Council delays rent control discussion
Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Ukiah Daily Journal.
#1 Jun 4, 2010
If the politicians want to give money away then they should just give the people that can not pay there rent a subsidy with the 35,000. At least with a subsidy it will be the politicians bearing the cost of their deciscion and not the private individuals who have invested in their businesses. There was proposed houseing with the DDR development that0 was so heavily opposed. Do not allow expansion of the rental market and then seek to control rent because the lack of units drives up the costs. The fact that the prices are out of hand should scream the need for more units. Give someone else the opportunity to offer houseing and the situation might just subside without controlling the profit margin of others. The city should give opportunity instead of taking it away. If I lived in the parks I would support rent control even if it was not needed. Wouldn't you? Otherwise you create more beuracracy that will never go away and continually seek to expand authority. Mr. Baldwin says "people want protection from unfair profit takers" well if you think you are being taken advantage of you have the right to move yourself to a more desirable and affordable location. No one is forced to stay. To impose rent controls on private property because the tenents do not want to pay the rent is just wrong.
#2 Jun 4, 2010
Agreed. Just a continuance of governments redistribution of wealth, rather than letting the market take care of itself.
#3 Jun 4, 2010
The 5 year lease option and not be part of the rent control is a good thing for consumers of nicer mobile home parks actually. It can cost quite a bit of money to maintain the higher-end parks or add features like pools or club houses. Landlords will not opt to maintain, upgrade or add these kinds of features since the government red tape involved is usually very onerous and not worth it. It is easier to maintain the park at the lower level. The 5 year option gives tenants the choice of what type of park they want to belong to and any increases would be set in a contract for 5 years. I grew up on a mobile home park and when the park went rent control it was the worst thing that ever happened since it had been a nicer park. I am sure some people on other parks benefited but I think the majority of people were very disappointed with the result. The key is to give people a choice and let them make their own decisions on what type of park they want.
#4 Jun 4, 2010
"People want protection from unfair profit takers, and I'm not sure we get that if we just go with the Merced ordinance," Baldwin said. "This is the weakest conceivable option, and one that I understand was suggested by a park owner."
OOOO Argggg unfair profits!! Mr. Baldwin, it's none of your business what people charge for rent. Zero, zip, nada, now go away.
Add your comments below
|Thompson not guilty (Jul '08)||May 1||Mikey||16|
|love you...||Apr 28||Steven M Robinson||1|
|guys looking to get there d$ck sucked (Nov '12)||Apr 22||Barry Man DPPD||2|
|kooi ga||Apr 17||Veer||3|
|Man Who Buried 26 Schoolchildren Alive Gets Par...||Apr 6||Mil Mom||1|
|Merced Sucks.||Apr '15||BORING AND QUITE ...||1|
|Travel deal: Explore 'Game of Thrones' set in I...||Mar '15||Arctic||1|
Find what you want!
Search Merced Forum Now
Copyright © 2015 Topix LLC