Thanks for the article. I don't see how it's much different than a lottery. When I was reading it, I thought, ok, this is just standard rent control, which logic tells us cannot last. Then sure enough I see the statement "The rent stabilization ordinance covers apartments occupied on or before July 1, 1979." So the only beneficiaries of the system were the lucky ones who got in before the public realized that the system could not last. Everyone else now works harder to pay a portion of their rent, just like how lottery ticket buyers pay for the winners. What am I missing?
The piece you are missing is the fact that the majority of residential rental dwellings are older than 1979 in LA. It would not surprise me if that was the case in Seattle too, despite the new construction and conversions. You don't have to be lucky, just shrewd and observant.
With a few years hiatus, the ordinance has been in effect since 1979. You are right about it not lasting. When the last dwelling first occupied after 1979 is torn down, that's when it will end. That won't be for quite some time, earthquakes notwithstanding. In that case, those who are left will ALL start from scratch.
The piece you are missing is the fact that the majority of residential rental dwellings are older than 1979 in LA.
Ah so, I assumed that once the person who rented since 1979 moved out, the dwelling is no longer subject to rent control. So I take it that when the tenant moves out, the landlord can charge what the market will bear, but thereafter cannot raise the rent beyond the percentage set by the ordinance.
That's correct Markor. So, this is not at all like most other cities have done it.
Once you move in, rent increases are predictable, and dare I say FAIR. They are based upon the CPI for LA in the previous year. If the CPI is ever negative, rents do not go down, but they don't get any raise that year either. No one sez that rents MUST go up every year either, but if they must, it must be based upon the adjusted CPI for the area.
That's correct Markor. So, this is not at all like most other cities have done it.
Once you move in, rent increases are predictable, and dare I say FAIR. They are based upon the CPI for LA in the previous year. If the CPI is ever negative, rents do not go down, but they don't get any raise that year either. No one sez that rents MUST go up every year either, but if they must, it must be based upon the adjusted CPI for the area.
It goes agains my "keep the government out of the relationship" paradigm, but that is a good compromise.
I will soapbox for a second: My problem with all these laws is that the constitution's foundation is "individual" rights. That is, every person, individually, has the rights God gave him except for those specifically called out in the Constitution and BOR in which the government may intervene. I make a big deal about the "individual" aspect because it is also the foundational principle upon which Christianity is based: the one-to-one relationship between any man and God, his father.
Why do I mention this? Because one of the ways this is unfair is that one tool landlords use to deal with "problem" or "high maintenence" tenants is to jack up their rent. It happens. It is like one of the cell companies that, last year, picked a call-center threshold. Any customer that made more than "X" minutes of calls to the help desk was cancelled without a penalty and politely asked to use a different carrier. A landlord can take the same kind of tennant and just jack up the rent accordingly.
I've seen both bad landlords and bad tennants. Both sides need protection.
Comments
The piece you are missing is the fact that the majority of residential rental dwellings are older than 1979 in LA. It would not surprise me if that was the case in Seattle too, despite the new construction and conversions. You don't have to be lucky, just shrewd and observant.
With a few years hiatus, the ordinance has been in effect since 1979. You are right about it not lasting. When the last dwelling first occupied after 1979 is torn down, that's when it will end. That won't be for quite some time, earthquakes notwithstanding. In that case, those who are left will ALL start from scratch.
Once you move in, rent increases are predictable, and dare I say FAIR. They are based upon the CPI for LA in the previous year. If the CPI is ever negative, rents do not go down, but they don't get any raise that year either. No one sez that rents MUST go up every year either, but if they must, it must be based upon the adjusted CPI for the area.
I will soapbox for a second: My problem with all these laws is that the constitution's foundation is "individual" rights. That is, every person, individually, has the rights God gave him except for those specifically called out in the Constitution and BOR in which the government may intervene. I make a big deal about the "individual" aspect because it is also the foundational principle upon which Christianity is based: the one-to-one relationship between any man and God, his father.
Why do I mention this? Because one of the ways this is unfair is that one tool landlords use to deal with "problem" or "high maintenence" tenants is to jack up their rent. It happens. It is like one of the cell companies that, last year, picked a call-center threshold. Any customer that made more than "X" minutes of calls to the help desk was cancelled without a penalty and politely asked to use a different carrier. A landlord can take the same kind of tennant and just jack up the rent accordingly.
I've seen both bad landlords and bad tennants. Both sides need protection.