U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > Los Angeles
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 05-18-2008, 09:55 PM
 
Location: So Ca
17,604 posts, read 16,400,625 times
Reputation: 15391

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by CESpeed View Post
Most people who rent do so out of necessity.
I disagree. I know several people of varying ages who rent because they don't want the burden of home ownership; they feel that the time and effort involved in maintaining a home is simply more of a commitment than they're willing to take on.

I'm suppose I still don't understand rent control. So it applies to just a few lucky (or unfortunate, depending on how it's looked at) people who happen to live in a building that was so designated prior to a certain year? They don't qualify for some other low income housing program. So wouldn't voting for 98 have the net effect of reducing overall rents in the long run?

 
Old 05-18-2008, 09:59 PM
 
3,413 posts, read 6,564,024 times
Reputation: 1431
I just read that Allistair Cooke, Kim Alexis (supermodel) and Carly Simon all had rent-controlled apts in New York in the same building. Carly Simons' was 2 floors and 11 rooms and her last rent was 3000.00 a month and she'd had it for more than 20 years.
They said its market price in 1996 would have been $15,000 a month. What a racket!

Last edited by laysayfair; 05-18-2008 at 10:17 PM.. Reason: typo
 
Old 05-18-2008, 10:14 PM
 
Location: CA
2,464 posts, read 5,931,549 times
Reputation: 2606
California is expensive. My dad moved here over 30 years ago and rent was "expensive" back then. Years ago, I realized that I would never get ahead until I had a really good game plan... I didn't want to be a renter for life... so I left California. I came back years later. I own multiple properties in So. Cal. now... that wouldn't have been possible had I stayed (I managed to save money in another state w/ cheaper rent, and went back to school - couldn't have done that here).

Rent control is not the answer to a renter's money problems - their money problems become other people's money problem. There's no free lunch. That's a subject covered in BASIC Economics 101. Renters should realize that cheap rent comes at a price for someone else (but why care right? I'm sure each month when you stick it to your landlord it feels great for some people). You may not like your landlord but they are not all "rich scum bags." They are not to blame for people's inability to live a life of luxury in California. If one can't afford to buy a place of your own, then maybe one should consider looking at your career/education/finances.
 
Old 05-18-2008, 10:59 PM
 
2,573 posts, read 7,879,793 times
Reputation: 2558
Quote:
Originally Posted by laysayfair View Post
I just read that Allistair Cooke, Kim Alexis (supermodel) and Carly Simon all had rent-controlled apts in New York in the same building. Carly Simons' was 2 floors and 11 rooms and her last rent was 3000.00 a month and she'd had it for more than 20 years.
They said its market price in 1996 would have been $15,000 a month. What a racket!
i guess landlords aren't the only rich, greedy scumbags!
 
Old 05-18-2008, 11:07 PM
 
3,413 posts, read 6,564,024 times
Reputation: 1431
Quote:
Originally Posted by katenik View Post
i guess landlords aren't the only rich, greedy scumbags!
LOL! I've heard these even such a thing as poor and middle-class greedy scumbags.
 
Old 05-19-2008, 12:01 AM
 
Location: Sherman Oaks, CA
6,334 posts, read 15,797,616 times
Reputation: 8544
Quote:
Originally Posted by mommabear2 View Post
You may not like your landlord but they are not all "rich scum bags." They are not to blame for people's inability to live a life of luxury in California. If one can't afford to buy a place of your own, then maybe one should consider looking at your career/education/finances.
Who's talking about a life of luxury? Most of us are simply trying to survive! I agree that not all landlords are rich scumbags. I'd love to find one who isn't, someone who would treat me as a human being instead of a lower life form (an amoeba?).

I understand what you're saying about career/education/finances, etc. We should all keep aspiring to a better lifestyle. However, everyone's circumstances are different, and it may not be as easy to improve your lot in life if you have other responsibilities (small children, an aging parent, and so on).

I'm still going to vote "no" on Prop 98 on principle, but I'm just as trapped either way, whether it passes or fails. After my realization yesterday that I'm probably not going to find a good rent-controlled building if I move from here, I see no point in moving from this building to pay a lot more in rent but get the same bad service. I'm going to be in this apartment until I leave L.A./California altogether. <shudder>
 
Old 05-19-2008, 08:20 AM
 
Location: Hot Springs, AR
5,612 posts, read 13,813,520 times
Reputation: 3759
Quote:
Originally Posted by CA4Now View Post
I'm suppose I still don't understand rent control. So it applies to just a few lucky (or unfortunate, depending on how it's looked at) people who happen to live in a building that was so designated prior to a certain year? They don't qualify for some other low income housing program. So wouldn't voting for 98 have the net effect of reducing overall rents in the long run?
No, it wouldn't. I can see where in theory it would look that way but the problem is that landlords will NOT pass the savings on: they will simply pocket extra profit. And before we all cry for the landlord's plight, let's remember when you buy the building you already know if it's under rent control or not or which units are or not. It terrifies me to think what rent would be if there wasn't rent control.
 
Old 05-19-2008, 09:17 AM
 
Location: CA
2,464 posts, read 5,931,549 times
Reputation: 2606
Quote:
Originally Posted by SandyCo View Post
Who's talking about a life of luxury? Most of us are simply trying to survive! I agree that not all landlords are rich scumbags. I'd love to find one who isn't, someone who would treat me as a human being instead of a lower life form (an amoeba?).

I understand what you're saying about career/education/finances, etc. We should all keep aspiring to a better lifestyle. However, everyone's circumstances are different, and it may not be as easy to improve your lot in life if you have other responsibilities (small children, an aging parent, and so on).

I'm still going to vote "no" on Prop 98 on principle, but I'm just as trapped either way, whether it passes or fails. After my realization yesterday that I'm probably not going to find a good rent-controlled building if I move from here, I see no point in moving from this building to pay a lot more in rent but get the same bad service. I'm going to be in this apartment until I leave L.A./California altogether. <shudder>
I was being sarcastic about the life of luxury. There's no doubt that trying to make it in California is really hard for some people, but there's other places to live where money goes a LONG way (without rent control).

Nothing worth doing is ever easy. People keep looking for an easy way to make it (rent control) and they end up not having anything to show for it. Personally, I don't think prop 98 is going to pass because people don't understand the dynamics of the effect of rc on the economy and the problem with eminent domain. It's not just about rent control, if the government decides to clear an apartment building to make way for a school, rent control is not going to protect anyone.
 
Old 05-19-2008, 09:40 AM
 
Location: CA
2,464 posts, read 5,931,549 times
Reputation: 2606
Quote:
Originally Posted by CESpeed View Post
No, it wouldn't. I can see where in theory it would look that way but the problem is that landlords will NOT pass the savings on: they will simply pocket extra profit. And before we all cry for the landlord's plight, let's remember when you buy the building you already know if it's under rent control or not or which units are or not. It terrifies me to think what rent would be if there wasn't rent control.

Believe it or not, there's a psychological market cap on rents. Landlords can't charge ridiculous amounts on rent if the population can't afford it... it's bad business. Not to mention the fact that if rents get too high, renters have the option of buying or moving out of the city completely if the rents are equivalent (or exceed) a mortgage payment. This is not rocket science. Landlords DO NOT want a vacant unit - there's time and cost involved to get a new tenant anyway. The goal of any landlord is to make enough to cover expenses and to pay themselves (for taking the financial risk of investing and for working as a landlord) . What is wrong with that?
 
Old 05-19-2008, 09:57 AM
 
Location: CA
2,464 posts, read 5,931,549 times
Reputation: 2606
SandyCo - I forgot to mention, my husband and I are actually nice people (and we're landlords... is that an oxymoron?). We have always treated our tenants well and have only raised the rent ONCE in 5 years (even in a rent controlled area). So not every landlord feels the need to price gauge or make an "extra profit."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > Los Angeles
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2020, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top