TaxpayersAdvocate.org

Home

Oceanside Rent Control—Costly to Oceanside Taxpayers

An Analysis of the Fiscal Impacts of Rent Control in the City of Oceanside

Key Findings on the Impact of Rent Control in Oceanside

Oceanside taxpayers have spent and lost $7.5 million from 1999 through 2011
Oceanside will spend and lose $8 million over next decade
Unreported additional staff costs are unknown
Outside legal cost related to rent control is unknown

Executive Summary

The City of Oceanside enacted rent control in 1983. There are 17 mobile home parks with over 2500 units. As the voters are asked to consider modifying the current rent control restrictions in June, it is relevant to analyze the past and ongoing costs and fiscal impacts of rent control on Oceanside’s taxpayers. It is also worth noting that as part of this study, it was clearly determined that the City of Oceanside has NOT adequately tracked all of its rent control-related staff and legal costs.

Lost Taxes

Since rent control was enacted, no additional mobile home parks have been built in the city. This non-growth in mobile home parks is in extraordinary contrast to the explosive population growth and the construction of thousands of new housing and apartments units. This stagnation led to depressed property values on these 17 properties, resulting in a potential property tax loss of over $3.2 million. It is estimated that this under-valuation will mean that Oceanside will not realize $4 million in additional property tax revenues over the next decade.

Increased Costs

The costs associated with rent control are only partly tracked by the City of Oceanside in its “Mobile Home Rent Control Fund.” Whether as a simple oversight, or as an intentional way to hide the full costs, this lack of detailed accounting has made it impossible to determine the complete and accurate impact to the taxpayers. In addition, the financial data which IS available only goes back to the 1999 fiscal year. 15 previous years of rent control related expenditures are a mystery.

According to city Rent Control Fund, since 1999 the Oceanside has collected $1.7 million in rent control fees, while spending $2.4 million in staff and other costs. However, it is estimated that an additional $1.9 million in unreported personnel costs were expended as well, bringing full staff rent control costs to $4.3 million. Additional rent-control related staff and legal expenditures are unknown.

FLAWED SYSTEM: ONLINE SALES TAX COLLECTION

Economic Impact Upon California Businesses And Employees

August 2010

Analysis of Measure R and Measure RR

October 22, 2008
Analysis of Mt. San Antonio Community College District Measure R (2001) & Proposed Measure RR - November 2008 Facilities Bond (PDF)

Barrio Logan Mercado Project

October 12, 2007

Greg S. Shannon, Vice President of Development
Shea Properties
9990 Mesa Rim Rd.
San Diego, CA 92121

Re: Fiscal and Economic Benefits of the Mercado Del Barrio Project

Downloads (PDF)
Barrio Logan Mercado Project Fiscal Impact Summary
Barrio Logan Mercado Methodology
Barrio Logan Mercado Revenues and Expeditures

Dear Greg:

TaxpayersAdvocate.org retained Rea & Parker Research to determine the fiscal and economic benefits of the Mercado Del Barrio Project. The key findings below illustrate that the project should generate the following benefits to the City of San Diego and Redevelopment Agency

Chula Vista’s Bayfront--A Risky Proposition

Analysis of the Chula Vista’s Bayfront Plan & Gaylord Project Finds Plan “Fatally Flawed”
Download Study

p>San Diego-TaxpayersAdvocate.org today released an analysis of the Chula Vista Bayfront Master Plan (CVBMP) which found that while promising to generate “…millions of dollars of new revenues for the Port of San Diego, the City of Chula Vista and Chula Vista’s redevelopment agency, the requirement of almost $300 million in up-front infrastructure costs make it fatally flawed.” The study found that the City’s “…financial problems will likely preclude it from participating in up-front infrastructure financing. Any attempt to do so could have drastic and fatal consequences for the City if Chula Vista.”

San Diego City Attorney—Use of Unbudgeted Prop 64 Funds

Dear Chairperson Atkins and Members of the Committee:

TaxpayersAdvocate.org is conducting a fiscal and management review of the San Diego City Attorney’s office. The primary intent of this project is to focus on how and where the San Diego City Attorney spends taxpayer’s funds and resources.

Standard & Poors Downgrades Chula Vista Credit Rating

Download Standard & Poors report (PDF)

Chula Vista Facing Looming Fiscal Crisis

A Fiscal Analysis of the City of Chula Vista

The City of Chula Vista is facing a serious, self-created financial crisis. This looming crisis is as a result of actions by City Council and is caused by the following factors:

Significant increases to spending, which has consistently out-stripped healthy revenue growth
Significant increase in General Fund debt
Significant increase in un-funded pension liability

Download Complete Study | Newsrelease | City of Chula Vista Response

Fiscal Analysis of the City of Solana Beach

Solana Beach — Financial Storm Clouds Ahead

Download: (PDF)
Complete Study Employee Compensation

“…small cities such as Solana Beach are considered today on the “endangered list.” There is a real and rational concern throughout the county, among city management and civic leaders, as to whether or not small cities will be able to survive the competition for finances, resources, and the lure of the “large pockets” found among large cities and counties.”

Mayor David Powell, State of the City Address, June 21, 2006

California Seeks to Ban Investment in Iran

SAN FRANCISCO, April 1 — It is the kind of political movement that fits handily on a bumper sticker: Divest Iran.

Over the past year, one state, Missouri, has opted to do just that, while several others, including New Jersey, have also begun to write or to consider legislation to divest.

But the nascent movement took on decidedly more weight last week with the preliminary success of a bill in the California Legislature.

Support for AB 221 -- Iran Divestment

Honorable Edward P. Hernandez, Chair Assembly PERS Committee
California State Assembly
Sacramento, CA

Dear Chairman Hernandez and Members of the Committee:

I am writing to urge you to support AB 221. Since American taxpayers have spent billions of dollars fighting terrorism, it seems bizarre at best that California taxpayer's are investing in foreign companies which do business with the terror-supporting nation of Iran.

Taxpayers should not fund terrorists

“It is unconscionable for our country's public pension systems to permit investment in companies that provide revenues, advanced equipment and technology to countries that threaten our vital security interests.”

U.S. Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J.

Syndicate