|
ECONOMIC ISSUES
<br />if the goal is to maintain economic diversity by controlling rents, it would be expected that the
<br />percentof households earning lower annual Incomes would remain constant, or under the best
<br />circumstances, increase somewhat. The data In Table 6 contains data on income levels for
<br />households earning an Income of less than $20,000 a year. These data conform to Census
<br />categories.
<br />TABLI
<br />PERCENT CHANGE IN ANNUAL INCOME FOR RENTAL HOUSEHOLDS
<br />Berkeley vs. Alameda County
<br />Santa Monica vs. Los Angeles County
<br />198iM1990
<br />Sources; 1980 U.S, Census, Table 132, 5TF•3,
<br />1990 US. Census, Table H50, STF-3a.
<br />The data show that, in the counties, the percent increase for both income groups is consistent.
<br />In Alameda, the percent increase is between 3,9 and4.1 percent, and in Los Angeles County,
<br />between 8.5 and 9.4 percent, The percent change for Berkeley and Santa Monica, however,
<br />are quite erratic. In Berkeley, there has been a decline in both income categories in the decade
<br />between the Censuses. in Santa Monica, there is an almost percent increase for the lowest
<br />income category, buta 9.1 percent decrease forthehousehold's earning between $10,000 and
<br />$19,999. The data suggest thatthe ordinances have not mettheil rgoal of maintaining economic
<br />diversity, and it appears that the ordinance has not preserved rental housing for the lower
<br />Income groups.
<br />RENT CONTROL AS A BENEFIT
<br />An importanteconomic Issue is the discussions of rent control as a benefit. The preceding table
<br />suggests that the ordi nancesfai i to benefit lower income groups, as both cities are losing renters
<br />at lower income levels.
<br />If rent control creates a benefit, then the size of the benefit and who pays the benefit become
<br />important questions that need to be addressed. Table 7 contains a calculation of the amount
<br />of annual rental benefits. The data are shown for the cities of Santa Monica and Berkeley, for
<br />the years 1980 and 1994.
<br />The Calttsirnia $rate Untversio—Real Wie & Land Use Watate
<br />6
<br />1980-1990 Percent Change
<br />Alameda Santa Los Angeles
<br />Income Group
<br />Berkeley County Monica county
<br />_
<br />Less than $10,004
<br />-3.1% 4.14Ja
<br />3.8% 9.4°l0
<br />$101000-$191999
<br />-27.1 3.9
<br />39.1 a's
<br />Sources; 1980 U.S, Census, Table 132, 5TF•3,
<br />1990 US. Census, Table H50, STF-3a.
<br />The data show that, in the counties, the percent increase for both income groups is consistent.
<br />In Alameda, the percent increase is between 3,9 and4.1 percent, and in Los Angeles County,
<br />between 8.5 and 9.4 percent, The percent change for Berkeley and Santa Monica, however,
<br />are quite erratic. In Berkeley, there has been a decline in both income categories in the decade
<br />between the Censuses. in Santa Monica, there is an almost percent increase for the lowest
<br />income category, buta 9.1 percent decrease forthehousehold's earning between $10,000 and
<br />$19,999. The data suggest thatthe ordinances have not mettheil rgoal of maintaining economic
<br />diversity, and it appears that the ordinance has not preserved rental housing for the lower
<br />Income groups.
<br />RENT CONTROL AS A BENEFIT
<br />An importanteconomic Issue is the discussions of rent control as a benefit. The preceding table
<br />suggests that the ordi nancesfai i to benefit lower income groups, as both cities are losing renters
<br />at lower income levels.
<br />If rent control creates a benefit, then the size of the benefit and who pays the benefit become
<br />important questions that need to be addressed. Table 7 contains a calculation of the amount
<br />of annual rental benefits. The data are shown for the cities of Santa Monica and Berkeley, for
<br />the years 1980 and 1994.
<br />The Calttsirnia $rate Untversio—Real Wie & Land Use Watate
<br />6
<br />
|