California's two largest newspapers take opposite stances on Proposition 10, the rent control initiative
On November 6, Californians will determine the fate of Proposition 10, which would expand the power of local governments to enact rent control ordinances. The editorial boards of California's two largest newspapers, the Los Angeles Times and The Mercury News, took opposite positions on Proposition 10—The Los Angeles Times supports the proposition while The Mercury News opposes it.
As of 2018, state law limits municipal rent control ordinances to (a) housing occupied before February 1, 1995, and (b) housing units where the title for connected units is the same, such as apartment complexes. Both the Los Angeles Times and The Mercury News had similar success rates in 2016, despite taking different positions on four ballot propositions. The endorsements of each newspaper aligned with how a majority of electors voted on 10 of the 17 (58.8 percent) ballot propositions.
The Los Angeles Times (September 15, 2018), which is supporting Proposition 10, wrote:
"Still, any predictions that Proposition 10 would either save or devastate the housing market are overstated. If passed, the measure would allow local communities to debate and decide what renter protections to adopt, if any. That’s important. Although the housing crisis is widespread, each city has its own challenges and needs the flexibility to adopt its own remedies. ... Proposition 10 isn’t the solution to the state’s affordable housing crisis, but it is a valuable tool to manage the consequences."
The Mercury News (August 27, 2018), which is opposing Proposition 10, wrote:
"Rent control is a feel-good idea. A quick fix to a complicated problem. But it is not very effective at protecting poor or vulnerable tenants. And, more significantly, rent control discourages new rental home construction, the very thing we need to ease the state’s housing crisis. ... The solution is not to impose price controls, which is exactly what rent control is. The solution is to encourage development so that supply can meet demand. ... In other words, it would not fix the state’s housing crisis; it would exacerbate it."
|