fixed, it will require a 2/3 vote of each house of the Legislature – a threshold not easily achieved. For these reasons, something this complicated is better left to the legislative process. AB 1506 remains a vehicle for responsible dialogue and, I hope, legislation that will ease the economic burden that is affecting so many Californians.”<br/> - quoted in ''</blockquote> ▼
Line 119 ⟶ 83:
North Bay Assemblyman Jim Wood on why he declined to vote [[AB1506|AB1506]] repeal bill out of Housing committee:<br/> ''"I am not confident that a complete repeal of #CostaHawkins is the answer. I’m concerned that this bill does nothing to facilitate an increase in the supply of housing..."'' via @KQEDnews
▲
▲== Issues / Concerns ==
▲=== Expanding rent control could disincent creation of new rental housing ===
▲[NAR 2018].
▲=== <br/> Should these rent-control aspects be determined by the state or local governments? ===
▲
▲=== Rent control encourages conversation of apartments to condos (owned units) ===
▲Kenneth Stahl @kookie13 1[https://twitter.com/kookie13/status/951549329675771904 2:20 PM - 11 Jan 2018]<br/> what's the point of repealing C-H if landlords can just convert to condos?<br/> Don't we need to amend the Ellis Act to limit condo conversion before repealing C-H?
▲also [CAR 2018].
▲
▲=== Rent control encourages leaving apartments vacant ===
▲[CAR 2018]
▲
▲=== <br/> Costa Hawkins repeal could provide NIMBYs a New Tool to block housing ===
▲[CAR 2018]
▲also [https://caanet.org/caa-assembly-select-committee-nimbys-drive-costs-housing/. https://caanet.org/caa-assembly-select-committee-nimbys-drive-costs-housing/. ]
▲
▲=== Problems with using intiative process ===
▲Assemblymember Richard Bloom (D-Santa Monica), sponsor of [[AB1506|AB1506]] repeal bill:
▲<blockquote>''“At the same time, while I understand why some want to put this change on the ballot, it is never ideal to address a complicated issue like this through the initiative process,” Bloom said. “First and foremost, the initiative process is a simple up or down vote that does not allow for any public input, shuts down dialogue amongst stakeholders, and prevents anyone from making changes to address any concerns raised by those impacted by the proposal.'' ''“Secondly, if there are unintended consequences down the road that need to be fixed, it will require a 2/3 vote of each house of the Legislature – a threshold not easily achieved. For these reasons, something this complicated is better left to the legislative process. AB 1506 remains a vehicle for responsible dialogue and, I hope, legislation that will ease the economic burden that is affecting so many Californians.”<br/> - quoted in ''</blockquote>
| |||