User:Kguth/sandbox

SECTION TO BE MODIFIED:

ADD INTERNAL REFERENCES TO OTHER WIKIPEDIA ARTICLES

United States
In the United States, state laws against price gouging have been held as constitutional at the state level as a valid exercise of the police power to preserve order during an emergency, and may be combined with anti-hoarding measures.

As of January 2019, 34 states have laws against price-gouging. If you are concerned about price-gouging, you should refer to your individual state's law. Price-gouging is often defined in terms of the three criteria listed below :


 * 1) Period of emergency: The majority of laws apply only to price shifts during a declared state of emergency or disaster.
 * 2) Necessary items: Most laws apply exclusively to items essential to survival, such as food, water, and housing.
 * 3) Price ceilings: Laws limit the maximum price that can be charged for given goods.

When the Law Goes into Effect
Statutory prohibitions on price gouging become effective, thus protecting people from exploitative increases in the costs of essential goods, once a state of emergency has been declared. States have legislated different requirements for who must declare a state of emergency for the price protections to go into effect. Some state statutes that prohibit price gouging--including those of Alabama, Florida , Mississippi , and Ohio --protect against price increases only once the President of the United States or the state's governor has declared a state of emergency in the impacted region. California permits emergency proclamations by officials, boards, and other governing bodies of cities and counties to trigger the state's price gouging law.

What the Law Protects Against
State laws vary on what price increases are permitted during a declared disaster. California has set a 10 percent ceiling on price increases. Florida prohibits a price increase “that grossly exceeds the average price” of that same item in the 30 days leading up to the emergency declaration. Some state laws do not define what constitutes a “gross disparity,” making it difficult for either affected residents or law enforcement to determine when price gouging has occurred, while others merely limit vendors and landlords to price increases of less than 25 percent. Laws often include exceptions for price increases that can be justified in terms of increased cost of supply, transportation, demand or storage.

Enforcement
Enforcement of anti-price gouging statutes can be difficult because of the exceptions often contained within the statutes and the lack of oversight mechanisms. Statutes generally give wide discretion not to prosecute. In 2004, Florida determined that one-third of complaints were unfounded, and a large fraction of the remainder was handled by consent decrees, rather than prosecution.

California
California Penal Code 396 prohibits price gouging, generally defined as anything greater than a 10 percent increase in price, once a state of emergency has been declared. Unlike other states that require the President of the United States or the state’s governor to declare a state of emergency, California permits emergency proclamations by officials, boards, and other governing bodies of cities and counties to trigger C.P.C. § 396. The price protection lasts for up to 30 days at a time and may be renewed as necessary. Since October 2017, then-California Governor Jerry Brown repeatedly extended the price-gouging ban for counties impacted by the October 2017 wildfires and subsequently for the counties impacted by the 2018 wildfires. One of his last acts as governor was to extend the price protections until May 31, 2019.

Even though California prohibits price hikes after an emergency is declared, the state, like many others, has virtually no price monitoring structure for oversight. [9] Attorneys and law enforcement generally rely on news reports and word of mouth to learn about exploitative pricing practices. The District Attorney of Sonoma County has attempted to remedy this by creating its own task force focused on combatting and prosecuting price gouging.

In 2018, the California state legislature amended C.P.C. § 396 after the fallout from the 2017 wildfires. District attorneys reached out to legislators explaining how the current language of section 396 made it difficult to enforce. By the time the 2017 fires had been extinguished, the median rent had increased by more than 35 percent. And the rental vacancy rate was zero. News reports detailed renters being forced out of their homes to make way for those who could afford to pay more, either with their own money or their insurance company’s.

The legislature completely rewrote sections 396(e)-(f). Prior to the revisions, those sections of the law had only specified that the prohibitions on price gouging could be extended for additional 30-day periods and that a violation of the law was punishable by imprisonment in a county jail no longer than one year, by a fine no greater than $10,000 dollars, or both.

The amended version went into effect on January 1, 2019 and aimed to reduce the exploitative practices that had ensued after the October 2017 fires. Section 396(e) stipulated, in part, that: “it is unlawful for any person, business, or other entity, to increase the rental price. . . advertised, offered, or charged for housing, to an existing or prospective tenant, by more than 10 percent.”   While the amendment reiterated that landlords may increase the rental price by up to 10 percent if they could demonstrate that the increase in costs were directly attributable to repairs, it also clarified what could not justify an increase in rent.

An increase in rent may not be “based on the length of the rental term, the inclusion of additional goods or services, except with respect to furniture, or that the rent was offered by, or paid by, an insurance company, or other third party, on behalf of a tenant."

MY RESEARCH/ARTICLE TEXT:
TO DO:

Florida:

·     Research the legislative history of the state’s price gouging statute

·     Focus on housing in the Florida Keys/Houston that were devastated by 2017 hurricanes

·     Update notes on state of housing in Florida Keys, follow up with Legal Services of Greater Miami

·     Search for records in federal, state, and small claims court of any mention of the state’s price gouging statute

Texas:

·     Researching the legislative history of the state’s price gouging statute

·     Search for records in federal, state, and small claims court of any mention of the state’s price gouging statute

·     Examine the current state of housing for the Houston area and those displaced by 2017’s floods

·     Collect Data on the Texas Attorney General’s prosecution of price gouging cases

·     Collect Data on Texas District Attorneys’ rates of filing complaints in price gouging cases

·     Determining the most reliable resources outside of local governments for information related to price gouging

CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE 396-CAL PRICE GOUGING LAW
California Penal Code 396 prohibits price gouging, generally defined as anything greater than a 10 percent increase in price, once a state of emergency has been declared. Unlike other states that require the President of the United States or the state’s governor to declare a state of emergency, California permits emergency proclamations by officials, boards, and other governing bodies of cities and counties to trigger C.P.C. § 396. The price protection lasts for up to 30 days at a time and may be renewed as necessary. Since October 2017, then-California Governor Jerry Brown repeatedly extended the price-gouging ban for counties impacted by the October 2017 wildfires and subsequently for the counties impacted by the 2018 wildfires. One of his last acts as governor was to extend the price protections until May 31, 2019.

Even though California prohibits price hikes after an emergency is declared, the state, like many others, has virtually no price monitoring structure for oversight. [9] Attorneys and law enforcement generally rely on news reports and word of mouth to learn about exploitative pricing practices. The District Attorney of Sonoma County has attempted to remedy this by creating its own task force focused on combatting and prosecuting price gouging.

In 2018, the California state legislature amended C.P.C. § 396 after the fallout from the 2017 wildfires. District attorneys reached out to legislators explaining how the current language of section 396 made it difficult to enforce. By the time the 2017 fires had been extinguished, the median rent had increased by more than 35 percent. And the rental vacancy rate was zero. News reports detailed renters being forced out of their homes to make way for those who could afford to pay more, either with their own money or their insurance company’s.

The legislature completely rewrote sections 396(e)-(f). Prior to the revisions, those sections of the law had only specified that the prohibitions on price gouging could be extended for additional 30-day periods and that a violation of the law was punishable by imprisonment in a county jail no longer than one year, by a fine no greater than $10,000 dollars, or both.

The amended version went into effect on January 1, 2019 and aimed to reduce the exploitative practices that had ensued after the October 2017 fires. Section 396(e) stipulated, in part, that: “it is unlawful for any person, business, or other entity, to increase the rental price. . . advertised, offered, or charged for housing, to an existing or prospective tenant, by more than 10 percent.”   While the amendment reiterated that landlords may increase the rental price by up to 10 percent if they could demonstrate that the increase in costs were directly attributable to repairs, it also clarified what could not justify an increase in rent.

An increase in rent may not be “based on the length of the rental term, the inclusion of additional goods or services, except with respect to furniture, or that the rent was offered by, or paid by, an insurance company, or other third party, on behalf of a tenant."

Shortly after the 2017 fires, the California State Legislature began working to modify section 396 in an effort to strengthen one of the few protections for people forced out of their homes after a disaster. District attorneys had reached out to legislators explaining how the current language of section 396 made it difficult to enforce.[12]  But the problems for district attorneys were not limited to the law’s language; “Generally, it’s an uncommon statute to charge. There’s very little case law to interpret the statutes and we have been having to deal with that. There has been very little appellate court review,” said Scott Jamar, one of Sonoma County’s Chief Deputy District Attorneys.[13]

[1] Cal. Penal Code § 396 (West 2018).

[2] Id. See e.g., Ala. Code § 8-31-4 (2017); Fla. Stat. § 501.160 (2017); Miss. Code Ann. § 75-24-25 (2008); Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 1345.01 (2009). Going forward, a more thorough review of states’ price gouging prohibitions and related prosecutions or consent decrees should be undertaken.

[3] Cal. Penal Code § 396(b) (West 2018) (stipulating that a person or entity may not sell any of the enumerated goods or services for more than 10 percent more than the price that vendor charged for that good or service “immediately prior to the proclamation or declaration of emergency”).

[4] https://www.pressdemocrat.com/business/9018789-181/gov-jerry-brown-extends-price-gouging?sba=AAS

[5] See Cal. Penal Code § 396 (West 2018). California Penal Code Section 396 permits price increases greater than 10 percent if the vendor demonstrates that the markup results from “the seller’s supplier or additional costs of providing the good or service during the state of emergency” and that the price represents no greater than 10 percent above the total cost to seller plus the customary markup. Landlords may also increase the cost of their rental units by an additional 5 percent if they are renting a previously unfurnished residence with furniture.

[6] Fla. Stat. § 501.160(b) (2017).

[7] Id.

[8] Ala. Code § 8-31-4 (2017).

[9] Emily Bae, Note, Are Anti-Price Gouging Regulations Effective Against Sellers During Disasters?, 4 Entrepreneurial Bus. L.J. 79, 80 (2009).

[10] See Gabby Del Valle, "The Fires in California Highlight--and worsen--the State's Income Divide" https://www.vox.com/the-goods/2018/11/15/18097092/california-fires;

[11] Id.

[12] Phone conversation with Scott Jamar, Chief Deputy District Attorney, Jan. 11, 2019.

[13] Id.

[14] It should be noted that the Governor’s executive orders extending the price protections did not abide by the 30-day increment limitation.

[15] Cal. Penal Code § 396(e)-(f) (West 2018).

[16] Cal. Penal Code § 396(e) (West 2019).

[17] Id.

[18] Id.

Article Evaluation
Questions from Wikipedia to consider:

Content


 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
 * Could be made more relevant by separating out by country?
 * Country-->states
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
 * SO MUCH: including how to recognize price gouging, when price gouging comes into effect, what is and is not prohibited
 * What else could be improved?
 * information telling people how they can fight against price gouging if they see it

Tone


 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

Evaluating Sources :


 * Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
 * Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?

Talk Page


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?