The City of Sacramento will implement rent control in limited circumstances in an effort to get supporters to pull a more far reaching rent control ballot measure that was scheduled to go for a vote next March. To implement this new scheme of government intrusion, of course a new tax is required to be paid by property owners who no doubt will raise tenant rents as a result. The stories that I read in the media are silent on whether all rental property owners get to subsidize this program or only the ones covered by rent control—this being California you shouldn’t make assumptions on such matters.
The Sacramento City Council is expected to approve a local rent control measure Tuesday in a compromise between city officials, labor unions and developers. The agreement – which will cap rent increases for older housing – will avoid what likely would have been a bitter, multi-million dollar political campaign next year.
In its new form, the Sacramento Tenant Protection and Relief Act, which the council will consider at its 2 p.m. meeting Tuesday, will create a set of renter protections for tenants who live in housing built prior to Feb. 1, 1995. The ordinance will cap the amount that landlords can increase rent each year; prohibit landlords from evicting tenants without a reason; and create a process where tenants can report landlords who violate the act.
The proposal is a compromise that’s the result of months of talks between city officials and advocates who gathered signatures to put a stricter rent control measure on the local ballot in 2020, said Councilman Steve Hansen, who led the negotiations.
Create reporting system so city can help tenants fight property owners
For some reason, this law will only apply to housing built before 1995…at least for the first five years then the City Council will review the ordinance for further modification.
Rent Cap
The ordinance will prohibit landlords from raising rent more than 6 percent plus the “consumer price index” percentage for the West Region per year.
Landlords will never be able to increase rent more than 10 percent, even if the CPI ever exceeds 4 percent, the ordinance says.
Eviction
The ordinance will also prohibit landlords from evicting tenants, unless tenants stop paying rent, are criminally charged, are illegally selling drugs, fail to give landlords access to the unit, or otherwise violate their leases.
The ordinance will bar landlords from evicting tenants for no reason, and require they give tenants an option to renew their lease, Hansen said
Landlords will still be able to evict tenants if they are making certain repairs or selling the unit, under certain circumstances, but will have to show proof, and will need to give the tenants an extensive 120-day notice.
The act will cover tenants who signed leases that are month-to-month or longer, those who live in apartments, mobile home parks and single room occupancy hotels, Hansen said. The act cannot legally apply to tenants renting single-family homes, though, unless they have been converted in to multiple units, such as duplexes.
New City Bureaucracy
The ordinance will require property owners to pay a fee, likely between $15 and $20 per unit per year, Hansen said. The fees will go toward running the program, enforcement, and tenant/landlord education.
Landlords will be able to apply to impose higher rent increases in front of city hearing officers, but only if they plan to make significant improvements to the units, the release said.
Remarks
As with anything Liberals do, this is a beginning and not a destination. I expect rent control to be expanded further via one of three vectors.
1 When the five years is up, the City Council will move the year 1995 up to 2000 (ahead five years) or more thus including even newer construction. 2 Via the ballot measure which is supposed to be on the Statewide November 2020 ballot. 3 Via direct Legislative action.
In spite of the claims of landlords evicting tenants with ease, this is fantasy. It takes many months and thousands of dollars to get someone to move out of your property unless they voluntarily agree to do so. In such cases, property owners spend thousands of dollars to repair the property so they can rent to someone else. Folks that refuse to move out are typically the ones that ruin floor and wall coverings, strip the place bare of appliances, plumbing fixtures, and vandalize the crap out of places.
Any time rent control is implemented, it is a de facto confiscation of private property. The property owner is then a vassal of the government and in a practical sense, the control of the property is forfeited without just compensation. In short, rent control is theft using the power of the sword. In the old days we called such government acts “tyranny”, but now it’s called “fairness” or some other innocuous name. George Orwell would call this “doublespeak”.
Apparently, when it comes to President Trump, any pretext of journalists claiming to be unbiased is replaced by commentary disguised as news. An article that appeared following the shootings in El Paso, Texas and Dayton, Ohio is all the evidence that I need to prove my point.
The shootings occurred thusly:
Late in the morning of Saturday August 3rd, a lone gunman entered a Walmart in El Paso and shot the place up for about ten minutes before fleeing the scene. Shortly thereafter, he surrendered to police.
Early in the morning of Sunday August 4th, a lone gunman in Dayton opened fire on a crowd of people. Within 30 seconds, police already in the area, shot and killed the man.
While many levels of law enforcement and several agencies responded, both incidents are local matters. However, the Associated Press didn’t see it that way.
BRIDGEWATER, N.J. (AP) — As the nation reeled from two mass shootings in less than a day, President Donald Trump spent the first hours after the tragedies out of sight at his New Jersey golf course, sending out tweets of support awkwardly mixed in with those promoting a celebrity fight and attacking his political foes.
Americans did not glimpse the Republican president in the immediate aftermath of a shooting in El Paso, Texas, that killed at least 20 people and, hours later, one in Dayton, Ohio, that claimed at least nine lives. Not until Trump and the first lady prepared to fly back to Washington in the late afternoon Sunday did he appear before cameras.
“Hate has no place in our country, and we’re going to take care of it,” Trump declared before boarding Air Force One.
Why does anyone need to see or hear from the President? Is he expected to do a Clinton and say he “feels our pain”? This is not a Federal issue so why is the first reflex to look to Washington? Trump is our President not our priest.
If the author had ended his story at this point, I wouldn’t be asking such questions. But he goes on…
While connecting “hate” and mental illness to the shootings, Trump made no direct mention of gun laws, a factor brought up by Democratic officials and those seeking their party’s nomination to challenge Trump’s reelection next year. He also ignored questions about the anti-immigration language in a manifesto written by the El Paso shooter that mirrors some of his own.
Trump tried to assure Americans he was dealing with the problem and defended his administration in light of criticism following the latest in a string of mass shootings.
“We have done much more than most administrations,” he said, without elaboration. “We have done actually a lot. But perhaps more has to be done.”
Never seemingly comfortable consoling a nation in grief, Trump will be carefully watched for his response to the attacks, again inviting comparison to his predecessors who have tried to heal the country in moments of national trauma.
Why are gun laws to blame for the shooting? This is assumed without any foundation introduced in the story.
Please note what comes next which is an attempt to blame Trump for the shooting in El Paso.” He also ignored questions about the anti-immigration language in a manifesto written by the El Paso shooter that mirrors some of his own.”
This is the good old bait and switch. The shooter is presumed to be mentally ill when he shoots people but rational when he wrote his manifesto. Yes, the shooter blames immigrants but what for? He blames illegal immigrants for being the reason that universal healthcare cannot be realized. Pop Quiz: Which political party is campaigning on Medicare for all and universal healthcare? Hint: It’s not the Party of Trump.
Achieving ambitions social projects like universal healthcare and UBI would become far more likely to succeed if tens of millions of dependents are removed.
(UBI in the above quote is universal basic income.)
The American lifestyle affords our citizens an incredible quality of life. However, our lifestyle is destroying the environment of our country. The decimation of the environment is creating a massive burden for future generations. Corporations are heading the destruction of our environment by shamelessly overharvesting resources. This has been a problem for decades. For example, this phenomenon is brilliantly portrayed in the decades old classic “The Lorax”. Water sheds around the country, especially in agricultural areas, are being depleted. Fresh water is being polluted from farming and oil drilling operations. Consumer culture is creating thousands of tons of unnecessary plastic waste and electronic waste, and recycling to help slow this down is almost non-existent. Urban sprawl creates inefficient cities which unnecessarily destroys millions of acres of land.
Yes, there are other things in the guy’s manifesto that fit the mold for white supremacy but again, why is this document supposed to be written by a rational person? Oh, he posted this manifesto just minutes before opening fire in the Walmart.
My impression of the document is that he is a National Socialist that hates International Socialists. Other than his immigration beliefs, his views are echoed by many California Liberals.
Please notice also that the AP article is completely silent on the Ohio shooter. The Ohio shooter was a registered Democrat that supported Elizabeth Warren and he called himself a Satanist.
…he described himself as a leftist, anime fan, and metalhead. He had posted tweets that opposed Donald Trump and supported Elizabeth Warren, socialism, and Satan.
Somehow Associated Press left this second shooter out of their swipe at Trump hoping that you wouldn’t notice.
AP continues with a second whack at Trump.
Never seemingly comfortable consoling a nation in grief, Trump will be carefully watched for his response to the attacks…
Again, these were a local issues. Why does Trump have to be measured by how well he performs in front of the camera? I know that he does much in private because he, contrary to the narrative, likes to do things away from the camera. This also presupposes that Trump needs the media which he does not; hence the Twitter comments.
Oh, there’s even more from AP. I could try ripping the balance of the article but most of the rest of the article is a hit piece on Trump interspersed with a few nuggets about the investigations following the shootings. I will end with this paragraph which clearly has nothing to do with the shootings.
In recent weeks, the president has issued racist tweets about four women of color who serve in Congress, and in rallies has spoken of an “invasion” at the southern border. His reelection strategy has placed racial animus at the forefront in an effort that his aides say is designed to activate his base of conservative voters, an approach not seen by an American president in the modern era.
The first thing to understand about President Trump is that he rarely starts anything on Twitter. Virtually every time he is responding to something that occurred elsewhere. If you’re not paying attention, you might miss that nugget. The media won’t allow any context to his comments. They pretend that Trump is like Zeus on Mt. Olympus randomly slinging lightning bolts hither and yon to stir-up otherwise content people.
The so-called “racist tweets about four women of color” is such an episode. The “Broad Squad” has repeatedly attacked America; our laws, our government, our allies, and our way of life. Trump responded on Twitter to a particular set of events. He was defending our country, its borders, and in particular, Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
Here is the background. Unlike AP, I exhaustively researched the context of Trump’s comments on Twitter which I will quote shortly.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez fired two shots aimed at House Speaker Nancy Pelosi; (July 8 & 9). First, Fox News ran a story that AOC and her associates were actively running a campaign to “take-out” incumbent Democrats and replace them with likeminded socialists.
The left-wing activist group that spearheaded the political rise of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is now working to take down several incumbent Democrats who have defied the party’s freshman progressive wing, leaving some of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s loyalists on Capitol Hill anxiously wondering if they might soon fall in the crosshairs themselves.
Justice Democrats, which was co-founded by Ocasio-Cortez chief of staff Saikat Chakrabarti, has already announced it is looking to unseat seven-term pro-life Texas Democratic Rep. Henry Cuellar, who represents a conservative district and has boasted about his endorsement from the National Rifle Association. Also on the list: New York Rep. Eliot Engel, the House Foreign Affairs Committee chairman who’s currently in his 16th term.
At the same time this story broke, Pelosi was firing back at AOC & company over a vote to fund the border. AOC and the rest of the “Broad Squad” were the only four Democrat votes against this bill.
On Friday, Pelosi aired a series of grievances in The New York Times, hitting back at Ocasio-Cortez and fellow progressives, Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN), Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), and Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-MA) for failing to fall in line behind the Democratic caucus and approve a $4.5 billion emergency spending bill aimed at addressing the humanitarian crisis at the southern border, even after the quartet complained loudly of the treatment asylum seekers were receiving.
“All these people have their public whatever and their Twitter world,” Pelosi said. “But they didn’t have any following. They’re four people and that’s how many votes they got.”
Pelosi seemed particularly aggrieved by a statement, put out by the four women (among others) chastising Democrats for funding what they believe to be a murderous organization hellbent on destroying the lives of immigrants.
“These radicalized, criminal agencies are destroying families and killing innocent children,” the statement read, according to Fox News, and called on Congress to defund both Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection, ostensibly in pursuit of an “open borders” immigration policy.
July 10th, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-NY, interjected race into the discussion.
“When these comments first started, I kind of thought that she was keeping the progressive flank at more of an arm’s distance in order to protect more moderate members, which I understood,” Ocasio-Cortez said.
“But the persistent singling out .?.?. it got to a point where it was just outright disrespectful .?.?. the explicit singling out of newly elected women of color.”
This was how OAC—the gift that keeps giving to the right—accused Nancy Pelosi of being a racist.
This set the narrative that an attack on the “Broad Squad” can’t be because of their policies, only because of their race. This is a false dilemma. This is like something you’d find in Rules for Radicals.
This is a textbook example of playing the race card in an attempt to inoculate you from a serious examination of your policy ideas. This is a logical fallacy but it works much of the time.
Trump came to Pelosi’s defense a few days later (July 12).
“I deal with Nancy Pelosi a lot, and we go back and forth and it’s fine, but I think that a group of people is being very disrespectful to her,” Trump said. “I’ll tell you something about Nancy Pelosi, she is not a racist, and for them to call her a racist is a disgrace.”
In my opinion, Trump was going after Ilhan Omar without naming her. In case you missed it, she’s the one that lied to get into the country and married her biological brother for several years to perpetrate the immigration fraud.
Below are the Twitter feeds from President Trump in Chronological order.
07/14/2019 Defending Pelosi
So sad to see the Democrats sticking up for people who speak so badly of our Country and who, in addition, hate Israel with a true and unbridled passion. Whenever confronted, they call their adversaries, including Nancy Pelosi, “RACIST.” Their disgusting language and the many terrible things they say about the United States must not be allowed to go unchallenged. If the Democrat Party wants to continue to condone such disgraceful behavior, then we look even more forward to seeing you at the ballot box in 2020!
So interesting to see “Progressive” Democrat Congresswomen, who originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe, the worst, most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world (if they even have a functioning government at all), now loudly and viciously telling the people of the United States, the greatest and most powerful Nation on earth, how our government is to be run. Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came. Then come back and show us how it is done. These places need your help badly, you can’t leave fast enough. I’m sure that Nancy Pelosi would be very happy to quickly work out free travel arrangements!
07/15/2019 America Love It or Leave It
When will the Radical Left Congresswomen apologize to our Country, the people of Israel and even to the Office of the President, for the foul language they have used, and the terrible things they have said. So many people are angry at them & their horrible & disgusting actions!
We will never be a Socialist or Communist Country. IF YOU ARE NOT HAPPY HERE, YOU CAN LEAVE! It is your choice, and your choice alone. This is about love for America. Certain people HATE our Country. They are anti-Israel, pro Al-Qaeda, and comment on the 9/11 attack, “some people did something.” Radical Left Democrats want Open Borders, which means drugs, crime, human trafficking, and much more. Detention facilities are not Concentration Camps! America has never been stronger than it is now – rebuilt Military, highest Stock Market EVER, lowest unemployment and more people working than ever before. Keep America Great!
The Dems were trying to distance themselves from the four “progressives,” but now they are forced to embrace them. That means they are endorsing Socialism, hate of Israel and the USA! Not good for the Democrats!
07/17/2019 The below was retweeted by Trump
“In America, if you hate our Country, you are free to leave. The simple fact of the matter is, the four Congresswomen think that America is wicked in its origins, they think that America is even more wicked now, that we are all racist and evil. They’re entitled to their opinion, they’re Americans. Now I’m entitled to my opinion, & I just think they’re left wing cranks. They’re the reason there are directions on a shampoo bottle, & we should ignore them. The “squad” has moved the Democrat Party substantially LEFT, and they are destroying the Democrat Party. I’m appalled that so many of our Presidential candidates are falling all over themselves to try to agree with the four horsewomen of the apocalypse. I’m entitled to say that they’re Wack Jobs.” Louisiana Senator John Kennedy
Trump never mentions race or color in any of these tweets.Remember this, OAC was the one that interjected race to go after a member of her own party. When Trump defended Pelosi and attacked them, the Dems did a circle-the-wagons move and did just what Trump said. They endorsed, “Socialism, hate of Israel and the USA!” They could just as easily have disavowed the “Broad Squad” but that’s not how they roll. Instead, the Democrats gave Trump some great fodder for the 2020 campaign.
Meanwhile back to the AP article as quotes above.
In recent weeks, the president has issued racist tweets about four women of color who serve in Congress, and in rallies has spoken of an “invasion” at the southern border. His reelection strategy has placed racial animus at the forefront in an effort that his aides say is designed to activate his base of conservative voters, an approach not seen by an American president in the modern era.
The above paragraph is commentary and history revisionism, not what happened. Trump was neither racist nor talking about color in anything he posted. As for “invasion” even the Democrats—with four exceptions—and the Old Gray Lady herself—The New York Times—have reluctantly admitted there is an invasion at the border.
Two months before AP mocked Trump for saying there is “an ‘invasion’ at the southern border”, the NYT editorial board began an op-ed with:
President Trump is right: There is a crisis at the southern border.
There has been a surge of migrants crossing into the U.S., despite Trump’s efforts to curtail illegal immigration. Some Democrats view granting Trump’s request for emergency funds as legitimizing his immigration stances they have railed against, but denying Trump’s request also puts them in the awkward position of turning down assistance for the migrants seeking asylum.
Oh, the Democrats did pass the bill as urged by The Times and that is what led to the spat between AOC and Pelosi.
Trump is vindicated with logic and evidence, not that it matters to his opponents.
Even the Los Angeles Times, in a roundabout way, came to Trump’s defense.
In the last week, more than 30 people have died in three separate mass shootings in Gilroy, El Paso and Dayton, Ohio. We believe that analyzing and understanding data about who commits such massacres can help prevent more lives being lost.
For two years, we’ve been studying the life histories of mass shooters in the United States for a project funded by the National Institute of Justice, the research arm of the U.S. Department of Justice. We’ve built a database dating back to 1966 of every mass shooter who shot and killed four or more people in a public place, and every shooting incident at schools, workplaces, and places of worship since 1999. We’ve interviewed incarcerated perpetrators and their families, shooting survivors and first responders. We’ve read media and social media, manifestos, suicide notes, trial transcripts and medical records.
First, the vast majority of mass shooters in our study experienced early childhood trauma and exposure to violence at a young age. The nature of their exposure included parental suicide, physical or sexual abuse, neglect, domestic violence, and/or severe bullying. The trauma was often a precursor to mental health concerns, including depression, anxiety, thought disorders or suicidality.
Second, practically every mass shooter we studied had reached an identifiable crisis point in the weeks or months leading up to the shooting. They often had become angry and despondent because of a specific grievance. For workplace shooters, a change in job status was frequently the trigger. For shooters in other contexts, relationship rejection or loss often played a role. Such crises were, in many cases, communicated to others through a marked change in behavior, an expression of suicidal thoughts or plans, or specific threats of violence.
Third, most of the shooters had studied the actions of other shooters and sought validation for their motives. People in crisis have always existed. But in the age of 24-hour rolling news and social media, there are scripts to follow that promise notoriety in death. Societal fear and fascination with mass shootings partly drives the motivation to commit them. Hence, as we have seen in the last week, mass shootings tend to come in clusters. They are socially contagious. Perpetrators study other perpetrators and model their acts after previous shootings. Many are radicalized online in their search for validation from others that their will to murder is justified.
Fourth, the shooters all had the means to carry out their plans. Once someone decides life is no longer worth living and that murdering others would be a proper revenge, only means and opportunity stand in the way of another mass shooting. Is an appropriate shooting site accessible? Can the would-be shooter obtain firearms? In 80% of school shootings, perpetrators got their weapons from family members, according to our data. Workplace shooters tended to use handguns they legally owned. Other public shooters were more likely to acquire them illegally.
The finding is that broken individuals are responsible for mass shootings. If nothing else, the Times article—which I recommend—takes a lot of ink to find common ground in the profile of such individuals and concludes by restating the age old axiom that we are our brother’s keeper.
Maybe if politicians spent more time building up our country instead of tearing each other down, we might actually solve some of the issues facing our nation. If Associated Press did their job and trusted their readers to make up their own minds, the political divide might be less divisive. Instead they resort to “fake news” and yellow journalism to score political points.
Trump is responsible for his actions and the shooters are responsible for theirs. Confusing the two and politicizing such tragic events is or should be shameful. Presidents—be they named Trump or Obama—are not responsible for mass shootings, the guys pulling the trigger are. These folks need help. Ultimately, psychology and psychiatry are unable to fix broken people, only God can do that by giving them a new heart.
