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 06-04-2008, 11:22 AM
 
27,075 posts, read 54,279,688 times
Reputation: 21277

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by f_m View Post
If someone wants to invest in property that may be subject to rent control that is their choice, they don't have to do it. That's not really my concern anyway..
Not exactly... many property owner's, myself included, purchased property before Oakland enacted Rent Control... what started out as a fairly reasonable law continues to evolve and become much more all encompassing. You are right... I have chosen NOT to invest in any property subject to rent control.

Quote:
Originally Posted by f_m View Post
My concern is that if someone posts:

"If Prop 98 passes... it could very well take 30 years to fully implement because ALL existing Rent Controlled Tenants are protected for as long as they continue to live in their Rent Controlled unit."

Which is not really an accurate statement. The facts should be pointed out. Facts are very important for people, and it should not be glossed over..
It's rather a moot point the day after the election... but I would like to respond for the record. Prop 98 provided for a phase-in of rent de-control... the Oakland legislative analyst stated Prop 98 rent de-control would take many years to fully implement and the Oakland Rent Board would remain... possibly for another 30 years... for as long as Oakland has Rent Controlled units.

Quote:
Originally Posted by f_m View Post
Here is an article discussing this point in the SF area:

Rent Control Doesn't Help Tenants When Landlords Add a New Roof (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2000/05/17/HO99488.DTL - broken link)

The rent can be increased for improvements, as I indicated, making it much faster to force out people, since they would not be completely protected from paying for costs of improvements. When the property can be rented out at market value (when no rent control exists), then there would be no reason not to continually make improvements in preparation for offering the property at market value (since these properties likely need improvements), hence raising the rents on existing renters. So there is not protection for the renters as you indicated in your advocacy of 98.
It sounds like we are in agreement... Rent Control does not function as most people believe...

 
Old 06-04-2008, 01:29 PM
 
Location: South Bay
7,141 posts, read 19,527,516 times
Reputation: 3402
Quote:
Originally Posted by JTGJR View Post
I don't understand the rationale. One who rents, doesn't pay property taxes. One who rents, doesn't pay capital gains taxes when they leave the place in which they live. I'm all for giving the people the right to vote for or against bonds that can benefit everyone. I'm not for the state to arbitrarily decide how much my property is worth so that the coffers can be filled for whatever pork project they deem important.

I once had a neighbor get in my face because I wasn't sure I wanted to support a school bond. "How could you . . . I can't believe you . . . etc." I then told this person that I already help pay for his child's education, but he doesn't pay a dime for my child to go to private school, so don't lecture me. I made the choice and I don't "bliss" and moan about the taxes that I pay.

You want uncontrolled state expenditures without regard to the electorate wishes? Go work to repeal Prop. 13.

Regardless, comparing rent control to Prop 13 is apples and laxatives.
My logic here is more of an eye for eye rationale. People can be divided into two groups, renters and home owners. Granted, not all home owners are land lords, but you certainly have to be an owner to be a landlord. Anyways, I find it completely hypocritical that people would fight tooth and nail to limit property taxes while at the same time fighting tooth and nail to have rent control abolished. Does anyone else see the absurdity of this?
 
Old 06-04-2008, 01:49 PM
 
11,715 posts, read 36,663,884 times
Reputation: 7522
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRinSM View Post
My logic here is more of an eye for eye rationale. People can be divided into two groups, renters and home owners. Granted, not all home owners are land lords, but you certainly have to be an owner to be a landlord. Anyways, I find it completely hypocritical that people would fight tooth and nail to limit property taxes while at the same time fighting tooth and nail to have rent control abolished. Does anyone else see the absurdity of this?
Fighting to limit property taxes = fighting to keep more of the money you earned

Fighting to abolish rent control = fighting to stop government from diminishing your property's value and limit your income
 
Old 06-04-2008, 01:49 PM
 
1,753 posts, read 6,213,430 times
Reputation: 1613
Any way, someone loses big time. If you repeal 13 and keep rent control, now the landlords are really screwed with higher property taxes and flat income. If you keep 13, but get rid of rent control, it's only slightly balanced in the landlord's favor because at least they'll build equity and not have escalating taxes on the units that are under-paid.

Apartment rental rates, like housing costs are market driven. If you repeal 13 and get rid of rent control, any gains in higher rents are likely offset by the higher taxes a landlord pays. So, what happens? The landlord needs to continually raise rents to keep up with the higher property taxes and make a profit and the renter's lose big time.

The only real fix to rent control is to figure out a more reasonable annual increase and/or adjustments. I don't fault renters for wanting rent control any more than I fault landlords for wanting to repeal it.

The big difference between being a homeowner and being a landlord is that I didn't purchase my home as an investment despite the equity that I have built. A landlord purchases rental property as a business and investment, and should be allowed to make a fair return on that investment.

JMHO and I don't own rental properties.
 
Old 06-04-2008, 02:41 PM
 
27,075 posts, read 54,279,688 times
Reputation: 21277
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRinSM View Post
My logic here is more of an eye for eye rationale. People can be divided into two groups, renters and home owners. Granted, not all home owners are land lords, but you certainly have to be an owner to be a landlord. Anyways, I find it completely hypocritical that people would fight tooth and nail to limit property taxes while at the same time fighting tooth and nail to have rent control abolished. Does anyone else see the absurdity of this?
All of my Tenants received a rent Decrease when Prop 13 was enacted...

Higher taxes means higher Rents or Dilapidated Rentals...

It's a fact that many Tenants also voted for Prop 13...

Philosophical differences will always exist and the right to Private Property continues to be eroded in this Country...

Is it just a coincidence that areas with the greatest Landlord/Tenant issues also happen to be under Rent Control? I think not...
 
Old 06-04-2008, 08:03 PM
 
Location: Hot Springs, AR
5,612 posts, read 13,800,305 times
Reputation: 3759
I have a really hard time feeling sorry for landlords. They have the option to not purchase a building subject to rent control, yet they do purchase the building and want to jack the rents to the point where people have to choose between having food in their bellies or a roof over their heads. I PROUDLY voted NO! on Prop 98.
 
Old 06-04-2008, 09:12 PM
 
Location: Below the fray
422 posts, read 1,651,397 times
Reputation: 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRinSM View Post
I find it completely hypocritical that people would fight tooth and nail to limit property taxes while at the same time fighting tooth and nail to have rent control abolished. Does anyone else see the absurdity of this?
Not absurd: greedy. The American way is: "I got mine, and you're not getting any." So, no, I refuse to pay one cent more in taxes, no matter what relative benefits I enjoy, but it's my right to raise your rent as much as I like. This ain't Russia.
 
Old 06-04-2008, 09:30 PM
 
27,075 posts, read 54,279,688 times
Reputation: 21277
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cubancoffee View Post
Not absurd: greedy. The American way is: "I got mine, and you're not getting any." So, no, I refuse to pay one cent more in taxes, no matter what relative benefits I enjoy, but it's my right to raise your rent as much as I like. This ain't Russia.
Actually, all of Russia, what's left of it that is, has rent control...

Americans are the most generous people on earth and the Generosity of American people can be found all over the world...
 
Old 06-04-2008, 09:36 PM
 
27,075 posts, read 54,279,688 times
Reputation: 21277
Quote:
Originally Posted by CESpeed View Post
I have a really hard time feeling sorry for landlords. They have the option to not purchase a building subject to rent control, yet they do purchase the building and want to jack the rents to the point where people have to choose between having food in their bellies or a roof over their heads. I PROUDLY voted NO! on Prop 98.
As previously posted... many owners, such as myself, bought before the introduction of Rent Controls... so there was no option... Rent Control was thrust upon us, by ordinance, without so much as a vote.

If a property owner wishes to "Jack the rents to the point where people have to choose between having food in their bellies or a roof over their heads"... that owner will soon have no one to rent too.

It comes down to people that respect private property and those that are looters...
 
Old 06-05-2008, 08:50 AM
 
Location: Hot Springs, AR
5,612 posts, read 13,800,305 times
Reputation: 3759
You have the option to no longer own property if you are unhappy with rent control. Whether you or other landlords want to believe it or not, the majority of renter are already in the "food or rent" position. A lot of people are renting out their living rooms to make ends meet. If salaries rose to the levels of rent, then I could see your point, but the fact is rents are higher than salaries. Most of people spend more than half of their earnings to pay the rent. You think homelessness is a problem now? eliminate rent control and you'll see more homeless than ever. Especially senir citizens. Is that really what property owners want? People sleeping on the streets so they can lure the New Yorkers who pay way more in rent and think that rents here are cheap to move into their buildings? Are you willing to put senior citizens and children on the street so you can make a 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