My take on the rent control issue making the circuit these days via petition has always been colored by the knowledge that it really hasn't worked anywhere it has been implemented. I saw (still see) how the system is abused in Manhattan. The logic just isn't there for it to be any kind of long term solution and it ends up hurting the exact constituency it is intended to help. That's one view, but here is another from a letter writer to the Daily Journal.
I would very much like to hear the opinion of San Mateo’s city attorney, or that of a higher court, on the legality of rent control through voter referendum. In a city with a large renter population, it certainly should not be hard to get the signatures to put this self-serving initiative on the ballot.
Imagine if you owned a restaurant and the public voted to limit what restaurants could charge for their food. Would you think that would be right or legal? If it passed, how would you adapt since there was nothing in the initiative to help control your rising expenses. You might reduce the quality of your food, cut back on staff or defer needed maintenance.
A similar response by landlords should not be unexpected if rent control is passed. It is easy to forget that a rental unit, like a restaurant, is a private business. We are a country built on a free market system. It should not be that a free market system is good unless it adversely affects me.
As much as we would all like to be able to pass initiatives that would limit what gas stations could charge, or what a plumber could charge or what your car mechanic could charge, it would not be right and it should not be legal.
Steven Howard
Redwood City
He makes a good point. It appears that the San Mateo petition has enough signatures if they are validated. The B'game effort seems like a steeper hill to climb based on how many people I have seen who are willing to stop, listen and sign the papers. Just my walking around impression.
Leave a Reply