U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > Los Angeles
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 04-18-2016, 11:36 AM
 
Location: Los Angeles (Native)
24,149 posts, read 13,668,407 times
Reputation: 11363

Advertisements

If you don't like the analogy of a used Ford versus a new S500 mercedes...fine
you could say people are on a Public Transit budget instead.
The point still is that it costs much much more in cities like L.A/SF/NYC versus less expensive cities.
Do you know there are cities where you can buy a livable home for 1/10th or less of the median home price in L.A today?
That's not just a little less that's a LOT less!

Even in the San Fernando Valley which many still think is 'cheaper' to live in... median home price is $600,000!


Sure I get that people might miss L.A..but bottom line is most don't need to live in L.A to survive or live.

Should people that love living in L.A whether they are natives or not , but can't afford it be subsidized?
I am of the opinion that they should not be subsidized.

Nobody has been known to die because they moved out of L.A

Best solution is to move where it is affordable to live.
I'm an L.A native and enjoy it, but if/when I can't afford it I'll realize I have to move.
I'm not going to protest or expect that the government or developers build 'affordable housing' for me..

People need a reality check..and the politicians unfortunately are fueling this fantasy of fighting for 'affordable housing'.
It's just the same old dog and pony show. Carrot and stick.
"Promise affordable housing and then people will vote for you!"

It'll be good for maybe the 1% or less of the lucky ones that get placed in subsidized units, but the rest are going to be out of luck.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-18-2016, 12:33 PM
 
Location: Armsanta Sorad
5,660 posts, read 6,575,834 times
Reputation: 2429
Quote:
Originally Posted by jm1982 View Post
If you don't like the analogy of a used Ford versus a new S500 mercedes...fine
you could say people are on a Public Transit budget instead.
The point still is that it costs much much more in cities like L.A/SF/NYC versus less expensive cities.
Do you know there are cities where you can buy a livable home for 1/10th or less of the median home price in L.A today?
That's not just a little less that's a LOT less!

Even in the San Fernando Valley which many still think is 'cheaper' to live in... median home price is $600,000!


Sure I get that people might miss L.A..but bottom line is most don't need to live in L.A to survive or live.

Should people that love living in L.A whether they are natives or not , but can't afford it be subsidized?
I am of the opinion that they should not be subsidized.

Nobody has been known to die because they moved out of L.A

Best solution is to move where it is affordable to live.
I'm an L.A native and enjoy it, but if/when I can't afford it I'll realize I have to move.
I'm not going to protest or expect that the government or developers build 'affordable housing' for me..

People need a reality check..and the politicians unfortunately are fueling this fantasy of fighting for 'affordable housing'.
It's just the same old dog and pony show. Carrot and stick.
"Promise affordable housing and then people will vote for you!"

It'll be good for maybe the 1% or less of the lucky ones that get placed in subsidized units, but the rest are going to be out of luck.
And I used to think the Valley was the last bastion in the city where rent and home prices were lower.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-18-2016, 12:52 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles (Native)
24,149 posts, read 13,668,407 times
Reputation: 11363
Quote:
Originally Posted by West of Encino View Post
And I used to think the Valley was the last bastion in the city where rent and home prices were lower.
Yeah I think a lot of people that don't know valley prices would think it's pretty cheap. There is kind of a stereotype that the valley is cheaper.
Many Westsiders and people that live in other parts of L.A don't even seem to acknowledge the valley as part of the city of L.A sometimes it seems.

I've lived in the valley for about 6 years but grew up on the Westside...so speaking from experience.
Growing up I hardly remember going to the valley unless it was maybe a handful of times to something on Ventura blvd.

Even with the valley though there is such an extreme difference depending on the area.
Especially with buying a place.
I live in the valley but if the same house were in Studio City it would be twice the price or more $1million+
Like less than 15 minutes away..but 2x the price.
A bit less in Sherman Oaks but still about $800k+
Even between Van Nuys and Sherman Oaks there's a big difference in price comparing a relatively short distance.
Of course things go block by block in real estate.
It's all relative and a $500k home in L.A could seem to be a bargain if you can't buy a $800k home.

I think we will see more gentrification of other parts of the valley as more and more people want to buy , but are priced out. This has pretty much been the pattern in L.A . People want to buy a home, start looking in "desirable" areas...then realize they can't afford the desirable area so they will settle for the area relatively close to the desirable area because they can afford it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-18-2016, 05:11 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles
2,422 posts, read 1,325,253 times
Reputation: 2718
Hard to pigeonhole the San Fernando valley with a one size fits all description. It is a large area with over 1.8 million people.

I was watching a rerun of the popular "LA Law" drama series (which ran from 1986 to 1992). One of the hot shot lawyers on the show was talking about buying a home in the valley "south of Ventura boulevard", etc. The valley includes some very exclusive and expensive residential neighborhoods from Studio City to Woodland Hills to Hidden Hills/Calabasas. Those areas have never been cheap, at least not in the last 40 or 50 years. Granted historically (and to this day) you could get more house/land for your money than in West LA.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-18-2016, 05:40 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles
407 posts, read 624,034 times
Reputation: 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by Astral_Weeks View Post
Hard to pigeonhole the San Fernando valley with a one size fits all description. It is a large area with over 1.8 million people.

I was watching a rerun of the popular "LA Law" drama series (which ran from 1986 to 1992). One of the hot shot lawyers on the show was talking about buying a home in the valley "south of Ventura boulevard", etc. The valley includes some very exclusive and expensive residential neighborhoods from Studio City to Woodland Hills to Hidden Hills/Calabasas. Those areas have never been cheap, at least not in the last 40 or 50 years. Granted historically (and to this day) you could get more house/land for your money than in West LA.






You are damn right . It's always the L.A stereotype that valley is a cheap place to buy and rent . I even heard from native Angelons . I guess maybe Van Nuys is affordable to live because of it's sketchy

Hidden Hills / Calsbasa 2011 and 2012 it was the richest "Place" in the United States,


the crazy loco Kardashian family live out there ?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-18-2016, 06:44 PM
 
1,856 posts, read 2,037,982 times
Reputation: 3940
Quote:
Originally Posted by jm1982 View Post
Yeah I think a lot of people that don't know valley prices would think it's pretty cheap. There is kind of a stereotype that the valley is cheaper.
Many Westsiders and people that live in other parts of L.A don't even seem to acknowledge the valley as part of the city of L.A sometimes it seems.

I've lived in the valley for about 6 years but grew up on the Westside...so speaking from experience.
Growing up I hardly remember going to the valley unless it was maybe a handful of times to something on Ventura blvd.

Even with the valley though there is such an extreme difference depending on the area.
Especially with buying a place.
I live in the valley but if the same house were in Studio City it would be twice the price or more $1million+
Like less than 15 minutes away..but 2x the price.
A bit less in Sherman Oaks but still about $800k+
Even between Van Nuys and Sherman Oaks there's a big difference in price comparing a relatively short distance.
Of course things go block by block in real estate.
It's all relative and a $500k home in L.A could seem to be a bargain if you can't buy a $800k home.

I think we will see more gentrification of other parts of the valley as more and more people want to buy , but are priced out. This has pretty much been the pattern in L.A . People want to buy a home, start looking in "desirable" areas...then realize they can't afford the desirable area so they will settle for the area relatively close to the desirable area because they can afford it.
I think you are extrapolating your personal experience on others.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-18-2016, 07:36 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles (Native)
24,149 posts, read 13,668,407 times
Reputation: 11363
So that hasn't been a pattern in L.A?....I guess i've just imagined that's happened over the years.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-18-2016, 10:16 PM
 
Location: Playa Del Rey
180 posts, read 142,769 times
Reputation: 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by jm1982 View Post
So that hasn't been a pattern in L.A?....I guess i've just imagined that's happened over the years.
That's definitely the pattern.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-21-2016, 03:27 AM
 
Location: Tri-State area near the colorado river
285 posts, read 232,170 times
Reputation: 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inter441 View Post
Your thoughts .. Is this the effect of $15.00 minimum wage ?


Sky-high apartment rents in Southern California are expected to climb further in coming years, as construction fails to keep up with population and job growth, according to a forecast released Tuesday.
The average rent in Los Angeles County is expected to hit $1,416 a month in 2018, an 8.3% jump from last year, while in Orange County, average rents are likely to rise 9.4% to an average of $1,736, the USC Casden Multifamily Forecast said.




Southern California apartment rents are expected to continue rising through 2018 - LA Times
That's not the reason. The reason is property management companies who use Yieldstar, RLO Rainmaker, Yardi, and other rent maximizing programs. These programs are solely designed to maximize rents. If you look at markets that do not use these programs, but who have similar demand, you'll see that rents are not going up that quickly, such as Palm Springs, Chico, Las Vegas, and Albuquerque. 90% of all apartment units in California are controlled by about 10 property management companies in California, most of whom are based in Orange and San Diego Counties, such as CONAM, MG, and The Irvine Company. If you have kids, send them to Chico State, they can get a 1 bed appt for $750 monthly.

For whatever reason, Vegas and Albuquerque apartments choose not to use these programs. For one thing, they are expensive, about $5,000 to purchase, and then about $100 per unit, per year, as the licensing fee. So your rent goes up by $100 automatically plus a fraction of the $5,000 + the automated price increase from the computer program.

Smaller landlords in Palm Springs and Chico, Joshua Tree, and Yucaipa, have never heard of these programs and don't have $5,000 disposable income to just go out and buy them.

Also, such programs require that applicants make Three Times The Monthly Rent. They also require that applicants have 12 to 15 month lease terms, since shorter lease terms are more expensive.

If you want to lower rents, don't pass rent controls. Make it illegal for managers of new apartment complexes in your city to use any sort of rent maximizing software. And, then make it illegal for existing managers to use these programs, and give them a year to get off the software.

San Diego used to be just $900 a month 6 years ago before management companies started using the programs. Now, rents are well over $1700 a month.

rlo -

http://www.letitrain.com/multifamily-housing

Last edited by theoaks; 04-21-2016 at 03:40 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-21-2016, 08:13 AM
 
Location: Los Angeles (Native)
24,149 posts, read 13,668,407 times
Reputation: 11363
You're saying rent maximizing software is the reason for higher rents versus consumer demand for housing?
The markets of Los Angeles vs Palm Springs,Chico,Joshua Tree and Yucaipa are completely different.

These property owners are getting the rents they get because of demand for housing vs a limited supply.
A landlord doesn't need rent maximizing software to know what the going rate is for buildings in their area.
They can jump on craigslist or apartments.com or other sites and look for free. Or call "For Rent" signs.

Pretty much every landlord wants to maximize rents even if they don't have software.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > Los Angeles
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top