| >The "housing crunch" is a very general term; the specific symptom addressed by this bill is drastic increases of rent on Right ... except the bill aggravates the "housing crunch". Again, you're trying to solve a small problem by magnifying the major cause of the problem you're trying to solve. Your linked articled quotes an economists who says this will hurt people who "are upwardly mobile, striving families who are middle-income or lower-income in Irvine, who can’t afford to buy a house but where renting might be in their reach,", because: 1) "landlords who might have held rents for existing tenants at below-market rates with the knowledge they could increase them at any time might decide to hike rents every year." 2) "restrictions on rent hikes encourage owners to convert their apartments into condominiums, which removes properties from rental stock" So, this policy makes rent broadly more expensive, and it lowers housing supply - which makes rent more expensive. Come on man. What if you California introduced legislation that targeted the underlying cause of the rent spike ... i.e. the 'housing crunch'. This way, you can solve both problems, the housing crunch and rental spikes. |