http://pleasantonweekly.com/square/print/index.php?i=3&d=1&t=526


Town Square

PLEASE VOTE "NO" ON "PROPOSITION 98" & "YES" ON PROP. 99"

Original post made by Walter, Vineyard Hills, on May 3, 2008

PLEASE MAKE SURE THAT YOU VOTE IN THE "DIRECT PRIMARY

This story contains 419 words.

If you are a paid subscriber, check to make sure you have logged in. Otherwise our system cannot recognize you as having full free access to our site.

If you are a paid print subscriber and haven't yet set up an online account, click here to get your online account activated.

Comments

Like this comment
Posted by Joshua
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 4, 2008 at 10:00 am

I definitely agree. Its the same old tune. the rich get richer and the poor get F***! It not just for those who are seniors, think about all the families with children who get removed from their homes because they can't afford their high mortgages, where do they go? They work hard, but just can't make it and those poor kids, what happens to them. We will have more homeless, and that is not something pleasanton wants to see.


Like this comment
Posted by Sondra
a resident of California Somerset
on May 4, 2008 at 8:24 pm

I heard that this also affects rentals...ie apartments and condo's...am I correct?


Like this comment
Posted by WALTER A. JOHNSON
a resident of Vineyard Avenue
on May 7, 2008 at 1:39 am

YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT!! IF MISLEADING PROPOSITION 98 PASS'ES, PLEASANTON CITY, OR FOR THAT MANNER, CALIFORNIA MUNICIPALITIES IN GENERAL WILL LOSE ALL LEGAL METHODS TO ASSIST IN SETTING RENTAL GUIDELINES LIMITS FOR APARTMENTS, CONDO'S, MANUFACTURED/MOBILE HOME PARKS, ETC. LANDLORDS WILL THEN HAVE A FREE HAND TO CHARGE UNREASONABLE HIGH RENTS WITH NO GOVERNMENT CONTROLS WHEN RENTAL UNITSS BECOME SCARCE. OR IN THE CASE OF SENIOR MANUFACTURED/MOBILE HOME PARKS, WHERE I RESIDE, ALL THE HOMES ARE OWNED BY THE RESIDENTS & ARE ACTUALLY NOT MOBILE, THE RENT IS CHARGED BY THE PARK OWNERS FOR THE LAND THE HOME REST ON & THE RESIDENT HOME OWNERS ARE AT THE MERCY OF THE PARK OWNERS TO CHARGE FAIR LAND RENTS & HAVE THE CITIES THERE TO BACK THEM UP & FAIRLY MONITOR THE NEGOTIATING PROCESS.


Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on May 7, 2008 at 10:55 am

No on both. They are both bad laws.

Prop 99 adds this amendment to the State Constitution:
"Owner-occupied residence" means real property that is improved with a single-family residence such as a detached home, condominium, or townhouse and that is the owner or owners' principal place of residence for at least one year prior to the State or local government's initial written offer to purchase the property.

So what? If you haven't owned your home a full year before the government sends an offer you aren't protected?


Like this comment
Posted by Shelley
a resident of Downtown
on May 7, 2008 at 4:07 pm

Another consideration to make is that people who lose their homes because of the sub-prime mortgage crisis, they are most likely entering the rental market. So the rental market will get hot and landlords will see an opportunity to raise rents and it will be even harder for the people who end up losing their home... and for the people who never had a home and are just renting. Removing government regulation isn't necessarily good.