Vote No On Prop 98 (Oakland, Berkeley: condos, credit, loan)

[mommabear2]

Originally Posted by CESpeed

The problem is that most people can barely afford the rents that are currently being charged. More people have roommates simply because they can't afford the rent. How do landlords respond when they discover that the struggling people are getting together and sharing expenses? They raise the rents. I'm seeing more ads for people renting their living rooms because they can't afford the rent. The sad thing is I know people who choose to pay rent over buying food. Because greedy landlords have put them in a position to choose between eating and having a roof over thier head. And it's easy to say move but landlords have devised a system to make that difficult: make move in costs astronomical so people can't afford to pay rent and save money to move. It might be bad business but when you have people between a rock and a hard place, you can afford to practice bad business. When people are sleeping two to a room and still have to rent out the living room, they can't afford the rent. If rent control goes away, the landlords who have rent controlled units will simply raise the rents on the units they couldn't before and more people will be forced to squeeze more people into thier units. The people who will be hit hardest will be the elderly. Who do you think lives in the lowest priced rent controlled units? And they can barely make it as it is. Their children are currently struggling and now they are going to have to squeeze mom and/or dad in, too? As rents go up, we are going to see more of another growing trend: three or more generations living under one roof. Way to make a profit.

Most landlords have occupancy standards (and so does the City of L.A.). More occupants mean more wear and tear so although more tenants can live in one unit in order to afford it, a landlord is not going exceed to occupancy standards if they don't have to - expenses go up with more people in one unit... that's just the way it is. There are too many beautiful cities out there (including cities in So. Cal.) that do really well, have rents equivalent to the City of L.A. but have higher vacancy rates, lower homeless population, and nicer apartment buildings. A stark contradiction to what you are saying.

It doesn't sound like you own a business or have ever been a landlord yourself because you are not looking at the big picture. You have to look at it from a non-emotional economic perspective in order to even come close to seeing rent control for what it really is. Rent control helps a few but at the expense of the rest of the population. Low vacancy rates contributes to high rents... and rental squatters are contributing to the low vacancy problem. Below market rent = lower property value + shabby building maintenance (who wants to invest money to keep a place nice when the income doesn't support it). By all means, give me a formula that disputes this equation.

Rents are set by what people are ABLE and WILLING to pay which is effected by supply (which is depleted by long term renters protect by rent control) and competition (buying a home, moving to cheaper areas and commuting are alternatives). Yeah, there will be landlords who are jerks and jack rents up more than necessary... but they will lose their income (because the tenant will leave) and find themselves in competition with more units than there were before. A vacant unit for any length of time is NOT a good thing (how do think a mortgage on a multi-unit is paid? Landlords don't want to pay this out of their own pocket, they NEED renters). Landlords LOVE long term tenants as long as they are paying an average market rate and don't whine too much - to jack rents up the way you are suggesting has a good chance of making a tenant move to a cheaper and better alternative - again, bad business (they WILL lose money). As far as the elderly being effected... as long as they don't move prop. 98 doesn't apply to them (and less face it, below market rate renters don't leave anyway).

If what you are saying is that rent control is a GOOD thing for the economy then what you are saying goes AGAINST basic economic principles (not to mention some Noble Peace Prize winners in Economics). If people can't afford to live in So. Cal. on their own without government intervention then they should leave. Not to be mean but... "if you can't take the heat, get your a$$ out of the kitchen."

[mommabear2]

Originally Posted by SandyCo

I think that's wonderful. Do you have any apartments in the San Fernando Valley that you'd like to rent to me?

Sorry, it's in a rent controlled area... no vacancy.

[Ledeen]

I agree YES on 98!
Currently in Signal Hill (near Long Beach) the city is Taking Business and Property Owners homes and business, so they can make way for more Auto Dealers!!!! This is horrible!
Eminent Domain should only be used for freeways, and items that are Critical to the wellbeing of ALL. I don’t see how having more Auto Dealers helps the community other than giving the city more tax revenue.

Prop 99 was started by Politicians and Developers to fight off the Personal Property Owners and Taxpayer associations from fighting them for our rights to own our property...

People need to wake up, don’t believe everything you read until you thoroughly understand it and the impact!

This is why i want to leave California. Its only going to get worse and worse for anyone who owns a home!

[Green Irish Eyes]

Originally Posted by xyzxyz

I think it is a little much to believe that anyone would pay only $3,000 a month for that much space in New York, even if they bought it 20 years ago. $3,000 a month is what single apartments in Manhattan are renting for these days.

Unless you're Cindy Lauper -- who sued (in 2005) to have her $3,750/month rent reduced to $500 (yes, you read that right), based on the fact that the apartment had previously been rent-stabilized at that price. The courts finally ruled that Lauper and her husband would pay $989/month -- this is for a FOUR BEDROOM apartment in a high-end building in a VERY nice area of Manhattan's Upper West Side.

See details --> HERE

[CESpeed]

Mommabear speaks like a true landlord. No thought for the tenant. You can't control what you can't see. People will find a way to make it. Sneaking extra people in is par for the course. And btw, I have owned a business and I didn't gouge my customers. I made a decent profit without charging outrageous prices. I'd still be in business if I hadn't been roobed by people who were trying to get their rent. Rent control is the only thing that keeps apartment as remotely affordable as they are. It's interesting that you have no concern for the tenant but not surprising very few landlords think of anyone but themselves. question: if rents keep going up where are the cheaper apartments? Of course you landlords have banded together to force people to stay by making it nearly impossible to move. Stay or pay through the nose.

[motoman]

Originally Posted by CESpeed

Mommabear speaks like a true landlord. No thought for the tenant. You can't control what you can't see. People will find a way to make it. Sneaking extra people in is par for the course. And btw, I have owned a business and I didn't gouge my customers. I made a decent profit without charging outrageous prices. I'd still be in business if I hadn't been roobed by people who were trying to get their rent. Rent control is the only thing that keeps apartment as remotely affordable as they are. It's interesting that you have no concern for the tenant but not surprising very few landlords think of anyone but themselves. question: if rents keep going up where are the cheaper apartments? Of course you landlords have banded together to force people to stay by making it nearly impossible to move. Stay or pay through the nose.

Spoken like a true socialist.

I want this apartment. It's $2,000 per month. But I can only afford $1,000. Would you mind covering the other $1,000 for me? You shouldn't have a problem with that, right? Afterall, I should be able to live wherever I want, regardless of what I can afford. If I can't cover the whole bill, everyone else should pay it for me.

[mommabear2]

Originally Posted by CESpeed

Mommabear speaks like a true landlord. No thought for the tenant. You can't control what you can't see. People will find a way to make it. Sneaking extra people in is par for the course. And btw, I have owned a business and I didn't gouge my customers. I made a decent profit without charging outrageous prices. I'd still be in business if I hadn't been roobed by people who were trying to get their rent. Rent control is the only thing that keeps apartment as remotely affordable as they are. It's interesting that you have no concern for the tenant but not surprising very few landlords think of anyone but themselves. question: if rents keep going up where are the cheaper apartments? Of course you landlords have banded together to force people to stay by making it nearly impossible to move. Stay or pay through the nose.

Spoken like someone who can't defend their argument. Sorry, but feebly slinging blame and insults does not a make a good defense. It just shows that you are looking at it from a VERY narrow point of view. You're not even putting up a good fight.

Landlords often know when there's an unauthorized occupant (believe it or not, tenants will tell landlords about it) in the City of L.A. a landlord can raise the rent 10% per unauthorized occupant even in rent controlled L.A. (as long as it's not a minor child) if the occupant stays for a certain amount of time (I think it's two weeks)... until they leave.

In addition, your view of landlords is a weak stereotype at best. Like I posted earlier, I've raised the rent ONCE in 5 years on my tenants (I had to redo the sewer line... I could have bought a car outright for how much that cost). Yeah, that sounds like I don't care about my tenants doesn't it?

[mommabear2]

From the New York Times...

"Economists argue passionately about most issues, but not about rent regulation. When the American Economic Association polled its members in 1992 on a variety of topics, the proposition that elicited the greatest consensus -- 93 percent agreement -- was that ''a ceiling on rents reduces the quality and quantity of housing.'' The most quotable summary of the research comes from a Swedish economist, Assar Lindbeck, the former chairman of the Nobel Prize committee for economics: ''Next to bombing, rent control seems in many cases to be the most efficient technique so far known for destroying cities, as the housing situation in New York City demonstrates."

[prim2007]

I notice that a lot of the bad experiences people have is in rent controlled units. Maybe we could do a survey to see who have better experiences rent control v. non-rent control. I'm still not understanding why someone expects a landlord to keep their place in tip top shape (great if they do) when the landlord may barely be getting by due to rent control. The assumption that all landlords are rich is not even close to being true. Really, what's the incentive for landlords to put anymore into their properties when gas prices, food, etc. is up for them too? So far, the only argument I have heard is charity or the greater good of society. Do you tell your employer it's okay for them not to pay you so they can reduce the prices of their products and services for the good of the consumer? That would be the greater good right? All consumers benefiting vs. a few employees. In order for an argument to be valid, it must be able to be applied under similar circumstances.

The ceiling on rents discourages the quanity of housing available. Do you notice how nice the hotels in Vegas are compared to many cities? You can also get great deals there with meal vouchers, show passes, upgrades, reduced rates etc. That's because there is a hotel on every corner and they must compete for your business. More competition improves quality and eventually lowers rates. You can't have fair competition when some landlords have to operate under rent controls and some do not.


By the way, I'm not a landlord.

[CESpeed]

Originally Posted by motoman

Spoken like a true socialist.

Thank you. What a sweet thing to say. btw, I don't believe that anyone should pay my bills for me, I just don't believe that someone should do things to make it more difficult for me to do so.