The Costa-Hawkins Rent Housing Act ("Costa-Hawkins") is a California state law, enacted in 1995, which places limits on urban control rules. Costa-Hawkins precedes the field in two main ways. First, it prohibits the city from establishing rent controls on certain types of housing units, for example, single-family homes and condominiums, and newly built apartment units; this is considered exempt. Secondly, prohibit "void control" of the city, also called the "tight lease control".
If an apartment is under "vacancy control", city regulations work to deny or limit the owner's ability to raise rent to new tenants. It works in this way even in cases where the previous tenant voluntarily evacuated an apartment or was evicted for reasons (such as failure to pay the rent). In other words, Costa-Hawkins, which now prohibits "void control" in the above situation, mandates that cities allow apartment owners the right to rent it when it is empty at any price (ie, usually the market price).
Lease control in California is largely the formation of the municipality. The city government's capabilities are limited by federal and state constitutions, as well as federal and state laws. Costa-Hawkins is a major state law enacted to manage the power of California cities to regulate their rental market.
Video Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act
Factors that led to 1970's lease control
The late 1970s saw the early enactment of many lease control regulations in California, and nationally. Increasing real estate values ​​and spike in interest rates make single-family homes in California less affordable. Disappointed buyers often move into apartments. Lack of rental housing appears, rental rates rise. For most non-residential reasons (eg, land use), the city began to limit the construction of new residential units. When prices rise for rental housing properties, return on investment and cash flows motivated new landlords with mortgages to raise rental rates. State-federal aid and low-income housing fell. Inflation is broad economic, but wages and salaries also fall. Consumer movement and securities Proposition 13 then encourages the activism of tenants in urban politics.
Issues involved in rent control are complex and interesting, with a variety of dimensions: personal, social, economic, political, legal. Often debates and discussions are at risk of provoking competition between exaggerated statements. Some supporters can call every pay raise "rent gouging" while some opponents say lease control leads to slums. "Various statements by the control fighter [could] be great." In the worse case, "the debate becomes a hollow extreme clash, and the result is an uninformed voter policy, a rash, and a divided society." In 'second generation rent control', the issues become more articulated, but are still debated.
Maps Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act
Costa-Hawkins Act of 1995
Political events leading to the Act
In 1972 Berkeley became the first Californian city to adopt post-war lease control rules. In 1976, Governor Jerry Brown, a Democrat, vetoed state law (AB 3788) which would precede local lease control laws. It has been supported by the main real estate group, California Housing Council (CHC). In response to the veto, the real estate industry succeeded in getting the initiative, Proposition 10, on the state ballot for 1980. However, the defeat was loud, 65% to 35%.
Meanwhile, in June 1978 Proposition 13 was approved two to one by a California voter. Before the election, Howard Jarvis, the leader of the 13 'Taxpayer Rebels, and also of the California Apartment Association, has suggested that landlords will lower the rent if Prop. 13 passes. Many voters are said to have thought that Article 13, by lowering the property tax of landowners, means lower rents. CHC, afraid of a tenant's reaction if the landlord fails to follow up, decides to oppose Prop. 13. Despite post-election efforts by Governor Brown and CHC, some landowners lowered their rental rates.
In California urban tenants suddenly felt their numbers, forming local groups, which quickly grew in intensity and strength. Tenant activists organize political agitation directed at state and municipal governments. The new governor 'tenant hotline' gets 12,000 calls a day. "In response to tenant pressures, lease strikes, and stable news coverage of lease increases and angry tenants, especially seniors, the Los Angeles City Council passed a six-month freeze in August 1978." By 1988, fourteen cities had adopted full lease control, and sixty-four cities hired controls for home car parks.
The power of the tenant group, however, finally began to disappear. But the CHC tried to control the 'preceding' control partly thwarted by Democrats, led by State Senator David Roberti, until the time limit forced him to retire in 1995. On the other hand, Democrat Jim Costa in the Assembly has managed to bring the 'preemption' bill to the real estate industry estate since 1983. He is now in the Senate, where his 1995 bill was approved by the Judiciary Committee; absent Roberti, it drew the Democratic vote. The bill then passed the Senate with one vote "more than the majority needed."
Act: sponsor and opposition
The Costa-Hawkins Housing Rental Law became law in 1995. The law was codified as the Civil Code, Ã,§ § 1954.50 until 1954.535. The sponsor of the law was Democratic Senator Jim Costa (Fresno) and Republican Rep. Republic of Phil Hawkins (Bellflower).
First introduced in the Senate, the text of the bill then became the Bill Assembly 1164. After experiencing some negotiable changes, it has passed in both rooms. Republican Governor Pete Wilson then signed AB 1164 into law.
Although understood as a limitation of lease control, the agenda is favored by Republicans, some Democrats support the Act. The pro-tenant Western Center on Law and Poverty (WCLP) has endorsed some features of the bill that serve the tenant's interests: a ban on rent increases "if serious health, safety, fire or building code violations are discovered and not corrected for six months, "and some claims by subtenants to lower the rent under existing leases.
The WCLP primarily seeks to organize opposition, to "collect coalitions" from dispersed local groups (tenants, senior citizens, affiliated religions), along with California cities with rent control. Therefore Santa Monica, Berkeley, and West Hollywood donated funds to hire lobbyists. The concession obtained is a 3-year phase of emptiness emptying. But the consensus of the DPR building is that Costa-Hawkins is a "deal done" and the opposition "last breath". With defeat and what they perceived as a setback of some tenant benefits, lease control advocates became uncomfortable facing the challenge of their victories in the 1970s and 1980s.
Terms of the Act as codified
The Costa-Hawkins Act was found in the California Civil Code, part 1954.50 to 1954.535.
The law frees single-family residence, and new construction. This prohibits "control of the gaps" of local authorities in many situations. For five cities with "void controls", this Act is done in stages. It puts a government contract with the owner about the rental fee, and the effect of a violation notification, for example, about health or safety. Costa-Hawkins also addressed subten- sion issues, and other issues.
Exceptions to rent control
The law prohibits the control of rent on single-family homes, condominiums, and in newly built rental units. Generally, 'new' means any building built after 1 February 1995 (per 1995 Costa-Hawkins Act). But for cities with existing rental controls, 'new' is a return-date per local leased ordinance control.
In those cities the date of ratification of lease control determines what is 'new'. Only rental units built prior to it will remain subject to city lease control. The one built after will remain excluded under the Costa-Hawkins. Therefore, in San Francisco only older construction from 1979 that can be rented, and older than 1980 in Oakland and Berkeley, the years the cities passed their lease control laws. In Los Angeles City, the date is October 1978.
These exceptions, however, usually leave most of the city's total rent under lease control. For example, in San Francisco, by 2014, about 75% of all rental units are under lease control.
The 2002 amendment to the Act
The law was amended in 2002 to close the gap associated with converting condominiums after the 1995 Act. The owners of apartment buildings can obtain new certificates of occupancy due to condo conversion without even selling a conversion unit. In such case, the leased unit is not exempt from rent control under the Act.
Rent control in California
Legal context
Destination declaration
Lease control is usually a city law (city law) that aims to mitigate adverse impacts on the environment and on individual tenants, inflated or fluctuating prices in the rental housing market. It may also seek to promote the maintenance of residential units that are safe and habitable during housing shortages.
Examples of the city's intentions are San Francisco's Residential Rent Stabilization and Arbitration Ordinance (SFRO), passed in 1979 as an emergency rule that amends the San Francisco Administrative Code. It was found that, in the face of tight markets and significant lease improvements prior to lease control, "some tenants tried to pay for the rent rents demanded, but as a consequence had to spend less for other living needs.This situation has a detrimental effect on a large number of tenants in Cities, especially creating difficulties in the elderly, people with fixed income and low- and middle-income households ".
Constitution limit
For the California State Assembly, analyst Stephen Holloway commented on the constitutional and legal context of lease control, particularly between state and local governments (eg, cities). When Costa-Hawkins came into effect, there was
California law is made "there is no legal provision for, but does not prohibit, the adoption of local rental control rules." Legal Case, Birkenfeld v. City of Berkeley (1976) 17 Cal. 3d 129, the proper exercise of the local government police force if it is calculated appropriately to eliminate excessive rent and at the same time provide landlords with a fair and reasonable return on their property. "
In the case of 1997 Kavanau, a rental property owner challenged Santa Rosa City's rental control law as a "take" or reverse inversion prohibited by the federal Constitution. The California Supreme Court confirmed the ruling by a lower state court in favor of the City. In the 2005 Berger Foundation case, the California Court of Appeal upheld a rule stipulating that the city council seated as a lease board will determine what is fair, fair and reasonable with regard to return on investment comparable to the owner.. The procedure does not specify a specific formula or procedure to apply when faced with the requested rent increase, but instead states eleven factors to consider. Here the board then relies on the opinion of an expert.
General terms
Rental amount
Its main provisions govern the dollar amount charged by the tenant every month. The political intentions of most lease control levels, usually sine qua non, direct the city's attention to ownership, and limit its ability to raise the rent.
Percentage. The maximum allowed price increase can be expressed as a percentage of the existing rental fee. For example, Alameda 5%, Hayward 5%, Los Angeles 3%, Los Gatos 5%. In 2016 San Jose reduces the annual allowable lease allowance from 8% to 5% of existing leases. In 2017 in Beverly Hills by emergency rule, the maximum rental rents fall from 10% to 3%.
CPI. Alternatively, the lease limit may be directly related to changes in living costs, as measured by the Consumer Price Index (CPI). Since 1980 in California, CPI is generally lower than 5%. Examples of rent control procedures use CPI as an index: Oakland, Mountain View, Richmond. In San Francisco, SFRO limits annual increases to less than 60% of the CPI or 7% of existing leases. Similarly, the Berkeley Rent Board allows an annual increase of 65% of the CPI.
Control of vacancy, where the amount of rent charged for the rental unit (not for rent) is strictly set by the local government, discussed below in "Control of Vacancy before the Law".
Other Elements
Any city or area with various 'rent controls' has its own laws that may differ significantly in scope and content. Among other issues the 'lease control' law might address:
- additional exceptions,
- hire a mediation board,
- the condition of the building,
- rental registries,
- only causes termination,
- relocation allowance,
- control of vacancies.
Only causes termination . Unauthorized (or un-mistaken) lease termination by the owner is one that does not state "fair cause" (such as not paying rent, or a tenant's inconvenience). A city may require some form of "only reason" to be noticed by the owner to end. But "it only causes" no eviction required under state law. Other justifications may be "fair cause", for example: (a) by government order; (B) to allow the owner's family to occupy the unit. Owners claim this law limits their ability to deal with tenant issues that upset their neighbors, for example, by disruption, domestic violence, criminal activity.
Relocation allowance . City regulations may require the owner to pay the tenant leaving as an allowance for movable and similar expenses, for example, in the event of a no-fault termination. Each city has its own specifications. Tenants will not receive such benefits in the event of a "cause only" termination, in which the tenant is guilty (such as not paying rent, or creating a nuisance). But the decision of the owner to terminate the existing tenant (by written notice, by court order of eviction) without the wrong tenant, may trigger the owner's duty to pay an allowance. The withdrawal of units from the rental housing market is governed by the Ellis Act.
Void control . Discussed below in "Control vacancy before Law".
Opposition to rent control
Economists generally find fault with how rent control works over time: reducing housing stock. In making an oppositional argument, such general principles have been applied to California.
The original lease control effort seeks to provide affordable housing for the community, but causes the fall of the number of new units under construction, thus exacerbating housing shortages. The next rental control law excludes new construction. But the regulation also eliminates incentives to improve, or even maintain, an older housing stock. This encourages owners to convert rent into condos for sale or to other uses. Lease control law provides short-term benefits without distinction: what is relief for low-income citizens, is the fortune for wealthy tenants. In residential units where city controls have set rental under the market, tenants stay longer, reducing the amount of rent available. Then, the market rent price charged to the new tenant becomes higher: (a) because the owners offset their lease-control losses, or (b) as the builder of the new unit price of market demand versus supply. In short, rent control reduces the supply of housing.
The economic conclusion is subject to interpretation by the public. Lease controls that lower the rental rates for some people can be translated into higher rent for others. Whether it is considered 'good for society' if the total amount of benefits to those who benefit from a lower lease through rent control is canceled by the unwanted influence of the program from raising the rent to others. In other words, if the main effect is simply to unfairly distribute rent costs rather than reduce them entirely. Are there any other alternatives? The authors of the 'Stanford paper' state recently, "If people want to provide social insurance against rent increases, it would be more desirable to offer these subsidies in the form of government subsidies or tax credits."
List of California cities
Over the past fifty years, out of a total of 482 cities in California, maybe two dozen have enforced lease control regulations, or lower laws. A city can then stop its lease control, for example, Santa Rosa opts to revoke the new lease control law in 2017.
With rental control rules
Fifteen cities are currently listed as rents controlled by the State of California: However these three cities are not listed here, but further below: Campbell (has no rental control per se , but offers services mediation), Fremont (rejected rental control in 2017), and Thousand Oaks (has limited rental control: mostly just for car home parks).
Dua belas sisanya: Berkeley, Beverly Hills, East Palo Alto, Hayward, Los Angeles, Los Gatos, Oakland, Palm Springs, San Francisco, San Jose, Santa Monica, West Hollywood.
In addition, the three cities not listed above have rental controls: Alameda, Mountain View, Richmond. The current total is fifteen.
With limited rental control
Two examples of many cities with rental controls just for home car parks: Cotati, Thousand Oaks.
With non-rental element
Some cities have rental housing laws that do not control the amount of rent per se. Thus, these six people have mediation services: Campbell, Fremont, Gardena, Palo Alto, San Leandro, Union City. The different definition of whether this is even considered a "rent control". As mentioned above, Palo Alto declares that he has leased control without , but he offers mediation for rent increases. On the other hand, Fremont lists as three of the six goals for its mediation service: "Limit rent increases to fair and reasonable amounts."
Glendale rules prohibit evictions for no reason. But, like Palo Alto, Glendale refused 'rent control'. Almost all of the contracted cities also prohibit evictions for no reason. Among California cities that do not control the amount of rent, but prohibit unannounced expulsion: Glendale, San Diego, Union City.
Who declined rental control
In recent years, these cities have opted to revoke the rules of lease control, or decide against lease control: Fremont (2017), Glendale (2013), Palo Alto (2017), Santa Rosa (2017).
Of the non-leased elements (mediation and only cause evictions), depending on the definition, these cities can be added here (for those who refuse to actually control the amount of rent): Campbell, Gardena, San Leandro, and Union City.
During the years from 1977 to 1983, "voters from 22 cities [rejected] 27 proposed lease control initiatives." Among the cities that subsequently avoided lease control: Pasadena (1977), Santa Barbara (1978), Santa Cruz (1979), Long Beach (1980), San Diego (1980).
Initial Effects of Costa-Hawkins
The main objectives of this Act are: to eliminate void control and thereby rebuild the intermittent role for market forces (supply and demand) in setting rental rates; and, to exclude certain categories of rental units from rental controls, for example, new construction, and single-family homes and condominiums. The release for new units seeks to boost housing supply.
Empty Control before Act
Most rental control regulations (considered moderate ) limit the ability of owners to raise rent to existing tenants . But some rigorous control regimes also restrict rent that can be borne by the owner of the building on the open market, ie after the apartment becomes vacant due to voluntary exit from previous tenants, or empty due to fair expulsion.. Therefore, strict is also called void control . Accordingly, the controlled lease amount becomes specific not only for certain leases, but also for certain rental units.
Under such "strict" regimes, market forces are excluded from pricing (except for excluded categories, such as newly built units). Prior to the introduction of the Costa-Hawkins, strict emptiness controls existed in five cities: Berkeley, Santa Monica, Cotati, East Palo Alto and West Hollywood.
Hides the rejected control element to city
The Costa-Hawkins precedes local laws to permit 'a vacuum of indecency', that is, to permit landowners to "set an initial rental rate for residence or unit" after a voluntary departure by a previous tenant. This preemption (removal of "void control") is done gradually over three years. Thus, on January 1, 1999, it is in full force.
The law is also exempted from the control of city rent for certain types of shelter units, ie, "separate movable units", single-family homes and condominiums. The law also excludes new construction, that is, residential units with occupancy certificates issued after 1 February 1995.
Hire a control element kept by city
The power to determine most of the lease control elements (mentioned above) is left to the cities by law. Cities remain in control of changes in the amount of rent from the lease, below the constitutional limit. Cities have substantive jurisdiction to regulate expulsion, and the owner's ability to terminate lending. Therefore, cities may prohibit owners to terminate tenants without "cause". Also in termination, the city according to the regulations may place a fee on the owner, and grant the tenant the right, for example, relocation allowance.
Each California city may independently adopt and enforce its own rent control rules. Those that apply range across the spectrum. Countries in California may also enforce leasehold control laws, in accordance with state law.
Interpretation of the court on Costa-Hawkins
In the two decades the Act has been in the books, a number of lawsuits have been filed quoting it. Of those appealing, some became the written law of the case. The 2009 Palmer case of 'sudden' angry local law for the inclusive zoning of each rental unit. Several other cases are also discussed here. There are still questions about how to apply the Costa-Hawkins law within a larger legal framework, for example, the possible interaction with various adjacent state laws, and with various urban lease controls and other ordinances.
Palmer (2009): rentals in inclusive housing range>
Restrictions on' new construction 'apply
In Palmer/Sixth Street Properties LP v. City of Los Angeles (2009), this issue involves how to apply the Costa-Hawkins to an inclusive housing regime in the City of Los Angeles. The inclusive housing legislation (also called inclusive zonation) applies to new multi-unit development and seeks to mandate including some affordable units with price controls, along with a large number of units to be sold on the free market. About one-third of cities and counties in California have an inclusive zoning system. The law may require, in addition to units that are affordable for sale, units for rent. In this case, the Los Angeles housing rule basically mandates that sixty rent for low-income tenants is included in the development of the Geoff Palmer 350 unit in the west of the city center.
However the appellate court stated that the exemption from control of new construction leases under Costa-Hawkins applied to the specific facts of the case. Thus the city can not uphold its housing mandate against real estate developers.
2013 attempts to partially revoke the Act
The Palmer case thus removed the lease from the usual formula of inclusive housing. Critics claim, however, that the opinion of the appeals court is "widely seen as an incorrect application of the Costa-Hawkins Act to situations that were never intended to be addressed." This triggered a political response in 2013. California's legislature passed the Bill Assembly 1229 "to rebuild the legitimacy of affordable housing requirements for rentals."
veto Governor Brown
In October 2013, Governor Jerry Brown vetoed the bill. He explained:
"As the Mayor of Oakland, I see how difficult it is to attract developments to low- and middle-income communities.The requirement for developers to include under-market units in their projects can exacerbate this challenge, even if it does not substantially increase the amount of housing affordable in certain communities. "
Proponents of affordable housing feel inhibited. But then available is an alternative that avoids exceptions to new construction under Costa-Hawkins: "builders receive financial aid" or other valuable considerations such as density bonuses, and "agree with contracts with cities to restrict rent."
Residential certificate: Burien LLC v. Wiley
In 2014 the California Court of Appeals clarified the law provisions on lease-control exclusions based on "occupancy certificates issued after 1 February 1995." The provisions are held to apply only to residential certificates that precede the use of unit housing.
In Burien, LCC v. James A. Wiley Landlord argues that this Costa-Hawkins acquisition applies to buildings converted from apartments to condominiums (both used for housing), when new certificates are issued for the latter. The court reasoned that the purpose of the legislation was to promote the construction and development that increased the supply of rental housing, not to promote the reclassification of tokens without such results. "We conclude that section 1954.52, subdivision (a) (1), refers to the occupancy certificate issued before the use of housing of the unit." Mosser rule: child per' void control '
In January 2015, the First District Court of Appeals ruled that, while Costa-Hawkins permitted the building owner to set new rental rates in which "original inhabitants" on the lease no longer reside in location permanently, this mastery is not available to the owner of the place where a small child, who moved with his parents at the commencement of the lease, remained there after they emptied. In Company Mosser v. San Francisco Rent Stabilization and Arbitration Board , the appeals court affirmed the trial court's decision. Commentary on the case stated that Costa-Hawkins, "as it is written, does not allow vacuum control until all legitimate residents vacate the venue." This, regardless of the landlord's argument that this is an intergenerational lease of a rent-controlled building.
The Mosser rule was then expanded in July 2015 by the First District Court of Appeals, at T & amp; A Drolapas v. San Francisco Residential Rent Stabilization and Arb. Bd. . This decision relates to similar facts (a landowner who seeks to raise the rent of the original tenant's relative who has moved). The court first discovered that, since the family had moved before the implementation of the Costa-Hawkins, even if his son was just a subtenant, he would be a grandfather in . Such "subtenants" can be "original inhabitants". The court, however, goes on to discover that he is also an original resident under the Mosser rule, though, unlike in Mosser , there is no evidence that the owner knew about his son when the lease period started.
"Just cause" notifications and "void control"
In the case of September 2015 Jason Mak v. City of Berkeley Rent Stabilization Board, the First District Court of Appeals interprets Costa-Hawkins in the context of a presumption of evidence in the Berkeley lease rules which considers that, where the tenant has moved after notice of termination, the tenant moves because of the notice. One accepted way for a landlord to own a leased unit is to use the expulsion of "owner transfer", which is recognized as "merely a reason" to terminate the lease. Of course, landlords are then asked to move and make their rental units for a few minimum periods (eg, 36 months continuously). In this case, the Costa-Hawkins Act will subsequently control the unit, that is, allowing it to be rented at market prices. Such control is limited to "only cause" termination, or where the previous tenants freely decide to move. The owner can not, therefore, without "only cause" to initiate the termination of the lease, then lease it at the market level to the new tenant.
The landowner at Mak serves the tenant notice of termination for 'owners moving in and out'. But the landlord canceled the notice, then signed the move agreement with the tenant, where the tenant stated that he did not move because of prior notice. The owner did not move, of course, but instead rented the place to a new tenant. The questioned Berkeley procedure, when applied to these facts, raises the notion that the tenant moved out because the owner moved. Landlords can not afford to deny this assumption when their new tenant challenges the validity of their market rental rates. Therefore, the blank units are still related to the amount of the previously controlled rent, the situation in which the new tenant is entitled.
Current events in California
Lack of affordable, & amp; HAA
The housing cycle that began with the crisis of the 1970s and 1980s seems to have reached a full circle. The housing shortage has been repeated and seems to reach crisis stage (See: California housing shortage). In a 2014 California treatise on real estate development, the authors argue:
"[C] communities in California continue to face the challenges posed by the scarcity of housing, especially affordable housing.In recent decades, residential production in the state has lagged behind population and job growth, resulting in a housing deficit.. While all citizens feel the impact of this housing shortage at some level, those who earn on the lowest end of the economic spectrum often bear the brunt of deficiency. "
Regarding the shortage in California, the Housing Accountability Act (HAA) was recently reinforced by the amendment. The 2016 version states: "(a) the legislature discovers and states all of the following: Ã,   (1) Lack of housing, including emergency shelter, is an important issue that threatens the economic, environmental, and social quality of life in California Ã, ¶ (2) California housing has become the most expensive in this country.... ".
Here the legislature aims to address the shortfall by increasing the supply of housing. HAA imposes detailed limits on city power to limit new housing development. The recent HAA amendment, signed by Governor Brown, was sponsored by three Democrats: Nancy Skinner, Senate - East Bay, Raul Bocanegra, Assembly - Pacoima, and Tom Daly, Assembly - Santa Ana. But it is said that HAA and similar bills introduced later will not be enough.
The current attempt to deprive Costa-Hawkins
On February 17, 2017, in the Assembly of California, Democrat Richard Bloom, Rob Bonta, and David Chiu introduced AB 1506, a bill which, if ratified, would only revoke the wholesale of the Costa-Hawkins Rent Housing Act of 1995. Given the disappointment and exclusion of Costa-Hawkins, the revocation will allow local governments to be free to control many housing rental pricing rules, their scope, and similar issues. In April, the bill faced strong opposition and bleak prospects in the legislature. It was "parked on committee" until next year.
On January 11, 2018, the chairman of Chiu (San Francisco) of the Housing and Community Development Committee of the Board placed the bill on Bloom to vote. Failed to escape. Both Republicans are opposed. Democrat Ed Chau (Arcadia) and Jim Wood (Healdsburg) abstained. Apparently the thinking is that housing shortages across the country give legislative priorities to improve new housing development. Perhaps a thousand supporters representing opposing parties attend the ballot.
Meanwhile, on October 23, 2017, the Californians for Community Empowerment Alliance (ACCE) filed a paper with the state Attorney General for a voting measure that would repeal the 1995 Costa-Hawkins Act wholesale. ACCE calls the current rental rates throughout California too high, and out of control. The proposed initiative has not received an official name or a descriptive summary. To qualify for the November 2018 election by the public, 365,880 signatures are said to be necessary.
Proponents announced in late April that they have enough signatures to qualify for the initiative to deprive Costa Hawkins. Its proponents named their initiative "The Roots of Affordable Housing".
Bibliography
- W. Dennis Keating, Rental Controls in California. Responding to Crisis (Institute of Government Studies, University of California, Berkeley 1983), 24 pages. Retrieved 2017-10-17.
- Allan David Heskin, American Charter and Dream. Ideology and the movement of tenants (New York: Paeger 1983), return Santa Monica.
- Paul L. Niebanck, editor, The Rent Control Debate (University of North Carolina 1985), his editor is UCSC professor.
- Peter Dreier, "Lease Deregulation in California and Massachusetts: Politics, Policy, and Impact - Part I" (1997), "Part II" (1997), at the Center for International and Public Policy, Occidental College, Los Angeles. Accessed 2017-11-6.
- Cecily Talbert Barclay & amp; Matthew S. Gray, California Land Acquisition and Planning Law Curtin (Point Arena: Solano Press 34th ed., 2014).
- California Jurisprudence 3d West , v. 42: Land Owner & amp; Tenants (Toronto: Thomson & Reuters 2016, update 2017).
- David Brown, Janet Portman, Nils Rosenquest, The California Landlord's Law Book (Berkeley: Nolo Press 2017).
- Nancy C. Lenvin & amp; Myron Moskovitz, "Practicing under the Rental and Expulsion Control Act," Chapter 7 in the Practice of Landlord-Renters of California (Oakland: California Continuing Education from the Bar: updated 2017).
References
External links
- Dailycal.org
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments