apartment therapy changing the world, one room at a time

So the new owner gets ripped off to the tune of a minimum of $6,800.

Rent control is like welfare and roaches. It exists, but that doesn't make it good.

Wow. I'm a landlord, LBhirise, but that's just ... mean.

It's a tough situation -- you buy the property based on what the neighborhood is worth currently, not what it was worth when the tenant(s) moved in, and most people buying for a place to live just want the rental units to pay off a decent portion of their mortgage -- very hard when a building is valued at 900k and the tenants are paying $3-500 a month.

I've been the grateful beneficiary of rent control in the past, and feel there should be some cap on rent raises (I've never raised my new tenants' rent), but that didn't stop me from (politely) evicting my old tenants rather than moving into the empty half of my property. I simply couldn't afford to do otherwise.

LBhirise - she's getting kicked out of her home with 30 days notice because someone else wants her place! Of course she deserves some compensation! Do you know how hard it is to find a decent affordable place in Los Angeles?

I'm sorry to hear that you have to move Laure. Your place is so cute! I had to move on very short notice in October and while I "like" my new apartment, I don't love it and the whole thing has left me pretty depressed about my living situation. Good luck with your search! I hope you find something equally as cute.

Getting evicted sucks - do you have to check yes on future apartment applications? How is this going to effect you being able to get a new place? $6-9K is pretty sweet though. Good luck finding a new place.

I have question though.. if you are evicted for this reason - does this type of eviction show up on your credit history? Can this effect your rental history negetively?

We've been going through an impending eviction. Our situation is so complex, I won't even get into it. However, there's a couple of things I would add.

1) In San Francisco owners are only allowed to evict one unit per building to move in themselves. Evicting two tenants, like you're describing is illegal. Don't know if that's a state or city thing, but it's worth looking into. Also in SF: If an owner evicts you to move in themselves they MUST move in within three months, or it's a wrongful eviction. If the owner is planning on doing extensive work that may not be possible.

2) Those "friendly" conversations are a form of harassment (in my opinion, if not the law's also). Making you afraid you're losing your apartment without formally evicting you and paying you the money that you're due is a common ploy. They would like you to move out without evicting you and save the money, of course. We have been fighting the same thing for over a year! No money, no evictions, just threats.

3) The renter's union can also be a good source of info, but the office here actually gave us some not so great advice. Please consider hiring a lawyer who is experienced with defending tenants who are getting evicted. Landlords often count on people packing up and going away without a fight or without knowing their rights, and play on this. If you have any suspicion whatsoever that this is the case with your building it might be worth the time and money to consult a pro.

It's really a terrible feeling to be forced out of your home. Good luck.

As bad as your situation is, it seems that LA was trying to be fair to everyone. good luck.

Thanks SFGail! I've been keeping track of all the phone calls and conversations so far, just in case things turn ugly. And I'm looking into the whole 2 tenant situation too.

I don't think this affects my credit score or anything, but I'm going to doublecheck!

You should be lucky that the new owner didn't just raise your rent a ridiculous amount so that you'd have no choice but to move... that's what happened to me. The sucky part was that it was all legal.

Yes, it's really good to keep good notes, and alway do all of your correspondence by mail (with landlords in general, you never know...)

This kind of eviction shouldn't effect your credit. It's my understanding that there is a distinct legal differentiation between no-fault evictions and "fault" evictions. This is definitely a "no-fault" eviction. Make sure to be a model tenant from here on in, too, though, so as not to give any cause for a "fault" eviction.

Don't feel too bad for the new owner. It's likely that she paid less than market for the 4-unit apartment building because of existing rent control tenants. So even though she probably has to shell out thousands, maybe tens of thousands of dollars to relocate the tenants, that amount has already been discounted from the sale price of the building. If anything, feel bad for the previous owner who was unable to get market price because of rent control laws.

To bad you don't live in Quebec (Canada)! The new owner would have to tell you 6 month in advance that she is going to take back the appartment before the of your bail(in july). So if she would buy now the building she would have to wait until december 2008. And on top of that you can go and contest it in court that you have been in the building for so long that you don't feel like moving. Most of the time poeple win their cause. Anyway good luck with everything!

Laure, it is also legal to evict if you plan on making more than $10k worth of upgrades to the space. I believe this applies to all of California, so if the landlord is doing a $30k reno to combine the spaces, it's probably legal and not worth fighting.

And no, it won't affect your credit.

I also wouldn't call friendly conversations harassment, if they're really friendly. Once the eviction notice goes up, the tenant has to be out in 30 days, so hinting and/or outright discussing the situation ahead of time gives the tenant more time to look for a new place, pack, etc. Not all landlords are evil!

exact same thing is happening to a friend of mine. her huge downtown toronto loft apt with massive deck that she is renting for a mere $800/month will soon no longer be hers because the owner is turning the building commercial.

such a dirty shame. you can barely get a clean 1 bedroom basement for that anymore.

good luck finding a new place!

LBhirise - wow. So I guess in your mind it's a F*ck you to anyone who is unable to keep up with the price of rents when they skyrocket, and owners/landlords should be to kick folks out whenever they choose. Hmmm. Damn those unwashed masses.

This isn't really any advise, but seriously, if that's a picture of your place, your new LL is evicting you because your damn place is awesome looking. Good luck finding a non-terrible place in los angeles. I sure can't

I agree with chusmabilly. If that's your place it looks awesome! Also (assuming that is your place in the photo)where did you get your coffee table? I've been searching like crazy for a cool glass table.

While being evicted is certainly a major PIA that I wouldn't wish on anyone, I'm somewhat shocked that so many people share the opinion that they're owed a great apartment, in a wonderful location, for rents that are less than other people are willing to pay. It's called a "free market," if you can't afford it, get a better job or move to a place that you CAN afford. I'm only "somewhat" shocked because it's clear that plenty of people feel a tremendous sense of entitlement, even at other people's expense, and have no grasp of basic economics.

i don't live in LA, i live in philadelphia, but had a similar thing happen to me this summer. i had such an awesome apartment (at an awesome price) that my landlord decided he wanted it and gave me 60 days to leave. he was a young-ish guy (mid 30's) who was still living with his parents and apparently decided "it was time," if you know what i mean. i was very upset at first because i knew i would have to go WAY up in price range to find a decent apartment, but eventually convinced myself it was worth it. while it was super spacious, in an excellent location, with outdoor space, etc, the place was slowly falling apart. when i first moved in the landlord was very attentive, but after awhile he just didn't maintain the place at all. one thing, i had a recurring leak in my bedroom ceiling which i was willing to overlook because the apartment was a steal. although now i'm paying much more for have a smaller place (in better condition), the landlord is fantastic and overall i'm way happier. everything happens for a reason!

although it makes me wonder if we have the same "relocation fee" here in philadelphia. not that it makes a difference at this point, but if that's the case i'll totally kick myself!

good luck in your search, laure :)

You don't have to move. Take a better look at the law. Sounds unlawful based on your description.

I'm pretty sure that the law in California was changed last year so that landlords have to give 60 day notices for tenants who have lived in a place longer than a year. Goodluck.

There is a publishing company called Nolo press.
They are famous in california for publishing self-help books on all sorts of legal subjects including your eviction.

They know all the ins and outs, afterall, they used to work for legal-aid.
You might find them on the internet as well.
All their books are written by knowledgable attorneys in simple english.
If you don't have the money for the book try the library.

In Seattle they are tearing down old buildings and putting in megacondos or evicting renters and turning apartment buildings into condos. Property taxes are getting very high. Many renters have had to leave the area due to new high rent or no available apartments. I am a landlord,with one rental unit. Trying to keep the property as long as I can afford it. We love our neighborhood but feel we are being priced and taxed out of it.

Tangerine, Cityofparis, et al --

As described, this is perfectly legal. It seems I'm the only landlord on here, so I guess I have a different perspective, but the fact is that this person bought a house and wants to live in it -- and as the owner of the property, s/he is allowed to do that if the current tenants are adequately compensated according to the law. Which, not for nothing, is very generous to tenants here in CA.

It's great to find an awesome place for under market value, but both renting and owning come with risks, you know?

Actually I don't have much sympathy for a non-owner who seems to think they are entitled to "keep" their rented place. Duh. You're RENTERS not OWNERS. As to skyrocketing rents, who are you kidding? Rent is dirt cheap in LA even without rent control.

Rental rates for condos in my building are a fraction of my mortgage (Long Beach is not under rent control). I paid for the right to "keep" my place and believe that others who are overly concerned about not having to move should consider doing the same. You can rent a 700 sq. ft. condo in this hirise with ocean views for under $1200.

Seems like many posters are too lazy to look for good deals?

I am a landlord, and I would look into the combining the two apartments thing. Sounds fishy. Also, I don't know if it would do any good, but it's almost certain she signed something on her mortgage saying she wouldn't turn the 4 unit into a 3 unit etc. Lastly, if nothing else works I'd definitely follow up to see if she actually does the work. LA has a pretty pro tenant attitude.

Also, at my last check you cannot evict someone if you have to do $10,000 worth of work on the unit. Infact, I'm 99% positive. That used to be the case but isn't anymore. Obviously all landlords would be doing $10,000 worth of work to get rid of tenants paying substandard rent ( I know I would, call me SATAN.)

No one should take LBhirise's tone too seriously. Check out their post history: uniformly negative unless there's a contest involved. Just flip the mute button if you see their handle on a comment!

There's also precious little validity attached to a position that compares rents in Long Beach to those in Los Angeles proper. It's like saying NYC is affordable because their place in Hoboken is reasonable.

I wish you all the best with this.

and a sidebar note for the post with the roaches remark. Shame on you. What kind of blinders do you wear? Most of the few rent control apartments left (at least here in NY) are occupied by the elderly (many disabled) who have lived there most or all of their lives, some for more than 60 years and up. This is fact. I won't even go into what I witnessed a few years back. Options for a safe and decent quality of life (and I'm not saying luxury... just safe and decent) way to live out their lives, are rarely an option these days. Where are they supposed to go with check in hand for a few thousand dollars to relocate? Perhaps the shelter? or perhaps the street with the roaches? Perhaps they should not be so lazy and get their wheelchairs out rolling faster for a better deal? I pray when I get to that age, I never have to face that, or such a lack of sympathy from people.

just my two pissed off cents...

I agree with Miguel. I'm sorry you are getting evicted, but that's the chance you take when you rent. Hopefully experiences like this will propel some people to start to save up for their own place - even a small place in a less desireable neighborhood. Landlords and the city where you live DO NOT owe you a cute apartment in a nice area for very little rent. It's not a given.

Yeah, but once you're in a cute apartment in a nice area (for whatever amount of rent) and you've made the effort to turn it into your HOME, it sucks to be kicked out, period.
My guess would be that the unsympathetic "get a better job" brigade here are already in perfectly good jobs thank-you-very-much and probably own nice little apartments in nice parts of town (maybe with help from your parents or a little boost from the education they bought for you?) Talk about economic theory as much as you like, it'll never be home and it won't keep you warm in bed at night.

Good luck with the flat hunting Laure - crossing my fingers that the housing karma gods are smiling on you.

Laurita ... you're right; I DO own a nice little place, well with in my means, in a good neighborhood. It took me 7 years of college and 10 years of renting and saving every spare nickel (with no help from my parents) to get to a point where I could afford it.

I still don't live in the BEST part of town though, I will lose my place if I don't pay the taxes and mortgage, and it's possible that I'll lose my equity if property values contine to drop; maybe I should ask the city council or legislature for help with that?

Although I cannot say this has happened to me, I do want to offer some sympathy. Good luck in finding a resolution or a better apartment. The bright side is, if you want of course, you get to decorate a new place (not that there's anything wrong with the current one...it's stunning).

DrCny,
That is not my experience in nyc rent control.

I have lived in the city for 25 years and many of these apartments are sublets. The original renter is making money on the back of the owner.

I lived as a sublet myself, however after a year and a half I put a stop to the profits.
Rent controls laws need to be revised because times have changed.

Oh, Hoboken is not cheap either, not anywhere by the water anyway! Use Paterson for an example.

Hey Laure, are you selling your stuff?

I own too: small place, fairly poor part of town although the flat itself has potential, no financial help from my parents (but grateful for a solid start in life and aware of the difference it can make), and yes, it's thanks to working hard and saving very hard.
None of this makes a blind bit of difference to the fact that it sucks losing a home you've loved and invested your time and energy in. I'd be feeling just as sorry for you if you lost your job and couldn't keep up your mortgage payments and I certainly wouldn't be out there throwing around comments about "basic economics".

Laure, it sucks but concentrate on the positive: you obviously have decorating skills and will be able to turn any place you find into a cozy, well-laid out living space. Think of the fun you'll have deciding on how to arrange your stuff in your future space.

OMG! Thank GOD we don't live in Canada, EmmanuellePorlier! Although it may SEEM unfair to be evicted from your place, it is even MORE unfair to the owner not to be able to use their own property and receive below market compensation (rent)! Imagine if someone told you that they're giving your car to someone else, and they're gonna compensate you $25/mo for that, and you have no rights to get it back, regardless of how many thousands of dollars you paid for the car in the first place or how much you have to pay each month to keep from falling behind on your payments.

It may stink to be evicted, but it is only fair. No individual (the govt, maybe, but individuals no) should be forced to subsidize someone else's housing just because they've been there longer.

I just keep thinking how disappointed the new owner will be when her stuff doesn't look as nice in the apartment as yours does...

Good luck with apartment hunting.

NYC rent control isn't comparable. Rent control stopped in the 1970s, so only people who were in apartments then get to enjoy the price break. Any young person who moved into the city since then has had to pay market rate.

Many of the rent control tenants are indeed elderly and on limited means. But others -- who were never destitute in the first place -- have used the price breaks on rent to buy country houses. That's where all the class resentment comes into play in NYC. A college friend of mine was paying more for her dorm room than her parents were paying for their 3 bedroom on the Upper East Side.

Re landlord's claiming an apartment for his/her own use, landlords have been able to use this claim to get rent-controlled/stablized tenants out of desirable apartments. I know a story from about 35 years ago in the Greenwich Village in New York (evicting an artist w 3 children), and about 10 years ago in Santa Monica, CA (evictintg an elderly couple).

Landlords and tenants are both entitled to just protection by the law. My sympathies, though, are usually with tenants: for landlords, an apartment is a business investment; for tenants, an apartment is "home," whether owned or rented.

jns7

I guess I just don't understand rent control...because I live in a decent "affordable" apartment in DC and am month-to-month, but it was always my impression that my landlord could say "Sorry, Christine, you've gotta go" if he gave me proper notice of 30 or 60 days or whatever it is in the lease (and would only have to compensate me if I was under the original lease term or something). Either way, it stinks to have to leave when it's not of your free will...I know it's something I've been afraid of. That, and rent increases!

I agree with Miguel and Matilda. Basic economics, people!

Wow, thanks everyone for your comments, this is obvious a very loaded subject. For the record, I'm ready to go from here. You all may remember that I had to leave the apartment twice: once for 3 months for mold reparation and once because my bedroom flooded after a big rain. It's been a stressful time in this apartment, but the light and the views and the neighborhood made it worth it (I also love my neighbors).

I'm looking forward to finding another place and putting it together in a way that feels like home. I'm also into finding a cheaper place so that I can save up more to eventually buy something.

And yes, the picture is of my apartment. I got the coffee table at an estate sale along with the faux zebra rug. They were pretty cheap which is why I took the risk.

I had a similiar experience in Los Angeles iin 06, landlord occ. eviction from a spanish duplex by a new realtor/landlord. I was the only unit occupied which prevented her from remodeling to flip and sale. I had to move in 30 days, no fun believe me. I kept an eye on the place and took pictures, she never moved in. She remodeled and sold the property, this all after 10 months of kicking me out. The LA Rental Board will not pursue her for fraud, but I will take her to small claims court shortly. The eviction form refers to a civil code where a judge may/will pay damages.. keep an eye on your place, good luck!

Sorry to hear you are getting evicted. :( You do have a super cute apartment though.

As for LBhirise, Long Beach is by no means LA, you can't compare the two.

As for Miguel, this is not a simple case of economics, most of what people call the "free market" do no comply with what classical economist meant by a free market... perfect competition where neither the buyer nor the seller has market power, homogenaeity of product, perfect information, etc. Rarely do we enter into an agreement that fall under these standards so I wish that people would stop using the the phrase "free market" or "the law of economics" to rationalize and explain away all unpleasant and sometimes unjust things in the world.

And Miguel you should feel fortunate that it took you seven years of college and ten years of renting to save up your money to buy your own place. During the time periods of Smith, Ricardo, Say, etc... I seriously doubt that you would ever have the time (nor opportunity) to save up the money to buy the charmer that you live in now.

I'm so sorry you are losing your place! It's so cute! I like to think that things like this happen for a reason. I hope you find a place that is even nicer and you can learn to love it just as much.

I will lose my place if I don't pay the taxes and mortgage, and it's possible that I'll lose my equity if property values contine to drop; maybe I should ask the city council or legislature for help with that? .

Miguel in a perfect world this would happen. Unfortunately we don't live in that world. I bought my place 2 years ago and right now I'm about $20k under what I paid. Thank Gawd we plan to be here awhile. Or I'd be SOL.

BrookeinBoston, you're right of course and that's what I find so amazing; 230 years of economic evolution brings us from barbarism, feudalism, and slavery to an amazing world where 100% of the people have the right to own their home, 65 % of households do, and neither the king nor the Hordes can take them away. Yet, despite this amazing progress, some people prefer to dwell on the, frankly undeniable, fact that occasionally the system can be "unpleasant" and/or "unjust."

"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages."

-- Adam Smith

I'm curious what part of Los Angeles Miguel lives in and how long he's owned his home.

Oh wait...and here's the thing guys, people don't buy apartment buildings usually to live in them, but as an investment, and I can bet you they MAKE MONEY, otherwise, they'd sell it. And if someone's owned for 30 years, as some landlords have in LA, then I'm guessing they're making a killing. And if people are NEW owners, then, I doubt seriously they bought the place not knowing exactly how much they might make off the place.

In case someone missed my original post, I really do sympathize with Laure ... being in this situation stinks for anyone. I'm simply saying that no inconvenience, "unpleasantness," etc. can justify stealing someone else's property, physically or constructively.

Shari's heart is in the right place, but what she's implying is that it's okay for a renter to constructively steal part of the owner's building simply because they had the apparent gall to make a profit.

Put the shoe on the other foot. Say I purchased this building 1 year ago; there's a good chance that building's worth less than I paid for it. Should I be able to collect that loss from my renters? Obviously not. There seems to be a school of thought here, however, that if the value increases, renters should share in part of the owner's profits (roughly the present value of expected future rents) through below market rents. This isn't right, or using BrookeinBoston's terminology, it's "unjust."

Check with the L.A. Housing Department to make sure that the eviction is legit & so that you get everything you are due. I have heard of lots of dirty tricks in this tight housing market vs. rent controlled apartments. My new corp. landlord tried to evict us, too. If you qualify, you can get free legal services from organizations like BelTzedek...but if you get a Nolo Press book (from the library?) you can figure out a lot yourself. I did & didn't have to resort to a lawyer.

Good luck.

Speaking of dirty tricks: there is a 30 day eviction notice that my landlord once taped to my front door. This was some years back and I freaked only to find out that the notice itself was a fraud, it wasn't from the courts. it was pure harassment at it's best (they decided I hadn't paid my rent but refused to be specific as to which month. I had receipts for everything but they dragged the battle out for a month of phone calls till I told them the next call would be from my lawyer, then suddenly they blamed the mistake on a temp working at the office who was now suddenly gone). They pulled this stunt on me twice, the other time it was slipped under my door. That time I did get a lawyer (at my expense) who laughed when he saw it, sent off a letter to the landlord, and that was the end of that incident. This notice looks almost identical to real eviction papers, and I know a few people here in NY who have received identical notices as I did, so make sure your notice is the real deal.

You "free market" fans kill me...especially the fantasy that you "did it all by yourselves..."

Miguel: Let's review your claim of doing your home purchase "all by yourself." And no one will step in if you can't make the payments, and you'll just be SOL "laws of economics, people!"

Right at this very moment, Congress and a whole bunch of other people are trying to figure out how to keep millions of Americans who bought more house than they should have, or got really bad mortgages, from being evicted. Yes, the big, bad government is stepping in and trying to get a 30 day moratorium on evictions so owners can re-negotiate their loans (with the benefit of implied government pressure.)

That aside, you are taking the interest deduction on your income tax return, no? How much did you get back on your taxes? And did you take advantage of the first-time homebuyer deals the government offers? How about the homestead exemption?

You didn't do it alone, bud. You did it with lots and lots of help - from all of us. Now, given your attitude, why should we renters, most of whom get nothing back on our taxes for what we pay to house ourselves, subsidize YOUR little piece of Paradise?

And as for you, LBhihead, there are a plethora of tax breaks and credits for upgrades available to savvy landlords. I guess our rent payments aren't enough, we're also expected to subsidize our landlords with our tax money? Is that how that "free market" works here in America?

But my question for LB is "Who's twisting your arm?" If being a landlord is such an odious job, liquidate. Take the cash and invest it in something that isn't so horribly unfair to you. Or a good therapist.

And take heed of one indisputable fact of this roller coaster to Hell known as the American Economy: Everything that goes up can also come crashing down. Another six months to a year and you'll be able to prove how deep your love is for that "free market," and I'm sure you'll refuse any "government bailouts" that come your way.

To answer your question bitter renter, no one is twisting my arm? I'm not a landlord. I didn't participate in any government first time buyer, homestead, or other programs. I do however take a tax deduction for my mortgage interest and property taxes as do most homeowners.

Regarding the government bail out for people who bought too much home on too little income, I'm not for it. Sheesh, stand on your own feet folks.

...then I guess you agree, special tax breaks for homeowners are like "roaches and welfare," huh? I mean, "Sheesh, stand on your own feet" and stop expecting special govt. handouts because you are fortunate enough to be able to afford your own home.

I'm not bitter about renting, but I find it perplexing how many people jump on this board the minute rent control is discussed to shout down anyone who favors it or who thinks that renters (aka "consumers") have a reasonable expectation that their interests will be equally represented in a transaction.

And now, you say you're not a landlord? What, exactly is your dog in this fight, then? And why the vitriol about "welfare" and "cockroaches" when all we're talking about is some basic tenant protection in buildings that were constructed over 25 years ago?

Your postings are indicative of an attitude that had it's genesis in the 80s and is now rampant, which is that anyone who doesn't have as much as you is not only to be reviled, but also relieved of anything they do have and tough luck.

I bet you're one of those people who can't understand why human interaction has become so feral. There's a clue in the mirror.

I don't find human interaction to be feral at all. Perhaps it's YOUR mirror with the crack in it?

Good! Then you've found a suitable level on which to interact with people just like yourself! One heavy rain and you and your friends will be on your way to the beach and out to sea...Unless, of course, you get caught in some metal grate...

RE: mh330's comment
The laws in regards to just about everything are different in Quebed than they are in the rest of Canada. In fact, I'd say 99.9% of contests that run in Canada in not valid in Quebec because if differences in laws. I think Quebec charges a ton of money to run a contest or something??
You'll also note that EmmanuellePorlier made mention of July in her post. July is traditionally the month when everyone moves. Not when ever they choose as is the case within the rest of Canada.

mcQuaidLA ... I'm guessing that your knowledge of finance is limited to what you read on a cereal box. In fact, the items you've mentioned, mortgage interest deductions, homestead exemptions, etc. and much more are all available in some form or other to the owners of rental properties (e.g. interest and maintenance expenses, depreciation, and property taxes can all be deducted), also add in capital providers that don't pay taxes and hence have a lower cost of capital (e.g. pension funds and endowments), and renters see some rather generous benefits flow through to them (woo hoo ... free markets!!!).

W.R.T. the bailout, and increased conforming loan limits, I think they suck. There's absolutely no reason that tax payers should foot the bill for my, or anyone else's, poor choices.

Renters SHOULD be treated equitably, but they don't deserve a free option on other people's property.

So sorry to hear about your situation. Good luck and happiness to you.

Landlords in California have benefited from the real estate Propositions like Prop 13. Their property taxes are very low and can only rise a small percentage every year. The building you live in is accessed on the value based on its last sales price (NOT the actual value of the property today). So, if a landlord bought a building in 1985 for lets say $125K and today that building is worth $1.3M, his taxes are still based on the $125K plus a small % increase each year. My landlord pays about $1,200 a year in real estate taxes for property now worth $1.3M. Rent control seems like a fair deal for tenants to me, he's making a pretty good profit off the place. If he had to pay real taxes on the ACTUAL value of the building then he would have annual taxes over $12,000.

I support LBhirise and congratulate him for standing up to all of you who feel so entitled. I have been on both sides of this issue -- a rent-control tenant and a partial owner of a rent controlled apartment complex on the west side of Los Angeles. My experience as a tenant at a rent-controlled building taught me only that people become dependent as though on welfare. I also agree with Miguel's assessment of the situation -- beautifully said, Miguel. Laure, have you asked yourself why you think you deserve this bargain apt. more so than it's rightful owner?

I'm a landlord/owner and a tenant as well, and I really don't get the impression that any renters here are bashing the owners at all. It is unfortunate that Laure is losing her apartment. It happens. This conversation has nothing to do with rent control or the housing bubble.

But aside from that, most of the owners on here are sounding pretty callous and smug. So you bought a home and no one can kick you out - except perhaps eminent domain or lack of fiscal responsibility - GOOD FOR YOU. You all keep rockin' your successful financial selves! That doesn't really give you the right to bash Laure for renting like she's a lower-class citizen.

Geeeeeeezzzzzz....

If I am not mistaken, the original poster is not facing eviction. She is facing a notice to vacate. If the notice is legit, and she fails to comply, then the landlord can sue to evict her. If the tenant loses, she does indeed get evicted.

The word 'evicted' is bandied about by renters seeking a little drama, but it only occurs when tenants violate certain laws.

After 18 years, I was forced to move (evicted -sorry, it was pretty dramatic) so my landlord could move into my apartment.
It's their right, even though it was inco. The thing that made me furious was that rather than let us know that they planned to do this (when, for example, they filed papers with the city of LA 1 year before it happened), they waited to give us 30 days notice.
30 days notice after living there for 18 years? not very nice.

If you live in an Artist's Loft in LA, even in a super-crappy/awesome area, you are not protected under any rent control unless the CRA originally gave money to the project and even then, not all units will be protected.
When I first moved into my loft in 2001, I was paying $1850, by the time I left Feb of this year I was paying $3200.
I recently bought a 1400sqft loft with my fiancee and we're in the midst of turning it from a shell into a home. That is the only way out of the rental game. Right now, there are like 3 short sales and one foreclosure in my downtown Artists District Building. The "luxury" building next door is charging crazy sales prices on new units with high HOAs. I love the area. Save up for a down payment and buy a piece of the pie.
Renting definitely has its problems. I'm sorry you are having to relocate. Not everyone can afford to buy mutli-unit buildings and "decide" to combine 2 units into one. Must be nice to be rolling in it.

I'm both a landlord and a tenant, so I can sympathize with both sides of this debate - but I say, hear, hear, Miguel! Of course it sucks for anyone to lose their apartment, but the way it's described, what's happening here is perfectly legal and doesn't strike me at all as mean-spirited. This is not a matter of a rich landowner abusing their down-trodden serfs - renters' rights are well-protected by the LA Housing Department, and Laure is being fairly compensated under the law. Plus, it's really not that hard to find a good place to live in LA. I've found four in the last 10 years. I understand loving an apartment - we love ours - but I don't confuse that with owning it.

Relocation asssitance is not the solution to preserve rent control buildings. we must remember tha rent control is a sclose as t he low income community get to affordable hosuing. reffer to Villarraigosa Housing that work plan. relocation yes $1781.00 ehh sounds like alot of money, but longterm it wotn get you anywhere. after a a year or so your money will be gone you mught or might not have a job and if you do you might be making the same amount of money. specially with the economic crisis which we have all been affected by through the country. take a second to think about you move the apartment builiding cost what the markert values says or it gets demolished and $200,000 and up condos are biult can you come back in most cases no, and if you can you are not low income. relocation at times means gentrification.

Beware. and if you move into a just remodeled or just built building imagine how many families were displaced

All this talk about having a "rent-controlled apartment" in Los Angeles as if it were different than a "market" apartment in Los Angeles makes no sense. All units in Los Angeles are rent controlled unless the unit is a single family dwelling on the same lot. So, if it is an "apartment", it is rent-controlled. The exhorbitant rents in Los Angeles for apartments are for apartments that are rent controlled.
The reason rents do go up so much is because renters are dropping the ball. They rent a unit for $1,500 and assume that after they've signed the lease and moved in, that's the legal rent. No, it isn't. It depends on the reason the previous tenant moved out.