Prop 98: Don’t Give Hay to Trojan Horses

But there’s more to 98 than political opportunism; there is also an undesirable erosion of municipal autonomy. In her recent op-ed, Dr. Anderson offers a number consistent with the Legislative Analyst’s: only 15 California cities have rent control. This may seem like a trivial amount, but my question is: What right do other, rent control-free, cities (like Culver City) have to tell these 15 how to manage their rent laws? Whether or not to have rent control is a decision best left to the cities themselves, who understand their own unique situations and the needs of their own local populations better than outsiders.

To wax philosophical a bit, it strikes me as profoundly ironic that the notion of eliminating rent control rests on the very idea that makes rent possible in the first place. Rent, after all, exists in the unseemly internal contradiction involved in our conception of property, namely, the distinction between property and possession. While we can agree that property owners should be free to use their property how they see fit – with reasonable limitations in terms of how that use affects other people – to what extent should use be tied to possession? You can own property but not possess it (landlord, who makes money) or possess property but not own it (tenant, who spends money), both of which are only possible courtesy of law and the system of force that underlies it. In other words, rent is a legal construct, not something born out of natural rights or even civil rights. And where there is rent, there is, implicit in rent’s legal nature, the possibility of rent control.

Sticking Up for Tenants

In the end, rent control serves the purpose of protecting renters from landlord abuses, a necessity when the barrier to home ownership is extraordinarily (and unreasonably) high. Many property owners complain when the government uses eminent domain to take their property away from them – rightly so in many cases. But how is it any different when a landlord decides to raise the rent for the purpose of forcing a tenant out, thus leaving open the possibility of charging another tenant higher rent. I think many folks know people who’ve experienced this, or have even experienced it themselves. When people’s homes are at stake – you know, the roof over one’s head – it seems only right that tenants receive some benefit of protection just as landlords are, through the law, given the perk of making labour-free money – if, of course, cities decide that rent control is even needed. (If so few cities actually have rent control, then what is it doing in Prop. 98? Oh, right; it’s the product of self-serving political posturing.)

So we have overwhelmingly strong reasons to oppose 98. It’s a dishonest bait and switch proposition. It interferes with the right of cities to regulate themselves on issues of local concern. It ignores the value of rent control in protecting tenants from landlord abuses. But what about 98’s odor-neutralizing baking soda competitor, Prop 99? At worst, it does nothing. As 98 supporters are fond of pointing out in the official voter information guide, the Legislative Analyst is of the view that “this measure would not change significantly current government land acquisition practices.” (Quoted from the analyst’s text.) At best, it clarifies the intent behind all these propositions: telling the government that it cannot take an “owner-occupied residence for the purpose of conveying it to a private person.” (Quoted from the proposition’s text.) It seems that a vote either way on 99 isn’t going to shatter the earth, although voting “no” just out of principle has a certain appeal. But 98, though – there’s a Trojan horse that doesn’t need hay. It needs a decisive “no.”