My Disclosure.

The LA Daily News takes a look at some of the people that could be harmed by Prop 98’s odious landlord power grab. This isn’t just some hypothetical, but real people living here in California. People will be forced to leave the cities and head out to the exurbs or out of state. For example:

He’s a disabled Vietnam veteran. She’s a retired teacher who spends most of her pension on health insurance.

Arnie and Marilyn Bernstein are among an estimated 1million Angelenos with a rent-controlled apartment.

But if voters kill rent control in a June ballot measure, the Bernsteins say, their monthly payment would jump from $876 to $1,300 – a 48 percent increase.

“We couldn’t afford another apartment,” said Marilyn Bernstein, 62, of Canoga Park, who has lived in the one-bedroom unit for 21 years. “We’d be living under a bridge – like `Tent City, here we come.’ The possibility of lifting rent control would be devastating.”

Emphasis my own. The fact is that while this is permanent vacancy decontrol, the rent control ends when the tenant moves out, Prop 98 makes it a heck of a lot easier to do evictions. Tenants are generally in a lot worse place if Prop 98 passes.  So, Jon Coupal, head of the local Destroy Gummamint Set (HJTA), has to defend this turdblossom.  Let’s see what he comes up with. Ah, yes, he lies.

“It doesn’t make it easier to evict anybody,” Coupal said. “All the protections under existing law remain in effect. Only when that unit is vacated can anybody raise rents. We actually take the existing protections against evictions and make them part of the California Constitution.”

Naysayers insist, however, that the landlord-backed measure would essentially end rent control in California.

Oh, those naysayers, always coming in with their facts and messing up your spin. You can read the proposition on the Yes 98 site. Look at Section 3, the part that would be grafted onto the California constitution. Do you see tenant protectsions there? Not so much. In fact the only time the word “tenant” is mentioned comes in the Sec. 5, where it eliminates rent control.

In reality, Prop 98 slashes into the heart of tenant protections. It is a dangerous ruse to use the issue of eminent domain to dramatically increase property rights in a way that was never envisioned in the past.

 My Disclosure.

The Yes on Prop 98 folks have launched what I think might go down as one of the most melodramatic ads ever.  It starts with a couple of kids, who we are made to believe who are siblings who have been ruthlessly forced to move by the big, bad “gummamint” through their evil eminent domain. They’ll never get to see their friends again! Too bad the ad is entirely misleading.

Unfortunately, they didn’t get to talk to the kids of renters who will be forced to move when the landlords who funded this measure kick them and their families out of their apartments. To the children who will be pushed out of California’s major cities because rent control is ended and eviction protections are obliterated.  Apparently, only kids whose parents own a house matter.

Of course, relatively few homes (typically on the order of a few dozen in the state per year) are actually purchased through the use of eminent domain. Furthermore the vast majority of these incidents involve public uses of the land, roads, fire stations, that kind of thing. But the truth was never really an obstacle the right-wingers cared much about.

But the tide is clearly turning against the Landlords power grab. Even Republicans, like former Governor Pete Wilson, and the odious and ineffective George Radonovich (R-Mariposa), are turning against this stinker of a proposition. But these ads are going up across the state, and turnout will be shockingly low. So, we need to turn out voters from LA and SF. Check out the No on Prop 98 Website for what you can do to help.

I do some web work for No on 98.

The ABC affiliate in SF did a story about one of the mobile home parks in San Rafael tripling rates after San Rafael’s rent control ordinance was overturned. You can view the story here. Unsurprisingly, the landowner, Sam Zell’s Equity Lifestyle immediately almost tripled the rents at the Contempo mobile home park. The decision itself is probably bad law as other courts have found rent control to be a valid exercise of a city’s power, but that doesn’t change the consequences for many of Contempo’s residents.

If we Prop 98 passes, the advocates say, the old tenants will be grandfathered in. That’s true, but only so long as they stay in the house.  In addition to permanent vacancy decontrol, Prop 98 eliminates much of the protections against evictions. So, landlords can just evict long-standing tenants and rent the unit at the higher market rents and poof there goes rent control for those renters. We can see how this traumatizes a community, just for the sake of a few landlords.

As I said Monday, June will be a low turnout election. We need to make sure the progressive voters turnout to save rent control and tenant protections.

UPDATE: I neglected to include information about the case. It is MHC Financing Limited Partnership v. City of San Rafael. Apparently MHC likes to challenge rent control in California, as they also challenged the City of Santee’s rent control ordinance. The Court of Appeal for the fourth district overturned a trial court decision striking down Santee’s rent control ordinance. But, MHC did not give up. Nope, they sued San Rafael too, and won in the trial court. Now let’s see if they can get the federal circurit court to agree with them too. If so, it would be a disaster for tenant rights.

I do some web work for No on 98.

The Yes on Prop 98 released their financial data, and not a lot of shockers in there. Guess who is financing the campaign. Really, guess, because I’ll bet you will get it right.

If you guessed landlords, you get a gold star! Good job! The Yes on 98 campaign loves to talk about how it’s all ’bout eminent domain, and destroying tenants rights is just a happy coincidence.  It’s funny how the money never lies: Prop 98 is all about ending rent control and tenants rights. Of the approximately $2.7 million raised for Yes on 98, almost $2.2 comes from landlords. 83%! A quick breakdown of where that’s coming from, and you can see that the apartment and mobile home park owners really, really want to see the end of rent control:

These landlord interests are betting tenants and pro-tenant voters won’t bother to show up at the June primary. Heck, Jon Coupal, head of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, aka the Prop 13 people, out and out says it at one of their meetings that I found a clip of online. We have to make sure that every progressive voter in SF, LA, and the rest of the tenant-heavy communities shows up and votes on June 3 (or before by using their VBM ballot). Check about 50 seconds into the clip where he talks about the “other good thing”. Yup, for conservatives, low turnout is always a good thing.  We simply cannot have Prop 98 passing for a litany of reasons, many of which have been spoken here before. But, just in case, here are some links here, here, here, and here.

Finally, if you are a video person, the No on 98 campaign has a video contest with a $1,000 reward. Videos are due on March 28 (this FRIDAY!) so get them in soon.  

(Such lovely people – promoted by jsw)

I wrote this for today’s Beyond Chron.

To learn about Proposition 98’s agenda, look no further than Dan Faller, President and Founder of the American Owner’s Association (AOA) – the largest landlord group in California.  In a nine-page essay published in the association’s magazine, Faller complains heatedly about rent control, calls pro-tenant elected officials “terrorists” and “suicide bombers,” compares the effort to pass Prop 98 with World War II, says that renters “choose not to provide for themselves,” and – with rhetoric that channels George Bush – tells landlords: “you are either for us or against us in this fight for your freedom and property rights.”  We cannot dismiss Faller as just another right-wing kook, for his organization has already contributed $325,000 to the “Yes on 98” cause – and the AOA has plans to raise even more money in the coming weeks.  And with voter turnout in June expected to be very low, Faller’s fringe beliefs might actually become public policy in California – if we don’t act now.

While proponents want voters to think it’s about eminent domain reform, Prop 98 is the most dangerous right-wing initiative to hit the California ballot in years.  It would abolish rent control, gut the most basic tenant protections, repeal sensible environmental laws and endanger public water projects.  Another measure, Proposition 99, would reform eminent domain – which Faller opposes because it would “only protect owner-occupied homes.”  In other words, the Prop 98 forces don’t really care about the middle-class homeowner who fears eminent domain.  They just want to repeal all regulations of private property.

In the post-9/11 world, calling someone a “terrorist” is a serious accusation – but Faller refers to pro-tenant elected officials who oppose Prop 98 as “terrorists” or “suicide bombers” at least seven times.  “The bombs and explosives they are throwing at us,” he writes, “are rent control, eminent domain, inspection laws, building codes, requiring 60-day notices so tenants can steal more time from you, eviction laws that allow tenants to live rent-free for several months, relocation fees, inclusionary zoning that drives up the price of housing so they have another excuse to justify even more laws.  These elected officials are dangerous.”

Urging his fellow landlords to fight this “war” on the “terrorists,” Faller says the solution is to hit them with the “big bomb”: Proposition 98, which would invalidate all these existing laws and then some.  “Help to permanently take away their weapons that allow unfair eminent domain and rent control,” he writes before asking for campaign contributions.  “This is certainly one war that we all believe in and can hold our heads high as we fight to win!  You are either for us or against us in this fight for your freedom and property rights.”

According to a Field Poll conducted in December, George Bush has a 28% approval rating in California – with 64% who disapprove.  Yet, one of the top supporters of Prop 98 is using exactly the same rhetoric as our Commander in Chief to deride his opponents.  If voters in June are educated about who’s behind this initiative, they will defeat it.

But it’s not just the “terrorist” politicians that Faller has a bone to pick with.  He demeans people who can’t afford to buy California real estate as lazy and ineffectual.  As he urges landlords to “join this war” to pass Prop 98, Faller says “you’ve worked hard providing housing for others who chose not to provide for themselves … You gave up a lot of weekends to make it possible – something others were not willing to do.”  Apparently, it’s okay to berate the state’s 14 million tenants because they “obviously” did not work hard enough to buy property themselves.  Hyperbole is one thing; personal insults are quite another.

Does the fight over Prop 98 match the battle against Nazis and fascists in World War II?  Dan Faller seems to think that it does.  Recalling his childhood memories in Los Angeles when he feared that “the enemy was going to land their troops in Long Beach and along our coast,” the AOA President puts the fight to pass Prop 98 on a similar plane.  “There were big signs and advertisements that read ‘Uncle Sam Needs You!’ during WWII,” he writes.  “There’s a big AOA sign today that says ‘Freedom Loving Americans Need You!’  We need your support to win this War to protect your property rights!”

It would be easy to laugh at these outlandish statements if Dan Faller was just your crazy uncle who makes offensive jokes that amuse only himself.  But he’s the President and Founder of the American Owners Association – a national trade association of landlords that boasts more members in California than any other group.  Faller is on the Board of Biopharma, the owner of a commercial brokerage firm, and used to be a Wall Street broker.  The AOA’s monthly newsletter – which printed his “Yes on 98” screed – is the most widely read landlord publication in the country.

Under Faller’s watch, the AOA has provided crucial seed money for Prop 98 to get on the ballot – and they’re now aggressively fundraising to get it passed.  The group has already put $325,000 towards the effort – and Faller has urged members to give even more.  “Donate at least $1,000 with an additional minimum of $50 for every unit if you own over twenty apartments,” he wrote.  “If you own less than 20 units, please donate the $1,000 minimum.  If you own more, step up and invest according to all the benefits you’ll enjoy as a result of winning this campaign.”

With such a fundraising appeal, the “Yes on 98” campaign should have plenty of funds to hoodwink voters into thinking that their extreme ballot measure is about eminent domain.  Opponents of Prop 98 must be vigilant, fundraise and get out the message to expose it as the Hidden Agendas Scheme that it really is.  Only by doing so can we truly save such essential programs in California that 14 million renters rely on to live here.  And with the June ballot garnering such low attention, there’s a serious chance that we could lose.

Was Faller joking when he called pro-tenant elected officials “suicide bombers,” accused tenants of being lazy, and compared the fight to pass Prop 98 with fighting the Axis powers in World War II?  Apparently not.  “Please take every word of this article more seriously,” he wrote in the preface, “than any other article you have ever read in this publication.”  That should give us all pause about how dangerous Prop 98 really is …

I do some web work for No on 98.

I don’t often get to praise the CA Chamber of Commerce, but today is that lucky day.  The California Chamber of Commerce has voted to go NO on the landlord scheme, Prop 98. Prop 98 eliminates rent control, other protections for renters, and could harm our ability to protect our environment.

Given that the main supporters of this initiative has been the nutso Howard Jarvis Association, which actively campaigned for Prop 98 at the CRP convention, this endorsement should eat into the Republican support for Prop 98.  While the Chamber stayed neutral on Prop 99, the coalition against Prop 98 and for Prop 99 has grown further.

Check the flip for the full list.

UPDATE: Also, I hear some folks will be picketing an Apartment owners meeting in Oakland this morning. You want to join them? I’m sure it will be a rocking good time.  Dean Preston of Tenants Together will be joined by leaders for seniors and other tenants groups. Political blotter link here.

Dozens of seniors, tenants and community rights activists from Oakland/Bay Area will protest and march outside the Rental Housing Association of Northern Alameda County (RHA) convention on Saturday, March 15 at 11:00AM, 4700 Lincoln Ave, Oakland (in front of Greek Orthodox Church on the sidewalk.)

    *  California Chamber of Commerce (only oppose Prop. 98)

   * San Marcos Chamber of Commerce

   * California National Organization for Women (only oppose Prop. 98)

   * Strategic Actions for a Just Economy

   * National Lawyers Guild – Los Angeles Chapter

   * Americans for Democratic Action (ADA) – Southern California Chapter

   * Endangered Habitats League

   * Progressive Jewish Alliance

   * People Organized to Win Employment Rights (POWER)

   * Homeowners Acting Together H.A.T.

   * South Asian Network

   * Sonoma County Mobilehome Owners Association

   * St. Peter’s Housing Committee

   * Los Rancheros Association, Inc.

   * County Mobilehome Positive Action Committee

   * San Marcos Mobilehome Residents Association

   * Mountain Springs Homeowners Association

   * San Rafael Mobile Home Estates Homeowners Association

   * GSMOL Chapter 820

   * GSMOL Chapter 1200

I do some web work for No on 98.

A while back, I mentioned a lawsuit against AG Jerry Brown regarding the ballot title for prop 98, “EMINENT DOMAIN. LIMITS ON GOVERNMENT AUTHORITY.” You see, that really doesn’t clearly articulate what Prop 98 does.  But, let’s just think about the amount of people this actually impacts. Eminent domain? A few hundred per year. Rent Control? Several hundred thousand.

So which one should be in the ballot title? Hmmm. Nonetheless, the judge ruled that Brown, while perhaps wrong, didn’t actually overstep his authority. Under the law, being wrong isn’t enough, but rather you must be super-wrong. So wrong that you didn’t have authority to be that wrong. So, when you get that June ballot in the mail, for prop 98 it will say “Eminent Domain. Limits on Government Authority.” despite the fact that it will impact far more people through its rent control provisions than through eminent domain.  

You know, the thing that I don’t get here is why Brown wouldn’t include it. After all, it’s pretty clear he has designs on reliving the 80’s by running for governor again. You’d think he wouldn’t try to intentionally mess with the tenants organizations.  But, alas, the enigma that is Jerry Brown continues.

I do some work for No on 98/Yes on 99.

So, this could be some serious good time fun.  The No on 98 Campaign is planning on running a little video contest, with the winner getting $1,000!  The object will be to make light of some of the nasty, nasty stuff that Prop 98 will do to the state of California (like eliminate rent control) or just highlight some of the crazy shenanigans going on in the Yes on 98 campaign. And if you choose the latter, well, let’s just say I’d take a look at Capitol Weekly, the Save Rent Control blog or some of the other great news sites around the state.

The goal is for YouTube videos of about a minute in length. They’ll be judged by the crack Yes on 98 Video Team (a lofty group I assure you) and some great videos will be highlighted on  NoProp98.org. It will be a blast, I’m sure. For full details, check out the No 98 website here.

I do some work for No on 98/Yes on 99

Today, a lawsuit was filed in Sacramento to change the ballot title for the Bad Prop 98. The ballot title as circulated was “Government Acquisition, Regulation of Private Property. Constitutional Amendment.” For the ballot, as it stands, it will get “EMINENT DOMAIN. LIMITS ON GOVERNMENT AUTHORITY.” Yikes, that’s a cheery sounding name for a not-so-cheery initiative.  That’s why today several tenants organizations have filed the suit:

“By far, Proposition 98’s greatest impact will be the provisions abolishing rent control and renter protections,” said Nan Brasmer, President of the California Alliance for Retired Americans. “Currently, more than 1 million renters are protected by rent control, and this initiative will negatively impact millions of renters in the state.  When voters read the title – which is all that many voters read – they should be informed up front that Prop. 98 abolishes rent control. It’s a principle point of the initiative. Voters have a right to know.”

Now, I know many of us read much, much more than just the title, but that’s not the case universally.  For many voters it’s how they vote.  “EMINENT DOMAIN. LIMITS ON GOVERNMENT AUTHORITY.” doesn’t mean a whole lot to most voters. And if it’s confusing doesn’t “limits on government authority” sound kinda ok, especially in the age of warrentless wiretaps? The trouble is that the Bad Prop 98 does so much more.

The interesting thing is that there’s some evidence on intent. According to plaintiff’s they have a document that indicates that the real purpose of the initiative is to eliminate protections for millions of California’s renters. Not only the over 1 million Californians who reside in rent-controlled units, but also renters who just want their security deposit back in a timely matter. The thing is that this proposition is really hard to quantify in 6 words or less. It’s a beast of a proposition that does many, many things, and “EMINENT DOMAIN. LIMITS ON GOVERNMENT AUTHORITY.” just doesn’t really make it clear that the intent of the funders was aimed at renters.

“The overwhelming majority of funding behind Prop. 98 comes from landlords. The only reason they’re funding this measure is to abolish rent control and other renter protections,” said Dean Preston, Executive Director of Tenants Together.  “Even the proponents’ own ballot arguments list rent control as a principle provision of the initiative. We’re simply asking that the title reflect the primary provisions so voters can make an informed decision.”

I’m thinking perhaps something along the lines of “Sticking it to the Renters. Freeing Developers to Pillage California. Constitutional Amendment.” I suppose I could settle for something in the middle though.

That's the BAD Prop 98 that will be on the ballot in the June primary, not the good Prop 98 from 1988.  Still sounds kind of weird to see the California Teacher Association opposed to Prop 98, though.  But the AARP and the CTA are not the only members of what is a growing coalition against the Hidden Agendas embodied in the BAD Prop 98. You can get the full list of groups that oppose these hidden agendas on Friday here or over the flip.  But, it's quite an impressive list, running the gamut from all areas, including environmental groups, senior groups, education groups, labor, religious organizations, homeowner's groups, business, and even farming groups.

I think it's also important to note that several good government groups, such as the League of Women Voters, have come together with organizations across the state to reject Prop 98. A lot of propositions get a lot of pushback, but few get this depth and this breadth of pushback. In this video, you see Senator Carole Migden (D-SF) talking about the long, hard fight that we're going to have wage against the Bad Prop 98. 

The Bad Prop 98 will eliminate rent control in California, make governance of our state even harder, and generally be a problem for Californians.  This Bad Prop 98 is really, really bad for progressives and bad for California.

WE OPPOSE PROP. 98 – THE HIDDEN AGENDAS SCHEME