Prop 98 one more blow to tiny mobile home park - Santa Cruz Sen...

The following excerpt its from the smartvoter.org link at the bottom of the article, and also appears in th voter's guide:
"Rent Control The measure generally prohibits government from limiting the price property owners may charge others to purchase, occupy, or use their land or buildings. This provision would affect local rent control measures. Specifi cally, government could not enact new rent control measures, and any rent control measure enacted after January 1, 2007 would end. Other rent control measures (those enacted before January 1, 2007) would be phased out on a unit-by-unit basis after an apartment unit or mobile home park space is vacated. Once a tenant left an apartment or mobile home space, property owners could charge market rate rents, and that apartment unit or mobile home space would not be subject to rent control again."
The last few sentences indicate that the purported victim in this story won't be affected by the proposition. However, if he moves out, then the space/apartment is no longer under rent control.
Mr. Alexander, I urge you to revise this piece!
I (personally) plan to vote 'no' on 98 because of this rent control business, but even so, the way this article is written doesn't strike me as accurate

I beg to differ. Prop 98 removes all prohibitions regarding rents - and while they have tucked nice tidy statements into the initiative's language stating that rent control would only be phased out and those currently under rent control may remain - what ACTUALLY happens is the immediate removal of ALL regulations regarding rent control. Meaning a landowner could evict people without cause, because currently, that is one of the renter's protection mechanisms and will be eliminated should 98 pass.

My landlord has already said he intends to "clear the park". Of course, none of us have the 35K it costs to move a modular home - nor is there a single available space in this county. Banks holding the mortgages will lose, the people who own the homes will lose...everything - and the big winners will be the multi-millionaires who bought the parks with the intention of breaking rent control.

The park owners have enjoyed the benefit of rent control by paying a lower price for their respective parks and now want more, and more, and more.

Proposition 98 is a greedy mean spirited initiative - have compassion for your fellow man and vote NO

I would hope that if the rent went up in mobile parks, the population living there would flee. No one wants to live in a mobile home park. You live in those sardine cans if that is all you can afford. But the wonderful landlords of this slummy beach town would love to charge $5K a month for a trailer, watch the money roll in while they don't have a day job.

Yes on 98. No on 99.

Greedy for who? Why should a land owner suffer when it come to his property rights? The land owners should have the last say on this issue. Why should the land owner be tied to a trailer park? There are many places in this country that is very affordable to live. Maybe these renters need to relocate to the central valley or out of state or the Salinas Valley IF need be. If the park needs clearing then maybe you need to move. If. Essentially these trailer parks are subsidized housing. Several of these parks are right on the beach with million dollar views. I wish I could live so close for so cheap. But...I don't.

I say yes on 98

It looks like the pro rent control people forced this issue. Can you imagine having a plot of land overlooking the ocean for only $300 per month?
The old people want to live like it is still 1970 and have the next generations continue to pay not only for themselves and also for the greedy old people that are living beyond my means to take care of them.
Cry me a river...refusal to pay more than three hundred is greedy.

What happens if one voted NO on BOTH?
Would things just stay the same as they are now?
Or would our wonderful legislaters (later is deliberate) pass something anyway?

Get a job !

Gary Patton is against Prop. 98? Well, that's good enough for me. Yes on Prop. 98!

Patton and his SCAN cronnies are the main reason that no one can afford housing here. Living in Santa Cruz has become harder and harder as they've limited residential construction, provided support for hundreds of vagrants and allowed the "bicycle people" to set the area's transportation agenda. Fred Keeley, Mardi Wormhoudt (Gary Patton in drag), John Laird - none of them seem to be able to understand that there are also families trying to live here who don't want their community to be part of some social experiment. With the second highest cost of housing in the nation can we all agree their anti-business, "let the government control everything" agenda hasn't worked?

Weasel you just said what I was thinking. Yes on Prop. 98!!

Notice how the Sentinel no longer investigates or reports? They are the cheat sheet for the political crowd. That's all.

So maybe I don't understand Capitola's rent control ordinance, but it certainly sounds like we should apply this to _everything_(he says sarcastically).
http://www.cabrillohoa.com/ProspectiveHObroch...

"Your rent may be raised only once per year. The maximum annual rent increase shall be equal to 60% of the change in the consumer price index (CPI) for the immediately preceding September to August period, or a maximum annual increase of 5% of existing base rent, whichever is less."

I would guess that whoever came up with this great idea has never worked in the real world and has had to rely on the kindness of taxpayers and the toil of others.

Let's say that we cap _everything_ to these limits. Great idea! Last year's CPI was about 4%(depending on which CPI you use). Take 60% of 4% and you have a whopping increase of about 2.5%. Imagine if gasoline couldn't change more than 2.5% a year. Or food. Oh, but salaries couldn't change by more either.

If I understand these controls correctly, it GUARANTEES that landlord cannot keep up with inflation. It's essentially a government mandate that the landlord subsidise a portion of the rent. These are not rational, sustainable policies.

Capping only one item distorts the marketplace. Is it any wonder that real-estate developers aren't rushing to the area to create affordable mobile home parks. If I were an investor, I wouldn't touch Capitola with a ten-foot pole (but perhaps that was the city's Machiavellian anti mobile home park plan all along).

What most of you people do not understand is the Mobil Homes are the only affordable housing left here. Police officers, Firemen, Teachers and yes older retired folks live there. As the price of houses went up to $700,000 and Condos went up to $400,000 the cost of Mobile Homes went up to $150,000 -$300,000. If you bought a home no body raises you "rent" for the land beneath your home. Same with Condos. But now, if you paid $200,000 for your mobile home and are paying $1,500.00 a month mortage and $300.00 per month rent. Now these super rich landowners want to either sell you the crummy little pice of land below you Mobil Home for tens of thousands of dollars or raise the rent to $1,500.00 -$2,500.00 per month. Get a clue people. Fight the rich Rupublican landowners.

98 favors individual rights over governmental rights. 99 favors governmental rights over individual rights. Pick your poison.

What is with this "police officers, firemen, teachers" drivel? Every time I hear that I know it's some brainwashed community development flak. Do bank tellers live there? Restaurant chefs? Bongo players? What is up with that? Argghhhhh!!

As if one group is way better than the other in terms of allowing them certain types of housing.

This smacks of "workforce housing" a euphemism for socialized housing.

Lifeguard?

Not again with more of these clueless 'poor landowners and landlords comments'. Mobile park Home owners paid plenty for their mobile homes in this county. If you change the law on them now - the homes will be worth much less -and their would be a mobile park owner incentive to evict them - because the next 'tenant would pay higher space rent. No one should have the value of their homes ruined -even people who own and live in mobile homes -and they should not be under a cloud of possible eviction.

Many of the 'blowhard' comments above are incredibly mean spirited.

I am always fascinated that the mobile home owner blames the landlord for his own idiocy, knowing full well that the land underneath that mobile home belonged to the landlord when he bought it.

Basically, mobile home owners want to steal their landlord's land. On what principle, I don't know.

Back up the truck wrote:

" Other rent control measures (those enacted before January 1, 2007) would be phased out on a unit-by-unit basis after an apartment unit or mobile home park space is vacated. Once a tenant left an apartment or mobile home space, property owners could charge market rate rents, and that apartment unit or mobile home space would not be subject to rent control again."

The last few sentences indicate that the purported victim in this story won't be affected by the proposition. However, if he moves out, then the space/apartment is no longer under rent control.
Mr. Alexander, I urge you to revise this piece!

And the Sentinel editorial opposing Prop 98 also says "Prop. 98 would end rent control."

Truth means nothing in "journalism" anymore, which means it isn't journalism.

Broken record from the mid-1980s. Yes/no who cares. Life goes on. The government has been screwing us all up since 1977 and calling it inflation or some damn thing no matter who votes for what. Meanwhile Arnie is cutting away at cost of living increases, schools, health, and arab oil is cutting away at food and transportation- and frankly; the arabs have us so addicted- we are losing priorities daily- and mobile homes are not even in that scope.

To Mr/MS America in Decline - Your comment makes no sense. The "landlords" that buy mobile home parks - bought properties already zoned for use as a mobile home park - not just "land" - as you say. Therefore who is the idiot? Besides, If you buy land zoned for mobile home use - you pay less for it! No one forced the park owner to buy land designated for mobile home use!
The only way the park owner has a legitimate complaint is if the mobile home park became zoned for rent control/ mobile home use after he bought it. But That is almost never the case; the 'landlords' know they are buying a regulated rent controled property to begin with....

This entire Prop. 98 Ballot Initiative is underhanded and deceptive,- and has resorted to obnoxious scare tactic ads on the radio. Is this Prop 98 really about "Eminent Domain Reform?" - what hogwash; almost all the money for those ads has come from the anti- rent control crowd - yet that is never mentioned in those ads. The radio ads portray children losing their homes to the evil developers, and evil politicians - yet passing Prop 98 could pose a much greater threat to more children/ and senior citizens. Is that a good thing in your opinion - to take from the poor and give to the rich?