Kosta-Xokkins ijaraga beriladigan uy-joy to'g'risidagi qonun - Costa–Hawkins Rental Housing Act

The Kosta-Xokkins ijaraga olish to'g'risidagi qonun ("Kosta-Xokkins") - bu Kaliforniya shtati qonuni, 1995 yilda qabul qilingan bo'lib, unda shahar uchun cheklovlar mavjud ijara haqini boshqarish farmoyishlar. Kosta-Xokkins maydonni ikkita asosiy usul bilan oldindan biladi.[1] Birinchidan, bu shaharlarga ayrim turdagi turar-joy binolari uchun ijara nazoratini o'rnatishni taqiqlaydi, masalan. yakka tartibdagi uy-joylar va kondominyumlar va yangi qurilgan[2] kvartiralar; bular ozod qilingan deb hisoblanadi. Ikkinchidan, ijara nazorati bo'yicha "qattiq" nazorat deb ham ataladigan "vakansiyalarni nazorat qilish" taqiqlanadi. Qonunchilik Demokrat tomonidan homiylik qilingan Senator Jim Kosta va respublika Assambleya a'zosi Fil Xokins.[3][4]

Agar kvartira "vakansiyalar nazorati ostida" bo'lsa, shahar qarori egasining ijarasini yangi xonaga oshirish imkoniyatini rad etish yoki cheklash uchun ishlaydi. ijarachi (lar). Bu avvalgi ijarachi kvartirani ixtiyoriy ravishda bo'shatgan yoki "adolatli sabab" bilan chiqarilgan (masalan, ijara haqini to'lamaganlik kabi) evakuatsiya qilingan hollarda ham shunday ishlaydi. Boshqacha qilib aytganda, Kosta-Xokkins yuqoridagi ixtiyoriy yoki "adolatli" sharoitlarda "vakansiyalarni nazorat qilishni" taqiqlab, shaharlarga kvartira egasiga huquq berish huquqini beradi. ijara vakansiya har qanday narxda (ya'ni odatda bozor narxi).[5][6]

Kaliforniyada ijarani boshqarish asosan uning yaratilishidir munitsipalitetlar. Shahar hokimiyatlarining bu qobiliyati federal va shtat konstitutsiyalari, shuningdek federal va shtat qonunlari bilan cheklangan.[7] Kosta-Xokkins Kaliforniya shtatlarining ijara bozorlarini tartibga solish kuchini boshqarish uchun qabul qilingan asosiy davlat nizomidir.[8][9]

1970-yillarda ijaraga beriladigan boshqaruvni keltirib chiqaradigan omillar

1970 yillarning oxirlarida ikkinchi to'lqin paydo bo'ldi ijara haqini boshqarish Kaliforniyadagi va butun mamlakat bo'ylab qarorlar.[10][11] Ko'tarilish ko'chmas mulk qiymatlari va haddan tashqari ko'tarilish foiz stavkalari Kaliforniyadagi yakka oilaviy uylarni arzonroq qildi. Ko'ngli qolgan xaridorlar ko'pincha kvartiralarga ko'chib o'tishgan. Ijaraga beriladigan uy tanqislik paydo bo'ldi, ijara haqi ko'tarildi. Uy-joy bo'lmagan sabablarga ko'ra (masalan, erdan foydalanish ), shaharlarni cheklashni boshladi bino yangi uy-joylar. Ijaraga beriladigan uy-joylar narxi ko'tarilgach, investitsiyalarning rentabelligi va pul muomalasi ipoteka kreditlari bilan yangi uy egalarini ijara haqini ko'tarishga undaydi. Davlat va federal kam daromadli uy-joy yordami yiqildi. Inflyatsiya iqtisodiy jihatdan hali edi ish haqi va ish haqi ham yiqildi. The iste'molchilar harakati va Taklif 13 effektlar keyin rag'batlantirildi ijarachi faollik munitsipal siyosat.[12][13][14][15][16][17][18]

Shaxsiy, ijtimoiy, iqtisodiy, siyosiy, huquqiy kabi ko'p qirrali jihatlar bilan ijarani nazorat qilish bilan bog'liq masalalar murakkab va majburiydir. Ko'pincha bahs-munozaralar va munozaralar haddan tashqari gaplar o'rtasida raqobatni keltirib chiqarish xavfi tug'diradi. Ba'zi tarafdorlar har bir ko'tarilishni "ijara haqini to'lash" deb atashlari mumkin, ba'zi muxoliflar esa ijaraga beriladigan nazorat olib keladi deyishadi kechqurunlar. "Ijarani boshqarish bo'yicha jangchilarning turli xil da'volari hayratlanarli bo'lishi mumkin." Bundan ham yomoni, "munozaralar haddan tashqari bo'shliqlarning to'qnashuviga aylanadi va natijalar bexabar elektorat, shoshilinch siyosat va bo'linib ketgan jamoatdir". "Ikkinchi avlod ijara ijrosini boshqarish" da masalalar yanada aniqroq, ammo hali ham bahsli bo'lib qoldi.[19][20]

1995 yildagi Kosta-Xokins qonunchiligi

Qonunga olib boradigan siyosiy tadbirlar

Jerri Braun, 1976 yil.

1972 yilda Berkli ikkinchi to'lqinli ijara haqini boshqarish to'g'risidagi farmonni qabul qilgan Kaliforniyaning birinchi shahri bo'ldi. 1976 yilda gubernator Jerri Braun, demokrat, veto qo'ygan davlat qonunchiligiga (AB 3788) ijaraga berishni nazorat qilish bo'yicha mahalliy qonunlarga ustunlik bergan. Uni asosiy ko'chmas mulk guruhi - Kaliforniya Uy-joy Kengashi (CHC) qo'llab-quvvatladi. Vetoga javoban, ko'chmas mulk sohasi tashabbus, 10-taklif, 1980 yilgi davlat byulletenida.[21] 65 foizdan 35 foizgacha mag'lubiyatga uchradi.[22][23]

Bu orada, 1978 yil iyun oyida Taklif 13 Kaliforniya saylovchilari tomonidan ikkitadan bittasi tasdiqlangan edi. Saylov oldidan Xovard Jarvis "Prop. 13" soliq to'lovchilar qo'zg'oloni "rahbari, shuningdek, Kaliforniya kvartiralar uyushmasi, agar Prop. 13 o'tib ketsa, uy egalari ijara haqini pasaytiradi deb taklif qilishgan. Ko'pgina saylovchilar, uy egalarining mol-mulkiga solinadigan soliqni pasaytirish orqali ijara haqini pasaytirishni nazarda tutgan 13-uy. Uy egalari bunga erisholmasa, ijarachilarning teskari reaktsiyasidan qo'rqqan CHC, Gubernator Braun va CHKning saylovlardan keyingi sa'y-harakatlariga qaramay, bir nechta uy egalari ijara haqini pasaytirdilar.[24][25][26]

Kaliforniya bo'ylab shaharlik ijarachilar ko'p sonli mahalliy guruhlarni tuzdilar, ular tezda intensivligi va kuchi bilan o'sdi. Ijarachi faollar shtat va shahar hokimiyatiga yo'naltirilgan siyosiy tashviqotlarni uyushtirdilar. Gubernator Braunning yangi "ijarachilarning tezkor liniyasi" kuniga 12000 qo'ng'iroqlarni qabul qilmoqda. "Ijarachilarning bosimiga javoban, ijara haqi bo'yicha ish tashlashlar va ijara haqining oshishi haqidagi doimiy yangiliklar va g'azablangan ijarachilar, ayniqsa qariyalar, Los-Anjeles shahar kengashi 1978 yil avgust oyida olti oylik ijara muzlatishidan o'tdi. "1988 yilga kelib o'n to'rtta shahar ijaraga to'la nazoratni qabul qildi va oltmish to'rtta shahar ko'chma uy parklari uchun ijaraga berishni nazorat qildi.[27][28][29]

Jim Kosta, taxminan 2013 yil, 1995 yilgi qonun homiysi.

Biroq, ijarachilar guruhlarining kuchi oxir-oqibat tarqala boshladi. Shunga qaramay, CHC ijara nazorati qisman "ustunlik" olishga urinishlariga shtat senatori boshchiligidagi demokratlar to'sqinlik qildi Devid Roberti, qadar muddat cheklovlari 1995 yilda nafaqaga chiqishga majbur qildi. Boshqa tomondan, demokrat Jim Kosta Assambleyada 1983 yildan beri ko'chmas mulk sohasi uchun "imtiyozlar" to'g'risidagi qonun loyihalari muvaffaqiyatsiz olib borilgan. U endi Senatda bo'lib, u erda 1995 yilgi qonun loyihasi Sud-huquq qo'mitasi tomonidan qabul qilingan; yo'q Roberti, Demokratlarning ovozlarini oldi. Keyin qonun loyihasi Senatning ovozini "talab qilingan ko'pchilikdan ko'proq" ovoz bilan qabul qildi.[30][31]

Qonun: homiylar va muxolifat

Pit Uilson, 1993 y.

1995 yilda Kosta-Xokinsda ijaraga beriladigan uy-joy to'g'risidagi qonun kuchga kirdi. Nizom quyidagicha kodlangan Fuqarolik kodeksi, §§ 1954.50 dan 1954.535 gacha.[32] Qonunchilik homiylari demokratik edi Senator Jim Kosta (Fresno ) va respublika Assambleya a'zosi Fil Xokkins (Qo'ng'iroq ).[3][4]

Senatda birinchi bo'lib kiritilgan qonun hujjatlari matni keyinchalik paydo bo'ldi Assambleya to'g'risidagi qonun loyihasi 1164. Bir necha muzokaralar olib borilgan o'zgarishlarga dosh bergandan so'ng, u ikkala palatada ham o'tdi. Respublika Hokim Pit Uilson keyin AB 1164-ni qonun bilan imzoladi.[33]

Respublikachilar tomonidan ko'proq ma'qul keladigan kun tartibi, ijara haqini nazorat qilishni cheklash deb tushunilgan bo'lsada, ba'zi demokratlar Qonunni qo'llab-quvvatladilar. G'arbiy huquq va qashshoqlik bo'yicha G'arbiy Markaz (WCLP) qonun loyihasining ijarachilar manfaatlariga xizmat qiladigan bir nechta xususiyatlarini ma'qullagan edi: agar jiddiy sog'liq, xavfsizlik, yong'in va qurilish qoidalari buzilganligi aniqlansa va oltitaga tuzatilmagan bo'lsa, ijara haqining oshishini taqiqlash. oylar "va boshqa ijarachilarning mavjud ijaraga olingan uy-joy ijarasini pasaytirish to'g'risidagi ba'zi da'volari.[34][35]

Ammo WCLP qonun loyihasiga qarshi chiqdi. Ayniqsa, u oppozitsiyani uyushtirishga, ijara nazorati ostida bo'lgan Kaliforniya shaharlari bilan birgalikda tarqoq mahalliy guruhlarni (ijarachilar, keksa fuqarolar, dinga aloqador) "koalitsiyani birlashtirishga" intildi. Shunga ko'ra, Santa Monika, Berkli va G'arbiy Gollivud lobbistni yollash uchun mablag 'ajratdilar. Konsessiya (qonun loyihasi tarafdorlari bilan muzokaralar natijasida olingan) "vakansiyalarni boshqarish" ning 3 yillik bosqichi bo'ldi. Shunga qaramay kapitoliy kelishuvga ko'ra, Kosta-Xokkins "amalga oshirilgan kelishuv" va muxolifat "oxirgi nafas". Kosta Xokkinsning qonunga o'tishi ba'zi ijarachilarning afzalliklarini orqaga qaytarish sifatida qaraldi. Ijarani boshqarish bo'yicha advokatlar 1970-80-yillarda g'alaba qozonish masalasida bezovtalanishdi.[36][37]

Kodekslangan qonunning qoidalari

Kosta-Xokkins qonunchiligi Kaliforniya Fuqarolik Kodeksining 1954.50 - 1954.535 bo'limlarida joylashgan.[38][39]

Umuman

Qonun ijaraga beriladigan to'lovlardan ozod qiladi: yakka tartibdagi oilaviy uylar, kvartira va yangi qurilish.[40] Bu mahalliy hokimiyat qoidalarini qayta "vakansiyalarni nazorat qilish" ni taqiqlaydi[41] ko'p holatlarda.[42] 1995 yilda "bo'sh ish o'rinlari nazorati" bo'lgan beshta shahar uchun ushbu Qonun bosqichma-bosqich amalga oshirildi.[43] U egalar bilan ijara haqi (masalan, kam daromadli uy-joy uchun ajratmalar) va buzilish to'g'risidagi xabarnomaning ta'siri, masalan, sog'liq yoki xavfsizlik to'g'risida hukumat shartnomalarini tuzadi.[44] Kosta-Xokkins qo'shimcha mablag'larga ham murojaat qiladi,[45] va boshqa masalalar.[46]

Ijarani nazorat qilishdan ozod qilish

Qonun yakka tartibdagi oilaviy uylarni ijaraga olishni nazorat qilishni taqiqlaydi kondominyumlar va yangi qurilgan ijaraga berish joylarida.[47] Odatda, "yangi" 1995 yil 1 fevraldan keyin qurilgan har qanday binoni anglatadi (1995 yilgi Kosta-Xokkins qonuni bo'yicha).[48] Ijara ijarasi nazorati mavjud bo'lgan shaharlar uchun "yangi" mahalliy ijara ijrosi to'g'risidagi farmonga binoan orqaga qaytarilgan.[49]

Ushbu shaharlarda ijaraga berishni nazorat qilish sanasi "yangi" narsani belgilaydi. Shahar ijarasi nazorati ostida faqat undan oldin qurilgan ijaraga beriladigan qismlar qoladi. Keyinchalik qurilganlar Kosta-Xokkins davrida ozod qilinadi. Shunday qilib, ichida San-Fransisko faqat 1979 yildan katta bo'lgan va 1980 yildan katta bo'lgan ijaraga ijaraga berilishi mumkin Oklend va Berkli, o'sha shaharlarda ijaraga berish to'g'risidagi qonunlar qabul qilingan yillar.[50][51] Los-Anjeles shahrida bu sana 1978 yil oktyabr.[52][53]

Biroq, ushbu imtiyozlar shaharning umumiy ijara fondining katta qismini ijara nazorati ostida qoldirishi mumkin. Masalan, San-Frantsiskoda, 2014 yil holatiga ko'ra, barcha ijara birliklarining 75% i ijaraga olinadigan,[54] va 2014 yilda Los-Anjelesda 80% ko'p oilali birliklar ijaraga olinadigan nazorat ostida bo'lgan.[55]:1

2002 yil Qonunga o'zgartirish

Bilan bog'liq bo'shliqni yopish uchun ushbu Qonunga 2002 yilda o'zgartirishlar kiritilgan kondominyum 1995 yilgi qonundan keyin konversiyalar. Ko'p qavatli uy egalari kondom konvertatsiyasi tufayli, hatto konvertatsiya qilingan birliklarni sotmasdan ham, yashash uchun yangi sertifikat olishlari mumkin. Bunday holatda, ijaraga beriladigan birliklar Qonun bo'yicha ijara nazoratidan ozod qilinmaydi.[56][57][58][59]

Kaliforniyadagi ijarani boshqarish

Kosta-Xokkins Kaliforniyadagi ijaraga beriladigan operatsiyalarni boshqarish va amaliyotini boshqarish uchun xizmat qiluvchi muhim shtat qonunchiligidir.[60] Shunga qaramay, asosan mahalliy ijaraga berish to'g'risidagi qonunlarni yozadigan va qabul qiladigan shaharlarning aksariyati shahardir.

Huquqiy kontekst

E'lon qilingan maqsadlar

Mahalliy ijara haqini boshqarish to'g'risidagi qaror o'z maqsadini aniq e'lon qilishi mumkin. Belgilangan yoki nazarda tutilgan, ijaraga beriladigan nazoratning joriy etilishi jamiyat farovonligini yaxshilaydi degan xulosa yoki taxmin.

Odatda ijara haqini boshqarish shaharda ishlab chiqilgan qonun (a shahar qarori ) turar-joy ijarasi bozoridagi narxlarning ko'tarilishi yoki o'zgaruvchanligi, mahallalar va yakka tartibdagi ijarachilarga ta'sirini kamaytirishga qaratilgan. Shuningdek, u uy-joy etishmovchiligi paytida xavfsiz va yashashga yaroqli turar-joy binolarini saqlashga ko'maklashishi mumkin.[61][62][63][64][65][66][67][68]

Bunday shahar niyatining misoli San-Fransisko "s Uy-joy ijarasini barqarorlashtirish va hakamlik qarori (SFRO), 1979 yilda San-Frantsisko ma'muriy kodeksiga o'zgartirishlar kiritilgan favqulodda farmon sifatida qabul qilingan. "Ijara nazorati oldidan qattiq bozorlar va ijara narxlari ko'tarilishi sharoitida" ba'zi ijarachilar talab qilingan ijara narxlarini to'lashga harakat qilmoqdalar, ammo natijada hayotning boshqa ehtiyojlariga kamroq mablag 'sarflashlari kerak. Bu holat zararli ta'sir ko'rsatdi Shaharda ijarachilarning katta soni, ayniqsa keksa yoshdagi fuqarolarga, doimiy daromadga ega bo'lgan shaxslarga va kam va o'rtacha daromadli uy xo'jaliklariga qiyinchilik tug'diradi ".[69][70][71]

Konstitutsiyaviy chegaralar

Sayt Oliy sud Los-Anjelesdagi S. Spring St-da.

Uchun Kaliforniya shtati assambleyasi uning tahlilchisi Stiven Xollouey ijarani nazorat qilishning konstitutsiyaviy va huquqiy kontekstiga, xususan, shtat va mahalliy hukumatlar (masalan, shaharlar) o'rtasidagi munosabatlarga izoh berdi. Kosta-Xokkins qabul qilinganida, Kaliforniyaning amaldagi qonunchiligida "ijara haqini boshqarish bo'yicha mahalliy farmonlarni qabul qilish uchun qonuniy qoidalar mavjud emas, ammo ularni taqiqlamaydi. Sud amaliyoti, Birkenfeld va Berkli shahri (1976) 17 kal. 3d 129, ijaraga beriladigan nazorat mahalliy hokimiyatning to'g'ri amaliyotidir politsiya kuchi haddan tashqari ijarani yo'q qilish va shu bilan birga uy egalariga mulklari bo'yicha adolatli va oqilona daromadlarni ta'minlash uchun oqilona hisoblangan bo'lsa. "[72][73][74][75][76][77]

1997 yilda Kavanau ish,[78] ijaraga beriladigan mulk egasi e'tiroz bildirdi Santa Monika shahri ijaraga berish to'g'risidagi qonun "qabul qilish" shakli sifatida yoki teskari hukm federal Konstitutsiya tomonidan taqiqlangan. The Kaliforniya Oliy sudi Shtat foydasiga quyi shtat sudlari tomonidan chiqarilgan qarorlarni tasdiqladi. 2005 yilda Berger jamg'armasi ish,[79] The Kaliforniya apellyatsiya sudi shahar kengashi ijaraga berish kengashi sifatida o'tirgan holda egasining investitsiyalar bilan solishtiradigan rentabelligi to'g'risida nima adolatli, adolatli va oqilona bo'lishini belgilashini ta'minlaydigan farmonni qo'llab-quvvatladi. Farmonda ijaraga beriladigan to'lovni oshirishni talab qilishda qo'llash uchun ma'lum bir formula yoki tartib belgilanmagan, aksincha hisobga olinadigan o'n bitta omil ko'rsatilgan. Bu erda kengash ekspert xulosasiga tayangan edi.[80]

Odatdagi qoidalar

Ijara narxi

Uning asosiy qoidalari har oyda ijarachidan olinadigan dollar miqdorini tartibga soladi. Ijara to'g'risidagi aksariyat farmoyishlarning siyosiy maqsadi, odatda sine qua non, shahar e'tiborini mulkka qaratadi va uning ijara haqini oshirish imkoniyatini cheklaydi.

Foiz. Ruxsat etilgan maksimal narx o'sishi mavjud ijara haqining foizida ifodalanishi mumkin. Masalan, Alameda 5%, Hayward 5%, Los Anjeles 3%, Los Gatos 5%.[81] 2016 yilda San-Xose ijaraga beriladigan yillik ijara narxining 8 foizdan 5 foizgacha pasaytirdi.[82] 2017 yilda Beverli-Xillzda favqulodda qaror bilan ijara haqi maksimal 10% dan 3% gacha ko'tarildi.[83]

AQSh CPI 1913 yildan (ko'kda), uning yillik o'zgarishi foiz (qizil rangda)

CPI. Shu bilan bir qatorda, ijara haqini oshirish chegaralari to'g'ridan-to'g'ri o'zgarishlar o'zgarishi bilan bog'liq bo'lishi mumkin yashash narxi, bilan o'lchanganidek Iste'mol narxlari indeksi (CPI). 1980 yildan beri Kaliforniyada CPI odatda 5% dan past bo'ldi.[84] Indeks sifatida CPI-dan foydalangan holda ijarani boshqarish to'g'risidagi farmoyishlarga misollar: Oklend, Mountain View, Richmond.[85] San-Frantsiskoda SFRO yillik o'sishni CPI ning 60 foizigacha yoki mavjud ijara haqining 7 foizigacha kamaytiradi.[86] Xuddi shunday, Berkeley Rent Board ham har yili CPI ning 65% o'sishiga imkon beradi.[87]

Vakansiya nazorati, unda ijara birligi uchun ijara haqi miqdori (ijaraga emas, balki) mahalliy hukumat tomonidan qat'iy tartibga solinadi, quyida "Qonundan oldin vakansiyalarni nazorat qilish ".

Boshqa elementlar

Turli xil "ijara nazorati" bo'lgan har bir shahar yoki tumanning o'ziga xos, ishlab chiqilgan qonuni bor, ular hajmi va mazmuni jihatidan sezilarli darajada farq qilishi mumkin.[88] Boshqa masalalar qatorida "ijaraga berishni nazorat qilish to'g'risida" gi qonun quyidagilarni hal qilishi mumkin:

Faqat tugatishga sabab bo'ling. Egasining hech qanday sababsiz (yoki aybsiz) ijarani bekor qilishi ham shundan iborat "adolatli sabab" ni bildirmaydi (masalan, ijara haqini to'lamaslik yoki ijarachilar tomonidan yaratilgan noqulaylik). Shahar tugatish uchun qandaydir "adolatli sabab" egasiga e'tibor berishni talab qilishi mumkin.[100][101][102] Ammo shtat qonunchiligiga binoan ko'chirishda "adolatli sabab" talab qilinmaydi.[103] Boshqa asoslashlar "adolatli sabab" bo'lishi mumkin, masalan: (a) hukumat buyrug'iga binoan; (b) egasining oilasiga birlikni egallashiga ruxsat berish.[104][105][106] Egalarining ta'kidlashicha, ushbu qonunlar qo'shnilarini bezovta qiladigan, masalan, bezovtalik, oilaviy zo'ravonlik va jinoiy harakatlar bilan bezovta qiladigan muammolarni ijarachilar bilan ishlash qobiliyatini cheklaydi.[107]

Boshqa joyga ko'chirish uchun nafaqa. Shahar qarori mumkin egasidan ketadigan ijarachiga ko'chirish va shunga o'xshash xarajatlar uchun nafaqa to'lashni talab qilish, masalan, ayb bekor qilinmagan taqdirda. Har bir shaharning o'ziga xos xususiyatlari bor. Ijarachi aybdor bo'lgan (masalan, ijara haqini to'lamaganlik yoki bezovtalik yaratgan) "adolatli sabablarga ko'ra" bekor qilingan taqdirda, ijarachi bunday nafaqani olmaydi. Ammo ijarachining aybdor bo'lmasdan, mavjud bo'lgan ijarani tugatish to'g'risidagi egasining qarori (yozma ravishda ogohlantirish, sudning ko'chirish qarori bilan), mumkin nafaqa to'lash uchun egasining majburiyatini boshlashi.[108][109][110][111][112] Uy-joy ijarasi bozoridan bo'linmani olib chiqish tartibga solinadi Ellis akti.[113][114]

Vakansiyani boshqarish. Quyida muhokama qilingan "Qonundan oldin vakansiyalarni nazorat qilish ".

Ijara boshqaruviga qarshi chiqish

Odatda iqtisodchilar vaqt o'tishi bilan ijara nazorati qanday ishlashida xatolarni qidirib toping: bu uy-joy ta'minotini kamaytiradi.[115][116][117] Muxolifat argumentini berishda bunday umumiy tamoyillar Kaliforniyada qo'llanilgan. Ijara haqini nazorat qilish dalillari, odatda, shaharlar tomonidan ijaraga beriladigan nazoratni belgilaydigan qarorlarni qabul qilishda qabul qilinadi (yuqoriga qarang).[118]

Ijara ijarasini nazorat qilish bo'yicha dastlabki harakatlar jamoatchilikni arzon uy-joy bilan ta'minlashga intildi, ammo barpo etilayotgan yangi binolar sonining pasayishiga olib keldi va shu bilan uy-joy tanqisligini yanada kuchaytirdi. Keyingi ijara haqini nazorat qilish to'g'risidagi qonunlar yangi qurilishni ozod qildi. Shunga qaramay, bunday tartibga solish eski uy-joy fondini yaxshilash yoki hatto saqlab qolish uchun rag'batlarni olib tashlaydi.[119] Bu egalarni ijarani sotish uchun kvartiralarga yoki boshqa maqsadlarga o'tkazishga undaydi. Ijara ijarasini nazorat qilish to'g'risidagi qonunlar hech qanday farq qilmasdan qisqa muddatli imtiyozlarni beradi: kam ta'minlangan fuqarolarga engillashadigan narsa, badavlat ijarachilarga tegishli. Shahar nazorati ijarani bozordan pastroqqa o'rnatgan turar-joy binolarida ijarachilar uzoqroq turishadi va mavjud ijara sonini kamaytiradi. Keyin yangi ijarachilarga olinadigan bozor ijarasi yuqorilaydi: (a) egalar o'zlarining renta-nazoratidagi zararlarini muvozanatlashtirganda yoki (b) yangi birliklar quruvchilar bozor talabini taklifga nisbatan bahosida.[120][121] Qisqacha aytganda, ijaraga beriladigan nazorat uy-joy ta'minotini kamaytiradi.[122][123]

Iqtisodiy xulosalar jamoatchilik tomonidan izohlanadi. Ba'zilar uchun ijara haqini pasaytiradigan ijara nazorati boshqalarga ijarani oshirish uchun ishlashi mumkin. Agar ijara haqini boshqarish orqali arzonroq ijaraga beriladiganlar uchun imtiyozlarning umumiy miqdori bekor qilinsa, bu "jamiyat uchun foydali" deb hisoblanishi mumkinmi? Agar uning asosiy samarasi faqatgina ijara narxini umuman kamaytirish uchun emas, balki uni tengsiz taqsimlash bo'lsa. Muqobil variant bormi? Yaqinda o'tkazilgan "Stenford gazetasi" mualliflari, "Agar jamiyat ijara haqining oshishiga qarshi ijtimoiy sug'urta qilishni xohlasa, ushbu subsidiyani hukumat tomonidan subsidiya yoki soliq imtiyozi shaklida taqdim etish maqsadga muvofiqroq bo'lar edi".[124][125][126][127][128]

Kaliforniya shaharlari ro'yxati

So'nggi ellik yil ichida jami 482 ta Kaliforniya shaharlari,[129] ehtimol, ikki o'nlab odamlar ijara haqini boshqarish to'g'risidagi farmonlarni yoki kichikroq qonunlarni qabul qildilar. Keyinchalik shahar o'z ijarasi ustidan nazoratni to'xtatishi mumkin, masalan, Santa Rosa 2017 yilda ijarani nazorat qilish to'g'risidagi yangi qonunni bekor qilish uchun ovoz berdi.[130][131][132]

Ushbu so'rovnoma 2018 yil oktyabr oyida yakunlandi Covid-19 pandemiyasi, shahar kengashlari o'zgargan sharoitlarga moslashtirildi. Ayniqsa, Kaliforniya shtati vaqtincha ko'chirishga moratoriy o'rnatdi.[133]

Ijarani boshqarish to'g'risidagi farmoyishlar bilan

Santa Monika: Okean xiyoboni

Hozirda o'n besh shahar Kaliforniya shtati tomonidan boshqariladigan ijara ro'yxatiga kiritilgan:[134][135][136][137]

Bular: Alameda,[138] Berkli,[139] Beverli-Xillz,[140] East Palo Alto,[141] Xeyvord,[142] Los Anjeles,[143] Los Gatos,[144] Mountain View,[145] Oklend,[146] Palm Springs,[147] Richmond.[148][149] San-Fransisko,[150] San-Xose,[151] Santa Monika,[152][153] G'arbiy Gollivud,[154]

Sakramento 2019 yil 13-avgustda ijarachilarni himoya qilish va ularga yordam berish to'g'risidagi qonunni qabul qildi.[155]

Bundan tashqari, Kempbell (ijara nazorati mavjud emas) o'z-o'zidan, lekin vositachilik xizmatini taklif qiladi), Fremont (2017 yilda ijaraga berish nazorati rad etilgan) va Thousand Oaks (ijara nazorati cheklangan: asosan faqat ko'chma uy parklari ).[156]

Cheklangan ijara nazorati bilan

Faqatgina ko'chma uy parklari uchun ijaraga beriladigan ko'plab shaharlarning ikkita misoli: Cotati,[157][158] Ming Oaks.[159]

Ijaraga berilmaydigan elementlar bilan

Ba'zi shaharlarda ijaraga beriladigan uy-joy qonunlari mavjud emas ijara haqi miqdorini nazorat qilish. Shunga ko'ra, ushbu oltitada vositachilik xizmati mavjud: Kempbell,[160] Fremont,[161] Gardena,[162] Palo Alto,[163] San-Leandro,[164] Union City.[165] Ta'riflar, bu hatto "ijaraga beriladigan nazorat" deb hisoblanadimi, farq qiladi. Yuqorida ta'kidlab o'tilganidek, Palo Alto bunga ega ekanligini e'lon qiladi yo'q ijara haqini boshqarish, ammo bu ijara haqini oshirish bo'yicha vositachilikni taklif qiladi.[166] Boshqa tomondan, Fremont o'zining vositachilik xizmatlari uchun oltita maqsadning uchinchisi sifatida ro'yxatlaydi: "Ijara haqining chegarasi adolatli va oqilona miqdorda oshiriladi".[167][168]

Glendeylning buyrug'i evakuatsiyani sababsiz taqiqlaydi. Ammo, Palo Alto singari, Glendeyl «ijara nazorati» dan bosh tortdi.[169] Ijara nazorati ostida bo'lgan deyarli barcha shaharlarda ham sababsiz ko'chirish taqiqlanadi.[170] Bajaradigan Kaliforniya shaharlari orasida emas ijara haqini nazorat qilish, ammo sababsiz ko'chirishni taqiqlamang: Glendale,[171] San-Diego,[172][173] Union City.[174]

Ijara nazoratini rad etgan

So'nggi bir necha yil ichida ushbu shaharlar yoki ijara haqini boshqarish to'g'risidagi farmonni bekor qilishga ovoz berishdi yoki boshqa yo'l bilan ijaraga berishga qarshi qaror qabul qilishdi: Fremont (2017),[175] Glendale (2013),[176] Palo Alto (2017),[177] Santa Rosa (2017).[178][179]

Ta'riflarga qarab, ijaraga berilmaydigan elementlar (vositachilik va shunchaki uydan chiqarishni keltirib chiqaradi) bo'limidan bu shaharlarni bu erga qo'shish mumkin (ijara haqi miqdorini nazorat qilishni rad etganlarga): Kempbell, Gardena, San-Leandro va Union City.

1977 yildan 1983 yilgacha bo'lgan davrda "22 shahar saylovchilari [rad etgan] 27 ijara haqini boshqarish tashabbuslarini taklif qildilar."[180] Keyinchalik ijarani nazorat qilishdan qochgan shaharlar orasida:[181] Pasadena (1977), Santa Barbara (1978), Santa Cruz (1979), Long Beach (1980), San-Diego (1980).[182]

Kosta-Xokkins qonunining ta'siri

The katta Qonunning maqsadi: yo'q qilish vakansiyalarni nazorat qilish va shu bilan bozor kuchlari uchun davriy rolni tiklash (talab va taklif ) ijara narxini belgilashda; va, masalan, yangi qurilish va yakka tartibdagi oilaviy uy-joylar va kondominyumlarni ijaraga berishning ayrim toifalarini ijara nazoratidan ozod qilish. Yangi birliklarni ozod qilish uy-joy ta'minotini rag'batlantirishga qaratilgan.[183][184]

Qonundan oldin vakansiyalarni nazorat qilish

Berkli: Duayt Way ijarasi.

Aksariyat ijaraga berish to'g'risidagi farmoyishlar (ko'rib chiqilgan o'rtacha) egasining ijara haqini oshirish imkoniyatini cheklash mavjud ijarachi. Shunga qaramay, ba'zilari qattiq ijarani boshqarish rejimlari, shuningdek, uy egasi ochiq bozorda, ya'ni avvalgi ijarachining ixtiyoriy chiqishi bilan kvartira bo'shaganidan keyin yoki uyni asosli ravishda chiqarib yuborganidan keyin olinadigan ijara haqini cheklab qo'ydi. Shuning uchun, qattiq ham chaqirilgan vakansiyalarni nazorat qilish. Shunday qilib, boshqariladigan ijara miqdori nafaqat ma'lum bir ijaraga, balki ma'lum bir ijara bo'limiga ham xos bo'lib qoldi.[185]

Bunday "qattiq" rejim ostida, bozor kuchlari chiqarib tashlandi narx belgilash (ozod qilingan toifalar bundan mustasno, masalan, yangi qurilgan birliklar). Kosta-Xokins qabul qilinishidan oldin bunday qat'iy vakansiyalarni nazorat qilish beshta shaharda mavjud edi: Berkli, Santa Monika, Kotati, Sharqiy Palo Alto va G'arbiy Gollivud.[186]

Shaharlarga ijarani boshqarish elementlari rad etildi

Kosta-Xokkins mahalliy qonunlarni "vakansiyalarni boshqarish" ga yo'l qo'yishni oldindan o'ylagan, ya'ni "vakansiyalarni boshqarish" ni bekor qilgan. Shunga ko'ra, Qonun ijaraga beruvchilarga avvalgi ijarachilar tomonidan ixtiyoriy ravishda ketganidan keyin yoki quyidagilarga binoan "uy yoki uy uchun ijara haqining dastlabki stavkasini belgilashga" ruxsat beradi. sabab bilan ko'chirish.[187] Keyinchalik bo'sh ish o'rinlari nazorati ostida bo'lgan shaharlar uchun ushbu imtiyoz uch yil ichida bosqichma-bosqich amalga oshirilgan "vakansiyalarni nazorat qilish" jarayonini boshladi. Shunga ko'ra, 1999 yil 1-yanvarda u to'liq kuchga kirdi.[188][189]

Ushbu qonun shahar ijarasi nazoratidan qo'shimcha ravishda ayrim turdagi turar-joy birliklarini, ya'ni "alohida ajratib olinadigan" birliklarni, ya'ni. yakka tartibdagi oilaviy uylar va kondominyumlar. Qonunda yangi qurilish, ya'ni a bilan turar-joy binolari ham ozod qilindi yashash guvohnomasi 1995 yil 1 fevraldan keyin chiqarilgan.[190][191]

Shaharlarda saqlanadigan ijarani boshqarish elementlari

Ijara nazorati elementlarining aksariyatini aniqlash vakolati (yuqorida aytib o'tilgan) qonun bilan shaharlarga berilgan. Konstitutsiyaviy cheklovlar asosida shaharlar ijaraga beriladigan uylarning ijara miqdoridagi o'zgarishlarni nazorat qilib turadilar.[192] Shaharlar ko'chib chiqarishni tartibga solish uchun moddiy yurisdiktsiyaga ega va egasining boshqa yo'l bilan ijarani tugatish qobiliyati.[193][194][195] Shunga ko'ra, shaharlar egasiga ijarachini "adolatsiz sabab bilan" bekor qilishni taqiqlashi mumkin. Shuningdek, bekor qilishda shahar farmonga binoan xarajatlarni egasiga yuklashi va ijarachiga huquqlar berishi mumkin, masalan, ko'chib o'tishga nafaqa.[196][197][198]

Kaliforniyaning har bir shahri o'z ijarasini nazorat qilish to'g'risidagi qarorni mustaqil ravishda qabul qilishi va qabul qilishi mumkin. Kuchli bo'lganlar spektr bo'ylab tarqaladi. Kaliforniyadagi okruglar davlat qonunchiligiga muvofiq ijaraga berishni nazorat qilish to'g'risidagi qonunlarni ham qabul qilishi mumkin.[199]

Kosta-Xokkinsning sud talqini

Yigirma o'n yil ichida Qonun kitoblarga kiritilgan bo'lib, unga asoslanib bir qator sud ishlari olib borildi. Shikoyat qilinganlarning ba'zilari yozma sud amaliyotiga aylandilar. 2009 yil Palmer ish "kutilmagan tarzda" ijaraga beriladigan birliklar uchun inklyuzion rayonlashtirish uchun mahalliy qonunlarni buzdi. Bu erda yana bir nechta holatlar muhokama qilinadi. Kosta-Xokkins to'g'risidagi nizomni kengroq qonunchilik doirasida qanday qo'llash haqida savollar mavjud, masalan, uning har xil, qo'shni davlat nizomlari va shahar ijarasi nazorati navlari va boshqa farmoyishlar bilan o'zaro ta'siri.

Palmer (2009): inklyuziv uy-joylarni ijaraga berish

"Yangi qurilish" imtiyozi qo'llaniladi

Yilda Palmer / Sixth Street Properties LP v Los-Anjeles shahri (2009),[200] Bu masala Kosta-Xokkinsni Los-Anjeles shahrining inklyuziv uy-joy to'g'risidagi farmoniga qanday tatbiq etish bilan bog'liq edi. Inklyuzion uy-joy qonunlar (shuningdek, inklyuziv rayonlashtirish deb ham ataladi) yangi ko'p blokli ishlanmalar qurilishiga taalluqlidir va ba'zi birlarini kiritish majburiyatini olishga intiladi arzon birliklar bilan narxlarni boshqarish, sotiladigan birliklarning ko'pligi bilan bir qatorda erkin bozor. Kaliforniya shaharlari va tumanlarining taxminan uchdan bir qismi hududlarni ajratish to'g'risidagi farmonlarga ega. Bunday qonunlar, sotish uchun arzon birliklardan tashqari, ijaraga beriladigan birliklarni ham talab qilishi mumkin. Bunday holda, amaldagi Los-Anjelesdagi uy-joy to'g'risidagi farmoyish oltmish kishini majbur qildi ijara kam daromadli ijarachilarga qo'shilishi kerak Geoff Palmer Shaharning g'arbiy qismida 350 birlik rivojlanish.[201]

The apellyatsiya sudi Biroq, Kosta-Xokkins davrida yangi qurilishni ijaraga berishni nazoratidan ozod qilish ushbu ishning aniq faktlariga taalluqli ekanligini ta'kidladi. Shunday qilib, shahar o'zining uy-joy vakolatlarini bunga qarshi amalga oshira olmadi ko'chmas mulk ishlab chiqaruvchisi.[202][203][204][205][206]

2013 yil inklyuziv ijaralarni tiklash to'g'risidagi qonun loyihasi

The Palmer ish shu tariqa odatdagi inklyuziv uy-joy formulasidan ijarani olib tashladi. Biroq, tanqidchilar apellyatsiya sudining fikri "keng miqyosda Kosta-Xokins to'g'risidagi qonunni hech qachon ko'rib chiqilmaydigan vaziyatga nisbatan noto'g'ri qo'llanilishi sifatida qaraldi" deb da'vo qilishdi. Bu 2013 yilda Qonunni to'g'rilashga qaratilgan siyosiy javobni keltirib chiqardi. Shunga ko'ra, Assambleya Bill 1229 Kaliforniya qonun chiqaruvchisi tomonidan "ijara uchun arzon uy-joy talablarining qonuniyligini qayta tiklash uchun" qabul qilindi.[207][208]

Jerri Braun, 2015 yil.

Gubernator Braunning 2013 yildagi veto-xabari

2013 yil oktyabr oyida Hokim Jerri Braun veto qo'ydi. U shunday dedi: Oklend meri O'zgarishlarni past va o'rta daromadli jamoalarga jalb qilish qanchalik qiyin bo'lishi mumkinligini ko'rdim. Bozor ostidagi bo'linmalarni o'z loyihalariga qo'shish uchun ishlab chiquvchilarga qo'yiladigan talablar, ushbu jamoada arzon uy-joylar miqdorini sezilarli darajada oshirmasa ham, ushbu muammolarni yanada kuchaytirishi mumkin. "

Advokatlari arzon uy-joy qotib qolganini his qildi. Ammo Kosta-Xokkins davrida yangi qurilishni ozod qilishdan qochadigan alternativalar mavjud edi: "quruvchi moliyaviy yordam oladi" yoki zichlik uchun bonus kabi boshqa qimmatli narsalarni hisobga oladi va "shahar bilan shartnomani ijaraga berishni cheklashga rozi bo'ladi".[209][210][211][212]

2017 yil hisob-kitobi "tuzatildi" Palmer qayta ijaraga berish

Qonun chiqaruvchi 2017 yilda sud qarorini o'zgartirgan qonun loyihasini (AB 1505) ma'qulladi Palmer.[213][214] Ushbu qonun loyihasi mahalliy boshqaruv organlariga inklyuzivlikni talab qilish qobiliyatini tiklaydi ijara kam daromadli uy xo'jaliklari uchun uy-joy, shu sababli ularning ijara haqi miqdorini belgilaydi. Shunga qaramay, agar bu rivojlanish loyihasining 15% dan ko'prog'iga tegishli bo'lsa, bunday shahar talablarini qayta ko'rib chiqish (texnik-iqtisodiy asoslash bo'yicha) tomonidan davlat tomonidan nazorat qilinishi mumkin.[215] Keyin gubernator Braun 2017 yilda Kaliforniya uchun o'n beshta uy-joy kassalari to'plami qatoriga kirgan qonun loyihasini imzoladi.[216]

Bo'sh joy sertifikati: "Burien" MChJ Uiliga qarshi

2014 yilda Kaliforniya Apellyatsiya sudi "1995 yil 1 fevraldan keyin berilgan yashash to'g'risidagi guvohnoma" ga asosan ijaraga beriladigan to'lovni to'lashdan ozod qilish to'g'risidagi Qonunning qoidalariga oydinlik kiritdi.[48] Ushbu ta'minot faqat qurilmaning turar joyidan oldin foydalanish to'g'risidagi guvohnomalarga nisbatan qo'llanilishi kerak edi.[217]

Yilda Burien, LCC va Jeyms A. Vili Uy egasi ushbu Kosta-Xokins imtiyozi kvartiralardan kondominyumlarga (har ikkala uy-joy uchun) o'zgartirilgan binolarga nisbatan yangi sertifikat berilganida qo'llaniladi, deb ta'kidladi. Sud nizomni ozod qilishdan maqsad, ijara uylarini etkazib berishni ko'paytiradigan qurilish va rivojlanishga ko'maklashish, bunday natijalarsiz tokenlarni qayta tasniflashni targ'ib qilish emas. "Biz 1954.52-bo'lim, (a) (1) bo'linmasida, qurilmaning turar joyidan foydalanishdan oldin berilgan yashash to'g'risidagi guvohnomalarga tegishli degan xulosaga keldik."[218][219][220]

Mosser qoida: "vakansiyalarni nazorat qilish" bo'yicha bolalar

San-Fransisko.

2015 yil yanvar oyida birinchi okrug apellyatsiya sudi qaroriga binoan, Kosta-Xokkins uy egasiga ijaraga berishning yangi stavkasini belgilashga ruxsat berganda, ijaradagi "asl odamlar" bu erda doimiy yashamaydilar, ammo bu dekontrol emas ijara boshlanganda ota-onasi bilan birga yashagan voyaga etmagan bola bo'shaganidan keyin u erda qolgan uy egasi uchun mavjud. Yilda Mosser kompaniyalari San-Frantsiskoga qarshi ijarani barqarorlashtirish va hakamlik kengashiga qarshi,[221] apellyatsiya sudi birinchi instansiya sudining qarorini tasdiqladi. Ishning sharhida ta'kidlanishicha, Kosta-Xokkins, "yozilganidek, barcha qonuniy odamlar binolarni bo'shatmaguncha, vakansiyalarni nazorat qilishga yo'l qo'ymaydi". Bu, uy egasining, bu ijaraga olinadigan binolarning avlodlararo ijarasini tashkil etganligi haqidagi bahsiga qaramay.[222]

The Mosser qoida keyin birinchi tuman Apellyatsiya sudi tomonidan 2015 yil iyul oyida kengaytirilgan, yilda T & A Drolapas v San-Frantsiskoda turar joy ijarasini barqarorlashtirish va Arb. Bd..[223] Ushbu qaror shunga o'xshash faktlarni ko'rib chiqdi (uy egasi ko'chib o'tgan asl ijarachilarning o'g'li ijara haqini oshirishga harakat qilmoqda). Sud birinchi navbatda, Kosta-Xokkins qonun chiqarilishidan oldin oila ko'chib o'tganligi sababli, agar o'g'li shunchaki yengil bo'lsa ham, u bo'lar edi ichida bobosi. Bunday "subtenant" "asl yo'lovchi" bo'lishi mumkin. Sud, shu bilan birga, u ham ostida yashagan shaxs ekanligini topdi Mosser dan farqli o'laroq, qoidalar Mosser, ijaraga berish boshlanganda uy egasi o'g'li haqida bilganligi haqida hech qanday dalil yo'q edi.[224]

Mak: "Faqatgina sabab" xabarnomasi va 'vakansiyalarni boshqarish'

2015 yil sentyabr oyida Jeyson Mak va Berkli shahrining ijarasini barqarorlashtirish kengashi,[225] Birinchi okrug apellyatsiya sudi Kosta-Xokinsni daliliy ma'noda talqin qildi taxmin Berkli ijarasi to'g'risidagi farmonda, agar ijarachi tugatish to'g'risidagi ogohlantirishdan keyin ko'chib ketgan bo'lsa, ijarachi ko'chib ketgan. chunki xabarnoma. Uy egasining ijara bo'linmasiga egalik qilishning qabul qilingan usullaridan biri bu "egasining ko'chib o'tishi" dan foydalanish, bu ijaraga olinadigan ijarani bekor qilish uchun "adolatli sabab" deb tan olingan. Albatta, keyinchalik uy egalari ko'chib o'tishlari va ijara bo'limlarini bir necha minimal muddat (masalan, doimiy 36 oy) davomida o'zlarining yashash joylariga aylantirishlari talab qilinadi. Bunday holatda, Kosta-Xokkins qonuni keyinchalik jihozni nazoratdan o'tkazadi, ya'ni uni bozor narxida ijaraga olishga imkon beradi. Bunday dekontrol "adolatli sabab" bilan cheklanadi yoki oldingi ijarachi ko'chib o'tishga erkin qaror qilsa. Shuning uchun egasi "adolatsiz sababsiz" ijaraga olinadigan ijarani bekor qilishni boshlashi mumkin emas, keyin uni bozor narxida yangi ijarachiga ijaraga berishi mumkin.[100][226]

Uy egasi Mak ijarachiga "egasining ko'chib o'tishi" ni bekor qilish to'g'risida ogohlantirgan. Ammo uy egasi bekor qilindi xabarnoma, keyin ijarachi bilan ko'chib o'tish to'g'risida bitim tuzdi, unda ijarachi oldindan ogohlantirish tufayli ko'chib o'tmasligini aytdi. Ammo uy egasi uyga kirmadi, aksincha binolarni yangi ijarachiga ijaraga berdi. Ko'rib chiqilayotgan Berkli haqidagi farmon ushbu faktlarga nisbatan qo'llanilganda, avvalgi ijarachi egasining ko'chib o'tishi to'g'risida ogohlantirish tufayli ko'chib ketgan degan taxminni ilgari surdi. Uy egalari bunga qodir emasdilar ushbu taxminni rad eting ularning yangi ijarachilari o'zlarining bozor stavkalari ijarasining haqiqiyligini shubha ostiga qo'yganlarida. Shunga ko'ra, bo'sh turgan birlik hali ham avvalgi nazorat qilinadigan ijara haqi miqdori bilan bog'liq edi, bu holat yangi ijarachilarga tegishli edi.[227]

Kaliforniyadagi so'nggi voqealar

Arzon uylar va HAA etishmasligi

1970-80-yillar inqirozi bilan boshlangan uy-joy tsikli, ehtimol, to'liq aylanaga aylandi. Uy-joy etishmovchiligi takrorlanib, ehtimol inqiroz darajasiga yetdi (Qarang: Kaliforniyada uy-joy etishmovchiligi ). 2014 yilgi Kaliforniya traktatida ko'chmas mulkni rivojlantirish, mualliflar "Kaliforniyadagi [C] jamoatchilik uylarning etishmasligi, ayniqsa arzon uy-joylar muammosiga qarshi turishda davom etmoqda. So'nggi bir necha o'n yilliklar ichida shtatda uy-joy ishlab chiqarish aholi va ish o'rinlarining o'sishidan orqada qolmoqda, natijada uy-joy tanqisligi ... ... Barcha fuqarolar ushbu uy-joy etishmovchiligining ta'sirini biron bir darajada his qilsalar ham, iqtisodiy spektrning eng past darajasida daromadga ega bo'lganlar ko'pincha tanqislikning og'irligini ko'taradilar. "[228][229][230][231][232][233]

Regarding the shortage in California, the Uy-joylar to'g'risida hisobot to'g'risida (HAA) was recently strengthened by amendments. Its 2016 version states: "(a) The legislature finds and declares all of the following: ¶(1) The lack of housing, including emergency shelters, is a critical problem that threatens the economic, environmental, and social quality of life in California. ¶(2) California housing has become the most expensive in the nation. ... ."[234][235]

Here the legislature aims to overcome the shortage by increasing the housing supply. The HAA imposes detailed limits on a city's power to restrict new housing construction.[236][237][238][239][240] The recent HAA amendments, signed by Gov. jigarrang, were sponsored by three Democrats: Nensi Skinner, Senate – Sharqiy ko'rfaz, Raul Bokanegra, Assembly – Pakoima va Tom Deyli, Assembly – Santa-Ana.[241]

Yet it's said that the HAA and similar bills subsequently introduced will not be enough.[242][243]

Efforts to repeal Costa–Hawkins

By the legislature

Richard Bloom, Assembly member; former Mayor of Santa Monica.

On February 17, 2017, in the Kaliforniya assambleyasi, Democratic members Richard Bloom, Rob Bonta va Devid Chiu introduced AB 1506, a bill that if passed would simply repeal wholesale the Costa–Hawkins Rental Housing Act of 1995. Given the vacancy decontrol and exclusions of Costa–Hawkins, its repeal would leave mahalliy hokimiyat organlari free to control much of the residential rental pricing regulations, their reach, and similar issues.[244][245][246][247] By April the bill was facing stiff opposition and bleak prospects in the legislature. It was then "parked in committee" until next year.[248][249]

On January 11, 2018, chairperson Chiu (San Francisco) of the Assembly's Housing and Community Development Committee put Bloom's bill to a vote. It failed to pass. The two Republicans voted against. Demokratlar Ed Chau (Arkadiya) va Jim Vud (Healdsburg) abstained, and commented that rent control would do nothing to increase the supply of housing and may discourage new construction at a time the state needs it the most.[250]:1Perhaps a thousand proponents representing the opposing sides attended the vote.[250][251]

By initiative: Prop 10

On October 23, 2017, the Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment (ACCE) filed papers with the state Attorney General for a saylov byulleteni which would repeal wholesale the 1995 Costa–Hawkins Act. ACCE calls the current rents across California too high, and out of control. To qualify for a November 2018 vote by the public, 365,880 signatures are said to be required.[252][253][254][255]

Proponents announced in late April that they have enough signatures to qualify an initiative to repeal Costa Hawkins.[256][52] Its supporters named it the "Affordable Housing Act". The initiative was Proposition 10 on the General Election ballot of November 2018.[257][258]

On November 6, Prop 10 was decisively defeated, reported the Los Anjeles Tayms; it endorsed the measure. The preliminary results with 100% of precincts reporting: 38% or 2,675,378 voted for, and 62% or 4,310,298 voted against.[259]

Carol Galante, a professor of urban policy at UC Berkeley's Terner Center for Housing Innovation postulated that Prop 10 may have been defeated because it would have opened the door for government regulation of rents on single-family homes; because 40% of the rental housing stock nationwide consists of single-family homes (predominantly owned by private individuals), this resulted in a large number of owners with the ability to vote against this proposition.[260]

By initiative: Prop 21

The same activists who advocated for Proposition 10 (both financially backed by the OITS sog'liqni saqlash jamg'armasi ), in the wake of the failure to attract majority support, decided to put another initiative to amend the Costa-Hawkins Act on the ballot in the 2020 yil Kaliforniyadagi saylovlar. This initiative, Proposition 21, is a more limited and partial repeal of Costa-Hawkins, as opposed to a complete repeal which was on the ballot in 2018.[261][262] This measure also failed by a similar margin.

Studies on effects of California Rent Control (not limited to Costa-Hawkins)

Research published in 1990, 1999, 2000

Historically, there have been two types of rent control - vacancy control (where the rent level of a unit is controlled irrespective of whether the tenant remains in the unit or not) and vacancy decontrol (where the rent level is controlled only while the existing tenant remains in the unit). In California prior to 1997, both types were allowed (the Costa/Hawkins bill of that year phased out vacancy control provisions). A 1990 study of Santa Monica, CA showed that vacancy control in that city protected existing tenants (lower increases in rent and longer stability). However, the policy potentially discouraged investors from building new rental units.[263]

A 2000 study that compared the border areas of four California cities having vacancy control provisions (Santa Monica, Berkeley, West Hollywood, East Palo Alto) with the border areas of adjoining jurisdictions (two of which allowed vacancy decontrol, including Los Angeles, and two of which had no rent control) showed that existing tenants in the vacancy control cities had lower rents and longer tenure than in the comparison areas. Thus, the ordinances helped protect the existing tenants and, therefore, increased community stability. However, there were fewer new rental units created in the border areas of the vacancy controlled cities over the 10-year period.[264]

A 1999 study that compared the effects of local rent control measures (both vacancy control and vacancy decontrol) with other local o'sishni boshqarish measures in 490 California cities and counties (including all the largest ones) showed that rent control was stronger than individual land use restrictions (but not the aggregate effect of all growth restrictions) in reducing the number of rental units constructed between 1980 and 1990.[265] The measures (both rent control and growth management) helped displace new construction from the metropolitan areas to the interiors of the state with low income and minority populations being particularly impacted.

2017 study of San Francisco housing market

In 1994, San Francisco voters passed a byulleten tashabbusi which expanded the city's existing rent control laws to include small multi-unit apartments with four or less units, built prior to 1980. (about 30% of the city's rental housing stock at the time).[266]:7 [267]:1 [268]:1 2017 yilda, Stenford iqtisodiyot researcher Rebecca Diamond and others published a study which examined the effects of this specific rent control law on the rental units newly controlled compared to similar style units (multi-unit apartments with four or less units) not under rent control (built after 1980), as well as this law's effect on the total city rental stock, and on overall rent prices in the city, covering the years from 1995 to 2012.[267][268][269][270]:1[271]:1[272]

They found that while San Francisco's rent control laws benefited tenants who had rent controlled units, it also resulted in landlords removing 30% of the units in the study from the rental market, (by conversion to xonadonlar yoki TIC-lar ) which led to a 15% citywide decrease in total rental units, and a 7% increase in citywide rents.[266]:1,44 [267][268]:1[269][270]

The authors stated that "This substitution toward owner occupied and high-end new construction rental housing likely fueled the gentrification of San Francisco, as these types of properties cater to higher income individuals."[266]:3[267][268]:1 [269][270][271]:1

The authors also noted that "...forcing landlords to provide insurance against rent increases leads to large losses to tenants. If society desires to provide social insurance against rent increases, it would be more desirable to offer this subsidy in the form of a government subsidy or tax credit. This would remove landlords’ incentives to decrease the housing supply and could provide households with the insurance they desire."[266]:44[267]:1[268]:1[269]:1[270]:1[271]:1[272]:1

Coronavirus/COVID-19: temporary eviction moratorium

Hokim Gavin Newsom on March 4, 2020, signed an ijro buyrug'i N-44-20 on COVID-19, declaring a California favqulodda holat. It contained provisions for a statewide temporary eviction moratorium. Although court proceedings, e.g., unlawful detainers, could commence or continue, a judgment against a tenant could not result in an order to evict. On March 16, by N-28-20, Newson allowed California cites to write local ordinances to craft their own moratoriums.[273] On June 30, Newsom by N-71-20 extended the original moratorium until September 30, 2020.[274]

6 aprel kuni Sud kengashi suspended statewide proceedings for evictions and foreclosures. This body, headed by the Chief Justice Tani Kantil-Sakauye, makes policy for California courts. The suspension included chaqiruv, judgments and lock-out orders, and was to be effective for 90 days after the emergency.[275] Housing providers, however, may still serve a defaulting tenant with a 3-day Notice to Pay Rent or Quit, and file papers with the court.[276]

Two lawsuits have been filed challenging the moratorium orders. On June 8, the Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles filed against the City of Los Angeles over its local ordinance. Bir hafta o'tgach Tinch okeani huquqiy jamg'armasi contested the Judicial Council's suspension of legal proceedings regarding all evictions. The latter alleges that a malfeasant tenant is allowed to commit illegal acts, create nuisance, and damage property with impunity.[277]

Over 150 California cities and counties have since enacted eviction moratoriums to be effective during the pandemic emergency. Such local ordinances may impose more restrictions than the State moratorium.[278] The Counties of Los Angeles, Ventura, and San Bernardino have adopted such legislation, and as have 45 cities located therein.

Western Center on Law and Poverty provides support for the moratorium, and Shimoliy Kaliforniyaning yuridik xizmatlari ishlab chiqdi a ma'lumotlar varaqasi designed for tenants in order to comply with requirements of the moratorium and suspension.[279]

Bibliografiya

  • W. Dennis Keating, Rent Control in California. Responding to the Crisis (Institute of Governmental Studies, University of California, Berkeley 1983), 24 pages. Accessed 2017-10-17.
  • Allan David Heskin, Tenants and the American Dream. Ideology and the tenant movement (New York: Paeger 1983), re Santa Monica.
  • Paul L. Niebanck, editor, The Rent Control Debate (University of North Carolina 1985), the editor was a UCSC professor.
  • Piter Dreier, "Rent Deregulation in California and Massachusetts: Politics, Policy, and Impacts – Part I" (1997), "Part II" (1997), at International and Public Policy Center, Occidental College, Los Angeles. Accessed 2017-11-6.
  • Cecily Talbert Barclay & Matthew S. Gray, Curtin's California Land Use and Planning Law (Point Arena: Solano Press 34th ed., 2014).
  • West's California Jurisprudence 3d, v. 42: Landlord & Tenant (Toronto: Thomson & Reuters 2016, update 2017).
  • David Brown, Janet Portman, Nils Rosenquest, The California Landlord's Law Book (Berkeley: Nolo Press 2017).
  • Nancy C. Lenvin & Myron Moskovitz, "Practicing under Rent and Eviction Control Laws," Chapter 7 in California Landlord-Tenant Practice (Oakland: California Continuing Education of the Bar: updated 2017).

Adabiyotlar

  1. ^ The Act's complexities are abridged and simplified here.
  2. ^ The 'newly constructed' designation may be more complicated than it appears. Any rental units built after the 1995 Costa-Hawkins Act would be exempt. But also, with regard to cities with existing rent control ordinances, the Act counts as "new construction' any built after that ordinance was enacted. See below the section "Exemptions to rent control".
  3. ^ a b Dreier (1997), Part II, section "The Politics of Deregulation in California" at ¶1 & ¶8 re Costa.
  4. ^ a b Phil Hawkins served one term in the Assembly, 1994–1996, where he "carved out a solidly conservative record on most issues". "Sally Havice (D) v. Phil Hawkins (R)", yilda Los-Anjeles Tayms, Oct. 9, 1998. Accessed 2017-11-9.
  5. ^ The "decontrol" of such "vacancy controlled" rents was phased in over a three-year period starting at the end of 1995.
  6. ^ Theact also addresses incidental technical issues, such as, when such rents may be increased on a remaining subtenant.
  7. ^ Here the issue is State of California limits put on its cities. Federal va Shtat constitutions both establish and limit government power. Cf., the O'ninchi o'zgartirish. Qarang: Dillonning qoidasi.
  8. ^ The Act also repeals or reforms various California state programs that subsidiya qualified renters of residential dwellings. These provisions are mentioned below, but are not the focus here. The Act's 3-year phase-in for vacancy decontrol, and these reforms, complicate the language of the nizom.
  9. ^ See text below for source citations.
  10. ^ The first wave was in the late 1940s, during the economic surge following World War II. Alisa Belinkoff Katz, "People are simply unable to pay the rent" What History tells us about Rent Control in Los Angeles, da UCLA Luskin Center for History and Policy, October 2018. Introduction by Zev Yaroslavskiy. Accessed 2018-11-1. This study covers three rental housing crises and related rent control enactments in Los Angeles: the above post-war, the post-Prop 13 in 1979, and the current, on-going situation.
  11. ^ "The California experience is representative of the range of public responses... ." Keating in Niebanck (1983), p.57.
  12. ^ Lenvin and Moskovitz [2017], ∮7.8 on factors causing rent control in the 1970s: rising real estate prices for homes and for apartment houses; economy-wide inflation; tight housing markets from short supply and high demand; the consumer movement).
  13. ^ Sternlieb and Hughes, in Niebanck (1985), pp. 11–28: rent control by cities "dependent on national market factors" at p.11; own versus rent, and housing supply, at pp. 11–20; private investment in rental housing property, at pp. 25–28.
  14. ^ Keating, in Niebanck (1985), pp. 57–73, at 57–59 (fall of tenant incomes, rise in rents; the housing shortage: vacancy rates, not enough new construction; low income households and percent spent on rent; housing subsidy cut-backs: fed policy & state budgets; Proposition 13; rent control in California), and at pp. 70–73 (growth and land use restrictions, increased fees and requirements for new housing construction; Proposition 13; very high mortgage interest rates; state budget problems limit its housing remedies; Proposition 13; policy trade-offs).
  15. ^ Niebanck, in Niebanck (1985), pp. 105–122. After analysis of multiple issues in a city's rental economy, including market malfunction and two benchmarks (the vacancy rate, and income percentage spent on rent), the UCSC professor suggests: "A locality's interest in rent control has at least as much to do with underlying cultural, socioeconomic, political, and ideological factors as it has to do with market conditions" at pp. 110–111 (quote).
  16. ^ Keating (1983), pp. 3–4. Sponsors of Proposition 13 claimed that tenants would share in the benefits of reduced property taxes. But after it passed, most landlords declined to do so. The legislature refused to heed the tenant protests.
  17. ^ Heskin (1983): 1960s rental glut, 1970s fall in housing construction and rise in rents (pp. 32–33, 40–41); Prop. 13 and 'tenant revolt' (pp. xiv, 41, 47–49). Civil rights, qashshoqlikka qarshi kurash, urushga qarshi movements were followed by tenants who organized, first in college towns (p.32). Kerner Commission, p.102.
  18. ^ Dreier (1997), Part I, "The Battle for Rent Control" at ¶¶ 8–10. Earlier tenant movements of the 1960s were "spillovers" from the inson huquqlari, poor peoples, va talaba movements (¶8). He notes (at ¶10) that the Kerner komissiyasi found that "housing problems among low-income tenants was the primary grievance behind the mid-1960s ghetto rebellions." The National Tenants' Organization, founded in 1969, was for a time widespread across America (¶8).
  19. ^ Niebanck, in Niebanck (1985), pp. 106–107, quotes at 106.
  20. ^ Heskin (1983) concludes that the vast majority of tenants remain committed to mainstream views of property ownership (pp. 34, 244, 247). He relied on results from two extensive tenant surveys taken in southern California (pp. xv–xvi, pp. 66–249). UCLA Prof. Heskin in his Preface had declared for the tenant movement, disclosing his work as a Yuridik xizmatlar lawyer and pro-tenant law reformer (pp. ix–x, 291). The author here explored the possibility that tenants in the movement, inspired by radical activists, might eventually 'fracture' the ideological norm and favor ijtimoiylashish a community's rental housing stock (pp. xii–xiv, 28–34, 239–243; "fracture" at pp. xiv, xviii, xxiii; "polarization" at p.xxiii, cf. 68–76).
  21. ^ Heskin (1083), p.61: "a coalition of ko'chmas mulk ishlab chiqaruvchilari, qurilish savdosi unions, and uy egalari " formed to promote Proposition 10.
  22. ^ Keating (1983), pp. 5–6: Although somewhat similar to Costa–Hawkins, in its details Prop. 10 would have been substantially different, e.g., Prop. 10 mandated that a city could not enact a faqat sabab requirement for evictions. Re Berkeley 1972 (pp. 3, 4).
  23. ^ Heskin (1983): Berkeley, CHC and AB 3788: Brown's veto (pp. 41–43); Prop.10 (pp. 61–63).
  24. ^ Dreier (1997), Part II, at section "Rent Control in California", Jarvis at ¶5, CHC and Prop. 13 at ¶¶ 5 and 6b, Proposition 10 at ¶15.
  25. ^ Keating (1983), pp. 3–4. Proposition 13 proponents: their unfullfilled promise to lower rents inspires tenants to mount a fight for rent control.
  26. ^ Heskin (1983), p.47: Jarvis announced agreement between two landlord associations to lower rent if Prop.13 passed; p.48: statewide tenant revolt following Prop. 13 vote and few landlords pass on tax savings to tenants; p.49: landlord costs go up.
  27. ^ Dreier (1997), Part II, at section "Rent Control in California", Governor's 'hot line' at ¶7, fourteen cities at ¶8, Los Angeles quote at ¶9.
  28. ^ Keating, in Niebanck (1985). After Prop. 13, Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bredli moved from opposition into support for rent control. "Tenants then turned to local government for relief via rent control." Fourteen cities. A poll taken in May 1979 had Californians in favor of rent control 56% to 21%, tenants in favor 73% to 20%. At that time 55% of Californians were renters.
  29. ^ Heskin (1983), pp. 39, 43–47, 48–49: 1970s growth of tenant movement; p.48: Governor's 'hot line'; pp. 50–55: tenant groups active in Los Angeles, rent freeze becomes rent control; pp.55–61, 63–65: in Santa Monica, Prop. A rent control, tenant majority on city council.
  30. ^ Dreier (1997), Part II, at section "The Politics of Deregulation in California", Roberti anti-Costa at ¶¶ 2–3, Roberti term limits at ¶¶ 5–7, Costa in Assembly at ¶¶ 1–2, Costa in Senate at ¶¶ 6–9, tenant advocacy weak at ¶3, 9; at section "Rent Control in California", Roberti rent control at ¶3, tenant groups weaken at ¶16; at section "Comparative Analysis," subsection "Weakness and Fragmentation of Tenancy Constituency".
  31. ^ Max Vanzi, "Legislature deals blow to rent control", yilda Los-Anjeles Tayms, July 25, 1995. Sen. Jim Costa said the Act represented "an 11-year effort to try to end extreme forms of rent control in California."
  32. ^ "California Civil Code, 1954.50–1954.535". Leginfo.legislature.ca.gov. Olingan 11 iyul 2017.
  33. ^ Qarang: Analyses: AB 1164, Assembly Floor 7/25/95 – DIGEST. California Legislative Information website.
  34. ^ Max Vanzi, "Legislature deals blow to rent control", yilda Los-Anjeles Tayms, July 25, 1995: bill sponsors Phil Hawkins and Jim Costa; legislation quote per WCLP. Accessed 2017-08-28.
  35. ^ Heskin (1983). On the Los Angeles City Council, black leaders voiced a different view of housing shortages. Oldinroq Robert C. Farrell had spoken of the "thousands of vacant and substandard housing units in South Central. ... My constituents want decent housing and a decent rent" (p.51, quoting the Sentinel, Aug. 10, 1978; also p.75 code violations, pp. 132–133 poor condition of rentals). Nationwide, some owners had abandoned urban rental properties that needed substantial repairs (cf. p.32).
  36. ^ Dreier (1997), Part II, at section "The Politics of Deregulation in California". WCLP in opposition at ¶9 (coalition quote, two phrases quoted). WCLP was "an arm of legal services" (apparently LSC ). Also: Dreier (1997) Part II, section "Comparative Analysis," subsection "Weakness and Fragmentation of Tenancy Constituency".
  37. ^ Max Vanzi, "Legislature deals blow to rent control", yilda Los-Anjeles Tayms, July 25, 1995: advocates alarmed.
  38. ^ "California Civil Code, 1954.50–1954.535". Leginfo.legislature.ca.gov. Olingan 11 iyul 2017.
  39. ^ "A General Overview of California's Costa–Hawkins Rental Housing Act" Arxivlandi 2017-12-01 da Orqaga qaytish mashinasi, at California Apartment Association website. Accessed 2017-11-25.
  40. ^ Cf. §1954.52(a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3)(A).
  41. ^ For vacancy control issues, see below under section "Effect of the Costa-Hawkins Act".
  42. ^ Cf. 1954.52(a) and 1954.53(a).
  43. ^ Cf. 1954.52(a)(3)(C) and 1954.53(a)(1) & 1954.53(b) & (c).
  44. ^ Cf. 1954.52(b), 1954.53(a)(1)(B); & 1954.535, and 1954.53(f).
  45. ^ Cf. 1954.53(b) & (d).
  46. ^ Qarang: Analyses: AB 1164, Assembly Floor 7/25/95 – DIGEST. California Legislative Information website. Note: 3-year phase-in (p.3,#2); housing programs repeal (p.2,#5, p.4,#7, p.6,#4).
  47. ^ Cf. Civil Code, §1954.52.
  48. ^ a b Civil Code, §1954.52(a)(1).
  49. ^ Civil Code, §1954.52(a)(2).
  50. ^ Kutler, Kim-May (2014 yil 14-aprel). "How Burrowing Owls Lead To Vomiting Anarchists (Or SF's Housing Crisis Explained)". TechCrunch. Arxivlandi asl nusxasidan 2014-04-30. Olingan 2017-12-11. San Francisco’s version of rent control also does not apply to buildings constructed after 1979,...
  51. ^ Murphy, Katy (2018-01-11). "Rent control in California: Proposal to lift restrictions blocked in committee". San-Xose Merkuriy yangiliklari. Arxivlandi asl nusxasidan 2018-01-23. Olingan 2018-01-28. Single family homes and condominiums are exempt from rent control under this state law. So is any apartment built after 1995, when Costa Hawkins was passed, or in some cases much earlier. If a city adopted rent control in 1980, for example — as Oakland and Berkeley did — then that is the cutoff; nothing built afterward can be subject to rent control.
  52. ^ a b Emily Alpart Reyes and David Zahniser, "Garcetti says he would consider expanding rent control in L.A.", yilda Los-Anjeles Tayms, April 23, 2018. Accessed 2018-4-30.
  53. ^ So that an apartment building in Los Angeles built in the 1980s and hence exempt as newly built under the City's 1978 rent control ordinance, would not lose its exemption because it was built before the 1995 Costa-Hawkins Act.
  54. ^ Kutler, Kim-May (2014 yil 14-aprel). "How Burrowing Owls Lead To Vomiting Anarchists (Or SF's Housing Crisis Explained)". TechCrunch. Arxivlandi asl nusxasidan 2014-04-30. Olingan 2017-12-11. 1) First off, understand the math of the region. San Francisco has a roughly thirty-five percent homeownership rate. Then 172,000 units of the city’s 376,940 housing units are under rent control. (That’s about 75 percent of the city’s rental stock.)
  55. ^ Bergman, Ben (2014-09-12). "LA Rent: Has rent control been successful in Los Angeles?". Janubiy Kaliforniya jamoat radiosi. Arxivlandi asl nusxasidan 2014-09-13. Olingan 2018-12-04.
  56. ^ Civil Code, § 1954.52 (exemptions).
  57. ^ 2002 Amendment discussed in Burien case, pp. 5–9 & fns. 2 & 3, legislative history at pp. 7-8.
  58. ^ Burien LCC v. Wiley (2009), da JUSTIA AQSh qonuni. Accessed 2017-08-22.
  59. ^ Cf., section below "Certificates of Occupancy: Burien LLC v. Wiley".
  60. ^ Various other state laws impact rental housing, e.g., warranties of habitability, the building codes, rental agreements, unlawful detainer, et cetera.
  61. ^ Dreier (1997), Part II, at section "Appendix: Arguments For and Against Rent Control". Discussion of the benefits of rent control as advanced by proponents and the author, and rejoinders to opposition arguments.
  62. ^ Keating (1983), esp. at pp. 2–3 and 15–18, for additional proponent views. Keating centers on the preservation of affordable housing during a severe supply shortage, among other issues.
  63. ^ Heskin (1983), for additional proponent views, and ideological perspectives. ""Tenancy excludes no group although certainly tenants are more likely to be young, female, minority, and low income in larger proportions than the population taken as a whole" (pp. 93–94).
  64. ^ Jake Blumgart, "In Defense of Rent Control", da Tinch okeani standarti, April 1, 2015. Accessed 2017-11-13. "The real goal of rent control is protecting the moral rights of... long-term tenants who... have a legitimate interest in staying in their apartments."
  65. ^ Ben Bergman, "LA Rent: Has rent control been successful in Los Angeles?", da 89.3KPCC, Sept. 12, 2014. This article, while giving opponent views, is more favorable to proponents of rent control. Accessed 2017-008-22.
  66. ^ Jeremy Rosenberg, "The fight against rent control", da KCET, March 4, 2013. Housing activist Denny Zane at ¶17: "The marketplace on its own does not produce affordable housing. It produces market rate housing."
  67. ^ James Brasuell, "New Research changes the narrative on the effects of rent control", Planetizen, Oct. 22, 2018. Accessed 2018-11-1.
  68. ^ Cf., Website of proponents of 'strict' rent control re California Proposition 10 (General Election, November 6, 2018): "Yes on Prop 10". Accessed 2018-11-1.
  69. ^ "Title and Findings", quote at ∮ 37.1(b)(2) of The Rent Ordinance, at San Francisco Rent Board website.
  70. ^ "Maqsad" Arxivlandi 2019-09-29 at the Orqaga qaytish mashinasi, ∮13.76.030 of the Rent Stabilization and Eviction for Good Cause Ordinance, at Rent Stabilization Board, City of Berkeley website. Accessed 2017-11-13.
  71. ^ "Maqsad bayonoti", Rent Control Charter Amendment, § 1800, at City of Santa Monica website. Accessed 2017-11-17.
  72. ^ Analyses: AB 1164, Assembly Floor 7/25/95 – DIGEST, California Legislative Information website, quote at p.1.
  73. ^ Birkenfeld v. City of Berkeley (1976), at Stanford Law School SCOCAL website. Accessed 2017-10-17. Here, while elements were found to be unconstitutional, the California Supreme Court held generally that "an emergency is no more necessary for rent control than for other forms of economic regulation which are constitutionally valid". Birkenfeld, opening paragraph.
  74. ^ Keating in Niebanck (1985), pp. 66–67 (Birkenfeld ish).
  75. ^ Lenvin and Moskovitz [2017], ∮7.10 (Birkenfeld ish).
  76. ^ Qarang: Government Code, section 65589(b), at California Legislative Information website. Accessed 2017-10-19. California's requirement that cities enact a Housing Element does not grant nor repeal a city's authority regarding rent control.
  77. ^ Cf., Keating (1983), p. 4: In the 1970s and early 1980s, the California courts found unconstitutional rent control ordinances or their elements in Berkeley, Cotati, Davis, and Palm Springs.
  78. ^ Kavanau v. City of Santa Monica Rent Control Bd (1997), at Stanford Law School SCOCAL website. Accessed 2017-11-3.
  79. ^ Berger Foundation v. City of Escondido (2005), at Find Law website. Accessed 2017-11-3.
  80. ^ Cf., Lenvin and Moskovitz [2017], ∮∮ 7.10 (Birkenfeld ish va Fisher v. City of Berkeley), 7.13 (fair return: two Fisher cases), 7.14 (taking: Kavanau va Berger Foundation holatlar).
  81. ^ See ordinances linked below, at "List of California Cities".
  82. ^ "San Jose approves stricter rent control", at California Apartment Association website.
  83. ^ Gregory Cornfield, "Beverly Hills extends emergency rent controls", yilda Park Labrea News/Beverly Press, Feb. 22, 2017. 2017-08-27.
  84. ^ California Consumer Price Index (1955–2017). Accessed 2017-10-23.
  85. ^ See below re such city ordinances linked to websites, at "List of California Cities". Au contraire, East Palo Alto, Palm Springs, Santa Monica, and West Hollywood use only a fraction of CPI.
  86. ^ "Rent limitations", San Francisco Rent Board.
  87. ^ "2014 adjustment", City of Berkeley Rent Stabilization Board.
  88. ^ Brown, Portman, Rosenquest (2017), Appendix A at pp. 431–467: information about rent control in 18 California cities, described and compared in abstract.
  89. ^ These types have also been excluded by some cities from rent control: duplekslar, triplexes, four-unit apartment buildings (whether owner-occupied or not); luxury rentals (units with high rents), government subsidized units. Cf. Brown, Portman, Rosenquest (2017), p.89.
  90. ^ "Topic No. 17, Overview of Covered and Excluded Units", at San Francisco Rent Board. Dekabr 12, 2017.
  91. ^ Thousand Oaks apparently excludes from rent control all apartment-house tenancies that began after 1987, the vast majority of such tenants. "Housing: Rent Control", City of Thousand Oaks. Accessed 2017-12-13.
  92. ^ "Hearings, Mediations, and Appeals", da San Francisco Rent Board. Accessed 2017-08-24.
  93. ^ Lenvin and Moskovitz [2017], ∮∮ 7.41 to 7.52.
  94. ^ Brown, Portman, Rosenquest (2017), pp. 90, 148 (mediation). Different are hearings before a rent control board, pp. 95–99.
  95. ^ Minimal standards such as safety and health (e.g., functioning utilities, heat and plumbing, protection from weather) are set forth under California state yashashga yaroqlilik qonunlar. Masalan, California Civil Code, section 1941.1.
  96. ^ Brown, Portman, Rosenquegst (2017), pp. 76, 195–196.
  97. ^ "Maintenance of Rental Property", at Santa Monica Rent Control Board. Dekabr 12, 2017.
  98. ^ Bianca Barragan, "Los Angeles wants a registry of how much rent everyone is supposed to be paying", da Los-Anjeles cheklangan, Feb. 17, 2016. Accessed 2017-08-23.
  99. ^ Brown, Portman, Rosenquest (2017), pp. 89–90.
  100. ^ a b Marcia Stewart, "Rent Control: Evictions in Rent Control Areas", at Nolo Press website.
  101. ^ Ramona Giwargis, "San Jose City Council approves policy against no-cause evictions", Merkuriy yangiliklari, April 18, 22017. 2017-08-24.
  102. ^ Costa–Hawkins leaves the cities free to regulate tenant evictions. Civil Code ∮1954.52(c).
  103. ^ Civil Code ∮∮ 1946 and 1946.1.
  104. ^ Lenvin and Moskovitz [2017], ∮∮ 7.53 to 7.80; at ∮7.54 are described ten causes that may be considered "just cause" under the ordinances of various cities. ∮∮ 7.56 to 7.68 analysis examples of "just cause".
  105. ^ Brown, Portman, Rosenquest (2017), pp. 92–95.
  106. ^ "Tenant is at-fault for Eviction", at Los Angeles Housing and Community Investment Department. Accessed 2017-11-13.
  107. ^ "SDCAA White Paper: City of San Diego Cause Eviction Ordinance", January 2015, at p.1, San Diego County Apartment Association website. Accessed 2017-12-12.
  108. ^ Lenvin & Moskovitz (2017), ∮7.76A, payments to tenants, re relocation, e.g., San Francisco Residential Rent Stabilization and Arbitration Ordinance, ∮37.9C. Lenin & Moskovitz ∮7.65, p.7-110: relocation allowance to tenant if termination for move-in of owner's family.
  109. ^ Brown, Portman, Rosenquest (2017), p.95
  110. ^ "Relocation Assistance", City of Santa Monica Rent Control Board. Accessed 2017-08-24.
  111. ^ "Relocation Assistance Information", at Los Angeles Housing and Community Investment Department. Accessed 2017-11-1.
  112. ^ A mandated relocation allowance might be analogized to an unwilling landlord being forced to sotib olmoq a month-to-month tenant.
  113. ^ Lenvin & Moskovitz (2017), Ellis Act: ∮ 7.64 to 7.64H. Relocation allowances by a city not preempted by Ellis Act per Government Code, ∮7060.1(c), at Find Law website.
  114. ^ "Appeals Court strikes down San Francisco law on tenant relocation payments", da CBS SF ko'rfazidagi hudud, March 22, 2017. Accessed 2017-08-24.
  115. ^ Kaushik Basu and Patrick M. Emerson, "The Economics of Tenancy Rent Control", yilda Iqtisodiy jurnal, v.110, pp.939–962 (2000). Accessed 2017-08-22. This article discusses laws without 'vacancy control', concluding at pp. 958–960 that their result is not Pareto optimal, and that they cause rents to rise.
  116. ^ Jake Blumgart, "In Defense of Rent Control", da Tinch okeani standarti, April 1, 2015. Accessed 2017-11-13. In 1992, 93% of the Amerika iqtisodiy assotsiatsiyasi agreed that "a ceiling on rents reduces the quality and quantity of housing."
  117. ^ Lisa Blackwell, "The high cost of rent control", at National Multifamily Housing Council website. Accessed 2017-11-7.
  118. ^ For arguments taken by proponents of rent control, see section "Declared purposes".
  119. ^ Jay Fitzgerald, "End of Rent Control in Cambridge", National Bureau of Economic Research. Accessed 2017-10-09. "[E]vidence indicates that ownership investments in rent-controlled units, including maintenance, upkeep and capital improvements, were lower than investments in non-controlled units" (¶5).
  120. ^ Beacon Economics, "An Analysis of Rent Control in California" (Los Angeles 1916), for California Apartment Association.
  121. ^ Keating (1983), pp. 14–15: Often the clear alternative to rent control, and best long-range cure for rents that are too-high, is more residential housing being built and coming on the market. Yet in a housing crisis when supply by free enterprise is failing to meet demand, government programs may not be sufficient either, e.g., Federal home finance, and rental programs such as 8-bo'lim va state mandates va subsidiyalar uchun arzon uy-joy. Keating (1983), p.1: Housing shortages are often due to surges in demand or insufficient supply. Low supply can be caused not only by a local government suppressing the business of rental housing providers, but also by laws restricting the ko'chmas mulkni rivojlantirish of new rental units and/or underfunding of davlat uylari.
  122. ^ Gilderbloom in Niebanck (1985), pp. 76 & 137,n5. Housing supply is the heart of the tenant's problem. "Nationally known tenants' rights lawyers have spoken forcefully on the matter." Gilderbloom than quotes from Moskovitz, Warner, & Sherman, California Tenant's Handbook (1972), p.10: "The heart of the tenant's problem is not the laws and regulations (imperfect thought they may be), nor the goodness or badness of landlords (for they, like you, are but human)—no, the heart of the problem is with the supply of housing. It is drastically short."
  123. ^ Keating (1985), p.70: "Even the most ardent advocates for rent control generally acknowledge that controls do not constitute a lasting or comprehensive solution to the rental housing problem. They agree on the need for substantial increases in the supply of affordable housing... ."
  124. ^ Rebecca Diamond, Tim McQuade, Franklin Qian, "Ijarani boshqarish kengayishining ijarachilarga, uy egalariga va tengsizlikka ta'siri: San-Frantsiskodan olingan dalillar", October 11, 2017, at National Bureau of Economic Research website, quote at p.44 (cf., p.43). Accessed 2017-11-9. Also known as the 'Stanford Study'.
  125. ^ Adam Brinklou, "Stanford paper says rent control is driving up cost of housing in San Francisco", yilda San-Frantsisko cheklangan, Nov. 3, 2017. “These [effects] caused an aggregate welfare loss to renters of $5 Billion. This is almost as large as the benefits accrued by the lucky beneficiaries of rent control.” Accessed 2017-11-9.
  126. ^ Katy Murphy, "Rent-Control Policy 'likely fueled the gentrification of San Francisco,' Study finds. As California debates rent caps, economists offer cautionary note", yilda Merkuriy yangiliklari, Nov. 2, 2017. Accessed 2018-1-13. Renters favored by the city's rent control saved $393 million, but rents overall increased $5 billion. Yet the alternative of subsidies would cost California tens of billion annually, as much as medicare. Murphy here reports on the Oct. 11, 2017 Stanford Study.
  127. ^ Even proponents of rent control analyse it as only a second-best government solution to the housing crisis. The best use of scarce resources would apparently be to "directly subsidize renters with a dramatic expansion of Section 8 vouchers" thus making sure assistance flows only to residents who most need it. But the severe housing shortage and consequent high demand for rent relief by low-income residents make this best solution not politically appealing. Manuel Pastor, Vanessa Carter, & Maya Abood, "Ijara masalalari: Ijarani barqarorlashtirish choralari qanday ta'sir qiladi", da USC Dornsife, 2018 yil oktyabr, 19-20 betlar; iqtibos p. 19. Kirish 2018-11-1.
  128. ^ Kaliforniyaning 2018 yilgi raqiblari Taklif 10 bu chora yomon uy-joy inqirozini yanada kuchaytiradi deb ishongan. Bu yangi uy-joy qurilishiga olib kelmaydi va bitta oilaviy ijara egalari o'zlarining ijaralarini bozordan olib tashlashadi. "Yo'q, 10-tirgakda".
  129. ^ "Shaharlar to'g'risida bilib oling", da Kaliforniya shaharlar ligasi veb-sayt. Kirish 2017-10-09.
  130. ^ Kevin Makkallum, "Santa Rosa ijara nazorati saylov qutilarida kaltaklandi" yilda Press demokrat, 6-iyun, 2017-yil. Kirish 2017-08-22. Ovozlar 47,5% ni bekor qilish uchun 52,5% ni tashkil etdi, bekor qilish kuchlari o'z mablag'larini sarflashga sarf qildilar.
  131. ^ Kevin Makkallum, "Ijarani boshqarish bo'yicha mag'lubiyatdan so'ng, Santa Roza shahar kengashi oldinga intiladi", yilda Press demokrat, 7-iyun, 2017. Kirish 2017-10-25. Yangi e'tibor - arzon uy-joylarni qurish, shu jumladan hozirgi subsidiyalar va obligatsiyalarni o'rganish.
  132. ^ Stiven Vishinya, "Kaliforniyaning etti shahri ijara haqini boshqarish bo'yicha ovoz beradi", yilda Uy-joy qurilishi bo'yicha Metropolitan Kengashi, Oktyabr, 2016. Kirish 2018-05-03.
  133. ^ Quyida "Koronavirus / COVID-19: vaqtincha ko'chirish moritorium" bo'limiga qarang.
  134. ^ "Ijaraga nazorati bo'lgan shaharlar ro'yxati" Arxivlandi 2017-10-10 da Orqaga qaytish mashinasi, Kaliforniya iste'molchilar bilan ishlash departamenti veb-saytida. Kirish 2017-10-09.
  135. ^ "Ijara haqini boshqarish qoidalariga ega bo'lgan janubiy Kaliforniya shaharlari", UpNest veb-saytida. Kirish 2017-10-12.
  136. ^ Qarang: Braun, Portman, Rozenquest (2017), p. 88 (vositachilik xizmatlari tufayli o'n to'qqizta ro'yxat, shu jumladan to'rtta shahar), p. 431 (Palo Altoni tashlab, o'n sakkiz kishining ro'yxati).
  137. ^ Quyida "Ijaraga berilmaydigan elementlar bilan" bo'limiga qarang.
  138. ^ "Ijara haqini ko'rib chiqish, ijarani barqarorlashtirish va uydan chiqarishni cheklash", Alameda shahri. Kirish 2017-10-12.
  139. ^ Berkli shahridagi ijarani barqarorlashtirish kengashi.
  140. ^ Beverli-Xillz shahri ijarasini barqarorlashtirish.
  141. ^ "Ijarani barqarorlashtirish dasturi", East Palo Alto shahri. Kirish 2017-10-12.
  142. ^ "Uy-joy ijarasini barqarorlashtirish to'g'risidagi qaror", Xeyvard shahri. Kirish 2017-10-12.
  143. ^ "RSO haqida umumiy ma'lumot", Los-Anjeles uy-joy va jamoat bo'limida. Kirish 2017-10-09.
  144. ^ "Ijara bo'yicha nizolarni hal qilish to'g'risidagi nizom", Los Gatos shahri. Kirish 2017-10-12.
  145. ^ "Ijarani barqarorlashtirish", Mountain View shahri. Kirish 2017-10-12.
  146. ^ "Ijara haqini to'g'irlash dasturiga xush kelibsiz", City of Oakland veb-sayti. Kirish 2017-10-09.
  147. ^ "Ijarani boshqarish", Palm Springs shahri. Kirish 2017-10-12.
  148. ^ "Richmond ijara dasturi", Richmond shahri. Kirish 2017-10-12.
  149. ^ Karina Ioffee, "Richmond: sudya ijaraga beriladigan nazoratni to'xtatish harakatlarini rad etadi. Dastlabki sud qarorini qabul qilish to'g'risidagi talabni bekor qiladi va kitoblar to'g'risidagi qonunni saqlaydi", yilda East Bay Times, 10 fevral 1517. Kirish 2017-10-12.
  150. ^ "Ijara taxtasi", San-Frantsisko shahri. Kirish 2017-10-09.
  151. ^ "Kvartira ijarasi to'g'risidagi qaror", San-Xose. Kirish 2017-10-12.
  152. ^ "Umumiy ma'lumot: Ijara haqini boshqarish to'g'risidagi qonun va qoidalar", Santa Monika shahrida. Kirish 2017-10-09.
  153. ^ Heskin (1985), 63-65-betlar. Santa Monika ijarachilar harakati 1970-yillarning oxirlarida siyosiy muvaffaqiyatning "umummilliy ramzi" ga aylandi. 1980 yilda Baltimorda bo'lib o'tgan uchrashuvda ular ijara haqi himoyachilaridan "o'z-o'zidan va doimiy qarsak chalishdi". Ommaviy axborot vositalarida shu jumladan Wall Street Journal. Ularning mahalliy raqiblari "Santa Monika Xalq Respublikasi" nomini ilgari surdilar (p.xv). 1976 yilda "kuchsiz" kuchdan ijarachilar shahar Kengashida ko'pchilik ijarachilarni o'rnatgan saylovlarda g'olib bo'lishdi va shahar ijarasini nazorat qilishning qat'iy rejimi. Baltimorning taklifi 65-bet.
  154. ^ "Ijarani barqarorlashtirish", G'arbiy Gollivud. Kirish 2017-10-12.
  155. ^ "Sakramento ijarachilarni himoya qilish to'g'risidagi farmonni qabul qildi" Kirish 2019-08-14.
  156. ^ Quyida quyida ko'rib chiqing: "Cheklangan ijara nazorati ostida" va "Ijaraga berilmagan elementlar bilan" kichik bo'limlari.
  157. ^ Endi Kotati mobil uylar uchun ijarani nazorat qiladi va ijarachilarning farzandlari uchun maxsus himoya vositalariga ega, qarang, "Uy-joy", Cotati shahar kodeksi. Kirish 2017-10-12.
  158. ^ Qarang: 152 Valparaiso Associates va Kotati shahriga qarshi, Find Law veb-saytida. Kirish 2017-10-12.
  159. ^ Ming Oaksda barcha uyali uylar uchun ijara boshqaruvi mavjud. "Uy-joy: ijarani boshqarish", Ming Oaks shahri. Kirish 2017-12-13. Aftidan, shahar 1987 yilda yoki undan oldin ijarasi boshlangan bir necha xonadonli uy ijarachilarining ijara haqini ham nazorat qiladi.
  160. ^ "Uy-joy: Kempbell ijarasini oshirish munozaralarni hal qilish", Kempbell shahri. Kirish 2017-10-12. Siti egalarini ijarani cheklashni "rag'batlantiradi".
  161. ^ "Uy-joy ijarasi nizolarini hal qilishni ko'paytiradi", City of Fremont veb-saytida. Kirish 2017-12-12.
  162. ^ "Ijara vositachiligi" Arxivlandi 2017-10-13 da Orqaga qaytish mashinasi, Gardena shahri. Kirish 2017-10-12. Gardena ijarani 10 foizga yoki undan ko'proq oshirish uchun 60 kunlik ogohlantirishni talab qiladi.
  163. ^ "Palo shahri Alto ijarachisi uchun qo'llanma". Kirish 2017-11-23. 8-betda: "Palo Altoda ijaraga beriladigan nazorat bormi? Yo'q." Palo Alto majburiy bo'lmagan vositachilik xizmatini tayinlaydi (3-bet) va maslahat beradi (4-bet).
  164. ^ "Ijarani ko'rib chiqish dasturi", San-Leandro shahri. Kirish 2017-10-12. San-Leandro ijaraga olish uchun 60 kunlik ogohlantirishni 10% yoki undan ko'proq oshirishni talab qiladi. Bu ijarachilarga bozor narxidan past bo'lgan (BMR) ijaraga beriladigan uy-joylar uchun ariza berishga undaydi.
  165. ^ Union City majburiy, majburiy bo'lmagan vositachilik xizmatiga ega va hech qanday sababsiz evakuatsiya qilishni taqiqlaydi. "Ijara to'g'risidagi qarorlar", Union City. Kirish 2017-10-12.
  166. ^ Quyidagi keyingi qismga ham qarang ("rad etilgan").
  167. ^ Braun, Portman, Rozenquestdagi "ijaraga olinadigan" shaharlar ro'yxatiga qarang (2017), 88-bet (bu erda faqat vositachilik tufayli kiritilgan: Kempbell, Fremont, Gardena, Palo Alto); c.f., Ilova A, 431–467 betlar (o'n sakkizta shaharning «ijara haqini nazorat qilish qonunlari» ning mavhum tahlili).
  168. ^ Ijarani nazorat qilishni rad etadigan shaharlar haqidagi keyingi bo'limga qarang.
  169. ^ Keyingi bo'limga qarang ("rad").
  170. ^ Braun, Portman, Rozenquest (2017), 93-bet (ko'chirish uchun asosli sabablar keltirilgan iqtiboslar ro'yxati).
  171. ^ "Faqatgina uydan haydash to'g'risidagi buyruqqa sabab bo'ling" Arxivlandi 2017-12-11 da Orqaga qaytish mashinasi, Glendale Kaliforniya veb-saytida. Kirish 10-dekabr, 2017-yil.
  172. ^ "98.0730-yil ijarani bekor qilish", San-Diego shahar kodeksida, 8-modda: Uy-joy. Kirish 2017-12-12.
  173. ^ "SDCAA Oq qog'ozi: San-Diego shahri uydan chiqarishga oid qarorni keltirib chiqarmoqda", Yanvar 2015, San-Diego County kvartiralar uyushmasi veb-saytida. Kirish 2017-12-12.
  174. ^ Jozef Geha, "Union City: Kengash ijarachilarni sababsiz evakuatsiya qilishni taqiqlovchi qonun qabul qildi", East Bay Times, 5-aprel, 2017. Kirish 2017-10-12.
  175. ^ Jozef Geha, "Fremont ijarani boshqarish uchun tayyor emas, kengash qaror qiladi", East Bay Times, 12-iyul, 2017. Kirish 2017-10-12.
  176. ^ Arin Mikailian, "Ijara nazorati Glendeylda juda kam tuyuladi, ammo qo'shimcha arzon uylar ijarachilarning yukini engillashtirishi mumkin", yilda Los-Anjeles Tayms, 23 sentyabr, 2013. Kirish 2017-10-12.
  177. ^ Allison Levitskiy, "Kengash ijara haqini nazorat qilishni o'rganishni rad etdi", yilda Daily Post, 18 oktyabr, 2017. Kirish 2017-11-23.
  178. ^ Santa Rosa 2017 yilda ijaraga beriladigan nazoratni bekor qildi. Ikki matbuot maqolalariga havolalar uchun yuqoridagi "Kaliforniya shaharlari ro'yxati" da qarang.
  179. ^ Mas., Kembrij tomonidan bekor qilingan har bir havola uchun "ijaraga beriladigan nazoratga qarshi chiqish" dan yuqorida joylashgan Cf.
  180. ^ Keating (1983), 4-bet (iqtibos; ro'yxat va sanalar). Ammo keyinchalik 22 ta shaharning bir nechtasi boshqa versiyalarni bekor qildi: Berkli, Oklend, San-Frantsisko, Santa Monika.
  181. ^ Keating (1985), 60-bet (ijara nazoratidan qochadigan shaharlar ro'yxati).
  182. ^ Mayk Madriaga, "Siz San-Diegoda ijaraga beriladigan nazoratni xohlaysizmi? Bu erda ro'yxatdan o'ting", yilda San-Diego Reader, 28 avgust, 2017. Kirish 2017-10-12.
  183. ^ Qarang: Lenvin va Moskovits [2017], 7.4, 7.25 dan 7.28A gacha.
  184. ^ Dreier (1997), II qism, "Regulyatsiya oqibatlari" bo'limida.
  185. ^ Cf., Marcia Stewart, "Ijarani boshqarish: ijarani boshqarish bo'yicha cheklovlar", da Nolo Press veb-sayt.
  186. ^ Tahlillar: AB 1164, yig'ilish qavati 7/25/95 - DIGEST, bo'sh joylarni nazorat qilish bo'yicha beshta shahar, 2-va 4-bandlarda. Kaliforniya qonunchilik ma'lumotlari veb-sayti.
  187. ^ Fuqarolik Kodeksi, 1954.53-qism (a): iqtibos. Vakansiyani boshqarish oldingi ijarachilar sabab bilan ko'chirilgan, masalan, ijara haqini to'lamaganligi yoki bezovtaligi uchun ijaraga beriladigan birliklarga ham tegishli.
  188. ^ "Bo'sh ish joyini boshqarish", Ijarani barqarorlashtirish kengashi, Berkli shahri. Kirish 2017-10-09.
  189. ^ Salom, Meagan Messerli, "Shahar vakansiyalarni nazorat qilish bilan kurashmoqda", Kundalik Kaliforniyalik. Kirish 2017-10-09.
  190. ^ "Kaliforniya Fuqarolik Kodeksi, 1954.50–1954.535". Leginfo.legislature.ca.gov. Olingan 11 iyul 2017.
  191. ^ Yuqorida qarang, "Qonunning qoidalari kodlangan".
  192. ^ "Adolatli va oqilona daromad" standarti uchun yuqoridagi "Konstitutsiyaviy chegaralar" bo'limiga qarang.
  193. ^ Levrin va Moskovits (2017), ,7.25: Fuqarolik kodeksiga muvofiq ∮1954.53 (e) -qism "davlat tashkilotlariga ijaraga olinadigan mulkni ko'chirish uchun asoslarni nazorat qilish imkonini beradi."
  194. ^ G'arbning Cal Jur 3d, v.42, s.276: Kosta Xokkins mahalliy hukumatning ko'chirish uchun asoslarni nazorat qilish va tartibga solish vakolatiga putur etkazmaydi. Ammo u shaharni ijaraga olishni talab qilish kabi "ko'chirishga protsessual shart qo'yishi mumkin emas" (279-bet).
  195. ^ Kosta-Xokkins to'g'risidagi Qonun, Fuqarolik Kodeksi, 1955.52-modda: "(c) ushbu bo'limdagi hech narsa, ko'chirish uchun asosni tartibga solish yoki nazorat qilish uchun mavjud bo'lishi mumkin bo'lgan jamoat tashkilotining vakolatiga ta'sir ko'rsatishi kerak."
  196. ^ Tahlillar: AB 1164, yig'ilish qavati 7/25/95 - DIGEST, p.3, # 4 da (bekor qilish uchun "adolatli sabab" qayta talab qilinadi). Kaliforniya qonunchilik ma'lumotlari veb-sayti.
  197. ^ "Uy egasi ijarachini chiqarib yuborish uchun sabab ko'rsatishi kerakmi?", Los-Anjeles Tayms, 19-fevral, 2017. Kirish 2017-10-09.
  198. ^ Yuqorida "Boshqa elementlar" bo'limiga qarang.
  199. ^ Nibankdagi Kits (1965), 59-61 bet (shaharlar), 64-65 betlar (Los-Anjeles okrugi).
  200. ^ Palmer / Sixth Street Properties LP v Los-Anjeles shahri, Google Scholar-da. Kirish 2017-10-25.
  201. ^ Qo'ng'iroq qilindi Piero II, Wilshire Blvd-da. 110 uyga qo'shni, qarang. Piero, uning tijorat veb-saytida. Kirish 2011-10-25.
  202. ^ Lenvin va Moskovits (2017), Palmer -7.25 da ish, s.7-45.
  203. ^ Barclay & Gray (2014), Palmer ish, 434-435-betlar.
  204. ^ "Sud qaroriga ko'ra, LA-ni uy-joy bilan ta'minlash vakolati davlat qonunlarini buzadi", yilda Kaliforniya rejalashtirish va rivojlanish hisoboti [C P & D R], 2009 yil 20-avgust. 2017-08-28.
  205. ^ Cf. "Daladan: Kaliforniya Oliy sudi inklyuziv uy-joyni qo'llab-quvvatlaydi" (2015 yil 29-iyun), Milliy kam daromadli uy-joylar koalitsiyasi veb-saytida. 2017-08-28. Bu erda diqqat markazida Calif.BIA-ga qarshi San-Xose shahri (2015). ¶6-dagi maqola 2009 yilni ajratib turadi Palmer chunki u ijaraga nisbatan emas, balki sotuvga qo'yilgan uy-joy kabi Kaliforniya shtati.
  206. ^ Jeremi Rozenberg, "Ijaraga qarshi kurashga qarshi kurash", da KCET, 2013 yil 4 mart. Kosta-Xokkins va Palmer case 6-16 da muhokama qilingan ish.
  207. ^ Endryu L. Faber, Berliner Koen, "Inklyuziv uy-joy talablari: Hali ham mumkinmi?" (Kaliforniya shaharlari ligasi 2014), p.7 da: ikkita tirnoq (noto'g'ri qo'llanma, AB 1229).
  208. ^ XansonBridgett, "Xatlar haqida qisqacha ma'lumot" Palmer ish, 5-6, 7-9, 10-12 betlar (9 sentyabr, 2009). Ac'd 2017-10-07. Bu erda yuridik firma Apellyatsiya sudi qarori xatolarga yo'l qo'yilgan degan dalillarni keltirib chiqarmoqda Palmer agar u belgilangan qonunlarga rioya qilmasa. The qonunchilik tarixi Kosta-Xokins manzili.
  209. ^ Endryu L. Faber, Berliner Koen, "Inklyuziv uy-joy talablari: Hali ham mumkinmi?" (Kaliforniya shaharlari ligasi 2014), 7-betda: ikkita tirnoq (Braunning veto, quruvchi); p. 9: Mualliflar Bay Area shaharlari haqida "o'rniga haq evaziga arzon uy-joylar qurilishini qo'llab-quvvatlash uchun to'g'ridan-to'g'ri haq evaziga pul ishlatganliklari haqida ... [T] u shahar, ehtimol, atrofida ishlay olishi mumkin" Palmer pulni sotish uchun yoki ijaraga berish birliklari uchun ishlatgan holda, chunki Palmer shahar tomonidan subsidiyalanadigan loyihaga taalluqli bo'lmaydi (yoki shahar qarz beruvchi bo'lgan taqdirda va uning imkoniyatlarini hisobga olgan holda kredit shartlari bo'yicha muzokaralar olib boradigan bo'lsa). "Faber (2014) 9-bet.
  210. ^ Barclay & Gray (2014) inklyuziv uy-joylarni qayta ijaraga oldi. Shahar qayta zichligi bonusi bilan mulkdorlar bilan tuzilgan shartnomalar: har bir qulay birlik uchun qo'shimcha narx birligi (Barclay, 439-440 betlar). Istisnolar Act 1954.52 (b) va 1954.53 (a) (2) -hujjatlari (Barclay, 435-bet). Ishlab chiquvchilarni rag'batlantirish va imtiyozlar: rayonlashtirish, soliqlar, to'lovlar, qulayliklar, tezkor trek, infratuzilma (Barclay, s.439 matn va n40).
  211. ^ Nadiya I. El Mallaxx, "Kosta Xokkins qonuni mahalliy inklyuzion rayonlashtirish dasturlarini taqiqlaydimi?" da Kaliforniya qonunlarini ko'rib chiqish, vol. 89, bet. 1849 (2001).
  212. ^ "Yangilanish: Inklyuziv rayonlashtirish qonuniga jigarrang veto qo'ydi", 2013 yil 2-oktabr, Kaliforniya kvartiralar uyushmasi veb-saytida. 2017-08-28.
  213. ^ AB 1505 [matn. The Palmer ish aniq sek. 3 (e) va sek. 3 (i) kodlangan Kosta Xokkins to'g'risidagi qonunga murojaat qilingan.
  214. ^ Cf. Yordam xati 2017 yil 30 martda Kaliforniya uy-joylar konsortsiumida AB 1505 foydasiga Assambleyaning homiylari Bloom, Chiu va Gloria-ga murojaat qildi. Ushbu xat AB 1505-ni 2009 yildagi tuzatish sifatida qulay sharoitlarda tasvirlaydi Palmer Bunday holda, qonun loyihasi shaharlarga o'zlarining xohishiga ko'ra qayta kiritilishini tiklaydi ijara yangi rivojlanishdagi uy-joy. Kaliforniya uy-joylar konsortsiumidan tashqari, uning tarafdorlari orasida Kaliforniya Qishloq Huquqiy Yordam Jamg'armasi, Kaliforniya Uy-joylari, Shimoliy Kaliforniyaning notijorat uy-joylar uyushmasi va G'arbiy qonun va qashshoqlik markazi mavjud.
  215. ^ AB 1505, sek. 2 ta qayta texnik-iqtisodiy asoslash va davlat tomonidan ko'rib chiqish.
  216. ^ Liam Dillon, "Gubernator Braun endigina 15 ta uy-joy pulini imzoladi. Mana, ular arzonlik inqiroziga qanday yordam berishi kerak", Los-Anjeles Tayms, Sentyabr 29, 2017. Kirish 2018-09-15.
  217. ^ http://costa-hawkins.com/surreal-estate/burien-llc-v-wiley-cal-court-of-appeal-2nd-appellate-dist-5th-div-2014/
  218. ^ Burien ish, p.2 da (iqtibos), qarang. 7 & 8-betlar va 10-bet. Ijara Savtelle Blvd-da bo'lgan. Los-Anjelesda.
  219. ^ Burien LCC va Wiley, da JUSTIA AQSh qonuni. Kirish 2017-08-22.
  220. ^ "2002 yil qonunga o'zgartirishlar" bo'limiga qarang.
  221. ^ http://costa-hawkins.com/uncategorized/will-mosser-companies-v-city-and-county-of-san-francisco-prompt-another-amendment-to-costa-hawkins/
  222. ^ Mosser Co., San-Frantsiskoga qarshi ijarani barqarorlashtirish va hakamlik sudiga qarshi. (tirnoq), da JUSTIA AQSh qonuni. Kirish 2017-08-22.
  223. ^ http://costa-hawkins.com/surreal-estate/first-district-court-of-appeals-highly-committed-to-mosser-companies-opinion-in-t-a-drolapas-sons-l-p-v-ccsf/
  224. ^ T & A Drolapas, va o'g'illari, LP v. SF uy-joy ijarasini barqarorlashtirish va hakamlik sudi., da JUSTIA AQSh qonuni. Kirish 2017-08-22. Mas'ul sifatida kengash javobgar sifatida Jerald Borjasning haqiqiy partiyasi deb topildi.
  225. ^ http://costa-hawkins.com/bay-area/evidentiary-preseption-in-berkeley-rent-ordinance-punishes-landlords-who-fake-owner-move-ins/
  226. ^ Fuqarolik Kodeksi, 1954.52 (a) va 1954.53 (a) bo'limlari.
  227. ^ Mak va Berkli shahrining ijarasini barqarorlashtirish qarorgohi., da JUSTIA AQSh qonuni. Kirish 2017-08-22. Javob beruvchi sifatida Boshqarma nomidan haqiqiy manfaatdor tomonlar ishtirok etishdi: Aleksandr Ziem.
  228. ^ Barclay & Gray (2014), p.409 (iqtibos).
  229. ^ "Kaliforniyaning uy-joy kelajagi. Qiyinchiliklar va imkoniyatlar", Yanvar 2017 Loyiha, da Kaliforniya uy-joy va jamoatchilikni rivojlantirish departamenti veb-sayt. Kirish 2017-11-21. 5-bandda: "2015-2025 yillarda prognoz qilinadigan aholi va uy xo'jaliklarining o'sishini ta'minlash uchun taxminan 1,8 million yangi uy-joy yoki har yili 180 ming yangi uy kerak". 2004 va 2005 yillarda 200 ming dona ishlab chiqarilgan bo'lsa, 2015 yilda atigi 100 ming qurilgan.
  230. ^ Alissa Anderson va Skott Greyvz, "Qulflangan 2008", 29-30 betlar, Kaliforniya byudjeti loyihasi (2008 yil fevral), Kaliforniya byudjet va siyosat markazida. Kirish 2017-11-15.
  231. ^ Mett Levin, "Kaliforniyada uy-joy etishmovchiligi - bu hatto siz o'ylaganingizdan ham yomonroq", KCET veb-saytida, 2017 yil 23-avgust. Kirish 2017-12-4.
  232. ^ Qarang: tahririyat, "Arzon uy-joy inqirozi", yilda The New York Times, 2012 yil 4-dekabr. Kirish 2017-11-15.
  233. ^ Liam Dillon, "Uylar tanqisligi masalasida ozgina kelishuv. Mutaxassislar va jamoatchilik uy-joy inqirozining ildizlari, so'rov natijalari to'g'risida kelishmayapti" Los Anjeles Tayms, 22-oktabr, 2018-yil. "Akademik tadqiqotchilar, shtat tahlilchilari va Kaliforniyaning gubernatorlik nomzodlari shtatning uy-joy inqirozi zamirida yotgan asosiy masala - bu erda yashashni istagan har bir kishiga uy yetishmasligidadir, degan fikrga kelishmoqda. Muammo, yangi so'rovnoma, omma bunga ishonmasligi ". (p.B1).
  234. ^ Kaliforniya hukumat kodeksi § 65589.5 (quote), Kaliforniya qonunchilik ma'lumotlarida. Kirish 2017-11-15.
  235. ^ "AB1515 Rejalashtirish va rayonlashtirish: uy-joy" qayta HAA, Kaliforniya qonunchilik ma'lumotlarida. Bosing: 09-15-17 yig'ilish qavatining tahlili Rebekka Raboskiy tomonidan: (1) d.1-dagi (d) Kaliforniyada ikki million dona uy-joy tanqisligi mavjud; 1-band, (2) (e) Kaliforniya uy-joy mulkdorlari stavkalari bo'yicha va aholi jon boshiga uy-joy etkazib berish bo'yicha 50 ta shtatning 49-o'rnini egallaydi; p.2, (2) (g) 1,5 million ijarachi (deyarli uchdan bir qismi) o'z daromadlarining 50 foizidan ko'prog'ini ijaraga sarflaydilar.
  236. ^ HAA uy-joy etishmovchiligini uy-joy qurilish loyihalarini rad etgan mahalliy hokimiyatlarga bog'ladi. Hukumat. Kod § 65589.5, (a) (2), (a) (4) kichik bo'limlarida. Mahalliy agentliklar tezkor qoidalar qatorida: kichik bo'limlar (b) "rad etmaslik yoki amalga oshirib bo'lmaydigan" malakali uy-joy qurilishini; (d) "uy-joy qurish loyihasini rad etmaslik ... agar u yozma xulosalar chiqarmasa ...."; (i) "isbotlash yuki".
  237. ^ "Gubernator Braun uy-joy qurish to'g'risidagi qonunni amalga oshirishga yordam beradigan qonun loyihasini imzoladi", Kaliforniya kvartiralar uyushmasida, 1916 yil 21 sentyabr. Kirish 2017-11-15.
  238. ^ Tray Teylor, "Berkli sud tomonidan bekor qilingan yangi uy-joylarni to'xtatish taklifi", yilda Berkliayd, 25 Iyul 2017. Kirish 2017-11-16.
  239. ^ Anjela Xart, "Kaliforniyadagi uy-joy inqirozi qanday sodir bo'ldi", yilda Sakramento asalari, 31 avgust, 2017. Kirish 2017-12-4.
  240. ^ Cf., Li E. Ohanyan va Edvard C. Preskott, "Sam Hillda sigirlar Sand Hill yo'lida nima qilmoqdalar. Kaliforniyadagi erdan foydalanish qoidalari nazorati ostida bo'lganligi sababli ular Amerikadagi eng qimmat o'tni yeyishmoqda", yilda The Wall Street Journal, Dekabr 1, 2017. Kirish 2017-12-2.
  241. ^ "AB1515 Rejalashtirish va rayonlashtirish: uy-joy" qayta HAA, Kaliforniya qonunchilik ma'lumotlarida. Bosing: 09-15-17 yig'ilish qavatining tahlili Rebekka Raboskiy tomonidan: (2) p.2 (va 3-4): uchta homiy; p.3, HAA shuningdek, "piyodalarga qarshiNIMBY Amal ". Kirish 2017-11-18.
  242. ^ Liam Dillon, "Senat qonunlari uylarni yanada arzonroq qilishga qaratilgan, ammo ular deyarli qurilishga turtki bermaydi", yilda Los-Anjeles Tayms, Avgust 11, 2017. Kirish 2017-12-4. Uy-joyni moliyalashtirish bo'yicha ikkita qonun loyihasi va yangi qurilishni shahar tomonidan tartibga solishni cheklash to'g'risidagi yana bir qonun loyihasi muhokama qilindi.
  243. ^ Cf. yuqoridagi kichik bo'lim 2017 yilda tuzatishni qayta tuzish Palmer 15 ta yangi uy-joy qonun loyihasini muhokama qilish uchun har bir eslatma uchun.
  244. ^ "AB 1506", Kaliforniya qonunchilik ma'lumotlarida. Kirish 2-17-11-21. Chap. 2.7 tarkibida faqat Kosta Xokkins to'g'risidagi qonun mavjud. 2017 yil 16-mart kuni uy-joy qurish va aholini rivojlantirish bo'yicha yig'ilish qo'mitasiga yuborildi. Boshqa harakatlar haqida xabar berilmagan.
  245. ^ Endryu Xuri, "O'nlab yillar davomida ijara haqini nazorat qilishni kengaytirish bo'yicha eng katta harakat ...", yilda Los-Anjeles Tayms, 6-aprel, 2017. Kirish 2-017-08-22.
  246. ^ Angella Xart, "Uy-joy narxingiz osmonda bormi? Ijara haqini boshqarish bo'yicha yangi kurash boshlanadi", yilda Sakramento asalari, 3-aprel, 2017. Kirish 2017-08-22.
  247. ^ http://costa-hawkins.com/costa-hawkins/assembly-members-chiu-and-bloom-introduce-ab-1506-attempt-to-repeal-costa-hawkins/
  248. ^ Endryu Xuri, "O'nlab yillar davomida ijaraga beriladigan nazoratni kengaytirish bo'yicha eng katta harakat Sakramentoda to'xtab qoldi", yilda Los-Anjeles Tayms, 6-aprel, 2017. Kirish 2017-11-6.
  249. ^ Anjela Xart, "Kaliforniyadagi ijara haqini boshqarish bo'yicha kurash kelgusi yilgacha davom etishi kutilmoqda", yilda Sakramento asalari, 2017 yil 24-aprel, 2017 yil 13-iyulda yangilangan. Kirish 2017-11-21.
  250. ^ a b Dillon, Liam (2018-01-11). "Kaliforniyada ijaraga beriladigan nazoratni kengaytirish taklifi ilgarilamayapti". Los Anjeles Tayms. Arxivlandi asl nusxasidan 2018-02-01. Olingan 2019-06-09.
  251. ^ Keti Merfi, "Kaliforniyadagi ijarani boshqarish: qo'mitada bloklangan cheklovlarni bekor qilish bo'yicha taklif", yilda Merkuriy yangiliklari, 11-yanvar, 2018. Kirish 2018-1-13.
  252. ^ "Tashabbus taklifi Arzon uy-joy to'g'risidagi qonun", Tashabbus koordinatorida, Bosh prokuratura, 23 oktyabr 2017 yil. Kirish 2017-11-21.
  253. ^ Liam Dillon, "Kaliforniyadagi ijara nazorati 2018 yilgi mumkin bo'lgan tashabbus ostida keskin kengayishi mumkin", yilda Los-Anjeles Tayms, 23-oktabr, 2017. Kirish 2017-11-21.
  254. ^ Jenna Chandler, "Ijarachilar guruhlari, OITS Jamg'armasi Kosta Xokkinsni bekor qilish tashabbusi bilan chiqdi. Bu Los-Anjelesga ijaraga beriladigan qonunlarni kengaytirishga imkon beradi", da Los-Anjeles cheklangan, 23-oktabr, 2017. Kirish 2017-11-21. LA ijarachilar uyushmasi bu tashabbusni qo'llab-quvvatladi.
  255. ^ Adam Brinklou, "Saylov byulleteni Kaliforniya bo'ylab ijaraga beriladigan nazoratni kengaytiradi. Taklif 1995 yilda yangi qurilgan binolarda ijaraga beriladigan nazoratni oldini oluvchi Kosta-Xokins qonunini bekor qilmoqchi", yilda San-Frantsisko cheklangan, 1995 yil 25-oktabr. Kirish 2011-11-9. Brinklouning so'zlariga ko'ra, ACCE "Kaliforniyadagi o'rtacha renta mamlakatdagi barcha boshqa shtatlarga qaraganda yuqori" degan fikrni ilgari surdi. Brinklou bu ko'p o'lchovlar bilan haqiqat ekanligiga rozi, ammo Gavayi orollari eng yuqori deb yozadi, bu erda "bitta xonali uyning o'rtacha narxi oyiga 1500 dollar, Kaliforniyadagi 1410 dollar".
  256. ^ Eliya Chiland, "Ijarachilar guruhlari Kosta Xokkinsning bekor qilingan chorasini bekor qilish uchun etarli imzolarimiz borligini aytishadi", yilda Los-Anjeles cheklangan, 23 Aprel 2018. Kirish 2018-4-30. Olingan 565,000 imzo, zarur: 365,880.
  257. ^ "Malakali davlat miqyosidagi saylov byulletenlari". Kaliforniya shtati davlat kotibi. 2018. Olingan 22 avgust, 2018.
  258. ^ Ijara nazorati tarafdorlarining fikrlari uchun "E'lon qilingan maqsadlar" bo'limida va "Oppozitsiya" dagi muxoliflarining fikrlari uchun "Kaliforniyadagi ijarani boshqarish" ga qarang.
  259. ^ Liam Dillon, "Kaliforniya saylovchilari 10-Propni rad etishdi"., Los Anjeles Tayms, Noyabr 6, 2018. Kirish 2018-11-6.
  260. ^ Merfi, Keti (2018-11-06). "Kaliforniyadagi ijarani nazorat qilish chorasi mag'lub bo'ldi". San-Xose Merkuriy yangiliklari. Arxivlandi asl nusxasidan 2018-11-17 kunlari. Olingan 2018-11-25.

    10-sonli Propga qarshi og'irlik tug'dirgan omillardan biri bu hozirgi kunda ijara haqidan ozod qilingan yakka tartibdagi uylarini ijaraga beradigan yoki bir kun kelib ijaraga beradigan mulk egalarining ko'pligi, deydi Obamaning sobiq ma'muriyati Kerol Galante. uy-joy mansabdor shaxsi, hozirda UC Berkli shahridagi Terner uy-joy innovatsiyalari markazida arzon uy-joylar va shahar siyosati professori. Galante ta'kidlaganidek, uy-joy fondining 37 foizi yakka tartibdagi uylardan iborat. "Bu vaziyatga katta bosim o'tkazmoqda", dedi u. "Sizda ushbu ijara aktsiyalarining ko'plab egalari bor va sizda narxlarni nazorat qilishdan tashvishlanadigan ko'plab odamlar bor."

  261. ^ "Kaliforniya taklifi 21, mahalliy ijarani boshqarish tashabbusi (2020 yil)". Ballotpediya. Olingan 2020-07-31.
  262. ^ Menezes, Rayan; Mur, Maloy; Do, Phi (2020-11-03). "Kaliforniyadagi saylov byulletenlari janglariga milliardlar sarflandi. Ammo bu yil boshqalarga o'xshamaydi". Los Anjeles Tayms. Los-Anjelesda joylashgan "OITSga qarshi sog'liqni saqlash" notijorat jamg'armasi ijaraga beriladigan nazoratni kengaytirishga qaratilgan eng qimmat urinishini bankrollayapti. Ushbu chora jamoalarga 15 yoshdan oshgan binolarda ijara haqining oshishiga chek qo'yib, ko'proq himoya choralarini ko'rishga imkon beradi. Jamg'arma prezidenti Maykl Vaynshteyn o'zining taniqli saylov byulletenlariga homiylik qilganligi, shu qatorda ushbu ro'yxatdagi boshqa birovning yordami tufayli tajovuzkor, sudga tortadigan rahbar sifatida tanilgan. Taklif 21 - $ 125,436,982 - qo'llab-quvvatlovchilar - OITS sog'liqni saqlash fondi - $ 40,187,371
  263. ^ Levin, Ned; Grigbi, J. Evgen; Heskin, Allan D. (1990). "Ijarani boshqarish kimga foyda keltiradi? Kaliforniyaning Santa-Monika shahridagi ijarachilarga ta'siri". Amerika rejalashtirish assotsiatsiyasi jurnali. 56 (2): 140–152. doi:10.1080/01944369008975755.
  264. ^ Xeskin, Allan D .; Levin, Ned; Garret, Mark (2000). "Vakansiyani nazorat qilishning ta'siri: Kaliforniyaning to'rtta shaharlarining fazoviy tahlili". Amerika rejalashtirish assotsiatsiyasi jurnali. 66 (2): 162–176. doi:10.1080/01944360008976096. S2CID  153160869.
  265. ^ Levin, Ned (1999 yil 1-noyabr). "Mahalliy o'sishni nazorat qilishning Kaliforniyadagi hududiy uy-joy ishlab chiqarish va aholining qayta taqsimlanishiga ta'siri". Shaharshunoslik. 36 (12): 2047–2068. doi:10.1080/0042098992539. S2CID  153734844.
  266. ^ a b v d Olmos, Rebekka; McQuade, Tim; Qian, Franklin (2017-10-11). "Ijarani boshqarish kengayishining ijarachilarga, uy egalariga va tengsizlikka ta'siri: San-Frantsisko dalillari" (PDF). Milliy iqtisodiy tadqiqotlar byurosi. Arxivlandi (PDF) asl nusxasidan 2018-08-03. Olingan 2018-08-07.
  267. ^ a b v d e Merfi, Keti (2017-11-02). "Ijara haqini boshqarish siyosati, ehtimol" San-Frantsisko shahrining gentrifikatsiyasini kuchaytirgan ", - tadqiqot natijalariga ko'ra - Kaliforniyada ijaraga beriladigan ustama haqlari to'g'risida bahslashar ekan, iqtisodchilar ogohlantirish yozuvini taklif qilishadi". San-Xose Merkuriy yangiliklari. Arxivlandi asl nusxasidan 2018-01-04. Olingan 2018-08-07.
  268. ^ a b v d e Truong, Kevin (2017-11-09). "Ijara nazorati San-Frantsiskoda gentrifikatsiya bilan bog'liq, deydi Stenford tadqiqotida". American City Business jurnallari. Arxivlandi asl nusxasidan 2018-12-02. Olingan 2018-12-01.
  269. ^ a b v d Robertson, Mishel (2017-11-03). "Ijarani nazorat qilish siyosati, ehtimol, SFning grifikatsiyasini" kuchaytirishi "mumkin, deydi Stenford iqtisodchilari". San-Fransisko xronikasi. Arxivlandi asl nusxasidan 2017-12-03. Olingan 2018-08-07.
  270. ^ a b v d Delgadillo, Natali (2018-02-14). "Ijara haqini boshqarish yaxshilikdan ko'proq zarar keltiradimi? - Yangi tadqiqot shuni ko'rsatadiki, ijara haqini pasaytirishga qaratilgan siyosat aslida ularni ko'paytiradi, ijara fondini kamaytiradi va gentrifikatsiyani kuchaytiradi". Boshqarish. Arxivlandi asl nusxasidan 2018-02-22. Olingan 2018-08-07.
  271. ^ a b v Misra, Tanvi (2018-01-29). "Ijarani boshqarish: hisob-kitob". CityLab. Arxivlandi asl nusxasidan 2018-02-01. Olingan 2018-11-30.
  272. ^ a b Endryus, Edmund (2018-02-02). "Rent Control" kompaniyasining g'oliblari va yutqazuvchilari - issiq shaharlarda ijaraga beriladigan uylarning ijarasi bilan, ijarachilarni uylaridan chiqib ketish narxlaridan himoya qilishning eng yaxshi usuli qidirilmoqda ". Stenford Oliy biznes maktabi. Arxivlandi asl nusxasidan 2018-03-09. Olingan 2018-12-11.
  273. ^ Kris Barta, "COVID-19, Kaliforniya shtatida yashovchilarni ko'chirishga moratoriy (taqiq) va ijarachilarni himoya qilish", NOLO Press-da, sana yo'q.
  274. ^ "Kaliforniya koronavirusga evakuatsiya qilish to'g'risidagi moratoriyni sentyabrgacha uzaytiradi" da Los-Anjelesning CBS telekanali, 2020 yil 2-iyul.
  275. ^ Kris Nikolas, "Kaliforniya sudlari koronavirus bilan bog'liq favqulodda holat bekor qilingandan keyin 90 kungacha evakuatsiya qilishni va sud qarori bilan sud jarayonini to'xtatib turishadi", da CapRadio Sakramento, 6 aprel, 2020 yil.
  276. ^ Barta, "COVID-19 ..." (NOLO Press). COVID-19 tufayli yoki yo'qligidan qat'i nazar, barcha ko'chirishlar to'xtatildi.
  277. ^ Metyu Bleyk, "Uy egalari Kaliforniyani evakuatsiya qilishni taqiqlash yuzasidan sudga murojaat qilishmoqda. Sud jarayoni Kaliforniya sud kengashini haddan ziyod ko'payib ketganlikda ayblamoqda, da RealDeal Los-Anjeles, 2020 yil 15-iyun.
  278. ^ Barta, "COVID-19 ..." (NOLO Press): ro'yxat, mazmun mohiyati.
  279. ^ Nikolay (CapRadio, 2020 yil 6-aprel).

Tashqi havolalar