California Renters Priced Out of Housing Due to Major Rent Increase (Santa Ana: homes, tenants)

[done working]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Whose rules are you talking about? Lol ? You and developers and landlords should make the rules? That’s a silly concept.

I don’t like rules anymore than anyone else does. But the fact is: government is required for a society to exist and prosper. And government’s necessary role is to protect its citizens - across the board - and maintain the supports, laws, infrastructures, etc. that allow us all to survive … including for businesses to survive. It’s a symbiotic relationship, government and business … neither can exist without the other.

Economies have risks and volatile triggers. Worker bees lose their jobs during downturns through no fault of their own. Illnesses and accidents and other misfortunes occur as well. Turning people out on the streets at any moment’s hiccups is socially destructive.

Landlords and developers play a game with potential upsides … and potential risks. If ya can’t afford to lose a particular roll of the dice, don’t play.

As for me personally, I can afford what I’m doing. And I can afford to lose at the investments. I simply don’t like the business so I am in process - slowly over some years - of turning my properties over to my children who are capable and willing to play.

Government does not have the right to pick and choose winners and losers and that is just what they did when they froze evictions. Why do liberal leaders in power think they know better how to manage our lives by putting one class against another. Lots of landlords are trying to build there retirement nest egg so not to be a burden later in life and yet the government thinks its ok if the go into bankruptcy because they think not paying rent for a year is OK. You might have the means to absorb the loss but thousands of other dont.

If landlords big and small are going to penalized because some politicians thinks they can keep getting elected why would they want to build more housing? No wonder there such a drastic housing crises in Calif - dealing with the BS development issues and regulations now they have to wonder if the politicians will allow people not to pay rent for any number of reasons like losing a job, my cat died, i would rather have a BMW to drive or i just dont want too!

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by done working

Government does not have the right to pick and choose winners and losers and that is just what they did when they froze evictions. Why do liberal leaders in power think they know better how to manage our lives by putting one class against another. Lots of landlords are trying to build there retirement nest egg so not to be a burden later in life and yet the government thinks its ok if the go into bankruptcy because they think not paying rent for a year is OK. You might have the means to absorb the loss but thousands of other dont.

If landlords big and small are going to penalized because some politicians thinks they can keep getting elected why would they want to build more housing? No wonder there such a drastic housing crises in Calif - dealing with the BS development issues and regulations now they have to wonder if the politicians will allow people not to pay rent for any number of reasons like losing a job, my cat died, i would rather have a BMW to drive or i just dont want too!

Well sir, the alternative to the government picking, is the developers / landlords picking. Either way, somebody is picking and some are being picked. You want to be the picker, not the picked. Got it.. of course. But the system doesn’t work that way and never has, in case you hadn’t noticed. So you can rant and whine till the cows come home and all you’ll get is an aneurism.

If you have a better venue to play in, why aren’t you there instead of throwing tantrums over things you can’t change?

Again: if you can’t afford to play the game as it is played … go find another game.

Your hyperbole by the way about people’s reasons for not being able to pay rent sometimes is, well, hilariously misstated.

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by done working

Government does not have the right to pick and choose winners and losers and that is just what they did when they froze evictions. Why do liberal leaders in power think they know better how to manage our lives by putting one class against another. Lots of landlords are trying to build there retirement nest egg so not to be a burden later in life and yet the government thinks its ok if the go into bankruptcy because they think not paying rent for a year is OK. You might have the means to absorb the loss but thousands of other dont.

If landlords big and small are going to penalized because some politicians thinks they can keep getting elected why would they want to build more housing? No wonder there such a drastic housing crises in Calif - dealing with the BS development issues and regulations now they have to wonder if the politicians will allow people not to pay rent for any number of reasons like losing a job, my cat died, i would rather have a BMW to drive or i just dont want too!

No landlords were penalized, and they are eligible to receive 100% of the money they would have received for rent. And if they refused to participate in the program the rent money was sent to the tenant who could only use it to pay their rent. Personally, I like to see people have 'some skin in the game' and I think the program should have ended sooner, but I definitely don't agree with the rest of your claims about this being used to pit one class against another etc.

[MechAndy]

Can you show us where landlords have been reimbursed?
I’ve never heard of any property owner being reimbursed yet have you?

[1AngryTaxPayer]

Some of these posters have been in this forum complaining about rent for at least ten years. I'd consider that more than ample time to prepare an exit strategy to move somewhere cheaper. I'd move before becoming homeless but that's just me.

[1AngryTaxPayer]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

Very true, it's the luck of the draw. Years ago I bought a duplex for an investment and one of the tenants sued me for not providing a garbage can (I did provide one, I just don't know what they did with it). The judge paid them damages for having to dump their own garbage and allowed them to break their lease and stay there rent free for 60 days. When I finally got them out I sold the duplex, I was single and working fulltime I just didn't have the time or energy to play stupid games like that. I heard later that they had been pulling that or similar scams all over town to avoid paying rent.

They probably sold it. Those fetch decent money on CL.

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by MechAndy

Can you show us where landlords have been reimbursed?
I’ve never heard of any property owner being reimbursed yet have you?

Here you go:

The State of California has increased funding for income-eligible renters and their landlords who have been impacted by COVID-19 to cover 100% of unpaid and future rent or utilities. This increase in rental assistance payments to 100% of unpaid rent will help make landlords whole and keep tenants housed. https://a50.asmdc.org/ca-covid-19-re...ants%20housed.

" changes related to tenant protections in AB 832 include: Expanding funding eligibility for 100% of rental arrears and future rent for both landlord and tenants, for up to 18 months of total aid"https://www.counties.org/csac-bulletin-article/governor-newsom-signs-bill-extend-rental-assistance-and-eviction-protections

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by 1AngryTaxPayer

They probably sold it. Those fetch decent money on CL.

It wouldn't surprise me

[NORTY FLATZ]

The one thing that renters are clueless about, is price protection.

They just have no idea that it exists...

[done working]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

No landlords were penalized, and they are eligible to receive 100% of the money they would have received for rent. And if they refused to participate in the program the rent money was sent to the tenant who could only use it to pay their rent. Personally, I like to see people have 'some skin in the game' and I think the program should have ended sooner, but I definitely don't agree with the rest of your claims about this being used to pit one class against another etc.

Renters can only get 25% and there was no obligation that they had to pay it landlords. If you had more than 4 houses /properties you did not qualify also.

Landords have alot of skin in the game since most loans for rental housing required high downpayment.