Vote No On Prop 98 (Los Angeles, Merced: sales, for rent, crime)

[mommabear2]

Originally Posted by CESpeed

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.

Well, this is not a socialist country. But you are saying it should be if it's convenient for YOU. Screw the rest of the population right? You think it's bad now? Wait until those rent control buildings really start needing maintenance... every building in L.A. has a shelf life. If there's not enough money to cover keeping these buildings upright... you'll find the slums... the ghetto, at 2000+ a month... then eventually red tagged (the City of L.A condemns it)... no one lives in it because to the landlord, it doesn't make sense to invest in it anymore to keep it from falling apart... "screw it" they say... let the City of L.A. have it.

[SandyCo]

Originally Posted by mommabear2

Well, this is not a socialist country. But you are saying it should be if it's convenient for YOU. Screw the rest of the population right? You think it's bad now? Wait until those rent control buildings really start needing maintenance... every building in L.A. has a shelf life. If there's not enough money to cover keeping these buildings upright... you'll find the slums... the ghetto, at 2000+ a month... then eventually red tagged (the City of L.A condemns it)... no one lives in it because to the landlord, it doesn't make sense to invest in it anymore to keep it from falling apart... "screw it" they say... let the City of L.A. have it.

That's not what happens. Haven't you read about the slumlords who are forced to live in their own buildings that are falling down, vermin-infested, etc.? Not to mention the fines they have to pay to the city, and then they still have to pay to fix the rentals.

I guess my landlord does it right. His apparent strategy is to make life in his buildings so unpleasant that only the longer term tenants stay, and the turnover means that he's still getting market rate rents on a good portion of the apartments.

[katenik]

Originally Posted by SandyCo

That's not what happens. Haven't you read about the slumlords who are forced to live in their own buildings that are falling down, vermin-infested, etc.? Not to mention the fines they have to pay to the city, and then they still have to pay to fix the rentals.

I guess my landlord does it right. His apparent strategy is to make life in his buildings so unpleasant that only the longer term tenants stay, and the turnover means that he's still getting market rate rents on a good portion of the apartments.

yes, it is in fact what happens when an owner decides to abandon a property, because it's no longer turning a profit. an owner can only be forced to fix a property if he plans to keep it on the rental market. (a court is not going to appoint a receivor for an empty building.) if it is no longer a worthwhile investment, he can walk away and the property eventually will be sold at tax auction, converted by the city to some other purpose, or demolished. where's your rent-controlled apartment then?

the lower east side neighborhood of new york city experienced wholesale abandonment in the 1970s. while rent control (which new york has had, in one form or another, since 1943) was by no means the sole cause, it was a significant factor in the willingness of landlords to walk away from wasting "assets." what they left behind was a neighborhood-sized crack house (back when heroin was the crack of the day) inhabited by homeless squatters and struggling artist-types who couldn't afford the rest of manhattan. oh, some of the old puerto rican residents remained as well, often in public housing.

in the 80s and 90s, many of those abandoned properties that weren't condemned or converted by the city to other uses were picked up dirt cheap by speculators, and rehabbed or rebuilt as expensive condos and apartments. today, that neighborhood is part of the trendy "bobo" east village. perhaps if those original families had been paying something closer to market rent forty years ago, their children and grandchildren wouldn't have had to fight a mostly losing battle to "take back the neighborhood" from the well-heeled and well-represented who committed the cardinal transgression of making it a nice place to live.

if you have a rent-controlled apartment in a deteriorating building, you'll know it's time to leave when the owner has the utilities turned off from the main source and stops performing all maintenance. according to the books i've read, that's the final stage of disinvestment by a landlord, unless he plans to go the arson-for-profit route.

[CESpeed]

Whether the landlords in this forum believe it or not, it IS possible to make a profit without raising rents beyond the average working person's means. And since I've grown up with the notion that sharing is a good thing (which is what true socialism is) I fully support it. When I had my business, I allowed the homeless people to sleep in my stall. Not only that, but I gave them my spare blankets and left my rug out for them to sleep on. When I set my prices, I didn't set them astronomically because I thought it was ridiculous to do so. And I still turned a profit.

But back to rent-control: It's interesting that there is an argument that long term tenant are a good thing because it is the long term tenants who receive the benefit of rent control. But that's why landlord let those building deteriorate so that long term tenants will move and they can raise the rent. A landlord doesn't say, "Wow one of my rent controlled units has been vacated. Let me lower the rent on the other units since I can raise the rent on this unit." If landlord actually did this, then you might find more support for dismantling rent control. Let us have a moment of silence for the poor landlord who made the informed decision to go into a business that requires VOLUME to make a profit and can't get the volume, so they'd rather go the "high end" price without the "high end" market approach.

[Ultrarunner]

On Milvia Street in Berkeley once stood a single family rental home is disrepair. The elderly woman owner took out a permit to rehab it and ended up tearing it down to rebuild...

The lot was very small and adjoined a small funky medical building with Docs catering mostly to elderly Berkeley residents... The medical Building owner needed parking and made a deal to rent the space the house had occupied...

The Berkeley Rent Board got word of this and required the owner rebuild... which she no longer could afford...

Years later, the lot still sits empty and fenced to make sure no one can park there... all because the owner didn't have proper permission to reduce the "City's" rental housing stock by one unit...

It's loose/loose all around...

[ferretkona]

Originally Posted by SandyCo

,,,, I know I'm paying well below market rates, but I still bregrudge my landlord every penny he collects from me.

I know I'm paying well below market rates, I cheerfully write a check to the bank for my mortgage!


I never had a ill thought toward my ex-landlords. Never be grudged the increases.

[LALady]

Vote no on prop 98. Yes on 99

[skreem2]

One source I always look to for recommendations on ballot initiatives is Church Impact – an agency run by many mainline protestant churches and social justice oriented Catholic groups. Here is a copy and paste portion of what they had to say about Proposition 98:

“This proposition, in addition to challenging the Kelo decision on the governmental acquisition of private land for other private uses, sets a broad prohibition on virtually all forms of government intervention. One of the initial supporters, the Farm Bureau, has strongly divided membership since the proposition language is so broad it would prevent the construction of waterways that benefit agriculture. It would also prohibit rent control which is a key issue in affordable housing in mobile home parks where many seniors reside. It would bar many environmental protections, would curtail protection of wetlands, would bar species protection, would eliminate urban limits on development and sprawl, and could seriously inhibit even zoning regulations that prohibit ‘big box’ stores in residential areas, restriction on polluting industries and power plants, adult businesses, and other issues conventionally evaluated and limited by cities and regions in the best interests of all people. If Proposition 98 were to pass, individual property owners would have unlimited rights to challenge any governmental action that curtailed their private property such as violations of our state’s path-breaking AB 32 environmental regulation of greenhouse gasses, and the numbers of lawsuits by property owners would escalate exponentially. This initiative, like several of its predecessors, is aimed at curtailing all government actions and thus places the rights of private property entirely ahead of any notion of the Common Good. Rather than address just the Kelo decision, it over-reaches and is a genuine threat to all of our ability for government to function in the best interests of society.”

See: Church Impact Ballot Recommendation (http://www.calchurches.org/2-Ballot-Recommendation.htm - broken link)

[mommabear2]

Originally Posted by SandyCo

That's not what happens. Haven't you read about the slumlords who are forced to live in their own buildings that are falling down, vermin-infested, etc.? Not to mention the fines they have to pay to the city, and then they still have to pay to fix the rentals.

If they don't have the money to cover major expenses (for example, major expenses due to age)... and the bank is not going to loan it to them (landlords need 50/50 loan-to-value in order to take a line of credit out on investment property, which they have to pay back)... and the cash flow doesn't bring enough money in to cover the expenses... how are they going to fix anything? Expenses can exceed income (hey, it happened to me last year) it's really easy to do. Do you think buildings have an endless life? Not without major money it doesn't.

[Ultrarunner]

Originally Posted by skreem2

One source I always look to for recommendations on ballot initiatives is Church Impact – an agency run by many mainline protestant churches and social justice oriented Catholic groups. Here is a copy and paste portion of what they had to say about Proposition 98:

See: Church Impact Ballot Recommendation (http://www.calchurches.org/2-Ballot-Recommendation.htm - broken link)

Thanks for posting and I did follow the link... I couldn't find any endorsement from the Catholic Church... the states largest religious organization.

Prop 98 keeps existing Zoning intact and there is nothing in Prop 98 to prevent a willing buyer and seller from doing business... Prop 98 does prevent the taking of private property for private use... and that's the key.

I'm very familiar with a family owed tire business here in Oakland that stayed through thick and thin and we had lots of thin times...

A week after the Supreme Court’s Kelo ruling, Oakland city officials used eminent domain to evict John Revelli from the downtown tire shop his family has owned since 1949. Revelli and a neighboring business owner had refused to sell their property to make way for a new housing development

It is unconsciable what the city did to this family and I will continue to speak out against it.

Maybe many have never known anyone that has lost their home, farm of business through Eminent Domain... just so another shopping center could be built... it's heart breaking and something no American should have to go through at the hands of the Government.

Can you really blame the supporters of Prop 98? The California Legislature had ample opportunity to pass legislation to protect property rights by restricting Eminent Domain and did nothing...

Many other states moved swiftly to protect Property Rights and in CA it is up to voters... again!

Prop 98 isn't perfect... but it's the best we have...