UCLA Students Take Over Building in Protest of Fee Increase Vote
Jason Segel Sings His Phone Number at the Swell Season Last Night
BART Cop Murder Trial to Move to Downtown L.A., Lawyer Predicts More L.A. Riots
-thumb-110x110-459458.jpg)
Bouchon Amuses Our Bouches
Midnight Movie: VICE Explores LA's Hidden Urban Oil Wells
Just in time for spring, the LA Times is reporting on something I think would just go marvelously with that recession you've been looking at:
Proposal aims to undo rent control laws
Before we go any further, jut let that sink in. How pleasantly banal it sounds. Like "Proposal aims to change terms of your relationship from monogamous to yerdumped," or "Proposal Aims to replace your sweet Graphic Design Job with minimum wage position at Wal*Mart." Which is to say, it's a Very Bad Idea that's going to hurt a Lot Of People while at the same time Totally Screwing Them. Which I have to respect because that's really hard to pull off.
More than 100 owners and operators of apartment buildings and mobile home parks spent nearly $2 million to put an initiative on the June 3 ballot to phase out California's rent control laws. About 1.2 million people statewide are covered by such laws.Los Angeles, which has 626,600 rent-controlled residential units, could be affected more than any other city if the measure passes.
Well that's retarded. How did so few people get something on the ballot that's so bad for so many other people?
Proponents tout the measure as one that would limit government's use of eminent domain, preventing the taking of private property for private development. Although that is the first provision of the measure, it goes on to phase out rent control. Opponents have dubbed the measure the "Hidden Agenda Scheme," in part because rent control is not mentioned in the ballot title.
See folks, see?!? This is why you should NEVER sign those sinister grocery store petitions. Get a card, go to the website. Read for yourself. They're always full of secret crap like this. My Girlf and I were coming out of Vons a few months back and we were almost swayed by the reform and clarification of Eminent Domain when we noticed the fine print, which stated, as you can see, that reforming ED somehow involves revoking the rights of people who aren't rich to live within their means.
People seem to think rent control is a scam designed to allow mythical lazy people to shirk their responsibilities by never having to pay "fair" market rent values. Those same people are also laboring under the delusion that rents and real estate prices are rational and based on actual demand. I think that's cute, like when you meet a 13 year old who still believes in Santa. The rest of us know that the price of Real Estate, much like Air Jordans, is as artificial as the "grass" at the Rose Bowl. It's driven more by status envy, hysterical mob mentality and a wretchedly corrupt, unregulated barter system than anything else, and those of us who've lived in LA during the last decade know that rent control is the only reason it's still possible for anyone whose last name isn't Kardashian to live here. And even that almost isn't enough.
My Girlfriend used to live in Echo Park, right down the street from Brite Spot, Sea Level, Little Joy, Downbeat Cafe, and the lake itself. It was really neat neighborhood, right? Also, during the years they lived there, someone once got themselves shot by gangsters in front of her house and bled to death in the yard next door. Some other random guy got shot and killed a block over. One of the windows in her house was shot out by random bullets, the origin of which we still haven't figured out. At least once a week we were woken up by extremely low flying police copters zooming through the neighborhood, looking for lowlifes. Drug lookouts hung ominously on the nearest corner and their dealers literally gave curbside service, after 2 AM of course. And did I mention this was disputed territory in a low temperature gang war?
Naturally, her landlord was able to sell the place for almost 700 Grand. So you tell me, is Real Estate rational?
I'm going to say no. And if it isn't rational, then why should people be subjected to its caprice as though it were? Fact is, LA's rent control policy was the only thing standing between my girlfriend, who makes what would be a very decent living in any other city, and homelessness. These policies prevented the new landlords from kicking her out as soon as they assumed ownership, and jacking up the rents to levels comparable to the neighbors. They prevented the new Landies from evicting her without reasonable warning. And they forced them to pay a relocation fee that literally made it possible for her to find a new place, one I might add is more expensive, significantly smaller, and much farther away.
That's the 'ucked up thing about gentrification in LA; we're getting everything that sucks about the gentrification process - extortionate rents, the majority of local residents priced forever out of home ownership, formerly wonderful neighborhoods filled to the brim with rich tools, local culture destroyed by upscale chain clone entities, rising homelessness - but none of the supposed benefits. Gentrified neighborhoods remain high crime, run down, economically stratified, violent urban shitholes, only now you're paying through the nose for the privilege of living in them. And this, apparently, is the Free Market in action.
Rent Control is one of the few things that barely, and I want to emphasize "barely," keeps this lamentable and inequitable process in check. And now the people who have the most to gain from turning LA into San Fraqncisco's southern annex, (no offense to SF of course - I *LOVE* SF - I just wish it hadn't become so difficult for ordinary people to afford to live there. Seriously, I LOVE it there...) are trying to trick us into letting them do it.
I don't know how much of a chance this will have once the facts are out. Then again, California fell for the recall scam, so I'm not relaxing about this until the day it fails.
Go and read the rest, but when you're done, come back and let's talk about it. Do you think we need to repeal rent control (and if so, do you know how big of a dick you are?) Are you currently benefiting from Rent Control? And if you think Rent Control should be reformed, how would you prevent the sort of reverse urban blight that so adversely affected my beloved San Francisco?
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Perhaps if the new land lord were able to kick out tenants and raise rents, then the neighborhood quality would increase given that most of the gangsters would have to actual work to afford the rent?
Many people would argue that the very thing you're bitching about--bad neighborhoods--is the direct result of rent control. So getting rid of rent control would likely result in better neighborhoods.
The fact of the matter is there are millions of people who desire to live in this "wonderful" city of Los Angeles. Strong demand results in increasing prices.
Imagine if the majority of available residences were under rent control. There would be an immediate shortage of available units and the non-rent control units would be much higher priced than before. This system would result in many people going without a home so that a lucky few can enjoy cheap rent.
It doesn't sound like you understand the economics of the situation.
Also, the thought that everyone should own their own home is a uniquely American concept. Only in America does the government cut so many breaks to homeowners. You are not entitled to home ownership.
Do you think everyone should be able to afford to live in California? Ok, well if everyone did move here, what would ensure there were enough homes to go around? Right now, that natural mechanism is price, allocating homes to the person that pays the most for them. This ensures natural efficiency so that if you really want the home, you can get it, you just have to earn it.
Do you want to earn your place to live or do you expect the government to give it to you under the short-sighted scheme of rent control? Rent control is great, for the winners, not so much for the losers since there will never be enough homes to go around. Ask yourself, who doesn't want to live in a rent controlled home in Southern California?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Ron Paul-style douche.
Thanks for the compliment, torrmoz.
What's your answer?
If you characterize Los Angeles as "wonderful" (in quotes), it means one of two things:
a) You are one of those people who don't understand the use of quotation marks. You think you're saying Los Angeles is really wonderful. You're an idiot.
b) You are being sarcastic, which would mean that you DO understand the correct use of quotation marks and you mean that Los Angeles sucks. You should stop reading this site and move to "wonderful" Texas where more people will agree with your "wonderful" point of view.
Though you have some points, you also ignore that rent control allows artists and free thinkers to populate our city, making it more desirable to the gentrifiers. Further, so what if the rest of the world doesn't have the same ideas about home ownership? We're living in America where that dream is the dominant paradigm.
RF:
First of all, home ownership has nothing to do with this issue. You are building a Wicker Man.
Secondly, according to a standard family budget, rent is supposed to total 25 percent of your net income. For most people in LA, rent is already more than half, if not two-thirds of their income.
It is not only "gang-bangers" who have trouble paying 1500 a month for rent (or the free-thinkers). It is the backbone of the community. If only rich people can afford to live in Los Angeles, who is going to perform the lower-wage jobs in the community? This is a sprawling megalopolis. We can't just bus them in like Bel Air can.
Or did you want to start paying the people who clean your toilets and cook your Big Macs a living wage?
The irony is how the original article extols the greatness of LA yet complains about all the issues, hence the quotes. Not that my grammatical usage impacts my point, but since you asked.
Even if I was being sarcastic, I'm happy living here and could probably be happy living just about anywhere else, too. So if prices get too out of control, I'll take my artistic work outside of LA and rely more on the internet.
To say I'm ignoring rent control allowing artists to move into the city would also mean that you're saying rent control prevents hard working blue-collar individuals from populating the city, since the rent control places are all taken by the artists.
The reality is that someone loses. Is it better to have the government artificially impose lower prices or is it better to pay artists more for their work so they can afford market rent? I'd argue the latter. Similarly, should teachers be paid more or receive a special rental tax break so they can afford market rent, or should we impose a broad rent control program that limits available housing?
There's nothing wrong with desiring to own a home, but subsidizing it is an entirely different argument. Either way, it boils down to a simple question: should everyone be entitled to a home?
I mean, we all agree, there are only so many apartments in the artsy parts of town. And aren't there more people that want to live there than there are available spaces? How do you deal with that? Even if there is rent control, how do you decide who lives there? The creative artist, the waitress, who? If you can answer that and increase the fairness over the free market solution, you'll be the next Nobel Prize winner.
Forget Mexico, can we put a border fence up seperating California from the rest of the country?!
This post has been what I have been saying to everyone I know for the past 10 years. This is why LAist.com rocks.
Oh my god those comments are awesome! But yes, he's a moron. Rent control is for people like me and my mother who don't own homes. My mom moved here in 1971. I was born here in WONDERFUL L.A. in 1980. Live in echo park/silverklake areas. Had to move 3 times in 4 years recently. Saw my rent go from $625(my share of rent) per month for a giant 3 story 3 bedroom apartment to a 2 bedroom that is a 1/5 the size for $787(my share) a month. Its fucked up. The problem ARE the people who move here who dont understand that it is not only comepletely unreasonable to pay $1,200 for a studio in Silverlake but it was unthinkable just 5 years ago.
Rent control is a must for L.A. It keeps greedy landlords in check. Most people who are really benefitting from extreme low rents are the elderly or migrant families who have lived in L.A. for over 10 years anyway.
Wow... simply wow. Why do you think (for the most part) gentrification exists? Do you think RE investment firms just have a soft spot for run-down neighborhoods? Those firms take over those neighborhoods because they have NO incentive to build in areas with rent control. Why deal with price ceilings when you can acquire/renovate on the cheap by pushing a low-income neighborhood out and labeling it the new "hipster spot"? There is a cause-and-effect to everything.
You think I, personally, want everyone to pay 75% of their income for rent?
Rent isn't supposed to be any % of your budget. That's an ideal to help you decide what kind of place you can afford. Under a free market, rent has nothing to do with your budget, instead it has to do with how many people want to rent a place, which is why LA has such high prices: everyone wants to live here.
The best idea was from caliking01 (but clearly, I'm a moron who has millions of dollars and isn't affected by high rent prices): put a fence around California to keep people from moving here. It would reduce demand and reduce prices. But I think it's pretty easy to see that no one would support that idea since it doesn't fit the American dream.
I'd like to have my cake and eat it too, but the reality is that with so many people wanting to live in LA, there isn't enough space for them all. Therefore, prices increase to ensure that those that want to live here the most can pay for it. How else would you decide who can come and who can't?
Remember: there is no free lunch. Someone is paying for the real cost of my rent controlled home. Part is paid by the government through subsidies to developers, which is in turn paid by you and me through taxes, the rest is implicitly paid by those who didn't win the cheap-rent lottery.
By the way, most of the artistic communities were cheap areas to live because no one wanted to live there. Thanks to the transformation given by those artists, people desire those communities more, which increases prices, no matter how much we hate it.
You've all done a great job of mentioning how great rent control can be, but you haven't even answered the one question I asked throughout my discussion: how do you decide who gets to rent a place when price isn't the deciding factor?
I'm not an advocate of getting rid of rent control; but that said, just because a landlord is charging $1200 a month doesn't necessarily make them greedy. With the cost of mortgages as they are, I know quite a few people who own small apartment buildings (~4-units) and are barely making their mortgage payments even while charging upwards of $1200 a month.
I know there are a ton of large property owners who are making tons of money with these high rent properties but just realize the high rent prices do not always equal a landowner raking it in.
Responding to RERational, first, I guess I can say I know the answer to my parenthetical aside. That said, I'd like to clarify a couple of things.
First, it sounds like you're not actually familiar with Echo Park, or with what rents in LA are actually like. I don't want to sound deliberatley insulting, but only total ignorance about the reality of rent in LA could lead you to believe that Echo park is a cheap neighborhood.
the apartment in Echo park wasn't cheap by any standards. When she (my girlf) moved there, it was consistent with standard city rents, which is to say, already huge.
An LA Times article from 2006 has this to say:
*Average rents in the city have jumped 82% in the last 10 years, to $1,750 a month, according to surveys of large properties by RealFacts, a Bay Area real estate consulting firm. In pockets like Echo Park, they've more than doubled*
Note that increase is greater than inflation, and greater than any increase in wages (which are largely stagnant).
Also, my point, and I'm sorry if I wasn't clearer, is that despite the fact that Echo Park remains a shady, dangerous, run down place, neighborhood rental prices have skyrocketed and have now priced poor and even some middle class people out of the neighborhood. In other words, Gentrification isn't transforming the neighborhood, it's making it even worse. That's not reasonable by any standard.
Word.
I thought republicans weren't allowed on this website...
Not to be a dick, but still, no one answers the question of how to allocate rent controlled places fairly.
I get it: it sucks rent is going up, and it sucks that your neighborhood is still ghetto (it must be easier to pay rent hustling than it is creating art). But what do you want to do about it? The status quo works but barely (even with rent control), so what's your long term solution?
By the way, please stop attacking me personally and instead please attack my points. I live in LA, so it's not that I don't experience rent increases. I'm not a republican, so stop trying to categorize me and write off my argument. Grow up already and argue the matter at hand.
RERationale is right on here. Everyone wants cheap housing for everyone, the question is what is the best policy to get us there. Often times policies such as rent control have unintended results that may be the exact opposite of their intentions.
If you really want to understand the actual issue I highly suggest you read the relevant sections in Thomas Sowell's Basic Economics.
Since you asked, my Long Term(tm) solution would include:
1) A tremendous reform of the way property taxes are collected. I'm a LEFT LEFT liberal but even I have some serious problems with property taxes. (NOTE - I don't own property.) Currently, it's a nightmare, essentially a massive regressive tax that rewards old money and punishes new property owners. Old, large, extremely valuable places that have not changed owners in many long years pay tiny amounts, while new homeowners pay ridiculous tax rates on tiny properties. I obviously think properties generating income for owners should be taxed, but they should be taxed based on the income being generated.
2) This would be far less popular with homeowners but f' em, I would regulate property ownership the way we used to regulate the ownership of media entities, and I'd work especially hard to end the practice of flipping. Property shouldn't be treated like baseball cards or diamonds. It's a damned neccesity and ought to be regulated like one.
A) I'd place severe limits on how property is exchanged between owners.
B) I would limit the number of properties any one person can own, and also any business entitiy could own.
C) I would mandate a minimum period of ownership before property could be sold again, say, 3 years.
Reigning in the METOO!!! impulse would do a lot to prevent future bubbles from wrecking the economy, and I think would protect not only renters, but property owners as well.
Ross...you would limit the number of properties one person could own????
That's quite un-american, dont you think, el pinko?
I don't think you get it. Landlords, property owners, run a business. They engage in exchange (money for shelter) in order to stay in business and ideally make a profit. Thus, they are allowed to set whatever prices they like. How would you like the government setting the price of your business?
You use the example, "Proposal Aims to replace your sweet Graphic Design Job with minimum wage position at Wal*Mart" to drive your point home.
What if the government dictated what prices you sold your sweet graphic designs for? What if it was less than you wanted in order to keep making sweet graphic designs? Would you continue to make the best possible graphic designs? Would you bother making them at all?
The fact is, I've lived in Los Angeles for 4.5 years, never in a rent-controlled apartment, and I've never faced more than a 4% increase in rent. I've also never paid more than $700 a month for a place to live. And I haven't live in squalor. In fact, I currently live in a sweet loft in the rapidly gentrifying Downtown and have yet to face a rent increase although I've been here for almost 2 years. And to clarify, it is not rent controlled.
So why is my greedy landlord not driving me out or raising my rent 200% even though since I've moved here we've gained a super nice Ralphs right down the street, a multiplicity of restaurants and bars have opened up, and Johnny Depp has bought two condos across the street? I'm sure a price increase will come eventually, but I knew that coming in, it's one of the risks of renting!
I find it ironic in your spiel about property tax reform that you say, "Old, large, extremely valuable places that have not changed owners in many long years pay tiny amounts, while new homeowners pay ridiculous tax rates on tiny properties."
Which is essentially what rent control is. People site on very valuable places and pay a tiny amount of what it's worth, which effs up the market and makes people renting new places have to pay ridiculous rents on tiny apartments.
Another thing not mentioned in this comment section is how rent control degradates neighborhoods over time. Property management companies and private owners have no incentive to keep their properties running properly when cost of living, supplies, etc. are rising disproportionately with the rent they charge. The last thing a property owner wants to do is replace the roof or repaint the building and cut into his/her already dwindling bottom-line. So what happens as a result? You have property owners doing the absolute bare minimum in terms of maintenance and trying to cut corners any way possible. Eventually the lack of maintenance catches up with the building and it starts to look like trash. This spreads across neighborhoods over time.
Ross, I think you're on the right approach in attempting to limit the liquidity of property, which prevents people from making a quick buck on potentially over valued property.
As one who respects the natural way of things, I think those kind of guidelines would help guide a free market to a better solution for all.
You know as well as I do, you can't resist nature, including the invisible hand of the free market.
Ross, I think you're on the right approach in attempting to limit the liquidity of property, which prevents people from making a quick buck on potentially over valued property.
As one who respects the natural way of things, I think those kind of guidelines would help guide a free market to a better solution for all.
You know as well as I do, you can't resist nature, including the invisible hand of the free market.
Property prices don't reflect actual "worth" any more than the price of one of those stupid Death of Superman comics reflects the "worth" of that horrible storyline. The housing bubble should have taught us that. What "effs" up the market is people trading homes like baseball cards and artifically inflating the cost of real estate beyond what anyone who isn't rich can afford.
If wages aren't going up, if jobs are stagnant, if people are paying more for gas, food and so forth, then why should they be royally F'd in the A because their landlord can suddenly get a million dollars to kick them out on their ass? Especially if we know that, as soon as the market is saturated, prices are gonna crash and take the economy with it?
It's beyond ridiculous that a house in the middle of a gang turf battle should sell for 700,000 dollars. No matter what your opinion of Gentrification is, that's the cart leading the horse. The skyrocketing prices are supposed to happen AFTER then neighborhood gets cleaned up, not before. What's happened in LA reflects nothing more than an obscene get rich quick scam and the millions of people upended by it.
So yes, I'd absolutely place some limits on how property is owned and under what circumstances property can be sold. I'm not talking about nationalizing the real estate industry, but allowing something as blisteringly important as home and living space to be dictated by the hysterical caprice of the (increasingly tiny) trading market is economically suicidal. And once again, has nothing whatsoever to do with actual so-called "worth."
And I don't see a contradiction between that, supporting rent control, and supporting a review of how property taxes are collected. Though I admit I have many contradictions. I collect and trade them. It's fun!
I live in WeHo in a gorgeous, mostly-safe neighborhood which is rent-controlled, but I'm a new tenant, so technically I haven't benefited from it yet.
My problem with rent-control (and I realize this is personal and cannot be extrapolated to the general population of LA) is that my landlord has no desire to retain me as a tenant for longer than my original one-year lease. If every unit in my complex had a new tenant every year, the benefit of rent control would be completely inapplicable because you can raise rents higher between tenants.
My particular management company is notoriously impolite, unhelpful, neglectful-bordering-on-criminal, and litigious in trying to get their tenants to move out at the end of their leases. This is - of course - illegal, but the system takes a very long time to work and meanwhile things still don't get fixed and tenants are still neglected.
Does everyone deserve a place to live?
Maybe it makes me a commie pinko, but yes. In a society as rich as ours, working families deserve a roof over their heads, not to end up homeless.
If that is too altruistic for you, poor people with rent due and a hungry family can get desperate. Desperation = crime. Monies going to rent instead of medical help = contagious diseases that can be spread to you.
You asked how we should dole out the limited rent-controlled apartments. By the same laws of fairness that anyone in a deli or waiting for an elevator knows: first come, first serve.
"Property prices don't reflect actual "worth" any more than the price of one of those stupid Death of Superman comics reflects the "worth" of that horrible storyline. T"
Worth is completely "in the eye of the beholder". If someone is willing to pay $700,000 for a place in "the ghetto", that's what it's worth. Of course, things like easy-credit distort the idea of "worth", making things that probably aren't worth it seem more worth it.
"The skyrocketing prices are supposed to happen AFTER then neighborhood gets cleaned up, not before."
But you said it yourself, Echo Park is a "neat" neighborhood. It has "Brite Spot, Sea Level, Little Joy, Downbeat Cafe, and the lake itself". The remaining urban ills are probably the icing on the cake for a hipster with access to easy-credit. If people want to pay an arm and a leg to live in Echo Park, it's not because anyone forced them.
"I'm not talking about nationalizing the real estate industry, but allowing something as blisteringly important as home and living space to be dictated by the hysterical caprice of the (increasingly tiny) trading market is economically suicidal."
But maybe you should be. If home and living space is that much of a right and people don't have the capability to handle it themselves, perhaps a state-run real estate market is necessary. Obviously I'm not LEFT LEFT, so I don't think it's the best option, but to me you either let the market do it's work or you don't. Picking and choosing special instances when to intervene just seems silly.
My problem with rent-control (and I realize this is personal and cannot be extrapolated to the general population of LA) is that my landlord has no desire to retain me as a tenant for longer than my original one-year lease. If every unit in my complex had a new tenant every year, the benefit of rent control would be completely inapplicable because you can raise rents higher between tenants.
I think that's true. In my case I was in a non rent controlled apartment in Hollywood, but kept low rent, with no more than a 3% increase per year (came about to about $25 more a year) for 3 years. What was amazing is that when I did eventually move (much do the dismay of my landlord), the apartment went on the market for about $400 more than I was paying. The landlord had chosen to keep my rent "artificially" low in order to keep me as a tenant, because I paid rent on time, didn't bother anyone, and was generally just a good tenant. Each new tenant represents a new risk for a landlord, so there are market incentives for them to keep good tenants around.
You asked how we should dole out the limited rent-controlled apartments. By the same laws of fairness that anyone in a deli or waiting for an elevator knows: first come, first serve.
So what's to stop Joe Rich Hipster from scooping up a sweet place for way cheap and leaving Sally Hard Worker to pay inflated market prices due to Joe Rich Hipster's artificially low rent?
The landlord had chosen to keep my rent "artificially" low in order to keep me as a tenant, because I paid rent on time, didn't bother anyone, and was generally just a good tenant. Each new tenant represents a new risk for a landlord, so there are market incentives for them to keep good tenants around.
I agree that with rent control, the incentive for keeping a tenant is lowered because the value of the rent-increase from getting a new one is so high. Finding a good tenant is an undesirable process and expensive process, most landlords would rather keep good tenants forever and let the money just come in.
Thats why there are laws against bullying tenants out of rent-controlled units, but I'm discovering that they don't really work - the bullying still happens and makes life miserable if you stay. But I'm not moving. I barely survived the last apartment hunt and move with my sanity - the housing glut that seems to be affecting the rest of the country seems to have skipped LA.
I'd Like to introduce you to my good friend John Maynard Keynes. I think he might have a tad disagreement with that point.
I'd Like to introduce you to my good friend John Maynard Keynes. I think he might have a tad disagreement with that point.
LOL. Clearly I don't subscribe to Keynesian economics. I'm more of a Milton Friedman guy.
You asked how we should dole out the limited rent-controlled apartments. By the same laws of fairness that anyone in a deli or waiting for an elevator knows: first come, first serve.
Don't you see the inherent flaw in that logic? As another commenter mentioned, you have no control over who comes first. When you artificially lower prices it increases the amount of prospective tenants. Meaning that family that deserves a roof over their head not only has to compete with other families, but also has an entire new market of prospective tenants who normally wouldn't have been able to afford the apartment at its true market price.
To give you an example, back when I was in college I remember finding a listing for a one-bedroom apt in Santa Monica for $1200. I couldn't believe my eyes especially when compared to the idea of sharing a roach-infested run-down 2-bedroom apartment going for $2000 by my college.
Now if that SM apartment was correctly priced at say $1800, I would never have considered it, but because the price was artificially low, I was a prospective tenant. Also, the $1200 price actually made me consider living on my own versus sharing a $2000 apt by campus. I was willing to take an extra shift and pay the additional $200 a month to have a bachelor pad 3 blocks away from the beach.
Consider that with all the non-controlled tenants wanting to move into a bigger apt in rent-controlled areas. When you combine everything I mentioned it essentially leads to shortages in rent-controlled areas and a sudden spike in demand in non-rent controlled areas that lead to higher rents. What results in the end is an imbalance in pricing and a higher overall average rent prices.
The proof is in the pudding, take a look for yourself.
The more people have to pay in living expenses, the less they are saving and the less they spend on other things. This means that less money is going into the economy and businesses that aren't making a profit due to consumers not spending their money, start to lay off their employees. Thus, making it all the more likely a recession is coming.
First-come first-serve is a basic law of the land. There is also nothing to stop the woman ahead of you in the bakery line from buying up all of the rugelach that you drove 20 miles to buy and promised to your dying mother.
Life is not always fair. But it doesn't mean that because some people will be left out that everybody should be screwed. I believe in the greatest good for the greatest amount of people. Not "If you don't have enough gum for the whole class..."
The other solution would be to look at who "deserves" the cheaper housing, and for that there is Section 8. But there was so much debate here already, I wasn't about to open that can of worms.
getting rid of rent control is bad idea.
First-come first-serve is a basic law of the land. There is also nothing to stop the woman ahead of you in the bakery line from buying up all of the rugelach that you drove 20 miles to buy and promised to your dying mother.
Life is not always fair. But it doesn't mean that because some people will be left out that everybody should be screwed. I believe in the greatest good for the greatest amount of people. Not "If you don't have enough gum for the whole class..."
Your laissez-faire philosophy in the above comment is in contradiction to your interventionist philosophy in previous comments. If "life is not always fair" then why does "everyone deserve a place to live". If "first-come first-serve" is a basic law of the land, why are other basic laws like "supply and demand" and "property rights" ignored?
As ghostdeini said, rent control distorts the market through artificially low prices. Just read his comment, like he said, the proof is in the pudding.
Fredcamino, I'm not sure but I think you might be misunderstanding the definition of the word "contradiction."
And anyway, repeating "rent control distorts the market" over and over again doesn't make it true. The point we're trying to make is that the "market" is already distorted. By hysteria, by greed, by a pricing system that isn't driven by principles like supply and demand, but by vanity, hysteria, a boiler room mentality that insanely overvalues, then dramatically revalues, chunks of land that otherwise do nothing but provide a place to live.
Combine that with the simple fact that the economy is cleverly disguised shit. Wages, and I mean real wages as measured in terms of inflation and purchasing power, not just uncontextual numbers, have been stagnent for years, possibly since the 70s. Meanwhile, the cost of everything continues to rise. Oil is at or near 100 bucks a gallon, food is increasingly expensive, and thanks to republican free market economic policies, the US Dollar is becoming a synonym for the peso. So our money buys less, and measured in real terms we're making less of it - but rent, (and college tuition BTW) continues to go up and up and up.
So what happens? What happens when you price people out of their homes? Out of their nieghborhoods? Is everyone supposed to move to West Covina? Is LA supposed to just be a playground for rich playboys and Republicans, and their servants?
As we've seen during the last decade, the real economic distortion is the actual disaster.
Look, Rent Control isn't perfect but it's an attempt to correct said distortion and bring some sanity, not to mentiona but of humanity, back to the matter. I wish the correction didn't stop there but apparently, civic leaders can't think past band-aid solutions.
Now you may not like it, but I guarantee you'll like the sharp increase in homelessness, the cultural death of a city, dramatically increased (and incresingly visible) poverty caused by removing Rent Control a hell of a lot less.
And you still fail to answer the most important question: How do you keep the city from turning into a renter's nightmare like SF if you take away one of the only protections for renters and fail to do anything else? You know, the kind of place where the Police Officers who patrol the streets, the teachers, the fire responders, and even first response medical professionals can't afford to live in the city they serve.
What then?
I am answering the questions put to me, not espousing a complex theory of social structure and economics. Let's drink 50 cups of coffee and stay up all night and I will connect all of the dots. In the meantime...
I am basically a socialist. I believe everyone should be taken care of. All housing would be affordable in my utopian society.
But I was asked a specific question as to how to dole out a limited resource if not to the wealthiest. Other than getting into section 8 issues, queing up is the fairest way that I know. That is how they run the grocery store and that is how they dole out life at the organ bank. If someone jumps the line anywhere, everyone would call "foul" because it is not "fair".
I am not laissez-faire, I am realistic. My point is, just because a resource is limited, it should not be abolished. Just because some people are unable to get rent-controlled housing doesn't mean it should not exist. That is not a valid argument.
fredcaminos a dork.
i wasn't going to even comment on this because the debate can go on forever. but the following comment bothered me:
"2) This would be far less popular with homeowners but f' em, I would regulate property ownership the way we used to regulate the ownership of media entities, and I'd work especially hard to end the practice of flipping. Property shouldn't be treated like baseball cards or diamonds. It's a damned neccesity and ought to be regulated like one.
A) I'd place severe limits on how property is exchanged between owners.
B) I would limit the number of properties any one person can own, and also any business entitiy could own.
C) I would mandate a minimum period of ownership before property could be sold again, say, 3 years."
why are you so willing to fuck over homeowners, while at the same time you whine about tenants' rights? your complaint seems to be that "everyone deserves a place to live," yet you're more than willing to punish homeowners who ALSO deserve a place to live and who deserve to enjoy benefits from their property and investments.
when you start taking away property rights in the ways you describe, like limiting the amount of property people can own and "severely limiting" how people can exchange their own property, you're encroaching upon areas of law that make up the VERY FOUNDATION of property rights. the bundle of rights that you believe property owners should have would be better suited in socialist or communist nations. you take away these rights and you basically erase the very essence of property rights.
what do you plan to accomplish by fucking over homeowners? giving people a disincentive to buy homes, thereby increasing the demand for rental properties? your ideas just seem to be opening up a whole area of rights to government regulation...maybe i'm just way too libertarian for you, but i'd like the government to have as little say as possible about what I can do with MY land.
who let the fucking freeper into the party? ugh.
everybody deserves a safe, clean shelter for themselves &/or their family. they deserve to live in proximity to where they earn a living (if they want to). housing is not a luxury item; it's a necessity, a basic human right. it is an abomination that we have the rent / housing-market crisis that we do in this country. let's not even talk about the homeless. i mean, why should we? are leaders don't. (except john edwards, but he went bye-bye, now.)
i've lived in l.a. for ten years *only* in rent controlled bldgs. i couldn't have afforded to live here otherwise.
i have no idea where you people get a $700 apt in this town these days. much less a "loft." and i'm too old for a roommate.
i pay just under a grand for my shabby (or bohemian, if you prefer) 1 bdr + office in silver lake and i'm never gonna be able to leave for nicer digs, unless it's out of l.a., in the current market. that makes me feel sad. and trapped.
I am not that informed as you all are with the politics and economics of the real estate market so I won't venture into that arena.
I don't mean to insult anyone but it seems to me that the people who are complaining about rent control are the same people wanting or living in the cool, hip areas in LA. West Covina is not that bad of a place to be (except for the drive but then again there's traffic every were). I'm a native Californian and I live in the San Gabriel valley and pay $750 for a one bedroom. Granted it's not as cool as being on the west side but I don't need to be in that area to live or entertain myself. I've saved and will try to purchase a place soon while the market is at a low.
In my opinion this country is based on the mighty dollar. I may not agree with that ideology but that's what it is. Unless that culture is changed you're not going to see any kind of fairness or utopia any time soon.
This is perfectly honest and that's what makes this so easy:
"everybody deserves a safe, clean shelter for themselves &/or their family. they deserve to live in proximity to where they earn a living (if they want to). housing is not a luxury item; it's a necessity, a basic human right. it is an abomination that we have the rent / housing-market crisis that we do in this country. let's not even talk about the homeless. i mean, why should we? are leaders don't. (except john edwards, but he went bye-bye, now.)"
####Everyone deserves a home? Even those who don't work? Doesn't it sound more fair to give better shelters to those that work harder and earn more? If everyone deserves a home and food inherently without having to do work, then the survival battle is done. I would never work if I had a guaranteed home and guaranteed food. This is why socialism failed, there were no incentives to work harder or create more value for society. Food and shelter are among the most primitive requirements we have, and a lot of times it's all that keeps people working at all. Imagine if you gave those two things away... most people wouldn't work or be productive.
"i've lived in l.a. for ten years *only* in rent controlled bldgs. i couldn't have afforded to live here otherwise."
###Maybe you shouldn't live in LA? I don't get upset that I can't live in the Palisades just because it costs so much. And if my "home" became too expensive, I'd move. You should consider moving to somewhere cheaper. It wasn't too long ago that humans didn't live in one place, instead they were naturally nomadic, moving from place to place with their food supply. The only thing that allowed humans to stay in one place was the double-edged sword of agriculture, which created the necessity to work and be productive.
"i have no idea where you people get a $700 apt in this town these days. much less a "loft." and i'm too old for a roommate."
###"You're too old for a roommate"? Perhaps you're too poor to be able to decide. Look, we all have limited resources. You decided not to live with a roommate, so now you have to pay more. If you really couldn't afford it, you'd be living with 6 other people (which I've done before and it's really not that bad).
"i pay just under a grand for my shabby (or bohemian, if you prefer) 1 bdr + office in silver lake and i'm never gonna be able to leave for nicer digs, unless it's out of l.a., in the current market. that makes me feel sad. and trapped."
###Seriously, leave LA. This is why home prices are so high because people insist on being here for no other reason than it's LA. This is the artificial demand that is pushing up prices: people like you afraid to leave home for more reasonable living conditions.
I think Johnny summed it up well:
"I don't mean to insult anyone but it seems to me that the people who are complaining about rent control are the same people wanting or living in the cool, hip areas in LA. West Covina is not that bad of a place to be (except for the drive but then again there's traffic every were). I'm a native Californian and I live in the San Gabriel valley and pay $750 for a one bedroom. Granted it's not as cool as being on the west side but I don't need to be in that area to live or entertain myself. I've saved and will try to purchase a place soon while the market is at a low."
I'm a small-time landlord in Los Angeles and this issue is the first time I've had to decide between my liberal conscience and my pocketbook in such an big way. I haven't decided how to vote, but I thought I'd point out a few issues that haven't been addressed yet.
The reason I bought six units in Silverlake is because I couldn't afford the mortgage on a single family home. With multiple units I have to work a lot harder but the rents help offset the mortgage. I think there is a misconception that landlords are all rich, but if you buy less than ten units and they are rent controlled, chances are you are not making a profit on them in the first few years, maybe more.
One problem I find with rent control is that it provides no incentive for a landlord to make any improvements to a unit he is losing money on beyond basic health code compliance. I'd love to be able to tell a tenant I will redo their bathroom or kitchen, but I have no hope of ever making back the 5 grand that would cost me. I do whatever improvements I can afford because I want the place to be nice, but I am definitely limited.
I definitely understand that people need a place to live and so the government sometimes has to interfere with the free market, but if the government told an artist what he is allowed to charge for a piece he would probably be outraged.
Like i said, I'm not decided, and there are some aspects of the eminent domain part I am not sure I am in favor of either, but these discussions tend to demonize landlords, so I thought I would paint a more accurate picture.
I hope all you free market worshipers are ready for what happens next. Once all you well monied, and tragically hip, drive all us 'po folks out of our own neighborhoods, I'm sure you won't mind paying $30 for your lattes, or $60 for your California rolls. After all, you're rich, you can afford it.
And an excellent suggestion from one poster, who says we should all just get in our cars and commute four hours a day.
That should work out real good for the gridlock problem, not to mention the ambient air quality. Hope you guys don't mind a double lung transplant every 5-10 years. After all, you're rich, you can afford it.
Reading this made the pit of my stomach ache. My Landlord would happily kick everyone out each year for an extra buck. Rent control is not a free ride it is a necessity. Allowable raises went from 3, to 4 to 5% within 2 years. Over the years my Landlord has raised the rent every year with gusto, he has charged us for every city tax, inspection, smoke alarm he could. If you call him to fix anything he refuses or argues about it, and yes we have reported him to the city and they did NOTHING. Although over the years my rent has been raised my salary hasn't kept up, the cost of living and rents are in congruent here. New jobs don't pay what the old ones did, the buck doesn't go as far, and health insurance costs are a whole other discussion. I want to know who can afford 1500-2000 a month for a studio in Hollywood with no parking plus utilities etc. better yet the 1 bedrooms are now 1800 on my street. And my neighborhood is in the muck of Hollywood. I want to know what jobs there are that pay enough to afford theses rents. I pay over 70% of what I make straight to rent, although I have lived in the same place for several years my rent has doubled, and I am afraid of being priced out. Rent control is the only thing between me and street and the same goes for my neighbors. I used to be you could still afford to live in your neighborhood, not anymore.
Hey RERational...
why dont you just shut up already. You're a class A moron self riteous bastard fucktard. You sound as if you are jealouse of anyone with any artistic sensibilites and the people who dont want to live in ticky tack houses in ticky tack neighborhoods. This aint about living in "cool, hip areas" dumbass, this is about people being able to afford to live in the same neighborhoods they grew up.
Hey everyone -
I know how frustrating it is to deal with an obvious troll - but let's please keep the tone somewhat polite, or at least, impersonal. Not arguing with being argumentative and angry about an important issue, but let's keep insults to the subtance, and not the commentor. Thanks!
That said, RERational clearly doesn't have real familiarity with LA rents.
Ross, question for you:
When you write "I know how frustrating it is to deal with an obvious troll..." are you referring to RERational? And if so, what makes him an "obvious troll"?
^ He's an "obvious troll" because he disagrees with Ross. Anyone who writes,
"Do you think we need to repeal rent control (and if so, do you know how big of a dick you are?)"
isn't looking for intellectual discussion.
Well I was wondering if he is referring to RERational or Kaliking who more closely fits the definition of "troll". Guess we'll have to wait for his response to find out for sure.
yes, i think everyone -- regardless of their income deserves a place to live. not a single family home in the palisades. that's not what i said. i mean a safe, clean, shelter. if possible, close to work or reliable, safe, clean public transportation. these are not unreasonable standards toward which to aspire.
i'm gettin' by, thanks.
i've lived all over the world. los angeles is just where i happen to be, and i like to make the most of where i live -- exploring different neighborhoods, taking in the cultural offerings, making friends. i've done a lot of that over the past 10 years in l.a., i'm happy to report. i've grown attached to the place. i wouldn't mind moving to another city, but things aren't much better in any cosmopolitan district in this country. it's not just los angeles that has these issues.
RER, you're the one that seems to think of los angeles as the promised land to those who have "made it." i just think of it as home, because it's where i dwell.
strive towards dwelling, my friend(s), rather than just collecting outward signs of wealth that prop up your false sense of self-righteousness.
peace.
A troll is someone who clearly posts mostly to stir shit up. Regardless of what is actually said, a troll pretends not to understand, argues nearly exclusively with strawmen, and repeats points over and over without really responding to refutations. A troll is more interested in reaction than conversation.
And yes, I do think there is someone here who fits that definition. I also think it's possible said person is merely ignorant, with poor reading comprehension.
Ross - somewhere up there you made the very observant point that wages have been stagnant for years. For anybody without a trust fund or family money, this does not bode well, whether you own or rent.
And as much as I'd love to let the market run free, you're right that rent control is a small price to provide some consumer protection. In a perfectly ideal, Ayn-Rand envisioned world, we would all choose to live where our incomes allow and rent control should be abolished immediately. The real world doesn't work like that, and while rent control might not be the perfect solution, it's enough of a necessary evil to keep around.
If anyone wants to envision life without rent control, look to the ski resorts in Colorado. The manual labor that keeps the resorts running can't afford to live within 90 minutes of the mountain, and workers are finally electing to work elsewhere. This year, it's crossed a threshold where restaurants are closing for selected lunch or dinner services because they don't have enough staff willing to endure the commute, and it's only going to get worse.
If anyone wants to envision life without rent control, look to the ski resorts in Colorado. The manual labor that keeps the resorts running can't afford to live within 90 minutes of the mountain, and workers are finally electing to work elsewhere. This year, it's crossed a threshold where restaurants are closing for selected lunch or dinner services because they don't have enough staff willing to endure the commute, and it's only going to get worse.
I googled Colorado ski resorts and labor issues. I only found the issues with how ski resorts hire so many illegal aliens to work there for low prices. Funny how illegal aliens with below minimum wages can find a way to get to work but the rest of us white folk have trouble.
Anyway, let's just assume that what you're saying is correct.
Here's how I understand the situation as you described it:
1) wages are too low to attract workers since the wage doesn't afford living arrangements in the immediate area or afford a reasonable commute
2)restaurants are closing due to lack of available labor
I'm going to assume that the patrons of ski resorts are well off, otherwise no one would live in the area. Since they're well off, that would mean they could afford to pay more for a meal. I'm also going to assume they're like most consumers in that they appreciate dining out every so often. This would imply that there is some level of demand that would endure a price increase.
Given this, there's a business opportunity in staying open but charging higher prices. With these higher prices, you could also pay higher wages in order to attract labor.
These kinds of things happen slowly, but in the long run this how it would be. Rich people like to eat out, too.
RER you pretty much hit on my point, and yet you make me feel like I'm a bleeding heart liberal with your lines of reasoning. This an awfully inflammatory metaphor to use on this board, but you sound like a rosy-cheeked neo-conservative - in love with brilliant theoretical ideas that have zero practical application.
Like this gem:
It wasn't too long ago that humans didn't live in one place, instead they were naturally nomadic, moving from place to place with their food supply.
If you're counting years like an evolutionary biologist, then sure, not too long ago most human beings were nomadic hunter-gatherers. However, since the relatively recent development of the written word, people have tended to stay put. If you could have pulled a metaphor from the last century, you'd have made a better point, but citing 4,000 year old nomadic tribal movements as an argument against rent-control is silly.
The current state of affairs is far more complex - school, family, and work all have a major impact on choosing where to live. Many, many people on this board are also employed in the entertainment industry in jobs that can't be outsourced to West Covina. In your worldview, an assistant producer making $60-70K/year should pack it up and take a job at a data entry job in the Inland Empire, where they'll only be earning $35/k a year, but since they're living with poor people that will go a lot farther.
Doesn't it sound more fair to give better shelters to those that work harder and earn more?
So you've got a merit based economic view? What about inherited money? Of all the rich people I know, over half of them are living on legacy money. Only one rich guy I know got there purely by merit of his own backbreaking labor. Everyone else with mad money had more than a little bit of a leg up to earn it. How does your system account for people who start off with exponentially more money than the rest of the pack?
And if we lift rent control, will we lift the property tax restrictions? Because right now, property taxes are basically rent control for homeowners. People who have been sitting in a house for 50 years pay a fraction of the property taxes that their newcomer neighbors pay, for the same civic services. In your 'money is the sole measurement' ethos, your 70 year old nana should have her proptery taxes raised up past what she can pay because the hipsters have decided that Van Nuys is the cool place to be now. So it's time to ship out, old lady! Either that, or she should take a job stocking shelves at Ralphs, because you should work for what you have.
This is why home prices are so high because people insist on being here for no other reason than it's LA. This is the artificial demand that is pushing up prices
Your contention, in essence, is that the poor people should flee the rich neighborhoods, driving up the basic cost of living until the rich start to feel the pain so much that they buckle and prices collapse back into middle-class accessibility. If there is a real-world example of that economic model working on a local (not national or socio-political) level, please let me know because I can't think of one. Rent control, despite its flaws, is an attempt to add some purchasing power to those who don't have a trust fund at the disposal. And it's a local enough effect as to not qualify as full-fledged "socialism".
Yes, the invisible hand will guide the marketplace, but there are many more metrics than money, and until you can theoretically account for more variables, your grand ideas will continue to work about as well as the plan to invade Iraq.
I hope all you free market worshipers are ready for what happens next. Once all you well monied, and tragically hip, drive all us 'po folks out of our own neighborhoods, I'm sure you won't mind paying $30 for your lattes, or $60 for your California rolls. After all, you're rich, you can afford it.
And an excellent suggestion from one poster, who says we should all just get in our cars and commute four hours a day.
That should work out real good for the gridlock problem, not to mention the ambient air quality. Hope you guys don't mind a double lung transplant every 5-10 years. After all, you're rich, you can afford it.
i could never express enough how much i agree with this, because, well...let's face it, people with money deserve anything they want. "after all, you're rich, you can afford it" should be dubbed the new slogan of los angeles. (off topic, i know, but don't even get me started on talk about throwing around money to use the "carpool" lane. is everything about money here?)
All I have to say is I've read everything on this page about this complicated issue and I'm so happy "DCIGeneHunt" is here. You were perfect in the way you respectfully and oh so decisively SHUT "RERationale" UP!
For everyone here, I say kudos and thank you.
All I have to say is I've read everything on this page about this complicated issue and I'm so happy "DCIGeneHunt" is here. You were perfect in the way you respectfully and oh so decisively SHUT "RERationale" UP!
For everyone here, I say kudos and thank you.
Some good discussion here. I think I can bring a lot though, I see this from a lot of sides.
I have been renting the same studio in santa monica for five years now. It's rent controlled in that rents in santa monica can only be increased a small % each year. Except in the case of a vacated unit, when a unit becomes vacant rent can be raised to market rate - that is they'll be able to charge how ever much they can get for the vacated unit.
I have also recently went 20% in on a four unit property that falls under the same santa monica rent control laws.
One of the four units was vacant, and a copy of one unit which had been occupied for 12 or so years. The occupied unit is renting for $1200 due to rent control. We needed to rent the other unit at has high a price as we could get so we would be able to pay for the mortgage. Guess how much it went for? $2800 / month easily.
So now two families are living in duplicate units on the same property but one is paying $1200/month and the other is paying $2800. Simply because one has been there longer. How is that fair?
The family who is only paying $1200 has just bought two new cars a nice BMW Z4 and some honda SUV, no doubt thanks to their rent savings.
In this instance rent control both kept one families rent low while making another's high. Because of rent control there are very few people moving out of apartments in santa monica. Because of this there are very few vacancies but demand is high so thanks to supply and demand the market rate of newly rented units is much higher than it would be with out rent control.
I also would love to move into one of the vacant units on the property I own 20% of.. however it's not cost effective because I have been in the same studio for 5 years I am only paying $1130/month. And the vacant unit on the property I own a part of can rent for much more which will help offset the losses we take each year from the mortgage payments.
Let me know if you have any questions about the above situation and I will do my best to answer them.
My own opinion is that rent control is bad, it discourages moving, hurts new families that need to move and discourages long time renters from ever trying to buy a house.