Proposition 98 claims to be about eminent domain and protecting the little people. But here at Calitics, we have reason to question the motives of Jon Coupal and the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers’ Association. And once again, they are trying to hoodwink California voters.

Proposition 98 eliminates rent control and other renter protections, making living in California’s cities out of reach for a greater percentage of our population. Prop 98 would also make protecting California’s environment even harder than it is presently. The effects on governance, the environment, and tenants are simply disastrous. NO on 98.

Prop 99 is not ideal, but it is tolerable. It simply blocks the use of eminent domain to transfer owner-occupied homes to private developers. Nothing fancy, but it does have a nice provision that overrules Prop 98 if it gets one more vote.  It also has the potential to do the state a great favor by removing the issue of eminent domain from the ballot.   YES on 99.

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.  

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.