by Jack
MORE GOVERNMENT – LESS FREEDOM
In a vote along party lines, the Ca Assembly passed a rent control bill much to the chagrin of property owners.
“The state Assembly finally passed SF-based Assembly member David Chiu’s AB 1482—which will bar landlords from increasing rents more than five percent per year plus inflation—by a margin of 48-26 on Wednesday.”
The bill doesn’t stop at rent control, it also makes it even more difficult to evict bad tenants. Currently landlords can expect to spend about $5000 and it takes about 3 months to evict, if you are lucky. When this bill goes into effect that will look like the good old days. Aren’t you glad you are not a landlord in CA?
By the way, in San Francisco I’ve heard it takes so long and is so expensive that its better for the landlord to pay $10-15,000 to get a bad tenant just to move out.
The California liberals have given up any pretense of legislative restraint. With one party rule, they’re demonstrating what the founders told us about democracy. Government run by majority rule will commit suicide. It’s death by a thousand cuts. Every day we’re slapped with another idiotic liberal wet dream.
Anyone interested in starting a pool on how soon they’ll contrive a way to “legally” confiscate your guns?
CJ,
San Fransicko already has by declaring the NRA to be a “terrorist organization”.
This lays down a marker for the future attempted confiscation of any and all weapons in the hands of private citizens who happen to be associated with or members of the NRA.
For once we agree. It is an outrage that SF has declared the NRA a “terrorist organization.” I find the NRA to be a terrible and extreme group that focuses more on divisive partisan posturing than actually defending the second amendment, but labeling them “terrorists” is just ridiculous emotional posturing, and borders on government punishing a group for their protected speech.
You mean after labeling legal responsible NRA gun owners as TERRORIST.
I feel they have already started the process……
http://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.com/2019/09/about-time.html
Precisely. Listen to the crowd.
Beto illustrates exactly why the 2nd Amendment was written. And it is the 2nd that protects the 1st.
Great. More big money leaving the state resulting in less construction of apartment buildings and homes for rent, which will increase the homeless population.
Off topic.
Let the truth finally be told.
DOJ watchdog submits draft report on alleged FISA abuses to Barr, source says:
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/doj-inspector-general-submits-report-on-alleged-fisa-abuses-to-attorney-general?fbclid=IwAR2e0OX0F02thej6P8l5u_5igxzu8O4JBiGj2O2MW33vr6rYHyiNPnCKvxE
And Newscum just signed a bill tying the hands of teachers in the classroom to control unruly students.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/new-california-law-bans-school-suspensions-for-defiant-students
Talk about overreach!!!!!!!
Now, like Oregon we are going to participate in Statewide Rent control, will there be any winners, other than liberal party seeking more voters, don’t think so.
San Francisco and LA have had rent control for decades, but have not been spared from a housing squeeze and rising homelessness. Santa Monica even more so, which earned them the title Moscow by the sea. But still the State of CA seeks further/future disruption of Capital investment. Oh well California’s loss, other free enterprise (inso much as less regulations )states gain.
This will not “sunset” and go away in the 10 year life of what can easily labeled as a socialist entitlement program , where the existing private landlord get to subsidize rents and it’s cost
It will also cause renters difficulty in future relocations, will there be any available existing units to choose from, will there be private infill of new construction, that escapes this rent control bill (those built after 2004 till when?), seriously doubt it, and what return of investment can be realistically expected after increasing land, taxes, construction and then maintenance costs that need to be included in those new rental possibilities.
So most likely renters will stay put, and maybe even have to deal with deferred maintenance do to costs and lost of fair or nessicary rent to cover them. That will make affordable vacant units near non existent.
But just remember folks we voted these (well, not us with common sense) idiotic lawmakers into power, so how are we going to reverse this?
Entitlement thinking start fairly early on, observed through welfare, cultivated in class rooms, and used by politicians, who really are only concerned with their own egotistical goals.
So where what/will investors do, I would head to a state where the outlay of my capital was rewarded in a free market versus investing in a state with a Government subsidy program,
Or to put it into another perspective, would you use a credit card that arbitrarily raises the interest rate from 13 percent one month to 35 percent the next, just because it could? I wouldn’t
However sad, we did get what we sowed, bad seed, bad crop, we will all starve eventually.
It seems like this bill would increase freedom for renters. Is the GOP the party of the little guy, or is it the party of landlords? 5% per year plus inflation seems very reasonable to me–why would a landlord need to raise rent higher than that?
Ownership of privately owned rental property is not Government housing, (Which really takes a beating over time) A properly maintained rental cannot even function properly on those COLA and 5% numbers, in my opinion talking with Landlords that have pride in ownership. And a lot of rentals are income for retirees that depend on a fair return.
When a tenant leaves, especially a long term one it can get costly in refreshing the unit properly for the next people, There is always some repairs, painting, flooring, worn or abused equipment to address, (a lot of times tenants will not report a problem for many different reasons) add in the need to do a eviction move out, costs and losses can really rise, especially in California it seems.
So why would a landlord refresh a unit properly if he is just working on a thin marge of return, or none at all. To do so would just fall into a form of socialist subsides, but it is forced on the private sector not Government.
Yes there are people who own rentals for the tax breaks, but not to subsidize housing for others. They still need a margin of profit to properly run rentals.
Taxes, insurance, utilities go up annually as well as cost of labor and services few of which are tied to CPI influenced COLAS (The Bureau of Labor Statistics has revised the methodology used to calculate CPI several times, usually resulting in lower reported increases in the price level. Consequently, some believe the CPI (purposefully or otherwise) understates the impact of inflation)
Those costs eat up that 5% rapidly. Now let’s say someone was brave enough to capitalize new construction in California, verse a state tied to a free market, how do you compete with a fresh new unit verse one that requires additional capital beyond that 5% ceiling, and we are not even bringing exterior or curb appeal into this, and that’s important and costly. But it’s the interior that generally rents it out. So maybe work gets deferred, or done in a lipstick on a pig manner, what gradually happens is maybe a slightly lesser rent to a lower income tenant willing to live in it (or no choice, for whatever reason) takes it over and that is how neighborhoods rundown or newer ghettos with run down rentals are created. It all becomes a downward spiral. Even if it is second 8 subsidized, they do annul inspections and require some minimal work, you still expense it.
So what may seem reasonable with a COLA and a 5% cap is a liberal vote generating gimmick Add in the issue of when you have a Tax and spend Government like California, which is always finding ways to tax profits, and without consideration for your limits to recover costs, things always start to look a lot like, say Detroit