Back to 2005 and forward to 2007

Nothing has changed - except Rent Control is now a reality in Oakland, California. Like a virus, it spread to our neighboring city and even became stronger and more prohibitive to property owners.

Are we not "housing providers" to those who cannot afford to own property? Do we not take responsibility for the safety and livability factor for these renters? Should we not be able to be paid for our efforts without the paternalistic protectionism of local governments mired in the 1960's? Should they be able to call themselves "Progressives", when Progressive means one in favor of "Progress"?

One of the aspects of Rent Control in Berkeley is that there is a provision for a new owner to move into a property of one - two units by paying a negotiated amount to the tenant to vacate. To be sure, there is a minimum amount of $4500.00, but a willing tenant and a willing owner can negotiate as two free agents in a democracy. Not in Oakland. It is a crime to approach and suggest a negotiation for the vacancy of the tenant by the owner. Only the tenant can initiate such a conversation. Figure that one out...

As we speak, October of 2007, the housing market for new and resale homes and condominiums is in a stall, except for places like Berkeley and the Rockridge neighborhood in Oakland (interestingly enough - these two locations suffered little loss of value in the early 1990's market correction, almost as if they benefitted from an invisible net below them for safety). Those individuals and family units that might have purchased homes either remain or have joined the ranks of tenants looking for housing. This has made market driven rents higher than they have been for a long time. Ironically, only a year ago, the vacancy rate in Berkeley was known by apartment owners to be higher than the threshhold stated in the "Emergency" nature of the Rent Stabilization Ordinance reason for being. However, this is not really "known" because since Rent Control was instituted in 1979, the City of Berkeley has not paid an outside consulting firm to do an actual count of rentable units in the City. Had they done so, the vacancy factor could be measured on a yearly basis. The fact that they have refused, ostensibly for reasons of cost (The Rent Board has a 3 million dollar annual budget) means that they can avoid the embarassing possibility that the vacancy factor (actual, not fabricated) might show an absence of the "emergency" in housing that created and maintains the credibility of the Rent Stabilization Board. Information is the friend of truth.