How are you both for less government, and for rent control? The two seem contradictory.

98/99 is hotly debated over at the FCBlog.

IT is a vote no on both. 98 as you accurately point out removes protection of rent control. 99 is the poison pill to counteract 98.

The danger of 99 includes complete preservation of eminent domain to take a persons private property away for redevelopment, including “economic redevelopment”

Eminent Domain was meant to provide a means to improve or build an infrascture. It has been bastardized to include economic development and land given to developers.

No to 99. Do not steal in my name.

I was turned off from eminent domain in 1964 when Steven Anthony lost his home across the street from the Hollywood Bowl so (regardless of original claims) they could build a parking lot.

Of course this pales in comparison to what happened to the residents of Chavez Ravine.

So while I think Prop.98 is pernicious, I also understand the issues frazgo sees in Prop.99. Too often the “Public Good” is defined with private interests in mind.

That said, voting no on both measures essentially is a vote for the status quo. And I’m not sure how good that is.

I’m disappointed by local efforts to abuse eminent domain and pass property between private interests.

However, I have to agree with Rumors Daily that you can’t argue to be for “LESS government, but for rent control.”

The main reason to vote yes on 99 is to make sure that it overrides 98 if both manage to pass but 99 gets more votes.

I currently reside in a rent-controlled apartment and was planning to vote NO on 98.

However, after realizing that it would phase out rather than eliminate it outright, I’m now prepared to vote YES.

Also, Prop 98 gives the eminent domain protection that property owners desperately need.

Prop 99 does nothing to protect these rights.

How are you both for less government, and for rent control?

I can’t speak for Ruth, but less government doesn’t mean no government. Seems perfectly reasonable to me that a person can be for limited government but recognize the need for occasional regulation where they find it necessary.

I can’t speak for Ruth, but less government doesn’t mean no government.

Of course, but it muddles the point to bring up both positions in one conversation.

I suspect she doesn’t really want less government, she just don’t want eminent domain. That’s a policy choice, and it’s fine, but without knowing more about her beliefs there’s no clear indication from the post that it’s tied to her desire for smaller government.

Ruth, why do you support rent control in opposition to your generally stated position of being in favor of smaller government?

By the way, regardless of your position on rent control or eminent domain, it’s excellent to let people know what they’re voting for. At least then we get the outcome that we expect. Thank you for that.

I am both a homeowner and a renter.

As a property owner I have no love for the idea that I could be forced to take a loss on my property in the name of Eminent Domain, particularly now that it’s so easily manipulated by developers and other private interests.

As a renter, I have no love for my ever-increasing rent bill, especially since I know that mortgage amounts don’t increase, so essentially landlords are getting paid more and more for unchanging usage on what they don’t pay more and more to keep owning.

Yes, I am for less government, but I see no contradiction in saying so while I support a rent control law. I think a lot of laws are valid, and I number rent control among them.

Ballot propositions are never what they claim to be: they’re written by developers or other wealthy special interests, they promise one thing, but if you’re able to understand their actual text (and let me know when you are) they say something entirely different.

Lastly, what does rent control even have to do with eminent domain? Why does one proposition cover two so different topics?

[...] My basic point is that whatever one thinks about the issue of eminent domain, this bill will do little to address that problem, and will cause more problems than it solves. Aside from any stance on the issues, I oppose this legislation because it is deceptive, sneaky and is a poorly written solution to a poorly defined problem. If you would like to take a more nuanced and careful approach to the issue of eminent domain, you would be better served voting for Proposition 99. Similar protections but without the nasty social upheaval caused by badly written, rent-seeking initiatives like 98. [...]

I agree 98 is addressing two topics and poorly at that. 98 won’t accomplish much.

I like as little government intervention as possible and just give us the tools to go forth and do great things. When things get out of control I expect legislation to be brought in to set up some boundarys of acceptable behavior.

Rent control is one example. It isn’t in every city, but those that have it it got there because of landlord abuse with the increases. Some are more restrictive than others but it can’t be that bad as we still have ample rental properties out there.

[...] and local alternatives.  Ruth 666 brought up some of the issues in  Prop 98 in her post “Nice try, Prop 98“ reinventing themselves. Two measures on the ballot today were brought up yesterday by Matt [...]