Apartment Prices went up AGAIN? (Long Beach, Woodland: foreclosure, rentals, credit)

[SandyCo]

L.A.'s rent control law works like this: It only applies to multi-family dwellings who had their first Certificate of Occupancy issued before October 1, 1978. If you move out of an apartment under rent control, the landlord can jack up the price to whatever the market rate is. I just moved from my two-bedroom rent-controlled apartment where I lived for twelve years; my rent there was only $1,036. I'm sure that they're going to charge $1,295 - and the only thing they're doing is putting in hard wood (laminate) flooring, and slapping a coat of paint on the walls.

Now I'm paying $1,395 for another two bedroom - but I'm so much happier that the increased rent is worth it. Unfortunately, the building I'm in now was built in 1979, so it's not under rent control. Most rent controlled buildings have landlords that are one step up from being a slumlord, though, so I'm just fine with this place.

During the housing boom, so many owners were tearing down their rent controlled buildings to build condos (and doing away with affordable housing in the process, of course) that the L.A. City Council voted to increase the amount that displaced tenants are compensated if they're evicted because of a condo conversion.

For more info on L.A. Rent Control, look here:
http://www.lacity.org/LAHD/landlord_tenant_handbook.pdf

[kettlepot]

Now I'm paying $1,395 for another two bedroom - but I'm so much happier that the increased rent is worth it. Unfortunately, the building I'm in now was built in 1979, so it's not under rent control. Most rent controlled buildings have landlords that are one step up from being a slumlord, though, so I'm just fine with this place.

Interesting how rent control actually incents landlords to become slumlords. Since they can't recover costs for upgrades and maintenance, the only thing to do is skimp, skimp, skimp.

Rent control it's a beautiful thing....

With all the liar loans and other dubious mortgage mechanisms during the bubble years, it took folks who would normally be renters and turned them into homeowners, which made apartment landlords more dependent on low income folks (illegals, sections eights, etc) as a customer base, leading to lower amounts they could ask for. But now their customer base has been expanded, even during an economic downturn, and landlords can ask for higher rents now.

Also, the rental/owner housing markets tend to have the same inverse relationship as the used/new car markets. When times are flush people buy the new car and decide to buy a home. Prices of both go up, while the prices of the used car and the rental apartment don't go up so much. When times are bad, new cars don't sell, and are discounted but not enough, and many people who have to buy a car, buy used. And even though times are bad, used car prices will be relatively firm. In regards to housing, people who would have wanted to buy, temporarily economize buy renting. During those times, rents are relatively firmer than For-Sale housing.

Now there are times if inflation is strong, apartment rents and For-Sale housing prices, and new and used cars could both be going up, but if times are relatively good, the new cars and For-Sale housing are going up faster.

In my 9-unit building there are two vacancies, one of which has been available for at least three months. However, the owner refuses to lower his rents (which are, IMHO, too high for the neighborhood) and is holding out for what he refers "the right kind of person."

A lot of landlords will use the amount of the rent as a mechanism for screening out the riff-raff. Then once they get the right person, they'll keep the rent increases small or non-existent to ensure that the tenant stays put. Conversely, if a landlord decides a tenant is just too much of a pain in the neck, rather than go through the hassle of an eviction, he'll jack up the rents to make the person move voluntarily.

[roosevelt]

Let's give apartment house owners a break, they get sued, they rent to deadbeats, apartments are vandalized, but they have to pay their mortgages and incredibly high property taxes or they lose everything.

[ZenMaster2008]

My last apartment was not rent controlled because it was built in the early 80s. I was a good tenant for a year, paid my rent on time every single month. My on-site manager even said how great of a tenant I was. Then when my lease was up they raised my rent by a few hundred bucks a month. It seems in the long run/grand scheme of things it would be better to keep my rent what it was or raise it very slightly. My neighbor who I still talk to told me some really sketchy characters moved into my old unit and are causing problems for the whole complex already. I never understand why owners/managers would get rid of good tenants in exchange for a few extra bucks from crappy tenants.

rant over

[majoun]

Originally Posted by bhcompy

Well, for one, the city of Los Angeles and (perhaps?) Santa Monica are the only cities I know of in the greater LA area with rent control.

Beverly Hills and West Hollywood also. WeHo rent control is the strictest in L.A. County.

[majoun]

Originally Posted by kettlepot

Interesting how rent control actually incents landlords to become slumlords. Since they can't recover costs for upgrades and maintenance, the only thing to do is skimp, skimp, skimp.

Rent control it's a beautiful thing....

Rent control also encourages discrimination against minorities, the poor, and the young and reduces the supply.

Also, the rental/owner housing markets tend to have the same inverse relationship as the used/new car markets. When times are flush people buy the new car and decide to buy a home. Prices of both go up, while the prices of the used car and the rental apartment don't go up so much.

That was not the case in the earlier part of this decade with rentals, which shot up just like housing prices.

In areas where there are more homeowners than L.A. you are correct, but in places like L.A. where the overwhelming majority are renters (even more so in affluent parts of town than poorer parts of town) this would not be the case.

A lot of landlords will use the amount of the rent as a mechanism for screening out the riff-raff. Then once they get the right person, they'll keep the rent increases small or non-existent to ensure that the tenant stays put. Conversely, if a landlord decides a tenant is just too much of a pain in the neck, rather than go through the hassle of an eviction, he'll jack up the rents to make the person move voluntarily.

True.

[pasadenabob]

I am moving from a building without rent control. The rent is high. We have a slumlord.

I've lived in ten apartments. I've had three three slumlords--all in non rent controlled buildings. My landlords in rent controlled buildings were all good...Not a scientific study, but an observation.

I'm not a fan of rent control. But, let's not make excuses for slumlords. They're greedy scumbags with no conscience. Rent control laws don't make them that way.

[sfpycroft]

I noticed the spike in rents as well, bummer because we wanted to move during summer but now it looks like we'll be stuck in the fog and wind (aka San Francisco) until the rent drops.

[allenk893]

Originally Posted by sfpycroft

I noticed the spike in rents as well, bummer because we wanted to move during summer but now it looks like we'll be stuck in the fog and wind (aka San Francisco) until the rent drops.

That'd be your best bet because the prices are just craziness right now!

[BRinSM]

i moved in the last month and am paying considerably less for the unit than I would a year or two ago. i've since stopped looking at prices, but i do know that my old unit was rented for over $100 less than what I was paying when i moved out. i'm not sure if rents are still going down, but they certainly aren't what they were a year ago.