Demystifying Rent Control – 7 Myths and 7 Facts

by on March 1, 2018 · 20 comments

in California, Civil Rights

Demystifying Rent Control

Rent control can help solve California’s housing affordability and homelessness crisis by decreasing displacement and protecting the rights and dignity of working families, the elderly, and long-term tenants. To demystify rent control in California, here are seven rent control myths followed by seven anti-poverty tenant protection ordinances cities can implement.

By Parisa Ijadi-Maghsoodi / San Diego UrbDeZine / February 22, 2018 

Articles and studies from newspapers to academic journals warn the public against the havoc and devastation caused by rent control ordinances. However, it is not tenants and community based organizations that are funding these articles and studies, it is real estate investors, developers, and corporate apartment owner associations. For decades, tenants and community based organizations across California have worked tirelessly to enact rent control ordinances to decrease displacement and protect the rights and dignity of working families, the elderly, and long-term tenants. Tenant advocates continue to direct their limited resources to local initiatives and ballot measures, not to fund studies, articles, and lawsuits.

Myth 1: Rent control is illegal.
Fact: Rent control is legal and an effective tool to address housing affordability.

California state law does not prohibit the enactment of new rent control ordinances.  Since 1976, California courts have upheld rent control ordinances. When a rent control ordinance is challenged, courts analyze the ordinance to determine if it is “reasonably calculated to eliminate excessive rents and at the same time provide landlords with a just and reasonable return on their property.”[1]

Since 2016, rent control ordinances have been successfully enacted in Richmond and Mountain View, and rent control campaigns are underway in Long Beach, Glendale, Santa Cruz, Pasadena, San Diego, Inglewood, Sacramento, Santa Rosa, and Concord.[2]

Despite the clear legal standard, investors, real estate developers, and corporate apartment owner associations file lawsuits each year challenging the constitutionality of rent control ordinances. In 2016 and 2017, the California Apartment Association[3] filed challenges to new rent control ordinances in Richmond and Mountain View.[4] In an attempt to avoid a decrease in profits, property owners sought a restraining order to prevent the new Richmond ordinance from going into effect. The court denied the restraining order, holding that the harm the corporate apartment owners associations alleged – possible lost profits – was not sufficient. The California Apartment Association dismissed its remaining case against Richmond’s rent control ordinance. Both lawsuits were unsuccessful. Tenants in both cities are benefiting from rent control ordinances while corporate apartment owners and their investors continue to receive a fair return on investment.

Tenants and community based organizations across California are effectively utilizing rent control against increasing housing instability caused by the lack of affordable housing and the loss of redevelopment agencies, and to prevent tenant displacement posed by new commercial and corporate development in cities like Inglewood.[5]

Myth 2: Rent control decreases the housing stock by disincentivizing new housing construction.
Fact: Rent control has no impact on new construction because it does not apply to new construction.

State law prohibits rent control ordinances from applying to new housing units and requires rent control ordinances include vacancy decontrol.[6] Rent control does not disincentivize new housing construction because new construction is not covered by rent control. Arguments against rent control on grounds that it disincentivizes building are legally inaccurate, misleading, and meritless. Nevertheless, real estate investors, developers, and corporate apartment owner associations continue to propagate this argument. The enactment and enforcement of rent control ordinances have no impact on development. In fact, the law banning vacancy control and rent control from applying to new construction, the 1995 Costa Hawkins Rental Housing Act, was a political compromise reached by the wealthy developers and investors who continue to propagate the myth that rent control has a chilling effect on new development.

While rent control does not have a chilling effect on new construction, it does have a chilling effect on the ability of real estate investors, developers, and corporate apartment owner associations to gouge hard working families, the elderly, and others who rely on the rental market. Rent control allows corporate apartment owners and their investors to receive a fair return on investment, not a windfall in profits.

In cities that enacted rent control in the 1970s and 1980s, units constructed over the last thirty to forty years have been exempt from rent control, and cities with more recently enacted rent control ordinances exempt units constructed in the last 20 years:

  • Los Angeles exempted from rent control are structures built after 1978 (L.A.M.C. Section 151.28)
  • San Francisco exempts structures built after 1979 (S.F. Administrative Code Ch. 37A)
  • Berkeley exempts units built after 1980 (B.M.C. Section 13.76.050)
  • Richmond exempts units constructed after 1995 (R.M.C. Section 11.100.070)
  • Mountain View exempts units constructed after 1995 (C.S.F.R.A. Section 1720)
  • East Palo Alto exempts units constructed after 1988 (E.P.A. Mun. Code Ch. 14.04)
  • Oakland exempts units constructed after 1983 (O.M.C. Section 8.22.070)

Myth 3: Rent control causes the rental stock to decrease because rent control units will be converted to condominiums.
Fact: Ordinances restricting condominium conversions protect the stock of rental units under rent control.

The loss of all rental units through condominium conversions is not the inevitable, impending consequence of rent control, despite the argument put forth by real estate investors, developers, and corporate apartment owner associations.

Cities have the power to enact ordinances restricting condominium conversions. Limiting condominium conversions effectively prevents the removal of rental units under rent control from the rental market. Cities across the State of California have enacted and enforced condominium conversion ordinances to maintain a stock of rental units.[7] These ordinances effectively recognize the need of century-old apartment complex owners to sell units when the cost of maintaining or upgrading an entire apartment complex becomes unsustainable, while protecting the rental housing stock.

Note that there is no standard definition of a condominium conversion.[8] Despite the common use of the phrase, converting a rental unit to a condominium is not a simple, overnight process that has the power to decimate the rental housing stock the moment a rent control ordinance is enacted. Instead, to convert a multi-unit rental complex into individually owned condominiums, a complex legal process must be followed. In addition to abiding by local ordinances, the process requires, at a minimum, providing tenants with notice of certain protections including the right to purchase, obtaining state approval to market residential units, a recording of a declaration of conditions, covenants, and restrictions, a recording of the subdivision or parcel map for purposes of creating a condominium, a recording of the condominium plan, and the conveyance of the unit.[9]

Myth 4: Rent control hurts tenants.
Fact: Rent control helps tenants.

Rent control studies are funded by real estate developments, investors, and corporate apartment owner associations, and their own data supports the effectiveness of rent control.

A recent rent control study released in October 2017 found that rent control in San Francisco caused a $2.1 billion net benefit to tenants with tenants aged 40-65 benefiting most from rent control.[10] The study which is a Working Paper of the NBER Real Estate Institute, incorporated in 1920 with $116 million in assets and 2017 corporate sponsors AIG, ExxonMobil, Goldman Sachs, Vanguard, and JP Morgan Chase, concluded that rent control destroys rental housing stock and causes gentrification.[11] Another study, prepared for the California Apartment Association, concluded that rent control laws make low-income residents worse off and argue for a free market approach to addressing the growing housing affordability crisis.[12]

The NBER study focused on San Francisco’s limited rent control ordinance which is applicable to apartment units constructed before 1980. In its analysis, the authors found that as of 2017, more of the half-century old units under rent control had been converted to condominiums than the newly constructed units not under rent control, resulting in a $5 billion loss to the rental housing market. However, not only were all of the units under rent control built more than a half-century ago, each unit was part of an apartment complex, adding to the cost of maintenance and upgrades, and increasing the likelihood of condominium conversion. If the age of the buildings under rent control were accounted for in the context of conversions, the tenant gain would be greater than $7.1 billion, creating a net gain to tenants of more than $2.1 billion.

Building upon this finding, the authors conclude that the characteristic of rent control, rather than the characteristic of building age or the need for a stronger condominium conversion ordinance, was the factor that caused the condominium conversions. Since condominium conversions can lead to displacement and gentrification, the authors took their findings a step further, and declared that rent control was the cause of gentrification in San Francisco. However, the lack of affordable units is the factor at play in displacement, not local rent control ordinances. Without rent control, low-income, long-term tenants would have been displaced sooner and in greater numbers.[13]

Myth 5: Rent control is not needed, building market rate units will solve the housing crisis.
Fact: Building market rate units without effective tenant protection ordinances exacerbates the housing crisis.

Underlying anti-rent control sentiments is the premise that the housing crisis will be solved on its own through the free market system. For example, the NBER study held that any rent set by a rent control ordinance was “below market rent,” the free market’s reliance on supply and demand would lead to fair market rents, and rent control “forc[es] landlords to provide insurance against rent increases,” while the Beacon study held that rent control created “artificially low rents.”[14] Real estate investors, developers, and corporate apartment owner associations argue that if rent control were removed, the free market would lead to fair market rents that were both affordable to tenants and allowed for fair market returns to landlords. However, increasing the supply by infusing the market with market rate rentals does not lead to affordability. In fact, it worsens the affordability crisis and exacerbates displacement of low-income, long-term tenants.[15]

In the early 2000s, New York City changed its housing policies changed from a rent-regulated system to a system intent on letting the free market fix its affordable housing and homelessness problem. Building market rate housing was not only ineffective at solving the housing crisis, it further exacerbated the crisis. The construction of market rate housing led to an influx of higher-income renters, and effectively displaced working families and low-income renters.[16] Affordable housing must not only be part of the solution, it must be the primary focus if cities are truly intent on solving housing instability, avoid displacement, and reducing homelessness.

Corporate apartment owner associations, investors, and real estate developers profit from investing in property, allowing the property to gain value, and selling or leasing the property. Those profiting from the housing market, generally individuals who have obtained property through the generational transfer of wealth, are not receiving a fair return on investment, they are receiving a windfall in profits. Tenants are always at a disadvantage in the housing market, and rent control works to protect tenants by ensuring property owners receive a fair return on investment sufficient to effectively maintain units, instead of a windfall.

Myth 6: Rent control incentivizes tenants to remain tenants, rather than become homeowners invested in their communities.
Fact: Society has traditionally favored homeowners over tenants primarily because homeowners intend to reside in and better their community, and rent control furthers these goals.

In the current housing climate, tenants that would have become home owners one or two decades ago are remaining tenants because they cannot afford to buy. Just as homeowners feel inclined to improve their communities, long-term tenants participate in their communities, enroll their children in local schools, and work to improve the health and safety of their neighborhoods. Rent control stabilizes communities, furthers long-term tenant participation by removing the risk that these tenants will be priced out of their units. Rent control is an effective tool to achieve the societal goal of community involvement that has been traditionally attributed only to homeowners.

Myth 7: Rent control causes units to go into disarray.
Fact: Rent control improves the quality of the rental housing stock.

Landlords are legally obligated to maintain rental units, and rent control furthers tenants’ abilities to assert their legal rights.
Rent control furthers tenants’ abilities to assert their existing legal rights. Landlords are legally responsible for maintaining rental units, repairing conditions in a timely manner, and complying with state and local building codes.[17] A local rent control ordinance allows tenants to assert their rights by petitioning for a decrease in rent if a landlord has failed to repair a condition, provide a legally required service, or correct a housing code violation. This is in addition to the rights and remedies a tenant has under state law.

Tenant Protections Beyond Rent Control

In addition to rent control, cities may take steps to enact ordinances to mitigate the risks of homelessness, stabilize housing, and ensure landlords are receiving a fair return on investment, not a windfall in profits from unscrupulous, harmful rental practices. The following are versions of anti-poverty tenant protection ordinances enacted throughout the state.

  • Enact an ordinance that discourages landlords from failing to perform repairs, under-maintaining units, and using related tactics to pressure tenants to move out in order to set higher initial rents, by making the failure to comply with the warranty of a habitability a defense to good cause eviction.
  • Enact an emergency ordinance applicable to all renters in units constructed before a statutorily mandated date, reducing rent to the rate in place three years ago for all tenants living in their units for two or more years, and for renters who moved into their units less than two years ago, reducing rent to the amount charged when the tenant first moved into the unit.
  • Enact an ordinance mandating that landlords who evict tenants for the purpose of allowing the landlord or relatives of the landlord to move into the unit to pay each tenant $20,000.
  • Enact an emergency ordinance banning landlords from evicting tenants for the purpose of allowing the landlord or relatives of the landlord to move into the unit if the tenant has lived in the unit for two or more years and is a member of a vulnerable population, including being elderly, having a disability, or having a child with a disability.
  • Enact an ordinance requiring that landlords who wish to sell their rental unit first offer ownership to the tenant at a rate reduced pursuant to a statutorily mandated amount developed to preserve the stock of rental units and mitigate adverse economic and health impacts associated with a tenant’s forced relocation.
  • Enact an emergency ordinance preventing landlords who wish to evict tenants with minor children to delay eviction until the end of the academic year.
  • Enact an ordinances restricting condominium conversions that requires owners pay tenants’ moving expenses, limits the annual number of conversions based on the vacancy rate, requires a portion of converted units be sold below market rates, provide existing tenants with sale price discounts, mandate payment of a fee to an affordable housing trust fund, and require one for one replacement of converted units.

Landlord and housing providers in violation of these ordinances should be assessed a statutory penalty for each instance of harassment, and tenants shall be able to seek statutory damages and attorney’s fees.


[1]Birkenfeld v. Berkeley, 17 Cal. 3d 129, 165 (1976).
[2]A New Housing-Rights Movement Has the Real-Estate Industry Running Scared, Jimmy Tobias, The Nation (Jan. 9, 2018).
[3]An industry group that represents more than 50,000 property owners across the state.
[4]California Apartment Association v. City of Richmond, Contra Costa County Superior Court, Case No. MSC17-00005 filed January 5, 2017; California Apartment Association v. City of Mountain View, Santa Clara County Superior Court, Case No. 16CV304253 filed December 21, 2016.
[5]Housing activists in Inglewood, Pasadena latest to pursue rent control, Josie Huang, Southern California Public Radio (Nov. 17, 2017).
[6]California Government Code Section 1954.50 et seq.
[7]City of Alameda – A.M.C. Section 30-8; City of Lafayette – L.M.C. Section 6-3201; City of Larkspur – L.M.C. Chapter 18.38; City of San Carlos – S.C.M.C. Section 17.48.020;  City of Los Angeles – L.A.M.C. Sections 151.09.A.10 and 151.22-151.28; Addressing Displacement in the Bay Area, Association of Bay Area Governments White Paper (August 2015); Housing Element Policy Best Practices: Anti-Displacement – Condo Conversion Requirements, Joshua Hugg, California Department of Housing and Community Development (Feb. 21, 2014).
[8]The Subdivision Map Act, California Government Code Sections 66410 et seq.,uses the term but does not define the term while Civ. Code Section 1351 defines condominium as an estate in real property that consists of an undivided interest in common in apportion of real property coupled with a separate interest in a space called a unit.
[9]California Government Code Sections 66410 et seq., 66427.1 and 66452.19.
[10]The Effects of Rent Control Expansion on Tenants, Landlords, and Inequality: Evidence from San Francisco, Rebecca Diamond, Timothy McQuade, Franklin Qian, Stanford University and NBER (Oct. 11, 2017) (The monetary benefit rent control provided to tenants was $2,200 to $6,600 a year, with a cumulative benefit of $7.1 billion. Losses to the declining rental housing market was $5 billion, allowing for the $2.1 billion net benefit to tenants. If the age of the buildings were accounted for, the gain would be much greater than $2.1 billion.).
[11]Id., see also NBER Corporate, Corporate Foundations and Individual Supporters: Fiscal Year 2017  ( CorporateSupporters2017.pdf).
[12]An Analysis of Rent Control Ordinances in California, Christopher Thornberg, Jordan Levine, Dustrin Schradre, Eric Meux, Beacon Economics (January 2016).
[13]Solving the Housing Affordability Crisis, Jeff Bellisario, Micah Weinberg, Ph.D., Camila Mena, Lanwei Yang, Ph.C., Bay Area Council Economic Institute (October 2016).
[14]The Effects of Rent Control Expansion on Tenants, Landlords, and Inequality: Evidence from San Francisco, Rebecca Diamond, Timothy McQuade, Franklin Qian, Stanford University and NBER (Oct. 11, 2017); An Analysis of Rent Control Ordinances in California, Christopher Thornberg, Jordan Levine, Dustrin Schradre, Eric Meux, Beacon Economics (January 2016).
[15]Zoned Out of the City: New York City’s Tale of Race and Displacement, Tom Angotti, Poverty & Race Research Action Council (January-March 2017).
[16]Analyzing the Mayor’s Housing Plan – Part 3, Association for Neighborhood & Housing Development (Jun. 12, 2014).
[17]California Civil Code Sections 1929, 1941.2; California Health Safety Code Sections 17920.3, 17920.10.

{ 20 comments… read them below or add one }

Bearded OBcean March 1, 2018 at 12:20 pm

Yikes. It’s not just the triumvirate of bogeyman real estate investors, developers, and corporate apartment owner associations that think rent control is a bad idea, but pretty much every reputable economist does as well.


Frank Gormlie March 1, 2018 at 9:18 pm

BS, did you see the references in the article?


Bearded OBcean March 5, 2018 at 8:07 am

Yes. And rent control kills property values and development. Rent control advocates don’t care to involve themselves with the real-world unintended consequences of the movement. Mountain View, in the Bay Area, passed rent control – property values sunk 25% overnight.


Oldob March 1, 2018 at 1:29 pm

Myth: rent control is a reasonable entitlement
Fact: rent control represents a government taking of personal property rights and is another socialist construct to unfairly redistribute wealth.


Frank Gormlie March 1, 2018 at 9:24 pm

Ratatouille! Rent control helps keep housing affordable. Where do you think you live? A hundred years ago when capitalists had no limitations on them? We’ve come a long way since then, women can now vote, we have unions, we even elected an African-American as president – twice. yeah, I know, our country has taken a severe hit with Trump, the Swamp King. It’s time for a little more socialism and less greed and hunger. OldOB – you’re fairly conservative, but thanks for coming on to the Rag, run by socialists.


Oldob March 2, 2018 at 10:33 am

Frank, where I actually ageee with you is that I wish that people in general were more caring about others and spread the wealth more. But I don’t agree that it is the government’s job to play Robin Hood. And candidly, you seem fairly quick to tell people what to do with the resources they have accumulated, more often than not, through hard work, risk taking, etc. you are right, I am fairly conservative but I love OB just as you do and I really respect your opinion.


Frank Gormlie March 2, 2018 at 3:24 pm

Thank you. I understand your fear of a “big brother” type of government – as I also have that, but it comes in a different narrative. But what it boils down, perhaps, we both detest decisions made for people by a small, unelected elite.


SaneVoice March 5, 2018 at 1:25 pm

People that love to brag about their “hard work” typically haven’t done anything that can be considered hard work.


RB March 1, 2018 at 2:20 pm

They limit housing supply with regulations, taxes, and fees. They increase housing demand with open borders. They produce students with no work skills in their public schools using social promotion and reduced standards. And they ignore academic Supply and Demand Pricing to embrace failed socialist doctrine.

California government is not the solution to housing crisis, they are the cause of the crisis.


Frank Gormlie March 1, 2018 at 9:29 pm

The cause of the housing crisis is developers’ greed, bureaucrats and politicians caving into them; who needs million dollar MacMansions? Check out the housing ads in the papers – they keep building for people who aren’t there while many can’t afford the housing that is built.

RB, you’re crazy if you think this state is run by socialists. We need more socialism, more compassion, more humane policies, more democracy. Less capitalism, less major decisions that affect many but by a few.


Dave March 1, 2018 at 9:56 pm

Thought – might it be beneficial to relax building codes in urban cores to allow for the construction of hyper-efficiency units that could house a lot of people for a lot less money, albeit at the cost of some luxuries.

Think about “tiny homes” – people are cramming a bathroom, kitchen, living area and bedroom into 250-square-foot trailers. If we could build out units like these at apartment-scale sizes, building owners could charge 1/2 the rent of a typical 750-square-foot apartment (cost scale difference taking into account the added cost of administration and maintenance) and still come out with a net wash, cash flow wise.

Granted, housing like this isn’t for everyone – but for people on the bottom rung of the economic ladder is it preferable to homelessness? Hell, even for some people who could afford more (read: me in my early twenties during the brief time I lived alone rather than with roommates), this housing might even be preferable to more space, freeing up income to boost savings and enjoy life outside one’s housing bubble.

I posit that urban tiny homes would benefit everyone. They’d provide cheap housing for people who can’t afford more, encourage everyone to live more efficiently and with less waste of energy and consumption of products they don’t need (or have room for), and increase access to urban living for all the people needed to make a city flourish, from the janitors to the young entrepreneurs. Fight me on that.


rick callejon March 1, 2018 at 10:09 pm

Urban tiny homes should be built over the ocean. The ocean is the sole affordable property nearby.


Dave March 1, 2018 at 10:25 pm

Not necessarily – give me 2 acres in Valencia Park – hey, there’s a lot currently available and zoned multi-family available for $395,000! But lot restrictions say minimum home size of 1000 square feet – debatable as to whether that’s feasible. But let me quadruple the number of homes (I’ve got to find some kind of parking solution here, obviously), and I can probably build something that’s going to cost a lot less than surrounding units (because the size will make it less attractive to some people) and still be able to make a living doing it.

Remember, not all landlords need to be rich. We do all deserve to make a decent living, as does anyone else in society who’s willing to work to the best of their ability.


Bearded OBcean March 7, 2018 at 2:11 pm

Soft costs for development can run upwards of 40% of the total development cost. At that level, and all else equal, why would developers build mid-tier product when it’s more lucrative and cost-efficient to build high-end inventory? Sure, it might be altruistic to build low-cost units, but that’s not how companies stay afloat.


Simon Dogood March 1, 2018 at 8:01 pm

Here’s a fact. Playing with the laws of supply and demand has unintended consequences.


Dave March 1, 2018 at 9:41 pm

There’s a lot of good stuff in here, which I won’t repeat. But there’s some scary stuff, too…

Full disclosure: I’m a property manager, my family owns 11 units and we manage about 25 on behalf of others. That said, I’m a tenant myself, and have not personally owned property since the crash of the late 2000s, so I have takes on both sides.

I don’t like the idea of eliminating the law that says if I own a house and want to live in it, I have to pay an arbitrary amount like $20,000 to a tenant. Perhaps a minimum notification window, a verification that I’m actually living in my property (with a stiff fine or even criminal charges for people taking false advantage of this loophole), or maybe even a token cash payment to cover moving costs might be appropriate, but if I’m in financial trouble and need to move into my rental and the law says I have to be homeless because it’s illegal or cost-prohibitive for me to live in my own property, something’s wrong.

I also don’t like the idea of saying that if I want to sell my property, I’m legally obligated to sell it to a tenant for less than it’s worth. A law that gives my tenant right of first refusal with an opportunity to match any fair offer I might receive on the open market makes sense for all sides, but again a rule that prevents me from selling property because I’d be obligated to potentially lose money by doing so can’t be considered fair.

Delayed eviction for families with children in school – I could get on board with this, with some exceptions. If there’s confirmed criminal activity on the property that is harming my other tenants, and I have a police report to confirm it, does this mean I have to allow the tenants in question to continue creating an unsafe environment that harms other occupants of a property? If the eviction is for non-payment of rent, does it mean I have to pay their rent for potentially eight or ten months?

One one hand, I’m supportive of any efforts to create and expand affordable housing. And for the units under my direct control, we believe long-term tenants are good for business – we try to keep rent increases both minimal and infrequent in order to encourage people to stay. Even if I could make an extra $200 by chasing you off and refreshing your unit, increasing your rent by just $20 and encouraging you to stay means I maybe get a couple maintenance calls a year that cost me a few hundred dollars rather than a $10,000 up-front cost in remodeling – in the end it’s a wash, if you pay your rent and don’t create a hazardous situation for my other tenants I’ll let you leave on your own terms and raise the unit to market rent once you decide it’s time to go.

On the other hand, being a landlord doesn’t necessarily mean you’re rich. After we pay mortgages, property taxes, insurance, water bills, trash bills (and in some cases electricity bills), and put money away for regular maintenance, if things are running smoothly we make enough profit to support my father-in-law’s semi-retirement in a modest inland neighborhood, my wife’s salary, and about 1/3 of my pay (I still work 3 other part-time jobs). If we’ve got just one tenant that isn’t paying rent, we’re losing money.

I also work for the owner of a small mid-city apartment building who’s retired and relies on the difference between her mortgage payment and her rents to supplement her Social Security income – telling her she has to default on her mortgage payments or go without medication because her tenants won’t pay rent but also don’t want to move mid-school-year seems no less unfair than moving said kids because of the failings of their parents. Either way you’re hurting someone, but some of these proposed restrictions seem to shift the punishment from people who’ve demonstrably done wrong to people who have done no wrong.

All said, I’m probably the friendliest landlord you’ll find when it comes to selling the idea of rent control – if I can’t get on board, it’s going to be a tough row to hoe…


rick callejon March 1, 2018 at 10:14 pm

Dave, you are an exceptional writer. Sounds like it’s not much fun being a landlord.


Dave March 1, 2018 at 10:35 pm

Thanks, Rick – property management is tough work and it hurts a lot both mentally and financially when you take a chance on a borderline tenant with nowhere else to go and they end up screwing you, but it’s also rewarding when you take that chance and someone ends up being a model tenant for years, or when we get to do things like partner with the city to provide housing for homeless veterans.

I like to think I can write – it’s why two of those other three jobs I mentioned have to do with writing. And you’ve been an exceptional interview subject in the stories I’ve written about you on this topic…


marc johnson March 5, 2018 at 4:02 pm

Capitalism is a good thing only if you share the capital.


RB March 5, 2018 at 5:37 pm

Sharing the capital only works if you share the effort, education and responsibility.


Leave a Comment

Older Article:

Newer Article: