Question for those who live in California

[plowhog]

Anyone forced out by a sharp rent increase discovers that any alternative got raised too. Not much different from what we see with California insurance but this is nationwide.

You wrote: "Anyone forced out by a sharp rent increase."

Q- in California, just who would that be? A 5% increase is a sharp increase? Limited to one 5% increase after 12 months? A puny 5% in this inflationary period?

For liability protection, I keep residential rentals in an LLC, which is legally a corporate ownership. Thus, I am an "evil corporate" landlord. I guess if a plumbing company uses an LLC entity they are "evil plumbers?"

The "evil" corporate owned rentals are rate limited but those owned by an individual are not. (At least in my County.) So how is a corporate owned rental such a threat to the market? Actually, they are more professionally run than single owner managed rentals. I have seen this time and again.

The same govt interference that crashed the insurance market is now in play with residential rentals.

The do-gooders believe they can alter just one side of the laws of supply and demand and somehow have zero consequences and deliver free money to people risk free. Promising free money is a tried and true way to win elections, but it is not without consequences. Insurance today, housing tomorrow. Then what's next? Why not price controls on food?

 

[two_bit_score]

The same govt interference that crashed the insurance market is now in play with residential rentals.

 

[California]

what's next? Why not price controls on food?

No no no. Can't subsidize the consumers. The subsidies are reserved for the farmers!

Actually, take a look at the referenced article. You're right that demand is pushing up rental prices. To the point where more and more people are falling out of the middle class, barely getting by, in contrast to their parents' generation. At the extreme end, there weren't homeless camps before recently.

One solution being tried presently is changing zoning laws to encourage higher urban density. ADU's (granny units) allowed in neighborhoods previously zoned single family can improve the stock of rentals to make life better for people who work in the city and presently commute from way out where rents are cheap. Structural changes like this can make life better for more Americans.

I've owned rentals, nine units at one point (including our half of one of the duplexes). They put me through grad school. So I'm not anti-landlord. But I am concerned for how the quality of life for many Americans is declining.

 

[plowhog]

No no no. Can't subsidize the consumers. The subsidies are reserved for the farmers!

 

[plowhog]

ADU's (granny units) allowed in neighborhoods previously zoned single family

I wrote earlier that the County tried semi-extortion pushing a building permit fee to nearly $200k to build a second residence at our ranch property.

Thanks to the state-wide new regulations over the past few years, the County has been muzzled and they are most certainly not happy about it. Their permit fee for 1,200 feet or less is capped at $16,000.

The cap on money is one thing. What they really dislike is taking away the many demands that had little to do with building a structure. They have been trying to hold us hostage for a major road improvement to build a second structure. Ironically the road would not serve the new structure, but they were twisting our arm anyway. They cannot do that now.

So-- I'm not 100% anti-regulation. Just in the high 90's.

 

[ultrarunner]

I don't know how these regs are anything but kicking the can down the road at best or simply a taking… I remember in history the founding fathers spoke of quarterly/housing by the government illegal without compensation.

You can only go so far before it tumbles and crashes.

A couple of things in no particular order.

Regs may start out small and understandable such as banking unused rent increase and the option not renew a lease...

I mean a tenant can opt not renew do why not the owner?

How can anyone explain 3+ years of eviction moratorium with no rent coming in?

Maybe a property tax moratorium would have been a good faith move for those so effected?

Mind you all landlord services and responsibilities continued to be enforced.

City offices are still many work from home... often no longer possible to make an appointment for in person.

By law cutting security deposits is another ripple especially as everyone says costs are up but my security is cut?

I'm limited to 1/2 CPI on an increase provided all licenses, permits, inspection, rent board fees current.

No offset for increasing property taxes or if my insurance is up a 30% and mandated garbage and owner utilities increase double digit?

Just Cause eviction severely limits owners rights... in the past
advance notice not going to renew and each party moved on...

Several in my circle no longer own anything with a bed... simply too risky in times of owners responsibilities increase and owners rights diminish...

 

[plowhog]

Just Cause eviction severely limits owners rights... in the past
advance notice not going to renew and each party moved on...

Many people outside CA don't know what "just cause" eviction is. Those poor folks are "old school"-- trapped in the outdated, bigoted world of believing a landlord could decide he/she doesn't want to continue the rental, or continue a lease, at the end of the rental or lease period. Time for some re-education about "just cause!"

The right to control your private property is that pesky thing we used to call the "bundle of rights" that was granted when you purchased property. Whoa-- not so fast in CA!

Almost all power of landlords to not renew a rental has been stripped. "Just cause" is now required. There are just a few narrow "just cause" reasons that are legal. Merely deciding you don't want to continue renting is not one of them. Renting to someone who turned out to be a troublemaker, or is causing damage, or keeps requiring the police to be called is not on the "approved" list. After all, it would "damage" their rights if they had to move from your property. And the State of CA will provide assistance to help you sue the landlord.

A landlord who decides to do a "substantial remodel" of the property is/was one of the approved reasons. (Makes no sense having workers swinging hammers in an occupied residence?) But, on April 1, 2024, the "substantial remodel" reason for non-renewal was substantially weakened by amending the regulations. Below is the new description of what a landlord must do to get their property back if they intend to do a "substantial remodel" of it. My favorite is requiring landlords to act "truthfully and in good faith." I don't believe I have ever seen a regulation requiring tenants to do that.

• Substantial Remodel: Landlords must act truthfully and in good faith and comply with all state and local requirements when evicting a tenant to conduct a substantial remodel of a unit, as not all repairs meet the definition of “substantial remodel.” To be a “substantial remodel,” the landlord must plan to either replace or substantially modify a structural, electrical, plumbing or other system in the unit in a way that requires a permit, or to abate hazardous materials within the unit. In addition, the work must not be able to be done in a safe manner with tenants in the unit and must require a tenant to vacate the unit for at least 30 consecutive days. Cosmetic renovations do not count. Please also be aware that there may be special protections for protected groups such as senior tenants. Effective April 1, 2024, the eviction notice must include a description of the work to be done, copies of required permits, and a notice that if the substantial remodel is not commenced or completed, the tenant must be given the opportunity to re-rent the unit at the same rent and lease terms as when the tenant left.

 

[ultrarunner]

Another excellent post^^

Say you are doing a major permited renovation such as kitchen and bathrooms along with rewire and copper to replace galvanized pipes.

The permit must be in hand before requesting tenant vacate… and once your project is done to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars the tenants gets to move back under the old terms.

Maybe it’s a west coast thing?

WA is passing similar tenant legislation.

If a tenant fails to pay as agreed the owner must provide 30 day notice of non payment… so if the notice is received say by the 10th then add 30 days and then attempt to serve unlawful detainer along with 3k for lawyer and court costs and see where it goes.

Not a dime paid since January and place us getting trashed…

 

[California]

I never spent money on an attorney, the legal eviction process is well documented.

Back then the tenant had all sorts of law in their favor - so long as they were current on their rent. If not then you could start the eviction process. The couple of times I posted a formal eviction notice, I accompanied it with the Welfare pamphlet describing tenant and owner rights - and responsibilities - to help the tenant understand where this was going.

 

[ultrarunner]

True enough but at 900 miles and 2 states away little chouce but to have a local presence to be my boots on the ground.

It took more than a week of attempts for the process server leading me to believe this isn't the tenants first rodeo.

I would never ever buy to rent so far away other then I plan to retire there.

19 years and now formal eviction in process bolstered by lots of new renter protections now in place...