Prop 33 would financially impact me and my family. The cost to live in California has gone up so much in recent years that we have contemplated selling the house and condo and moving out of California. The rent of out rental property allows us to provide for our kids and helps us prepare for their education costs.
I am a small landlord and prop 33 will really hurt me. I pride myself on being a good landlord and I also have expenses that I need to cover to keep up my buildings. If I’m unable to pay my expenses to keep up the buildings then my buildings will deteriorate and not be in good shape for people to live in. Prop 33 really will hurt small landlords that count on income for a retirement and to take care of our families.
This measure, Prop 33 will destroy one of the last remaining avenues for seniors who rent out their house (or partial) to retain ability of recouping their home to occupy once again without exorbitant outlay of reimbursing renters for relocation, and/or litigation fees. The increase in cost of living may be a benchmark for increasing rents, but it has not even come close to the increase in housing cost of repairs, property tax, interest rates, and insurance increases over the past 2 years. This proposition seems outrageous in light of recent expenses incurred by property owners for maintenance and upkeep.
It disproportionately impacts landlords in a way never seen in this country.
So called "Justice for Renters Act" is actually "Injustice for Renters Act". By permanently freezing the rent, rental owners will pull out of rental market, making the homeless situation worse rather than making it better. Yes, the initial impact would benefit the renters but certainly, there will be less available rental units as time goes on. Furthermore, this proposed initiative will significantly decrease investment in construction of new rental properties. Knowing the rent is frozen forever, what investor would be interested in building new apartment? I worked hard through my life working full time as a professional engineer and at the same time maintaining a rental property over 45 years to build for future and retirement. This injustice "Justice for RenterAct" will cramp my life as I know of it today.
It’s not right or fair for the government to control the price of rent homeowners can charge. There’s rent control everywhere already. As a result, we homeowners charge very low rent that’s far below rent market value and can’t increase much rent annually or evict tenants. In the future, if it’s necessary to renovate the house or apartment unit after years of wear and tear, we homeowners would need to rent at a higher price to recover the costs of repairs and replacements. If the government controls all rent costs, we owners would not fix the house since we won’t be able to increase prices and people would end up living in broken, deteriorated places. We owners do not rent out places at an extremely unaffordable price. We charge at a price that’s affordable to others. Otherwise, people won’t rent the place either. There’s no need for the government to control homeowners’ rent prices.
I understand the extremely dire negative consequences of this proposed initiative. It must fail or I believe the housing markets in many areas of California, including here in Los Angeles County, will be irreparably damaged.
The reason I oppose this proposal is that, as a property management company and a homeowner, I have personally experienced the potential devaluation of the housing market if this regulation passes. It would be detrimental to the economy and provide opportunities for problematic tenants to take advantage. Landlords would become the weaker party. As a homeowner, the property is mine; why should it be subject to government control to regulate rent? If that’s the case, the government might as well own these properties and make decisions themselves. If rent cannot be controlled, then should the interest be controlled by the homeowners? Otherwise, if rent cannot increase to cover the mortgage on rental properties, does that mean the government can repossess the house? This would be completely detrimental to the economy.
Justice for Renter's act will force me, as an apartment buidling owner, to keep the property vacant and not lease any units to any tenants. Instead, if Prop 33 passes, I will sell my house and my kids, my parents, and i will all occupy our units and not rent it to anyone else.
As a proud resident of California, I strongly believe Prop. 33 will seriously aggravate the state’s housing crisis by discouraging investors and developers from building more rental housing. Such housing is needed to make California more livable and affordable for many young adults who are tenants, like my two sons, and building more housing is the only answer to getting the homeless off our streets. In 2020, there was a measure on the ballot, very similar to Prop. 33, also supported, funded and orchestrated by the AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF) and that organization’s CEO, Michael Weinstein. Gov. Gavin Newsom strongly opposed that 2020 measure for the same reasons I now believe Prop. 33 – if approved by voters – would hurt California by stifling the new rental housing construction so desperately needed for California to grow and prosper. By the way, tenants should also be warned that AHF currently owns and operates 1,300 rental units in downtown Los Angeles, and it has been accused of being a “slumlord” by its own tenants. A lengthy LA Times investigation, published on Nov. 19, 2023, found that “many of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation’s more than 1,300 residents live in squalid conditions.” Bottom-line: tenants should NOT trust a “slumlord” that claims its Frankenstein monster – aka Prop. 33 - will make their lives better!
My husband and I worked hard, saved money, and invested in a rental property to help support us in retirement. We have dealt with renters who never cleaned the home, renters that stole appliances and moved out in the middle of the night, and renters who owed several months back rent. All of that, plus maintenance of the home, property taxes, and insurance ends up making one wonder why they chose to be a landlord! Before the last rent control initiative was voted in, landlords raised rents hundreds of dollars a month to try to mitigate rent control. Will the State ensure that the amount of any increased taxation in the future will not exceed the percentage that we are allowed to raise our rents? I think not!
We are a senior couple who have crated a school fund for our grandchild and support our elderly mother who lives with us which is costly and we depend heavily on the nominal income which our rental property generates for us after paying its mortgage n cost of upkeeping and taxes.
My husband and I are almost 60 years old and near retirement. This is unjust to the property owners and folks that have worked so hard for years to invest in real estate for their rainy day.
We own a small 4 unit in LA that been in the family since 1960's. The rent control laws are already too tough here. You had 4 years of no rent raises, while even rent control rates went up on us, and we were not allowed to forward the fees to the tenant. We cant ask people to leave, so we are way under market for our area (people are getting $1000's more for a unit). Exactly why should someone live in our apartment over 10 years anyways? I cant tell you how many people had lots of money and stayed in our building and BOUGHT something to rent to someone else for more money. So unless you create limits on renter, and require them to move into their own homes, not buy reits (that owning now adays), and live no more then 10 years in an apartment. Please stop making my life more stressful.
I own a few rental properties. I depend on the income from those units to pay my bills, to pay property taxes, to pay property insurance and maintain the units. Often I have to put money in just to keep the properties functioning. I have tenants that have been in the property longer than I’ve owned them and I’ve raised their rents very little even though they were paying a quarter of market value, and my costs keep going up, but they are seniors on fixed incomes or otherwise trying hard to make ends meet. So I’ve left them with very, very low rent, however, when they move on at some point, I would like to put those units back into the rental market at fair market value not a few dollars more than what these people have been allowed to pay. I have been subsidizing them and it’s not fair to not get fair market rent just because I gave these tenants a break. If more rent control passes, I will be forced to raise their rents to the maximum each year because I won’t be able to get the fair market rent that I should get when they vacate. All rent control does is hurt the tenants that are there now.
Prop 33 would only REDUCE rental units and discourage new construction of more affordable housing.
I lived with 20 years of no vacancy decontrol in Santa Monica. I watched apartments buildings fall apart because rents could not go up when tenants moved out. And nothing was built during that time period
Operating costs are growing much faster at our modest triplex than the rent increases that are allowed under local rent control. This is due largely to inflation on costs beyond an owner's control such as trash, utilities, water and insurance. Our only means of catching up is raising rents to market when tenants voluntarily move out. Prop. 33 threatens this necessary lifeline for mom-and-pop providers such as my husband and me. Without it, we can't stay in business.
We had a tenant we inherited when we purchased a 7 unit apartment building. John was well into his 80s, a delightful caring man with the energy of a 30 year old and a positive outlook. He took the bus everywhere. He paid about 600 a month, below 50% of the market value of the apartment. We never raised the rent on him. Not only could he not afford it but we didn’t want to put additional pressure on him. We were happy to have him. This law would force us to raise the rent the maximum every year on every tenant. John eventually moved to a retirement home closer to his son and we miss him.
"Justice for renters act" is a deceptive phrase to get votes in favor for this proposition. I will explain why people need to vote NO on Proposition 33, especially renters. I am a landlord who rents out single family houses in Chatsworth CA (3 bedrooms/2 baths). I have tenants who have being renting for 5, 6, 7, 14, and 29 years. They are good longtime tenants. The tenants take a good care of the houses and I take a good care of them by only increasing their rents accordingly to property taxes, insurances increases, and repairs. Minimum increases. Now, due to its ban on vacancy control - prohibits adjusting the rent to market rent (or below market rates) when tenants move out -, if Proposition 33 passes, I MUST increase the monthly rates to the maximum allowable by law to protect me when tenants move out. This increase will be very unpleasant to me -the landlord- as well as the tenants. This situation explains that what it seems to be Justice for tenants, it becomes UNJUSTICE FOR TENANTS.