Effects of AB1482 (rent control) already being felt (Freedom: for rent, coop)

[opossum1]

People trying to do vile actions to evade the law that's soon going into effect...it's hardly the law "backfiring", more like the law is insufficient and there should be strict punishments - they should have adopted them at the same time along with rent control law... moratorium on evictions unless there're extreme circumstances (non-payment, blight, etc).
I guess lawmakers didn't estimate the extent of human depravity.

[CaliRestoration]

Originally Posted by opossum1

People trying to do vile actions to evade the law that's soon going into effect...it's hardly the law "backfiring", more like the law is insufficient and there should be strict punishments - they should have adopted them at the same time along with rent control law... moratorium on evictions unless there're extreme circumstances (non-payment, blight, etc).
I guess lawmakers didn't estimate the extent of human depravity.

The law is completely back firing. State controlling the rental market doesn't work. You will reduce supply. EVERY SINGLE TIME. Take a basic econ book and skip to the section where it discusses the effects of government intervention and artificial price ceilings and artificial price floors. There's literally thousands of years of market data from the silk road to the west indies trading companies. This policy was created by an idiotic politician who has no grasp on basic economic law and logic.

This is why it should be a requirement to pass a basic micro and macro econ class before graduating high school.

[Ultrarunner]

Originally Posted by CaliRestoration

Government intervention ALWAYS fails like this. Rent control has NEVER worked to help the people who actually vote for it.

A very select few... maybe.

One of the Docs I use to work with rented a very nice SF apartment in Grad schools with room mates years ago... it is under rent control and he pays a fraction of market value.

He doesn't even live their but keeps if for a weekend getaway...

The owners offered to buy him out but he is not interested... sweet deal for a few.

[Ultrarunner]

Originally Posted by opossum1

There were $1 homes in Detroit too...
Was that Oakland $1 program requiring 5-year homeowner-occupancy or allowed to rent it out?
Living in such home would be too unsafe.
And with many abandoned homes, improvements can be destroyed/stolen/vandalized/home gutted, but I guess the situation wasn't so bad, making it worth for someone to put a new roof on a home. Othewise it all would just be bulldozed, eventually. There're big demolitions in Detroit, $1 homes don't help. In Oakland, nice climate always had been a big factor.

Another thing...one break-in with them cooking meth inside (very likely in this kind of envornment) and the home is blighted, unless there's expensive clean up and owner can be sued if not disclosed, not to mention simply unsafe to be in such place because of chemicals involved. 40 years ago...probably before crystal meth labs epidemic.

Owner occupied to qualify for $1 purchase...

I remember visiting Detroit and on a lark went to see some $2500 homes and less... coming from Oakland these were nice large brick homes with basements that would go for 250k at the time if you could have transported them to California... condition unchanged.

My first home was not a $1 home but is was on schedule for condemnation hearing... my buying it delayed the process and in 10 days and a 30 yard dumpster of trash hauled away I was able to stave off condemnation...

It was the single best financial decision I have ever made becoming a home owner at age 22... learned so much about life and people... had some very good neighbors that just shook their heads at this kid with a dream and no idea what I was getting into to... come home from work and my sheetrock was stolen... another time my new front window stolen... even my water heater... had to quickly put up burglar bars and weld the brackets to keep things from walking...

To be young and idealistic... it took about a year of working on it as money permitted... new roof, foundation repair, new drywall, kitchen, bath, landscape, windows, doors, floors... etc... but at 23 I had a nice little home mortgage free... still own it and since I moved I am on my second renter...

[CA4Now]

Originally Posted by Ultrarunner

I remember visiting Detroit and on a lark went to see some $2500 homes and less... coming from Oakland these were nice large brick homes with basements that would go for 250k at the time if you could have transported them to California... condition unchanged.

I remember that also. Another example of why residential real estate is so expensive in most of California: location, location, location.

[wac_432]

Originally Posted by CaliRestoration

The law is completely back firing. State controlling the rental market doesn't work. You will reduce supply. EVERY SINGLE TIME. Take a basic econ book and skip to the section where it discusses the effects of government intervention and artificial price ceilings and artificial price floors. There's literally thousands of years of market data from the silk road to the west indies trading companies. This policy was created by an idiotic politician who has no grasp on basic economic law and logic.

This is why it should be a requirement to pass a basic micro and macro econ class before graduating high school.

This is absolutely true. I was considering building a long-term rental unit on my R-1 property. Even though I would be exempt from the current law, the state has shown that it is more than willing to step in and even postdate laws to screw over landlords. LA issued a moratorium on evictions, basically leaving LL's holding the bag.

So, rather than put in a rental unit, I'll either not build at all, or I'll make any addition an STVR instead. Much less risk of being regulated into a money-losing situation, much higher reward.

[opossum1]

CA doesn't need more rentals. It needs more home owners who reside where they own, not more people owning multiple homes
- combined with reduction in population.
So the effects of this law are beautiful if they prevent one from creating yet another slum rental chicken coop in their backyard or another rip-off rental house.
In fact there should be extremely strong protections for buyers who expect to reside in their homes and any investors should be barred from buying until the property sat there on the market for a year, at least.

[CaliRestoration]

Originally Posted by opossum1

CA doesn't need more rentals. It needs more home owners who reside where they own, not more people owning multiple homes
- combined with reduction in population.
So the effects of this law are beautiful if they prevent one from creating yet another slum rental chicken coop in their backyard or another rip-off rental house.
In fact there should be extremely strong protections for buyers who expect to reside in their homes and any investors should be barred from buying until the property sat there on the market for a year, at least.

Terrible ideas.

[opossum1]

Actually it might be terrible - in a sense that these measures would prolong the life of certain anti-people and pro-wealth political interests. May be the best to let the population become something like 80% renters with most homes owned by slumlord corporations...then buy lots of popcorn and watch elections (and resource redistribution that will follow) Or buy lots of canned food and watch revolution in the streets.

[NewbieHere]

Originally Posted by opossum1

CA doesn't need more rentals. It needs more home owners who reside where they own, not more people owning multiple homes
- combined with reduction in population.
So the effects of this law are beautiful if they prevent one from creating yet another slum rental chicken coop in their backyard or another rip-off rental house.
In fact there should be extremely strong protections for buyers who expect to reside in their homes and any investors should be barred from buying until the property sat there on the market for a year, at least.

Idiotic comment people made online especially the part CA don't need more rentals, of course they do. How else would Newsom or the Dems get re-elected?