How are you voting on Prop 10 regarding rent control? (Oakland: foreclosure, evictions)

[LuvSouthOC]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Case closed? Because you post a falicy? Lol.

You, and others who may be interested, can read the Democratic Socialists of America website, and the Wikipedia summary for short versions defining the movement ... and your error:

... and so forth.
https://www.dsausa.org/about-us/what...tic-socialism/



Communism is state-owned and run totalitarianist, centralized government.

Democratic Socialism includes state-ownership of major industries and utilities, run by democratic process.



And, no, I am not a Democratic Socialist.



Oooops. I forgot ... if I don’t add a “grin” emoticon after my self quote, you won’t recognize my posting it with much humor! So ... here ya go, OC!

A reading of the Democratic Socialists site reveals that they know they have to act step-by-step to dismantle capitalism, which they repeatedly state. The United States is already a mixed economy. It will eventually be a poor second rate nation like you all want.

You are very obviously swayed by the usage of the term "democratic". I am very familiar with communism. The term democratic was placed...ON EVERYTHING in communist states.

"The goal of socialism is communism." - Vladimir Lenin

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by LuvSouthOC

A reading of the Democratic Socialists site reveals that they know they have to act step-by-step to dismantle capitalism, which they repeatedly state. The United States is already a mixed economy. It will eventually be a poor second rate nation like you all want.

You are very obviously swayed by the usage of the term "democratic". I am very familiar with communism. The term democratic was placed...ON EVERYTHING in communist states.

"The goal of socialism is communism." - Vladimir Lenin

Ah. *sneezes*. Choo.

“Like I want?”

Ideologies are bad excuses for ...

... oh nevermind, OC. Back to checking for dustbunny conspiracies under your bed before you go to sleep ...

Good grief!

[NoMoreSnowForMe]

I read today that some ungodly amount has been spent on opposing this prop by rental investors to the tune of something insane like 70 million dollars.

The stupid thing, is that most people are against rent control - including liberals. So, they probably wasted a stupid amount of money fighting this. I seriously doubt it will pass. I voted against it, and I'm in low income senior housing. There are plenty of people who are very familiar with low income housing who know this wouldn't work, as well as those who don't want government controlling profits of private industry, etc., that I really doubt it would pass.

Only uninformed people who don't understand the economics of supply and demand, etc., would vote for this, in my opinion.

So, really, what a waste of money.

[jm1982]

Originally Posted by NoMoreSnowForMe

I read today that some ungodly amount has been spent on opposing this prop by rental investors to the tune of something insane like 70 million dollars.

The stupid thing, is that most people are against rent control - including liberals. So, they probably wasted a stupid amount of money fighting this. I seriously doubt it will pass. I voted against it, and I'm in low income senior housing. There are plenty of people who are very familiar with low income housing who know this wouldn't work, as well as those who don't want government controlling profits of private industry, etc., that I really doubt it would pass.

Only uninformed people who don't understand the economics of supply and demand, etc., would vote for this, in my opinion.

So, really, what a waste of money.

Many people don’t understand basic economics or supply and demand .
There are people that think landlords are making a fortune on rents , they aren’t especially in places like L.A

Pretty much every property on the market you are lucky to actually break even . The realtors will say it makes a 3 or 4 percent return but that’s usually not taking into account all the expenses .
For that past several years many CA investors have been investing out of state .

People also think that restaurants make a ton of profit when they are also lucky to make a small percentage profit . They don’t get why fast food places can’t pay $20 or $30 an hour plus full benefits .

[JohnSoCal]

Originally Posted by jm1982

Many people don’t understand basic economics or supply and demand .
There are people that think landlords are making a fortune on rents , they aren’t especially in places like L.A

Pretty much every property on the market you are lucky to actually break even . The realtors will say it makes a 3 or 4 percent return but that’s usually not taking into account all the expenses .
For that past several years many CA investors have been investing out of state .

People also think that restaurants make a ton of profit when they are also lucky to make a small percentage profit . They don’t get why fast food places can’t pay $20 or $30 an hour plus full benefits .

My wife and I owned a Mexican restaurant in San Jose and you are absolutely correct. Labor was our biggest cost.

When I get a pizza from Pizza Hut, there is a surcharge on the bill for California laws. It states so right on the receipt.

[NoMoreSnowForMe]

Originally Posted by jm1982

Many people don’t understand basic economics or supply and demand .
There are people that think landlords are making a fortune on rents , they aren’t especially in places like L.A

Pretty much every property on the market you are lucky to actually break even . The realtors will say it makes a 3 or 4 percent return but that’s usually not taking into account all the expenses .
For that past several years many CA investors have been investing out of state .

People also think that restaurants make a ton of profit when they are also lucky to make a small percentage profit . They don’t get why fast food places can’t pay $20 or $30 an hour plus full benefits .

The thing is, even if they were making a fortune on rents, who is to say they would keep those investments once their profits are controlled?

I mean, if someone was making a fortune on Wall Street on X stock, but then the government mandated that they couldn't make any more money on that stock - would they keep it?

You have to look at who actually votes. Do most voters not understand this? I doubt it. And, as I said, I'm someone who would actually potentially benefit from rent control - as I'm a low-income renter. And I know it's all smoke and mirrors. So, I would really be surprised if this passes. Of course, I never thought Trump would actually win, so who knows?

[aslowdodge]

Originally Posted by jm1982

Many people don’t understand basic economics or supply and demand .
There are people that think landlords are making a fortune on rents , they aren’t especially in places like L.A

Pretty much every property on the market you are lucky to actually break even . The realtors will say it makes a 3 or 4 percent return but that’s usually not taking into account all the expenses .
For that past several years many CA investors have been investing out of state .

People also think that restaurants make a ton of profit when they are also lucky to make a small percentage profit . They don’t get why fast food places can’t pay $20 or $30 an hour plus full benefits .

So true
Just look at all the people posting on CD that complain in the economics and real estate forums and others about greedy landlords.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by jm1982

Many people don’t understand basic economics or supply and demand .
There are people that think landlords are making a fortune on rents , they aren’t especially in places like L.A

Pretty much every property on the market you are lucky to actually break even . The realtors will say it makes a 3 or 4 percent return but that’s usually not taking into account all the expenses .
For that past several years many CA investors have been investing out of state .

People also think that restaurants make a ton of profit when they are also lucky to make a small percentage profit . They don’t get why fast food places can’t pay $20 or $30 an hour plus full benefits .

Wtf are you talking about now? Most rental properties have been in their landlords’ hands since well before the past couple decades. And another chunk of them were bought for a relative song during the recession.

But most significantly, landlords make money three ways:
1. Cash flow in excess of costs
2. Depreciation write-offs
3. Equity development.

So, even when the tenants are paying a barely break-even monthly tab, the landlord is getting taxbreaks and the property paid off by the rent. Equity cashed in on down the road.

Landlords wouldn’t struggle and suffer the risks and aggravations of dealing with property maintenance and tenant problems if it wasn’t such a fat investment. They’d put their money in mutuals or other stocks for 3-4% kind of returns and hope it works out better.

[JGC97]

Fairly certain everyone has made up their mind by now on which way they're voting on this Measure but if anyone is interested in reading an interesting article, it pretty much explains exactly what will, okay might, happen if Prop 10 passes. Mind you, this is an opinion piece and not actual facts so take the info as you please. Here's a blip of what the author wrote:

Under the measure, which has been endorsed by the California Democratic Party, city councils and county boards of supervisors would be free to regulate rental prices on any type of housing within their boundaries, as well as limit how much a landlord can charge when a new tenant moves in.

While, to some, that might sound like a recipe for obliterating California’s housing market, voters should know that Proposition 10 doesn’t automatically enact or strengthen rent control ordinances.

Cities and counties must do that themselves — or can choose to do nothing at all. This is why voters should see Proposition 10 through a nuanced rather than a polarized lens.

https://www.sacbee.com/opinion/elect...218278780.html

[Ultrarunner]

Housing Providers come in all shapes and sizes...

You have the 85 year old widow that puts up a student in exchange for help around the house... then there are mega corps that own many thousands of units Coast to Coast.

The fact is large multi-unit complexes have few options... sure, some might go Condo and some redeveloped... most will stay rentals.

The existing Prop has many riled up because it potentially covers all units/rentals...

It gets more complicated because rental housing is a business but proposals seek limit going out of business... for lack of a better way to put it.

I know small Mom and Pop owners of 1 to 4 units that simply no longer rent... my city has rent control and Just Cause Eviction... it use to be simple and non-confrontational to move out a problem tenant... simply not renew the lease... I have used this.

Now... tenants are tenants for life unless one of the approved reasons can be proven... often litigated or cash for keys... which comes with it's own perils.

Some of the tenants I manage go back decades... with the average over 13 years... so clearly there are tenants and providers in workable scenarios...

What I think will happen is the smaller properties will increasingly become owner occupied and removed from the rental stock should this pass.

More fail than succeed at being a small time provider... it is a job and one that has only become more technical as time goes on... at least in my city.

Plenty of providers went under 10 years ago... many that tried tell me the two happiest days of their life was the day they bought an investment property and the day they sold.

Contrary to popular belief... it really is impossible to buy a small 1-4 unit property and have it cash-flow unless the owner is providing free labor... overtime, with growth the situation generally improves... but going back to 2009-12 the properties I managed in Oakland lost 20 years of appreciation and I can show addresses down 60 to 80% in value...

Real Estate is cyclical... history proves this.