|
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/04/la-councilman-calls-for-oneyear-moratorium-on-rent-hikes.html
April 14, 2010 | 12:45 pm
Los Angeles City Councilman Richard Alarcon called Wednesday for the passage of a one-year moratorium on rent increases for more than 600,000 apartments across the city, saying the economic downturn has hurt families living in those buildings.
Appearing with a room full of renters’ rights advocates, Alarcon said his proposal would block landlords from imposing the 3% rent increase that would be allowed on July 1 under the city’s rent stabilization ordinance. That ordinance applies to an estimated 630,000 apartment units built before 1978.
For renters that do not pay gas and electricity bills, rent could go up by as much as 5%. Alarcon said his colleagues should support his moratorium since they have been speaking out against Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa’s plan for four consecutive electric increases at the Department of Water and Power.
“If they block the increase in DWP rates, then they should block this [rent] increase,” he said.
Alarcon said he and two other council members – Herb Wesson and Janice Hahn – have been pressing ahead with efforts to resurrect a compromise electric rate hike that was approved by the council two weeks ago but rejected by Villaraigosa’s appointees on the DWP board.
The councilman said he believed he could get support from eight other council members to send a 4.5% electric rate hike to the DWP board.
One business group, the Valley Industry and Commerce Assn., immediately denounced Alarcon’s call for a rent moratorium.
"Los Angeles already places an unreasonable number of regulations on business owners,” said Edgar Khalatian, chairman of the the group’s land use committee. “This is yet another unfair burden on property owners who are struggling to avoid foreclosure proceedings.”
Larry Gross, executive director of the Coalition for Economic Survival, disagreed. He said rent hikes in Los Angeles should be in line with the inflation rate. Such a system would allow landlords to pass rising costs onto their tenants.
Since that rate in Los Angeles was below zero last year, rent increases should not be allowed this year, Gross said.
“Without this moratorium, injustice will continue to prevail,” Gross said.
-- David Zahniser at Los Angeles City Hall
Comments to the above article:
You're a little behind the curve on this one Alarcon. No one is raising rents these days-haven't you seen the vacancy factor. How about putting your efforts into getting good breaks for business-as a renter in a rent controlled building-rather than rent increases how about rent roll backs, if you really want to show seriousness. I am paying alot more than the new tenants coming in, am too proud to go to my landlord to ask for a rent reduction. It seems no one in the City Council has any real ideas. I think all should pay attention to Riordan's outlook on how to best solve the City's problems. Good luck but nice try. sadstate
Posted by: St. George=Saint | April 14, 2010 at 12:17 PM
Los Angeles and its rent control. What a joke! If Los Angeles wants affordable housing for its residents, it should build the housing that is needed. Why should property owners support those residents who can't afford to pay fair market value for a rental? Los Angeles sucks!
Posted by: Leon | April 14, 2010 at 12:23 PM
I'm quite the liberal, but it really isn't private landowners' responsibility to subsidize housing.
If large rental corporations are getting special tax privileges, then yes, they need to provide some sort of subsidy in kind. It is up to government and charitable organizations to help those in need.
Perhaps the city or state could issue some sort of tax break to property owners who don't raise rents or who provide rental breaks to the unemployed/underemployed.
Posted by: Carol | April 14, 2010 at 12:26 PM
Taking from someone (the owner) and giving to others (the renters) is just plain wrong. Government has no business controlling the prices of anything, including rents.
Posted by: james andrews | April 14, 2010 at 12:28 PM
What about those of us who have already been hit with a rent increase for 2010? Is there anything I can do? Seriously. Thanks!
Posted by: CaliGal | April 14, 2010 at 12:30 PM
This is a great time to rent an apartment in L.A. Rents are below past year's rates, and owners offer incentives to new renters. True, 3% is more than inflation, but the reality is most owners will not raise those that are near market rate, for fear of losing the tenant.
Posted by: Mike | April 14, 2010 at 12:33 PM
RENT INCREASES ARE PRIVATE YOU MORON! You do not have the right to regulate private industry!!!!!!!
Posted by: pam | April 14, 2010 at 12:34 PM
RENT INCREASES ARE PRIVATE YOU MORON! You do not have the right to regulate private industry!!!!!!!
Posted by: pam | April 14, 2010 at 12:35 PM
By far the dumbest proposal I have ever heard about. If your rent is going up too high then move to a lower rent vacant unit. Many reports have already claimed that rents will drop and vacancies will increase, thus, allowing people the opportunity to move to lower rent units. Irrational political decisions like this hurt the market more than help. The rents would correct themselves better without this intervention.
Posted by: AL | April 14, 2010 at 12:44 PM
I think what the councilman needs to understand is that not all the units in LA county are rented at market value. As a Landlord myself, I have a couple of units renting for half of the market value. I don't think that is fair for the landlord especially since all the expenses (LA DWP)have been sky rocketing for the past couple of years.
Posted by: Fred Khabbaz | April 14, 2010 at 12:46 PM
If the DWP refused to accept a one-time 6% rate hike last month what makes him think they'll accept a 4.5% hike. Oh, wait! I know! It's actually a 4.5% hike every 3 months! Okay now that DWP would love. Of course it would destroy the ratepayers, but what the heck, who needs ratepayers.
Posted by: Astonished | April 14, 2010 at 12:50 PM
And yet Richard Alarcon has signed off on some seventy-five tax and fee increases over the last several years. All of these government "revenue enhancements" increase the cost of living in Los Angeles far more substantially than rent increases.
Given that he is under investigation for a felony, and may not be eligible to hold his office, isn't it inappropriate to be calling for illegal restrictions of trade? Anyone have information on when is he going to be indicted?
Posted by: Bruno | April 14, 2010 at 12:52 PM
Rent increases with most everything should be tied to the CPI.
Posted by: SP Jose | April 14, 2010 at 01:02 PM
You have my support on a rent hike moratorium. While I believe apartment owners are entitled to a reasonable return on investment, renters need to continue to spend with a wide variety of businesses, money that would not be spent at the grocery store, etc., if allocated to increased rent.
Posted by: Erwin | April 14, 2010 at 01:30 PM
Another bonehead idea from a career politician. Stop rental increases to further drive property values down, and further drive down property tax collections when those owners file for reassessments. Not to mention the negative effects additional regulation will have on anyone who currently owns or plans on owning apartment buildings as investments.
Thanks for playing into populist sentiment, after all, the residents of those 630,000 rent controlled units are probably better contributors to the county and city's welfare than those who own the properties and pay property and income taxes on them.
Posted by: Hooman | April 14, 2010 at 01:37 PM
I've been fortunate in that I've always rented from decent and honest people. My current landlord voluntarily refrained from raising the rent in 2009. My previous landlord also didn't raise the rent in 2008. However, I have to say that the apartment I rented up to 2008 cost $900 a month. I lived there for 10 years and between 1998 and 2008 the rent went from $660 to $900. The building cost $125,000 to build in 1970. The rent I paid (one unit out of 26) was greater than the cost to build the entire complex.
Posted by: James | April 14, 2010 at 01:50 PM
St.George.. grab some sack, dude! It's not the government's job to ask for a rent reduction for you! What a weiner. With leases, this is the risk you take. You are sheltered from rent increases during your lease, but you also miss out on rent reductions. You win some your lose some. Don't like it, pay the reletting fee and go rent a cheaper unit.
All this rent control, gov't control stuff is just lame. If you can't afford to live somewhere.. don't live there. Someone else will. If no one is willing to pay, rents will fall. Let the natural cycle take it's course. When gov't tries to outsmart the market, they continually fail with policy riddled with unintended consequences. Put in consumer protections, wind the watch and let it go.
I lived in Pacific Beach for many years. A new landlord took over and raised rates every month until I had to leave. I moved. Someone else moved in. I lived. It worked out.
Posted by: TheRealTrueFreedom | April 14, 2010 at 02:20 PM
Larry Gross from The Coalition of Economice Survival is basically a paid employee of the LAHD. All of his income comes from grants provided by the federal government and handed to him on a platter by the LAHD. Anything he says should be taken with a bit of bias. In fact he has done nothing but fleece the government -both locally and federally. If you have heard of REAP you have heard of Larry Gross and know of the gross ineffceincies of the Los Angles Housing Department as well as Mr. Gross's so called coalition.
In addition, Mr. Gross's organization is in bed with all of the local unions --in fact his office is subsidized by one of the largest unions around. In addition, his target is lowincome housing. To please his servants -the politicians, he regularly incites --thru so called "grass roots" movements, the political wheels --how you ask.
Cater to the lowincome by using LAHD, protect their rents, get them 50% reductions through REAP, consitently be awarded grants from LAHD, secure votes,because the council members vote on grants by the LAHD. Thus the coucil members that contiue to vote him the money are secured votes at the end. Larry Gross and the LAHD should be investigated by the FBI --but hey, the unions got his back.
This is your Los Angeles --or is it?
Posted by: tim | April 14, 2010 at 02:22 PM
POLITICIANS
Posted by: jay | April 14, 2010 at 02:46 PM
rent shouldn't be going up in the face of deflation. I can see raising rate if dwp rate go up and the renter doesn't handle that separately but otherwise rents should be flat or retreating.
Posted by: mike02 | April 14, 2010 at 02:49 PM
"James", you are a moron.
What something was worth 40 years ago is completely irrelevent today. What matters today, is how much that property is worth right this very moment. I doubt that the current property owner is the same person who built the place in 1970. Have you considered what HE or SHE bought it for and what THEIR mortgage is on the place? To say nothing of a second mortgage, maybe? Have you considered that with the "housing bust", their property could very likely not be worth near what it is they are paying on it? The answer is very clearly, no!
Rent control laws actually lead to a false shortage of housing and an increase in so called, "slumlords".
What needs to be done is these ridiculous laws need to be repealed and the current market allowed to operate freely. That is how our system was originally designed to work. I assure you that if such pathetic laws were repealed, prices would actually go down and there would be an even supply to demand.
Posted by: Jack Carson | April 14, 2010 at 02:53 PM
This is the same group who want to increase rents to shops and resaurants on Olvera Street, which almost everyone believes will destroy these small businesses. This is about as hypocritical as you can get, unless you just consider it another assault on business in LA.
Posted by: kentito | April 14, 2010 at 03:23 PM
"Larry Gross, executive director of the Coalition for Economic Survival, disagreed. He said rent hikes in Los Angeles should be in line with the inflation rate. Such a system would allow landlords to pass rising costs onto their tenants."
What a turkey. So when inflation was 5% for years and landlords were limited to only 3% increases that was fair but now inflation is low landlords should suffer. What does turkey Larry Gross say to the state of CA..... Hey state, Prop 13 says you can increase taxes 2% every year but we want you to suspend the annual property tax increase for LA because our tennants are SUFFERING. So what if there is less money for the schools. Oh and Mr insurance company, you can't increase your policy costs for landlords in LA either this year because our tennants are suffering.
I'm so glad I left LA...
Mabe an earthquake will demolish the city so someone can start over
Posted by: Irate reader | April 14, 2010 at 03:34 PM
I would benefit from this rent increase, HOWEVER, it is SOCIALISM for government to freeze private sector rents in areas that don't have rent control.
Since Alarcon is "just a tenant" in property owned by his wife, I wonder if Flora was threatening to raise Alar"CON"'s contribution to the rent or mortgage that they pay!
Posted by: Yessenia | April 14, 2010 at 04:07 PM
Let the market take care of this.
If these dipshit landlords want to raise rent 3%, let them. I've seen a lot of 'for rent' signs lately, and if these moron landlords and property management companies would rather have an empty apartment than to lower rent in an ailing economy, that's their problem. Enjoy the sound of SILENCE in your empty apartments.
Make no mistake, when you rent, you are getting a SERVICE. Meaning, these people need to serve you to keep you living there. And if they can't serve you properly, then move and give another company your business.
Posted by: Just say it | April 14, 2010 at 04:10 PM
“Without this moratorium, injustice will continue to prevail.”
A good way to know the reporting bias is how they end the article. That's the spin. The L.A. Times definitely has a leftward spin to their reporting.
Posted by: Indie2010 | April 14, 2010 at 04:30 PM
Maybe the public union workers and politicians should live by the same rules. Raises in line with inflation.
Posted by: Sama | April 14, 2010 at 04:48 PM
I live in a place that tried to stick me with a 7% rent increase. All I did was move down the street, to a newer apartment, for less than what I paid last year, so it worked out for me. So some apartments are absolutly trying to raise rents. This is in Woodland Hills/Warner Center area.
Posted by: Gaucho420 | April 14, 2010 at 05:18 PM
How do morons like Alarcon continue to get elected to different offices? Loony ideas like this are why you should vote against him and his left wing comrades on the city council. You wonder why the city is in such dire straights? Its professional politicians like Alarcon, who've never had a real job or lived on a real salary to make ends meet...telling others what to do. Every loser on the council needs to work in a real job for one year or run a small business...then maybe they'll get some real brains on how life really works.
Posted by: BLM | April 14, 2010 at 05:38 PM
Get ready for more run down apartments/rental housing. How does Alarcon expect landlords to stay above water on their properties? I guess he is clueless, doesn't care, wants to encourage more foreclosures, or all of the above. Who are the idiots that vote for this fool?
Posted by: ColeslawPatriot | April 14, 2010 at 05:47 PM
YAY! Rent control! Why not lower the rent to, say, $50? And then confiscate all those apartments when the TAXES can't be paid on them? I would LOVE the politicians that GAVE me a FREE apartment. And then give me that GUARANTEED INCOME! No one would have to work again! Better yet, let me stay where I am and just SEND ME THE MONEY!
Posted by: Fiftycal | April 14, 2010 at 05:58 PM
Why should rents be protected? What about grocery or gas price controls? I know people paying a small fraction of the market rent, and they have a great income. How is that fair on the landlords?
The 3% limit was ok when it was less than standard rental increases, now when it goes the other way, it is suddenly not Ok? This is a form of taxation. If the city is so keen to help tenants, then they should pay to subsidize them, not put the burden on private owners.
Posted by: Trilby | April 14, 2010 at 06:21 PM
Is it any wonder that LA has more dilapidated housing, more crime, more blighted neighborhoods, etc. Sliding downhill quite quickly.
Posted by: dhwj | April 14, 2010 at 06:32 PM
Why did the rent increase change from the usual 2% to 3% in 2009?
Because of Prop 13, my landlord's property taxes are only $2,000 a year on a building still worth $1-1.2M - even after the housing downturn.
Seems fair to me that my rent is a little bit under market rate, when his taxes are MASSIVELY below the market (appraisal) rate on the property.
Posted by: KarenVB | April 14, 2010 at 06:42 PM
When did "profit" become a dirty word? Where did people get the idea that landlords should operate like social service organizations? If the city blocks increases this year, will it allow 6% increases next year (or whenever the economy improves)? If the argument is that landlords should take a hit during recession, it seems fair that they should be allowed to recover that loss during economic expansion. PS: I am a renter, not a landlord.
Posted by: Dave T | April 14, 2010 at 07:41 PM
I went to the grocery store; too expensive, can you do something about that?
Gas went up again, would you please lower it...
Dang Doctors and Hospitals charge too much; can you make them give me surgery for less?
Also, could you limit the increases on coffee; how am I supposed to afford 6 cups a day at that price.
and the cost of hair cuts is outrageous, the cost of porn is obscene, the cost of printer ink is a total rip, cable TV prices suck, dog food is way out of this world, and whenever I go to buy jewelry, antiques, and art work its always the same thing - they all just want more money.
Can you help me out here gov'nor?
On second thought, just print more money 'cause that will make EVERYTHING easier to buy...
Posted by: Sashland | April 14, 2010 at 08:11 PM
"Because of Prop 13, my landlord's property taxes are only $2,000 a year on a building still worth $1-1.2M - even after the housing downturn.
Seems fair to me that my rent is a little bit under market rate, when his taxes are MASSIVELY below the market (appraisal) rate on the property."
RIGHT ON Karen! Let's get rid of Prop 13 while we're at it!
Posted by: Betty | April 14, 2010 at 11:21 PM
The previous commentator doesn't know what they are talking about. My landlord has already given me notice effective July 1st for a 5% increase & I've already lost that much at my job. That means 10% more in the hole from last year. Landlords are complaining about their water rates & want renters to pay for it. Boo-Hoo. GO ALARCON!
Posted by: Vera | April 15, 2010 at 11:16 AM
Rank hypocrisy. The same day Councilman Alarcon votes for a DWP rate increase he floats the idea that the city's landlords must freeze their rents because the economic environment is so bleak.
The arrogant "do as I say and not as I do" attitude is breathtaking.
Posted by: Barry Sullivan | April 16, 2010 at 04:53 PM
|
