Shame On Barbara Boxer
U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) has failed to come out against Proposition 98, the landlord scheme to end rent control in California. The proposition, which would take away municipalities' ability to make their own housing policies based on their own specific needs, is hidden behind the fake title of eminent domain reform. But you only have to look at the list of people who initiated the bill to know that eminent domain reform has nothing to do with it. These are big landlords who could care less about eminent domain. They're very rich people like Sam Zell looking for an easy way to get richer. They have enough money to get anything they want on the ballot.
As the Los Angeles Times points out, the fact that the proposition seeks to hide its actual intent is reason enough to vote against it. Many people won't even realize that, whatever their politics, this is a vote for or against rent control. The sponsors of the proposition are too cowardly to point this out and take a stand for what they really believe.
The list of people opposing the landlord scheme is a long one and cuts across party lines. It includes not just the SEIU, Diane Feinstein, and the State Democratic Party, but also Arnold Schwarzenegger and former governor Pete Wilson.
Proposition 98 would have a devastating impact on San Francisco and parts of Los Angeles. 350,000 people in San Francisco, more than half the population, rely on rent control. Without rent control the city would change so drastically most of us wouldn't even recognize it. When Proposition 98 is defeated June 3 (and it will be because we've made a lot of mistakes in this state but we're not that stupid) a lot of us will remember Barbara Boxer failing the people on this issue. We'll know that when called for a position she let us down and we'll vote against her when her time comes due.
Update: The No On 98 Campaign has a signed statement from Barbara Boxer stating she is against Proposition 98. For the record, I called Barbara Boxer's California office and they confirmed to me that she had NOT taken a position on Proposition 98. The original genesis of this editorial is from that phone call. I just called them again, Wednesday, May 14, at 2:20pm, and was told, again, that it falls out of her jurisdiction and she has not taken a position on Proposition 98. I called her office as a constituent, which I am. I then called her press office in Washington to find out her official position on Proposition 98. The press office was unable to tell me and I have not received a call from the communications officer in charge. There's no mention of Proposition 98 on Barbara Boxer's website. I'm glad that there is evidence she is against Proposition 98, but her silence is still very troublesome. The fact that constituents aren't being told she is against the Proposition when they contact her California offices is also extremely troubling. That her position is not posted on her website is problematic. This is a major issue affecting a massive number of Californians, and I still can't get someone in the Barbara Boxer offices to confirm the Senator's position. This is not something for our Senator to be silent about. She's supposed to be leading on this issue but her own staff don't know her position on it. Why the confusion?
Follow Stephen Elliott on Twitter: www.twitter.com/the_rumpus
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Stephen,
I hear you. I lived through the referendum to end rent control in Massachusetts. A campaign funded 50-1 by NYState property owners eager to do the same in their own bailiwick. My Cambridge neighbors were unaware that it was a state-wide measure and rent control went down to defeat by 50-49. In NYC I am currently in a State Supreme Court case against my landlord who has defrauded the City, not properly registering his building - this while NYState is still recovering from the aggregate damage that the Pataki years did to housing. All of our rental construction in the past 7 years has been luxury housing. Supposedly we have an 80/20 plan, but that's a sham, with brokerage firms circumventing the program and still getting the tax breaks.
Please learn from my experiences in MA and NY. DO educate voters - especially renters - they often are unaware of upcoming measures even though they generally constitute a working majority.
Send your piece to The Nation. It's time for them to focus on this - they had a poor record when the above was happened. And in a recession, the removal of such protections would have a devastating effect.
Good Luck!
-CI
Boxer is well known as the dimmest bulb in the Senate. This reputation has been well deserved. However, in this case she might have stumbled on the correct decision.
Rent control depresses supply which keeps prices artificially high. Increase supply, which will happen when profits are enhanced, and prices will fall.
Let the market rule!
"Increase supply"? Have you been to San Francisco? Good luck with that. Without rent control in my fair city, the working and middle classes will be driven out, and I'll be "suburbmama" not "sfmama".
That is acceptable.
Foreclosed houses are forcing rents up. I's just soon have the option of rent control so everybody doesn't have to sink completely. I like Barbara Boxer.
New York City has rent control and stabilization. Building is rampant in Manhattan and the Bronx. So I think you're really, really wrong.
The market is a no-brained moron that is wasteful and capricious. It has no compassion. It's the type of mentality that thought it was a good idea for energy and automotive companies to buy up all the electric mass transit in urban areas and replace them with buses. Its attention span is short and manifests itself in bandwagon climbing and lemming suicide. The government put man on the moon, developed nuclear energy and the internet, and built the interstate highway system. The market does not really believe in competition, but in monopoly. It believes in deregulating everything and in unrestrained growth--it's mission statement is no different from cancer's.
Mr. Elliot, I have a suggestion for you and the rest of the ignorant posters here. Try taking ECONOMICS 101; there is this concept known as the law of unintended consequences. If you bother to educate yourself you'll find that rent controls have been proven to reduce the availability of housing and drive away the very people you supposedly are trying to protect--those lower on the income scale. Moreover, rent control leads to increased incidences of discrimination as well as housing code violations. Word limitations prevent me from providing an in-depth explanation, but I'm sure an intelligent person such as you can do his own research.
In addition to my post below, I see that I called to respond to you "cct1984."
First of all, the "law of intended consequences" is an expression, not a "law" in either micro of macro. It has no bearing.
Secondly, there is NO consensus that rent controls reduce availability of housing. The reverse is true in a hyper-capitalist marketplace (see Robert Reich's new book) where luxury, not affordable housing, is the focus.
Third, in my years living under rent control in MA and rent stabilization in NYC I have never seen any connection between RC/RS and discrimination - remember from your ECO 101 - correlation does not mean caustion.
You got studies, show them to us.
I've LIVED it and rent control is an necessary cap against greed.
-CI
OK, call it simply "unintended consequenc
I'm well aware of the difference between correlation and causation, and I believe the proponderance of he evidence, as well as the opinion of most economists, support my view in regards to rent controls. I've included links to a couple of articles (I could give you dozens); this is a well studied area:
http://www
http://www
http://www
Boxer still has to answer for her 2006 trip to Connecticut, where she campaigned for Joe Lieberman against Ned Lamont.
I haven't yet seen a cogent argument against allowing someone who owns property to set their price on it. I didn't see one above, either.
Semper fi
Only emotional ones. It is simple fascism.
Yeah look how great lack of regulation is working for the oil companies.
There is a posting over at the Volokh Conspiracy that focuses mainly on the eminent domain part, and how Prop 98 is a much better choice than Prop 99.
Same issue, different perspective.
Still sounds as though the best bet is to vote No.
Has Boxer had any opportunity to speak out against the proposition? Has she said she supports it? This sounds like just the kind of thing Boxer would oppose. If she hasn't opposed it, then there's probably a "yet" that belongs in that thought.
If communities and cities lose their ability to regulate rents, it will destroy most of the 'affordable' apartment housing in them. Worse, if thie Ref. 98 passes in favor of the landlords in California, it will encourage more such referfundums in other states like New York and my home state of New Jersey. The state should make sure, even to the point of subsidising them, there are ads saying that this proposed law will end rent regulation.
And your point is...?
Maybe the point is, some of us do not want to live in a 'free market' society where the rich control everything by virtue of their wealth and power. Rent control stifles greed so we are helping the grossly wealthy live a more humane, responsible and productive life.
Now I'll sit back and wait for the attacks.
Yup. Follow the money.
Has Boxer come out in favor of the proposition? Or has she just not come out against it?
Yes. It could be she's being slow off the mark.
Truth be told, she's not the brightest bulb in the Senate. sigh
Something's wrong here. Nobody here should want to kill off rent control. On the other hand it's hard to imagine Barbara Boxer supporting something that sounds as regressive as this, while Feinstein, Schwarzenegger and Pete Wilson oppose it. What's missing from this story?
I'd say granting the power to the government to set prices between private individuals is "regressive", like regressive to feudal times.
Only when the government is ruled by a king, like ours!
The role of government is to promote the general welfare--not the specific welfare of landlords.
Perhaps the Los Angeles Times should follow the money...
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
