Vote No On Prop 98 (Long Beach, San Fernando: renting, hotels, buying a home)

[Ultrarunner]

Originally Posted by mommabear2

Believe it or not, there's a psychological market cap on rents. Landlords can't charge ridiculous amounts on rent if the population can't afford it... it's bad business. Not to mention the fact that if rents get too high, renters have the option of buying or moving out of the city completely if the rents are equivalent (or exceed) a mortgage payment.

Exactly... Rents are market driven, except in the 15 cities with Rent Control.

If it costs more to rent than buy... the shift will be away from Rentals and towards Home ownership.

Even with Rent Control, the City-Data.com Forums are full of Posts from people leaving because CA is a "High Cost" State... this is because Rent Control makes no distinction based on income...

[xyzxyz]

Originally Posted by laysayfair

I just read that Allistair Cooke, Kim Alexis (supermodel) and Carly Simon all had rent-controlled apts in New York in the same building. Carly Simons' was 2 floors and 11 rooms and her last rent was 3000.00 a month and she'd had it for more than 20 years.
They said its market price in 1996 would have been $15,000 a month. What a racket!

I think it is a little much to believe that anyone would pay only $3,000 a month for that much space in New York, even if they bought it 20 years ago. $3,000 a month is what single apartments in Manhattan are renting for these days.

[mommabear2]

Originally Posted by Ultrarunner

Exactly... Rents are market driven, except in the 15 cities with Rent Control.

If it costs more to rent than buy... the shift will be away from Rentals and towards Home ownership.

Even with Rent Control, the City-Data.com Forums are full of Posts from people leaving because CA is a "High Cost" State... this is because Rent Control makes no distinction based on income...

I've read about people leaving CA all the time because of the cost. Rent control helps SOME people but like you said... it applies to everyone, whether a renter is making 120K or 20K. Whenever the government tries to help one segment of the population, unintended consequences ALWAYS happens.

I can see how people would be irritated w/ getting nicked w/ a double digit rent increase and I believe in renter's rights but I don't believe in a system that allows people to legally sponge off others for DECADES. When a single family home is more valuable than a rent controlled apartment building (that's filled with tenants paying below market rates) there's something wrong with that picture.

btw, Ultrarunner. I like your style I can't give you anymore reps... I have to spread it around...

[laysayfair]

Originally Posted by xyzxyz

I think it is a little much to believe that anyone would pay only $3,000 a month for that much space in New York, even if they bought it 20 years ago. $3,000 a month is what single apartments in Manhattan are renting for these days.

Yes, that's the whole point. Just google "Carly Simon" and "rent control". All the New Yorkers know about it. It was a big scandal. John Stossel did an investigative report on it.

[EscapeCalifornia]

Originally Posted by mommabear2

I've read about people leaving CA all the time because of the cost. Rent control helps SOME people but like you said... it applies to everyone, whether a renter is making 120K or 20K. Whenever the government tries to help one segment of the population, unintended consequences ALWAYS happens.

So true. Any socialist program helps some, hurts others, and hurts society as a whole because the normally efficient market economy isn't allowed to work. Rent control is a wealth redistribution plan, plain and simple.

[xyzxyz]

Originally Posted by laysayfair

Yes, that's the whole point. Just google "Carly Simon" and "rent control". All the New Yorkers know about it. It was a big scandal. John Stossel did an investigative report on it.

Well, I have heard of landlords cutting deals for celebrities so they can stay in the building. It is great advertising to prospective tenants. I live in West Hollywood and the building next to me has two high-profile people living in it. The landlord uses it as selling point, but they have to sign some sort of confidentiality thing that they won't talk to tabloids about it or something.

Remember folks, the rich never pay for anything...that is how they stay rich...

[laysayfair]

Originally Posted by xyzxyz

Well, I have heard of landlords cutting deals for celebrities so they can stay in the building. It is great advertising to prospective tenants. I live in West Hollywood and the building next to me has two high-profile people living in it. The landlord uses it as selling point, but they have to sign some sort of confidentiality thing that they won't talk to tabloids about it or something.

Remember folks, the rich never pay for anything...that is how they stay rich...

You didn't google it, did you? If you had you would know that's not the situation at all. But, maybe you'd rather not know...

[SandyCo]

Originally Posted by mommabear2

SandyCo - I forgot to mention, my husband and I are actually nice people (and we're landlords... is that an oxymoron?). We have always treated our tenants well and have only raised the rent ONCE in 5 years (even in a rent controlled area). So not every landlord feels the need to price gauge or make an "extra profit."

I think that's wonderful. Do you have any apartments in the San Fernando Valley that you'd like to rent to me?

[CESpeed]

Originally Posted by mommabear2

Believe it or not, there's a psychological market cap on rents. Landlords can't charge ridiculous amounts on rent if the population can't afford it... it's bad business. Not to mention the fact that if rents get too high, renters have the option of buying or moving out of the city completely if the rents are equivalent (or exceed) a mortgage payment. This is not rocket science. Landlords DO NOT want a vacant unit - there's time and cost involved to get a new tenant anyway. The goal of any landlord is to make enough to cover expenses and to pay themselves (for taking the financial risk of investing and for working as a landlord) . What is wrong with that?

The problem is that most people can barely afford the rents that are currently being charged. More people have roommates simply because they can't afford the rent. How do landlords respond when they discover that the struggling people are getting together and sharing expenses? They raise the rents. I'm seeing more ads for people renting their living rooms because they can't afford the rent. The sad thing is I know people who choose to pay rent over buying food. Because greedy landlords have put them in a position to choose between eating and having a roof over thier head. And it's easy to say move but landlords have devised a system to make that difficult: make move in costs astronomical so people can't afford to pay rent and save money to move. It might be bad business but when you have people between a rock and a hard place, you can afford to practice bad business. When people are sleeping two to a room and still have to rent out the living room, they can't afford the rent. If rent control goes away, the landlords who have rent controlled units will simply raise the rents on the units they couldn't before and more people will be forced to squeeze more people into thier units. The people who will be hit hardest will be the elderly. Who do you think lives in the lowest priced rent controlled units? And they can barely make it as it is. Their children are currently struggling and now they are going to have to squeeze mom and/or dad in, too? As rents go up, we are going to see more of another growing trend: three or more generations living under one roof. Way to make a profit.

[motoman]

Originally Posted by CESpeed

The problem is that most people can barely afford the rents that are currently being charged. More people have roommates simply because they can't afford the rent. How do landlords respond when they discover that the struggling people are getting together and sharing expenses? They raise the rents. I'm seeing more ads for people renting their living rooms because they can't afford the rent. The sad thing is I know people who choose to pay rent over buying food. Because greedy landlords have put them in a position to choose between eating and having a roof over thier head. And it's easy to say move but landlords have devised a system to make that difficult: make move in costs astronomical so people can't afford to pay rent and save money to move. It might be bad business but when you have people between a rock and a hard place, you can afford to practice bad business. When people are sleeping two to a room and still have to rent out the living room, they can't afford the rent. If rent control goes away, the landlords who have rent controlled units will simply raise the rents on the units they couldn't before and more people will be forced to squeeze more people into thier units. The people who will be hit hardest will be the elderly. Who do you think lives in the lowest priced rent controlled units? And they can barely make it as it is. Their children are currently struggling and now they are going to have to squeeze mom and/or dad in, too? As rents go up, we are going to see more of another growing trend: three or more generations living under one roof. Way to make a profit.

That's amazing! I didn't realize people were being forced to live in these apartments. I just can't imagine what it must be like to wake up one day and realize I have no control over my life.