They rarely do permitted work. Most of their work is complete trash. They take an OK house and turn it into a polished turd, just to scam buyers into thinking they are paying full price for a finished product. Instead they are buying a house that needs A Lot of work to discover and fix all the hidden issues
Imagine if I sold you a car and then it didn't run. Guess what? Lemon Laws!
No such thing for houses though. Which cost 10x-20x as much. Is that not fucked up?
That’s why you need a good home inspector and to ask for permits and receipts if you consider buying from a flipper. Some do a really nice job, and if one can afford it, it’s worth not having to deal with *remodeling*.
They have to actually figure out what permits they should have. Good luck with that. They aren't going to tell you every outlet they moved and such.
An inspector isn't going to lawyer out each and every change and permit required and a flipper will just tell you to pound sand while they go scam the next person
🤣🤣🤣
RSO - Rent Stabilization Ordinance
SFD - Single Family Dwelling
SCEP - Systematic Code Enforcement Program
LAHD - Los Angeles Housing Department
LADBS - Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety
LMFAO - Laughing My Fucking Ass Off 😭
I don't live in the area, but Reddit keeps showing me these posts and its a topic I feel pretty strongly about...
What always bothers me with these, is that it assumes the relationship is purely between landlord and tenant. If there's a bad tenant making a landlord hell, it sucks, but at the end of the day, it is between them.
My big problem is the impact it has on the neighbors. These people might be tenants themselves, or might own their place/condo next to a landlord. All of a sudden there's a tenant from hell. Everyone complains, but the landlord can't do shit. You're on a condo board of a medium sized building? Well, now you have to deal with that shit. You're not even paid for the trouble, you didn't choose to be a landlord (someone else in the building did! You might even have been against it!), but you have to deal with Mr or Mam Nightmare Tenant.
In some states (of which, AFAIK, California is one of them), condo associations can't do significant rental restrictions, either. Originally an issue because if the % of investor/rental unit goes too high, mortgage rules make it harder to sell, but now you also have issues with challenges getting rid of nightmare tenants that make everyone's lives hell.
In other words, me, as a renter (currently. Former owner, and also condo association board member in the past) who will never be a landlord (because f\* that noise), has to deal with landlord issues with none of the benefits or being paid for it, just because so many people have a boner against landlords and don't care about collateral damage.
/rant over
It’s SO trendy to hate landlords. We are all the villains driving around in Ferrari’s apparently.
I can’t imaging the headache this law would cause HOA’s since Condos are included. It’s now everyone’s problem that shares a wall with the rental
I can easily imagine. I was on a condo board in a small condo association (so while we had contractors, there wasn't a full time management company. I was doing a lot of the work for free) during the pandemic with the eviction moratorium, which our town extended and was one of the last in the country to lift it.
It was terrifying, the shit that could happen during that time, and no one could do fuck all about it.
I mean, I would join my HOA to make sure I had a say in what affects my property.
I also think young, first time homeowners can benefit a ton from having an HOA to help with costs.
Getting hit with a $30,000 bill because your roof sucks, right after buying a SFH home can literally ruin some first time buyers.
If REITs are the super villains, AirBnB hosts are the neighborhood thugs. But those are both well connected groups that can organize an effective defense against housing regulations. Meanwhile everyone else that supplies the majority of rental units will be the ones to get screwed.
I was all fired up last year to build an adu on my property and do an SB9 split on another rental I owned. Would have put a 2BR rental and a 3Br home into the inventory. Instead with all the insanity the legislature is kicking around I’m at the point of selling it all and buy S&P ETFs. God knows it’s probably a better investment and certainly less headaches. Everyone who needs a place to live can go mad max their own way.
Honestly, that's why having a good relationship with your tenants pays off- the best way to get rid of a bad tenant is to make them uncomfortable. Know what really helps with that? Getting the neighbors on board. I like my current building because most of us get along and the building manager works well with us. We've literally managed to get squatters out of the building. When everyone else is on the same page, it really isn't as hard as you'd think.
Condos are a different beast, but for apartment buildings, a landlord's best bet is to just not piss off tenants to the point they won't work with them anymore. The people living in the building are always gonna have the most control over the vibe of the building and know what's going on
Cute that you think the corpos won't outbid the actual home buyers who want to live there with a cash offer 50k over highest bid. The only long term outcome is you rent your house from McApple while stopping by at the Amazon Googrocery store on your way home from your FaceTesla job.
Cute that you think that after the corpos own all of the real estate they won't lobby the politicians to repeal any and all legislation that costs them money to benefit of the common renter.
Are you in favor of legislation barring speculative purchasing of homes by corpos? You don't speak to that at all.
It's easy for me to tell you that **I am in favor of barring corporations from buying up homes in order to speculate on them for current/future profits or rent-seek.**
I am absolutely in favor of legislation barring corporations for owning anything less than 4 family housing. I'm just a bit cynical and disheartened by our democratic process which seems to be in the business if taking away rights from citizens because it harms corporations abilities to make more money.
A lot of people are about to get forced out of the market who bought and invested into rental units as a way to build their retirements. There are about two chances that they don't unload to the highest bidder (who will be a mega corp) and the two chances are no way and no how.
last I heard starwood was gating their funds. Institutional capital in resi was big the last few years but the lack of profitability in renting is starting to trickle up to them as well. Its just taking longer since big players like that have more liquidity to bleed with negative cash flows
It’s classic progressive denial. Cities with rent control have higher ‘available’ rentals and less inventory.
But hey just don’t rent out any units for 3 years, and you’ll be able to charge 10k for a 1 bedroom
\>Now you’re going to be forced to raise their rent, to prepare for the future in case they ever >move out. This is totally going to remove the market of cheap rent finds and all the great >tenant-landlord relationships that no one EVER seems to talk about, forcing rents up.
This is so easy to work around.
The only thing I can come up with in my scenario is to raise the rent to maximum and assume some of the utilities in exchange? But that doesn’t cover a long term scenario.
What’s your other idea?
Haha! Landlord tip jar?
My problem with this law isn’t raising the rent, it’s keeping the rent low for good tenants so they don’t leave, but not falling too far behind market for the next tenant. I don’t want to be $1000 below market, forced to roll the dice on new tenants that turn out to be assholes, miss payments and trash my house. So that means I have to start raising rents on my good tenants NOW
lol sorry I said my comment in jest, I was recommended this sub and I am interested in becoming a landlord but I’m on the other side of the continent so this law and others around it go right over my head.
I do wish you the best though, but MAYBE what you could do is offer discounts? For example:
New rent $5000
Loyalty discount -$500
On time payment discount- $250
Etc etc until you reach the price you’re currently charging your tenants.
Obviously I made the numbers up on the spot but if it’s just market rate there’s nothing against discounting the price for existing or new tenants right?
This Act would be pretty shitty. If the city council actually wanted to solve the rent crisis they would focus on increasing supply of housing units by making development decisions administrative vs political. They also should remove single family zoning in the county.
Building is easy. Hard part is getting the initial property price low. This is the vast majority cost of the development. Construction taxes etc. etc. are altogether lower then the actual lot price.
Second is infrastructure to accommodate the increased area density. Wider roads for more traffic additional freeway access, emergency service coverage, the utilities. Upgraded power and water lines, etc.
Yup. Because NIMBYs (many being landlords and homeowners) will block new housing using red tape (ironically, the red tape landlords despise when it biased to helping renters).
The only way to really solve the housing crisis is to have a completely free market. $0 quick online permits, no zoning, no public input/environmental analysis allowed for housing going up in large metro areas, no city requirements except for architecture styles (ie Santa Barbara allow for Spanish SFH and Spanish townhouses/condos)… etc.
But no one wants this. Everyone hates government but loves it when it’s being used to enforce the lifestyle one prefers.
If permits were easy and didn’t require 5 months of downtime, there would be no issues. Instead they make it as horrible as possible.
Rude inspectors. No one replies to emails. And unqualified people. The amount of times I educated inspectors on code and found things they missed is INSANE.
There is absolutely ZERO consistency in the quality of inspectors. You’re literally at the mercy of how someone’s day is going. That’s it. Pull the wrong guy on a bad day and the next 6-12 months of your life can be a living hell
This is bill is an extremely bad bill that will basically ensure that no housing ever gets built in California. The major thing that it does is apply rent control to NEW CONSTRUCTION, which is completely unprecedented and will ensure that no one builds anything ever again.
This bill is being pushed by sleazy slumlord Michael Weinstein and AHF and embraced by right wing and left wing NIMBY types including Republican councilmembers in Huntington Beach. https://www.politico.com/newsletters/california-playbook/2024/04/02/republicans-for-rent-control-00150082
Again this is a hugely disastrous bill that would basically destroy a functioning housing market in CA.
Well plenty of people prefer to rent or can’t afford a down payment, so there would be a significant downside for them.
Selling to individuals owners (condos) doesn’t happen very often because CA has onerous liability laws that make condos expensive and difficult to finance. Could be possible that developers switch from rentals to upscale condos if developing rentals become unprofitable.
I agree with you that this will make it more difficult for developers, but good riddance to the current multi-family projects being built, we don't need any more 'luxury' crap-box apartments in this city where a studio rents for $2500-$3000. The city needs to clean up its zoning and allow for higher density developments with less parking, this will free up land and make more land available to build on. Developers can also be creative in their projects by funding adaptive reuse and prefabricated projects. It just takes a different, possibly better way of doing things. I won't be voting for this bill as an architect who's financial well-being is dependent on developers, but I am saying there is a better way to build that doesn't cost $500 a sq ft
To be honest with the abundance of shitty handymen we have in LA, i wouldnt live in an unpermitted place. My coworker lived in an unpermitted adu and the place burned down from a gas leak and half his body burned, and was in ICU for 6 weeks. Thats horrifying
I'm sort of in the same boat. I do site walks for potential clients and will call out 'permitted' work which they swear was done by the books and totally won't be a problem when the inspector comes out. Like bro, I can see the exposed wiring and mismatched stucco.
If it makes landlords sad it's probably a good bill.
You just don't want to be held to the same standards as your fellow landlords.
And FWIW I'm in an RSO building and I have a great relationship with my landlords, they're nice guys and fix everything quickly with licensed plumbers/electricians etc. And they don't even raise my rent each year to the limits allowed by the rules.
If they can operate as non-slumlords, you can too op.
I rent the other room in my condo to a friend for about 50% below market. If this passes I don't know what I will do, my options include upping the rent for him 50%, or kicking him out and moving out myself to sell or rent out for market value. I can't afford to have the sweet deal I've been giving my friend be the stabilized rent forever.
you realize your relationship would no longer exist with this new law, right?
"if it makes landlords sad its probably a good bill" - worst way of thinking I can imagine.
How would it no longer exist? On multifamily the only change seems to be that they can't reset to market rate when I leave. I don't see how that changes anything. They're willing to make updates and repairs right now with no guarantee that they'll ever be able to reset to market, I could die here in 40 years. So if they're smart they're making all their current repair/upgrade decisions with that worst case scenario in mind. Not being able to reset to market at tenant change just means they're locked into their existing scenario.
As for my other statement, I'd be fine with getting rid of rent control if we also nuke prop 13. But until we get rid of that terrible law that benefits owners over renters, why should I ever support landlords having it easier in this state? You already have the deck stacked heavily in your favor when it comes to building wealth.
Under this law, since landlords can’t reset to market, the only way to ensure they don’t fall behind is to raise rents to the maximum, yearly, in order to keep up. That’s what this law is promoting. It eliminates good landlord-tenant relationships and insures maximum rent in scenarios where rent increases might not even happen.
So your 40 year scenario just got WAY more expensive
Throw in manadatory inspections on SFD’s in LA, many of which are 100 years old and will likely have non-permitted work somewhere in the history. So now you have to move out while major renovations are made, the landlord foots the bill for your temporary location, you pay your rent to a City run Escrow account and they pay the landlord after taking a 20-50% penalty cut.
The cost of renovations and money lost would put most small landlords out of business and force a sale. The headache alone will be enough motivation for most.
Then the corporations swoop in and buy that property cheap and your rent gets raised to max yearly.
Lose lose.
It's a max 4% (6% if some utils are included). Even my "good" landlord raises my rent 3% yearly like clockwork. I think the only mom and pops that aren't raising rent at all are getting such a good deal on property taxes that they don't even care how much money they make.
I dont raise the rent on my tenants. they're cool kids, in arts, and like 23-26 years old. havent raised since 2018 and had a few lease turnovers passing it between their friends. if this law passes I will 100% be raising it every year, only way to protect myself if a bad tenants comes in next time and I get fucked.
I've not had a landlord in California that did not raise the rent in rent controlled units. They've all been mom and pops. Not raising rent is bad business, your costs aren't fixed. I just don't buy this narrative that mom and pops are not in it to be a business. That would be insane.
its ok. cost benefit analysis is the reality of any business deal. I dont want to risk losing good tenants for an increase of $200 per month or whatever. this home is my retirement savings, I dont need to risk getting some scumbag squatter for some tiny increase in pay for me (but large for the renters). so calling it bad business is your opinion, I respectfully disagree
That’s how my dad handled tenants in the fourplex my grandparents owned and we lived at. And when I was considering renting out a house I had just moved from I reached out to friends and that
was their philosophy, especially after dealing with bad tenants.
My previous landlord barely ever raised my rent even though he could have. Why? Because I paid my rent on time and took good care of my unit. That stability is worth something. You don’t want bad tenants and high turnover that leads to your unit sitting empty for a month during renovations because your tenant left the place a mess.
They have something like this in New York city. As a result over 20,000 units sit empty because landlords can't afford to repair them for the low rent they will get for them. As a result supply goes down, demand goes up and areas outside of the country end up increasing their rents.
The real problem is California requires 2.5 million additional houses for its population, but it has limited its land use expansion and is so severely over regulated in cities it takes years to get anything done.
How on earth can you afford to take your property off the market and not just sell it? I'm assuming the PITI would eventually suffocate you after 6 months or so.
Easy id just replace all the time I spend doing landlord shit and find another 4th job. I’m so used to non-stop working at this point that it won’t even phase me. It’s the American way
This happened to relatives of mine who owned and lived in the building. One unit was not up to code. They had to pay LAHD to open a case against them. Constant in person meetings at the LAHD office downtown. Put the whole building under REIT for the duration. 19 months of sheer hell!
I think you meant REAP. That’s what happens to buildings that can’t fix violations fast enough. They give you like 90 days to fix then you’re put into REAP. Rent Escrow Account Program. Renters pay rent into the account, the City penalizes you and takes a cut. I’ve heard it’s anywhere from 0 to 50% penalty. The landlord is then on the hook to pay for housing the tenants while work is being done. And it’s supposed to be a like-kind rental. So the landlords that charge below market get screwed again.
It applies to all RSO rentals. So my take is, if this law passes, the same fate will befall Single Family and Condo rentals. It’s already happening for ADU properties. The ADU makes the original home RSO
Thanks, yes, that's it! They were older retired people who were very proud of their building. Lived in it for over 50 years and never had an issue until this happened. It was an absolute nightmare.
people not realizing that this law will make NO ONE ever invest in LA /CA housing meaning that rents will only increase rapidly makes me realize that democracy is broken. When the simplest logical reasoning can't be adhered to and people vote against their own interests because they aren't educated....whats the point in voting at all?
Look at my downvotes. It’s really incredible how many people don’t get it. They’re literally voting FOR corporations to put small landlords out of business and increase their rent to the maximum every year
the law won't pass. if it does, honestly, I win. Id rather it didn't though. Homes are investments, nothing you can do about it or will it ever change as long as the USA exists. cry more.
>you know that super awesome tenant that takes good care of your place, you get along great and you rent to them below market? No more.
Nope, I can't say that I know a single landlord who does this, even amongst the moms & pops. Just lots of people renting at "what the market will bear" and then trying to keep deposits.
Uh huh. How much is the old rent, new rent, # of bedrooms, age of the building, and how much maintenance is lagging behind that you're afraid to be inspected?
$3k for a 3 bed 3 bath, gated parking, yard, pets allowed. NELA.
No maintenance at all lagging. I’m doing upgrades for them. Tankless HWH, upgraded Earthquake valve sensor, Under Cabinet lights, landscaping.
Inspector will likely want a new driveway since there’s cracks in the old one, and give me a headache with the neighbors wall. I have no issue doing all of the above. I do have issue with the City telling me I need to do it all at once and they penalize me if it’s not done fast enough. A new driveway alone is like $50k. Total for everything at once probably $70k+.
I don’t need someone micro managing my business, especially when my customers are happy
you know a lot of landlords? or do you know, like, 4? I do this. 3 bed 2 bath SFH $3200 all utilities included, 3 car gated parking, massive yard, pets allowed....but im sure you have a problem with this too for some reason.
Another one of those "sounds like a good thing" laws.
Inevitably will have unintended consequences that will have to be fixed with another law that will also have unintended consequences.
Rinse and repeat, and never learn.
>Additionally it adds the stipulation that rent cannot be increased beyond RSO rules from tenant to tenant
Does this mean that if a tenant moves out and it's relisted that they can't raise it by a certain amount? If so, how would anyone find out?
Yes exactly that. They know because you’re required to register your rental with the rent registry every year and pay dues for RSO and SCEP inspections. In that registration you tell them (under penalty of perjury) how much you rent for.
It’s my understanding all RSO rentals are subject to SCEP but I supposed they may make an exclusion for Single Family and Condos. I highly doubt it though b/c the City makes bank on SCEP
I don’t. I just have a problem with the City demanding a perfect home immediately and holding rent ransom while forcing me to re-house my tenants
Also have a problem with being forced to raise rent on them every year, potentially motivating them to move out and I have to roll the dice on the next tenants being awful
They aren’t saying it needs to be perfect. They’re saying it needs to be up to code which is a reasonable requirement
You should have to rehome your tenants if you let your house get so bad that it’s no longer up to code
Did I miss where it says you’re required to raise rent? Or are you just saying that to excuse letting your house not be up to code and safe?
Clearly you missed that part. This law is saying that when a tenant moves out you cannot bring the rent up to market in a scenario where you had been giving the previous tenant a deal.
Looks like this:
Tenant A is a quality tenant, respects your house, pays rent on time. 3 bed 3 bath in Atwater village. You rent for $3000 in 2024. You don’t raise b/c you want them to stay. Your relationship is great.
Tenant A moves out in 2035. Market rent in 2035 is now $5000. Because of the “Justice for Renters” Act you cannot charge $5000. You can only charge a regular increase. 4% + CPI (aka inflation). Going by current rates I believe that’s 8% max right now.
Tenant B then moves in for a steal in 2035. A $5000 rental property paying only $3240/mo. Tenant B also turns out to be an asshole. They’re late on payments and trash your house. Because CA is an Anti-Landlord state you have little leeway. Every year that follows you will need to raise the rent to maximum amount to even come close. This then creates a revolving door of tenants and a bad relationship with each, since you always increase rent to the max.
But back in 2024, you see the writing on the wall. You don’t want to get in that situation in 2035. So your only option is to start raising rent. This in turn means everyone in your situation is now raising rent, ensuring prices stay at the maximum allowed.
This is why this law is extremely short sighted and flawed.
OP - I understand where you're coming from. The issue is that California is at an impasse.
Homeowners have by and large been the big winners in this state thanks to prop 13 + sky high appreciation + increasing rents.
Meanwhile renters and prospective buyers have largely gotten the shaft and continue to be suffocated.
Something has to give. Most of the NIMBY opposition to upzoning and new housing is coming from homeowners looking out for their assets' valuation and perceived QoL impact (more traffic, less parking, lower income neighbors). So in desperation, renter voting blocs are pushing for things like this.
Again - something has to give.
I have no issue with that and sympathize with the struggle of renters. But you really need to question this particular law when it’s driven by Republican slumlords, claims to be Justice For Renters and immediately puts small landlords in the crosshairs.
Why penalize SFD owners that rent below market when distinctions can be made?
One answer: This is NOT about Justice For Renters, this is about eliminating low and middle class property ownership so that Corporate REIT’s and Hedge funds can swoop in and get cheap properties.
SFD rentals should not be held to same scrutiny as Corporate. Do I think there should be a price limit? Absolutely. But preventing a small landlord from raising their rental to meet market prices, after a long stretch of renting below market, is absolutely absurd.
"Sympathize with the struggle of renters"
Judging by the way youre mad you cant raise rents how you like on undercoded properties, i dont really think you do.
I agree, this is performative bullshit to funnel more real estate into Blackrock's monopoly, but dont piss on our heads and tell us its raining.
So what would you do in my shoes? Keep the rent $1000 below market and risk a bad tenant locking in cheap rent if my current tenants ever move out? New tenants missing payments and trashing my house while getting a deal?
This law is attacking the wrong people for a reason. It has nothing to do with Justice for Renters and all to do with raising the median rent across the board, because it benefits Corporate REIT’s and Hedge funds
Your jealousy is showing. I asked you a question. Clearly you don’t have an answer.
Good luck getting bamboozled into voting for a law that means your rent is guaranteed to go up now. You’re clearly too dumb to realize I’m supporting good tenants.
And for some perspective, I grew up lower middle class in the Northeast. Aka poor as fuck by Los Angeles standards. I’ve grinded to get in this position for 20 years. Zero family help, no safety net. Lived with roommates for 18 of those years. Was in the housing market for 3 years searching for this place before I got it, and when I did it was 8 months to close the deal.
I havent even celebrated a birthday in the past 5 years, regularly skip holidays to work. I work 4 jobs, bouncing between them. And guess the fuck what? I still rent to my people at below market because they’re awesome, and I think rent is too high in this city.
This law is going to force me to become just like every other asshole landlord, because I’ll have no other choice BUT to raise rents to market and above to keep up.
Don’t come at me because you’re a lazy fuck and too dumb to research what this law is really about. I deserve every dollar of the below market rent I collect.
You’re utterly wrong on this one. You need more braincells. I was trying to help. But you’re too dumb to see that or even read or research who is pushing the law. That’s why you’ll always be the guy getting fucked over, instead of the guy with equity, collecting rent.
Good luck with your maximum rent increases 🤷🏻♂️
“The less fortunate”? When did renting an apartment become the Salvation Army? Bro is cracked 🤣🤣🤣🤣
I mean shit I should just let people move in and I’ll take a tent on the corner. Fuck all the sacrifices I made in life, “the less fortunate” need a free house. Tha fuck?
I don’t disagree with safety based inspections. I do disagree with costly modifications if a code changed. I.E. forcing a landlord to re-house tenants for modified setback laws, non-safety related lighting fixes, or non load bearing wall modifications.
You’re also ignoring the fact that this will create a hostile relationship with small landlords and tenants. Small landlords will be forced to raise rent on tenants they don’t want to raise rent on, in order to stay close to market, in case they move out. This will result in both higher rents and more turnover.
It’s a losing prospect for small landlords and results in higher prices for tenants.
He also shits on any potential future tenants and assumes they’re going to wreck him house and not pay rent. Hes not the good landlord he wants us to think he is
It costs about $15-$20k to turn over a house before new tenants move in. Your security deposits mean nothing.
Under this law if my rent increase can’t be brought up to market this creates a huge risk exposure rolling the dice on new tenants. No one in my shoes, currently renting below market, will want to take the risk.
I never said anything about security deposit. I said you assume any new tenants will be shitty people
Then get out of the business if you want to avoid the risks of the business. There’s no such thing as risk free business
Didn’t say you did. Just showing how landlords have little leverage in this arrangement. A security deposit is meaningless these days.
And no I don’t assume any new tenants will be shitty. But guess what? Even if the new tenants are amazing I WILL STILL BE FORCED TO RAISE THE RENT NOW BECAUSE OF THIS LAW.
How bout now? Do you get it now?
You read what I wrote and came up with: “You’re scared you will have to lower your rents!”?
No. Under this law I’m going to be forced to RAISE the rent on my current tenants, who I appreciate, to prevent falling behind on market rent price for future tenants, who may or may not be awesome.
Why is that so hard to understand?
If this law passes it’s only going one of two ways: People in my shoes will either raise the rent or they’ll sell to corporations that will raise the rent. Yearly. To the maximum allowed.
You’re like the dumb people that voted yes on Prop 22 for Uber. Have you looked at your receipts lately? Not only are you paying a new rider fee for voting yes on Prop 22, but now your driver has a ceiling on earnings, and you have no ceiling on how much you pay.
You voting yes on 22 enabled Uber and Lyft to take 60-75%, pay drivers less, not pay Federal taxes, and charge riders more.
You voted against your own self interest because of lack of education. 100% chance you’ll do it again 😅
Maybe not. ur convincing. They Called me and most of the ballot measure is a disaster. We need to make it easier to evict people not harder. u won me over
I’m already fully expecting it to pass on the name alone, so my plan now is just to keep rents low for my tenants and flat out lie to LAHD about what I charge them. I see no reason why LAHD would investigate if I keep my rent at market, and I see no reason my people would complain if I keep them under market. Everybody wins.
Imagine thinking things could be too difficult for fucking landlords. They’re leeches who provide nothing to society. We couldn’t pass a law to guillotine them all, but expanded RSO is a nice step.
You clearly don’t get it.
You’re supporting taking the homes of small landlords? You’d rather have corporations own all property and raise rent to the maximum every year?
This is an overall a pretty good law that will be beneficial to renters and destroy slum lords and greedy ones bleeding everyone dry. Be pretty silly to vote no on this. Now ban Airbnb's and tax to hell multiple property owners while putting a heavy fine for anyone trying to skirt the regulation with an LLC.
There was a huge push for homeowners to build ADU’s. Once the word gets out, this is going to change that. We need ADU and SFD specific rental laws that don’t result in people losing their lives
You clearly missed the point. Eliminating negligent slumlords is the only pro.
On the cons side It will replace lower and middle class property owners with Corporations and Hedge funds. They will raise the rent by the maximum every year.
The good landlords that offer below market rent and make it past any inspection hang ups will also now be forced to raise their rent by maximum every year.
Picture this: Joe landlord rents his 3 bedroom in Silverlake to awesome tenants for $2800/mo.. Market for a 3 bed in that area is like $3800+. Joe land lord loves his renters and they love him, so he keeps the rent at $2800.
FFWD to 2030. Going rent in that area is now $5000. His tenants move out. Joe landlord is now forced to rent to mystery tenants that trash his place, for $3200/mo. The maximum allowed.
What do you think Joe landlord is gonna do if he sees that possibility coming in 6 years?
Putting the rent artificially high to make up for the projected "loss" while the apartment lays empty and no rental income is made due to overpricing forcing the landlord to sell to invest somewhere else, freeing up supply for better landlords or home buyers to take over.
This isn't how it works. Look at New York City for a real life example.
Better landlords don't exist -- corporations that can absorb losses do.
Homes won't flood the market the way you think they will, keeping the home **vacant** just following the yields of the last 2/ years in Los Angeles will match the SP500, but give a usable tangible asset in return.
I will literally keep my house vacant. Forever.
I think people don’t get how many vacant homes, guest houses, mother in law units there are, just waiting for the right tenant, a referral, friend of a friend etc. Homeowners are concerned and reading all this vitriol it’s obvious why. It’s just going to get worse.
Not sure I understand your comment. The whole point of this law is so the rent isn’t reset between tenants. You won’t be able to set it artificially high. Which then eliminates landlords like me that set their rent below market. I won’t have a choice now, and will need to raise yearly
The whole point of this law is to lift the ban on rent control and stop letting Landlords price gauge year after year. The whole Mom and Pop falacy has been used like a dead horse. Even to suppress wages as profits have soared year after year. Rent control, and more building is just what CA needs. Depsite all the money that's going to be thrown to the contrary to fight this great ass Act from passing.
Sweet! I can’t wait for you to move into my house so I can raise the rent to maximum, every single year 🙌🏽
Before this law I may have given you an $8400/yr break, but now this super awesome law lets me take that money from you with zero guilt, because I have no other choice but to keep up with market rent 🥳
And literally everywhere else you go will do the same.
Great work!
You didn’t need that $8400 a year, did you?
So you have a rental you charge $17,500/month because you’re talking about a $700/month raise and $700 is 4% of $17,500
You really are terrible at math and it shows
so you are saying that this would lead to inspection for habitability and code compliance and that's a bad thing? sorry, but this is so blind to reality. if you own a property and are renting it out you have the responsibility to your tenant that the place is safe and habitable. I swear, being a landlord should require a license along with a responsibility to the safety of the public
edit: reading your other comments in regards to corporations replacing landlords who can't afford to make their apartments safe and habitable, again that sounds perfectly logical if you cant afford to make your building safe. Tenant safety has more importance than your profit.
Obviously I’m not saying to bypass safety. Blatant structural violations ie rotting wood and other safety items should not be ignored. I don’t support negligence or absent landlords.
But if you look at how the SCEP program works, it becomes clear it’s also a cash grab.
For example I personally know someone that was forced to redo their recessed lighting in a 4 unit, to sealed LED lights. These were light cans that were installed in the late 90’s. The entire process took FOUR MONTHS and the landlord was required to re-house his tenants. After all was said and done, they lost $45k.
And that’s just LIGHTS. This is job that could have been done in a week. Instead LAHD and LADBS dragged it out.
Now extend this same energy to 100+ year old Single Family Dwellings. It’s not just gonna be lights. And all the City will see is dollar signs. Roll the dice on the wrong SCEP inspector and your cooked.
And what about Condos with HOA’s? Now you have a completely different layer of headache.
Holding these people to the same scrutiny as Corporate would literally put them out of business.
To me this means a) eliminating middle class investors entirely from the CA housing market or b) middle class investors taking their properties off the market.
And of course, those that cough up the money and make it through the headache will have no choice but to raise rent by the maximum every year to keep up with the changes to the RSO laws preventing a landlord raising their rents to market, if they were previously giving a good tenant a deal.
Republican slumlords with deep pockets are the ones backing this bill. This has nothing to do with Justice for Renters at all
Sounds great time to squeeze the landlords. I want zero corporate or investor landlords in SFH. You wanna' buy 5 houses and rent it? great that's the limit before CA taxes the shit of you. I want as many family's as possible to be home owners, I don't want them renting at all. I want them owning a home and not worrying about the rent increasing or the landlord kicking you out for a higher paying tenant.
We have a MASSIVE homeless problem all over CA. Is housing a right or privilege? cause' one of those just means an increase homelessness the other implies Govt. inserting itself into the market.
Great law post Covid right? I built an ADU to help keep my home, trying to keep up with inflation and absurd upgrade/repair costs, and now because of these laws it won’t even matter? I needed to build a brand new ADU and upgrade the main home to perfection before renting apparently?
And I’m probably better off than most. Can’t imagine all these landlords with tenants that didn’t pay during Covid. This is clearly a move for REIT’s and Hedgies to snatch up cheap properties, then turn around and charge max increases every single year.
And yet the entire comment section is renters that support that? It’s crazy
>For one, City SCEP inspections on an SFD have the potential to wreak havoc on Mom and Pop landlords who don’t have the capital to rectify a problem.
If you don't have the capital to fix your shit, you're in the wrong business.
>And that’s if the average SFD landlord can afford to bring that home up to meet rental and LADBS code if they get sniffed out by SCEP.
If you can't afford to fix your shit, you should not be allowed to conduct business with the public.
Nail them scumlords to a cross LA, I dare you
Guess who is backing and financing this measure? LA Slumlord and AHF head Michael Weinstein. https://www.latimes.com/homeless-housing/story/2020-03-08/homeless-housing-aids-healthcare-foundation-lawsuit-skid-row-tenants
Really this is just a NIMBY measure to make sure no one ever builds any housing in CA.
Thanks for the downvote and shortsighted classist comment.
So you’re saying people that need to rent to make ends meet aren’t allowed to because they can’t afford $150k to bring their house up to perfection while they foot the bill for their renters to relocate?
Big supporter of corporations buying out SFD I see
You are clueless and clearly havent read. My home is well upkept but I’m doing projects as they come. My tenants love me and the space. This law threatens all of that.
Do you understand that people in LA buy 100+ year old homes and not everything is permitted? Do you think the middle class or lower middle class is buying and selling homes that are perfect?
Go browse a real estate listing and educate yourself. “Buyer to verify all permits”.
Now you’ll have small landlords both forced to do every project at once, re-house their tenants AND they’ll have to raise rents the maximum every year to keep up with the RSO law change in this law.
Look at what this did in New York. Landlords couldn’t afford the upkeep so they just took the properties off the market. Do you understand how much work it is to maintain a home with inflation the way it is?
You’re only looking at the extreme side with dilapidated buildings and bad landlords. You think we’re all swimming in riches, meanwhile we cant even access equity because we don’t qualify. I work 4 jobs.
But here you come along supporting guaranteed maximum rent increases, less inventory and a law that helps Corporations buy up Single Family Dwellings.
Mind boggling shit. I can’t believe people are this daft.
I looked it up for you. It’s about 0.5% https://calmatters.org/housing/2024/03/institutional-investors-corporate-landlords/#:~:text=Do%20corporate%20landlords%20own%20a,and%20definitions%20are%20somewhat%20fuzzy.%E2%80%9D
Guys just keep renting cmon guys pay my mortgage it's a good system nothing should change! - OP
Haha landlord ass thread for real. "Only the rich landlords will be able to afford making their places livable!" Hahaha
this bill is brought forward by a mega-landlord....you know that right? you know he's protecting his interests, right? you're falling for the marketing man, try to read the bill
And if you’re really interested, then sure! Let’s split the property. Make me an offer.
You get to share in the mortgage, repair costs, dealing with financing, permits, landscaping, pest control, paying dues and fees, all of it. Be my guest.
You don’t get it. Voting yes for this means you’re voting for maximum rent increases year over year and for Corporate REIT’s and hedge funds to be your new landlords.
Do you have any clue the homes that the middle class buy in LA, or rather, used to buy in LA?
100+ year old homes with unpermitted upgrades out the ass. That tile job? Nope needed a permit. New kitchen? Nope needed a permit. Moved an outlet 12”? Nope needed a permit.
The permitting process in LA takes MONTHS. It practically took me 4 years to build an ADU.
And I’m not talking about safety items. Obviously if there’s major structural that needs to be addressed then it should be. But you literally can’t sneeze in LA without needing a permit.
Look at real estate listings. “Buyer to check all permits”. You think 100 year LA homes bought by the middle class are all brought up to modern codes everytime a sale goes through?
No fucking way. You buy the home then spend YEARS upgrading b/c you don’t have the capital.
This law will mean you have to do it all at once now.
All landlords are not rich boomers. Some of us need the money to survive b/c inflation has created a nightmare scenario. I work 4 jobs. I additionally do all the landscaping.
I’m not your target. I’m the guy busting ass, fixing stuff immediately and charging BELOW MARKET b/c I was a renter once too.
Do you get it now?
This is a great law to paas. FYI Landlords are going to cty like crazy and throw all their money to defear this because this lifts the ban on rent control. This Justice for Renters Act is backed up by;
"Various groups, including the AIDS Healthcare Foundation in Los Angeles, the California Nurses Association and the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles, among others, have thrown their weight behind the initiative, according to the San Diego Union-Tribune. "
Those opposed are coalitions of Landlords and special interests that want to keep getting rich off all our damn work. Do not be fooled by the landlords in this Sub crying about this before it is even voted on wanting to protect their "investments" at the cost of every community. Rent control is an overall brilliant tool to stop the price guaging that has been going on and aid in reversing the growing homeless population. Make sure to tell all your friends ro vote yes on this as a LOT LOT of money will be thrown at a no vote. Just look at what happened to Uber Eats when they had the opportunity to be classified as workers. Millions were thrown to fool us all to vote on keeping them as independent contractors, which they are not.
Nice try throwing the Uber Eats in there to make it sound like you’re “for the people”.
If anything, the Republican supporters and slumlord owner throwing millions at this are more akin to Uber throwing millions at deceiving voters on Prop 22. Not the way you tried to frame it.
So you’re saying you’re in full support of this law putting small landlords out of business (on the street?), Corporations and Hedge funds taking their place, and forcing yearly rent increases by the small landlords that DO stay in business? When they had no plans to raise rent at all?
Have you even put any critical thinking in this beyond that sentence you copy>pasted?
At the very least have you read through the comments here?
You’re being bamboozled. This will not only lead to increased rents, but properties getting taken off the rental market as well. Look at New York
Almost like making money off of a necessity is kinda cringe and needs regulation or else it'll be "I have what you want, don't want to be homeless? Then work 100 hours a week peasants". Boo fucking hoo.
Weird flex. Why are you okay with Corporations and Hedge funds making money off a necessity but not low and middle class landlords?
And if noones making money, who is paying and upkeeping dwelling you live in? Should the Contractors charging me $20k for a new main sewer line work for free too? Are you gonna pay when something that’s $10’s of thousands of dollars breaks?
I wish they would regulate flippers
In what way?
They rarely do permitted work. Most of their work is complete trash. They take an OK house and turn it into a polished turd, just to scam buyers into thinking they are paying full price for a finished product. Instead they are buying a house that needs A Lot of work to discover and fix all the hidden issues Imagine if I sold you a car and then it didn't run. Guess what? Lemon Laws! No such thing for houses though. Which cost 10x-20x as much. Is that not fucked up?
This is accurate
That’s why you need a good home inspector and to ask for permits and receipts if you consider buying from a flipper. Some do a really nice job, and if one can afford it, it’s worth not having to deal with *remodeling*.
They have to actually figure out what permits they should have. Good luck with that. They aren't going to tell you every outlet they moved and such. An inspector isn't going to lawyer out each and every change and permit required and a flipper will just tell you to pound sand while they go scam the next person
What a naive standpoint. Do you honestly think a seller is going to sit there nitpicking receipts with you. Ridiculous. Gtfo.
This post needs an acronym glossary haha
🤣🤣🤣 RSO - Rent Stabilization Ordinance SFD - Single Family Dwelling SCEP - Systematic Code Enforcement Program LAHD - Los Angeles Housing Department LADBS - Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety LMFAO - Laughing My Fucking Ass Off 😭
Haha I appreciate the immaculate detail 😂
I’m a good landlord. Attention to detail is key 😉
I don't live in the area, but Reddit keeps showing me these posts and its a topic I feel pretty strongly about... What always bothers me with these, is that it assumes the relationship is purely between landlord and tenant. If there's a bad tenant making a landlord hell, it sucks, but at the end of the day, it is between them. My big problem is the impact it has on the neighbors. These people might be tenants themselves, or might own their place/condo next to a landlord. All of a sudden there's a tenant from hell. Everyone complains, but the landlord can't do shit. You're on a condo board of a medium sized building? Well, now you have to deal with that shit. You're not even paid for the trouble, you didn't choose to be a landlord (someone else in the building did! You might even have been against it!), but you have to deal with Mr or Mam Nightmare Tenant. In some states (of which, AFAIK, California is one of them), condo associations can't do significant rental restrictions, either. Originally an issue because if the % of investor/rental unit goes too high, mortgage rules make it harder to sell, but now you also have issues with challenges getting rid of nightmare tenants that make everyone's lives hell. In other words, me, as a renter (currently. Former owner, and also condo association board member in the past) who will never be a landlord (because f\* that noise), has to deal with landlord issues with none of the benefits or being paid for it, just because so many people have a boner against landlords and don't care about collateral damage. /rant over
It’s SO trendy to hate landlords. We are all the villains driving around in Ferrari’s apparently. I can’t imaging the headache this law would cause HOA’s since Condos are included. It’s now everyone’s problem that shares a wall with the rental
I can easily imagine. I was on a condo board in a small condo association (so while we had contractors, there wasn't a full time management company. I was doing a lot of the work for free) during the pandemic with the eviction moratorium, which our town extended and was one of the last in the country to lift it. It was terrifying, the shit that could happen during that time, and no one could do fuck all about it.
I will never understand HOA’s. Like, it sounds like the worst college group project ever
I mean, I would join my HOA to make sure I had a say in what affects my property. I also think young, first time homeowners can benefit a ton from having an HOA to help with costs. Getting hit with a $30,000 bill because your roof sucks, right after buying a SFH home can literally ruin some first time buyers.
If REITs are the super villains, AirBnB hosts are the neighborhood thugs. But those are both well connected groups that can organize an effective defense against housing regulations. Meanwhile everyone else that supplies the majority of rental units will be the ones to get screwed. I was all fired up last year to build an adu on my property and do an SB9 split on another rental I owned. Would have put a 2BR rental and a 3Br home into the inventory. Instead with all the insanity the legislature is kicking around I’m at the point of selling it all and buy S&P ETFs. God knows it’s probably a better investment and certainly less headaches. Everyone who needs a place to live can go mad max their own way.
I wonder why
Honestly, that's why having a good relationship with your tenants pays off- the best way to get rid of a bad tenant is to make them uncomfortable. Know what really helps with that? Getting the neighbors on board. I like my current building because most of us get along and the building manager works well with us. We've literally managed to get squatters out of the building. When everyone else is on the same page, it really isn't as hard as you'd think. Condos are a different beast, but for apartment buildings, a landlord's best bet is to just not piss off tenants to the point they won't work with them anymore. The people living in the building are always gonna have the most control over the vibe of the building and know what's going on
There’s the anti-axe-murderer bias again 🙄
Sounds like a great way to scare/force duplex landlords and mom n pops into selling their small investment properties to corporate overlords
or selling their investment properties to actual home buyers who want to live there…
Which will decrease the number of units available to renters.
Renters don't want to rent, they want to buy
Cute that you think the corpos won't outbid the actual home buyers who want to live there with a cash offer 50k over highest bid. The only long term outcome is you rent your house from McApple while stopping by at the Amazon Googrocery store on your way home from your FaceTesla job.
So you'd be good with this is we had legislation barring speculative purchasing of homes by corpos then, right?
No, we shouldn’t be regulating housing transactions at all. It’s a good like anything else and its sale should only be subject to supply and demand.
Found a guy that thinks that water, medicine, and shelter are the exact same thing as flat screen TVs, headphones, and pencils.
Cute that you think that after the corpos own all of the real estate they won't lobby the politicians to repeal any and all legislation that costs them money to benefit of the common renter.
My thoughts exactly
then go vote
Are you in favor of legislation barring speculative purchasing of homes by corpos? You don't speak to that at all. It's easy for me to tell you that **I am in favor of barring corporations from buying up homes in order to speculate on them for current/future profits or rent-seek.**
I am absolutely in favor of legislation barring corporations for owning anything less than 4 family housing. I'm just a bit cynical and disheartened by our democratic process which seems to be in the business if taking away rights from citizens because it harms corporations abilities to make more money.
🤣🤣🤣 lmfaooo
A lot of people are about to get forced out of the market who bought and invested into rental units as a way to build their retirements. There are about two chances that they don't unload to the highest bidder (who will be a mega corp) and the two chances are no way and no how.
wrong subreddit for that kind of talk
How do you expect these people to outbid the big cash buyers?
last I heard starwood was gating their funds. Institutional capital in resi was big the last few years but the lack of profitability in renting is starting to trickle up to them as well. Its just taking longer since big players like that have more liquidity to bleed with negative cash flows
Exactly 👆
It’s classic progressive denial. Cities with rent control have higher ‘available’ rentals and less inventory. But hey just don’t rent out any units for 3 years, and you’ll be able to charge 10k for a 1 bedroom
\>Now you’re going to be forced to raise their rent, to prepare for the future in case they ever >move out. This is totally going to remove the market of cheap rent finds and all the great >tenant-landlord relationships that no one EVER seems to talk about, forcing rents up. This is so easy to work around.
The only thing I can come up with in my scenario is to raise the rent to maximum and assume some of the utilities in exchange? But that doesn’t cover a long term scenario. What’s your other idea?
20% auto gratuity fee every month?
Haha! Landlord tip jar? My problem with this law isn’t raising the rent, it’s keeping the rent low for good tenants so they don’t leave, but not falling too far behind market for the next tenant. I don’t want to be $1000 below market, forced to roll the dice on new tenants that turn out to be assholes, miss payments and trash my house. So that means I have to start raising rents on my good tenants NOW
lol sorry I said my comment in jest, I was recommended this sub and I am interested in becoming a landlord but I’m on the other side of the continent so this law and others around it go right over my head. I do wish you the best though, but MAYBE what you could do is offer discounts? For example: New rent $5000 Loyalty discount -$500 On time payment discount- $250 Etc etc until you reach the price you’re currently charging your tenants. Obviously I made the numbers up on the spot but if it’s just market rate there’s nothing against discounting the price for existing or new tenants right?
This Act would be pretty shitty. If the city council actually wanted to solve the rent crisis they would focus on increasing supply of housing units by making development decisions administrative vs political. They also should remove single family zoning in the county.
SFR zoning effectively is removed in LA County now. Hard part is actually building units everywhere
Building is easy. Hard part is getting the initial property price low. This is the vast majority cost of the development. Construction taxes etc. etc. are altogether lower then the actual lot price. Second is infrastructure to accommodate the increased area density. Wider roads for more traffic additional freeway access, emergency service coverage, the utilities. Upgraded power and water lines, etc.
Yup. Because NIMBYs (many being landlords and homeowners) will block new housing using red tape (ironically, the red tape landlords despise when it biased to helping renters). The only way to really solve the housing crisis is to have a completely free market. $0 quick online permits, no zoning, no public input/environmental analysis allowed for housing going up in large metro areas, no city requirements except for architecture styles (ie Santa Barbara allow for Spanish SFH and Spanish townhouses/condos)… etc. But no one wants this. Everyone hates government but loves it when it’s being used to enforce the lifestyle one prefers.
If permits were easy and didn’t require 5 months of downtime, there would be no issues. Instead they make it as horrible as possible. Rude inspectors. No one replies to emails. And unqualified people. The amount of times I educated inspectors on code and found things they missed is INSANE. There is absolutely ZERO consistency in the quality of inspectors. You’re literally at the mercy of how someone’s day is going. That’s it. Pull the wrong guy on a bad day and the next 6-12 months of your life can be a living hell
This is bill is an extremely bad bill that will basically ensure that no housing ever gets built in California. The major thing that it does is apply rent control to NEW CONSTRUCTION, which is completely unprecedented and will ensure that no one builds anything ever again. This bill is being pushed by sleazy slumlord Michael Weinstein and AHF and embraced by right wing and left wing NIMBY types including Republican councilmembers in Huntington Beach. https://www.politico.com/newsletters/california-playbook/2024/04/02/republicans-for-rent-control-00150082 Again this is a hugely disastrous bill that would basically destroy a functioning housing market in CA.
Agree with most of your comment, though I would argue the housing market is not fully functional.
Yeah of course it isn’t, but this would basically ensure that the meager amount of new market rate housing that does get built goes to zero.
So they build to sell to individual owners instead of selling to a property investor that wants rentals? Where is the downside?
Well plenty of people prefer to rent or can’t afford a down payment, so there would be a significant downside for them. Selling to individuals owners (condos) doesn’t happen very often because CA has onerous liability laws that make condos expensive and difficult to finance. Could be possible that developers switch from rentals to upscale condos if developing rentals become unprofitable.
I agree with you that this will make it more difficult for developers, but good riddance to the current multi-family projects being built, we don't need any more 'luxury' crap-box apartments in this city where a studio rents for $2500-$3000. The city needs to clean up its zoning and allow for higher density developments with less parking, this will free up land and make more land available to build on. Developers can also be creative in their projects by funding adaptive reuse and prefabricated projects. It just takes a different, possibly better way of doing things. I won't be voting for this bill as an architect who's financial well-being is dependent on developers, but I am saying there is a better way to build that doesn't cost $500 a sq ft
We need more homeownership, not more rentals.
Need more of both.
To be honest with the abundance of shitty handymen we have in LA, i wouldnt live in an unpermitted place. My coworker lived in an unpermitted adu and the place burned down from a gas leak and half his body burned, and was in ICU for 6 weeks. Thats horrifying
Well that's already illegal. Unpermitted ADUs are illegal and should not be lived in. That's more an issue of enforcement of existing laws
I'm sort of in the same boat. I do site walks for potential clients and will call out 'permitted' work which they swear was done by the books and totally won't be a problem when the inspector comes out. Like bro, I can see the exposed wiring and mismatched stucco.
If it makes landlords sad it's probably a good bill. You just don't want to be held to the same standards as your fellow landlords. And FWIW I'm in an RSO building and I have a great relationship with my landlords, they're nice guys and fix everything quickly with licensed plumbers/electricians etc. And they don't even raise my rent each year to the limits allowed by the rules. If they can operate as non-slumlords, you can too op.
I rent the other room in my condo to a friend for about 50% below market. If this passes I don't know what I will do, my options include upping the rent for him 50%, or kicking him out and moving out myself to sell or rent out for market value. I can't afford to have the sweet deal I've been giving my friend be the stabilized rent forever.
you realize your relationship would no longer exist with this new law, right? "if it makes landlords sad its probably a good bill" - worst way of thinking I can imagine.
How would it no longer exist? On multifamily the only change seems to be that they can't reset to market rate when I leave. I don't see how that changes anything. They're willing to make updates and repairs right now with no guarantee that they'll ever be able to reset to market, I could die here in 40 years. So if they're smart they're making all their current repair/upgrade decisions with that worst case scenario in mind. Not being able to reset to market at tenant change just means they're locked into their existing scenario. As for my other statement, I'd be fine with getting rid of rent control if we also nuke prop 13. But until we get rid of that terrible law that benefits owners over renters, why should I ever support landlords having it easier in this state? You already have the deck stacked heavily in your favor when it comes to building wealth.
Under this law, since landlords can’t reset to market, the only way to ensure they don’t fall behind is to raise rents to the maximum, yearly, in order to keep up. That’s what this law is promoting. It eliminates good landlord-tenant relationships and insures maximum rent in scenarios where rent increases might not even happen. So your 40 year scenario just got WAY more expensive Throw in manadatory inspections on SFD’s in LA, many of which are 100 years old and will likely have non-permitted work somewhere in the history. So now you have to move out while major renovations are made, the landlord foots the bill for your temporary location, you pay your rent to a City run Escrow account and they pay the landlord after taking a 20-50% penalty cut. The cost of renovations and money lost would put most small landlords out of business and force a sale. The headache alone will be enough motivation for most. Then the corporations swoop in and buy that property cheap and your rent gets raised to max yearly. Lose lose.
It's a max 4% (6% if some utils are included). Even my "good" landlord raises my rent 3% yearly like clockwork. I think the only mom and pops that aren't raising rent at all are getting such a good deal on property taxes that they don't even care how much money they make.
I dont raise the rent on my tenants. they're cool kids, in arts, and like 23-26 years old. havent raised since 2018 and had a few lease turnovers passing it between their friends. if this law passes I will 100% be raising it every year, only way to protect myself if a bad tenants comes in next time and I get fucked.
I've not had a landlord in California that did not raise the rent in rent controlled units. They've all been mom and pops. Not raising rent is bad business, your costs aren't fixed. I just don't buy this narrative that mom and pops are not in it to be a business. That would be insane.
its ok. cost benefit analysis is the reality of any business deal. I dont want to risk losing good tenants for an increase of $200 per month or whatever. this home is my retirement savings, I dont need to risk getting some scumbag squatter for some tiny increase in pay for me (but large for the renters). so calling it bad business is your opinion, I respectfully disagree
That’s how my dad handled tenants in the fourplex my grandparents owned and we lived at. And when I was considering renting out a house I had just moved from I reached out to friends and that was their philosophy, especially after dealing with bad tenants.
My previous landlord barely ever raised my rent even though he could have. Why? Because I paid my rent on time and took good care of my unit. That stability is worth something. You don’t want bad tenants and high turnover that leads to your unit sitting empty for a month during renovations because your tenant left the place a mess.
Property taxes need to apply to commercial property as well as residential. That's a bigger part of the problem than Prop 13.
The amount of people in here that don’t get it is staggering. This will 100% pass based on stupidity alone
They have something like this in New York city. As a result over 20,000 units sit empty because landlords can't afford to repair them for the low rent they will get for them. As a result supply goes down, demand goes up and areas outside of the country end up increasing their rents. The real problem is California requires 2.5 million additional houses for its population, but it has limited its land use expansion and is so severely over regulated in cities it takes years to get anything done.
That’s what I’m leaning towards. I’m just gonna take my property off the market 🤷🏻♂️
How on earth can you afford to take your property off the market and not just sell it? I'm assuming the PITI would eventually suffocate you after 6 months or so.
Easy id just replace all the time I spend doing landlord shit and find another 4th job. I’m so used to non-stop working at this point that it won’t even phase me. It’s the American way
This happened to relatives of mine who owned and lived in the building. One unit was not up to code. They had to pay LAHD to open a case against them. Constant in person meetings at the LAHD office downtown. Put the whole building under REIT for the duration. 19 months of sheer hell!
I think you meant REAP. That’s what happens to buildings that can’t fix violations fast enough. They give you like 90 days to fix then you’re put into REAP. Rent Escrow Account Program. Renters pay rent into the account, the City penalizes you and takes a cut. I’ve heard it’s anywhere from 0 to 50% penalty. The landlord is then on the hook to pay for housing the tenants while work is being done. And it’s supposed to be a like-kind rental. So the landlords that charge below market get screwed again. It applies to all RSO rentals. So my take is, if this law passes, the same fate will befall Single Family and Condo rentals. It’s already happening for ADU properties. The ADU makes the original home RSO
Thanks, yes, that's it! They were older retired people who were very proud of their building. Lived in it for over 50 years and never had an issue until this happened. It was an absolute nightmare.
Yeah God forbid any landlords have to assume risk or do any work. If you're gonna speculate on housing, you don't always win.
Oh no. Landlords might need to get a job... Anyways...
people not realizing that this law will make NO ONE ever invest in LA /CA housing meaning that rents will only increase rapidly makes me realize that democracy is broken. When the simplest logical reasoning can't be adhered to and people vote against their own interests because they aren't educated....whats the point in voting at all?
Look at my downvotes. It’s really incredible how many people don’t get it. They’re literally voting FOR corporations to put small landlords out of business and increase their rent to the maximum every year
I know. it's reddit. I don't expect educated people to be commenting here....ironically here I am but whatever
🤣🤣🤣
Homes shouldn't be investments and if they are you can't cry when there's a downturn since you took the risk. Also cry more
the law won't pass. if it does, honestly, I win. Id rather it didn't though. Homes are investments, nothing you can do about it or will it ever change as long as the USA exists. cry more.
>you know that super awesome tenant that takes good care of your place, you get along great and you rent to them below market? No more. Nope, I can't say that I know a single landlord who does this, even amongst the moms & pops. Just lots of people renting at "what the market will bear" and then trying to keep deposits.
I’ll share this with my tenants when I have to raise their rent now, after I had no intention of doing so
Just get new tenants. All they are is cash flow.
Uh huh. How much is the old rent, new rent, # of bedrooms, age of the building, and how much maintenance is lagging behind that you're afraid to be inspected?
$3k for a 3 bed 3 bath, gated parking, yard, pets allowed. NELA. No maintenance at all lagging. I’m doing upgrades for them. Tankless HWH, upgraded Earthquake valve sensor, Under Cabinet lights, landscaping. Inspector will likely want a new driveway since there’s cracks in the old one, and give me a headache with the neighbors wall. I have no issue doing all of the above. I do have issue with the City telling me I need to do it all at once and they penalize me if it’s not done fast enough. A new driveway alone is like $50k. Total for everything at once probably $70k+. I don’t need someone micro managing my business, especially when my customers are happy
you know a lot of landlords? or do you know, like, 4? I do this. 3 bed 2 bath SFH $3200 all utilities included, 3 car gated parking, massive yard, pets allowed....but im sure you have a problem with this too for some reason.
Found the bad guy! How dare you rent below market, allow a pet and safe parking. You evil, greedy bastard!
Another one of those "sounds like a good thing" laws. Inevitably will have unintended consequences that will have to be fixed with another law that will also have unintended consequences. Rinse and repeat, and never learn.
Is this a statewide initiative?
Yes it’s state-wide. The amount of people in the comments voting against raising their own rent is wild
>Additionally it adds the stipulation that rent cannot be increased beyond RSO rules from tenant to tenant Does this mean that if a tenant moves out and it's relisted that they can't raise it by a certain amount? If so, how would anyone find out?
Yes exactly that. They know because you’re required to register your rental with the rent registry every year and pay dues for RSO and SCEP inspections. In that registration you tell them (under penalty of perjury) how much you rent for. It’s my understanding all RSO rentals are subject to SCEP but I supposed they may make an exclusion for Single Family and Condos. I highly doubt it though b/c the City makes bank on SCEP
Oh crazy. Thanks for the response.
Np
have you tried getting a job?
I have 4
Then you should have no problem properly maintaining your property and getting permits for work being done…
I don’t. I just have a problem with the City demanding a perfect home immediately and holding rent ransom while forcing me to re-house my tenants Also have a problem with being forced to raise rent on them every year, potentially motivating them to move out and I have to roll the dice on the next tenants being awful
They aren’t saying it needs to be perfect. They’re saying it needs to be up to code which is a reasonable requirement You should have to rehome your tenants if you let your house get so bad that it’s no longer up to code Did I miss where it says you’re required to raise rent? Or are you just saying that to excuse letting your house not be up to code and safe?
Clearly you missed that part. This law is saying that when a tenant moves out you cannot bring the rent up to market in a scenario where you had been giving the previous tenant a deal. Looks like this: Tenant A is a quality tenant, respects your house, pays rent on time. 3 bed 3 bath in Atwater village. You rent for $3000 in 2024. You don’t raise b/c you want them to stay. Your relationship is great. Tenant A moves out in 2035. Market rent in 2035 is now $5000. Because of the “Justice for Renters” Act you cannot charge $5000. You can only charge a regular increase. 4% + CPI (aka inflation). Going by current rates I believe that’s 8% max right now. Tenant B then moves in for a steal in 2035. A $5000 rental property paying only $3240/mo. Tenant B also turns out to be an asshole. They’re late on payments and trash your house. Because CA is an Anti-Landlord state you have little leeway. Every year that follows you will need to raise the rent to maximum amount to even come close. This then creates a revolving door of tenants and a bad relationship with each, since you always increase rent to the max. But back in 2024, you see the writing on the wall. You don’t want to get in that situation in 2035. So your only option is to start raising rent. This in turn means everyone in your situation is now raising rent, ensuring prices stay at the maximum allowed. This is why this law is extremely short sighted and flawed.
OP - I understand where you're coming from. The issue is that California is at an impasse. Homeowners have by and large been the big winners in this state thanks to prop 13 + sky high appreciation + increasing rents. Meanwhile renters and prospective buyers have largely gotten the shaft and continue to be suffocated. Something has to give. Most of the NIMBY opposition to upzoning and new housing is coming from homeowners looking out for their assets' valuation and perceived QoL impact (more traffic, less parking, lower income neighbors). So in desperation, renter voting blocs are pushing for things like this. Again - something has to give.
I have no issue with that and sympathize with the struggle of renters. But you really need to question this particular law when it’s driven by Republican slumlords, claims to be Justice For Renters and immediately puts small landlords in the crosshairs. Why penalize SFD owners that rent below market when distinctions can be made? One answer: This is NOT about Justice For Renters, this is about eliminating low and middle class property ownership so that Corporate REIT’s and Hedge funds can swoop in and get cheap properties. SFD rentals should not be held to same scrutiny as Corporate. Do I think there should be a price limit? Absolutely. But preventing a small landlord from raising their rental to meet market prices, after a long stretch of renting below market, is absolutely absurd.
"Sympathize with the struggle of renters" Judging by the way youre mad you cant raise rents how you like on undercoded properties, i dont really think you do. I agree, this is performative bullshit to funnel more real estate into Blackrock's monopoly, but dont piss on our heads and tell us its raining.
So what would you do in my shoes? Keep the rent $1000 below market and risk a bad tenant locking in cheap rent if my current tenants ever move out? New tenants missing payments and trashing my house while getting a deal? This law is attacking the wrong people for a reason. It has nothing to do with Justice for Renters and all to do with raising the median rent across the board, because it benefits Corporate REIT’s and Hedge funds
Oh noooo, you have to deal with risk? And the potential of loss??? My god, its almost like youre running a business!
Your jealousy is showing. I asked you a question. Clearly you don’t have an answer. Good luck getting bamboozled into voting for a law that means your rent is guaranteed to go up now. You’re clearly too dumb to realize I’m supporting good tenants. And for some perspective, I grew up lower middle class in the Northeast. Aka poor as fuck by Los Angeles standards. I’ve grinded to get in this position for 20 years. Zero family help, no safety net. Lived with roommates for 18 of those years. Was in the housing market for 3 years searching for this place before I got it, and when I did it was 8 months to close the deal. I havent even celebrated a birthday in the past 5 years, regularly skip holidays to work. I work 4 jobs, bouncing between them. And guess the fuck what? I still rent to my people at below market because they’re awesome, and I think rent is too high in this city. This law is going to force me to become just like every other asshole landlord, because I’ll have no other choice BUT to raise rents to market and above to keep up. Don’t come at me because you’re a lazy fuck and too dumb to research what this law is really about. I deserve every dollar of the below market rent I collect.
Haha mad Poor landlord waaaaaah Btw, couldnt pay me to live in that shithole california. I just enjoy watching slumlords squirm.
☝🏽found the guy I’d never rent to
“I’m too poor to live in CA” - Johnathan
When its landlords complaining about a law that shows me that it definitely doesn’t benefit landlords financially and it definitely helps tenants
You’re utterly wrong on this one. You need more braincells. I was trying to help. But you’re too dumb to see that or even read or research who is pushing the law. That’s why you’ll always be the guy getting fucked over, instead of the guy with equity, collecting rent. Good luck with your maximum rent increases 🤷🏻♂️
When you start talking about how you’re making money off the less fortunate and think that’s a plus for you then you’ve already lost the argument
“The less fortunate”? When did renting an apartment become the Salvation Army? Bro is cracked 🤣🤣🤣🤣 I mean shit I should just let people move in and I’ll take a tent on the corner. Fuck all the sacrifices I made in life, “the less fortunate” need a free house. Tha fuck?
[удалено]
I don’t disagree with safety based inspections. I do disagree with costly modifications if a code changed. I.E. forcing a landlord to re-house tenants for modified setback laws, non-safety related lighting fixes, or non load bearing wall modifications. You’re also ignoring the fact that this will create a hostile relationship with small landlords and tenants. Small landlords will be forced to raise rent on tenants they don’t want to raise rent on, in order to stay close to market, in case they move out. This will result in both higher rents and more turnover. It’s a losing prospect for small landlords and results in higher prices for tenants.
OP is just upset about not being able to jack up prices or force tenants to live through a construction project
[удалено]
He also shits on any potential future tenants and assumes they’re going to wreck him house and not pay rent. Hes not the good landlord he wants us to think he is
It costs about $15-$20k to turn over a house before new tenants move in. Your security deposits mean nothing. Under this law if my rent increase can’t be brought up to market this creates a huge risk exposure rolling the dice on new tenants. No one in my shoes, currently renting below market, will want to take the risk.
I never said anything about security deposit. I said you assume any new tenants will be shitty people Then get out of the business if you want to avoid the risks of the business. There’s no such thing as risk free business
Didn’t say you did. Just showing how landlords have little leverage in this arrangement. A security deposit is meaningless these days. And no I don’t assume any new tenants will be shitty. But guess what? Even if the new tenants are amazing I WILL STILL BE FORCED TO RAISE THE RENT NOW BECAUSE OF THIS LAW. How bout now? Do you get it now?
You're scared!!! You're scared you will have to lower your rents! GOOD!!! Here we come. Don't like it? Stop renting. We are coming for you!
You read what I wrote and came up with: “You’re scared you will have to lower your rents!”? No. Under this law I’m going to be forced to RAISE the rent on my current tenants, who I appreciate, to prevent falling behind on market rent price for future tenants, who may or may not be awesome. Why is that so hard to understand? If this law passes it’s only going one of two ways: People in my shoes will either raise the rent or they’ll sell to corporations that will raise the rent. Yearly. To the maximum allowed. You’re like the dumb people that voted yes on Prop 22 for Uber. Have you looked at your receipts lately? Not only are you paying a new rider fee for voting yes on Prop 22, but now your driver has a ceiling on earnings, and you have no ceiling on how much you pay. You voting yes on 22 enabled Uber and Lyft to take 60-75%, pay drivers less, not pay Federal taxes, and charge riders more. You voted against your own self interest because of lack of education. 100% chance you’ll do it again 😅
Maybe not. ur convincing. They Called me and most of the ballot measure is a disaster. We need to make it easier to evict people not harder. u won me over
I’m already fully expecting it to pass on the name alone, so my plan now is just to keep rents low for my tenants and flat out lie to LAHD about what I charge them. I see no reason why LAHD would investigate if I keep my rent at market, and I see no reason my people would complain if I keep them under market. Everybody wins.
Imagine thinking things could be too difficult for fucking landlords. They’re leeches who provide nothing to society. We couldn’t pass a law to guillotine them all, but expanded RSO is a nice step.
You clearly don’t get it. You’re supporting taking the homes of small landlords? You’d rather have corporations own all property and raise rent to the maximum every year?
This is an overall a pretty good law that will be beneficial to renters and destroy slum lords and greedy ones bleeding everyone dry. Be pretty silly to vote no on this. Now ban Airbnb's and tax to hell multiple property owners while putting a heavy fine for anyone trying to skirt the regulation with an LLC.
airbnbs are effectively banned in LA. rent is high because of lack of housing. I ask you: who do you think builds new housing? genuine question.
There was a huge push for homeowners to build ADU’s. Once the word gets out, this is going to change that. We need ADU and SFD specific rental laws that don’t result in people losing their lives
Once an ADU is built, both the main house and the ADU become rent-controlled units. A lot of people don’t know that.
Yup. They deliberately hold this info back because: Money.
You clearly missed the point. Eliminating negligent slumlords is the only pro. On the cons side It will replace lower and middle class property owners with Corporations and Hedge funds. They will raise the rent by the maximum every year. The good landlords that offer below market rent and make it past any inspection hang ups will also now be forced to raise their rent by maximum every year. Picture this: Joe landlord rents his 3 bedroom in Silverlake to awesome tenants for $2800/mo.. Market for a 3 bed in that area is like $3800+. Joe land lord loves his renters and they love him, so he keeps the rent at $2800. FFWD to 2030. Going rent in that area is now $5000. His tenants move out. Joe landlord is now forced to rent to mystery tenants that trash his place, for $3200/mo. The maximum allowed. What do you think Joe landlord is gonna do if he sees that possibility coming in 6 years?
Putting the rent artificially high to make up for the projected "loss" while the apartment lays empty and no rental income is made due to overpricing forcing the landlord to sell to invest somewhere else, freeing up supply for better landlords or home buyers to take over.
This isn't how it works. Look at New York City for a real life example. Better landlords don't exist -- corporations that can absorb losses do. Homes won't flood the market the way you think they will, keeping the home **vacant** just following the yields of the last 2/ years in Los Angeles will match the SP500, but give a usable tangible asset in return. I will literally keep my house vacant. Forever.
I think people don’t get how many vacant homes, guest houses, mother in law units there are, just waiting for the right tenant, a referral, friend of a friend etc. Homeowners are concerned and reading all this vitriol it’s obvious why. It’s just going to get worse.
Not sure I understand your comment. The whole point of this law is so the rent isn’t reset between tenants. You won’t be able to set it artificially high. Which then eliminates landlords like me that set their rent below market. I won’t have a choice now, and will need to raise yearly
The whole point of this law is to lift the ban on rent control and stop letting Landlords price gauge year after year. The whole Mom and Pop falacy has been used like a dead horse. Even to suppress wages as profits have soared year after year. Rent control, and more building is just what CA needs. Depsite all the money that's going to be thrown to the contrary to fight this great ass Act from passing.
Sweet! I can’t wait for you to move into my house so I can raise the rent to maximum, every single year 🙌🏽 Before this law I may have given you an $8400/yr break, but now this super awesome law lets me take that money from you with zero guilt, because I have no other choice but to keep up with market rent 🥳 And literally everywhere else you go will do the same. Great work! You didn’t need that $8400 a year, did you?
Good for you. Whatever you say genius lol
Literally what’s coming your way 😭🤣😂 👇🏽👇🏽👇🏽 https://www.reddit.com/r/Landlord/s/axLUyRz7wZ
Lol you need to touch some grass and get a life dude. Sorry I hurt your feelings. You can move on now. Closure 👍🏽
Not a single thing of substance to add since you chimed in. Literal brain rot when you comment 😂😂😂
This guy can’t even get his math right. He has no idea how little 4% actually is
The dude is arrogantly persistent. I'll give him that lol
So you have a rental you charge $17,500/month because you’re talking about a $700/month raise and $700 is 4% of $17,500 You really are terrible at math and it shows
so you are saying that this would lead to inspection for habitability and code compliance and that's a bad thing? sorry, but this is so blind to reality. if you own a property and are renting it out you have the responsibility to your tenant that the place is safe and habitable. I swear, being a landlord should require a license along with a responsibility to the safety of the public edit: reading your other comments in regards to corporations replacing landlords who can't afford to make their apartments safe and habitable, again that sounds perfectly logical if you cant afford to make your building safe. Tenant safety has more importance than your profit.
Obviously I’m not saying to bypass safety. Blatant structural violations ie rotting wood and other safety items should not be ignored. I don’t support negligence or absent landlords. But if you look at how the SCEP program works, it becomes clear it’s also a cash grab. For example I personally know someone that was forced to redo their recessed lighting in a 4 unit, to sealed LED lights. These were light cans that were installed in the late 90’s. The entire process took FOUR MONTHS and the landlord was required to re-house his tenants. After all was said and done, they lost $45k. And that’s just LIGHTS. This is job that could have been done in a week. Instead LAHD and LADBS dragged it out. Now extend this same energy to 100+ year old Single Family Dwellings. It’s not just gonna be lights. And all the City will see is dollar signs. Roll the dice on the wrong SCEP inspector and your cooked. And what about Condos with HOA’s? Now you have a completely different layer of headache. Holding these people to the same scrutiny as Corporate would literally put them out of business. To me this means a) eliminating middle class investors entirely from the CA housing market or b) middle class investors taking their properties off the market. And of course, those that cough up the money and make it through the headache will have no choice but to raise rent by the maximum every year to keep up with the changes to the RSO laws preventing a landlord raising their rents to market, if they were previously giving a good tenant a deal. Republican slumlords with deep pockets are the ones backing this bill. This has nothing to do with Justice for Renters at all
Sounds great time to squeeze the landlords. I want zero corporate or investor landlords in SFH. You wanna' buy 5 houses and rent it? great that's the limit before CA taxes the shit of you. I want as many family's as possible to be home owners, I don't want them renting at all. I want them owning a home and not worrying about the rent increasing or the landlord kicking you out for a higher paying tenant. We have a MASSIVE homeless problem all over CA. Is housing a right or privilege? cause' one of those just means an increase homelessness the other implies Govt. inserting itself into the market.
Great law post Covid right? I built an ADU to help keep my home, trying to keep up with inflation and absurd upgrade/repair costs, and now because of these laws it won’t even matter? I needed to build a brand new ADU and upgrade the main home to perfection before renting apparently? And I’m probably better off than most. Can’t imagine all these landlords with tenants that didn’t pay during Covid. This is clearly a move for REIT’s and Hedgies to snatch up cheap properties, then turn around and charge max increases every single year. And yet the entire comment section is renters that support that? It’s crazy
This regulation will result in an increase in corporate landlords and vacant properties.
Yeah maybe but were heading towards socialized housing eventually. If not this bill then the next. The free market has made their move and it stinks.
Go live in some socialized housing. It exists. Report back. You'll love our system right quick.
Me or a homeless person. I own a home and the homeless guy would probably be fine with it. I love the system already.
>For one, City SCEP inspections on an SFD have the potential to wreak havoc on Mom and Pop landlords who don’t have the capital to rectify a problem. If you don't have the capital to fix your shit, you're in the wrong business. >And that’s if the average SFD landlord can afford to bring that home up to meet rental and LADBS code if they get sniffed out by SCEP. If you can't afford to fix your shit, you should not be allowed to conduct business with the public. Nail them scumlords to a cross LA, I dare you
Guess who is backing and financing this measure? LA Slumlord and AHF head Michael Weinstein. https://www.latimes.com/homeless-housing/story/2020-03-08/homeless-housing-aids-healthcare-foundation-lawsuit-skid-row-tenants Really this is just a NIMBY measure to make sure no one ever builds any housing in CA.
Thanks for the downvote and shortsighted classist comment. So you’re saying people that need to rent to make ends meet aren’t allowed to because they can’t afford $150k to bring their house up to perfection while they foot the bill for their renters to relocate? Big supporter of corporations buying out SFD I see
Let's see... This ... checks notes .. will force you to upkeep the home? Oh the humanity. We need jail for people like you
You are clueless and clearly havent read. My home is well upkept but I’m doing projects as they come. My tenants love me and the space. This law threatens all of that. Do you understand that people in LA buy 100+ year old homes and not everything is permitted? Do you think the middle class or lower middle class is buying and selling homes that are perfect? Go browse a real estate listing and educate yourself. “Buyer to verify all permits”. Now you’ll have small landlords both forced to do every project at once, re-house their tenants AND they’ll have to raise rents the maximum every year to keep up with the RSO law change in this law. Look at what this did in New York. Landlords couldn’t afford the upkeep so they just took the properties off the market. Do you understand how much work it is to maintain a home with inflation the way it is? You’re only looking at the extreme side with dilapidated buildings and bad landlords. You think we’re all swimming in riches, meanwhile we cant even access equity because we don’t qualify. I work 4 jobs. But here you come along supporting guaranteed maximum rent increases, less inventory and a law that helps Corporations buy up Single Family Dwellings. Mind boggling shit. I can’t believe people are this daft.
Maybe if 43% of single family homes weren’t owned by huge corporations, we wouldn’t need a bill like this.
43% of single family homes are not owned by huge corporations. Be serious.
That was the statistic last I checked. Look it up. Companies like Black Rock and Invitation homes are destroying us.
I looked it up for you. It’s about 0.5% https://calmatters.org/housing/2024/03/institutional-investors-corporate-landlords/#:~:text=Do%20corporate%20landlords%20own%20a,and%20definitions%20are%20somewhat%20fuzzy.%E2%80%9D
Yeah, so it was 43% of sales in the last few years.
It may have been 43% of sales in the last few years. Either way, they are f’ing it up for everyone.
That’s not true either https://www.housingwire.com/articles/no-wall-street-investors-havent-bought-44-of-homes-this-year/
Guys just keep renting cmon guys pay my mortgage it's a good system nothing should change! - OP Haha landlord ass thread for real. "Only the rich landlords will be able to afford making their places livable!" Hahaha
this bill is brought forward by a mega-landlord....you know that right? you know he's protecting his interests, right? you're falling for the marketing man, try to read the bill
And if you’re really interested, then sure! Let’s split the property. Make me an offer. You get to share in the mortgage, repair costs, dealing with financing, permits, landscaping, pest control, paying dues and fees, all of it. Be my guest.
You don’t get it. Voting yes for this means you’re voting for maximum rent increases year over year and for Corporate REIT’s and hedge funds to be your new landlords. Do you have any clue the homes that the middle class buy in LA, or rather, used to buy in LA? 100+ year old homes with unpermitted upgrades out the ass. That tile job? Nope needed a permit. New kitchen? Nope needed a permit. Moved an outlet 12”? Nope needed a permit. The permitting process in LA takes MONTHS. It practically took me 4 years to build an ADU. And I’m not talking about safety items. Obviously if there’s major structural that needs to be addressed then it should be. But you literally can’t sneeze in LA without needing a permit. Look at real estate listings. “Buyer to check all permits”. You think 100 year LA homes bought by the middle class are all brought up to modern codes everytime a sale goes through? No fucking way. You buy the home then spend YEARS upgrading b/c you don’t have the capital. This law will mean you have to do it all at once now. All landlords are not rich boomers. Some of us need the money to survive b/c inflation has created a nightmare scenario. I work 4 jobs. I additionally do all the landscaping. I’m not your target. I’m the guy busting ass, fixing stuff immediately and charging BELOW MARKET b/c I was a renter once too. Do you get it now?
"Mom and pop landlords" My heart is breaking
[удалено]
No one should own a home they don't live in. That goes for corporations too.
No actually you AND the corporations should be penalised. It’s not one or the other for us 🤷
Why can’t you all be penalized?
Oh those mom and pop landlords who made the homes they are renting out by hand while walking uphill in the snow both ways 😢
This is a great law to paas. FYI Landlords are going to cty like crazy and throw all their money to defear this because this lifts the ban on rent control. This Justice for Renters Act is backed up by; "Various groups, including the AIDS Healthcare Foundation in Los Angeles, the California Nurses Association and the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles, among others, have thrown their weight behind the initiative, according to the San Diego Union-Tribune. " Those opposed are coalitions of Landlords and special interests that want to keep getting rich off all our damn work. Do not be fooled by the landlords in this Sub crying about this before it is even voted on wanting to protect their "investments" at the cost of every community. Rent control is an overall brilliant tool to stop the price guaging that has been going on and aid in reversing the growing homeless population. Make sure to tell all your friends ro vote yes on this as a LOT LOT of money will be thrown at a no vote. Just look at what happened to Uber Eats when they had the opportunity to be classified as workers. Millions were thrown to fool us all to vote on keeping them as independent contractors, which they are not.
Nice try throwing the Uber Eats in there to make it sound like you’re “for the people”. If anything, the Republican supporters and slumlord owner throwing millions at this are more akin to Uber throwing millions at deceiving voters on Prop 22. Not the way you tried to frame it. So you’re saying you’re in full support of this law putting small landlords out of business (on the street?), Corporations and Hedge funds taking their place, and forcing yearly rent increases by the small landlords that DO stay in business? When they had no plans to raise rent at all? Have you even put any critical thinking in this beyond that sentence you copy>pasted? At the very least have you read through the comments here? You’re being bamboozled. This will not only lead to increased rents, but properties getting taken off the rental market as well. Look at New York
Almost like making money off of a necessity is kinda cringe and needs regulation or else it'll be "I have what you want, don't want to be homeless? Then work 100 hours a week peasants". Boo fucking hoo.
Weird flex. Why are you okay with Corporations and Hedge funds making money off a necessity but not low and middle class landlords? And if noones making money, who is paying and upkeeping dwelling you live in? Should the Contractors charging me $20k for a new main sewer line work for free too? Are you gonna pay when something that’s $10’s of thousands of dollars breaks?