Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-06-2019, 05:57 PM
 
Location: Riverside Ca
22,146 posts, read 33,197,505 times
Reputation: 35433

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by ClydeAJones View Post
Actually what you said is...."I guarantee you no rent control LL is going to not raise rents to max allowed raise." If I'm reading the law correctly, the max allowed raise is 5%. Perhaps you should check your posts before accusing others eh?

And after you said that, I mentioned that rents don't go up in a linear fashion and showed you what happens during boom and bust (2000-2012). I further elaborated that the comment is without merit without taking into considering economic conditions and current market rate. I'm sorry this is tough for you to understand and that you want to continue on with your conjecture (which is all your comment is).
Are you seriously that dense? The rent control for LA was 3%. It is now a minimum of 5% plus inflation. And it’s state wide and applies to LLs if they meet certain requirements that make you fall under that law. If your rental is in a LLC you’re under that law now.
The law you’re talking about isn’t enforced yet. It’s about to be.
Rent control LL in the past had no reason not to raise rents the maximum because their rents were already well below going rate. What do you not understand about that. Rent control LL raised rates regardless because they had nothing to lose if a tenant left.
And now they have no reason not to raise rents the maximum because any tenant below going rate is going to have to pay or move. And the LL will rerent at market rate. Again...what do you not understand about that?

The difference is you’re using some “chart” and I’m using real life experience. After 25 years of doing this I know a little more and a few more people than you do that have rentals.

I showed you that rents do go up even in bust times. That’s why there was a total rent increase of 12% over 2000-2010 decade. Even in bust times I never saw rents go down. I sure as hell never had to lower rents to keep tenants

I guess we can revisit this in 6-12 months.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-06-2019, 06:08 PM
 
Location: Riverside Ca
22,146 posts, read 33,197,505 times
Reputation: 35433
Quote:
Originally Posted by expatCA View Post
Isn't it 5% plus inflation with a max of 10%?
Yes. 5% minimum plus inflation is the minimum. Capped at 10% regardless of inflation. Depends on who owns the property as some LLs are exempt

Quote:
Originally Posted by ClydeAJones View Post
Then the claim is even more ridiculous.
Every LL that’s below going rate on rent has raised rents in the past 6 months and have accelerated the eviction rate in the last month. So much that the city of Torrance and LA has a moratorium to block ANY no fault evictions/terminations before the law goes in effect because so many LL are trying to get rid of their tenants.

https://www.dailybreeze.com/2019/10/...-homelessness/

LLs all over Ca are raising rents trying to get tenants out before this law starts so they can rerent at higher prices, but you’re gonna sit here and tell me no they aren’t gonna raise rents like that
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-06-2019, 07:07 PM
 
Location: Living rent free in your head
42,711 posts, read 25,867,327 times
Reputation: 33790
Quote:
Originally Posted by expatCA View Post
My wife has a relative, with a disabled daughter, close to being homeless and it is costing us money each month to keep them where they are. The waiting list for section 8 is very long.
Indeed, if you can even get on the list, I think the last time it was open in Sac 43,000 applied and they drew 7,000 names to put on the wait list I'm sure this will never happen, but I'm thinking maybe the people who get section 8 should pay more than 30% of their income, maybe 40% or 50% (especially if utilities are included) and they could increase the number of vouchers issued with the money that's saved
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-06-2019, 09:02 PM
 
109 posts, read 64,565 times
Reputation: 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by Electrician4you View Post
Are you seriously that dense? The rent control for LA was 3%. It is now a minimum of 5% plus inflation. And it’s state wide and applies to LLs if they meet certain requirements that make you fall under that law. If your rental is in a LLC you’re under that law now.
The law you’re talking about isn’t enforced yet. It’s about to be.
Rent control LL in the past had no reason not to raise rents the maximum because their rents were already well below going rate. What do you not understand about that. Rent control LL raised rates regardless because they had nothing to lose if a tenant left.
And now they have no reason not to raise rents the maximum because any tenant below going rate is going to have to pay or move. And the LL will rerent at market rate. Again...what do you not understand about that?

The difference is you’re using some “chart” and I’m using real life experience. After 25 years of doing this I know a little more and a few more people than you do that have rentals.

I showed you that rents do go up even in bust times. That’s why there was a total rent increase of 12% over 2000-2010 decade. Even in bust times I never saw rents go down. I sure as hell never had to lower rents to keep tenants

I guess we can revisit this in 6-12 months.
I'm not sure why you're not addressing your actual comment (I guess you'd like to ignore it now). I have to admit that I'm curious as to what you object to in the comment I made. At this point I'm going to have to assume that you don't agree that the rental price of housing units is based on current economic conditions and market rate

And yes, I'm showing a chart showing rental prices. That's typically what people do when they are talking about market rate and economic conditions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-06-2019, 10:11 PM
 
1,156 posts, read 978,285 times
Reputation: 1260
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy View Post
Why shouldn't taxes go up for business? I'm sorry but I don't follow this line of reasoning, it's just like the idea that we should never raise the minimum wage because OMG it hurts business owners. Lot's of stuff hurts people who work for a living too, but I don't hear you wringing your hands about that... wage stagnation, loss of unions, gig jobs replacing real jobs with benefits - I guess you're ok with all of that but OMG don't you dare raise the taxes on my local Kohl's store
You just don’t get it do you? I’m not talking about the Kohl’s and big box retailers. I don’t give two shi-s about them. I’m talking about that small business owner that you have compassion for will be hurt more than the large corporate tenants and commercial landlords. The small business owner will attempt to pass on the extra costs to consumers until the consumers decide enough is enough. Then that small business owner will go out of business. It’s already happening when leases expire after the typical annual inflation escalations. I can think of at least 10 places we’d go to for lunch that have gone out of business due to this, min wage increases as well as other increased costs. I’m not saying it’s all due to this but it’s enough that it’s killing off small businesses in a supposedly strong economy. So wait what happens in the next recession. It will be a blood bath if the non sensical legislation all goes through.

And I don’t care about all this other stuff you mention. Just not applicable.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-07-2019, 09:06 AM
 
Location: Business ethics is an oxymoron.
2,347 posts, read 3,308,775 times
Reputation: 5382
Government tampering with free markets. What could possibly go wrong there?

Again, no matter how many loopholes the gov't tries to close, or how clever they think they're being thinking they are going to beat landlords into submission, business ALWAYS....repeat always stays a step ahead of the law and is far better at meting out technicalities and exploiting them than any bureaucrat ever will. This measure, at most might buy a year. But let this run its course. And it's going to blow up in its supporters faces. Big time. If rent control doesn't fall under "cutting your nose to spite your face, not really well thought out", then I don't know what does.

Not to mention that this will effectively kill all new construction of apartments. No builder....anywhere in the world....will touch this if they know ahead of time that any profit motive has already been outlawed.

The great irony here being is that this is attempting to address the homeless issue and affordability index.

Both are going to soar off the charts exponentially within a decade if this law sticks.

Existing homeowners though, should be popping champagne corks. Because this will do wonders at increasing the property values......especially if this law gets extended to include SFH's, which given the stupidity of the state, will most likely happen eventually.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-07-2019, 10:25 AM
 
3,143 posts, read 2,646,848 times
Reputation: 11938
Quote:
Originally Posted by Des-Lab View Post
Government tampering with free markets. What could possibly go wrong there?

Again, no matter how many loopholes the gov't tries to close, or how clever they think they're being thinking they are going to beat landlords into submission, business ALWAYS....repeat always stays a step ahead of the law and is far better at meting out technicalities and exploiting them than any bureaucrat ever will. This measure, at most might buy a year. But let this run its course. And it's going to blow up in its supporters faces. Big time. If rent control doesn't fall under "cutting your nose to spite your face, not really well thought out", then I don't know what does.

Not to mention that this will effectively kill all new construction of apartments. No builder....anywhere in the world....will touch this if they know ahead of time that any profit motive has already been outlawed.

The great irony here being is that this is attempting to address the homeless issue and affordability index.

Both are going to soar off the charts exponentially within a decade if this law sticks.

Existing homeowners though, should be popping champagne corks. Because this will do wonders at increasing the property values......especially if this law gets extended to include SFH's, which given the stupidity of the state, will most likely happen eventually.
Couldn't agree more. My area's Nextdoor feed is FILLED with long-term renters AGHAST that their LL is suddenly "evicting" (not renewing) their lease before January 1st in our HCOL town.

Turns out there were a very large % of LL's who were letting a management company do background checks and collecting the money (making their SFH subject to AB1482) avoiding gentrifying their property (making improvements and raising rent into the stratosphere) who were holding rents DOWN below market rate simply because they didn't have anything to spark them into kicking out their renters and upgrading their property. Well, AB1482 was that spark, so bye-bye to the little "affordable" housing we had.

Meanwhile, I'm considering building a detached rental in the rear of my property. I'm just waiting for the nanny-state legislation which forces local governments to allow densification (right now the NIBY's in city hall would charge me an arm and a leg in order to dissuade me from increasing the density of my R1 lot)--to clear and the dust to settle. I'll give you a hint as to what rate I'll be charging (whispers: It's not "affordable").

There is no way to regulate our way out of the fact that everyone wants to live in California, and that we've got natural state-wide gentrification. I don't think we even want to.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-07-2019, 02:14 PM
 
Location: Riverside Ca
22,146 posts, read 33,197,505 times
Reputation: 35433
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClydeAJones View Post
I'm not sure why you're not addressing your actual comment (I guess you'd like to ignore it now). I have to admit that I'm curious as to what you object to in the comment I made. At this point I'm going to have to assume that you don't agree that the rental price of housing units is based on current economic conditions and market rate

And yes, I'm showing a chart showing rental prices. That's typically what people do when they are talking about market rate and economic conditions.
I did. I told you that EVERY rent control LL I know raised their rates the maximum allowed every year. I know about 12 of them. They had no reason not to raise their rates. When a guy is paying 800 for a rent controlled apartment in Santa Monica that would rent for 3500 today the LL has no problem raising rent 3%. They would be dancing if they were getting rid of that rent control tenant.

Huh? Even in a bad market rents go up. I don’t know one LL that did not raise rents even in the bubble days. I raised rents in the 09-14 range. If 2000-2010 was so bad why did rent rates go up 12% in that time? Btw I raised my rates in the 2008-2014 because the demand was there. All those people who lost houses had to live somewhere.

I never said rents have nothing to do with economic conditions or market rate but it’s not always true. . In the crash it didn’t matter because people still needed noises and they were paying exorbitant prices and the economy was in the crapper. What I said is rent control LL raise rents regardless of market conditions because they aren’t losing anything by doing so.

I had a buddy who moved to SF to work there. Making 170k. Rented a place for 3500 and he was lucky to get it. It took him three months to find it. He literally would find a place by the time he got there it was rented. The guy also demanded a guarantee letter from his company. The guy flat out told him as he was signing the lease next year rents gonna go up $400 or more. This was in 2010. Smack dab in the crapper economy the dude was charging those prices.

Last edited by Electrician4you; 11-07-2019 at 02:26 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-07-2019, 02:17 PM
 
18,172 posts, read 16,232,213 times
Reputation: 9325
Quote:
Originally Posted by wac_432 View Post
Couldn't agree more. My area's Nextdoor feed is FILLED with long-term renters AGHAST that their LL is suddenly "evicting" (not renewing) their lease before January 1st in our HCOL town.

Turns out there were a very large % of LL's who were letting a management company do background checks and collecting the money (making their SFH subject to AB1482) avoiding gentrifying their property (making improvements and raising rent into the stratosphere) who were holding rents DOWN below market rate simply because they didn't have anything to spark them into kicking out their renters and upgrading their property. Well, AB1482 was that spark, so bye-bye to the little "affordable" housing we had.

Meanwhile, I'm considering building a detached rental in the rear of my property. I'm just waiting for the nanny-state legislation which forces local governments to allow densification (right now the NIBY's in city hall would charge me an arm and a leg in order to dissuade me from increasing the density of my R1 lot)--to clear and the dust to settle. I'll give you a hint as to what rate I'll be charging (whispers: It's not "affordable").

There is no way to regulate our way out of the fact that everyone wants to live in California, and that we've got natural state-wide gentrification. I don't think we even want to.
Where do all the people who could afford higher rents live, if those who cannot are given a lower rent?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-07-2019, 02:36 PM
 
Location: Living rent free in your head
42,711 posts, read 25,867,327 times
Reputation: 33790
Quote:
Originally Posted by Des-Lab View Post
Government tampering with free markets. What could possibly go wrong there?

Again, no matter how many loopholes the gov't tries to close, or how clever they think they're being thinking they are going to beat landlords into submission, business ALWAYS....repeat always stays a step ahead of the law and is far better at meting out technicalities and exploiting them than any bureaucrat ever will. This measure, at most might buy a year. But let this run its course. And it's going to blow up in its supporters faces. Big time. If rent control doesn't fall under "cutting your nose to spite your face, not really well thought out", then I don't know what does.

Not to mention that this will effectively kill all new construction of apartments. No builder....anywhere in the world....will touch this if they know ahead of time that any profit motive has already been outlawed.

The great irony here being is that this is attempting to address the homeless issue and affordability index.

Both are going to soar off the charts exponentially within a decade if this law sticks.

Existing homeowners though, should be popping champagne corks. Because this will do wonders at increasing the property values......especially if this law gets extended to include SFH's, which given the stupidity of the state, will most likely happen eventually.
So if the bolded claim is true, why are apartments being built in a state like Nevada that has a split roll tax?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top