Rent Control

I'm writing this from my yacht in the Monte Carlo harbor. I've got to hurry because a bevy of bikini-clad beauties are waiting to play. Oh darn, after spilling caviar on my keyboard, I just spilled champagne all over it. Hey, captain, have the crew come dump this non-champagne proof computer overboard and install my new self-leveling, supercalifragilistic, 7000 gigahertz computer. Tell them to make it snappy because I'm in a hurry. I'm really upset because Ken Carlson has found out about my "lavish lifestyle" ("Those who oppose renters' concerns may soon regret it," April 4)

I just can't believe Roberta Gutierrez. Every letter she writes is so full of hate and spite toward landlords and other readers. Obviously, she stands to lose a great deal if this rent-control measure fails. She must have once been paying really low rent. I have my own views on some of the propaganda she has been pouring out. First of all, she should really learn to discern the difference between monopolistic or oligopolistic commodities like power and gasoline.

After reading many articles and letters to the editor on the subject of rent control for Glendale, I'd like to add a few thoughts to the discussion. There are alternatives to rent control that can help ease the housing shortage. To help with the supply of affordable housing, the city should consider modifying zoning to allow or encourage "granny units" on single-family home lots. There was an article in the L.A. Times on June 1 recommending that for Los Angeles.

I recently read with interest Ms. Gutierrez's and Mr. Carlson's articles on rent control. I think they miss some key points. Ms. Gutierrez states that if a gasoline company charges $11.99 per gallon in Los Angeles, people will have to pay it because we need gas. I can assure you that if a gasoline company charges $11.99 per gallon and everybody else charges $1.50, that gas company will soon be out of business. That is the whole premise. There is housing in Glendale, and landlords are competing for tenants.

Editor's note: The following is the text of the rent-control proposal by the Glendale Tenant Assn. and local rent-control advocates. It will appear in the News-Press in two parts, today and Thursday, as it is too lengthy to be published on this page all at once. Rent Control Charter Amendment Article XXVII I. Purpose The purpose of Rent Control is to stop the unwarranted rent increases and unjust evictions which adversely affect the residents and merchants in our community, divert income from local businesses, significantly worsen inflation, hinder home ownership, impose severe hardship on seniors and the disabled, and upset the education of our children.

I read a recent letter from Ken Carlson, published April 28, claiming that there are no alternatives to rent control, and that rent control would be the best alternative for Glendale. Yet he provides no statistical facts and is outright deceptive in his statements. First, both the Glendale Apartment Assn. and the Rental Housing Crisis Forum have submitted far more innovative and complementary proposals already. Just because he refused to acknowledge those proposals does not mean they do not exist, and in both cases are probably more viable alternatives to the current proposal submitted by his group.

The letter from Ms. Parker about East Palo Alto's rent control was so suspicious, it deserved investigation. First of all, Ms. Parker is no longer a tenant (though her letter suggests that she is), but was able to purchase a home thanks to her rent savings in East Palo Alto. Realtors take note: This is a new customer you would not have had without rent control. It is still curious why Realtors would be against rent control, unless they don't want any more business or don't want house prices to go up. Second, the neighborhood deterioration she attributes to rent control has already happened in Glendale, without any rent control to blame.

Rent control goes against our free economy system The rent-control guru, Mr. Ken Carlson, is at it again. The crescendo of desultory arguments goes on and on, all in the best tradition of his profession. Just a few gems, i.e. quotes from his May 14 diatribe: "To return the vacancy rate to the equilibrium level in Glendale, we would need to build tens of thousands of apartments." Why would we in Glendale have to "be satisfying the regional housing need?"

Re "Rent control decided by homeowners," by Aram Barsoumian: Amusing, although condescending and a little naive, in that Mr. Barsoumian assumes Glendale's homeowners are as ignorant as he self-admits to concerning economics, stating that, "I, like all homeowners, have no pecuniary interest in this rent-control issue," and that, "the 31% of homeowners will likely determine the outcome of the vote on the initiative on...

Rent control is a problem for the community, the city, renters and owners. Most owners raise rents for utilities to keep the grounds of the building lighter and safe, for gas and water to maintain the livable qualities, for insurance to protect the investment and for capital to rehab and restore the building so tenants have a respectable home. The city benefits as a desirable place not only to live in but to bring in businesses that pay taxes and keep the city running with a budget that ensures all a high-quality life.