Rent control does not work

Re “Bring back California’s rent control,” Opinion, May 8

Rent control sounds like a good solution to California’s housing problems; however, it has many unintentional consequences.

In Santa Monica, rent control started in 1979, and soon rents in that city were a fraction of those in adjacent Los Angeles neighborhoods. Paying $400 per month for two-bedroom apartments in prime areas became common.

When units became vacant, landlords had numerous applicants from which to choose, so they started renting exclusively to well-off single professionals instead of families with children. The population of young children decreased. The city changed dramatically.

With decreasing rental income, apartment owners lacked the funds to properly maintain their buildings, so the city’s housing stock deteriorated. The basic economic principle of supply and demand means that rent control decreases housing supplies.

The solution is to change zoning laws so mixed units can flourish and homeowners have the incentive to build additional rental units on their properties. John A. Dracup Santa Monica

If the city government wants to tell me, the owner of rental properties, how much I am allowed to receive in income, then let it assume the cost of maintenance and insurance and cancel my property and business taxes, as I cannot pass along those costs.

It also should absorb the cost of the exorbitant fees for waste disposal, which have tripled with the monopoly created and imposed on property owners by the city.

Sadly, I have one building under the present rent control law, and the tenants who are paying market rate take proper care of their units.

The others, who pay about one-third of the present market rate, don’t take care of their units. Some have issues with vermin because of they mess they have made, and yet it is somehow my problem to clean up even though the residents should be responsible. Bill Marsh Studio City