Berkeley’s Rent Control Ordinance Violates the U.S. Constitution

[The Straight Story]

Berkeley’s Rent Control Ordinance Violates the U.S. Constitution By ROBERT CABRERA
COMMENTARY (12-07-04)

The Taking protections of our Federal (5th Amendment) Constitution is a significant protection and the envy of people throughout the world. In an era when property in parts of the world is taken by the use of force without just compensation to those displaced, this American right created in our constitution must be applied even under the most benevolent circumstances such as the good intentions of people like Chris Kavanaugh (Letters, Daily Planet, Nov. 19-22).

However, rather than strengthening or merely preserving these protections, the trend is towards their eventual dismantling. Without property rights freedom is meaningless.

Let me give you a real life example of the chaos that ensues without property rights. Many years ago I met a couple who had owned what they described as a very nice house somewhere in Cuba. They had worked all their lives to own it. One day during the Cuban revolution their maid and gardener refused to let them enter the house stating that since they had toiled in it for many years it rightly belonged to them more than to the holders of the title. The couple lost the house and belongings since there was no legal recourse; seeing the writing on the wall they left the island for the U.S.

A couple of decades later they spoke with someone who told them that the maid and gardener had been soon evicted themselves and that a Cuban functionary had taken their place. The maid and gardener apparently had no legal recourse any more than the original owners.

Rent control is merely the chipping away of the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution—and the chips are flying and taking us ever closer to the Third World Cuban chaos described above


http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/article.cfm?issue=12-07-04&storyID=20252

[eridani]

1. Whatthefuck does that have to do with rent control?

Here's a piece of news for you--you can't do just what you like with property if it impinges on other people's rights. You can't shit in the reservoir either. Get over it.

[Sugarbleus]

3. LOL..I don't get any of it..but

HOUSING is my main passion these days. People who own property can keep it. People who own RENTALS should follow the law.

Better yet, why not have the gov or whomever build affordable housing for renters and low income buyers. Places where these people (I'm one) can live until they die. NO evictions(unless the circumstances are dire)
NO take overs/eminent domain either.

Human beings NEED to be housed. Prehistoric man had caves. Americans/modern man should have suitable dwellings.

I've heard it said that moving is next to divorce in terms of extreme stress in people's lives. I can tell you that being forced to move over and over again.......OR just the "threat" of maybe having to move from a rental because the owners sell or "just because", is EQUALLY distressing. Imagine the distress of a single elderly woman having to pull up stakes from a place that she/they have gotten used to for years and humping all their worldly belongings to god knows where?? Human beings cannot relax and "grow" under these circumstances.

We have a housing crisis in this country. The "Home ownership is up" data is bullshit.

[mattclearing]

2. I actually have to agree.

Takings are a real problem, anyone familiar with Dubya's stadium deal knows that.

I'm inclined to believe that rent control is state mandated micro-managing of the real estate market. I believe in state regulation of markets to a point, but my understanding of economics is that imposed price controls usually end up backfiring one way or another.

[eridani]

5. There is a difference between taking property for PUBLIC use--

--like an airport or a highway, and using government to take property and turn around and give it to another PRIVATE entity. But you're right--the latter really screws up the former by making it all seem like the same thing.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

4. Any time I see the word "takings" I smell Libertarians

and the greedheads who have attacked Oregon's environmental and land use laws by trying to make them too expensive to enforce.

No one has absolute right over their personal and real property. You can't use your car to deliberately run people over. You can't use your house to hold people prisoner. These are extreme examples, but government does have the right to impose reasonable restrictions on the use of property.

Governments already have to compensate property owners if their property is taken for a highway or a stadium.

Imposing rent control may or may not be economically sound, but it has nothing to do with foreign governments or squatters seizing someone's property without compensation.

[NuttyFluffers]

6. i love rent control -- there, i said it.

i live near berkeley. i, at one point lived in davis when it had rent control. rent control is a great idea in college towns. you have essentially a closed market where students must come to a location and therefore are prey to predatory markets. many of them, scratch, most college students aren't bankrolled like celebrity superstars. they are barely getting by on ramen and second hand clothes.

when i left davis rent control was removed and rents doubled (at least) for the start of the next semester. several fellow dorm and classmates had to quit school because they were priced out of it by predatory renting. now, they still owe those financial aid loans, and they didn't get an education out of it, so it doesn't matter if the market 'corrects' itself a few years down the line. you've already permanently ruined several desperate people's lives. for what? speculation. my ass is that worthwhile.

berkeley would be an absolute nightmare of housing problems if rent control was removed. it already is a nightmare as is because housing can't just be thrown randomly about at instantaneous rates (and enough with the stupid 'evil environmentalists' boogey man,). it's just logically not possible to throw up the needed housing in time if rent control was removed. berkeley is very much at capacity with plenty of students living in oakland already. it's a tense closed market with already an overloaded mass transit system, parking system, and dorm system. it doesn't need anymore problems.

besides, the equity on those homes is still there and rising. just because they can't squeeze every last nickel out of their closed market pool of renters doesn't mean they are being deprived of property. they are being deprived of opportunistic speculation and gouging. two wholly different things to me.

PS: i should give some real world numbers about davis experience... rent was @$1100 a mo. for 2 bedroom apt. that was not a bargain, let me tell you, (bad facilities, even though it was 'somewhat' close to campus)! when asked to renew the contract the baseline was $2200 for the same apt. i was glad i was leaving. I was hearing people renewing at @$2800 and @$3400, and they were far enough from campus that it wasn't due to 'prime location.' it was an absolute free for all. even libertarian and republican students were starting to rapidly change their minds. what were they gonna do? live in sacramento and commute to a campus that has woefully inadequate student automobile parking (as in, don't bother using your car)? take the yolo bus or amtrak train? please, only those who've never taken it would offer that as a reasonable option. people do it but it seriously drowns those students in wasted time and effort for that long distance commuting.

[Princess Turandot]

7. While I'm not at all aure what your point is in posting this..

i.e. are you outraged that rent control laws might be challenged or are you a landlord who wants it to go away, I'm someone who grew up in a rent controlled apartment & now live in a rent stabilized apartment in NYC. Rent control affects a fairly small number of apartments; rent stabilization is the larger program that sets limits on what landlords can do with rental property.

The main argument offered up against rent control laws is they inhibit the building of housing, and if they didn't exist, more
housing would be built for the middle class.

NYC's rent stabilization laws do not apply to any building built over the last 30 years. So, the free market has had its chance, and gollly gee whiz, what happened was that a lot of luxury buildings were built, which cater either to the millionaires of Wall Street or the new college grads who will stuff 3 people into a one bedroom apartment for their 5 year NYC experience. The only real building for middle and lower middle class people has been done by the city, generally on vacant lots.

Oh, I did leave out one thing. Some of those luxury buildings do have sections set aside for lower income people based on a percentage formula derived from HUD, where the builder gets favorable mortgage interest rates in exchange for setting aside those apartments. The favorable rates of course increase their profits on the luxury apartments, because their mortgage costs are lower across the board. Welfare for billionaire builders somehow seems less appealing to me then rent stabilization.

One of course can take the view that if a market of so many wealthy people drives the rents up in a place like NYC, that is totally acceptable and no middle class family should have the hubris to believe they should be able to live in Manhattan. I guess I have a lot of hubris because I think I have a right to live here, in a complex where the owners already make money, but would now like to double their profits.

This is anecdotal, since I didn't research the following statement, but I've been told by several people that the total elimination of rent controls in Boston, which must have had a similar system to NYC at some point, drove out the middle and lower middle class tenants, rather than having provided a boon in middle class housing construction.

[Bridget Burke]

8. That touching little Cuban story tells me everything I need to know.

The "legal owners" left because they were afraid of their gardener & maid. Too bad.

Getting rid of rent control & all other bits of the social safety net might be what bring about the "Third World Cuban chaos." (Wait--I thought the 2nd world was Commie--so why is Cuba 3rd world?)

That is, Revolution. Wasn't the New Deal set up--partly--to prevent a violent overthrow of the system?

Edited to add: What does StraightStory think about this essay? It was posted without comment.

[bemildred]

9. So the government cannot Constitutionally regulate prices?

I'm sure the Congress will be suprised to learn this.

[Radical Activist]

10. The constitution was written to protect property owners

so the writer has a point. But rent control is still a good thing.