The Rent is Too Damn High
Is that too old of a reference? I remember when it was a YouTube song hit from Shmoyoho. Anyway, it doesn’t seem so funny anymore. I do believe it is getting worse for renters and that the more we allow corporate interests to have domination over housing investments, the worse it will become. It’s time to get hands on about this.
“The government doesn’t build housing.” Yeah, because no one has the guts to do it. They are too afraid to fail, and despite how often you’ll hear the word “management” this year, most would rather pay a contractor for projects and avoid responsibility, which comes at a high cost. However, governments are afforded certain privileges such as the ability to sell bonds. Someone with vision could lead the development of the projects they will fund, and even land acquisition. Speaking of land acquisition, while a mutually agreeable sale is preferred because it allows for more options, eminent domain is an option for affordable and low income housing projects.
See here’s the deal folks; let’s cut the malarkey. The government always has the power to build housing, it chooses not to. I don’t care what anyone tells me. I can be a homeowner, but at the end of the day my property taxes remind me I’m basically paying rent. So, if whomever is on the next council agrees with me, and you can make sure they do even if it takes a write-in campaign, here’s what a Dastra Administration is going to do:
1) We will open a bond program for first dibs to City-residents to invest in—preferably down to increments of $100 so it is accessible to the masses—because while bonds are debt service, we can make sure that service is to local residents, not big banks. Then we will open it to the surrounding Lancaster Inter-Municipal Committee (LIMC) communities, if necessary, and then maybe the County residents, but this is not for envisioned for businesses. This is me saying, “Put your money where your mouth is, you’ll get a guaranteed return, and in a best case scenario our projects can offset tax increases to pay for the bond payments to residents. You as the investor cannot lose, and this is development our community wants.”
If the conditions of certain developments are right, the City could engage in housing development without concern for affordability. While we need affordable housing, we need to be mindful we are playing their game and we’re playing so our residents win. That means when we get the financial return, it pays the residents who invested in the bonds for the first decade, and after that, it can be invested in more housing—it all stays local. It doesn’t go to faceless entities who just want to make money from the need to be housed. With this we can systematically invest in the growth of our community—FOR DECADES—and make it so that our existing residents can directly benefit long-term from this investment in development.
2) We are going to start requiring rent disclosures with rental permits of the maximum rent they will charge for the life of that permit, which currently varies but is less than 5 years. This will build a database of rents, and as valued we can make sure to have information like unit type as it will be marketed and leased. This data will then later be used to determine whether significant rent increases are justified and make sure a tenant doesn’t get gouged.
3) We will enact our own version of the Tenant Opportunity to Purchase Act so that as residential developments might change hands, it allows the residents to form a collective ownership, and keep our value local. A single family house is not the only way to own a piece of Lancaster—we must diversify these options to build community equity.
4) We will enact some form of rent control. I recognize rent control in its purest form is not workable—especially in turbulent markets—but people deserve some assurance. We need rent control that allows for reasonable inflationary and market increases, accounting for depreciation, and making it illegal for a landlord to just evict someone just to increase rent unreasonably. Large rent increases should accompany reasonable investment, in my opinion. If I’m Mayor, the City is getting hands on about this—as long as the Democratic Council lets me.
If the federal government is as bad as we report it to be, then there’s not going to be many more grants. If this nation is truly going into oligarchy, then we have to quickly advance an agenda that opens the doors of prosperity to the middle class. If the housing is really in crisis, then you better believe I’m going to declare a state of emergency on day one to permit the swift passage and effectiveness of the bills we will draft. If we can’t count of the federal government, and even the State if things get worse, then we can only count on ourselves.
People ask me why I am running for Mayor and not Council, especially because I’d probably win a seat on Council. The reason is because we desperately need someone at the helm with the will for these big visions, and I have the full intention on seeing them through as long so long as they remain necessary. I don’t plan on being a one-term Mayor, at least not of my own choice.
Anyway, get yourself a Mayor who doesn’t keep the security deposit. Some of you candidates and officials say “crisis,” but you don’t act like it. Where’s the urgency? We’ve been having this conversation since at least the 1993 Comprehensive Plan.
I recognize this is a massive shift from the norm around here, but as the kids say, I’m ten toes in when I’m standing on business. I refuse to allow the City to kick this can down the road any longer and act helpless. I want a Strong Town.
-Tony Dastra
