Recently, Ted Egan (PhD) of the Office of Economic Analysis did a review of Daly's Renter Relief legislation for the BOS. Using American Community Surveys data from the
Census, and to support legis that would prevent rent increases for anyone who already pays more than 35% of their income in rent, it was said that about 1 in 3
San Franciscans would be (positively) affected by this measure.
Ok. Possibly. That seems like quite a large number, but I have little refereence.
In my own review, I discovered that that figure was about 27% (who paid >35%) in 2000. I find it curious that it has increased so much, given that the rents from the Dot Com Bomb have remained, overall, relatively flat since then -- with some downs and ups but also in inflation-adjusted figures.. But then, those were actually Census figures (from quesitonaires directed at one-in-six respondents). The ACS is just that -- a "survey", or sample. So I guess its bound to have its quirks.
Like, we have testimony from someone like Kim Meadows (2:58:10) (and her hair IS strikingly red -- Rock Star Red) who says that she/they pay 90% of their income in rent, and live off $!50/mth. Possible. I mean, I can't help but believe it (also wonder if she doesn't suppliment her declared "income" in some way too) (I mean, Rock Star Red is abt $28/bottle). Data indicate that the v young (<25) and the v old (>65) pay a far greater share of their income in rent; for different reasons. Remember being a student?
At any rate, I discovered that poor Kim is not even at the bottom of her barrel, statistically. If you look at the table B25122 Household INcome in the Past 12 Mths By Gross Rent, you will find that AT LEAST 6700 rental units paid MORE THAN THIER INCOME IN RENT in 2007. That is, they paid >100% of income for rent, not jsut >35%. I know this is impossible; but there's the stats!
So, while the OEA can pull numbers out of a hat to support whatever they like; it does seem that the pool for those numbers has some serious seaweed issues.
Personally, I doubt the figures cuz in 1980 I got and returned a quesitonaire like this. I was renting a 5-rm flat w/ my brother and sis-in-law at the time. What asked what the rent was, I gave the total rent ($475?) (my share was about $166). And when asked my income (it probably asked for the "household income", but who reads that stuff), I put down my annual salary amt (not OT, and not any of their income, jsut the salary base I made, since it was a nice easily remembered figure -- <$20k). So I am sure that there is plenty of 'wiggle room' in the stats at the Census Bureau.
Now I realize that there are a fair number of San Franciscans out there who are scrimping. I know several, middle-aged, people that make basically Min Wage (w or w/o the hrs). Its the shame that they have to covet a new pair of underwear, in silence. Or sox. And forget the steak! But of two folks whose situation I know, one pays abt 30% in rent, the other pays abt 40% (not sure abt the others). In that sense I can say "Thank G*d for rent control". But its not folks like that that light my fire on RC anyway (its the bastards making $80-120k paying less that $700/mth).
It could be pointed out that the proposed legislation wouldn't have any impact on renters (even if they qualified) -- BECAUSE THERE WON'T BY ANY RENT INCREASES IN 2010 anyway (under rent control), and probably none the following year either while the recession lingers. Cuz the CPI has actually been negative, therefore nothing to base an increas on. But that's a mere footnote, really.
Leave it to Daly to propose something for which there is no actual need. And leave it to the bozos in city govmint to reflexively back him up.
-P
Ok. Possibly. That seems like quite a large number, but I have little refereence.
In my own review, I discovered that that figure was about 27% (who paid >35%) in 2000. I find it curious that it has increased so much, given that the rents from the Dot Com Bomb have remained, overall, relatively flat since then -- with some downs and ups but also in inflation-adjusted figures.. But then, those were actually Census figures (from quesitonaires directed at one-in-six respondents). The ACS is just that -- a "survey", or sample. So I guess its bound to have its quirks.
Like, we have testimony from someone like Kim Meadows (2:58:10) (and her hair IS strikingly red -- Rock Star Red) who says that she/they pay 90% of their income in rent, and live off $!50/mth. Possible. I mean, I can't help but believe it (also wonder if she doesn't suppliment her declared "income" in some way too) (I mean, Rock Star Red is abt $28/bottle). Data indicate that the v young (<25) and the v old (>65) pay a far greater share of their income in rent; for different reasons. Remember being a student?
At any rate, I discovered that poor Kim is not even at the bottom of her barrel, statistically. If you look at the table B25122 Household INcome in the Past 12 Mths By Gross Rent, you will find that AT LEAST 6700 rental units paid MORE THAN THIER INCOME IN RENT in 2007. That is, they paid >100% of income for rent, not jsut >35%. I know this is impossible; but there's the stats!
So, while the OEA can pull numbers out of a hat to support whatever they like; it does seem that the pool for those numbers has some serious seaweed issues.
Personally, I doubt the figures cuz in 1980 I got and returned a quesitonaire like this. I was renting a 5-rm flat w/ my brother and sis-in-law at the time. What asked what the rent was, I gave the total rent ($475?) (my share was about $166). And when asked my income (it probably asked for the "household income", but who reads that stuff), I put down my annual salary amt (not OT, and not any of their income, jsut the salary base I made, since it was a nice easily remembered figure -- <$20k). So I am sure that there is plenty of 'wiggle room' in the stats at the Census Bureau.
Now I realize that there are a fair number of San Franciscans out there who are scrimping. I know several, middle-aged, people that make basically Min Wage (w or w/o the hrs). Its the shame that they have to covet a new pair of underwear, in silence. Or sox. And forget the steak! But of two folks whose situation I know, one pays abt 30% in rent, the other pays abt 40% (not sure abt the others). In that sense I can say "Thank G*d for rent control". But its not folks like that that light my fire on RC anyway (its the bastards making $80-120k paying less that $700/mth).
It could be pointed out that the proposed legislation wouldn't have any impact on renters (even if they qualified) -- BECAUSE THERE WON'T BY ANY RENT INCREASES IN 2010 anyway (under rent control), and probably none the following year either while the recession lingers. Cuz the CPI has actually been negative, therefore nothing to base an increas on. But that's a mere footnote, really.
Leave it to Daly to propose something for which there is no actual need. And leave it to the bozos in city govmint to reflexively back him up.
-P
