if you are considering this also then include all HOA boards to not raise association dues.
please do not have rent control and do not have relocation fee also. Landlord with Duplex do not make much money to pay back renters, we have mortgage, repairs, property taxes is very, very high and it goes up every year, pay gardeners, some have water bill also. Some time the bills are higher than the rent income.
Rabia, I worry that if merely regulating the extent to which you can raise the rent annually in your units puts you at financial risk, then you might want to consider selling your properties to somebody who is in a better financial position to manage them. Nobody - neither you nor I - is entitled to be a landlord and we shouldn't make policies formally or informally subsidizing landlords' incomes that put their tenants at increased risk of eviction and deeper into economic precarity. Property is extremely valuable in Culver City. You can make a good return on your investment and leave property management to somebody in a better financial position to do so.
If you cannot afford to be a good landlord, then you should not be a landlord. If you cannot afford to be a good landlord in a city where tenants and landlords alike are protected by a rent stabilization ordinance, then you should not be a landlord.
Kyle are you a real state agent? Please do not tell me what I should do with my property. I know what the property worth. I get a lot of mail from real estate agents every day, asking do I want to sell, and what it worth, and also what they have sold in the area.You did not read the whole article of mine, these unkind comment I do not need, I know what I need to do,
Rabia, I am not a real estate agent. I am just saying that if you are as cash strapped as you claim to be, then it doesn't sound like rent control and relocation assistance are the problems preventing you from being a good landlord. Relocation assistance only becomes an issue if you are attempting to evict a tenant without cause in a rent stabilized jurisdiction. If you are not trying to do this, then you don't have to worry about relocation assistance. Rent stabilization ordinances do prevent you from raising the rent above a certain percentage each year, but these percentages are typically quite high, well over relative increases in wages and over relative increases of other consumer goods (as per the consumer price index). For these reasons, rent stabilization ordinances should not add cost burdens to you as a landlord. They are designed to somewhat ease cost burdens to tenants.
Being a landlord isn't cheap or easy, which I acknowledged in my initial post. If it's too expensive or becoming too cumbersome, I would just advise you to consider selling to a less cost burdened landlord instead of advocating against expanding tenant protections in Culver City.
We strongly oppose any further extension of the current temporary rent control law in Culver City. Why?
1. Lack of affordable rental housing is caused by the fact there is more rental demand than available supply. All reputable economists agree on this. So, the solution is this: we need more rental housing, not less.
2. Studies prove conclusively that rent control reduces the amount of rental supply, creating an even greater lack of rental housing. Realtors know this and are already targeting landlords to sell their properties. This is the unfortunate unintended consequence of rent control. With rent control, our housing affordability problem will inevitably get worse.
3. Over time, landlords under rent control will have fewer resources to maintain and improve rental properties. The quality of available rental housing will decline making our community and rental housing less desirable and safe for tenants.
4. This is a citywide issue that affects all Culver City residents. Any equitable solution should be borne broadly by city taxpayers, not solely at the expense of landlords for the benefit of tenants. This is an unfair “taking” of resources from one constituency and “giving” it to another.
5. Although the interim measure states that the cap does not apply to single family homes and separately owned condos and townhomes, you forced these owners to register with the city, stating that you will not charge any fees “at this time” if they registered by the deadline. These owners, who are individuals and families and appear to be the target of future measures, use their property to supplement their current income retirement benefits, which would be inadequate if it were not for the rental income their property generates.
6. Institutional owners, who are affected by the interim measure and who the population at large love to hate, largely consist of pension funds such as CALPERS and CALSTERS, which also invest in real estate to fund the retirement benefits of public employees such as teachers, government employees, and firemen and firewomen. These are the people who may unintentionally suffer from rent control.
7. Landlords are not the reason for Culver City’s lack of affordable housing supply and should not be punished for problems they did not cause. Landlords have little control over the supply of new rental housing. The supply of available housing is largely governed by zoning, which is controlled by city government. Culver City failed to issue the number of new housing building permits needed to keep up with housing demand, along with 97% of California’s other cities and counties. Rent control cannot and does not solve the problem of insufficient housing supply. In order to solve the affordable housing issue, city zoning and construction regulations need to encourage construction of new rental housing in order to keep up and exceed Culver City’s growing housing demand.
In conclusion, while well intended, rent control will not solve Culver City’s lack of affordable rental housing. The only solution is to increase the supply of new rental housing. We strongly oppose any further extension of the current temporary rent control law in Culver City.
your explanation. Well said. Thank You
Retired Duplex owners like myself that depend on the income to live on are unfairly affected by these ordances. If I become Ill and need to occupy my own downstairs property I would not be able to pay the penalty to tenant even if they have no current lease and are month to month?! Yet, if I go broke and sell to a developer who tears it down to build a massive ugly structure, he can charge whatever rent he wants. So wrong.