4 ms·
Just so people understand where I'm coming from with what I'm about to say, my family has worked and existed in the construction business for a long time. House
by wheaties 9y ago
Just so people understand where I'm coming from with what I'm about to say, my family has worked and existed in the construction business for a long time. Houses to rent out were considered the safest income producing retirement asset to invest money. Then rent control was introduced.
Fast forward 20yrs later and rent had stayed the same but taxes and municipal fees had increased to the point where they dwarfed the legally allowable income. Add to this new mandates which stipulated how electricity and water could be billed to tenants requiring installation of new equipment in the buildings every few years. Then throw in rising insurance rates coupled with rising maintenance expenses.
So, we took at look at the figures and decided the best course of action was to either bulldoze a set of perfectly livable buildings, let the lots sit for the required minimum time, then rebuild a non-rent controlled property --OR-- sell to someone who could afford to do the same. There was no legal way to earn a profit otherwise. Turning into slum lords was not something we wanted to do. Welcome to being a landlord with rent controlled property.
- hindsightbias 9y ago> rent had stayed the same SF allows rent increases, CPI adjusted, usually 1.5-2.5% a year. SF county use taxes have been ~8% for a couple of decades. Prop 13 has been in effect since the 70s. 4 out of 6 units in my building have flipped in 5 years, allowing rent increases. Resulting in at least $70-80K additional income for the landlord (at Prop 13 tax rates). This is more the norm than an outlier - many of the new techies aren't mad at grandma stealing their freedom fries, they're mad at techies who beat them here in 2012. I'm all for giving up rent control when landlords give up Prop 13.