apartment therapy changing the world, one room at a time

That's what they get for voting in a Repuglican governator. Mendacity, deception and artifice.

heijiranyc, ireferendums have nothing to do with who's governor. Referendums are ostensibly grassroots movements (though certainly special interest groups start them) and get on the ballot by gathering signatures from the public, not by gubernatorial or state legislature approval.

Does anyone know how many apartments in Los Angeles city are rent controlled? Only 1 million Californian's (out of 30 million) live in rent controlled apartments?

either way... rent is insane in CA. i saw a one bedroom apt. less than 500 sq. ft. going for $950. and that was in a shady part of town!

Of course high rent sucks. We paid way more in rent in Pasadena, CA (although we always thought it was reasonable for what we had), than our friend's mortgage in WA. But I also think property owners are entitled to a reasonable return on their investments.

If you want the security that home ownership brings, buy a house. Don't expect someone else to subsidize it for you. If you can't afford rents, then you either can't afford your job or where you live. These are the kinds of decisions that adults make.

amylou- haha you have no idea! In Los Angeles a one bedroom apartment is AT LEAST $1100 but more like $1500.

We need rent control. I don't get a $300 a month raise every year so how am I supposed to afford that increase in rent each year?

And nycflatcats - Most people in LA CANT afford to buy a house!

I have a great job and a great education but I can barely afford rent here. The middle class can't afford it.

I agree with NYCflatcats. The laws that protect rent control and rent stabilized are antiqueated. Some of them are as old as the tenament buildings.... The reason that I think they should change is bcs I have read in many blogs - that the majority of the mentality is this feeling of entitlement, like the person the owns the building owes you something. The way I see it, no matter what the situation is, you live in a place as long as the owner is okay with it, if they don't like you in their place anymore, it's time to move on. And I am not saying that you just get thrown on the street without notice, but with enough notice - you move along - it is healthy and that is what makes people grow up and mature - develop to a new situation. And tenants have much more rights than the landlords... I personally am a landlord and have two rentals which are free market, but I can't imagine how hard it could be if they were rent controlled, to get a hold of your own property...

Let's fight to have universal health benefits for all, let's not encourage laziness with rent control. It doesn't benefit anyone. If you can't affort an apartment working full time, there is something wrong with the economy of the country, not with the local laws. As far as I know, controlling rents is exactly what communism is about. You can't have it both ways - import capitalism all over the world bcs is the best thing, but at home chose one model for one thing such as rents - and another for health care. If this is not hypocrisy, please tell me what is it?

A landlord writing in the SF Chron made a very legitimate point. She was saying how the laws that protect tenants make it very difficult for landlords to access their equity. But "My equity is their home."

What happens to the elderly, the poor, those who can't afford to leave but can only afford to stay because of rent control? Rent in SF has spiked 12% in the last year because as more people are forced out of homes the market will bear higher rents. When I was looking for an apartment in the area, I met with one landlord who said he wanted an informal agreement that I would stay for no more than 3 years because "I can only raise rent by 3% ay year. How would you like it if you only got a 3% raise every year?" Huh, I'd love to be guaranteed a 3% raise every year, thanks.

I have little sympathy for those who want to get rid of rent control. Rent is crazy here already.

Rent Control in California isn't Section 8 people.. it's not like they're giving away apartments. It just means that once you are in an apartment, the rent can not be raised more than a certain percentage each year. Once you leave the apartment, it can be raised to market rate again and the process starts over.

I personally find it disappointing that people quickly throw out labels like "entitlement" or "lazy" when discussing those who rely upon rent control. When you have neighbors, friends and family who live in affordable housing, the whole concept of entitlement becomes less likely label thrown around. Living in metropolitan LA, I see mostly working class families who've lived here for a generations, many who are in fact being phased out by once vibrant neighborhoods (just ask any longterm resident in SF's Mission district too).

I agree landlords should receive fair compensation, but anyone who lives in LA or SF understands the concept of "fair market value" has been stretched into the realm of fantasy, and is ultimately dangerous for the health of the city from a long term perspective. A compromise would likely need to be made to aid and protect those long term elderly and poor residents (whom I personally think we have a moral and civic duty to protect as citizens of the greatest and richest nation), while also making sure landlords can benefit fairly from the property investment. But the end-all idea that capitalism works in every case is a frightening view, especially after I've seen first hand what it has done in socialist-turned-capitalist China. Living in Los Angeles is not an entitlement, but comparing rent control/stabilization with communism is a far stretch.

I'm very disappointed too. It's not about laziness or entitlement its about SANE rent prices. If the educated and employed middle class can not afford a decent apartment, then there is obviously a problem.

Thanks for the clarification, wende... however, I would never rule out the possibility of Ah-nould endorsing such a measure, especially since he made much of his fortune in real estate. I suspect this type of referendum would not have gained traction under Davis.

As a New Yorker, I have mixed feelings about rent regulation. I do understand that the elderly and infirm need somewhere to live. But the question is whether that alone automatically entitles them with the right to pay $326 per month to live in a pre-war classic four on Central Park West, when their next door market-rate neighbor could be paying in excess of $6000/month for the same sized space. In effect, the market-rate tenant is eating ramen noodles to pay the rent while the neighbor next door is sipping champagne and lives the life of Riley for practically nothing. Meanwhile the landlord is forced to keep increasing the market-rent rates to keep up with escalating taxes, heating and employee costs, while the regulated tenants are not the least bit affected. Rent regulation basically permits the tenant to enjoy all the luxuries of owning while having none of the burden of maintenance and liability. Is that fair?

In New York, back in the day, it was customary to deny "coloreds" from living in "middle class" rent regulated complexes, e.g., Stuyvesant Town. Is it fair that now only elderly whites (and their offspring) are the exclusive beneficiaries of this form of stabilization?

Yes, everybody needs to have a home... somewhere. But does it mean they have a right to live in the same exact apartment in a prime spot forever while paying peanuts? Another thing to keep in mind is that rent-regulated tenants tend to stay in their apartments FOREVER, which paralyzes mobility, thereby lowering vacancies, which invariably results in exhorbitant rents. I am of the opinion that eliminating rent regulation will result in a momentary spike in rents across the board, but over time, rents will find its own (lower) level as the vacant housing inventory sits on the market.

The problem with rent control is that, like in New York, having a portion of the available rental properties under rent control makes the non-rent controlled more expensive. There is such high demand for the rent controlled units, and people are so unwilling to give them up, that they don't come to the market. Instead there are simply less available units on the entire market, and as we all know when demand exceeds supply the price goes up. Rent control seemed like a good idea, especially for those living on a fixed income. Instead the entire economy looses revenue. Unfortunately (and I personally can't see why) there are more people willing to live in LA than there are available units. Capitalism, and the free market, means that prices will go up and people will get pushed out if they don't have the ability to pay. Like someone said above, rent control is communist. Not that communism is a bad thing, but we don't live in a communist country. Sorry.

While this seems to be a backhanded way of phrasing the referendum question, I support its intent.

At the end of the day, it is those of you living in rent controlled units that are to blame for the high rents in the city.

Basically those of you living in controlled apartments have your new neighbors to thank for subsidizing you rent, as landlords have to find some way of paying for the increasing costs taxes, maintenance, etc) while depending on fixed revenues.

Without rent control landlords would be able to average these cost increases out over their entire rental stock instead of the handful of units that become avaiable each year.

As well, without rent control their will be more rental units will be put on the market (and fewer condo conversions), as there will be incentive for increased supply to meet demand. In today's market, a landlord would be insane to put a new unit up for rent.

I live in NYC, and although I'm in the middle of my 10th year of "cooperative living" (being a shareholder/resident of a co-op), I think that rent control has a stabilizing influence on the economy. True -- I'm not a landlord, but I do know that when I was renting it really helped to have it, and I think that since it was a very regular yearly/bi-yearly dance that I knew would happen, there was nothing mysterious about it.

The landlord knew that he wouldn't have to approach me out of the blue and listen to me gripe and moan -- he had a predictable government-sanctioned way to get a raise in rent, and I had a government-sanctioned method of not getting some sudden sticker-shock.

But me? I seriously HATE conversations about money -- anything that involves people asking me for money or more money or anything like that. OR any reason for me to have to ask people for money, or money. So, I found it to be a very manageable, civilized little process.

I suspect this type of referendum would not have gained traction under Davis.

heijiranyc -- Suspect whatever you like; it's still not how California's referendum, initiative, and recall system works (as Davis learned the hard way). I can't force people to reason based on facts, much as I'd sometimes like to. :-)

Speaking of facts... rent control in San Francisco involves allowable annual increases tied to the regional CPI. So landlords charge less than market rate to long-term tenants only when market rent is increasing faster than prices in the larger economy. Unfortunately, in SF, that's much of the time.

There is no disincentive to make capital improvements; rent increases to cover those costs are allowed.
http://www.sfgov.org/site/rentboard_page.asp?id=4143

Rent control in SF does not apply to buildings that were granted their Certificate of Occupancy after the date of the rent control ordinance (with certain exceptions), so there's no disincentive to build NEW apartments, though there's a disincentive to convert OLD buildings into apartments.
http://www.sfgov.org/site/rentboard_page.asp?id=4141

You also may want to distinguish between "rent control," which speaks only to rent levels, and the Ellis Act, which has a broader impact on tenant rights and affects more units.

We have rent controlled apartments in CA?

Who knew?

I pay $900 for a 550 sq. ft. one-bedroom in 92833. I'm sure I'd be paying more of it weren't for the fact that they maxed out all possible rent increases last year. Can't wait until September when they can legally increase it again.

Wende, thanks for the useless trivia about California rent control. Your "facts" do nothing to further your assertions about the source of this referendum.

As a New Yorker, I have mixed feelings about rent regulation. I do understand that the elderly and infirm need somewhere to live. But the question is whether that alone automatically entitles them with the right to pay $326 per month to live in a pre-war classic four on Central Park West, when their next door market-rate neighbor could be paying in excess of $6000/month for the same sized space. In effect, the market-rate tenant is eating ramen noodles to pay the rent while the neighbor next door is sipping champagne and lives the life of Riley for practically nothing. Meanwhile the landlord is forced to keep increasing the market-rent rates to keep up with escalating taxes, heating and employee costs, while the regulated tenants are not the least bit affected. Rent regulation basically permits the tenant to enjoy all the luxuries of owning while having none of the burden of maintenance and liability. Is that fair?

hejiranyc: That's the major situation here in LA as well. I was essentially evicted from my old 2bed/2bath apartment in West LA because of a rent increase. Our building was bought by a new management company and our rent went from $1300 to $1900. My first reaction was "if I could afford $1900/mo I wouldn't be living in this shithole!" Everyone else on our floor had the same reaction. I spoke to an older man who also received this ridiculous increase and found out that they increased his rent (of an identical 2bed/2bath) to a WHOPPING $900, from $550. This is why rent control needs to change.
Does it need to be banished (or "phased-out" as they say)? No. But something needs to change. And voting against it isn't going to be the end all, be all "NO changing rent control!", it just means that they'll have to go back to the drawing board and come up with a more SENSIBLE solution, rather than just eliminating it period.

The reason for this 'communism' is because rent has to do with where people live - not the price of iphones. Society/gov. has an interest in preventing homelessness and upheaval. Being a landlord isn't just collecting ROI, you also have control over people's lives. Displacing older or lower income people if their neighborhood happens to become trendy isn't so great either. No system is perfect, but if I had to hedge sympathies with either a grandma on social security being forced out of her home or a hipster pissy that the old lady is paying less than her, I'd go with the former.

As for rent demand outpacing supply, I find that hard to believe. I see plenty 'for rent' signs every month. This isn't NYC where you need a broker. Plus with real estate going down the drain, whole buildings of what were to be condos are getting dumped onto the rental market. As for the comment "In today's market, a landlord would be insane to put a new unit up for rent." I don't even know how to respond. Would you say it's a good time to go through the expense of condo conversion and have a go at selling real estate right now? Has anyone checked the news lately?

The referendum is flawed for combining these two things. It is positioned as a vote on eminent domain.

That said. You don't have the right to live somewhere! My property is MY property. You do not get the advantage for MY hard work. If you can pay great. If you can't, you need to consider other options. Tough Love? Sure, but what entitles you to use my property at what you consider affordable? Did you work two jobs, scrimp and save and buy this building. No, I did. I made sacrifice. Your might be that you need to move. Or work two jobs ... welcome to capitalism.

I live in a rent-controlled 3-bedroom apartment in Santa Monica - a section of LA notorious for Rent Control. The rent is now $1791, after the 3% increase last November.
It's in a rather seedy part of Santa Monica (oh yes, there are seedy parts of Santa Monica I promise), and while it is only 20 blocks to the beach and the weather is great, there are always domestic disputes and gang problems. I would not live there if the rent was what everyone is telling me it should be: closer to $2800.

I used to live in Santa Barbara, and it is not rent-controlled. I paid over $1000 a month to live in a small studio in a questionable part of town, and once had to have a peeping tom arrested for doing something unmentionable outside my window.

Before you call me lazy, please keep in mind that I am a college educated 28 year old with a good job. I do however have student loans and bills, so $1000 for rent each month is not a realistic option for me. I don't want to live in a palace, and I searched for the aprtment I have now for nearly 4 months and spent countless hours driving back and forth from SB to get such a good deal.

I am looking to leave the apartment in the next year when my current boyfriend and I move in together. This will afford me to live in a better place and split the outrageous cost of a one bedroom here in LA. I'm not here to milk the system, but I will use it to better my situation.

I can see that the Reagan Revolution has finally borne fruit in the minds of the folks who grew up with him as President.

Rent Control in California is not the same thing as Rent Control in NYC (which has been virtually phased out anyway). All Rent Control in CA means is that when you move into an older apt. building, you and your landlord have agreed that: the rent will increase every year, that how much it will increase will be determined by the Consumer Price Index in the area and set by a goverment board, that you will help finance any and all changes he or she makes that fall under the designation Capital Improvements, that if he or she cannot make a reasonable profit on the place, then he or she is entitled to an increase in rent.

If the rent becomes unaffordable for you, and you move, your landlord can raise the rent on your unit to as much as he or she can get for it and then, a new "floor" is established and rent can increase from there.

What is so onerous about this, people? Most industrialized nations have far more stringent rules about rent rates (of course, they have universal health insurance, too, but that would be un-Murikan) and if you are fortunate enough to own rental property, the regulations that go with that are part of the deal.

In the U.S., rent regulations in large cities originated in response to price-gouging by landlords during WW2, when city populations would swell and families whose household heads were serving in the Armed Forces were particularly vulnerable to being turned out on the street by greedy landlords who would double, triple and quadruple rents.

There are some great landlords - but the rules weren't instituted in response to them, they were instituted in response to some real sh.ts and they were instituted for a reason.

The notion that if we eliminate rent regulations that the free market will take over and drive rents down would be reasonable if markets in this country were responsive to the needs of consumers. But they're not, folks. They're manipulated by the owners.

I'm trying to think of another business where you are guaranteed a reasonable return on your investment in return for abiding by the rules. I can't think of any.

Maybe you "adults" out there could suggest a few....

Thank you for that explanation mcQuaidLA. I feel like so many people hear the word rent control and it makes them think we're talking about Section 8. The only real control part is the percentage in which the rent can be raised each year which seams perfectly fair and reasonable to me.

Rent control KEEPS PRICES HIGHER, because once a renter stays in the unit long enough it always falls behind the market rents. The result is that THEY DONT MOVE. Less moving, mean LESS VACANCY which causes HIGHER RENTS!

Most renters and many landlords are far too simple minded to understand this concept. If landlords knew that rents can be adjusted to market rates after a year when the renters lease expires , they would be far more likely to lower the rents to compete with other landlords when a vacancy does come up. This would cause prices to come down. HELLO???
Of course if a vacancy comes up with rent control they will want to charge the absolute MAXIMUM rent possible since they know it will be locked in.