Effects of AB1482 (rent control) already being felt (Torrance, Santa Monica: 2014, city hall)

[Electrician4you]

Originally Posted by ClydeAJones

Lot of conjecture there Electrician.

You supplied your charts and I supplied mine. Feel free to take a look at it if you want. No, rents did not go up at an average of 5% per year between 2000-2012 across the board in CA. I think it's quite silly to think that way (they seldom do go up in a linear fashion like that). Your own chart even proves that (Did you actually read your link?). Had most landlords attempted to raise rents by over 15% for the 3 years starting in 2000, they would have in all likelihood lost a tenant as that was not the going rate (is that really so hard to understand?).

" I actually spoke to LL in California and well over the half said they are raising rates."

That's very scientific of you. Somehow I'm thinking the LLs you spoke to isn't a representative sample of all LLs in CA.

I'm really not concerned about how much you raised your rates either. The point I'm making is quite simple. To "guarantee" that LLs will raise the rent the maximum allowable 5% without taking into account the economy and the market rate of rent is without merit.

I didn’t say rents went up 5% between 2000-2010. I said they went up 12% overall in that time. I guess reading comprehension isn’t a strong suit.

Forget what happened in the past. That’s done. You didn’t have the statewide rent control either. So you can forget the low rent raises. This ordinance that was passed recently because landlords were raising rents astronomically in the last few years. So why wouldn’t they raise rents the minimum allowed? In the past people could move somewhere else. Unless someone vacates there isn’t anywhere for the tenant to move.

You’re thinking like the tenants have a place to move to if the rents get higher. Even if only 30% of LLs raise their rates there isn’t anywhere for most of these tenants to move. It’s not like there are thousands of vacant properties ready to be rented.

[ClydeAJones]

Originally Posted by Electrician4you

I didn’t say rents went up 5% between 2000-2010. I said they went up 12% overall in that time. I guess reading comprehension isn’t a strong suit.

Forget what happened in the past. That’s done. You didn’t have the statewide rent control either. So you can forget the low rent raises. This ordinance that was passed recently because landlords were raising rents astronomically in the last few years. So why wouldn’t they raise rents the minimum allowed? In the past people could move somewhere else. Unless someone vacates there isn’t anywhere for the tenant to move.

You’re thinking like the tenants have a place to move to if the rents get higher. Even if only 30% of LLs raise their rates there isn’t anywhere for most of these tenants to move. It’s not like there are thousands of vacant properties ready to be rented.

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).

[expatCA]

Originally Posted by ClydeAJones

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).

Isn't it 5% plus inflation with a max of 10%?

[ClydeAJones]

Originally Posted by expatCA

Isn't it 5% plus inflation with a max of 10%?

Then the claim is even more ridiculous.

[expatCA]

Originally Posted by ClydeAJones

Then the claim is even more ridiculous.

10% a year raise in rent will drive many out, as their paycheck does not go up enough to cover it.

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by TR95

Sorry to tell you, most if not all are NNN. Even Starbucks is NNN or at best NN. So that small business owner that you have compassion for will get hurt by eliminating prop 13 for commercial. Just like this new rent control law. We’ll see how many renters are complaining a year or two from now about 7-8% annual increases.

Heck, plenty of retailers that don’t have the leverage as Bad Debt pointed out are not only on NNN but have to pay a % if gross sales to the landlord. All depends on the negotiations and demand for space. So maybe that low-cost barber can find some Class C or lower property if they’re lucky and avoid the NNN lease. Better have a good referral network in place as he won’t be getting many walk-ins.

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

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by expatCA

10% a year raise in rent will drive many out, as their paycheck does not go up enough to cover it.

That's true. My son lives in the SF Bay Area, he's doing just fine so this isn't a plea for sympathy, but he told me that in the past 4 years his rent has gone up between 12% and 15% per year and during that same time his wages have increased 25%. He said that as far as he can tell all of the tenants who were on a fixed income have moved out.

[expatCA]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

That's true. My son lives in the SF Bay Area, he's doing just fine so this isn't a plea for sympathy, but he told me that in the past 4 years his rent has gone up between 12% and 15% per year and during that same time his wages have increased 25%. He said that as far as he can tell all of the tenants who were on a fixed income have moved out.

Yep, glad he is still doing OK.



Many are not. Rent laws like this usually do not help most people at all. They are typical feel good laws but not do good laws. People need help and any increase year by year will hurt low income earners. Then the ones being told to leave, ahead of the laws impact, will not be able to find a low cost place to live. The problem is always too many people and not enough housing for the low age earners and those on a fixed income, Housing costs and someone has to pay for it. To really fix it the Gov't needs to be the builder and NEVER hire anyone who contributes to their campaign, hires a relative or relatives company, etc. Strange how long time politicians are multi millionaires on such a low salary.

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by expatCA

Yep, glad he is still doing OK.

Many are not. Rent laws like this usually do not help most people at all. They are typical feel good laws but not do good laws. People need help and any increase year by year will hurt low income earners. Then the ones being told to leave, ahead of the laws impact, will not be able to find a low cost place to live. The problem is always too many people and not enough housing for the low age earners and those on a fixed income, Housing costs and someone has to pay for it. To really fix it the Gov't needs to be the builder and NEVER hire anyone who contributes to their campaign, hires a relative or relatives company, etc. Strange how long time politicians are multi millionaires on such a low salary.

I agree with your solution, I don't see a lot of options. One thing for sure this is going to get worse before it gets better. In this county there is a 240 day wait for a shelter bed for a woman with a child, that's just insane.

[expatCA]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

I agree with your solution, I don't see a lot of options. One thing for sure this is going to get worse before it gets better. In this county there is a 240 day wait for a shelter bed for a woman with a child, that's just insane.

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.