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.

Comments

[Paul]

I trust you're prepping for all of these arguments, Matt?

[Colin]

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.

[Matt Welch]

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.

[Angry Renter]

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!

[Colin]

Angry Renter,

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

[Michael Ejercito]

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.

[Colin]

Matt was pretty good -- the other two were utterly contemptible.

Still not sure which one I'll vote for.

[Matt Welch]

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).

[Orange Line Special]

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.

[Paul]

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.