Cities like Pasadena had enacted extreme rent control, which eliminated rent growth and decreased property value and made tenants feel like the “owned” the property. The rent limit makes it impossible for owners to keep up with inflation and keep investing back money to the properties, while operating expenses keep rising.
I oppose The Act because I do not want any new restrictions on my ability to properly run my rent stabilized property in Los Angeles where I am already burdened with a 4% annual rent increase restriction. But now with the Act, I may face restrictions with what I can charge when a unit becomes vacant. I have a tenant who is paying $700 less per month than the market rate for their apartment. This tenant may never move but if they do, I should be given the opportunity to remodel the apartment and rent it for a market rate. I need that increase in income to help pay for increased operating costs that include but are not limited to mortgage interest, water, sewer and electric, trash removal, insurance and maintenance.
My husband and I are both in our 70s and retired. We have a three bedroom condo that we have owned for 15 years. When Covid hit our renter did not have to pay us for more than five months. We do not have the luxury of having the extra income to carry the renter. Even though he had the money to pay us because the county said that he did not have to, he wouldn’t do it. We had to borrow money in order to stay afloat. If there are permanent rent controls , our rights will be taken away from us. There are already laws in place controlling the amount of rental increase you can do each year.