Thanks, Millennials: L.A.'s Population Tops 4 Million for the First Time (Los Angeles: transplants, how much)

[jm1982]

Originally Posted by PDR2015

Great for owners.

And likely a big reason why existing homeowners would be against development. They know that creating more housing could put their housing prices at risk of decline. (supply and demand)

[highlanderfil]

Originally Posted by PDR2015

Great for owners.

Yep. L.A. is firmly a seller's market. Doesn't speak highly for my prospects of returning to So Cal, but is good for my parents who own property there.

[highlanderfil]

Originally Posted by jm1982

And likely a big reason why existing homeowners would be against development. They know that creating more housing could put their housing prices at risk of decline. (supply and demand)

There are more reasons for being against further development (just look at the 405 at pretty much any time of day), but yeah, you're definitely not wrong there.

[jm1982]

Originally Posted by highlanderfil

Population density is increasing and vacancy rates are dropping. That can't be good for affordability.

Yes true. But the reality is that even if prices come down considerably they are still likely to be unaffordable to those earning local wages, especially those areas in the most desirable parts of L.A

L.A hasn't done a good job of building and has been pretty tough on developers, which hasn't helped things.
Strong rent control also makes it hard for landlords to tear down an old multi-unit building and build higher density.

One of the goals of the small lot subdivision ordinance was that it would make homes affordable, but they are still expensive because there just aren't enough of them being built.

[highlanderfil]

Originally Posted by jm1982

Yes true. But the reality is that even if prices come down considerably they are still likely to be unaffordable to those earning local wages, especially those areas in the most desirable parts of L.A

Well, the most desirable parts of L.A. were never really meant for the population en masse, no matter how "affordable" new developments try to market themselves as. A $3K/month 1-bedroom isn't affordable by most people's standards. Unfortunately (for most), it doesn't look likely that prices are going to drop off anytime soon, so it's all academic anyways.

L.A hasn't done a good job of building and has been pretty tough on developers, which hasn't helped things.
Strong rent control also makes it hard for landlords to tear down an old multi-unit building and build higher density.

But does strong rent control actually exist in L.A.? I seem to remember some other threads where people were complaining about their rents being raised an unreasonable amount because there were no checks in place to ensure that didn't happen.

[jm1982]

Originally Posted by highlanderfil

Well, the most desirable parts of L.A. were never really meant for the population en masse, no matter how "affordable" new developments try to market themselves as. A $3K/month 1-bedroom isn't affordable by most people's standards. Unfortunately (for most), it doesn't look likely that prices are going to drop off anytime soon, so it's all academic anyways.But does strong rent control actually exist in L.A.? I seem to remember some other threads where people were complaining about their rents being raised an unreasonable amount because there were no checks in place to ensure that didn't happen.

Yeah $3,000 seems to be the going rate for a 1bedroom in Santa Monica , which is nuts..unless you make way over $100,000yr.
This is why Santa Monica is now filled with attorneys, programmers than ever before. But $3000 mo still on the higher end for a 1bedroom in the "L.A area" , while in NYC or SF it seems that's the going rate nowadays.

I know there was a poster recently that mentioned their rent went up a lot in Glendale , but Glendale doesn't have rent control.

If the building is in Los Angeles and built before 1978 then it is under rent control.
LA Rent Control Made Simple

Myself I'm against rent control, I think it does more harm than good overall and I don't feel the government should be regulating what private property owners charge.
The cities with the strongest rent control laws also have very high rents, Los Angeles, SF, and New York City.

Also a lot of people making great money benefit from rent control since it's not income based.

Just one article on this
Does rent control work? No, it actually increases rent prices for most people - Business Insider

[disgruntled la native]

Originally Posted by highlanderfil

Well, the most desirable parts of L.A. were never really meant for the population en masse, no matter how "affordable" new developments try to market themselves as. A $3K/month 1-bedroom isn't affordable by most people's standards. Unfortunately (for most), it doesn't look likely that prices are going to drop off anytime soon, so it's all academic anyways.But does strong rent control actually exist in L.A.? I seem to remember some other threads where people were complaining about their rents being raised an unreasonable amount because there were no checks in place to ensure that didn't happen.

We're not quite at 3k a month for a one bedroom and hopefully we won't ever reach that as an average. rents aren't going down but it seems they've stabilized. 3k for a 1 br is only NORMAL in santa monica. even in prime areas like beverly hills, weho, and dtla, 3k for a one bedroom will only be the most renovated one bedroom in a very high end building.

Yes, rent control exists in LA, but not in the fancy new buildings. only buildings built before 1979 - which is the vast majority of buildings, and they can still raise 3% a year, which may not seem like much but can add up over the years. In beverly hills, it's 10%. in weho, if a rent controlled older building, around 1% (varies). in santa monica, pennies, but that's why rents are so high there in the first place.

[NyWriterdude]

Originally Posted by jamills21

It's almost like people COME AND GO from major cities.

They do. They come and go from major cities and this goes in waves.

[NyWriterdude]

Originally Posted by PDR2015

As real estate prices rise, there will be more reason for home owners to renovate/expand their homes. People are less likely to drop $50-100k to redo a home when the home is only worth $300k but they probably will when the home increases to $800k... with higher prices come higher expectations. Look at certain neighborhoods where people are building a second story on their property as the neighborhood value increases... those old outdated single family homes will eventually be redone should the land value increase above a certain point.

This notion that Millenials prefer to rent over own is bogus. The reason for renting is very much due to employment uncertainties and of course, affordability. I also think Millenials will turn to single family homes as they get older and start families. A young couple with no kids and an active social life is going to have a different set of criteria when it comes to buying than a slightly older couple with 2 kids and a dog...

Very true.

Also renting long term isn't good for a person's retirement or for their family long term. A big part of socioeconomic mobility in this nation is based on assets inherited from one's parents, and that includes HOMES.

[NyWriterdude]

Originally Posted by jm1982

And likely a big reason why existing homeowners would be against development. They know that creating more housing could put their housing prices at risk of decline. (supply and demand)

Not really.

A single family house in Venice isn't going to drop in price because more condos get built downtown.

If anything development of the entire city can long term cause everyone's prices go up as the city as a whole is made a lot more desirable.