Site search
sponsored by
News
The city council recently took up the issue of rent control. It is my experience that when someone says "rent control," images of the liberal '60s spring forth, and we think of the city of Berkeley and Jane Fonda. I must admit that was my first reaction. Then I was exposed to more information and allowed to see the actual conditions that exist.
When I reviewed the history of apartment rents in South Lake Tahoe over the past decade, I saw that the average apartment rents have not changed much. You could rent a studio apartment for about $500 per month and a one-bedroom for about $650 per month then, and these figures have not changed and, in many cases, the rent includes utilities.
Over the same period, mobile-home rents have gone from an average of $285 per month to well more than $500 per month, and in some cases rent for the same space has gone up to more than $600 per month. And the mobile-home owner pays all utilities and home maintenance, while apartment renters look to the landlord for these cost and exterior maintenance expenses as well.
I asked myself, why? Why would apartment rent remain fairly constant while mobile-home space rent rises so dramatically? The only answer I have come to is: because they can. In the absence of bargaining power, a level playing field, you can do what you want. When a landlord in an apartment situation raises the rent and you object, you can simply put your belongings in the back of your truck or rented trailer and move. There always is another place to go, and it costs little to move.
But in a mobile home, you have a large investment in your unit, often $50,000 to $75,000 or more. Next is the high cost of moving the unit, on average in excess of $7,000. Lastly, where will you go? All this sets up an unfair condition where the mobile-home renter has no real option except to pay or abandon his or her investment and lifestyle.
We are not talking here of "trailer-park trash," as characterized by a leading political consultant when defending his candidate some years ago. These are hard-working, middle-class citizens as well as an overwhelming number of seniors and physically limited citizens, all on fixed incomes.
The term "rent control" is itself a misnomer. It often is heard by the public as charity or a gift to the renter, and that is not the case. A better term would be "rent fairness." A good comparison would be to remove the right to strike from labor unions or the "lemon laws" for consumers. By legislation, we have created the demand for the parties to come to the table and work things out. In the proposed legislation provided to the city attorney, the parties are allowed cost-of-living increases, and the owner of the park has the right to seek recovery for funds extended for capital improvements and needed out-of-pocket expenses. The point of the statute is to review the request for fairness, not to eliminate rent increases and reasonable rates of return and profit.
I also would point out that there are books filled with limits on so-called "property rights." You cannot have parties late at night, and you cannot build whatever you want; in fact, in our town, you can't even park on the dirt in front of your house. All of us who own property enjoy a rent control in the limits set by Proposition 13 in 1976, which limited the increase in property tax to no more than 2 percent. The purpose of Proposition 13 is in part to protect those on fixed income from being forced from their homes and to protect us from the unfairness of government (management) to raise the price when there was little we could do about it. If you are opposed to the concept of rent regulation, I ask you: Would you be willing to give up your tax relief under Proposition 13? Everyone I asked said no, these folks are only asking for the same thing - reasonable opportunity to be treated fairly.
In case you think the 5 percent proposed by the park management is reasonable, think of this: Gas was sold for about 28 cents per gallon in 1954; at that same rate of increase, it would cost $3.72 per gallon today - makes one wonder why we're upset with $3 per gallon? Tahoe Verde Mobile Home Park grosses about $1.5 million per year; a 5 percent increase is $75,000 - most of us cannot make that much on a savings account, and remember, this is compound interest. What other industry is guaranteed a 5 percent increase in revenues each year? With no commitment to spend a penny to benefit anyone other then their bottom line.
This council recently created a housing task force to investigate solutions to our affordable housing crisis, to work to provide affordable workforce housing. At the moment, mobile-home living is one of the last affordable options, and to many, it was their choice when it was affordable. Now on fixed, limited incomes, they are forced to reconsider their choice and move. If we are serious about affordable housing, we must listen to this request and bring these people to the bargaining table.
- Ted Long is a South Lake Tahoe City Council member.
When I reviewed the history of apartment rents in South Lake Tahoe over the past decade, I saw that the average apartment rents have not changed much. You could rent a studio apartment for about $500 per month and a one-bedroom for about $650 per month then, and these figures have not changed and, in many cases, the rent includes utilities.
Over the same period, mobile-home rents have gone from an average of $285 per month to well more than $500 per month, and in some cases rent for the same space has gone up to more than $600 per month. And the mobile-home owner pays all utilities and home maintenance, while apartment renters look to the landlord for these cost and exterior maintenance expenses as well.
I asked myself, why? Why would apartment rent remain fairly constant while mobile-home space rent rises so dramatically? The only answer I have come to is: because they can. In the absence of bargaining power, a level playing field, you can do what you want. When a landlord in an apartment situation raises the rent and you object, you can simply put your belongings in the back of your truck or rented trailer and move. There always is another place to go, and it costs little to move.
But in a mobile home, you have a large investment in your unit, often $50,000 to $75,000 or more. Next is the high cost of moving the unit, on average in excess of $7,000. Lastly, where will you go? All this sets up an unfair condition where the mobile-home renter has no real option except to pay or abandon his or her investment and lifestyle.
We are not talking here of "trailer-park trash," as characterized by a leading political consultant when defending his candidate some years ago. These are hard-working, middle-class citizens as well as an overwhelming number of seniors and physically limited citizens, all on fixed incomes.
The term "rent control" is itself a misnomer. It often is heard by the public as charity or a gift to the renter, and that is not the case. A better term would be "rent fairness." A good comparison would be to remove the right to strike from labor unions or the "lemon laws" for consumers. By legislation, we have created the demand for the parties to come to the table and work things out. In the proposed legislation provided to the city attorney, the parties are allowed cost-of-living increases, and the owner of the park has the right to seek recovery for funds extended for capital improvements and needed out-of-pocket expenses. The point of the statute is to review the request for fairness, not to eliminate rent increases and reasonable rates of return and profit.
I also would point out that there are books filled with limits on so-called "property rights." You cannot have parties late at night, and you cannot build whatever you want; in fact, in our town, you can't even park on the dirt in front of your house. All of us who own property enjoy a rent control in the limits set by Proposition 13 in 1976, which limited the increase in property tax to no more than 2 percent. The purpose of Proposition 13 is in part to protect those on fixed income from being forced from their homes and to protect us from the unfairness of government (management) to raise the price when there was little we could do about it. If you are opposed to the concept of rent regulation, I ask you: Would you be willing to give up your tax relief under Proposition 13? Everyone I asked said no, these folks are only asking for the same thing - reasonable opportunity to be treated fairly.
In case you think the 5 percent proposed by the park management is reasonable, think of this: Gas was sold for about 28 cents per gallon in 1954; at that same rate of increase, it would cost $3.72 per gallon today - makes one wonder why we're upset with $3 per gallon? Tahoe Verde Mobile Home Park grosses about $1.5 million per year; a 5 percent increase is $75,000 - most of us cannot make that much on a savings account, and remember, this is compound interest. What other industry is guaranteed a 5 percent increase in revenues each year? With no commitment to spend a penny to benefit anyone other then their bottom line.
This council recently created a housing task force to investigate solutions to our affordable housing crisis, to work to provide affordable workforce housing. At the moment, mobile-home living is one of the last affordable options, and to many, it was their choice when it was affordable. Now on fixed, limited incomes, they are forced to reconsider their choice and move. If we are serious about affordable housing, we must listen to this request and bring these people to the bargaining table.
- Ted Long is a South Lake Tahoe City Council member.
