Why hasn't Trump come out here yet!?!?! (Santa Monica: rent, condos)

[greggd]

Originally Posted by LASam

Though I agree with much of what you said.... I do not agree with your final 2 sentences. In other parts of the country, where real estate is affordable to a larger percentage of the population, I would agree with you. In LA, however, real estate is too expensive for most to be able to buy after renting for one year.

Renting an apartment is, at most, a one year commitment. After one year it becomes a 30 day commitment. I didn't suggest that after a year a renter could afford to purchase a home. That would soley depend on the individual.

I was stating that renting a newer modern apartment is an acceptable alternative to homeownership and can allow the individual to live in an area that they could not afford to buy. Renting also provides a relatively simple alternative to individuals who are unable to manage their finances with a longterm outlook, who may have not developed a plan earlier in life, or who took risks that did not play out to their advantage recently.

[richie894]

he built a golf course down in southbay.

[motoman]

Originally Posted by greggd

Renting an apartment is, at most, a one year commitment. After one year it becomes a 30 day commitment. I didn't suggest that after a year a renter could afford to purchase a home. That would soley depend on the individual.

I was stating that renting a newer modern apartment is an acceptable alternative to homeownership and can allow the individual to live in an area that they could not afford to buy. Renting also provides a relatively simple alternative to individuals who are unable to manage their finances with a longterm outlook, who may have not developed a plan earlier in life, or who took risks that did not play out to their advantage recently.

Currently it is a very good alternative. On average, the cost to own in the LA area is about twice what it is to rent.

Historically, the differential between owning and renting in LA has been about $600 per month, with it costing $600 more per month to own a place versus renting. Currently that differential is about $1,800 per month, which is a great indication of how ridiculous this housing market is.

Even still, rental rates, on average, are already at about 40% of gross income. There isn't any room for rents to increase without forcing most people away, to double-up, move into a smaller place, etc.

For example, the market rent for my 2-bedroom unit in West LA has increased 29% over the past two years. Few people can afford that type of increase.

[JackSparrow]

Originally Posted by motoman

For example, the market rent for my 2-bedroom unit in West LA has increased 29% over the past two years. Few people can afford that type of increase.

Is it vacant?

[motoman]

Originally Posted by JackSparrow

Is it vacant?

No. Although a capitalist at heart, I am currently bowing to the gods of rent control.

[greggd]

Originally Posted by motoman

For example, the market rent for my 2-bedroom unit in West LA has increased 29% over the past two years. Few people can afford that type of increase.

Depends on what type of tenant you are renting to.

A 1950-60s apartment in west la could have a waitress or a plumber as an occupant who may not be able to afford market rent depending on the area.
The young professional would traditionally rent for a few years then move on to a condo or house. With housing prices constantly increasing, some cant or dont want to lay out that expense. The next best thing is an upgraded apartment that has the feel of a new condo.

Some of the units down in downtown santa monica and brentwood are pretty cool. Some are nicer than condos built in the 90's.

[greggd]

Originally Posted by motoman

No. Although a capitalist at heart, I am currently bowing to the gods of rent control.

I know an owner in Santa Monica who has had the same tenant for over 20 years. Started out as a couple, then married, had 3 kids. Had they bought a place 15 years ago, they could have built substantial equity and had a place of there own in the same neighborhood but a single family home. Now all they have is low rent in a 1940's old building and 3 kids that grew up in a small apartment.

Acording to the wife, they've had the money for a downpayment until these past 7 years or so, but lost the ability when the market shot up. They never made the move because they didnt want to give up the savings on the rental unit. penny wise pound foolish.

[JackSparrow]

Originally Posted by greggd

I know an owner in Santa Monica who has had the same tenant for over 20 years. Started out as a couple, then married, had 3 kids. Had they bought a place 15 years ago, they could have built substantial equity and had a place of there own in the same neighborhood but a single family home. Now all they have is low rent in a 1940's old building and 3 kids that grew up in a small apartment.

Acording to the wife, they've had the money for a downpayment until these past 7 years or so, but lost the ability when the market shot up. They never made the move because they didnt want to give up the savings on the rental unit. penny wise pound foolish.

Can you hear them moaning about housing prices 20 years ago?

I'm sure their landlord could! hahahaha

[UB50]

New buildings going up downtown have to allow for 20% low income people. That means that 20% of the buildings will rent for below what the market allows. I don't know if this is true for all of LA or what.

As long as incomes don't increase like housing does, I can see more renters (cough, cough, since most of the city consists of renters) could easily vote for more rent control.

I would have liked to have seen the Ambassador Hotel preserved. It's a shame the Kennedy kids didn't feel that way. It was kind of an anachronism the way it was -- that low slung big hotel surrounded by high rises...

[greggd]

This past week, I viewed some of the apartments going up near Little Tokyo. Any lost income for low cost allocations were made up in the increased density of those developments. 4 stories right up against the sidewalk on all four sides on large commercial blocks.

I really would like to have seen some setback and let them go up another floor or two, rather than the way they look now.

Yes, low income is required, but I think it is acceptable to build a separate structure for low income. I certainly would not want to pay $2k plus and live next to a guy collecting cans and storing them on his balcony.