Fremont Rent Control Update: Following almost a year of research and stakeholder meetings, on Tuesday, Sept. 27 the Fremont City Council will receive a report on options for addressing rental housing issues. Some of the options could have a direct impact on private property rights.
Fremont city staff will present analysis of rent control and just-cause eviction; the existing Fremont Residential Rent Increase Dispute Resolution ordinance; affordable housing construction and preservation; secondary dwelling units; minimum lease terms and the Alameda County Housing Bond. The complete report to the Council is available by clicking here.
It is anticipated that a large number of tenant advocates will participate in the meeting and demand the adoption of a rent control and just-cause eviction ordinance.
If you own or manage rental property in Fremont, please attend the City Council meeting. It will be held in the City Council Chambers at 3300 Capitol Ave., Building A. The meeting begins at 7:00pm. If you have any questions about this issue or want to testify at the meeting please contact Bay East staff at: davids@bayeast.org
I believe that’s what current state is. But this is to propose new changes, so who know what will happen. I worried more about Just cause eviction more so than rent control. They normally have good enough % that if you do regular increase, you will probably be fine. Not sure about just cause when you want to sell the place.
I think we need to spend some time to think about how best to mitigate the rent control risks. For me I don’t go into multi family mostly because of rent control. Another way is to buy newer houses explicitly exempted by state law. But even the state law can and will change.
I think the best defense is to rent to professional renters, people with more resources and less likely to cause troubles down the road. And that means to buy in Class A areas where these professionals like to rent.
That is exactly what my neighbor (small CPA office) said some of his clients were doing. Some were making decent money via Airbnb but some were doing corporate renting and making very good money. Why not do that via mult unit building and getting even more cash flow potentially?
Because MFH is the easy political target. It’s more difficult to go after mom and pop renting their spare room out to AirBnB. Easier to go after fat cats who own, oh gosh, an apartment building! That’s exactly why the state law exempts SFH’s and condos, but not MFH.
I now think I need to factor in political consideration in my future buys: where to buy, what to buy, who to rent to etc. Income inequality will only get worse. Thus we have the idiot Trump this year. The hicks and the uneducated love the guy. I don’t see income inequality to get any better. In fact, it will get worse. A lot worse. What do you think those truck drivers replaced by self driving trucks will go after? They will come after you and me. Doesn’t help we are not white either.
Well, real estate investing is not risk free. You could easily have a SFH rented out to what was a financial secure individual and then sh#t hits the fan and that individual can’t make rent and decides to play you and play you as long as he can or has to because it is all about survival. It can happen. Since SFH pricing has gotten so high, the chances of one breaking even is pretty much impossible these days (normal down payment). Well, isn’t that real money out of pocket every month? And then imagine if the market turns and you can’t bank on any appreciation, but you are still out of pocket every month. The market is not going to always be gangbusters like it has been you know. When I bought my Oakland multi unit I was almost cash positive from the get go that my tax buddy was very surprised. And I did not put out a major down payment. No risk, no reward. If one can’t stomach the game, stick to investing in a savings account.
Nothing is no risk. It’s all about calculated risks. I don’t like the odds of MFH’s, just like I don’t like dealing with low end tenants. Many people thrive in that segment. It’s not my game.
The political headwind will blow harder and harder at MFH’s.
I have this theory that people with well done Linkedin profiles won’t be deadbeats. They have too much invested in their professional images and profiles.
Someone could easily have a health issue that comes up and then all of a sudden they can’t make rent anymore because the medical bills added up and they can’t work. I don’t think they are going to care much about their image at that point. At that point, it is all about survival and they will milk it as long as their professional mind can come up with some angle to keep you at bay that much longer. I would agree that higher end clients are preferred but smart people don’t necessarily always use those smarts in the right way either.
I am sure we all have had a tenant that was bad. It is just part of the game. No guts, no glory. As owners, whether of SFHs or multiple units, we have a big old target on our backs. That’s why we make sure we have enough insurance and we make sure we follow all the rules and regulations.
At some point in time, employ a white property manager for area dominated by caucasians. Employ buying house for area dominated by hispanics. Avoid redneck area. For rough areas, joint ventures with elt1.
[quote=“manch, post:6, topic:900, full:true”]
I think we need to spend some time to think about how best to mitigate the rent control risks. For me I don’t go into multi family mostly because of rent control. Another way is to buy newer houses explicitly exempted by state law. But even the state law can and will change.
I think the best way to mitigate rent control is to convert more renters into property owners. With a bigger ratio of property owner to renters we won’t have people clamoring for rent control.
The Millennials can cry all they want. The crux of the problem is always that the landed gentry don’t want any new houses that threaten to push down their own property value. The I-had-mine-and-you-can’t-have-any problem.
That’s what Prop 13 does. If cities choose to build housing instead of commercial, they screw themselves on tax revenues.
That’s what I don’t understand about prop13. Home values are very high here… 1% should be plenty. Let’s say every home is sold and assessed value doubles. What will the counties do with the cash? I’m fine repealing prop13 as long as county budget is restricted to increase by inflation. Same total tax burden, but evenly distributed among homeowners. Allow elderly people to delay tax payment until home is sold
People forget prop 13 was a tax revolt, like the Tea Party in 1775…as American as apple pie…The millennials will have to figure out their own tax revolt…But Prop 13 is here to stay…No other way to control the spendthrifts in SAC…
