Welcome to California.

Yeah, times are tough all over. Sorry you can't gouge ghetto renters for you run-down slum property. Sorry, you have to pay high taxes - but that's not the renter's fault. If you want your property taxes lower, how about dealing with the IRS? Prop 98 didn't say anything about lowering property taxes, or other "fees" associated with property ownership. BTW, this is mainly a California issue - it cost someone in say, Georgia a fraction of what it costs to own property. Where it costs $10,000.00 per year in property taxes in California, it may cost only a few hundred in the south - maybe you should consider moving your "operation" to greener, less "taxing" pastures?

It's hard to feel sorry for someone who owns at least two homes, over someone who is a renter. I have more compassion for the renter who you are pricing into homelessness than I do you, with two or more properties. I don't like the idea that you are in a situation where you feel you have to squeeze renters until you destroy the community, but I sympathize with your pain in having to pay high amounts just to own and maintain property. As a renter I would have been glad to join with you in efforts to reduce you fiduciary bleeding, but I am not willing to shell out more dough to do it. I think rents are too high as it is, and we already have this scheme being used by unscrupulous, greedy property owners called "market rate" - which means if I own an apartment that roaches are afraid to live in, but it is next to a luxury condominium complex, I can squeal "market rate" and gouge people who want to live in my slum for 3-6 times more than what the joint should ever be rented for. There is no consideration of the actual condition of the place, or the real worth anymore - it's the "Market rate". unfortunately there are a bunch of naive idiots out there who are so stupid that they don't know the difference between living IN luxury and living NEXT TO IT. but you would have it any other way, would you?

Just as dumb as the renters who have fell for the scheme is the apparently blind property owners who want to punish them because they "suddenly realize" that their properties were under rent control. Rent control was in Berekeley forever - you knew it when you purchased the property - so how did you survive all this time, before the opportunity Prop 98 gave you? San Francisco has rent control - but they allow you to stick it to people real hard (loopholes) - I'm sure there are ways around the system. Renters only have so much money, you can't squeeze blood out of a stone.

Lastly, EVERY INDUSTRY IS REGULATED. That's what the government (we the people) are for. Making sure that people are free without stepping on the freedom of other people. There wll always be limits on everything - what do you want? A lawless society? First we let you charge anything you want for rents - next we allow anyone to shoot anybody else in the head. Lets just abandon all law and all oversight, eh? Because an idiot, a child, a mass murderer, anyone with the right amount of money can be a property owner, there has to be regulation. You aren't an expert on socio-economic effects of your property decisions - nor do you care. You haven't taken a land owners equivalent of the Hippocratic oath - nor would you, most of you probably don't even know what that is. You have no incentive or obligation to community responsibility, and no requirement to learn or educate oneself before qualifying to buy property. So this mixed multitude needs to be regulated by people who are professionals and have those responsibilties - who better than the government. I'd rather that the government make the limitations than YOU - who come from who knows where, and who's objective is purely financial gain.

I'm glad that 98 failed - but you should be thankful that we gave you 99, in hindsight we should have punished you by saying no to that too, just for being the biggest buttheads in California.

The post above by EG is so correct. Because I rented for years, I feel it is important to offer a fair value and most comfortable, well-kept apartments for renters. However, now that I have gone from renter, to property owner, to apartment owner- I understand the simple economics of it.
1. While property taxes, utilities, labor maintenance, appliances, etc have grown more expensive, rent control diminishes or eliminates most profit from my rentals. If I am not making a profit that is worth my time and expense- why own a rental or take care of my property.
2. Capital Gains Taxes make selling my apartment buildings a poor choice- so if I have to own, and can't make a decent profit.. I will do the absolute minimum to keep up these apartments.
3. I know long term tenants won't move because rent control keeps the rent down- so you better believe I am going to stick it to the new tenant to offset the loss of the rent control protected tenant. I stick it to them so hard- I feel bad about it- but I need the money to keep the buildings. Every time I turn over an apartment the rent goes up as much as possible and allowable- because who knows how long the tenant will stay. Because of rent control- the rental amounts are driven to artificial highs.
4. I have to clean and prepare my apartments when I turn them over. I am not making enough from rent- therefore you can bet I am asking for the maximum allowable security deposit- and counting every cent it takes to clean these apartments.
If I were a renter today- living in a rent control area- I would be mad as hell. And with good reason. I ask now- how fair is rent control for renters, really??

I have been listening to raido adds for prop 98 for a while now but just read all about it in the voter pamplet today. I am disapointed that such false advertising is not a crime here in California. Prop 98 is not about saving some little girl from her home, school and place of worship. Its about obolishing rent contol enacted after 1-1-07, and phasing out older rent control when the renter dies or moves. Prop 98's does address Eminent Domain, but it is my impression it is to give legal rights of redress and compensation to property owers for a very wide range of goverment use or regulations about that land. That is, it might allow a landlord who owns a protected wetland from seeking damages becuase he cannot develop it.

I will be voting against prop 98.

I do not equate this opinion with support for prop 99. Right in the voter pamplet, the argument against prop 98 suggests that an 85 year old vet who has been in his apt. for 30 years would face a rent increase. You have to read it very carefully to see they do not claim this vet would face a rent increase, but the language is VERY deceptive.

I will be voting against prop 99 as well.

If there are those out there who are for prop 99, please explain your reasons. As a general rule, I think we need very good reasons to create new law. We need far better reasons to altar our States's Constitution.

I voted "no" on both Prop 98 and Prop 99. I agree that Prop 98 is a trojan hourse, but by blaiming Howard Jarvis for Prop. 98 you are being equally as deceptive as pro prop 98 people who put his picture on their mailer asking you to save prop 13 when in fact Howard Jarvis is dead and prop 98 has nothing to do with prop 13. Jarvis did actually look out for renters, as Prop 13 didn't try to abolish rent control like Prop 98 does, and frankly, I DO NOT THINK JARVIS WOULD SUPPORT PROP 98 IF HE WAS ALIVE! Prop 13 was an excellent proposition that rolled back property taxes. Prop 98 involves eminent domain and rent control. These are entirely different issues! So you should stop trying to blame Jarvis for Prop 98 as he has been dead for 22 years!

To Kelly Rose:
Proposition 13 actually shifted the property tax burden onto young first time home buyers. And created public need for over development of malls, hotels and other big commercial buildings instead of affordable and family friendly housing.
Subsequent adjustments have extended the proposition 13 benefits, not just to people who stay put, but to second time buyers and all sorts of Californians who have gotten special tax favors through the initiative process, leaving first time buyers holding the highest property tax rate.
While that first time buyer property tax rate might be lower than without proposition 13, the measure drained our school systems and public services from the money they need to do better jobs, made a high sales tax necessary, and also made the state a good place for property flipping which was an important impetus to the widespread speculation in California property that drove the cost of the remaining single family homes out of the reach of most prospective first time buyers.
And, BTW, because property tax is based on home price, Proposition 13 actually drove up your property tax when you buy your first home.
I'm glad Ms. Morrison exposed the games that the Jarvis Foundation ads are playing. I've also read reports that say Proposition 98 provisions can be used to break environmental and even zoning laws because all such measures tend to transfer an economic benefit from the property owner to other private person(s).

In regards to rent control, prices have a vitally important function, which is to indicate the preferences of individuals, and to efficiently allocate scarce resources. Price fixing below the market price ensures that the quantity supplied will be bellow what is demanded (remember Nixon and the oil debacle?), leaving more people without housing. It also reduces any incentive to invest because it eliminates profits that could otherwise be used for such purposes, thereby ensuring that properties rot and lose value. This only serves to hurt consumers in the end.

I do agree with one point, however, they absolutely should "shout it from the political-mailer housetops."

Patt Morrison, you got it right.

The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assoc is the principle author of Prop 98, which would wipe out all rent control laws and tenant protections in California. The Jarvis Group is housed in a building is owed by the Apt Assoc of Greater LA (AAGLA), a main Prop 98 funder and a group at the forefront of fighting to destroy rent control and tenants’ rights.

People may not know or remember that Howard Jarvis was the President of AAGLA when he became known as the so-called tax reform crusader. Thus, there has been a link between the Howard Jarvis Group and landlords since its inception.

Howard Jarvis led the landlord’s unsuccessful effort to stop the adoption of LA City rent control in 1978.

When Jarvis and his landlord friends put forth Proposition 13, some 30 plus years ago, they promised renters, if it passed, tenants would receive rent reductions.
Instead, as soon as Prop 13 passed, renters were hit with huge rent rouging increases.

We remind tenants of that lie and broken promise and urge them not to get fooled again. Vote No on Prop 98 and Yes on Prop 99.