On rent control, oxen and Oakmont
John Gregg must have finally finished counting his $25 million
because he is once more writing letters -- (“Is this a
property-rights epiphany?” April 30). He says that contrary to my
Oakmont V development opposition, my anti-rent control stance tells
him that I have experienced an epiphany about government interference
in property matters now that it is my “ox being gored.” There is no
truth to this. John proves again that he is a master of
superficiality and obfuscation, and here’s why:
1. John’s ox was a mere gleam in the eye of the daddy bull. My ox
was already pulling the wagon when I bought it. He bought
hard-to-develop, environmentally-sensitive, raw land -- as risky an
investment as one can find. I bought a solid income-producing
property.
2. He had to have been aware of the environmental statutes that
had long been in place when he bought his properties and which caused
him so much trouble. If he wasn’t, then one must question his
business acumen. He also either ignored or was too arrogant to
recognize the rapidly growing opposition to open-space destruction,
especially hillsides. Amazingly, he miraculously squeaked his Oakmont
V development plan in just before the Hillside Ordinance went into
effect. I bought a developed property that had no such concerns and
none that could be envisioned.
3. John ran afoul of existing law. I am threatened with an
egregious proposed law nearly 25 years after the purchase of my
property. Even though I have thoughtfully, conscientiously and
lawfully managed my property and become dependent on its income, new
law is being promulgated that will cause great harm to my investment
and de facto confiscation.
4. He did not spend a nickel on property improvements. I have
spent thousands.
5. His deep pockets bought high-priced lawyers to turn over every
Oakmont stone and look behind every bush to try to force project
approval or a monumental payoff. All I have is this keyboard.
6. Last but not least, John and his lawyers coerced (I’ve got
another word for it, but it’s best I don’t use it) the city and state
into coughing up roughly 10 times his original property investment of
10 or so years before. That’s one heck of a good return, yet he still
complains about government interference. Few, if any, ever suggested
that his property should be confiscated or managed by edict by
someone else. In fact, on a variety of occasions, I suggested buyout
prices of between $5 million and $11 million, based on comps or a
more than fair rate of return. I’d happily take 10 times my original
investment and then the tenants, the city and the courts can do
whatever they please with it. Fat chance! I get nothing for the
proposed government interference except a punitive, highly invasive
set of complex rules that takes away all significant management
control.
How much different could two oxen be? John’s was just a gleam in a
myopic eye. Mine has been cared for with concern, considerable
expense and has been pulling a heavy wagon.
As a professed rent-control critic, it is shameful that John, in
his attempt to wreak a little revenge on an ardent Oakmont V foe, has
undoubtedly done harm to the cause of all those who oppose rent
control.
ROBERT MORRISON
Glendale