MO 1996-001 to 1996-005 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Limits on Mobilehome Rent Control. Low -Income Rental Assistance. Initiative Argument in Favor of Proposition INY TAXPAYER GROUPS. SENIOR CITCLENS, HOUSING ADVOCATES AND MOBILEHOME TENANTS ALL URGE A -YES" VOTE FOR PROPOSITION 199. PROPOSITION 199 WILL HELP STOP THE DECLINE OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN CALIFORNIA. Affordable mobilehome housing is rapidly disappearingg in California. Over 600 mobilehome pules have closed since 1981. In the last five years, only a handful opened in .jurisdictions with rent regulations. This dramatic decline is the result of local rent regulations that drive up the cost of mobilehome housing while discouraging maintenance and new construction. UCLA economist Dr. 'Werner Hirsch, a national expert on mobilehome housing, says local rent regulatioas artificially increase the re -sale pTice of mobilehomes by thousands of dollars, making units Tess affordable. Contrary to opponents' chime, inflated re sale prices of mobilehomes, not monthly pad rents, ccreate the biggest obstacle to affordable mobilehome housing. This is particularly important for seniors, since 80% purchase their mobilehomes outright with no mortgave_ They then pay only a pad rent, which averages appruxima6ij $300 per month statewide. PROPOSITION 199 PROTECTS CURRENT TENANTS, IMPROVES ACCESS. Proposition 199 preserves rent control for current tenants. No one with rent control will lose it. Market prices take effect onl, when current tenants move Out. The U.S. Census Bureau reports the average age of mobilehome tenants in California is only 46 years old. Many rdabi h rent regulatians inflate mobilehome re -sale prices. Proposition 199 requires rent reductions for those truly in need, and requires park owners to privately finance these reductions. 'There is no cost to taxpayers PROPOSITION 199 Wn.L SAVE SEVERAL MILLION PER YEAR FOR LOCAL GOVFsRNMENT. California taxpayers have shelled out tens of millions for attorneys and burpauc ats to administer the hodgs of 102 different mobilehom e rent regulations tahroaghout alifornis. And the bill keeps going up with taxpayers spending several trillion more each year to administer these regulations --our tag dollars an better spent on police, fire and public services. Proposition 199 will end this waste. LOCAL MOBIUTIOME RENT REGULATION HAS BEEN A FAJLLM. Leval mobilehome rent regulation has had precise)y the opposite effect its promoters predicted, increasing housing costa, reducing supply, decreasing maintenance and creating a costly new level of government bureanmmcy. PROPOSITION 199 IS A FAIR. SOLUTION. Economists, housing advorates and taxpayers all recognize it's time for a change. But opponents argue for continuation of this failed policy, seeping to protect the $330 million windfall in re -sale value they gained when local regulations were first adopted. The interests of all Californians for affordable housing and reduced government bnreaucra out -wen h the narrow interests of this small group. VM YES ONROPOSITION 199. + younger families loolnng to mobilehomes for affo a ousnne are denied aemss because of the effecta of local rent regulations. LEWLS S- ViIIza By restoring market forces, Proposition 199 wiill make Predden,4 The C44fornin 1'ax'Limactio" Co*vnatee purchasing a mobilehome more affordable for seniors, young SANDRAL, BUMER families and others. irersidpn4 UmApdSeniors Assocudwn PROPOSITION 199 PROTECTS THE TRULY NEEDY. VICKIE X. TALLEY Local mobilehome rent regulations apply to all tenants ExcesrioeDirmtor,dfa:wfaeevsadHowure within a jurisdiction, whether they need them or not Poor rind F.ducahonW?Vuo of Ornt wo. Rtverside fixed -income persons arc denied affordable housing because and Son SernariCna Co w.t et Rebuttal to Argument in Favor of Proposition 199 Preposition 199 wiU race rents and phase out rental assiaturtee for senior citizens The American Association of Retired Persons (AARP), California Council of Churcbes, and California AFL CIO urge a `NO" vote on Proposition 199. Proposition 199 takes away rent -increase protections From hundreds of thousands of seniox citizen mobiiehome owners. Don't be fooled. Proposition 199's sponsors are mobilehome park landlords who grant to raise rents, not louver them. Why would mobilehome park landlords spend millions on Proposition 199 to reduce rents? They can voluntarily lower rents whenever they wish to help the needy! Their "rental asaistance" is a smokescreen for huge rent increases. Proposition 199 won't fund new public services. Mobilchome and perk owner ?rgiadration fees pay certain mobilehome rent control casts. Park landlords falsely claim Proposition 199 will save money to pay for public services. It won't. Mobilehome and pans owners pay fees that fund rent control administration, If Prnpnsitiion 199 passes, those fees will disappear. There'll be no new. money far public services. Proposition 199 will wipe out the investments of thousands of senior citizen mobileAc" a owners. It will disrupt senior citizens' lives. Proposition 199 will cost mobilehome owners over $300 million in lost home equity. Preposition 199 won't create one new unit of afjbrdable housing. It will rinse rents and realm mobilehomes tanaffordable_ Mobilehom a park landlords claim rent control has discouraged new park construction- California law already exempts all new mobilehome parks built since 1990 from local rent regulation. PLEASE VOTE `440" ON PROPOSITION 199. WELLLtMA. CRAVEN State Senator, Xrprablican JACK O'CONNELL Sta" SenaMp, gemoerw PATW CIA Wffi7NEY WLSR exucu ioe D&viceor, Coiif6rmi4a CvwtcU of Churches 38 Argumenta onoted on this page are the opinions of the aothom and h,ve not been checked for accuracy by any oMCW agency. P96 JAN-10-1996 14:42 44 97% P.04 38