Correspondence - #33 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-"all landlords will stop renting if this is enacted" This is like arguing that because of any other regulation that all business owners in a given industry will leave overnight. However, especially in California, real estate is in high demand. Any equity gains will outpace increased rents above the cap (for any cap subject units). Three percent is a reasonable amount to increase the rent every year. If a landlord exits the rental business, they'd have a no percent increase year over year (on top of any equity gained). -"what do you think will happen to the housing/rental shortage when landlords can no longer afford to rent out their property due to non-payment of rent, squatting, lawsuits, etc.?" If a business owner can't afford to stay in business, they have some tough decisions to make. That has nothing to do with tenants. The issue that this question poses is the belief that tenants should bear all the costs of doing business and that the owner should not have to innovate or reinvest profits back into their business/investments. What will happen if a tenant doesn't pay rent under the proposed ordinance is that landlords can evict them — as it always has been. So this fear mongering statement lacks substance. If a landlord goes out of business because they keep having to evict bad tenants, the local market shouldn't bear the responsibility of weathering the instability that arises from the bad business decisions taken by an individual landlord. Lastly on this point, I question that Landlords will be unable to afford to keep their rentals afloat at a three percent increase. Other cities with rent control have a lower cap and yet landlords and investors still come in to those cities. And just maybe, the tenants living in the unit that a landlord offloads might be able to have accumulated enough savings to buy the building from the landlord who is underwater resulting in a win win for both sides... -"[the proposal] doesn't include considerations of inflation" It does. For any units subject to the rent cap, the max allowable increase per year is 80% of CPI or 3% whichever is less. -"limiting our ability to operate our mobilehome parks safely and reinvest in necessary infrastructure through this unjust rent control and just cause ordinance will only result in a less safe environment for our residents... rent control is not the answer and it will only result in further degradation of the city" The proposal does not limit any landlords ability to continue to operate their rental properties. This particular individual noted in other words that they are a good landlord. The proposal will allow them to continue to be good landlords. The comments offers no substance as to how the proposed ordinance will result in a less safe environment. They would still be able to raise rents, so I don't completely understand the argument. Additionally, the language of "further degradation" means to suggest that this individual thinks our city is of poor quality which is offensive in my humble opinion. To summarize the above points: Not all units will be subject the rent increase cap. When and where increases above the max may be necessary, a petition process will exist. "Rent Control" is not what the opponents think it is nor is it what is being proposed