|
The median rents were used to calculate the benefits to renters living in Berkeley and Santa
<br />Monica. it was assumed that, If rent control were not in effect, the median rent in both cities
<br />would approximate the rents in the reference counties. The median rents at the county level
<br />represent the expected rent, and are used as a basis for suggesting the rental benefit.
<br />In 1980 and 1490, the Berkeley median rentwat below the county median, In Santa Monica,
<br />the median rantwas above the county median cent in 1980; however, aftera decade of the rent
<br />control being in effect, the median resit was lower in Santa Monica than in the county.
<br />TAX Fz
<br />COMPARISON OF MEDIAN RENTS AND RENTAL PRICE BENEFITS
<br />Berkeley vs. Alameda County
<br />Santa Monica vs. Los Angeles County
<br />3980.1990
<br />The table shows that the annual benefit to renters in 1980 was $252 in Berkeley, and by 1490,
<br />a littieover a decade after theordinancewas in effect, the annual benef itwas $2,400 for renters.
<br />In Santa Monica, there is no calculated benefit to renters in 1980; however, in 1990, the annual
<br />benefit to renters was estimated at $1,128.
<br />While the calculation of the benefit to rental households is generally stated, the conclusion
<br />comes from the magnitude of the estimate. in 1980, offering a benefit to rental households of
<br />$252 per year was a reasonable price to meet the stated goals of the ordinance. In 1990, the
<br />magnitude of the benefit has Increased 10 times in Berkeley and doubled in Santa Monica,
<br />without meeting the objectives of the ordinance.
<br />Since the data suggest that the restrictive rent control ordinances are not entirely meeting their
<br />goals, the benefits are apparently not going to the segments of the population for whom the
<br />benefits were intended.
<br />The Califainia State UniveroFly—Rea! Estate & Land Use rnstime
<br />Alameda
<br />Sacra Los Angeles
<br />Comparisons
<br />Berkeley County
<br />Mcntea County
<br />Median Rent
<br />1980
<br />$245 $266
<br />$319 $276
<br />1990
<br />$426 $626
<br />$532 $626
<br />AnnualBenefit'
<br />1980
<br />$ 7,010,892
<br />$07,644,104)
<br />1990
<br />$ 58,692,000
<br />$ 36,682,560
<br />Annual Benefit
<br />to Renters'
<br />1980
<br />$ ,252
<br />$(516)
<br />1990
<br />$2,400
<br />$1,128
<br />1(VimenceinCtitiCounty median rent multiplied byunits annuatized.
<br />5ourcest 1980 U.S, Census Table 124, STi-3-
<br />1990 U.S. Census; Table .43, 5TF-1a.
<br />The table shows that the annual benefit to renters in 1980 was $252 in Berkeley, and by 1490,
<br />a littieover a decade after theordinancewas in effect, the annual benef itwas $2,400 for renters.
<br />In Santa Monica, there is no calculated benefit to renters in 1980; however, in 1990, the annual
<br />benefit to renters was estimated at $1,128.
<br />While the calculation of the benefit to rental households is generally stated, the conclusion
<br />comes from the magnitude of the estimate. in 1980, offering a benefit to rental households of
<br />$252 per year was a reasonable price to meet the stated goals of the ordinance. In 1990, the
<br />magnitude of the benefit has Increased 10 times in Berkeley and doubled in Santa Monica,
<br />without meeting the objectives of the ordinance.
<br />Since the data suggest that the restrictive rent control ordinances are not entirely meeting their
<br />goals, the benefits are apparently not going to the segments of the population for whom the
<br />benefits were intended.
<br />The Califainia State UniveroFly—Rea! Estate & Land Use rnstime
<br />
|