activatemontereybay

When Good Intentions Stall Growth: What Salinas Can Learn from Santa Cruz’s Housing Collapse

Wed, 30 Jul 2025 13:08:45 GMT

This is a subtitle for your new post

Abundance, the Everything Bagel, and Why Salinas Can’t Build Anything (But Blame Everyone Else)

Thu, 22 May 2025 22:22:55 GMT

In their new book Abundance: How We Build a Better Future, Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson make a sharp and timely argument: America doesn’t have a resource problem—we have a building problem. And nowhere is this more obvious than right here in Salinas, where the Rent Stabilization Ordinance (SRSO) is a perfect example of how good intentions, weaponized bureaucracy, and decades of anti-growth sentiment turned housing policy into a flaming-hot Everything Bagel of contradictions.

Let me explain.

The Everything Bagel of Policy Paralysis

Klein uses the metaphor of the “Everything Bagel” to describe what happens when you try to make a system that pleases everyone. You don’t just get salt or sesame—you get garlic, poppy seeds, onions, flax, chia, and whatever else the latest interest group insists you add. In theory, it’s comprehensive. In practice, it’s a mess. And worse, it prevents the very thing it's supposed to support: action.

That’s Salinas housing policy in a nutshell (or maybe a poppy seed).

From Ambition to Inertia

The Salinas Rent Stabilization Ordinance didn’t spring up overnight—it’s the product of years of policy decisions made by the same people who now shame landlords and investors for the mess they helped create. We downzoned. We layered in CEQA delays. We created permit bottlenecks. We turned “public input” into a bureaucratic moat. And then—when none of that produced more housing—we blamed the people still willing to build or maintain rental units.

It’s like making a sandwich with 14 spreads and then wondering why no one wants to take a bite.

The Problem Isn’t Scarcity—It’s Permission

Klein and Thompson argue that we live in an age of artificial scarcity, where we have the capital, technology, and talent to solve major problems—if we could just give ourselves permission to build. But instead, we’ve created a culture of scarcity by design. We fear change, so we regulate it to death. We want affordability, but we sue every housing project. We want green energy but protest every windmill. We want more rentals, but punish landlords.

And when rents go up? We blame the last guy standing.

Salinas: Where Common Sense Is Hiding in Plain Sight

Here’s the kicker: the solution is so simple, if it were a snake, it would’ve bitten us. We need to build more housing. That means supporting owners and investors, streamlining permitting, and ditching the Everything Bagel approach that tries to satisfy every demand group while building nothing for anyone.

Instead of treating landlords like villains, we need to bring them to the table. Instead of creating ever-thicker ordinances, we need to make it easier to build and rent safe, decent housing. And instead of reacting to the crisis with another regulatory band-aid, we should ask: what policies actually lead to abundance?

Build More. Shame Less. That’s Abundance.

The bottom line? Abundance is a call to build—a reminder that progress is possible, but only if we stop standing in our own way. Salinas doesn’t need more symbolic policy wins. It needs homes, and the people willing to create them.

So let’s put down the Everything Bagel and pick up a blueprint.

https://www.36northpm.com/abundance-the-everything-bagel-and-why-salinas-cant-build-anything-but-blame-everyone-else/

Could "everything-bagel liberalism" be making the housing crisis worse? (PM+)

Podcast Episode · Planet Money · 2025-05-19 · Bonus · Planet Money+ Only · 17m

podcasts.apple.com

Why Are Property Owners Being Urged to Sell?

Mon, 17 Mar 2025 15:46:45 GMT

Why are Property Owners Being Urged to Sell?

You may have noticed it too—more and more property owners are receiving invitations to webinars and live streams like the one in the image above. Topics such as “Tax-Smart Exit Strategies” are being promoted by accountants, financial advisors, and real estate professionals alike. These events aren’t just about saving money on taxes. They reflect a deeper concern that’s spreading throughout the rental housing industry: **Is it still worth it to own rental property in California?**

The Impact of Rent Control on Owner Decisions

Here in Monterey County, and across California, **the political climate surrounding rent control is influencing how property owners view their investments**. Faced with increasing regulation, uncertainty, and rising costs, many owners are questioning whether continuing to rent out their properties is still viable. In some cases, they’re being encouraged to sell—not because it’s financially necessary today, but because they fear what tomorrow might bring.

The growing number of “exit strategy” seminars is evidence of this shift. These presentations often highlight how to sell properties while minimizing tax consequences. But behind the technical advice is a common thread: **many owners feel they are being backed into a corner by local and state policies**.

### What This Means for Tenants

When owners sell, rental properties often leave the rental market entirely—converted into single-family homes for sale, vacation rentals, or other uses. This **reduces the overall supply of rental housing**, making it harder for tenants to find affordable places to live. Ironically, the very policies intended to protect tenants can sometimes lead to tighter housing markets and higher competition for available units.

This doesn’t mean rent control has no place in housing policy. But it does highlight the importance of **balanced solutions**—ones that take into account the perspectives of both tenants and landlords, and that **don’t unintentionally incentivize owners to leave the market altogether**.

### The Need for Collaboration

At the **Tenant Landlord Coalition of Monterey**, we believe in **collaboration over conflict**. We recognize that **healthy rental housing markets require both strong tenant protections and policies that support responsible property ownership**. When we lose that balance, we risk losing much-needed rental housing, which affects our entire community.

As this trend continues, it’s important for policymakers, community leaders, and residents to understand **why property owners are feeling pressure to sell**, and to work together to find solutions that truly benefit everyone.

Want to get involved or stay informed? Visit us at [www.tlc-monterey.org](https://www.tlc-monterey.org/about) to learn more about our work advocating for **mutual benefit—not burdensome policies.**

---

Let me know if you'd like to add quotes, stats, or further analysis on specific rent control policies in Monterey County!

Monterey’s Rental Registry: A RealPage Problem in the Making?

Thu, 13 Mar 2025 14:23:08 GMT

This is a subtitle for your new post

The Unintended Consequences of Rent Control: A Policy That Hurts Those It Aims to Help

audrey@36northproperties.com (Audrey Wardwell) — Thu, 13 Mar 2025 14:07:10 GMT

The Unintended Consequences of Rent Control: A Policy That Hurts Those It Aims to Help

Rent control is often proposed as a solution to high housing costs, with proponents arguing that it protects tenants from sudden rent increases and displacement. However, as economic research has repeatedly shown, the long-term effects of rent control can be deeply damaging—not only to landlords but also to the very tenants these policies are meant to help. The article Rent Control from the Library of Economics and Liberty provides a comprehensive overview of why rent control fails and the broader economic consequences of such policies.

How Rent Control Distorts the Market

Economists across the ideological spectrum agree: price controls lead to shortages. When the government caps rental prices, it disrupts the natural balance of supply and demand. Landlords, unable to charge market rates, often respond by reducing maintenance and investment in their properties, leading to a decline in housing quality over time. Meanwhile, developers are discouraged from building new rental units, exacerbating housing shortages.

As the article notes, a study of New York’s rent control policies found that the artificial suppression of rents resulted in “housing deterioration and a decline in the quantity and quality of available rental units.” The same pattern has been observed in cities around the world, from Stockholm to San Francisco.

Who Really Benefits from Rent Control?

While rent control may provide short-term relief to current tenants, it disproportionately benefits those who are lucky enough to secure a controlled unit, often at the expense of newcomers and lower-income individuals. Long-term tenants who stay in rent-controlled units enjoy below-market rates, but younger generations, new residents, and those searching for affordable housing find fewer available options. In cities with strict rent control, landlords are incentivized to keep units off the market or convert them into condominiums, further limiting rental housing availability.

The article highlights research showing that rent-controlled units tend to be occupied by higher-income individuals who could afford market rates, while those in need of affordable housing are locked out of the market entirely. This creates an inefficient allocation of housing, where those with means enjoy the benefits of rent control while those most in need are left struggling to find a home.

Economic Studies Confirm the Harms of Rent Control

Numerous studies support the conclusion that rent control leads to housing market distortions. The 2018 Stanford study on San Francisco’s rent control policy found that while existing tenants benefited, landlords removed 15% of the rental housing stock by converting units into condominiums or other forms of housing. The result? An overall increase in rental prices due to the reduced supply.

Additionally, a 1992 study published in the Journal of Urban Economics found that rent control in New York City led to a 20% reduction in the number of available rental units, worsening affordability in the long run.

The Alternative: Policies That Encourage Housing Supply

Instead of rent control, policymakers should focus on solutions that increase the supply of housing. Streamlining development regulations, reducing permitting costs, and incentivizing construction are more effective ways to address affordability concerns. Programs that provide direct subsidies to low-income renters—such as housing vouchers—offer targeted assistance without distorting the housing market.

Conclusion: Learning from Economic Reality

While rent control is often politically popular, it ultimately undermines the goal of affordable housing by discouraging investment, reducing housing supply, and creating economic inefficiencies. As the Library of Economics and Liberty article makes clear, the economic consensus is overwhelming: rent control does more harm than good.

For tenant advocacy groups and policymakers genuinely committed to addressing housing affordability, the focus should be on increasing the housing supply rather than imposing market-distorting regulations. If we want real, sustainable solutions for renters, we must look beyond feel-good policies and embrace economic reality.

 References:

Block, Walter. Rent Control. The Library of Economics and Liberty. https://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/RentControl.html
Diamond, Rebecca, Tim McQuade, and Franklin Qian. The Effects of Rent Control Expansion on Tenants, Landlords, and Inequality: Evidence from San Francisco. Stanford University, 2018.
Gyourko, Joseph, and Peter Linneman. Rent Control and Rental Housing Quality: A Note on the Effects of New York City's Old Controls. Journal of Urban Economics, 1992.

Salinas Investors Are Saying "No Way"—The Real Cost of Harsh Rent Control

Fri, 31 Jan 2025 19:39:03 GMT

The Salinas rental market is facing an alarming reality—investment dollars are drying up. Over the past several months, the message from investors, developers, and property owners has been loud and clear: Salinas’ extreme rent control policies are driving investment away.

When pitching apartment deals in Salinas, the response has been resounding:

“Why would we invest in a city that has harsh rent control?”
“Why would we not take our capital to a non-rent control city or state?”
“Why would we invest in new projects or ADUs when the city sends us a message that we are bad?”

This isn’t just speculation—it’s already happening. Since July 2024, there have been only two sales of 5+ unit apartment buildings in Salinas. One more is pending, but only because it is selling at a deep discount. This means fewer new projects, less housing availability, and an overall weakening of the rental housing market in Salinas.

The Bigger Picture: A Warning from Los Angeles

Salinas is not the only city dealing with the fallout of aggressive tenant protection policies. Los Angeles recently faced backlash over a proposed rent freeze and eviction ban , with public officials reconsidering the measure due to its long-term economic consequences.

As District 12 Councilmember John Lee stated:

"When we as a city tell developers that at any moment the city council can commandeer your investment, who is going to want to build in this city? Who is going to want to do business here?"

This is the exact question Salinas should be asking itself. If cities like Los Angeles—where housing demand is high—are stepping back to rethink extreme rent control, why is Salinas doubling down on policies that drive away the very investors and developers needed to create more housing?

The Future of Salinas Housing

The reality is simple: when investors walk away, development slows, housing stock declines, and affordability worsens. We need policies that encourage investment, not punish it.

Salinas leaders must take a hard look at the data and recognize the long-term damage of their approach. Rent control is not a solution—it’s a barrier to building the housing we desperately need. If we continue down this path, we risk turning Salinas into a market where no one wants to invest, no one wants to build, and ultimately, no one can find a place to live.

Now is the time for change. It's time for Salinas to adopt policies that balance tenant protections with economic sustainability—before it’s too late.

https://caanet.org/concord-council-to-reconsider-rent-control-just-cause-eviction-policies/

https://www.36northpm.com/?p=3478&preview=true

Why the Salinas Valley Chamber Opposes Rent Stabilization

Fri, 13 Dec 2024 21:38:47 GMT

On September 23, 2024, the Salinas Valley Chamber of Commerce submitted a detailed letter to the Salinas City Council outlining their opposition to the proposed Rent Stabilization Ordinance. This letter sheds light on a polarizing issue affecting tenants and landlords in Salinas and offers alternative solutions to address the city’s housing crisis without resorting to rent control. Here’s a breakdown of their arguments and suggestions.

Understanding the Opposition

The Chamber identifies two main provisions of the ordinance that they find problematic:

1. **Capping Rent Increases:** Limiting annual rent increases to the lesser of 2.75% or 75% of the Consumer Price Index (CPI).

2. **Retroactive Application:** Applying these limitations to rents as of December 31, 2023.

While the Chamber acknowledges the housing challenges in Salinas, they argue these provisions fail to consider the broader economic impacts and could harm both landlords and the community.

Key Arguments Against the Ordinance

1. Overgeneralization of Landlords:

The Chamber critiques the portrayal of landlords as a monolithic group exploiting tenants. They emphasize the diversity within the landlord community, from corporate entities using data-driven rent algorithms to local families and individuals personally invested in their tenants’ well-being.

2. Unrealistic Profit Assumptions:

The ordinance presumes landlords are generating excessive profits. The Chamber counters that profitability is subjective and dependent on individual circumstances, making a blanket restriction on rent increases inappropriate.

3. Negative Economic Impacts:

By capping rent increases at such a low threshold, the Chamber predicts some landlords will remove units from the rental market, exacerbating the housing shortage and making it harder for businesses to attract and retain employees.

4. Stress on Landlords:

Retroactively limiting rent increases could lead to confusion and anxiety among landlords, particularly if they are required to issue refunds for rents already collected.

5. Enforcement Challenges:

The Chamber questions the city's ability to enforce the ordinance fairly and efficiently, citing past struggles with the rental registry program.

Proposed Alternatives

Rather than rent stabilization, the Chamber recommends:

1. Increasing Housing Supply:

The Chamber stresses the need to address the root cause of high housing costs—limited supply. They advocate for policies that promote housing development, including market-rate housing and public-private partnerships.

2. Regular Accountability:

They suggest ongoing evaluations of the city’s progress in meeting housing goals, similar to the approach taken by Pacific Grove.

3. Encouraging Development:

Highlighting stalled private development projects, the Chamber calls for renewed support for market-driven solutions.

4. **Mediation Committees:**

To resolve disputes between tenants and landlords, the Chamber recommends forming mediation committees rather than implementing sweeping rent control measures.

5. Revisiting the Rental Registry:

The Chamber criticizes the lack of transparency and performance data from the city’s rental registry program and urges improvements before adding further regulations.

Balancing Tenant Protections with Growth

The Chamber’s letter offers a nuanced perspective, balancing compassion for tenants’ struggles with the practical realities faced by landlords. It challenges the notion that rent stabilization is a panacea for the housing crisis and proposes long-term strategies that aim to expand housing availability, reduce costs, and foster economic growth in Salinas.

As the debate unfolds, this letter serves as a critical piece of dialogue in shaping housing policy, encouraging decision-makers to consider both the immediate needs of tenants and the sustainability of the rental market.

Understanding the Monterey County Housing Market

Fri, 22 Nov 2024 17:21:52 GMT

Monterey County's housing market remains in a precarious position, where demand consistently outpaces supply due to decades of underdevelopment. In October, the median price for single-family homes stood at $919,838, nearly identical to last year's $920,000. This stability persists despite a 41% increase in inventory compared to 2023【 https://www.montereyherald.com/2024/11/21/monterey-county-median-home-price-at-919k-in-october-1-048m-in-june/ 】.

Local rental regulations and the looming impact of Proposition 33 have had a profound effect on the market. According to Adam Pinterits, government and community affairs director for the Monterey County Association of Realtors, “many sellers and property managers told me that local rental regulations and the threat of Proposition 33 drove them to sell rental housing.” This trend mirrors nationwide patterns where overregulation of rental housing prompts property owners to exit the market, displacing tenants and worsening affordability【https://www.montereyherald.com/2024/11/21/monterey-county-median-home-price-at-919k-in-october-1-048m-in-june/】.

The California Association of Realtors highlighted that October saw a statewide rebound in home sales, the fastest year-over-year sales pace in 40 months. However, challenges remain due to the gradual decline in interest rates, which may slow buyer activity in the future【https://www.montereyherald.com/2024/11/21/monterey-county-median-home-price-at-919k-in-october-1-048m-in-june/】.

Despite these challenges, Pinterits emphasized that “it’s still a great time to sell a home in Monterey County,” as demand remains strong and reflects the enduring value of homeownership【https://www.montereyherald.com/2024/11/21/monterey-county-median-home-price-at-919k-in-october-1-048m-in-june/】.

The Hidden Costs Impacting California's Housing Affordability

Thu, 14 Nov 2024 22:08:51 GMT

The Hidden Costs Impacting California's Housing Affordability

Uncovering the Hidden Costs Behind California's Housing Crisis: Insights from Nolan Gray and Jim Righeimer

Housing affordability in California has been a hot topic for years, but what’s often overlooked are the hidden costs and policy-driven barriers that drive up prices. In a compelling *California Insider* interview hosted by Siyamak Khorrami, Nolan Gray, policy expert at California YIMBY, and Jim Righeimer, former mayor of Costa Mesa and real estate developer, dissect these often invisible forces. They explore the underlying issues in California's housing policy, comparing it to other states and offering a fresh perspective on potential solutions. You’ll want to watch this interview for an eye-opening look at what’s really impacting housing costs in the Golden State.

Nolan Gray’s Take: Zoning and Land Use Regulations

Nolan Gray emphasizes the restrictive zoning and land-use regulations that have strangled housing supply in California. Gray, a well-known advocate for smarter zoning policies, argues that California’s rigid zoning laws make it difficult for developers to build housing where it’s most needed. For example, single-family zoning is widespread, preventing multi-family or high-density housing that could increase affordability and supply in urban areas.

Gray points out that in states like Texas and Florida, streamlined and flexible zoning policies have enabled rapid housing development, keeping housing prices relatively low and accessible. In his view, California’s zoning laws are outdated and misaligned with the modern housing needs of its residents. He advocates for revisiting these policies to allow for more diverse and affordable housing options, suggesting that if California were to embrace less restrictive zoning, it could alleviate the state’s housing shortage and improve affordability.

Jim Righeimer’s Perspective: The High Cost of Development Fees and Permits

Jim Righeimer brings a developer’s insight to the table, highlighting how California’s development fees and permit costs are major contributors to the state’s housing unaffordability. According to Righeimer, it’s not uncommon for permit fees alone to reach tens of thousands of dollars per unit, an expense that developers must then pass on to homebuyers and renters. This starkly contrasts with other states, where permit fees are kept to a minimum, allowing developers to build affordable housing without excessive costs.

Righeimer explains that California’s bureaucratic process often drags out approval timelines, creating uncertainty and adding financial burdens that deter new projects. This lack of efficiency, he argues, dissuades developers from pursuing housing projects in California. To Righeimer, California’s housing crisis is a direct result of these policies, which make housing projects expensive and time-consuming, while other states offer a more development-friendly environment. He believes that lowering permit costs and cutting red tape would make the state’s housing more accessible and reduce the number of people being priced out.

Why Both Perspectives Matter

The interview between Gray and Righeimer provides a comprehensive view of California’s housing challenges, showing that both zoning laws and development fees are significant barriers to affordability. The two experts come from different angles—Gray from a policy reform standpoint and Righeimer from an on-the-ground development perspective—but they converge on the idea that policy change is critical. Gray’s call for zoning reform and Righeimer’s appeal to reduce fees and permit hurdles both point toward creating a more inclusive and affordable housing environment in California.

Potential Solutions and a Call to Action

Toward the end of the interview, Gray and Righeimer discuss actionable solutions that could transform California’s housing landscape. Gray advocates for updating zoning policies to allow multi-family units and higher density, while Righeimer stresses the need to cap or reduce fees and expedite the approval process. Both believe that these changes could help the state retain its population, reduce homelessness, and create a more sustainable housing market.

Watch the Full Interview to Get the Full Picture; https://californiainsider.com/california-news/videos/california-insider-show/the-hidden-costs-that-impact-californias-housing-affordability-nolan-gray-jim-righeimer-5757019

This discussion is crucial for anyone interested in understanding why housing costs in California remain so high and what we can do about it. Nolan Gray and Jim Righeimer offer insights that extend beyond partisan viewpoints and get to the root of the housing issue. To see their full analysis and learn more about the specific policies and solutions they propose, be sure to watch the full interview on California Insider. It’s a valuable resource for anyone who wants to understand California's housing policies and the steps we can take to build a more affordable future.

Key Elements in Pennell v. City of San Jose: A Deeper Analysis

Wed, 06 Nov 2024 19:46:10 GMT

The dissenting opinion in Pennell v. City of San Jose sheds light on essential issues regarding constitutional rights, the burden of proof, and the limits of government authority in rent control. Below, we explore two critical elements from this opinion that continue to resonate in property rights discussions.

Argument on Equity and Precedent

The dissent pointed out that the Pennell decision lacks a solid foundation both in fairness (equity) and in legal precedent. A major concern is that the ordinance does not require the city to specify the degree of rent reduction tied to each factor, including the hardship factor for tenants. This lack of specificity complicates landlords’ ability to demonstrate how the hardship consideration affects their right to a reasonable return on their property investment.

This ambiguity raises two critical points:

1. Barrier to Judicial Review: Without clear criteria on rent adjustments, landlords may struggle to prove they’ve suffered a compensable loss under the Fifth Amendment. This lack of clarity could effectively block landlords from challenging perceived injustices, as they cannot pinpoint exactly how hardship considerations impact rent calculations.

2. Potential for Constitutional Injustice: The dissent suggests that shielding rent control decisions from meaningful judicial scrutiny could lead to constitutional injustices. The Court's stance, therefore, raises a broader question: Should ordinances that lack transparency and accountability in their application be protected from constitutional challenges? By overlooking the implications of ambiguous hardship factors, the majority decision may unintentionally allow ordinances to disproportionately burden landlords without appropriate legal recourse.

The Fifth Amendment and the Public Burden Principle

The Pennell dissent also emphasizes the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment, which prohibits the government from taking private property for public use without just compensation. Through the Fourteenth Amendment, this protection extends to state actions, including municipal ordinances.

The dissent references a well-established principle: the government should not compel individuals to bear the costs of a public benefit that, in fairness, should be distributed among society as a whole. Applying this principle to Pennell, we can examine two implications:

1. Unequal Burden on Landlords: By enforcing a hardship factor in rent control that benefits financially vulnerable tenants, San Jose is, in effect, asking landlords to shoulder the financial burden of housing affordability. The dissent argues that this burden, meant to address a public welfare issue, should be a responsibility shared by the broader community. When only a subset of property owners are financially penalized to meet a public objective, it may amount to an unjust transfer of public obligations to private individuals.

2. Precedent for Fair Compensation: Traditionally, when the government enacts measures benefiting the public (like rent control to address housing affordability), it must provide fair compensation to those who bear the cost. The *Pennell* dissent underscores that failing to offer such compensation could set a precedent where government-mandated public benefits impose undue financial strain on a select group, without appropriate relief. This approach challenges fundamental concepts of fairness and justice in public policy.

Broader Implications

These dissenting points touch on fundamental questions of transparency, fairness, and the constitutional rights of property owners in the face of rent control policies. The opinion suggests a need for future policies to address these critical concerns by providing clear guidelines and equitable cost distribution, potentially requiring municipalities to explore alternative solutions—such as subsidies or housing assistance programs—that do not disproportionately impact landlords.

By considering the dissent’s perspective in Pennell v. City of San Jose, we gain a deeper understanding of the legal boundaries within rent control and the protection of property rights, highlighting a continuing need for equitable policy frameworks in housing regulation.

This analysis not only provides insight into the case but also encourages readers to think about the practical and ethical dimensions of property rights and government intervention in the rental housing market.

SUPREME.JUSTIA.COM

Pennell v. City of San Jose, 485 U.S. 1 (1988)

Pennell v. City of San Jose

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/485/1/#T1

Balancing Growth and Community Well-being: A Call for Equitable Solutions in Monterey County

Sat, 02 Nov 2024 20:43:33 GMT

Balancing Growth and Community Well-being: A Call for Equitable Solutions in Monterey County

As our communities in Monterey County face decisions impacting local residents and property owners, it’s clear that transparency and thoughtful planning are paramount. From the increasing demands on Monterey’s regional airport to discussions on rent control and neighborhood funding, many of these issues require a balance between growth and preserving community welfare.

The Airport’s Impact on Residents

The Monterey Regional Airport’s expansion is causing real concerns. Recent feedback from residents points to increased noise, air pollution, and health implications for neighborhoods nearby. While growth may bring economic benefits, should it come at the expense of quality of life? Transparency in airport planning, along with a focus on community needs, could bridge the gap between economic and public interests.

Rent Control and Real Estate Market Challenges

In Monterey’s real estate sector, proposals like rental registration and other controls are polarizing. Many argue that such regulations lead to a shortage of housing and deferred maintenance, which ultimately affects renters and property owners alike. To foster a healthy rental market, we need policies that support, rather than stifle, housing availability. Collaborative solutions that include tenant and landlord voices can help avoid unintended consequences.

Investment in Neighborhoods

Local government funding also impacts our neighborhoods. Programs like Monterey’s Neighborhood and Community Improvement Program (NCIP) play a crucial role in enhancing our communities. However, transparency about fund allocation and a clear focus on neighborhood benefits are essential. When funds are redirected from these programs, it limits their effectiveness in supporting neighborhood needs and improvements.

Looking Ahead: A Community Dialogue

These issues underline the need for open, inclusive dialogue. As residents, property owners, and stakeholders, how do we create a balanced approach that considers both economic growth and quality of life? Should we advocate for more transparency in decision-making, or are there other priorities we should focus on?

We want to hear from you! What are your thoughts on the growth challenges facing Monterey County? Share your perspectives on how we can best navigate these complex issues together.

Why Aren’t These Solutions the Focus?

Thu, 31 Oct 2024 19:24:36 GMT

Why Aren’t These Solutions the Focus?

Real Solutions to High Rent: Why Aren’t Cities and States Focusing on Lasting Affordability?

As rents continue to rise, more families are finding it harder to secure affordable housing. While cities and states have often implemented stopgap measures like rent control, these actions only address the symptoms of high housing costs rather than the underlying issues. A recent article from the Tenant-Landlord Coalition highlights how such policies fall short and suggests alternative solutions that could provide long-term affordability. But why aren’t these concrete, proactive solutions at the center of housing policy?

For too long, housing policies have leaned heavily on temporary fixes. But without addressing core challenges—like inadequate housing supply, restrictive development policies, and insufficient tenant support—rent control and similar measures offer only temporary relief. This approach places the burden on private landlords and tenants, rather than establishing a supportive framework that benefits everyone in the housing ecosystem. Below are five solutions that, if prioritized by city and state governments, could pave the way toward sustainable, affordable housing.

1. Increase Housing Supply with Development Incentives

Expanding housing supply is essential to balancing demand and bringing down costs. Cities and states can encourage affordable and mixed-income housing by offering tax incentives, reducing permit wait times, and easing zoning restrictions. When supply grows, competition relaxes, allowing rents to stabilize.

2. Provide Tenant-Based Subsidies

Rather than solely controlling rent prices, tenant subsidies such as housing vouchers or rent credits can help tenants afford market-rate housing while still keeping rental properties viable for landlords. These subsidies ease the cost burden without deterring property owners from maintaining or improving rental properties.

3. Encourage Affordable Housing Through Public-Private Partnerships

Collaborating with private companies to fund and build affordable housing offers significant potential. By providing long-term tax benefits, grants, or public land to private developers, cities can create high-quality, affordable housing while benefiting from private-sector efficiency and capital.

4. Promote Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Development

ADUs, or “granny flats,” add extra housing options on existing residential lots, making them a flexible and cost-effective way to boost supply. Cities can streamline approval processes for ADUs and provide financial incentives, allowing more homeowners to contribute to solving the housing crisis.

5. Establish Rent-to-Own Programs

Rent-to-own programs offer a path to homeownership, allowing renters to build equity over time. With government backing, these programs can help stabilize housing costs for participants and reduce rental market demand as tenants transition to homeowners.

A Constitutional Argument: Why Targeting the Few to Solve a Broad Problem is Wrong

Beyond practicality, placing the responsibility on a small segment of the population to solve a nationwide housing problem raises a critical constitutional concern. Our rights as citizens are grounded in the belief that the government should not unduly burden a few individuals or groups to address societal issues that impact the entire community. By disproportionately impacting private landlords with policies like rent control, the government is, in effect, asking them to sacrifice their rights and resources for the common good—a situation that contradicts the fundamental principles of fairness and individual liberty embedded in our Constitution.

The Constitution emphasizes equal treatment under the law. When policies shift the weight of the housing crisis onto landlords, they do more than ask them to contribute—they strip them of the rights and incentives that encourage responsible property management and fair competition. Such an approach ignores the collective responsibility we all share in creating affordable housing solutions and risks alienating private property owners who play a critical role in providing rental housing.

Why Aren’t These Solutions the Focus?

Each of these approaches requires coordination, investment, and long-term planning. They may not provide immediate, visible relief like rent control, but they have the potential to create sustainable affordability. Housing is a fundamental need that should be met with well-thought-out policies that support renters, landlords, and communities alike. Expecting landlords and tenants to manage a systemic issue alone is unrealistic and unfair. Instead, governments should embrace these solutions, which offer a fair and effective framework for everyone involved.

The Tenant-Landlord Coalition rightly points out that effective solutions for high rents exist—they just need to be prioritized. It’s time for city and state governments to adopt policies that create lasting affordability and honor the principles of fairness, equal treatment, and individual rights central to our democracy. For those interested in exploring these ideas further, check out the full article at [TLC Monterey]( https://www.tlc-monterey.org/why-aren-t-cities-and-states-focused-on-real-solutions-to-high-rent ).

5 Solutions to High Rents

Thu, 31 Oct 2024 19:08:44 GMT

5 Solutions to Help The High Rental Market

Here are five solutions to address high rental costs:

1. Increase Housing Supply with Incentives for Development

Solution: Encourage developers to build more affordable and mixed-income housing through tax incentives, streamlined permitting processes, and relaxed zoning regulations.

- Impact:A larger supply of housing can help meet demand, driving down rents and providing more options for renters across various income levels.

2. Implement Tenant-Based Subsidies

- Solution: Instead of rent controls, offer subsidies directly to tenants who need financial assistance, like housing vouchers or rent credits.

- Impact:These subsidies make rent more affordable for lower-income tenants without discouraging landlords from maintaining or offering rental properties.

3. Promote Affordable Housing Construction via Public-Private Partnerships

- Solution: Governments can collaborate with private companies to fund and construct affordable housing units, often in exchange for long-term tax benefits or land grants.

- Impact: These partnerships bring expertise and capital from the private sector, increasing affordable housing availability without relying solely on government funding.

4. Incentivize ADU (Accessory Dwelling Unit) Development

- Solution: Streamline regulations and offer financial incentives for homeowners to build ADUs, or “granny flats,” on their property.

- Impact: ADUs provide additional rental options at lower cost, helping to alleviate local housing shortages and offering flexible living arrangements for diverse tenant needs.

5. Establish Rent-To-Own Programs for Tenants

- Solution: Provide rent-to-own options, allowing renters to build equity in a property they rent, often with government-backed support to ease the financial transition to ownership.

- Impact: Rent-to-own programs give tenants the chance to build wealth, stabilize their housing costs, and reduce pressure on the rental market by turning renters into homeowners.

Each of these solutions addresses different aspects of high rents, providing both immediate relief and long-term strategies to stabilize the rental market and improve housing affordability.

Argentina's Lessons on Rent Control

Thu, 31 Oct 2024 18:42:04 GMT

Argentina's Lessons on Rent Control

How Salinas Rent Stabilization and Monterey County Airbnb Restrictions Could Mirror Argentina’s Housing Crisis

The recent situation in Argentina, where rent controls led to reduced rental supply and skyrocketing prices, offers a glimpse of what could happen in Salinas and similar cities adopting rent stabilization ordinances. Argentina's approach to rent control aimed to help tenants but ultimately drove landlords out of the rental market, exacerbating the housing shortage and making rentals more expensive. This example highlights the risks Salinas faces as it enforces rent control measures that could produce the same adverse effects.

1. Reduced Rental Supply & Higher Prices

Salinas’ Rent Stabilization Ordinance, while intending to protect tenants from drastic rent increases, could backfire by discouraging landlords from keeping properties available for long-term rentals. Argentina saw landlords converting their properties to short-term and mid-term rentals to evade strict regulations. Similarly, in Monterey County, where renting properties for under 30 days was restricted, rental supplies didn’t grow as expected. Instead, owners pivoted to mid-term or seasonal rentals, often for out-of-town owners who want to use these properties themselves part-time. These owners remain largely unmotivated to provide permanent housing, which further restricts availability and drives up demand (and costs) for available long-term rentals.

2. Landlords Move Away from Long-Term Rentals

Rent control disincentivizes maintenance and reinvestment. When inflation soared in Argentina, landlords were restricted from adjusting rents to match rising costs, leaving them little choice but to defer maintenance to offset financial losses. Salinas faces a similar risk: as inflation impacts the cost of property upkeep, landlords may neglect necessary maintenance, decreasing property standards and livability for tenants. Eventually, landlords may exit the long-term rental market, just as they did in Argentina, opting instead to either sell their properties or shift to other types of rentals to minimize losses.

3. Short-Term Gains, Long-Term Consequences

While rent controls can provide short-term relief for tenants, the long-term impacts can create a domino effect. In Argentina, the housing market instability created by rent controls made renting harder, leading to overcrowded apartments, longer commutes for affordable housing, and increased overall housing insecurity. This serves as a powerful warning for Salinas, where the same issues could emerge, pushing lower-income tenants further from the city center and reducing access to essential services and employment.

4. Lessons from Monterey County’s Short-Term Rental Restrictions

Monterey County's restriction on rentals shorter than 30 days aimed to free up housing but instead created a portfolio of seasonal rentals owned by out-of-town investors. These investors still prefer to keep properties available for personal use rather than entering the long-term rental market. This approach hasn't bolstered the long-term housing supply in Monterey County, and Salinas' rent control may only deepen similar challenges.

Salinas’ Rent Stabilization Ordinance and similar policies in other cities risk recreating the housing crisis seen in Argentina. Disincentivizing landlords from maintaining or even renting their properties could reduce rental supply, degrade property conditions, and drive up costs in the long term. Rather than rigid controls, cities should look for flexible solutions that balance tenant protections with landlord incentives. Learning from Argentina’s missteps, Salinas and other cities could benefit from policies that genuinely encourage a sustainable, inclusive rental market.

https://www.cato.org/commentary/argentina-offers-textbook-study-why-rent-controls-are-bad-idea

Thomas Sowell on Human Rights and the Misconception of "Rights" to Goods

Mon, 21 Oct 2024 21:47:32 GMT

Thomas Sowell on Human Rights and the Misconception of "Rights" to Goods

In Thomas Sowell’s powerful video on the failures of price controls, including rent control, one of his most striking points is his take on human rights and the misconception that individuals have a "right" to specific goods or services. [Watch the full video here]( https://youtu.be/mtGbJfeYzN4?si=GlfkzH2JzfJIsW4w ).

Sowell challenges the common belief that people are inherently entitled to certain goods, such as housing or healthcare, as a matter of human rights. He makes it clear that while everyone agrees on the importance of housing, there is no inherent "right" to a specific good at the expense of others. His argument rests on the distinction between rights to freedom and the false notion of rights to material goods, which, he argues, fundamentally misinterprets the nature of human rights.

Sowell explains that for every good that one person is said to have a "right" to, another person must be compelled to provide it—whether it’s landlords providing housing at below-market rates or healthcare professionals offering services without fair compensation. This, he argues, violates the principle of voluntary exchange and individual freedom. In essence, creating a "right" to housing under rent control forces landlords into a position where they must provide services under conditions that do not allow them to cover costs, reinvest, or even maintain their properties.

He further explains that recognizing goods as "rights" distorts the very concept of rights, which are traditionally understood as protections from oppression or interference, not entitlements to resources. Sowell’s perspective forces us to reconsider what rights truly mean in a free society. According to him, real rights protect individuals’ ability to engage freely in transactions, rather than guaranteeing outcomes like affordable housing, which can only be provided sustainably through a functioning market.

By framing rent control as a violation of both economic principles and human rights, Sowell underlines the paradox of trying to create equality through government mandates. In the long run, rent control reduces the availability of housing, lowers the quality of properties, and often benefits those who least need help—contradicting its intended goals.

In a broader sense, Sowell’s comments force us to reflect on the fundamental nature of freedom. The key takeaway is that no one has a right to goods provided by others—only the right to engage in voluntary transactions. By understanding this, we can see how policies like rent control, which attempt to create artificial “rights,” actually cause more harm than good.

(https://youtu.be/mtGbJfeYzN4?si=GlfkzH2JzfJIsW4w)

The Dangers of Overreach: Insights from the 'We the People' Podcast and the Rent Control Debate

Thu, 17 Oct 2024 18:01:34 GMT

The Dangers of Overreach: Insights from the 'We the People' Podcast and the Rent Control Debate

In a recent episode of the "We the People" podcast, the discussion revolved around the broader themes of government overreach and individual freedoms. While the podcast did not specifically address rent control, the insights shared illuminate a critical perspective on how regulations can sometimes infringe upon personal liberties and lead to unintended consequences. This perspective is particularly relevant in the ongoing debate about rent control policies, especially in light of recent developments like the Salinas Stabilization Ordinance, which empowers the city to regulate contracts between tenants and landlords.

Key Takeaways from the Podcast

The podcast emphasizes the importance of maintaining a balance between necessary regulation and individual freedoms. It discusses how government intervention can sometimes stifle innovation, limit choices, and create dependency on regulatory frameworks. These themes resonate in many areas, including housing policies like rent control.

The Salinas Stabilization Ordinance

The Salinas Stabilization Ordinance is a recent example of increased regulatory measures in the housing sector. This ordinance grants the city the authority to regulate the contracts between tenants and landlords, further embedding government oversight into the rental market. While the intention may be to protect tenants from unfair practices, this level of regulation raises serious concerns about overreach.

Rent Control and Regulatory Overreach

Rent control laws aim to protect tenants from rising rents, but they often represent an overreach of government authority. Here are a few reasons why rent control and similar regulations can be seen as an over-regulation:

1. Market Distortion: By capping rental prices or regulating contracts, rent control disrupts the natural supply and demand dynamics of the housing market. This can lead to decreased investment in rental properties, as landlords may be disincentivized to maintain or improve their units when returns are limited. Consequently, this can result in a decline in housing quality.

2. Reduced Availability: When rental prices are artificially held low or when contracts are heavily regulated, more individuals may seek to rent, leading to increased competition for a limited number of available units. This situation can create long waiting lists and perpetuate housing shortages, ultimately harming the very tenants rent control is designed to protect.

3. Dependency on Regulation: The podcast highlights how reliance on government intervention can create a cycle of dependency. Rent control and regulations like the Salinas Ordinance can lead tenants to rely on these protections rather than seeking alternatives, such as advocating for increased housing supply or exploring other housing solutions.

4. Impact on Landlords: By imposing strict regulations, rent control can undermine the financial viability of rental properties. Many small landlords may struggle to cover maintenance costs, property taxes, and other expenses, leading them to withdraw from the rental market entirely. This can reduce the overall stock of affordable housing.

A Call for Balanced Solutions

While the podcast illustrates the risks of government overreach, it also encourages listeners to seek balanced solutions that promote individual freedoms while addressing societal needs. In the context of housing, this could mean exploring alternatives to rent control, such as incentivizing the development of affordable housing, providing direct assistance to low-income renters, and promoting policies that encourage landlords to invest in their properties.

The insights from the "We the People" podcast resonate deeply within the rent control debate and the implications of the Salinas Stabilization Ordinance. While the intention behind such regulations is to protect tenants, they often lead to overreach that can have detrimental effects on the housing market. As we navigate these complex issues, it is essential to consider solutions that uphold individual freedoms and promote a healthy, competitive housing market. By fostering open dialogue and exploring innovative approaches, we can work towards policies that truly benefit all members of our communities.

For a deeper understanding of the themes discussed, listen to the latest episode of "We the People" [here](https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/we-the-people/id83213431?i=1000670120423).