The Los Angeles Homeless Containment Thread (San Francisco: unemployment rate, median income, wealthiest)

[CaliRestoration]

Originally Posted by pittsflyer

That's not rent control because its not applied nationally, if you only selectively apply it then it gives vultures other places to perch and scheme and scam. IF you apply these rules nationally then there is no where to hide unless an "investor" wants to leave the USA.

Yes, project suck because of scammers, but the scammers are not investors, the scammers are the ones living in the projects. Low education, generationally poor, who let their kids get raised on the streets while they collect welfare checks on the taxpayers backs.

[jm1982]

Originally Posted by CaliRestoration

Yes, project suck because of scammers, but the scammers are not investors, the scammers are the ones living in the projects. Low education, generationally poor, who let their kids get raised on the streets while they collect welfare checks on the taxpayers backs.

There was a great long article about the projects in NYC

It was about how they were supposed to be temporary but then it’s gotten to where it’s generational now.

It’s amazing someone would view investors as scammers . Really backwards thinking .

[CaliRestoration]

Originally Posted by jm1982

It’s amazing someone would view investors as scammers . Really backwards thinking .

Usually followed by "There isn't enough housing!"

[pittsflyer]

Originally Posted by CaliRestoration

Yes, project suck because of scammers, but the scammers are not investors, the scammers are the ones living in the projects. Low education, generationally poor, who let their kids get raised on the streets while they collect welfare checks on the taxpayers backs.

Its a catch 22, how to separate the greedy "investors" from the dead beats from the people working hard. This is what anti discrimination policies have done. Now the only form of legal discrimination is financial discrimination.

[pittsflyer]

Originally Posted by jm1982

There was a great long article about the projects in NYC

It was about how they were supposed to be temporary but then it’s gotten to where it’s generational now.

It’s amazing someone would view investors as scammers . Really backwards thinking .

Because they exploit serendipidous events to extract as much surplus income from people as possible. Most land lords that are making ALOT of money have gotten extremely lucky and are profiting from others work while they kick back and collect checks. The reasons that "market rates" go up is because an area gets built up (by OTHERS) and jobs get created, etc. So then theres this land owner that just happened to be positioned in this fortunate situation and they exploit it. Its called rent seeking and its been looked down upon for the last 100+ years by respected world leaders - Winston Churchill said it all better then we can | Current Affairs Comment

Without the ability to legally enforce specific rental and real estate rates then everyone in the community suffers.

[rodentraiser]

Originally Posted by jm1982

It seems weird they might kick out all the section 8 tenants if they are decent tenants as section 8 usually seems to pay above market rents for certain areas which is one of the incentives for landlords to chose them.

My landlord at one point accepted a Section 8 tenant and told me never again. One of the things that happens with Section 8 here is that the property has to be inspected to make sure it's in good working order every 6 months. That means things need to get fixed. Which meant this particular landlord actually had to fix things that didn't work, like toilets that didn't flush and leaks in the walls. So a lazy or cheap landlord doesn't like Section 8 for that reason.

For instance, with this landlord, I had a leaky roof that spread black mold on the bathroom ceiling till it started to come down (I have pictures if you want to see them). Because I had no place else to go that I could afford, I was stuck with it and he knew it. Had I called a city inspector, I would have been told to leave until it could be fixed, and probably with no guarantee I could move back in if things were fixed.

Maybe I shouldn't say "kick out". I think everyone is asked to leave by a certain date because of the nature of the repairs. I imagine the remodels will get done a great deal faster if no one is in the units.

Now I understand raising rent when you put a certain amount of work into the unit. Obviously there are going to have to be carpets and counters replaced, along with other things. What I question is why every unit needs to have stainless steel appliances, granite counter tops, brand new tile in the kitchen and bathroom, or above counter sinks in the bathroom. It's one thing to update. It's something else to update with the most expensive items you can find.

Obviously the buyers of the apartment buildings knew when they bought them they were going to be trying to attract Seattle renters. They never had any intention of renting back to the people who had been living there previously, as the investors knew perfectly well those renters wouldn't be able to afford the new rent that all that expensive remodeling entailed. Most of those previous renters would have been perfectly happy to stay there with the white stoves and linoleum counter tops and the lower rent.

But when you have vultures come into a community, they only care about the money they can make off it. Or they wouldn't be here in the first place.

[jm1982]

Originally Posted by rodentraiser

My landlord at one point accepted a Section 8 tenant and told me never again. One of the things that happens with Section 8 here is that the property has to be inspected to make sure it's in good working order every 6 months. That means things need to get fixed. Which meant this particular landlord actually had to fix things that didn't work, like toilets that didn't flush and leaks in the walls. So a lazy or cheap landlord doesn't like Section 8 for that reason.

For instance, with this landlord, I had a leaky roof that spread black mold on the bathroom ceiling till it started to come down (I have pictures if you want to see them). Because I had no place else to go that I could afford, I was stuck with it and he knew it. Had I called a city inspector, I would have been told to leave until it could be fixed, and probably with no guarantee I could move back in if things were fixed.

Maybe I shouldn't say "kick out". I think everyone is asked to leave by a certain date because of the nature of the repairs. I imagine the remodels will get done a great deal faster if no one is in the units.

Now I understand raising rent when you put a certain amount of work into the unit. Obviously there are going to have to be carpets and counters replaced, along with other things. What I question is why every unit needs to have stainless steel appliances, granite counter tops, brand new tile in the kitchen and bathroom, or above counter sinks in the bathroom. It's one thing to update. It's something else to update with the most expensive items you can find.

Obviously the buyers of the apartment buildings knew when they bought them they were going to be trying to attract Seattle renters. They never had any intention of renting back to the people who had been living there previously, as the investors knew perfectly well those renters wouldn't be able to afford the new rent that all that expensive remodeling entailed. Most of those previous renters would have been perfectly happy to stay there with the white stoves and linoleum counter tops and the lower rent.

But when you have vultures come into a community, they only care about the money they can make off it. Or they wouldn't be here in the first place.

Sounds like a bad situation with the mold , I take your word for it don’t have to post pics .

Most likely building owners are going to charge more rent if they update the units . The other thing is it makes it easier to rent them .
What I’ve seen in L.A though is there are a lot of mom and pop long time landlords that are happy to not put a ton of money into the units but would rather have lower rents and lower turnover .

I rented from a lady like this . She owned a smaller building in Hollywood it was pretty much all retired Eastern European senior citizens living there besides me . Across the street there was a large corporate owned building and rents were much higher .

The building had rent control but I didn’t benefit since I only lived there one year .

Vultures seems like a harsh word as these people are coming in and investing in these areas and hiring people to fix up the places , providing jobs etc .
Fixing deferred maintenance stuff too like the leaky roof spreading mold .

There are some shady landlords out there I am sure but most just want to provide a decent place for people to live and make a decent living for themselves .
Also a lot of these bigger buildings aren’t owned by one super rich person but rather groups of individual investors that pool their money together and are investing for their retirement like one might put money into a mutual fund or 401k .

[CA4Now]

Originally Posted by jm1982

It’s amazing someone would view investors as scammers.

Whoever said that?

[expatCA]

Originally Posted by jm1982

There are some shady landlords out there I am sure but most just want to provide a decent place for people to live and make a decent living for themselves .
Also a lot of these bigger buildings aren’t owned by one super rich person but rather groups of individual investors that pool their money together and are investing for their retirement like one might put money into a mutual fund or 401k .

Whenever someone does not like something, like rent hikes, all landlords are bad people. Common among those who have no real clue to financial investments of that nature.

[pittsflyer]

Originally Posted by expatCA

Whenever someone does not like something, like rent hikes, all landlords are bad people. Common among those who have no real clue to financial investments of that nature.

Its only when the rent hikes exceed the rate of inflation and/or 25% of the median net income for the area (outside of like super ritzy lavish luxury rentals).

So in my area the median income is $2,500 a month which means rentals should be around $625 a month, I assure you they are not. A dirty slummy apt is easily $1200 a month which is a HALF a median income earners net pay, thats prettty steep.

I do have a very deep clue about financial investments, land is used as leverage over others. Because people have to live somewhere it is a fairly inelastic demand and soaks up alot of surplus income that could be used to bolster the larger economy. Instead the land lords are getting rich and the larger economy stagnates or fails.