Talk:Costa–Hawkins Rental Housing Act

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jam019. Peer reviewers: Jam019.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:32, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

"Factors causing 1970s rent control" section is subjective

"The issues involved in rent control are complex and compelling, with multiple dimensions: personal, social, economic, political, legal. Often debates and discussions are at risk of provoking a competition between overstatements. Some proponents may call every raise "rent gouging" while some opponents say rent control leads to slums. "The range of assertions by rent control combatants [can be] astonishing." In the worse case, the "debate becomes a hollow clash of extremes, and the results are an uninformed electorate, rash policy, and a divided community." In 'second generation rent control' the issues have become more articulated, yet still contested.[16][17]"

From whom are these quotes? This needs to be removed or replaced with direct language. MaxGhenis (talk) 15:24, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

This article is possibly too technical and seems to contain original research

I found this article in the "needs wikilinks" backlog. I've gone through and added many wikilinks and done a pass for typos and WP:MOS formatting, but having done so I'm now of the opinion that this article contains just a bit too much legalese for the layperson. It definitely contains too much for me. I'm going to remove the Unlinked tag and replace it with a Technical tag. In addition, the Interpretation of Costa-Hawkins subsection exclusively cites one source (a law firm's blog) and strikes me as original research, though my lack of familiarity with the subject matter keeps me from being 100% on that. I'm going to tag that section as OR and try to find a Real Estate Law wikiproject to flag this up to. A Train^talk 21:09, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Follow-up: I brought this to the attention of WikiProject Law. A Train^talk 21:18, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Tags: After adding an additional source for each point discussed, deleted the OR tag. The text as is could use additional editing, but is more or less substantiated by the new links. Rewrote/edited the more technical discussions, with the aim of increasing its accessibility to the non-specialist. The subject has many layers. Did not yet delete the tech tag. Elfelix (talk) 00:23, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Tech tag: Since August the page has been substantially rewritten and has grown by a factor of five. Although by its nature a technical subject, in the present text steps have been taken to explain the issues and discuss the terms used. In addition, many of the legal points are footnoted to recent articles in newspapers which are addressed to the general public, and to city websites. Hence, this notice is posted about removing the tech tag next month, pending replies. Elfelix (talk) 00:56, 14 November 2017 (UTC) Elfelix (talk) 02:27, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Too Technical, Needs New Dimension

I agree, this page is too technical for someone who does not understand the legal and urban planning terminology of this act, a more detail description or reference may help. Including a section of the pros/cons for rent control with proper data can add a new dimension to the direct effects of the Costa Hawkins Act. Jam019 (talk) 04:22, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I also agree that this article may be too technical for people who are not familiar with urban planning terminology or legal and political jargon. I think at some points the article spends a lot of time defining key terms such "vacancy control" or "vacancy decontrol," but doesn't necessarily provide a citation for these definitions or links to other articles about these key terms. Kmcorpuz (talk) 05:32, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Initiative to Repeal The Costa Hawkins Act

One issue related to rent control is the accessibility for low income families to live in a rental unit and affordable housing. There has been measures presented at the local level to mitigate the effects of the Costa Hawkins Act like Los Angeles' Measure JJJ and S. Including a section of local initiatives from major cities in the country can bring attention to the issue of affordable housing and rent control. Jam019 (talk) 05:52, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Economic Implication

With housing costs skyrocketing, presenting some form of data on the economic implication of the Act after the housing shortage and the Great Recession for the state's growing population can help explain the movement to repeal the Costa Hawkins Act. Jam019 (talk) 06:40, 9 November 2017 (UTC)kjk

Intro should not confuse

The article intro should not confuse the reader. It should not lead her to expect an article that is confusing and difficult to understand.

This following applies to the recent revert of my recent edit which fixed these issues.

The inserted paragraph broke the logic flow of the intro. It left an issue dangling. It was confusing.

The insertion's specific details apply to only a small fraction of the units covered by the Act. Yet the claim is that these are the most important details. On what basis?

Please understand that because I wrote this article, my insight about it is quite developed. Elfelix (talk) 21:14, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

@Elfelix As I stated when I reverted your edit (which reverted MY edits, even though you didn't label it as a revert, which you again reverted, now giving you two reverts) most people only read the lead paragraph of an article:

WP:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section

The average Wikipedia visit is a few minutes.[1] The lead is the first part of the article that most people will read.

A good lead tells the reader the basics in a nutshell,...

I added that paragraph because the point of Wikipedia is not to have a bunch of pretty articles which read nicely but have little substance, but to be a repository of knowledge for people to easily and quickly get answers to questions they have.

Here's the question that was NOT answered by the lead as it stood, and why I inserted the paragraph I did:

Someone would learn about rent control in CA: "Rent control is illegal in CA by Costa-Hawkins....but wait, some cities have rent control.....what the heck? how can this be? WHICH UNITS CAN BE RENT CONTROLLED?"

To attempt to give a concise answer to this question is why I added that paragraph.

I'd like to note that this article exists as the redirect from Rent control in California.

While I get that you have good understanding of this law, I also have a good understanding of this field, since I wrote the California housing shortage article, and would like to note that in EVERY news article I read about rent control in CA, they include a section which specifically states which units/buildings are subject to rent control and which are not. See my references and quotes for the articles I used to see that.

I think an article about rent control in CA which LACKS this information in the section most commonly read and easily found in the article makes for a less informative and therefore lower quality article.

Avatar317 (talk) 22:14, 1 May 2018 (UTC)Avatar317

RC in Calif.

The lead as it stands makes clear the interplay between state and city over rent control. My chief problem with adding the narrow details in the lead was that it confused this major issue. There are city rent control ordinances, and there is the state Costa-Hawkins act which attempts to orchestrate the legal framework.

There are many articles on RC in California now, as you mention. Wikipedia should differ from a newspaper account by presenting an easily understood, orderly, in-depth and detailed article that can inform a person interested in this issue. But even interested readers want an article that's easy to follow. True, some are not interested in details. They may glance at the article and quickly move on. Such a quick glance should include the table of contents. If its the specific details they want, that's where they should go to navigate the article.

Thank you for your contributions. Elfelix (talk) 22:38, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I think the lead as it stands now (withOUT my added paragraph) flows poorly....just read it: here's the introductory paragraph of the lead:

"...Costa–Hawkins preempts the field in two major ways.[1] First, it prohibits cities from establishing rent control over certain kinds of residential units, e.g., single family dwellings and condominiums, and newly constructed apartment units; these are deemed exempt. Second, it prohibits municipal "vacancy control", also called "strict" rent control."

You then go on to have an entire paragraph devoted to the SECOND way it preemts the field, withOUT talking about the FIRST way.

You call that good flow of an introduction? Why is there such detail given to explain the vacancy control aspect whilst ignoring the first "major way" the law preempts the field--which buildings non-strict rent control can apply to?

I'm ok with ALSO having the paragraph I added be in the "Exemptions to rent control" area where you put it, and with shortening it in the lead so it doesn't repeat some of what is stated in the first paragraph of the lead, but I think when you devote an entire paragraph to explaining vacancy control, that the same should be done for the first "major" part of the act.

Avatar317 (talk) 23:11, 2 May 2018 (UTC)Avatar317

Response: the fine points

1. Most people know homes, condos, and new building. Some of the 'new' category, however, is tricky. A fraction depends on the date of a city's prior rent control. You've got a point, so I'll add a footnote that refers to the paragraph you wrote.

2. Few know the strangely named "vacancy control". It's not zen. A better name might be permanent price control, but it's already become known as "vacancy control". This key concept is easily misunderstood.

3. Every rental unit across the board would be subject to "vacancy control", if in force, but only a much smaller number of rental units to the "new construction" exemption.

4. This article is not about general points of constitutional law. Not only, your claim that the power of states and cities "derive" from the constitution is incorrect. As you know, American states and cities pre-existed the federal constitution.

5. What distinction are you trying to make between cities and municipalities?

6. Only one of three categories of what you call the "major way" applies to new buildings (see 1 above).

I did add a footnote while also reverting. In my ten plus years at Wikipedia, I've rarely reverted. In fact, it took me some time to discover when the footnote happened, as the Wikipedia algorithms did not pick it up and properly highlight it. It was thus effectively camouflaged, which was neither my intention nor my doing. Elfelix (talk) 02:29, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Firstly, thank you for adding the info about LA's rent control date.

1) I agree with your OPINION that "Most people know homes, condos, "

I am of the OPINION that most Wikipedia readers do NOT read the footnotes, and I would like to see the explanation (that you put in the footnote) in a sentence in the lead, so that it is more easily findable in the article.

How about this (or something similar) for the middle two paragraphs of the lead? See bottom of this post.

2) I agree with your OPINION here that: "Few know the strangely named "vacancy control".

3) That is not true, it just happens to be how the law was created...it could have had a date on the "strict rent control" portion as well (like new contruction), but didn't, it blocked ALL strict rent control and made cities phase it out.

4) You are right, that is a minor point, which I may be wrong about, so I won't argue that point. (Thank you for adding the footnote including the link to Dillon's Rule.)

5) Santa Clara County (Bay Area) is in the process of having public hearings on whether it should institute rent control in its un-incorporated areas....I guess my only point was that it is not ONLY cities that may institute rent control; but since municipalities are mentioned in the article, and it is such a small point we can ignore it.

6) You are correct here.

[Cut-and-paste of the lead with my suggested additions/changes in bold.]

The Costa–Hawkins Rental Housing Act ("Costa–Hawkins") is a California state law, enacted in 1995, which places limits on municipal rent control ordinances. Costa–Hawkins preempts the field in two major ways.[1] First, it prohibits cities from establishing rent control over certain types of rental units.[2] Second, it prohibits municipal "vacancy control", also called "strict" rent control.

The act prohibits rent control on single family homes, condominiums, and any building constructed after 1995 (the date of passage of the act). In addition, for cities with existing rent control, their rent control ordinances are limited to anything constructed before they passed their rent control law. For example, this means that in San Francisco, only buildings older than 1979 can be rent controlled.

"Vacancy control" is the term used to describe rent control laws which disallow increases to market rate between tenancies. Costa–Hawkins, by now prohibiting "vacancy control", mandates that cities allow an apartment owner the right to rent it when vacant at any price (usually the market price).

Rent control in California is largely the creation of its municipalities. This ability of city governments are limited by the federal and state constitutions, as well as federal and state laws.[5] Costa–Hawkins is a key state statute enacted to manage the power of California cities to regulate their rental markets.[6][7]

Avatar317 (talk) 05:40, 10 May 2018 (UTC)Avatar317

Additional comments:

I'd like to make a point that the amount of units under rent control today is not trivial: S.F is a very important market in these discussions, often talked about as the "epicenter" of the housing issues in CA. In S.F., 46% of the housing stock, (not RENTAL units, but ALL housing stock) is rent controlled. 75% of the rental units are under RC. To me, this is in no way a minor point.

"1) First off, understand the math of the region. San Francisco has a roughly thirty-five percent homeownership rate. Then 172,000 units of the city’s 376,940 housing units are under rent control. (That’s about 75 percent of the city’s rental stock.)"

https://techcrunch.com/2014/04/14/sf-housing/

Avatar317 (talk) 20:40, 10 May 2018 (UTC)Avatar317

Invitation to US Housing Edit-a-thon

Please join us on 13 December 2020, 12:00-14:00 EST, as we update and improve articles in Wikipedia related to housing in the United States of America. Sign up here. -- M2545 (talk) 09:19, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Policy Analysis

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 March 2022 and 30 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kmcorpuz (article contribs).

Organization and structure is distracting, some sections are excessive

I found that this article has a very distracting organization and structure that makes the presentation of information on the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act ineffective and subjective. For example, the subsection titled "List of California cities" discusses different levels of rent control across cities in California, but it doesn't seem directly relevant to the article topic and is organized ineffectively by listing cities in a way that is distracting to readers.

This article also tries to cover a great range of content, but it seems a bit excessive. This may be because rent control is mainly at the discretion of individual municipalities, and the article attempts to cover various different municipalities rather than discussing in the context of the state of California.Kmcorpuz (talk) 05:25, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Relies too much on quotations

Some parts of this article rely too heavily on direct quotations, using entire passages to convey information, rather than providing an objective summary of what was said in the cited sources. For example, in "2017 study of San Francisco housing market," there are two instances where direct passages from a cited source are used in the place of original and neutral content. This can also be seen in the section titled "Shortage of affordable housing, & HAA." Kmcorpuz (talk) 05:48, 26 April 2022 (UTC)