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.
This isn't about what I think. Rent control/stablization was established to assist poor people in obtaining affordable housing in big cities. I don't think I'm off my rocker for believing that.
Got it. So rent control is only for poor people. All you middle class people out there, likealady has no problem with you paying outrageous amounts of money for rent. You're apparently not in the "winner" category
Quote:
Originally Posted by likealady
When did I say that? Oh right, I didn't. Nice assumption on your part.
Yep, hell of an assumption..."This makes me livid. That apartment could house a local who actually needs it, not this entitled jerk."
Maybe you should actually read what you write next time. Based off that statement. Anesthesiologist are entitled jerks and not local
Quote:
Originally Posted by likealady
"Ok, the guy makes a lot and doesn't need the assistance, but whatever."[/i]
Yep, as stated. Picking winners and losers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by likealady
I'm not necessarily against him having the rent controlled unit because he's a doctor. I'm against the fact that he lives elsewhere and yet refuses to give up the unit.
What has he done that's against the law...uh, nothing. And yet, you support this hair brain idea. As long as the entitled group you deem acceptable benefits from it. I'm not sure what more I need to say on it. The biggest myth is that rent control helps the poor (apparently one that is shared by you). It helps those poor people who happen to have an apartment when rent control laws are passed -- but it also helps the affluent and even the rich who happen to be on the inside looking out. Duh! Hard to believe anyone can't figure this out (it's not rocket science). Ultimately, left to their own devices, the politicians in this city would make sure we have two classes...rich and poor. As for the middle class and all the newbies, here's a middle finger. Yeah, maybe one should try to look at results instead of some fairy tale.
Last edited by bodyforlife99; 05-07-2016 at 08:00 AM..
Not a doctor, but this guy should have bought into the market instead of this woe is me dramafest act he makes after spending 34 yrs benefiting from below market rent.
Thanks for that link.
The article makes a point I've been saying for a while now about a friend who's lived in a rent-controlled unit in Santa Monica for close to 3 decades. It's struck him that he has no retirement to look forward to, because he hasn't been saving for it. Like the artist in that article, he has a hand-to-mouth lifestyle because he doesn't need to work.
SF as most of the country has programs through HUD for poor and those up to double the poverty line.
The early versions of rent control were workable... they provided longer notice periods and allowed rent increases to be banked... so it was not a use it or lose it situation.
There were also exemptions for duplexes and triplexes where the owner lived in one unit...
Just got my City of Oakland letter about the declaration of a Housing Emergency and moratorium/restriction on all rent increases and capital improvement increases... even capital improvements that are in process.
I have attended all council meetings/hearings as Oakland rent control was getting started... at the time it was sold as offering some stability to renters and sold to owners as workable... and for the most part it was.
What we have now in SF, Oakland, Berkeley bears little resemblance to the original proposals...
The most irksome part of the new regs is that owners that did not Max Out on every possible rent increase shot themselves in the foot... which applies mostly to small mom and pop operators because the corporate management companies always maximize return...
There are only two things for the OP to remember... eventually you will have to move and being smart about it could pay off financially because this is the reality. The only exception is for the OP to buy the property... but why buy when you can live there for a fraction of the cost and have someone else take care of ongoing maintenance and repairs.
Thankfully, I have few evictions... those that I have had were settled by negotiations... simply stating I would rather offer the tenant an incentive with money that would otherwise go to the lawyer.
Yep, and the good guys like you (aka "evil landlords") get screwed because others live in a fantasy land thinking somehow this works to keep the overall rents down when all it does is inflate the rent more.
Got it. So rent control is only for poor people. All you middle class people out there, likealady has no problem with you paying outrageous amounts of money for rent. You're apparently not in the "winner" category
Can you not think beyond precisely what I write? Poor people can also include those who would be poor if they had to pay market price and contribute most of their paycheck to rent. But sure, I probably should have written it a different way.
Quote:
Yep, hell of an assumption..."This makes me livid. That apartment could house a local who actually needs it, not this entitled jerk."
Maybe you should actually read what you write next time. Based off that statement. Anesthesiologist are entitled jerks and not local
"Local who actually needs it" = person who actually needs to live in SF because their job is here. Not John Doe in TX who lived here from 1994 until 2002. Just because I say this guy is an entitled jerk doesn't mean I'm generalizing that all anesthesiologists are entitled jerks. Seriously stop trolling.
Quote:
The biggest myth is that rent control helps the poor (apparently one that is shared by you). It helps those poor people who happen to have an apartment when rent control laws are passed -- but it also helps the affluent and even the rich who happen to be on the inside looking out.
I never said rent control only helps the poor. I said it was originally created to help poor people, or basically those who'd be kicked out of the city by high rents, to continue to afford living there. I didn't vote for these laws and I don't necessarily support them. This is a great article on the pros and cons of it. The laws should be changed so you don't have people passing their rent controlled place down generations - because that does happen. I'm not going to keep responding to you because you're hijacking this girl's thread. Plus, it's annoying to argue with someone who can only take something at face value.
Does the mystical "rent control anesthesiologist" and "welfare queen" hang out with Santa clause and the Easter bunny? I can guarantee you all 4 are equally real/common
I have an empty Bay Area house as well. I will never rent it out again. I would much rather it stay empty. It's paid for. And we make too much money to be able to deduct any of the expenses involved with renting it out, so why bother?
Wonder how many other people feel that way. Wonder how many other houses lie fallow due to the crazy housing and taxation laws.
I'm just doing my own little bit to drive up rents for those of you who voted for those laws.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultrarunner
I don't think it's a huge number but most definitely a factor... learned of another home that is empty... the owner is on a two year assignment overseas... was going to lease if for two years and decided it was not worth the risk...
No matter what anyone says... there are units kept off the market because of SF and Bay Area Draconian rules.
Both of these posts are getting at a separate problem from rent control: proposition 13. The "landlord keeping units vacant" problem would be solved by property taxes being assessed at market value instead of purchase value.
Quote:
Originally Posted by likealady
Do YOU think that was why rent control was established, body? So people who got in on a deal years ago can have vacation rentals and secondary income streams on property that isn't theirs? Not to mention the people who own the property can't even "evict" the abuser because of stupid laws. Uh huh?
I'm sure most of the world (or at least people who aren't greedy bastards) would be against that situation.
Rent control was established to help renters of old building at the expense of owners of old buildings. Assuming that a tenant is using a unit as a vacation rental, the question is really about the terms of the lease: does the lease allow subleases or not? If so, then this is part of the bargain. If not, then it is not and the owner has grounds to seek remedy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by likealady
I wasn't purposely "dodging" your question, but you love to hound posters who don't respond to your every demand. Ok, I'll take your bait, if only to get you to leave me alone. I'm pretty sure if I don't answer you this thread will go on for 4 more off-topic pages.
This isn't about what I think. Rent control/stablization was established to assist poor people in obtaining affordable housing in big cities. I don't think I'm off my rocker for believing that.
hen did I say that? Oh right, I didn't. Nice assumption on your part. I'm specifically referring to Ultrarunner's story. But sure, the story could be changed to be an anesthesiologist in this city, to which I would say, "Ok, the guy makes a lot and doesn't need the assistance, but whatever."
I'm not necessarily against him having the rent controlled unit because he's a doctor. I'm against the fact that he lives elsewhere and yet refuses to give up the unit. If he wants to vacation in SF, he's well off enough to afford a few nights in a hotel. The fact that he is/was profiting off someone else's property via AirBnB/VRBO is wrong and selfish (imho). I'm sure most anesthesiologists would take their money and buy (invest) into the market once they've made a nice nest egg - even if they did start their career in a rent controlled unit. I'm not sure why I need to explain this reasoning to you unless you'd do the same as the guy in Ultra's story.
Not a doctor, but this guy should have bought into the market instead of this woe is me dramafest act he makes after spending 34 yrs benefiting from below market rent.
Assuming this hypothetical doctor is complying with the terms of his lease, then why should you care? If he is not complying with the terms of his lease, then the landlord can seek remedy. It's not as if AirBnB & VRBO are secret. Rent control is designed to protect tenants, not just poor tenants.
Both of these posts are getting at a separate problem from rent control: proposition 13. The "landlord keeping units vacant" problem would be solved by property taxes being assessed at market value instead of purchase value.
More likely, they would be converted back and sold as single family homes if the property tax rate shoots up- as I am considering with my duplex. And don't think renters would be unaffected if tax rates shoot up significantly to 'market rate'. It would not be immediate, but it will trickle down. Homeowners that rent part or all of their homes are not in the charity business and in a position to provide subsidized housing. If landlords suddenly need to take on a major change in their cost structure, it will either need to be passed down or they will give up on rental properties adding to the shortage.
The government may offer subsidized housing, landlords are not in that business.
More likely, they would be converted back and sold as single family homes if the property tax rate shoots up- as I am considering with my duplex. And don't think renters would be unaffected if tax rates shoot up significantly to 'market rate'. It would not be immediate, but it will trickle down. Homeowners that rent part or all of their homes are not in the charity business and in a position to provide subsidized housing. If landlords suddenly need to take on a major change in their cost structure, it will either need to be passed down or they will give up on rental properties adding to the shortage.
The government may offer subsidized housing, landlords are not in that business.
Landlords can only offer housing at market rate. If they can't afford to offer housing due to taxes, then they would need to sell. The buyer will either 1) move-in, or 2) be able to manage the costs. In either event, existing housing is used.
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.
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.
