|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
K2
Franchise Player
Joined: 25 Dec 2011
Posts: 23529
|
 Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2018 4:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jodeke wrote: |
How so? I'll admit confusion. I'm of the understanding a YES would have removed rent control a NO keeps it in place. Is this or is this not correct? I voted NO. |
Your landlord friend is counting his blessings that Prop 10 was voted down. Prop 10 would have eliminated an existing law called the “Costa-Hawkins Housing Act” that protects landlords throughout the state by severely limiting how rent control can be applied.
In City of LA, due to this law:
- rent control cannot be applied to buildings built after 1978.
- rent control cannot be applied to single family homes and condos
Had Prop 10 passed, the word is that Mayor Garcetti would immediately initiate a motion to expand rent control in LA and apply it to newer construction and as well as single family homes/condos. There would’ve been a lot of happy renters out there. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ribeye
Franchise Player
Joined: 10 Nov 2001
Posts: 12628
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2018 4:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| K2 wrote: | | jodeke wrote: |
How so? I'll admit confusion. I'm of the understanding a YES would have removed rent control a NO keeps it in place. Is this or is this not correct? I voted NO. |
Your landlord friend is counting his blessings that Prop 10 was voted down. Prop 10 would have eliminated an existing law called the “Costa-Hawkins Housing Act” that protects landlords throughout the state by severely limiting how rent control can be applied.
In City of LA, due to this law:
- rent control cannot be applied to buildings built after 1978.
- rent control cannot be applied to single family homes and condos
Had Prop 10 passed, the word is that Mayor Garcetti would immediately initiate a motion to expand rent control in LA and apply it to newer construction and as well as single family homes/condos. There would’ve been a lot of happy renters out there. |
Which, as I mentioned earlier but it fell on deaf ears, is what was expected to happen in SF as well.
_________________
"A metronome keeps time by using a Ringo" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jodeke
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 67619
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2018 4:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ribeye wrote: | | K2 wrote: | | jodeke wrote: |
How so? I'll admit confusion. I'm of the understanding a YES would have removed rent control a NO keeps it in place. Is this or is this not correct? I voted NO. |
Your landlord friend is counting his blessings that Prop 10 was voted down. Prop 10 would have eliminated an existing law called the “Costa-Hawkins Housing Act” that protects landlords throughout the state by severely limiting how rent control can be applied.
In City of LA, due to this law:
- rent control cannot be applied to buildings built after 1978.
- rent control cannot be applied to single family homes and condos
Had Prop 10 passed, the word is that Mayor Garcetti would immediately initiate a motion to expand rent control in LA and apply it to newer construction and as well as single family homes/condos. There would’ve been a lot of happy renters out there. |
Which, as I mentioned earlier but it fell on deaf ears, is what was expected to happen in SF as well. |
I'll say this again. I voted NO on 10.
Questioned amended: Do you rent own or are buying?
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ribeye
Franchise Player
Joined: 10 Nov 2001
Posts: 12628
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2018 6:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jodeke wrote: | | ribeye wrote: | | K2 wrote: | | jodeke wrote: |
How so? I'll admit confusion. I'm of the understanding a YES would have removed rent control a NO keeps it in place. Is this or is this not correct? I voted NO. |
Your landlord friend is counting his blessings that Prop 10 was voted down. Prop 10 would have eliminated an existing law called the “Costa-Hawkins Housing Act” that protects landlords throughout the state by severely limiting how rent control can be applied.
In City of LA, due to this law:
- rent control cannot be applied to buildings built after 1978.
- rent control cannot be applied to single family homes and condos
Had Prop 10 passed, the word is that Mayor Garcetti would immediately initiate a motion to expand rent control in LA and apply it to newer construction and as well as single family homes/condos. There would’ve been a lot of happy renters out there. |
Which, as I mentioned earlier but it fell on deaf ears, is what was expected to happen in SF as well. |
I'll say this again. I voted NO on 10.
Questioned amended: Do you rent own or are buying? |
I own my house outright. I used to own a couple of rental properties.
_________________
"A metronome keeps time by using a Ringo" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
K2
Franchise Player
Joined: 25 Dec 2011
Posts: 23529
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2018 7:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ribeye wrote: |
Which, as I mentioned earlier but it fell on deaf ears, is what was expected to happen in SF as well. |
Apparently, Supervisor Peskin pushed through a resolution in support had Prop 10 passed. SF turned out to be the lone bright spot in the entire state with ‘Yes on 10’ winning at the county level. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tox
Franchise Player
Joined: 16 Nov 2015
Posts: 17876
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2018 9:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ribeye wrote: | This was a big win for landlords, not so much for tenants.
| Quote: | Landlord groups, which funded a nearly $80-million opposition campaign that outraised supporters 3 to 1, said voters made their opinions clear.
|
| Quote: | | Tenant groups responded to Tuesday’s loss by protesting at the Santa Monica offices of Blackstone, the private equity firm that owns thousands of apartments in the state and was a major donor to the campaign against Proposition 10. |
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-proposition-10-rent-control-next-20181108-story.html
I have become more and more against any rewards via our income tax system for flippers. They suck up the supply to the point that the average person has great difficulty affording even a starter home.
The ability to purchase a home has changed drastically since I purchased my first home in 1972. I strongly favor rules, regulations, laws and perks that favor owner occupied first time purchases over flipper purchases.
We should strive to pass on as best we can that which was provided to ourselves. |
I voted no on Prop 10 but I agree with you about flipping. Prop 5 was like anathema to me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
K2
Franchise Player
Joined: 25 Dec 2011
Posts: 23529
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2018 11:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jodeke wrote: |
One of us doesn't understand 10. My understanding is, it's rent control. It only allows owners in Los Angeles to increase rents 6% yearly. Removing that percent increase would allow owners to gouge. If your daughter and her boyfriend are haves OK. I'm a have not. It helps me. |
About those 6% increases, unless you're also including utilities --- it hasn't been that high since the years prior to 1985. Make sure your landlord isn't trying to gouge you. Since July 1993, the max allowable increase in LA has been 3% each year, with the exception of 2006 when it was 4%.
If a building is under rent control in LA (aka RSO - Rent Stabilization Ordinance) the max allowable increase cannot exceed what is set each year by LA Housing Department which is tied to the CPI (Consumer Price Index). The following link has another link to a pdf that lists the years of max increases.
Allowable rent increases in LA
https://hcidla.lacity.org/allowable-rent-increases-under-rso |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jodeke
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 67619
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 09, 2018 4:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| K2 wrote: | | jodeke wrote: |
One of us doesn't understand 10. My understanding is, it's rent control. It only allows owners in Los Angeles to increase rents 6% yearly. Removing that percent increase would allow owners to gouge. If your daughter and her boyfriend are haves OK. I'm a have not. It helps me. |
About those 6% increases, unless you're also including utilities --- it hasn't been that high since the years prior to 1985. Make sure your landlord isn't trying to gouge you. Since July 1993, the max allowable increase in LA has been 3% each year, with the exception of 2006 when it was 4%.
If a building is under rent control in LA (aka RSO - Rent Stabilization Ordinance) the max allowable increase cannot exceed what is set each year by LA Housing Department which is tied to the CPI (Consumer Price Index). The following link has another link to a pdf that lists the years of max increases.
Allowable rent increases in LA
https://hcidla.lacity.org/allowable-rent-increases-under-rso |
Thanks for the update. . I calculated my 2018 rent increase. It was in line with 3%. | Quote: | 1. Three percent (3%) to eight percent (8%) every 12 months in accordance with the annual
rent increase percentage, which is based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI) average for
the twelve (12) month period ending September 30 of each year. The annual adjustment
may be applied once each year. The 3% to 8% annual increase is NOT cumulative or retroactive.
THE CALCULATED ANNUAL INCREASE PERCENTAGE EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2018
THROUGH JUNE 30, 2019 IS THREE PERCENT (3%). For allowable rent increase amounts
in previous years, refer to the table on the next page. This annual increase may be imposed
only if twelve (12) months or more have elapsed since the last such rent increase. |
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
55
Franchise Player
Joined: 04 Jan 2008
Posts: 12092
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 10, 2018 2:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| K2 wrote: | | jodeke wrote: |
How so? I'll admit confusion. I'm of the understanding a YES would have removed rent control a NO keeps it in place. Is this or is this not correct? I voted NO. |
Your landlord friend is counting his blessings that Prop 10 was voted down. Prop 10 would have eliminated an existing law called the “Costa-Hawkins Housing Act” that protects landlords throughout the state by severely limiting how rent control can be applied.
In City of LA, due to this law:
- rent control cannot be applied to buildings built after 1978.
- rent control cannot be applied to single family homes and condos
Had Prop 10 passed, the word is that Mayor Garcetti would immediately initiate a motion to expand rent control in LA and apply it to newer construction and as well as single family homes/condos. There would’ve been a lot of happy renters out there. |
Exactly. If Prop 10 passed, along with Measure JJJ that has already passed, there would've been a major shortage in the near future, worse than there is currently. Who can afford to get a zone change and then pay prevailing wages? And then they expect you to build Affordable Housing, but making it very unaffordable to do so. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
splashmtn
Star Player
Joined: 30 Aug 2016
Posts: 3961
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 14, 2018 11:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| K2 wrote: | | splashmtn wrote: | | K2 wrote: |
Much of this was likely in response to the Linkage Fees passed by the City last year which lead to a deluge of projects submitted before the new fees deadline. At least for a few years, the oversupply in a declining economy should put sustained downward pressure on rental prices in that area, even without Prop 10.
Results - San Francisco County came through for Prop 10
https://vote.sos.ca.gov/returns/maps/ballot-measures/prop/10 |
to the bold print. not going to happen. Because most of those places are luxury apts/condos aka utterly ridiculously highly priced places to live.
Most of these places going up are firms/corporations not individuals. Which means they can take the hit for a very long time and sit and wait. I've seen too many of these new places being built and seemingly never being fully occupied with tenants/residents. Yet the rent isnt going down. The supply demand thing isnt working in this regard. |
No. While corporate landlords can afford to keep their units empty, I've already had to lower my asking rent for a new vacancy as the rental activity in the West LA has slowed down compared to last year at this time. I'd rather adjust the rent than let it sit vacant for an extended period of time.
Many of the non-corporate, mom-and-pop landlords that I've talked to recently say rent prices have likely hit their peak in the West LA area. Scarcity has been the driving force these few years behind soaring rents and the flood of new units in such a concentrated area has apparently started to affect pricing in reaction to the increased competition. |
the issue isnt that difficult.
I want owners to make money when renting to renters. But I dont want owners to make HAND OVER FIST money. why? because if you do that, eventually you will out price the renters incomes and they will end up without places to stay, bouncing around from friends to family, living in cars, living on the streets. this is what you see now. our homeless population isnt just a bunch of drug addicts, runaway kids, and old man drunks running around. i'me seeing way to many recently homeless people that looked like that rent was too D.... high and thats why they are on the streets today.
this idea of market value is crazy right now because of these corporate apartments/condos. then the regulars like yourself think "oh wow so you're saying I can get 3200 for this same place i rented for 1800 2 years ago? Heck yeah, I'm in. who wouldnt be in. until you realize you're about to put butts on the streets. and eventually the renters wont be able to afford that price. so sure that will have to come down...eventually. bad analogy but it works. in essence if owners were drug dealers and their customers were addicts. You are allowing your customers to OD on the drugs you're supplying. if you do that, you wont have any more customers to sell too. You being the mom and pop corner dealer. now the big boys will be ok. because they can afford to take a hit while they wait for a foreign investor from overseas to rent a few apartments for some ridiculous amt. or by condos at a ridiculous price.
your rents should be in line with people's incomes in your areas. again you should be allowed to make money from renters. but renting is not supposed to be a get rich quick scheme to begin with. its supposed to be a nice consistent little income coming in. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
K2
Franchise Player
Joined: 25 Dec 2011
Posts: 23529
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 14, 2018 5:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jodeke wrote: |
Thanks for the update. . I calculated my 2018 rent increase. It was in line with 3%. | Quote: | 1. Three percent (3%) to eight percent (8%) every 12 months in accordance with the annual
rent increase percentage, which is based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI) average for
the twelve (12) month period ending September 30 of each year. The annual adjustment
may be applied once each year. The 3% to 8% annual increase is NOT cumulative or retroactive.
THE CALCULATED ANNUAL INCREASE PERCENTAGE EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2018
THROUGH JUNE 30, 2019 IS THREE PERCENT (3%). For allowable rent increase amounts
in previous years, refer to the table on the next page. This annual increase may be imposed
only if twelve (12) months or more have elapsed since the last such rent increase. |
|
 Your landlord is definitely following the LAHD guidelines, most likely it will stay at 3% annually for quite a while. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
K2
Franchise Player
Joined: 25 Dec 2011
Posts: 23529
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 14, 2018 5:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 55 wrote: | | K2 wrote: |
Had Prop 10 passed, the word is that Mayor Garcetti would immediately initiate a motion to expand rent control in LA and apply it to newer construction and as well as single family homes/condos. There would’ve been a lot of happy renters out there. |
Exactly. If Prop 10 passed, along with Measure JJJ that has already passed, there would've been a major shortage in the near future, worse than there is currently. Who can afford to get a zone change and then pay prevailing wages? And then they expect you to build Affordable Housing, but making it very unaffordable to do so. |
Well said, the obligations required with Measure JJJ ironically goes a long way to dis-incentivize building affordable in the first place. Only a narrow number of projects can fit within that criteria. Even a change in floor area triggers LAMC 11.5.6 which pushes a viable project into one that no longer pencils out.
Aside from JJJ costs, Quimby (Park) Fees are also adding up fast for apartment projects as they are calculated per unit. They were at about $5K/unit, now they've gone up to 6.3K /unit and they want to increase it another 15% next year. The L AT DOT wants their per unit fee too and have gotten PLUM to get aboard to submit their plan to Council.
Even before a shovel hits the ground, the City's piling it on with linkage fees, Quimby fees, and others. Then each year, some new regulation takes effect to make it more expensive to build than the previous year. At some point when the City finally realizes they've gone too far, it'll take years to recover. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
K2
Franchise Player
Joined: 25 Dec 2011
Posts: 23529
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 14, 2018 5:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| splashmtn wrote: |
the issue isnt that difficult.
I want owners to make money when renting to renters. But I dont want owners to make HAND OVER FIST money. why? because if you do that, eventually you will out price the renters incomes and they will end up without places to stay, bouncing around from friends to family, living in cars, living on the streets. this is what you see now. our homeless population isnt just a bunch of drug addicts, runaway kids, and old man drunks running around. i'me seeing way to many recently homeless people that looked like that rent was too D.... high and thats why they are on the streets today.
this idea of market value is crazy right now because of these corporate apartments/condos. then the regulars like yourself think "oh wow so you're saying I can get 3200 for this same place i rented for 1800 2 years ago? Heck yeah, I'm in. who wouldnt be in. until you realize you're about to put butts on the streets. and eventually the renters wont be able to afford that price. so sure that will have to come down...eventually. bad analogy but it works. in essence if owners were drug dealers and their customers were addicts. You are allowing your customers to OD on the drugs you're supplying. if you do that, you wont have any more customers to sell too. You being the mom and pop corner dealer. now the big boys will be ok. because they can afford to take a hit while they wait for a foreign investor from overseas to rent a few apartments for some ridiculous amt. or by condos at a ridiculous price.
your rents should be in line with people's incomes in your areas. again you should be allowed to make money from renters. but renting is not supposed to be a get rich quick scheme to begin with. its supposed to be a nice consistent little income coming in. |
Building/buying a place for long term investing isn't close to hitting the lotto and it's definitely not a get-rich-quick scheme.
Ever meet some mom and pop landlords? It takes years and years to finally get over the hump and service that debt; by the time they have some money saved up, they've been wearing that same moth-ridden suit for 45 years.
You should save your anger for the people who run the City and their restrictive zoning laws which prevent much needed housing from being built. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
splashmtn
Star Player
Joined: 30 Aug 2016
Posts: 3961
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2018 3:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| K2 wrote: | | splashmtn wrote: |
the issue isnt that difficult.
I want owners to make money when renting to renters. But I dont want owners to make HAND OVER FIST money. why? because if you do that, eventually you will out price the renters incomes and they will end up without places to stay, bouncing around from friends to family, living in cars, living on the streets. this is what you see now. our homeless population isnt just a bunch of drug addicts, runaway kids, and old man drunks running around. i'me seeing way to many recently homeless people that looked like that rent was too D.... high and thats why they are on the streets today.
this idea of market value is crazy right now because of these corporate apartments/condos. then the regulars like yourself think "oh wow so you're saying I can get 3200 for this same place i rented for 1800 2 years ago? Heck yeah, I'm in. who wouldnt be in. until you realize you're about to put butts on the streets. and eventually the renters wont be able to afford that price. so sure that will have to come down...eventually. bad analogy but it works. in essence if owners were drug dealers and their customers were addicts. You are allowing your customers to OD on the drugs you're supplying. if you do that, you wont have any more customers to sell too. You being the mom and pop corner dealer. now the big boys will be ok. because they can afford to take a hit while they wait for a foreign investor from overseas to rent a few apartments for some ridiculous amt. or by condos at a ridiculous price.
your rents should be in line with people's incomes in your areas. again you should be allowed to make money from renters. but renting is not supposed to be a get rich quick scheme to begin with. its supposed to be a nice consistent little income coming in. |
Building/buying a place for long term investing isn't close to hitting the lotto and it's definitely not a get-rich-quick scheme.
Ever meet some mom and pop landlords? It takes years and years to finally get over the hump and service that debt; by the time they have some money saved up, they've been wearing that same moth-ridden suit for 45 years.
You should save your anger for the people who run the City and their restrictive zoning laws which prevent much needed housing from being built. |
Not angry at regular people landlords. now the corporate ones. thats another story. i was just stating that its not a get rich quick scheme or it shouldnt be. i just mentioned the small guy landlord but who drove that price sky high? the corporate landlords. and it aint just about supply. You can't keep building the higher end supply, and turning the regular supply into fake higher end supply and expect the regulars to have a place to stay. not going to happen. and yes you are correct, i need to be pissed with my city officials for these hook up deals with these developers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
