Land Use

Attn: California Reasonoids—Listen to Which Way L.A.? Tonight!

|

I'll be on Warren Olney's terrific public radio program at 7:00 p.m. Laker time to defend the merits of Prop. 98 and attempt to explain to a SoCal audience how restricting the rights of property owners is not the best way to create "affordable housing." You can listen in on the Internet.

NEXT: Presidential Power-Tripping

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I trust you’re prepping for all of these arguments, Matt?

  2. Matt, I hope you can explain the differences between 98 and 99 — I’m still not certain which to vote for.

    Is it true that 98 will mean renters won’t be entitled to their deposits back? That’s what opponents are saying. I don’t see anything in prop that states this, but the proponents don’t seem to deny this is the case.

  3. Colin — 99 doesn’t protect business owners and farmers (and renters!) from Kelo-like seizures. It also (more smartly, in terms of ability of passage) doesn’t do squat about rent control.

    I’ve read what was billed as the text of 98 and I see nothing about security deposits and such; must be an interpretation. I’d vote for it if I lived there, but I think it’ll fail because of the rent control thing.

  4. Is it true that 98 will mean renters won’t be entitled to their deposits back?

    You’re goddamn right, that’s what it means! The bastards!

  5. Angry Renter,

    Can you tell me where in the prop it states or implies this?

  6. Rent control is bad for society as a whole, but is quite politically popular.

    The best way to deal with this is to phase it out by removing rent control on rental units constructed after a certain date. This would not generate as much opposition from current renters of rent-controlled apartments, while providing incentives for developers to build new rental units.

  7. Matt was pretty good — the other two were utterly contemptible.

    Still not sure which one I’ll vote for.

  8. Thanks, Colin. My favorite line from the developer gal was her complaining that an anti-Kelo measure, by preventing use of private-to-private eminent domain transfers, would “prevent municipalities from being able to act” (it was actually much worse than that, but I don’t remember it).

  9. Thanks for the post. Could MattW tell us how not to… er, I mean how to vote on the other propositions? What about the GamingOnes, they’re confusing.

  10. anti-Kelo measure, by preventing use of private-to-private eminent domain transfers, would “prevent municipalities from being able to act”

    I haven’t heard your bit yet, Matt, but it did sound like you got the crap from the link I sent above. Hopefully you batted it out of the park.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.