Correspondence - Non-Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

prices. They cap increases. In California, base rents can be brought to market rate upon vacancy for new tenants. Again, the local ordinances do allow for increases above the max where LLs can provide proof that funds are needed for upgrades or maintenance. Currently, LLs in Santa Ana claim such without any proof and gouge tenants. "because of this, many lls will convert their units into sellable condos and other lls will stop building new rental properties." While it is a possibility that some LLs may convert their units to sellable condos, I dispute that the actual costs of doing such - rezoning, applications, marketing and selling the newly created condos - may still ultimately result in less returns than would be realized by increasing rents at a stabilized max year over year on top of the ability to rent at market rates upon unit vacancy. Additionally, a flood of housing units for sale may actually be a good thing where there aren't enough affordable units for sale to allow first time homebuyers or middle income homebuyers to become new home owners. "\[Condo-ization\] causes the rental supply to actually decline and apartments that are not rent controlled will become even more expensive." This is simply conjecture without proof. But indeed at a theoretical level, condo- ization may decrease the supply of rentable units in a city. It would increase the supply of sellable units which isn't a bad thing necessarily. It would definitely be a bad thing for any tenants currently living in the units being converted into condos as the new owners may try to evict them if the new owners do not desire to be LLs themselves. This is where the two current ordinances fail to protect current tenants. However, the resolution that was passed which aims to establish a local agency/department would be able to institute processes that would need to be followed if condo-ization were to take place. "basically the only people who benefit from rent control are the lucky few who get in early and stay in." This is not a bad thing. For long term renters in our city who have made this city so desirable, this is actually the desired effect. Additionally, again, in California, vacant units can be rented out at market rates, so the logic of this statement is using an incorrect/outdated definition of rent control. It uses a definition wherein "vacancy control" exists. In California, Costa Hawkins rendered "vacancy control" illegal. Thus, units can be rented out at market rates, and increases thereafter are stabilized. "and because LLs have no incentive to improve or even maintain rent controlled units, the lucky few may not be lucky for very long" Without any rent control laws, LLs have no incentive to improve or maintain rented units. So I dispute this claim. But if it were true, again, this claim operates under an incorrect definition of rent control. Vacancy control cannot exist in California. And again, the ordinances explicitly outline that LLs can petition for increases above the max provided they actually have proof of whatever improvements or maintenance will take place. Many times, LLs claim that "substantial repairs" are necessary and don't even give tenants the ability to pay higher rents, they just evict all the long term tenants, paint the walls, and rent at higher rates to new people who aren't even from Santa Ana. "at the end of the day, rent control is only a band aid that only addresses the symptoms of the problem and only for a small number of people. But it fails to address the root of the high cost problem: a lack of supply; and only makes the problem worse by increasing the demand" Indeed, rent control will not solve the issue of increasing the supply of housing in our city. It will however ensure that those who have been here for decades can enjoy the ability to remain and have local mechanisms and laws to seek recourse against bad landlords in our City. Rent Stabilization and Just Cause protections do not inhibit new development. It will force those who maintain rent controlled units and properties to actually innovate or consider using their profits towards increasing the supply of housing. Currently though, there's no incentive or pushing factors towards holding housing providers accountable to increasing the supply of housing. In other words, without rent stabilization, there's even less incentive - uninhibited rent increases allow LLs to forever pocket egregious increases with zero accountability to the communities they "invest" in. ""For starters, no one likes landlords... does rent control lower or raise housing costs and does it increase 2