“Wouldn’t it be great to be able to go into the grocery store demanding to pay 1985 prices for beef — not to mention finding corn-fed beef instead of stringy, tough grass-fed beef, but that’s another column — regardless of what it cost the rancher to produce the beef, the trucker to transport the beef and the grocery store to buy and process that meat?
We’re thinking Filet-Mignon every night. Or at least until the palate tires of it.
The only downside to this fantasy would be finding beef in the meat counter, because if the various suppliers can’t recover their costs, the beef won’t be produced.
And that’s how rent-control works in a nutshell.
The renter pays a rent based on the cost of when he moved in and the landlord watches as the rent check, essentially frozen in amber, gradually shrinks over time.
Rent control is guaranteed to discourage new housing construction (you could look it up, here in an earlier column on this issue) and result in an affordable housing crisis.
Meaning rent control, the left’s solution to affordable housing, contributes to the problem it’s meant to solve.
That has never discouraged leftist politicians, but evidently a majority California voters have figured it out. A surprising 62 percent of the voters opposed the measure, so for once the makers were able to defeat the takers.
Unfortunately, the theory that landlords and business in general needs to be controlled and taxed more closely by local leftists is not going away. Scott Wilson, The Washington Post reporter who covered the election results, exemplifies the backwards, control-first mentality of the left.
In discussing housing he writes, “In East Palo Alto, a city squeezed by the expansion of nearby tech companies that bring jobs but no housing, voters appeared to approve their own ‘tech tax.'”
Since when is business required to bring its own “housing,” unless it’s building a tent city?
Most jurisdictions would be happy for the new jobs and additional revenue the company provides. Instead California leftists view these new employees as a problem and that’s why businesses are fleeing the state.
While we’re on the topic of housing the California left plans to attract more of the homeless by taxing business to provide shelter for people who avoid conforming to society’s picky rules concerning drug abuse, crime, alcoholism, holding a job and generally making a contribution to the culture.
San Francisco will be taxing business $300 million yearly for “homeless programs.”
This joins another homeless boondoggle in Los Angeles that only acts as a magnet for the “homeless” and a job-creator for those concerned about the homeless problem.
Meanwhile the taxpayer, both business and individuals, finance the fantasies of the left.”