JUNE rent control charge? (Los Angeles, San Francisco: renters, tenants, landlords)

[musedzines]

Help! My landlord charges each tenant a "rent control" charge for 9.35.... is this legal? Ive been railroaded before by my management co.

PLEASE HELP! If you know any law codes.... help me out

Thanks

[SandyCo]

It's not a "rent control fee", per se. It is a charge that is allowed each June. However, the management company had to give you notice in writing 30 days before it's due. This is half of the fee that the owner has to pay to the City of L.A. I don't know much more detail; you can search "Tenant law in Los Angeles" on Google to get more info, though.

[artichoke63]

I vaguely remember something about this. yes, I think they are allowed to do it.

[marilyn220]

It started last year. At least it was the first time I heard of it.

[Ultrarunner]

Several cities have started this. The one I am familiar with allows the owner to pass through 50% of the annual charge to the resident, irrespective of any rent control laws.

The reasoning is that this is a benefit to the tenant and as such, the cities generously allowed a 50% passthrough. Be careful for what you wish for...

[Fantasm]

... but in the end its only $10

[marilyn220]

Originally Posted by Ultrarunner

Several cities have started this. The one I am familiar with allows the owner to pass through 50% of the annual charge to the resident, irrespective of any rent control laws.

The reasoning is that this is a benefit to the tenant and as such, the cities generously allowed a 50% passthrough. Be careful for what you wish for...

How is it benefitting "us"? I don't get it. If anything it's relieving the landlord of paying his full fee.

[Ultrarunner]

I've attended City Council meetings and listened to city staff say, on the record, that the benefit to the tenant far outweighs the "Small" annual cost to the tenant. Staff goes on to say that for less then the price of a Pizza (Yes she actually said that) we can fund this badly needed service for renters in our community.

The supposed benefit to renters is that it "Protects" them from bad Landlords. Hey, maybe we should call it protection money? Anyway, the ordinance in my city states the fee is to be born 50/50 Owner/Tenant... so there is no case to be made that the landlord is avoiding "Paying his full fee," when he is only responsible for 50%, per statute.

Of all the speakers, not a single owner supported the yearly assessment... but most, not all, of the renters spoke in favor. Many small time owners do not even bother to pass through the "Pass Through Amount" as opposed to Property Management companies where it is just another line item added to your monthly statement. For Mom and Pop owners, it can take more time to explain the mandated program fee than it is worth, not to mention the ill will it creates.

City Government is eager to provide additional services as long as the city can make a buck from it. I'm just waiting for the City to announce fee increases. After all, you can't expect city government to continue to provide the same level of service without an annual cost of living increase and inflation adjustments...

I could play Devils Advocate and say, "Don't you know, Landlords don't "Pay" for anything... after all, it's the Renters who pay rent." The city is only interested in getting the money and really could care less whether it is from the owner or tenant.

Disclaimer: My apologies to anyone I may have offended by my strong opinion on this subject.

[james203]

where i live the city charges a 48.00 yr rent control fee.the tenants pay half of that at 2.00 month & the owner pays 2.00 month.my rent increased 8.00 month this yr,last yr it was 11.00 & the year before it was 10.00.thats a 29.00 monthly increase in 3 yrs.my rent increases every single yr.since 2000 the total rent increase in 7 yrs is 54.00.the city gave all the landlords on rent control a "raise" some yrs back.thanks to them the annual rent increase has doubled.i dont trust the city council & the greedy landlords.

[Ultrarunner]

James203

I hear where you are coming from... Would you believe that in some rent control areas, it is either use it or loose it?

If an owner chooses NOT to increase the rent by the amount the city/county allows for any given year, the owner gives up the right to increase the rent by that amount later.

There have been actual cases in San Francisco where an owner did not increase the rent charged to an elderly resident for many years only to be told by the rent board that the city no longer allows "Rent Banking"

Rent Banking works like this. If you are allowed to raise the rent 1% each year for 5 years and choose not too, you can at any time with proper notice increase the rent to the full amount allowed in a single rent increase.

Rent Banking used to be fairly common in rent controlled areas. Then there was a case where the rent had not been increased for years until the landlords son took over the property. The resident argued that it was unfair to now have such a big increase when he had gone so many years without any increase... how can you argue with that logic? Anyway the resident totally ignored the many years of savings he enjoyed because the owner choose to forego the lawful annual increases allowed.

Sometimes you just can't win. Rather then the resident being happy for all the years of no rent increases, he was upset. The owner and resident both wasted a lot of time going through the administrative process of the Rent Board.

Well, on second thought, I guess the Rent Board won because they were all getting paid to administer the program... Paid by the Tenant and Landlord...