As Elections are only a few days away, it is crucial that we inform ourselves on local elections as well as national. One proposition facing controversy here in Burlingame is Measure "R." Measure "R" is the Rent Stabilization Initiative proposition that is described as "an ordinance to enact rent stabilization and just cause for eviction and repeal prior restrictions on the regulation of sale or rental price of real estate". Face value, the proposition sounds clear and beneficial, however, the measure is facing opposition from many Burlingame residents. Due to some ambiguity with the writing in the initiative text, many residents (both renters and lessors) have had concerns about the future of renting in Burlingame to be attributed with the passing of Measure "R."
Although the ordinance protects renters from facing unjust eviction and exponentially rising rental prices, it seems that the proposition features many aspects that would serve as a detriment to both renters and lessors. Removing the prior restrictions on the government's ability to regulate rental prices would provide some insurance for renters, however interrupts the renting market in Burlingame. With subleasing, there is an issue with the lack of rent control- this becomes dangerous as landlord's lose their ability to evict problematic tenants.
Questions to Consider:
1. Do you believe Roberston evicting his tenants prior to the elections was a harsh overreaction or a justified business investment?
2. Do you agree or disagree with the notion that the rental protections (that could protect problematic/dangerous tenants from eviction) would be detrimental to the quality of life in Burlingame?
3. Is former Mayor Rosalie O'Mahony out of line for advocating against Measure "R"?
4. Do you see the "rent control board" referenced toward the end of the article as a fair and balanced form of representation for the desires of both landlords and renters in Burlingame?
These measures are quite confusing, especially due to a lack of publicizing. For some people, the only exposure they get to these measures is the signs on people's lawns. I hope there is a measure that finds a compromise that will secure landlord's financial stability, as well as ensure rent control, as the prices to live in the Bay Area are obscene (and rising).
ReplyDeleteI agree; I was unaware of Measure R until I saw many lawn signs popping up around town, even then, I had asked family and some neighbors and they were uninformed on the measure. Even though this is a controversial step, I do believe we need to take action to combat this housing bubble we live in, in order to make the Bay Area a more affordable place to live.
DeleteI think that this measure was very problematic in the sense that people did not know the details of it. Some people strongly supported or opposed it for one reason but overlooked the rest of the provisions. The measure was too complex for people to understand it and that is why people were so divided. I understand what the landlord was trying to do but I think it was a very harsh step. Rent is a hard issue to pass a measure on and I agree with Alex that it varies case by case. Hopefully if they try to do something like this again, it will be more clear.
DeleteI think that the provisions of this measure are very complex. However, I believe that it is important to ultimately keep power in the hands of the landlord or owner. In the end of the day it is their property. They are simply renting this land to tenants for a period of time. If the owner for some reason decides that a tenant no longer deserves to rent the property then he should have the right to solve the issue with the tenant. That could mean increasing rent, placing restrictions on the tenant, or even evicting them. There is also a part of me that feels as if my thoughts on this issue could vary on a case to case basis. It would be nice to have system established that review this issue on a case to case basis and decide what the most fair and just course of action is.
ReplyDeleteIt is evident that groups against Measure R have invested a lot of money into their campaign prior to the election. As a result, many voters did not spend much time researching the measure's lengthy provisions and by default voted in opposition. It's important to see the measure's widespread impact on the evicted rather than just the business owners themselves. Burlingame and many other surrounding areas in Silicon Valley have been undergoing rapid gentrification resulting in the displacement of long-time residents. The social implications of this measure are much larger than voters perceived, as the passing of Measure R could've made the larger statement of local governments placing housing and income disparity as prioritized issues.
ReplyDeleteI agree with this comment. I believe that the passage of Measure R has set the precedent for landowners to continue to discriminate against low-income renters. Perhaps this will lead to a steeper rate of gentrification in the Peninsula, as has been seen in areas in the East Bay.
DeleteOn one hand this situation is problematic for lower income tenants who just need a place to stay but your comment about gentrification struck me as a positive result of this measure. I believe that it is a privilege to live in Burlingame and that is because affluent patrons modernize the city and are willing to pay for commodities at a higher price. We are already doing quite well, but if gentrification continues in Burlingame, we will see more restaurants and shops open that will make encourage new affluent citizens to flock to our town, thus continuing the cycle of improvement.
DeleteFirst of all- I must say... The fact that this measure is so complex is already detracts from the chance it is passed. When I was reading the description, I couldn't understand most of the language. If people can't understand a change, the natural instinct is to go with what already exists (unless people recognize that there is indeed a striking problem with the present).
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, as we went over in class, groups spent so much money against measure R, that people who didn't know about the measure likely would have said no.
Because the default vote is "no," I think a lot of people were uneducated or misinformed about Measure R. They may have chosen to vote no anyway, but being uninformed certainly impacted this vote. I think it's tragic that the increase of price is preventing residents from remaining in their homes and forcing them to leave. Burlingame is known for strong public education and everyone should be entitled to that. The socioeconomic divide that exists even in Burlingame is quite an issue.
DeleteI think a lot of people will want to just go with what is already set as a precedent, since it is usually more comfortable to follow. Furthermore, on such a complex issue, people are more likely to say no then to spend time a research since it will save them a lot of time. It is just human instinct to give such a response.
ReplyDeleteI agree, because of the lack of public awareness over these propositions they are very unlikely to pass. People tend to fear change towards to their daily lives so in response to propositions they know nothing about, the answer will always be no. Until there is a change in publicity, props will be favored to fail.
DeleteBecause this proves as a complex proposition, it makes it difficult for people to understand. Even if they do understand most of it, there are many pros and cons to both passing measure r or voting against it. Because of the complexity of the proposition, people are compelled to stay with what exists. Additionally, I think people are scared of change, so when there is a possibility that changing something could potentially not work out, people chose to vote against it.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that the quality of life in Burlingame would have changed much. There were many conflicting and confusing factors that eventually caused the measure to not get passed. I think the main reason that the measure wasn't passed was Burlingame's "not in my backyard" stance. They think that these changes are good in general but as soon as it becomes possible where they live they are opposed to it. They didn't want other people with smaller incomes coming into their city and possibly creating change.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Claire. Burlingame is very set in its ways and would have needed more information and insentive. I believe that if this bill were to be proposed in the past it would have had a better chance, but in today's society we a bigger sense of security especially when it come to residence.
Delete