well, of course. Rents hit their height in most places in 1999 for all but the cheapest places. But your comparison of the South Bay isn't valid because your situation does not translate to here. Why should voters in very different realities be able to vote on this issue that would NEVER pass in SF?
without rent control there is no just cause eviction, only dependence on a landlord's whim. housing is a human right and there need to be limits on the greed of people who provide it. It is in the community interest.
Landlords do not WANT to lower your rent, but when there is a larger supply of rentals available, the are forced to lower rent to stay competitive.
If rent control didn't control rent then landlords would not be pouring money into passing this proposition. Whether blue collar people can afford to move into SF is hardly an issue of rent control. It's an issue of availability. There would be no more apartments available if there was no rent control. Vacancy rates were very low when it went into effect in the first place.
no subject
without rent control there is no just cause eviction, only dependence on a landlord's whim. housing is a human right and there need to be limits on the greed of people who provide it. It is in the community interest.
Landlords do not WANT to lower your rent, but when there is a larger supply of rentals available, the are forced to lower rent to stay competitive.
If rent control didn't control rent then landlords would not be pouring money into passing this proposition. Whether blue collar people can afford to move into SF is hardly an issue of rent control. It's an issue of availability. There would be no more apartments available if there was no rent control. Vacancy rates were very low when it went into effect in the first place.