Costa-Hawkins Repeal on November Ballot – It’s Complicated!

nine-county-coalition – excerpt

California voters will see Proposition 10 on their ballots on November 6, 2018.  Proposition 10, The Affordable Housing Act of 2018, a voters’ initiative, aims to repeal the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act of 1995.  Costa-Hawkins was sponsored by Senator Jim Costa (D-Fresno) and Assembly Member Phil Hawkins (R-Bellflower), became Assembly Bill 1164 which passed both chambers of the California Legislature, and was signed into law by then California Governor Pete Wilson.

Proposition 10 is the latest battle in the ongoing war between California renters and landlords.  The 1970s were plagued with “stagflagtion,” stagnant wages in the midst of inflation.  In response, cities passed rental controls in an attempt to keep housing prices down.  Then came Proposition 13 in 1978, and the hope that landlords would share their property tax savings with renters thus significantly lowering rents.  When that did not happen, renters started to organize in earnest. But so did landlords, and the result was Costa-Hawkins, which prohibits imposing rent controls on new construction, single-family homes, condominiums, and vacant housing units.  Controls were thus limited by Costa-Hawkins to rental buildings in existence at the time cities passed their rent control ordinances, and limited to the period of time each tenant occupies each unit.

The animosity between renters and landlords over rent control is especially remarkable because at present there are only 15 municipalities (cities and towns) out of California’s 482 with some form of rent control….

Although the populous progressive coastal cities in California will likely expand rent control should the repeal of Costa-Hawkins occur, they could also provide sufficient incentives to avoid bringing construction of rental housing “to a halt.” Dialing down the current focus on construction might actually be helpful to residents not happy with all the stacking & packing going on. Hopefully, city leaders will comment between now and November.

Voters opposed to state-wide mandates such as the recently demised Senate Bill 828, could consider capitalizing on all the talk about repealing Costa-Hawkins in order to bring decisions on rent control back to the cities. The downside of that approach is that if those same voters are also opposed to expansion of rent control, it will take some effort to prevent expansion in their cities… (more)

Please read this most excellent article that explains the facts of how we got here and where we might be going with and without the repeal of Costa-Hawkins. We appreciate authors who take the time to show us the facts and let us decide after careful deliberation.

Advertisements

Court overturns eviction of North Beach poet

By Julie Cheever of Bay City News : sfexaminer – excerpt

A state appeals court has overturned a ruling allowing the eviction of North Beach poet Diego De Leo.

A state appeals court in San Francisco has overturned a judgment allowing the eviction of an 83-year-old man who has lived in a cottage in the North Beach district of the city for more than 30 years.

Diego De Leo’s landlord, Martin Coyne, sought in 2016 to evict him by invoking the state’s Ellis Act, which allows owners to go out of the rental business if they withdraw all units on a property from the rental market.

At a Superior Court trial in 2016, a civil jury ruled by a 9-3 vote that Coyne had a good-faith intention to leave the rental market and could therefore evict De Leo.

But in a decision issued on Monday, a three-judge Court of Appeal set aside that verdict. It said De Leo should have been allowed to present evidence on his claim that another tenant on the property received a sham ownership deal, allegedly indicating that Coyne did not have a good-faith intent to go out of rental business.

The ruling clears the way for a new Superior Court eviction trial, also known as an unlawful detainer proceeding, in which De Leo will be able to present the alleged evidence… (more)

Breed calls for increased services, street cleaning in walk through SOMA

By Joshua Sabatini : sfexaminer – excerpt

Mayor London Breed on Thursday said she wants more engagement with homeless people on the street and greater frequency in power washing sidewalks, and reiterated her commitment to opening a safe injection site…

She said that she would like to see regular engagement with those living on the streets by city officials, such as members of the Homeless Outreach Team. “I envision them walking on the streets and being out here where we know there are people who are homeless. We should be out there every day, ‘What can I do to help you? What can I do to help you? What can I do to help you?’ Till the point where they are like: ‘Fine you can help me,’” Breed told the Examiner…

Breed is a proponent of opening safe injection sites to reduce syringe litter and help steer drug users into treatment, but since heroin and other intravenous drugs are against federal law, The City is wary of the legal ramifications. Breed, however, said she is committed to figuring out a way to make it work.

“I am going to aggressively push to try to get it done this year,” Breed said.

When asked about why the delay, she said, “I am trying to open one. I wish we can open one yesterday. But I also have to be responsible in the approach.” She said she wanted The City to be prepared for any “fall out” and for those “putting their lives on the line to work at these facilities, I don’t want them in jail. I have to make sure that I am responsible in my approach.”… (more)

Looks like our Mayor is concerned about both state and federal laws. That could put a damper on injection sites for a while, even though many support them. Perhaps the medical community could come to the rescue or the rules and regulations re: methadone could be altered to make it easier to procure for those who want it.

Beyond Blocking Sidewalks

By Nuala Sawyer : sfweekly – excerpt

Scooters1.jpg

The pervasive invasive nature of the rideshares is getting on everyone’s nerves. San Francisco is not a simcity gameboard that anyone should be allowed to test their latest idea on. This is the lineup of companies listed in the article, minus Razor. Scoot is on the streets now. Ridecell is an autonomous vehicle company and should not be included in the list of scooter rideshares.

Scooter companies claim their devices reduce S.F.’s dependency on cars — but that doesn’t mean they’re clean and green.

It’s been more than six weeks since San Francisco demanded that three scooter companies — Lime, Bird, and Spin — pull their hundreds of unpermitted vehicles off city sidewalks and apply for operating permission from the SFMTA. Since then, more than a dozen companies sent in their requests for the 1,250 scooter spots, making their case in PDFs spanning anywhere from 24 to 117 pages.

Investors, CEOs, and scooter enthusiasts wait with bated breath to see if the SFMTA will select Bird, Hopr, Jump, Lime, Lyft, ofo, Razor, Ridecell, Scoot, Spin, UScooter, or Skip — or a combination of several —  for its pilot program, but the city is in no rush to make a decision…

Leading the charge against the rampage of the rogue motorized scooters is Supervisor Aaron Peskin, who drafted a vital piece of legislation limiting scooter companies’ presence on city sidewalks, and who has not minced words regarding his distaste for the “act first, ask for permission later” attitude…

Making massive profit always trumps protecting the public, and innovation is only possible by cutting corners,” Peskin said during a Land Use and Transportation Committee meeting in April. “Our laws, the very foundation of our democracy, are here to be scoffed at, and San Francisco is only here to quite literally — pun intended — be given the bird by tech CEOs who jump from one company to the next after they overstay their welcome.”... (more)

If you think the scooters are green or healthy for the planet because they are taking cars off the street, ready the entire article. The author did his own research without any help from the tech CEOs and what he found does not agree with the claims the CEOs of these companies and their supporters are making.

This is a good time to send your letters to the Board of Supervisors to let them know how you feel about these corporate entities taking over our streets and sidewalks. Link to the Supervisors.

Don’t forget the State representatives and the CPUC. Remind them that you vote and they need to listen to you. If you would like to do learn more about what goes on at the state level, follow Livable California.

Regulating merging tech companies has not proven easy or successful. Now that they are merging and emerging under different business models the companies may be more difficult to control if “their properties and privileges” can be easily manipulated under the present contracts.

Judging by the poor job of contract writing and management we have seen so far coming out of the SFMTA where the street projects are concerned, we hope the Board of Supervisors will insist on some truly independent oversight and strong legal language that will allow City Hall to pull out of future agreements if unforeseen circumstance, or better options, arise.

We need to avoid future public/private partnerships in favor of actual payments for the privileges of doing business on our public streets and sidewalks. How many enterprising projects can one city agency run at one time? SFMTA needs to stick to running the Muni and get that right before they expand.

We also need to insist on better reasons for doing business with these enterprising startups than claims that they are lean and green and taking cars of the street. Most of the traffic these days appears to be theirs not our.

Thanks to Peskin and Fewer for their leadership, and we look forward to more support from the rest of the supervisors and our new mayor.

 

California voters almost always say yes to bonds, but don’t always understand the trade-offs

By John Myers : latimes – excerpt

Perhaps more than any state, Californians govern themselves through the ballot. Most of the attention goes to the laws they write, but voters also spend taxpayer money — a lot of it.

They do so through bonds, instructing government officials to borrow money for specific projects. It’s the closest thing to a sure bet that exists in statewide campaigns, with an approval rate hovering around 90%. Less clear is whether voters fully comprehend the implications of their ballot choice.

State general obligation bond measures approved since 1986 total more than $167.7 billion. Lenders must be repaid with interest, averaging about 5% a year, over a span of several decades. Most general obligation bond payments come from the same bank account that provides cash for services such as education, healthcare and prisons.

Inclusionary Zoning: Everything You Need to Know – CityLab

By Benjamin Schneider : citylab – excerpt

You’ve seen the term. But do you really know what it means? Here’s your essential primer.

If you’ve hung around the CityLab site, sat through a City Council meeting, or hobnobbed with a housing developer, you’ve probably run across the term “inclusionary zoning.” You might even think you know what it means. But wait, do you? Don’t worry. We’ve got you covered. Welcome to the pilot edition of “CityLab University,” a resource for understanding some of the most important concepts related to cities and urban policy. If you like this feature, have constructive feedback, or would like to see a similar explainer on other topics, drop us a line at editors@citylab.com (more)

 

E. Palo Alto May Give Homeless People Living In RVs A Permanent Place To Park

cbslocal – excerpt

EAST PALO ALTO (KPIX) – East Palo Alto may provide people living in motor homes and RVs a permanent parking space.

The city is considering a plan to provide parking and some services at the former Tanklage site on Bay Road.

“They have so many homeless people here, but they think they’re all drug addicts,” says Annette Brown. “That’s not the case.”

Brown is talking about the dozens of people who live in cars and RVs who parked there… (more)