Post by High Priestess on Dec 17, 2018 5:37:10 GMT
In the Bay Area, leaders are calling for a new "housing plan" to try to both provide more housing and keep housing affordable. Some of the parts of their plan would reduce property owners' rights, as well as make homeowner's own housing LESS affordable. I will comment on aspects of the proposal.
www.eastbaytimes.com/2018/12/12/employer-taxes-rent-caps-and-more-in-big-bold-bay-area-housing-plan/
A ten-point plan for housing the Bay Area:
(1) Just cause for eviction: After a tenant has lived in a building for at least 12 months, they would no longer be vulnerable to arbitrary evictions. They could still get evicted if they fail to pay the rent, violate the rental agreement, create a nuisance or engage in illegal activity, if the owner is moving in or removing the building from the rental market, the building is unsafe or for demolition.
PROBLEM: I am opposed to most eviction controls, but in particular, reducing or eliminating the right of property owners to evict tenants who live in units on the same property where the owner lives, or if the building is not a large multi unit apartment building, or if the owner is a "small landlord" who owns only a handful of properties.
It can certainly be a nightmare for a tenant to be evicted, particularly if they are paying much less than market rent. HOwever, no one property owner can or should be held responsible for any other individuals' housing. We are not charity organizations, we are running a business.
Moreover, , all "just cause for eviction" measures are a violation of the essential balance in any business contract, which permits either party to the contract, to decide not to renew a renewable contract. If the tenant can choose to move but the property owner cannot choose to cease doing business with someone with whom they have only agreed to rent to for at maximum a year or two (there's no such thing as a lifetime rental agreement), then the parity in the contractual situation has been broken and I think this is fundamentally wrong. I'd like to see it made illegal.
(2) Emergency rent cap: Rent increases would be capped region-wide at the consumer price index plus 5 percent, per year. There are some exceptions for passing along the capital cost of repairs to renters or if the landlord had not raised the rent in prior years.
PROBLEM: Serious violation of owner's right to charge the going rate. As well, some of these property owners may have just had a unit destroyed by a tenant who vandalized their property, or a very expensive legal battle with a tenant that they had to pay for, and are needing to increase all their rents in order to pay for expenses owning to a nightmare tenant. THe bottom line is that its' wrong for the government to try to fix prices.
(3) Emergency rent and legal assistance: Any tenant facing eviction could have access to a lawyer, unless the landlord or master tenant bringing the eviction action is living in the same unit as the tenant being evicted. And, low-income tenants facing eviction could receive emergency rent assistance, with the total amount of assistance capped at between $5,000 to $10,000.
PROBLEM: THis completely ignores the fact that tenants already receive free legal aid, but no landlord receives free legal aid, because there are a number of tenant agencies available (often paid for unwillingly by landlords, since our property taxes fund these agencies in part). Tenants also benefit from laws that are very heavily in their favor. They also benefit from the fact that if they want to sue a property owner, many tenant attorneys will take their case for free, on contingency, but no landlord receives such free legal representation. NO, it is definitely a bad idea to stack the deck even further in favor of the tenants.
(4) More tiny homes: Technically, they’re called “accessory dwelling units,” or ADUs, but the idea is to make it easier for people to build homes of fewer than 500 square feet on their properties.
(5)Taller buildings near transit: This proposal is similar to a law state Sen. Scott Wiener introduced last year and revived this year. The newest iteration would require cities to approve buildings up to three stories high along high-frequency bus corridors and up to around six stories high near BART, Caltrain or other fixed rail stations.
(6)A better permitting process: Establishes standards for permitting residential projects that already conform to the city or county’s underlying development standards, or zoning codes. It also requires more transparency and consistencies about how fees are set and enforced.
(7)Fast-track certain projects: Streamlining, streamlining, streamlining. This would create a faster way for projects to get reviewed, as long as they meet a set of criteria, including already complying to underlying zoning, exist in an already-urban area, and setting aside a portion of the units to be affordable to middle-class residents, generally defined as making between 80-110 percent of the area’s median income. In exchange, the qualifying projects would be eligible for reduced taxes, reduced parking requirements and a density bonus.
(8)Unlock public lands: Make it easier for public agencies to develop their land for affordable housing. Create a database listing all publicly owned land in the Bay Area, limit approval process to no more than two years, and deploy 10 percent of available public land to affordable housing on an annual basis.
(9)New taxes to generate $1.5 billion annually: Generate new revenue from a broad range of sources, including employer taxes, property taxes, vacant parcel or home taxes, general obligation bonds, sales taxes and more.
PROBLEM: Property taxes are already very high in the Bay ARea, as homeowners have expensive homes which carry a high tax burden, often making them barely affordable. It seems hypocritical and cruel to make homeowner's housing less affordable in order to force them to pay for more affordable housing for others.
(10) New, regional housing authority: One regional entity that could purchase, lease and sell land, monitor and report progress toward the region’s housing goals, provide incentives and offer technical assistance. This entity would not regulate or enforce housing policies, but it would be able to dole out regional money for housing.
www.eastbaytimes.com/2018/12/12/employer-taxes-rent-caps-and-more-in-big-bold-bay-area-housing-plan/
A ten-point plan for housing the Bay Area:
(1) Just cause for eviction: After a tenant has lived in a building for at least 12 months, they would no longer be vulnerable to arbitrary evictions. They could still get evicted if they fail to pay the rent, violate the rental agreement, create a nuisance or engage in illegal activity, if the owner is moving in or removing the building from the rental market, the building is unsafe or for demolition.
PROBLEM: I am opposed to most eviction controls, but in particular, reducing or eliminating the right of property owners to evict tenants who live in units on the same property where the owner lives, or if the building is not a large multi unit apartment building, or if the owner is a "small landlord" who owns only a handful of properties.
It can certainly be a nightmare for a tenant to be evicted, particularly if they are paying much less than market rent. HOwever, no one property owner can or should be held responsible for any other individuals' housing. We are not charity organizations, we are running a business.
Moreover, , all "just cause for eviction" measures are a violation of the essential balance in any business contract, which permits either party to the contract, to decide not to renew a renewable contract. If the tenant can choose to move but the property owner cannot choose to cease doing business with someone with whom they have only agreed to rent to for at maximum a year or two (there's no such thing as a lifetime rental agreement), then the parity in the contractual situation has been broken and I think this is fundamentally wrong. I'd like to see it made illegal.
(2) Emergency rent cap: Rent increases would be capped region-wide at the consumer price index plus 5 percent, per year. There are some exceptions for passing along the capital cost of repairs to renters or if the landlord had not raised the rent in prior years.
PROBLEM: Serious violation of owner's right to charge the going rate. As well, some of these property owners may have just had a unit destroyed by a tenant who vandalized their property, or a very expensive legal battle with a tenant that they had to pay for, and are needing to increase all their rents in order to pay for expenses owning to a nightmare tenant. THe bottom line is that its' wrong for the government to try to fix prices.
(3) Emergency rent and legal assistance: Any tenant facing eviction could have access to a lawyer, unless the landlord or master tenant bringing the eviction action is living in the same unit as the tenant being evicted. And, low-income tenants facing eviction could receive emergency rent assistance, with the total amount of assistance capped at between $5,000 to $10,000.
PROBLEM: THis completely ignores the fact that tenants already receive free legal aid, but no landlord receives free legal aid, because there are a number of tenant agencies available (often paid for unwillingly by landlords, since our property taxes fund these agencies in part). Tenants also benefit from laws that are very heavily in their favor. They also benefit from the fact that if they want to sue a property owner, many tenant attorneys will take their case for free, on contingency, but no landlord receives such free legal representation. NO, it is definitely a bad idea to stack the deck even further in favor of the tenants.
(4) More tiny homes: Technically, they’re called “accessory dwelling units,” or ADUs, but the idea is to make it easier for people to build homes of fewer than 500 square feet on their properties.
(5)Taller buildings near transit: This proposal is similar to a law state Sen. Scott Wiener introduced last year and revived this year. The newest iteration would require cities to approve buildings up to three stories high along high-frequency bus corridors and up to around six stories high near BART, Caltrain or other fixed rail stations.
(6)A better permitting process: Establishes standards for permitting residential projects that already conform to the city or county’s underlying development standards, or zoning codes. It also requires more transparency and consistencies about how fees are set and enforced.
(7)Fast-track certain projects: Streamlining, streamlining, streamlining. This would create a faster way for projects to get reviewed, as long as they meet a set of criteria, including already complying to underlying zoning, exist in an already-urban area, and setting aside a portion of the units to be affordable to middle-class residents, generally defined as making between 80-110 percent of the area’s median income. In exchange, the qualifying projects would be eligible for reduced taxes, reduced parking requirements and a density bonus.
(8)Unlock public lands: Make it easier for public agencies to develop their land for affordable housing. Create a database listing all publicly owned land in the Bay Area, limit approval process to no more than two years, and deploy 10 percent of available public land to affordable housing on an annual basis.
(9)New taxes to generate $1.5 billion annually: Generate new revenue from a broad range of sources, including employer taxes, property taxes, vacant parcel or home taxes, general obligation bonds, sales taxes and more.
PROBLEM: Property taxes are already very high in the Bay ARea, as homeowners have expensive homes which carry a high tax burden, often making them barely affordable. It seems hypocritical and cruel to make homeowner's housing less affordable in order to force them to pay for more affordable housing for others.
(10) New, regional housing authority: One regional entity that could purchase, lease and sell land, monitor and report progress toward the region’s housing goals, provide incentives and offer technical assistance. This entity would not regulate or enforce housing policies, but it would be able to dole out regional money for housing.