The Rent Control Problem In Los Angeles
Add me on Instagram: GPStephan
PROMOTIONAL OFFER: Get Up To 12 FREE STOCKS when you sign up and make a deposit using my paid affiliate link for WeBull:
GET MY WEEKLY EMAIL MARKET RECAP NEWSLETTER:
The YouTube Creator Academy:
Learn EXACTLY how to get your first 1000 subscribers on YouTube, rank videos on the front page of searches, grow your following, and turn that into another income source: – $100 OFF WITH CODE 100OFF
My ENTIRE Camera and Recording Equipment:
For business inquiries, you can reach me at grahamstephanbusiness@gmail.com
*Some of the links and other products that appear on this video are from companies which Graham Stephan will earn an affiliate commission or referral bonus. Graham Stephan is part of an affiliate network and receives compensation for sending traffic to partner sites. The content in this video is accurate as of the posting date. Some of the offers mentioned may no longer be available. This is not investment advice.
Then when you do this at mass you get a housing crisis at high cost to anyone young starting their lives. It also becomes political self deletion to remove it, it’s a nasty problem to have.
You can always just do a hostile takeover. Government has always just bought out other people so they can have the space with themselves.
Bro said unaliving…
@@philidipsyeah I have no idea how much YouTube likes to censor comments
That concept doesn’t make sense to me. Cuz you’re still paying the mortgage on the building and you’re not getting any income in from the tenants cuz there are no tenants so you just hemorrhaging money and hoping that another person will buy it so they can hemorrhage money so someone else can buy it and hemorrhage money and I think it goes on until who knows when
I idea is the money is better as an asset than just leaving it in a savings account. But that would only be profitable in a market like LA. and even at that level I would say it barely ends up with you ahead of you take into account maintenance and property taxes so I’m just as confused as you 😅
I think it’s because with tenants you will be paying more in maintenance, management, etc than you would receive in rent
these are people waelthy enough they own the building-rem they are long term owners
These investors aren’t buying with mortgages – they pay in cash, then keep it empty while banking on appreciation. Or, they buy with a short term loan – knowing that they’ll keep it empty to keep their options open.
I can buy it and off set my tax burden for other properties. You dont have to be wealthy but you are definitely not poor.
Most tenants dont pay on time and almost all tenants destroy the property. Your money is made decades later.
NYC has this problem too. But instead landlords convert the rent controlled and rent stabilized housing into “luxury” condos and make it unlivable for anyone who isn’t wealthy.
It probably doesn’t help that you gave them like 2 years without being able to kick out those that didn’t pay rent.
And with everyone getting and needing more money, all of your labor costs more for repairs.
Those people doing work aren’t gonna take a 1990s wage due to rent control.
With everyone getting and needing more, that includes every person along the path from manufacture to installation of anything needed for the apartments.
Government involvement is what causes these problems. It’s why communism(socialism) doesn’t, can’t, and won’t work.
@@Mattlott222 Government involvement isn’t what’s harmful (other than to a few people’s bottom lines that is), when undertaken responsibly. But the social programs in place are severely undermined by policies that protect the already wealthy and screw anyone in the middle or lower middle. So you give with one hand and take away with the other. The effect is growing lower class. Thats not proof that it doesn’t work. Thats making sure it doesn’t work 😂. A landlord won’t die cause they need to keep an annoying tenant for 2 years. A person however could die if you leave them out in NYCs streets, especially in the winter. Protecting people from dying of hunger and being homeless just means you are setting a higher baseline for your community, you can build even more wealth for the entire community when people aren’t in survival mode at the bottom, which btw also leads to higher violence and crime rates cause desperate people act badly. The excuse most people give for believing social programs are bad is that “poor people are lazy”. But I think that’s been debunked so many times it’s embarrassing that some people still beat that old drum. It’s just shortsighted thinking to remove government assistance. And clearly we have a lot of shortsighted policy makers.
@stephaniec.1950 spending money without creating value reduces the value of the currency, which has greater effect on those needing to spend a higher % of their income to get by.
Inflation sucked for me and I’m still not happy about it, but that just reduced my savings rate while increasing my goals for retirement.
@@Mattlott222 if you mean that by spending money on social assistance it doesn’t create value, I think it overlooks the fact that the money is tax money, it doesn’t come from “nowhere” and the money goes back into the society in the form of rent payments, purchase of food, etc. people receiving assistance aren’t “off grid”. Also, social assistance is taxed as income believe it or not. And in NYC income is taxed by the federal government, the state government, AND the city. So, not sure where the value is lost…
Hold on a minute, are you saying that LA Rent control rules actually make the problem worse?
I used to rent my apartment before covid, and after LA changed the rules about evictions, I stopped renting my apartment.
Isn’t this ignoring the fact that units vacated willingly by tenants can then be rented out to the next tenant at the market rate? Ie. those empty units can be rented out for the market rate today and rent control wouldn’t become a “problem” for the landlords for at least a decade, and most tenants don’t stay in one place that long. Also, rent increases still occur on an annual basis in rent-controlled units. The government just sets the rate based on factors like inflation.
That other person has to leave. He is saying the person that has low rent refuses to leave and even if they sell the place. The tenant says because of rent control.
Unless there is reason to evict say damages that need to be addressed because of safety and they can’t live in the place while doing it.
It isn’t the new landlords job to pay for their new place to stay while this one would be getting fixed. This is the only way they get removed.
Says the guy who never raises his tenants rent 🤔🤔🤔
Exactly the type of person to listen to, been there done that 😅
“Rent control is bad”
-A landlord
The current rent control policies is bad.
If a landlord has rent control they should receive subsidies taxes and benefits because just because rent isn’t going up doesn’t mean the cost of ownership isn’t.
Rent control for private businesses is bad because it’s the gov trying to regulate something they do not own. The only place in the EU where I’ve seen the gov housing policies work is in Vienna where the gov actually owns the homes and acts as the landlord.
Without that, you end up with rent control, rent freezes, and whatever other policy you can think of to target landlords. Some EU capital tried that. The housing crisis in most of them is worse than in the US, and in the case of touristic places like Lisbon, it’s worse than NYC and SF.
Regulations don’t fix housing. Houses do.
@@Pensandoci9 the purpose of the government is to regulate so that people can live quality life in physical and social security
Grant just explained why rent control is downright counter productive towards its aim and your argument against his position is that he isn’t allowed to be right because he owns rentals…? 🤦
This is why you don’t make an impact on others. Your opinions are based on your emotional responses to the people or the idea itself as opposed to the facts or reasoning around an idea.
Then proceeds to talk about a single location’s bad implementation and therefore all rent control is bad.
But I’m sure he doesn’t see the other side that all landlords are slumlords.
Yeah my aunt rent was $350 up til last year (2024) … most older landlords don’t pay attention to news or inflation tbh , the landlord could have easily raised it to $700-$1000 easily with no problem
Homie is speaking facts… if the owner wants to sell property… it’s ready to go…
Guess what? Every American downtown is filled with empty apartments and condos. Whether there’s rent control or not. The price is either controlled to make them affordable, or the price is uncontrolled and are priced to be totally unaffordable to inflate the market value. The problem isn’t rent control it’s private ownership of public needs.
The cost of rent in a free “”uncontrolled”” market is determined by the supply and demand, propped up by operating costs to the landlord. Why would landlords be interested in pricing out their tenants? The main reason rent is so high is because the cost to build is so high, so mortgages are high, so rents are high.
That’s literally untrue lmao. It’s only LA, SF and NYC that have these insane prices. Chicago has basically no rent control and 1/3 the prices of those sittings, while still having 2.5 million people
The market is a greed stopgap.
The landlord would charge you a trillion dollars a month if he could. His profit is limited by the market’s other offerings
@@synchronicity458 That’s how competition works yes. Everyone has to compete with prices, slowly undercutting each other until they meet a minimum price that would make them lose money if they made it any lower.
Rent control has to come balanced out with limits on how long the property can remain empty…
But it also must have a provision that stops people from misusing it, like for storage.
All rules need to be reviewed over time.
what a snobby inhumane way to operate, most people can only afford rent control to feed themselves and there families and grow with threat of homelessness, something he doesn’t understand because human beings are just something to capitalize off of for there basic needs. Classic landlord logic.
Why not Airbnb it then? Keeping empty in most capacities does not make sense. Standards equity appreciates faster in that case compared to holding a home
What boggles my mind is how are these people still keeping afloat considering that their properties are not generating revenue? Is it that everyone’s just passing along the debt bomb like a hot potato? It’s 2008 all over again
It doesn’t cost much to keep properties afloat when there’s no maintenance needed. The reason they keep it empty is because tenants create wear and tear on the building. Imagine a very old car with low miles vs a very old car with high mileage. It’s the same concept. When rent is so low that it costs more to fix the wear and tear and tear, owners rather just keep it empty.
@@akk5728 a 2021 Harvard study showed that over 70% of rental properties are own by landlords who own less than 5 units. Most landlords are not actually rich. Rich people buy condos for themselves and are not part of the rental market. Empty building still a crew tax bills and upkeep costs. So at some point they have to start generating revenue right? Which is why I’m so scared that this is literally just a debt bomb waiting to happen
@@Xavier-se9mcrevenue doesn’t equal profit. In areas with rent control, generating revenue actually incurs more losses than just letting the building sit there empty.
If the tenant causes $50k in damage to the house, how would $1k a month in rent cover that? It doesn’t.
rent control must be linked to inflation 3-5% and leave it alone. Done problem solved
People need affordable housing. Rent control should solve this but it causes an even larger shortage.
I used to not raise rent on my tenants . Now with rent control I have to raise rent or else I’m going to be playing catch up for 10 years .
Yep, way too common.
Supply and demand. Rent price should be controlled by the market, not some art degree bureaucrats at Housing.
Not if all units are rent controlled, it’s the ridiculously badly designed rent control programs in SF and NYC that ruin rental markets, not the concept of rent control itself. Take a look at how they do things in Germany or Switzerland or Austria. Very different.
My Uncle lived in a $600 rent controlled apartment when his non-rent controlled neighbors paid $4000 for the same size apartment.
Good deal!