Obama Rejected Illinois Rent Control Ban

Chicago does not have rent control. In 1997, the Illinois legislature passed -- and Republican Governor Jim Edgar signed -- SB 531 (the Rent Control Preemption Act), which prohibited local jurisdictions from passing it. At the time, no city in Illinois had rent control -- but the real estate lobby had a national effort to quietly stop it in places before it starts. SB 531 passed with little fanfare: the State House voted for it 96-18, and the State Senate approved it 46-6. One of the six senators who voted "no" was Barack Obama -- although many liberal Democrats voted with landlords and the Senate's Republican majority. Obama's vote -- when one considers how few people stood up with him -- is an example of his core progressive principles. While it's valid to say that he should have done more to defeat it, consider that Obama was a freshman in a very hostile climate -- and as a community organizer had learned to pick his battles.

Illinois Senate Bill 531 was part of a larger national campaign in the 1990's by the real estate lobby to defeat tenant protections. Efforts to weaken rent control in California (where Costa-Hawkins passed in 1995) and repeal it in Massachusetts (which the voters narrowly did in 1994) got the lion's share of public attention. But a more quiet and effective tactic -- which also encountered less opposition -- was to pass "rent control preemption" in states where it did not exist. The Farm Bureau used a similar tactic in the 1970's to push anti-farmworker legislation, and in some states it slipped by without the United Farm Workers (UFW) knowing it.

Last month's defeat of California's Proposition 98 was a strong mandate for rent control -- and the genesis of a renewed tenant movement. But when Los Angeles, San Francisco, Oakland, Berkeley and other cities have had rent control for years, it's easier to mobilize renters against a landlord attack. Chicago did not have rent control when SB 531 passed -- and besides a tenant's rights ordinance passed in 1986 by Mayor Harold Washington, had few protections. When landlords pushed a bill to ban rent control in Springfield, Democratic legislators did not feel pressured to mount an opposition.

Enter Barack Obama, a freshman legislator in early 1997 from Chicago's Hyde Park. At the time, the Illinois State Senate had a Republican majority -- led by James "Pate" Philip of suburban DuPage County, a powerful figure who said that black people "do not have the work ethics that we have" and opposed raising welfare payments because "they'd probably just buy more lottery tickets." Obama, who had literally just arrived in Springfield, had to vote on a real estate-funded bill sponsored by Tom Walsh -- another DuPage County Republican and an ally of "Pate" Philip.

It goes without saying that Obama did not have much power at the time to stop SB 531. He voted against it, but only five of his colleagues joined him. What's disconcerting is how many liberal Democrats voted for it -- including John Cullerton of Chicago's Lincoln Park and Donne Trotter from Chicago's South Side. It's clear from the roll call vote that there wasn't much pressure to oppose it, and the Democratic leadership at the time did not prioritize it as an issue. The fact that Obama was one of only six to vote "no" is an encouraging sign about his political convictions.

Obama came to Springfield -- and then Washington -- with the mind of a community organizer, and it guided much of his early career. But like most seasoned organizers, he understood the art of the possible. Obama was not in the position at the time to defeat SB 531, which was effectively a done deal. Not only did Republicans control the State Senate, but there was no mobilized rent control constituency in Illinois to fight it. It's a lot harder to motivate renters to protect a right they don't yet have - than to save a right they have grown to depend on for their own livelihood.

But Obama's vote in 1997 is instructive for those following his current presidential bid -- as they fear his perceived move to the center. Anyone who follows Obama's record in the State Senate understands his background -- where his vote against SB 531 was just one example. As a columnist for the right-wing National Review recently lamented, Obama worked closely in the State Senate with the Illinois chapter of ACORN to pass living wage legislation and curb banking practices. "You begin to wonder whether," he writes, "in his Springfield days, Obama might have best been characterized as 'the Senator from ACORN.'"

In 1995, the Chicago Reader wrote an instructive profile of Obama as he made his first bid for office, which offers more clues. "What if a politician were to see his job as that of an organizer," said Obama, "who does not sell voters short but who educates them about the real choices before them? As an elected official, I could bring church and community leaders together easier than as a community organizer or lawyer. We would form concrete economic development strategies, take advantage of existing laws and structures, and create bridges and bonds within all sectors of the community. We must form grass-root structures that would hold me and other elected officials more accountable for their actions."

When Obama becomes President, it will be the job of affordable housing activists to work with his Administration and hold him accountable -- and to help alter the political reality so that we don't lose more battles like SB 351. For now, I'm just relieved that he wasn't on the wrong side of that vote.

Paul Hogarth was an elected Commissioner on the Berkeley Rent Stabilization Board from 2000-2004, and is now a tenant lawyer in San Francisco. He has volunteered on Barack Obama's presidential campaign, and grew up in Chicago's Hyde Park - where in the mid-1990's he lived three doors down from Obama. He is the managing editor of BeyondChron -- San Francisco's Alternative Online Daily, where this piece was first published.

Comments

[juggernaut1729]

Rent control is the single most important cause of homelessness.

[juggernaut1729]

If the Government artificially reduces the price of a good, the supply of that good reduces, because producers no longer have an incentive to keep producing it.

Similarly, rent control reduces the supply of homes for rent. Simple economics.

Rent control tampers with the housing market and discourages developers from responding to increases in demand for low-income housing.... leading to homelessness.

Infact, studies have shown that rent control and exclusionary zoning laws are the major causes of homelessness.

When will socialists like Obama (or McCain for that matter) get it ? Rent control leads to homelessness. Increases in minimum wage lead to unemployment and price controls on food lead to bread lines.

[Freesia2]

Good for Obama. In my past, my own living situation was dependent on rent control which came under threat. I can't express to you, if you haven't been at the mercy of city landlords, how important that protection is for any affordable quality of life. With the housing crisis today, so many people with wolves slobbering at the door, this article's glimpse back gives great hope for what Obama's likely actions would be as President.

As I write this, the tv is on and it seems McCain economic adviser Phil Gramm "Americans are whiners" is still on board the Straight Talk Express. If I wasn't sure before, I know without a doubt who I'm going to trust in November.

[SkimaskBob]

great post. very telling ...

[tbone99]

That was then , this is now....he's gone pro.

[davefoc]

Disclosure: I'm an apartment owner, registered Republican and I am going to vote for Obama.

Although many on this site might see rent control as unquestioned good, IMHO, it is net a very harmful practice.

The problems with it are varied and have been described in many places. I don't own property Los Angeles but I do read a Los Angeles apartment publication and it is a never ending source of details about all the complicated legal issues that become associated with rent control. The clear winners of Los Angeles rent control are the lawyers.

One aspect that is not always dealt with in the various articles that have been written detailing its problems is the difficulty of eliminating tenants who engage in activities harmful to other tenants. These kinds of things are almost impossible to prove and in the non rent controlled world are dealt with by the simple expedient of the tenant being warned and if the condition isn't rectified he is given thirty or sixty day notice to leave. In a rent controlled apartment it becomes necessary to prove the unprovable to eliminate a tenant engaged in drug trace, unruly behavior, tenant harassment, etc. The potential for a building to become dominated by drugs and other kinds of criminal behavior is very strong.

One of the many papers about rent control that I mentioned above:
http://www.econlib.org/Library/Enc/RentControl.html

[Freesia2]

Hi. I just submitted a post and then read yours. And while I can appreciate the difficulties that rent control can bring, especially getting rid of one bad tenant, that net harm is far below the net gain for the other 100 good tenants who could otherwise find a managable $1,000 rent shoot up to a devastating $2500 in short time.

The lawers will always find a way to get a piece of the pie because that's what lawyers do. Criminals always find a place to hole up. But by and large, my experience is that rent control does nothing but keep liveable apartments available to the middle class. The whole neighborhood and it's businesses benefit. My point being that anticipating and using as an excuse the downside often shortchanges people of the upside of rent control.

Maybe the real answer lies with ammendments to laws that make it a little easier for a landlord to throw out a truly questionable tenant. Not throw out rent control.

And thank you for starting with the disclosure that you are an apartment owner and card carrying Republican. You're forgiven. Because you're going to vote for Obama. :-)

[davefoc]

I not only will vote for Obama I am voting for only Democrats on the national level. I am a social liberal, fiscal/economic conservative and I think the fiscally irresponsible, crony driven Republicans have betrayed the portion of the party made up of people like me.

I also wasn't happy to see the Iraq war used as a giant pork fest to enrich Republican crony corporations or to see the rule of law undermined with the firing of the US Attorneys or to see the relentless drum beat for war with Iran.

So for better or worse I'm going to be a Democratic voter for awhile. And if the Democrats get the US out of Iraq in a responsible way and put the brakes on the out of control US spending I won't mind too much some of the stuff that you Democrats love like special interest union legislation and all your little nanny state rules.

[BCubedReg]

Wow.. good on Obama. Principle over Politics.. Wish we had more in Washington D.C. like that. Or maybe that's why he is so special. He hasn't been in D.C. long enough to be tainted by the corruption.

[PATina]

We must form grass-root structures that would hold me and other elected officials more accountable for their actions."


I hope more Obama supporters read and take this sentence to heart.

[Nicky6571]

Now you see first hand why so many Chicagoans-Illinoisans are proud of our junior "elitist" senator ...

[nycdave]

Amen. During my college internship back in the late 90's in chicago, I met some of the sharpest and most cynical political operatives you could hope to meet -- some of whom I stayed in touch with. When I went asking for help maybe landing a campaign job in 2004, they told me to check out Barack Obama. They waxed rhapsodic. They openly said they wished they were still young enough to work for free and sleep on couches to get him elected. These folks who never met a politician they couldn't see through really felt this guy was the Real Deal.

If anything, his problem is that he's so good, and so inspirational, that too many people expect him to be perfect (ie. "agree with me on everything").

[juggernaut1729]

Obama's support for rent control is really disappointing. It shows that he is no different from any other politician. I was really hoping that he understood economics. Turns out he doesn't.