With all the hype today on the 30-year anniversary of Prop 13 — today’s SF Chronicle wouldn’t stop talking about it — it’s incredible that NOBODY is talking about rent control and how Prop 13 paved the way for it.  In today’s Beyond Chron, I take my alma mater to task for hosting a one-day conference on Prop 13 without mentioning rent control.

I majored in political science at Cal – and while I had an excellent education, the Political Science Department was always a bit out of touch.  Today, UC Berkeley’s Institute of Governmental Studies will host a one-day conference on the 30th Anniversary of Prop 13 – where a field of experts will evaluate its “political, economic and fiscal impacts.”  Incredibly, none of them will talk about rent control (at least none of them are experts on it), although one of Prop 13’s most significant effects was the passage of rent control ordinances in cities throughout California.  Tuesday’s crushing defeat of Proposition 98 – sponsored by the same Howard Jarvis Taxpayers’ Association that pushed Prop 13 in 1978 – demonstrates a statewide mandate for laws that protect tenants.  Any serious reflection on Prop 13’s thirty-year legacy must involve rent control.

In June 1978, the right-wing Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association pushed Proposition 13 on the ballot – amid rising property taxes and a deadlocked state legislature that wouldn’t solve the problem.  No doubt Prop 13 passed because elderly homeowners were afraid of losing the “American Dream,” but residential landlords also played a factor in making it happen.  Tenants were told that if Prop 13 passed, landlords would pass their property tax savings in the form of lower rents.  After they broke that pledge, rent control was born.

Nowhere is this more obvious than Berkeley – where tenant groups tried in vain to pass rent control in the 1970’s.  After a crushing defeat in 1977, rent control was presumed dead until Prop 13 passed the following year.  In November 1978, Berkeley voters passed Measure J – which mandated that landlords pass 80% of their Prop 13 savings to renters.  Two years later, voters enacted a permanent rent control ordinance – which is alive today.

A similar thing happened in San Francisco.  In 1978, voters narrowly defeated a measure to have landlords pass 100% of their Prop 13 tax savings to tenants.  Sensing that a rent control ordinance was inevitable, the Board of Supervisors and Mayor Dianne Feinstein passed one in 1979 – which is why many San Franciscans can still live in the City today.  

Similar rent control ordinances also passed in Santa Monica, West Hollywood, East Palo Alto and Cotati – along with weaker measures in Los Angeles, San Jose and Oakland.  Over 100 cities in California also have rent control for mobile home parks.  Today, over one million households across the state are covered by some form of rent control.

By 1980, landlords were so concerned about the growing momentum for rent control that they placed a statewide Proposition on the ballot to abolish it.  But a strong grass-roots movement defeated this measure, including TV commercials with actor Jack Lemmon.  Landlords did get the state legislature to pass the Ellis Act in 1986 and Costa-Hawkins in 1995, but they have never succeeded in completely killing rent control for thirty years.

Of course, Prop 13 had a huge impact on the California state budget that still haunts us today – along with decreased property taxes that have ruined our local public schools.  So it makes sense for the UC Berkeley forum to include budgetary experts.  But besides Terri Sexton, an economics professor at Cal State Sacramento who will talk about “Prop 13 and Residential Mobility,” none of them touch on housing.  And “residential mobility” will probably focus on Prop 13’s effect on homeowners (rather than just renters.)

It’s not like Berkeley’s Political Science Department could not find rent control experts to talk about Prop 13’s effect.  Myron Moskovitz (who was one of my law professors at Golden Gate University) wrote Berkeley’s Rent Control Ordinance, convinced Governor Jerry Brown to veto rent control repeal and is the state’s foremost expert on landlord-tenant law.  Marty Schiffenbauer led Berkeley’s rent control campaigns, both before and after the passage of Prop 13.  Both still live within walking distance of the Cal campus.

They could have also invited Christine Minnehan of the Western Center on Law & Poverty, who lobbies the state legislature on rent control issues – and was an aide to State Senate President David Roberti.  I can’t think of a better expert on the politics of rent control today, and she could provide detailed knowledge about Prop 13’s impact.  She lives in Sacramento, and could have come down to the forum.

Prop 13 plays a major role as to why Californians support rent control.  If homeowners have the stability of knowing that their property taxes won’t rise more than 2% a year, renters deserve to know their landlord can’t spike their rent during a real estate boom.  In 1978, homeowners voted for Prop 13 because they were afraid of losing their homes.  In 2008, tenants voted against Prop 98 because they were afraid of losing their homes.

When I was an undergrad at Cal, the Political Science Department sponsored a panel for students about what they can do with their political science degree.  But without thinking it through, they scheduled it on Election Night at 7:00 p.m.  I was too busy getting people out to vote, so did not attend – but I expressed my displeasure with the Department’s secretary.  Today’s forum proves that an “ivory tower” mentality still governs a public university that boasts one of the best Political Science departments in the nation.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Paul Hogarth graduated from UC Berkeley with a Political Science degree in May 2000.  He was elected to the Berkeley Rent Stabilization Board later that same year, got his J.D. at Golden Gate Law School in 2006, and is now a tenants’ rights attorney in San Francisco.

Given that George Skelton has written the opposing view in today’s L.A. Times, I thought readers would enjoy my opinion about California’s early primary.

Remember when California moved up its presidential primary from June to February – so that we’d have a “bigger impact”? We ended up sharing February 5th with 21 other states – and so had almost no effect on the nomination.  Barack Obama lost to Hillary Clinton because he didn’t have enough time to introduce himself to voters in such a large state, but made up for that loss by racking up huge victories elsewhere.  Now California has a state primary on June 3rd – where turnout is expected to be very low, so the right-wing Proposition 98 to end rent control could pass.  If we had kept the primary at a later date, we would have affected the nomination – and Prop 98 would have gone down in flames.  But the Democratic leaders in Sacramento pushed a February primary to extend their term limits – in a gambit that failed.

The case for moving up California’s primary had its valid points – such as why does Iowa get to hog so much attention from presidential candidates every four years, who then are forced to take a position on ethanol?  As the largest and most diverse state in the nation, California deserves its place in the spotlight.  Candidates must be held accountable on issues that matter greatly to us like immigration, suburban sprawl, education funding, affordable housing, public transportation and levee repairs.  But despite moving up our primary, these issues did not play a prominent role in the campaign.

That’s because California didn’t act within a vacuum.  The Democratic National Committee said that states could move up their primaries to February 5th without losing delegates, so a lot of states had the same idea.  We ended up sharing Super Duper Tuesday with Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee, Delaware, New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Illinois, Minnesota, Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Kansas, North Dakota, Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, Arizona, Idaho and Alaska.  Presidential candidates didn’t spend much time in California – because they were too busy elsewhere.

California got some attention on Super Tuesday, but we were competing with 21 states just ten days after the candidates had duked it out in South Carolina.  With the cost of running a statewide campaign here, Clinton and Obama spared their resources – and devoted more attention to states on the East Coast, Midwest and in the South where a little money could go a long way.  Obama lost California, but his campaign also figured out the math on winning delegates – focus on the small states and rack up huge victories.

Could Obama have won California if he had spent more time here?  Maybe.  Clinton still won by a nine-point margin, but she was ahead by over 20 points a few weeks earlier.  Obama needed time to get acquainted with California voters – especially Latinos – and a more systematic effort in the Golden State could have been successful.  Bear in mind that he practically tied Clinton among voters who went to the polls on Election Day.  But with California’s early absentee balloting, Clinton blunted his momentum.

What would have happened to the nomination fight if California had not moved up its primary to February 5th?  Obama would have emerged from Super Tuesday as the clear winner – but Clinton still won enough states (New York, New Jersey, Arizona) to keep the race going.  Obama would have racked up a wider lead in the delegate count earlier, but Clinton would have refused to back out – insisting that the race must be decided in California.  By June, California would have been viewed as her “make-or-break” state.

It’s interesting to see how much attention Pennsylvania got in this race – because they weren’t greedy like the other states that moved up their primary.  California could have had that same privilege if we had just been patient – allowing each candidate to come here, address our issues and earn our support.  Obama will be the Democratic nominee, and it will be no thanks to California voters.  By trying to have a bigger impact, we ended up making ourselves practically irrelevant.

Some argue that a February primary was good – because it boasted a high turnout.  That’s good for democracy, but the unintended consequences may devastate our state’s future.  A subsequent statewide primary on June 3rd will see a very low turnout – where the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers’ Association is pushing Proposition 98 to abolish rent control.  Polls show Prop 98 trailing, but we still don’t know exactly who will vote.  If renters and Democrats don’t turn out, the right-wing agenda will prevail.

In fact, the President of the Jarvis Association has admitted that a very low (and conservative) turnout will help them on the June ballot.  They started planning over a year ago to gather signatures for Prop 98.  When it looked like they were going to qualify for the February ballot, they actually stopped gathering signatures – and then resumed after it was too late.  Make no mistake about it: they put it on the June ballot for a reason.

Of course, having more of an impact in the nomination process was not the real agenda for a February primary – it was just the “official” reason to get Californians to support it.  Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez and Senate President Don Perata – who were about to step down because of term limits – wanted to pass Proposition 93 to allow them to stay in power for another term.  They could have planned ahead and put it on an earlier statewide ballot, but instead wasted our money with a February initiative.  The voters ended up rejecting Prop 93 – so Perata and Nunez will have to step down anyway.

In order to prove that the February primary was not a waste of time and resources, Perata and Nunez must now make the defeat of Prop 98 a top priority.  Defeating Prop 98 won’t take back the money that the state spent on another election (which could go towards education, housing and transportation), won’t bring back California’s relevance in the presidential nomination process – but at least it will help save rent control.  And right now, it’s the only thing that Perata and Nunez can do about it.

EDITOR’S NOTE: In his spare time and outside of regular work hours, Paul Hogarth volunteered on Obama’s field operation in San Francisco. He also ran to be an Obama delegate to the Democratic National Convention.

Crossposted in orange ,tips and recs certianly appreciated over there. Disclosure.

Way back during the times of the Romans, Odysseus, before he set out upon his journey back home, filled a large wooden horse with a whole mess of heavily armed soldiers. Clever, so clever that the tactic is still seen to this day. At any rate it’s alive and well in California’s ballot initiative process.

Last year, the opponents of Proposition 90 (including Oakland City Attorney John Russo at CPR)pointed out that a trojan horse was indeed in our midst.

Well, today we get a report(PDF) from the Western Center on Law & Poverty that says Howard Jarvis’ latest attempt is just another one of their spiffed-up Trojan Horses. Oh, sure, they’ve blinged it out again with some eminent domain “reform”, but the Hidden Agendas are hiding right inside that Shiny New Horse Sculpture, just waiting to get inside the walls of our Civil Code.

The armed mercenaries inside the 2008 Model T-Horse go beyond the elimination of rent control. Sure, this initiative would eliminate that, but it doesn’t stop there.  From the WCLP:

The report cites even more far-reaching potential effects. The measure prohibits government regulation of the ownership, occupancy or use of private real property. The report concludes that private property deregulation would eliminate nearly all renter and home buyer protections.

For homeowners, laws on foreclosure protection and homebuyer disclosure requirements could be eliminated. For renters, the measure could repeal laws requiring that dwellings are maintained in a decent and safe condition, the fair return of rental deposits, and 60 days notice before a no-fault eviction.

“Unpublicized provisions of this measure would undo countless laws dealing with property and tenants’ rights that have evolved over centuries,” added Minnehan.

“Whether by oversight or design, the initiative could turn back hundreds of years of property law and consumer protections,” said Minnehan.  “Home buyers and renters would have to negotiate every detail of a sale or lease. Our clients, the lowest income Californians, don’t have the bargaining power to get the protections now in law,”  she added.

Sure, California, it’s got a shiny exterior, but don’t let this Hidden Agendas Scheme inside of our walls. We can have real reform in 2008, it’s called the Homeowner’s Protection Act. It’s real reform. No mercenaries inside.

(Added YouTube Video from Tenants Rights Folks. – promoted by Brian Leubitz)

Disclosure: I do some outreach work on behalf of the Real Eminent Domain Reform Initiative

Next year there will be two eminent domain reform initiatives.  The Howard Jarvis Taxpayer's Association, has their Hidden Agendas Scheme to end rent control and to make land use planning difficult, if not impossible.  They submitted signatures a few days ago.  Well, today the Real Eminent Domain Reform Initiative, the Homeowners Protection Act, has submitted their signatures, over a million strong. So, we are looking at a face-off on the June ballot.  

While both of these initiatives claim to help property owners. One (the Real One) protects homeowners without ending important programs like rent control. One of them (The Fake One) redefines how government would work, or in actuality, not work.  The Hidden Agendas Scheme creates a litany of collateral damage in our government and follows along with the HJTA historical policy of slash and burn politics.  

Sure, HJTA will tell you all about how they want to save you from the tax man/ the law man/ the Man in general. But what HJTA really desires is an entirely new definition of property. A definition so broad as to practically halt much of our work to build build strong communities, and protect the environment. And more specifically, our decaying water infrastructure could be in the balance with this Hidden Agendas Scheme.   Could eminent domain use some tweaking? Sure. We should be very careful about using eminent domain for anyone's home.  And that's what the Real Eminent Domain Reform does:  

“It's been well over two years since the Supreme Court ruled in the Kelo case, and it's high time that California enacted strong protections for homeowners against eminent domain for private development,” said Ken Willis, president of the League of California Homeowners.  “This measure would provide California homeowners with new, constitutional protections against eminent domain. We're confident that we've collected the necessary signatures to place this measure on the June ballot, and are even more confident that voters will overwhelmingly support our measure when given the chance.”

The Homeowners Protection Act, the Real Eminent Domain Reform Initiative, doesn't have any hidden agendas. How novel and exciting!   For more information on Real Eminent Domain Reform, see EminentDomainReform.com. For more info on the landlords' Hidden Agenda Scheme: NoLandlordScheme.com

See Also:

Prop 90 Tag  

Using the Hidden Agendas for our Own Agenda