Mission residents fear passage of Prop. 98; cite provisions to curtail rent controls

By Taryn Harrington

For the past four years, Joe Payne, 21, has shared a four-bedroom, Mission District apartment with hardwood floors, a spacious living room and a semi-remodeled kitchen that goes for $1,860 a month—about $800 below market value by his reckoning.
Payne’s share of the rent is $480, which gets him one room. A student at San Francisco State, he works at a grocery store in Haight Ashbury and gets little help from his family to help with his expenses.
“If there isn’t rent control the change would be massive,” he said. “People in my shoes would probably have to move back home, or become a nomad.”
A new statewide measure on the June 3 ballot may do just that. It would affect thousands of renters throughout California, including the Mission District, where eight out of 10 people are renters.
Proposition 98, the California Property Owners and Farmland Protection Act, would restrict the government’s power to use eminent domain for seizing private property in order to develop roads, baseball stadiums or other large projects.
However, the June 3 measure is attacked as a Trojan horse initiative with a hidden political agenda to eliminate rent control, according to opposition leaders.
They feel the measure, written by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and largely supported by landlord groups, would displace thousands of renters in California by giving landlords more power over renters.
According to the 2006 census, nearly two-thirds of San Francisco residents are renters. In the Mission District alone, 65 percent of residents rent their homes, according to the Mission Economic Development Agency.
California is one of only five areas in the country—District of Columbia, Maryland, New Jersey, and New York—hat has rent control. Still, California has no statewide rent-regulation system and rent control laws are determined by local jurisdiction.
In San Francisco, rent increases are regulated by the San Francisco Rent Board. The maximum allowable percentage increase is about 60 percent of the Consumer Price Index within the Bay Area. For example, the annual allowable increase for 2009 is 2 percent, or $20 on a $1000 dollar a month apartment, according to the San Francisco Rent Board.
When a unit is vacated, there is no limit to the amount of rent a landlord may charge a new tenant. But once the unit is occupied, the Rent Board’s restrictions fall into place again.
But under Proposition 98, landlords would no longer have to adhere to the rent controls imposed by local jurisdictions.
“Proposition 98 guts renter’s rights in California and jeopardizes housing affordability,” said Dean Preston of Tenants Together, a statewide organization. “Rent control is essential for (renters) particularly in California where housing is so high compared to other states.”
According to Western Center on Law and Poverty, Proposition 98 would hinder laws that protect renters, such as laws requiring the fair return of rental deposits and the 60-day notice before forcing renters out of their housing.
But Kris Vosburgh, executive director for the Howard Jarvis group, disagrees and feels rent control in California has a negative impact on its residents.
“Rent control is the abuse of eminent domain,” he said. “It is the seizure of the value of property to [the government].”
According to a recent poll by the Public Policy Institute of California, 71 percent of likely voters believe government’s power of eminent domain should be limited.
The question remains where that line should draw.
The controversial U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Kelo v. City of New London in 2005 upheld New London’s use of eminent domain procedures to acquire private property that was later transferred to a private developer. While the original owners claimed their property rights had been breached, the city argued that the development would stimulate New London’s economy. Since then, California landlords have promoted measures like Proposition 90, which aimed to weaken all public regulation of private property. That measure lost by a slim five-point margin in November of 2005.
Proposition 98, according to its opponents, is just another attempt to ban the taking of property for private use.
“It will be easier for landlords to evict tenants because there is definitely a financial motive for (landlords) to do it,” said Kathy Fairbanks of the No on 98 Campaign. “This is a Trojan Horse initiative. They are contributing millions to pass it because, in the end, they are the ones who will benefit from it.”
That is why Fairbanks and other supporting the No on 98 Campaign endorse Proposition 99, titled the Homeowner Protection Act. Prop. 99, in effect, would prohibit the taking of owner-occupied homes for the conveyance to private property but change no laws dealing with tenant protections.
The question of which proposition will succeed remains in the hands of voters. Most observers predict that the turnout for the June 3 elections will be low.