Residents in unincorporated L.A fighting for rent control (HOA, condo)

[ringwise]

Originally Posted by disgruntled la native

Yes, housing is a basic human right. Much like food, water, energy. What if the supermarkets started charging insane prices just because they could? Or the electric and gas utilities did the same?
Should thousands have to suffer and be on the street so a few greedy landlords can be worth, let's say $100 mil instead of $20 mil?

They're "needs", not "rights". And when you're stealing from someone else to provide for your "need", you're in the wrong. If you need a home, food, water and energy, go out and earn it.

Expecting to live somewhere they want to, instead of where they can afford to, makes them the greedy ones.

[ryanms3030]

Originally Posted by disgruntled la native

No one said anything about free. There just needs to be limits on the price. Rent control. I believe that West Hollywood and Santa Monica's rent control of 1% or less is too strict. That does screw the landlords, and also any new tenants who have to pay more to cpmensate. But the city of LA and just recently Beverly Hills say 3%. That's fair. 3% a year is still a decent increase and more than covers any increase in expenses the LL has to incur.

If anything 3% is still harsh on the tenants, most of who do not see a 3% raise each year.

I bet you vote for every ballot measure that raises property taxes which is another reason landlords need to raise rents

[aslowdodge]

Originally Posted by SandyCo

This old argument again. I happen to think that housing is a basic human right. Some people don't agree; I would call them heartless. Does the rental need to be a palace? No, of course not, but to kick long term tenants out by raising the rent 50% or 100% or even 200%...? No, that's just wrong. It's legal, but ethically and morally it's wrong. I don't care about an investor making double digit returns; these are people's homes. Many of them can't afford to go anywhere else, and they need to live close enough for public transportation to remain affordable, etc. It's not simply a matter of economics and "supply and demand". These are people's lives.

I disagree. It's not a basic human right. Please point out the source that cites this is so.
I think the solution is you should go out and buy rentals by selling your house, cashing out your assets and savings and retirement, and cover the cost of owning and running them, and give people cheap rent. Better yet you should give it to them for free to make sure they have their basic right. If you don't do this then you are heartless and then a hypocrite.
It's fine when you tell others who own the property how they handle it, but when it comes out of your pocket I'm sure it's a different song.

[ryanms3030]

Originally Posted by ringwise

They're "needs", not "rights". And when you're stealing from someone else to provide for your "need", you're in the wrong. If you need a home, food, water and energy, go out and earn it.

Expecting to live somewhere they want to, instead of where they can afford to, makes them the greedy ones.

Seriously. I'd like to drop all of these whiny commies out into the wilderness with nothing but what's on their backs and see how long they survive. Life was never meant to be easy and some of us have been lucky to grow up in a place where it's been made to be very comfortable and too many people take that for granted. People live in the wilderness all over the world completely surviving on their own with no money, no government, no assistance from anyone and they don't complain. That's called freedom. Depending on some faceless government for everything you want or need is the opposite of freedom

[aslowdodge]

Originally Posted by disgruntled la native

Yes, housing is a basic human right. Much like food, water, energy. What if the supermarkets started charging insane prices just because they could? Or the electric and gas utilities did the same?
Should thousands have to suffer and be on the street so a few greedy landlords can be worth, let's say $100 mil instead of $20 mil?

Supermarkets can charge insane prices if they like, but no one will buy from them. Market laws of supply and demand governs what prices they can charge. The laws of supply and demand dictate what rents will be tolerated.
You would really enjoy the thread here on CD with the op saying water and electricity should be free. He has no answer on who would pay for it. He said these are basic human rights. He also says he likes to run the AC 24/7.

[taimaishu]

Originally Posted by jm1982

Sure but they could also move to a more affordable place .
The landlord isn't holding a gun to their heads .

So just let them all move to texas to pay cheaper rent and watch the locals cry in protests.

[jacktravern]

This thread reminds me of a couple of older guys in my building. I live in a relatively expensive area in the Valley. These guys have been here for decades and are constantly complaining that that rent has risen 5-700 dollars in 20 years!!!! Meanwhile, neither put much into a career retirement plan or savings, never had children, and somehow still only have Soc. Sec alone and EBT help for retirement income.
They claim they are being priced out by rent increases. I guess they were looking for sympathy, but instead I told them if the rent is not agreeable, they can move to the northern part of the Valley, get roommates, or move to a undesirable locale like East L.A. They're response to me was "well who wants to live over there?"

I read about the mom who wanted free government childcare. That was laughable too."

Certain things are a given......rents will increase, and each additional child will cost more money. Now one of those is preventable. The other may involve increasing ur skill set and hire-ability. But complaining will not change a thing

[Astral_Weeks]

Originally Posted by ryanms3030

I bet you vote for every ballot measure that raises property taxes which is another reason landlords need to raise rents

That is funny coming from you as you explicitly stated you would have voted for Measure S if you lived in LA proper. That was one of the most ill-conceived measures on the local ballot in decades.

[Astral_Weeks]

Originally Posted by aslowdodge

Supermarkets can charge insane prices if they like, but no one will buy from them. Market laws of supply and demand governs what prices they can charge. The laws of supply and demand dictate what rents will be tolerated.
You would really enjoy the thread here on CD with the op saying water and electricity should be free. He has no answer on who would pay for it. He said these are basic human rights. He also says he likes to run the AC 24/7.

We have a food surplus in this state and country. There is a housing shortage....

Supermarkets are near "perfect competition" while the LA housing market is more like "monopolistic competition"....where the owners are price makers.

Again, I am not for rent control but your theoretical ideal market is pie in the sky....

[The Illusive Man]

You're a fool. The mentality is very simple to understand. It's expensive as hell. My mom pays 1,000 a month for 3 bedroom apartment close to Venice. She has every right and should be able to keep it that way. She's lived there a long time, why should she have to move?


The apartment is my childhood home. So many memories there. It's atrocious to think that she should get priced out over some greed.