Vote No On Prop 98 (Columbia: renter, how much, squatters)

[katenik]

Originally Posted by SandyCo

I guarantee in the situation you described, my landlord would just charge $1,500 a month for both units, and because L.A. is a desirable locale, there are people who will pay it. So, no, I don't think demand will go down and nor will prices.

You're assuming that when the poor person moves, there won't be anyone willing to pay the higher price. I don't think that's necessarily true. After all, haven't we all seen apartments with six people in them, because they couldn't afford the rent otherwise?

Also, of course not all people currently under rent control can afford to pay more! I think many people would be stuck between a rock and a hard place. If you can't afford a 10% rent increase, how can you afford to move?? Moving isn't cheap, especially if you have to do it every year!

i think the point you overlook is that if someone is living in a place they can only "afford" because it is subsidized, then, in objective terms, they cannot afford to live in that rental market. people who don't have rent-subsidized units have to live with the objective reality that the city or neighborhood we desire might be beyond our means, and have to look for housing elsewhere. if persons A, B, C, and D are willing and able to pay the $1500 asked for a unit, and person E only has $1000 to spend on rent, then E will have to move to a less expensive neighborhood.

rent control allows E to live next door to ABCD without experiencing the true cost of living there. it keeps a lot people in neighborhoods that, by any objective measure, they really cannot afford, and lets them feel entitled to be there. in what other aspect of life do people purchase a commodity at a discount, and then raise hell when the merchant announces that the sale is coming to an end?

[laysayfair]

Originally Posted by katenik

in what other aspect of life do people purchase a commodity at a discount, and then raise hell when the merchant announces that the sale is coming to an end?

That is hilarious...and so true!

[BRinSM]

Originally Posted by katenik

in what other aspect of life do people purchase a commodity at a discount, and then raise hell when the merchant announces that the sale is coming to an end?

That is not really true at all. First off, rent is not a commodity. Secondly, paying rent is more like a contract on a cell phone. When you purchase cell phone service, you agree to pay $X per month for a minimum amount of time. I don't about you, but my base monthly cell phone fees have been the same for probably 5 years. What it wireless providers started raising there fees? Would people raise as big of a stink? I don't know, but I wouldn't like it. Would it be fair? That's a completely different issue.

[katenik]

Originally Posted by BRinSM

That is not really true at all. First off, rent is not a commodity. Secondly, paying rent is more like a contract on a cell phone. When you purchase cell phone service, you agree to pay $X per month for a minimum amount of time. I don't about you, but my base monthly cell phone fees have been the same for probably 5 years. What it wireless providers started raising there fees? Would people raise as big of a stink? I don't know, but I wouldn't like it. Would it be fair? That's a completely different issue.

rent is the COST of a commodity: namely, the roof over your head for the next thirty days. i'm not really sure what your point is.

[EscapeCalifornia]

Originally Posted by BRinSM

That is not really true at all. First off, rent is not a commodity. Secondly, paying rent is more like a contract on a cell phone. When you purchase cell phone service, you agree to pay $X per month for a minimum amount of time. I don't about you, but my base monthly cell phone fees have been the same for probably 5 years. What it wireless providers started raising there fees? Would people raise as big of a stink? I don't know, but I wouldn't like it. Would it be fair? That's a completely different issue.

Of course people would complain and they could always change companies or reduce their usage. The difference between rent and cell phone service is the ease of changing vendors. Its a lot harder to move than it is to ditch Sprint for Verizon so the cell service business is more competitive.

[xyzxyz]

Originally Posted by katenik

neither do i, and i agree with you. owners should be able to lease their property for whatever rent the market will bear. renters can take it or leave it, and if there are too few takers at that price, the property will sit longer than the landlord can afford to let it, and the rent will decrease. no landlord, not even a corporate one, is going to jack up the rent so high that the property sits empty indefinitely. after all, real estate has no investment value if you can't make the mortgage every month.

as a renter, i would love to live whereever i want and pay no more than i think is "fair," but fair market value has nothing to do with my individual circumstance or subjective wishes, and fundamental economic principles don't change merely because i happen to be on the ****-end of them.

Owners do have the right to charge whatever they want, they do and that is why they have apartments that sit for six months or more because people are tired of paying as much for an apartment as a house. There is a difference between apartments and homes and apartments shouldn't cost anywhere near a house. It just doesn't make sense. I mean $2200, $2300, $2500 a month for apartments in this city and what do you get? I can hear my neighbor flush his toilet. I can't take a damn shower when the idiot who lives below me is taking one. I can't smoke on my back porch because it bothers the neighbors. My neighbor can have parties and block my parking space and the cops won't do anything about it because it isn't my property even though I pay enough to live there. And just move? To where? Where it might get even worse?

[Ultrarunner]

FYI... California Department of Consumer Affairs list the following 15 cities as having Rent Control:

Berkeley
Beverly Hills
Campbell
East Palo Alto
Fremont
Hayward
Los Angeles
Los Gatos
Oakland
Palm Springs
San Francisco
San Jose
Santa Monica
Thousand Oaks
West Hollywood

[EscapeCalifornia]

Originally Posted by xyzxyz

Owners do have the right to charge whatever they want, they do and that is why they have apartments that sit for six months or more because people are tired of paying as much for an apartment as a house. There is a difference between apartments and homes and apartments shouldn't cost anywhere near a house. It just doesn't make sense. I mean $2200, $2300, $2500 a month for apartments in this city and what do you get? I can hear my neighbor flush his toilet. I can't take a damn shower when the idiot who lives below me is taking one. I can't smoke on my back porch because it bothers the neighbors. My neighbor can have parties and block my parking space and the cops won't do anything about it because it isn't my property even though I pay enough to live there. And just move? To where? Where it might get even worse?

So buy or rent a house if you think the cost is the same.

[mommabear2]

Originally Posted by Ultrarunner

FYI... California Department of Consumer Affairs list the following 15 cities as having Rent Control:

Berkeley
Beverly Hills
Campbell
East Palo Alto
Fremont
Hayward
Los Angeles
Los Gatos
Oakland
Palm Springs
San Francisco
San Jose
Santa Monica
Thousand Oaks
West Hollywood

I'd like to add the list of states (and the District of Columbia) that have rent control.

California
District of Columbia
Maryland
New Jersey
New York

It seems interesting to me, that California is one of only 4 states that have it. The rest of the country manages just fine without it.

[laysayfair]

Originally Posted by mommabear2

I'd like to add the list of states (and the District of Columbia) that have rent control.

California
District of Columbia
Maryland
New Jersey
New York

It seems interesting to me, that California is one of only 4 states that have it. The rest of the country manages just fine without it.

Thanks mommabear. I didn't know that. I feel alot better knowing how few states have resorted to this.
(I'm sorry- they won't let me rep you again.)