It appears local ordinances can make stricter amendments that would prevail over AB1482. Is this right?
The bill would not apply to residential real property subject to a local ordinance requiring just cause for termination adopted on or before September 1, 2019, or to residential real property subject to a local ordinance requiring just cause for termination adopted or amended after September 1, 2019, that is more protective than these provisions, as defined.
I think so. When I typed this:
What I meant is âŚ
if a city does not have preexisting rules regarding rent caps on MFH that are more strict than AB1482 (like SF does), then after the implementation of AB1482, a city cannot make new rules against that MFH that are stricter (with tighter rent caps) than AB1482.
As you point out, it appears that local municipalities can still create tighter just-cause eviction amendments that would prevail over the âTenant Protection Act of 2019â. (another name for AB1482).
That is good news wrt no further tightening of rent caps for MFR (and SFR), and I think 5%+CPI is generous. Unfortunately it doesnât help if the local rules limit rent increases to 65% of CPI.
Agreed. (reference above is to SFâs rent cap against MFH to 65% of CPI) Much like @manch â I avoid MFH. Once you have property that isnât protected by Costa Hawkins, its easy to be targeted by the liberals and progressive.
What is the exact definition of being âowned by corpsâ? If mom and pop own, say, 10 properties under their personal names, is that exempt? How about LLC?
OK, seems we are still in the clear, for now⌠
Earlier I saw something targeting landlords owning 3 or more properties. Apparently that didnât make it into the legislation.
The â3 or more propertiesâ thing was struck down in the July 11th amendment, when they upped it to 10. The September 5th amendment did away with the 10 number. For that, I thank the California Apartment Association and the attorneys working for them.
But the fact that Chiu and his comrades are thinking about targeting people like us is scary enoughâŚ
Pro-land lords and can evict tenants if they are more than 3 days late in rent 
Ironic since Manch is a liberal. Funny thing about rent control. Most landlords thrive. It is future renters that get the shaft. And rental stock declines in numbers and quality.
The âfor nowâ part is key. The SF rent control law was not at 65% of CPI initially, and it didnât used to cover 4-plexes. Once the law is in place you can expect all kinds of âtweaksâ to come in later. Heck even prop 10 will probably come back soon enough so that more tweaks can be allowed.
I honestly think some kind of rent control is reasonable and fair. The power a landlord holds to arbitrarily kick out a tenant on a relatively short notice just because he/she didnât feel that great on a particular day is a little unbalanced. But all of these rent control policies swing too far by providing FOREVER protection to tenants. In this society does anybody (or the government itself) owe anybody else enough to warrant a FOREVER protection? Ok real estate market rises and rents are rising too, and tenants canât handle it so protection comes in. Itâs reasonable. But after letâs say 5 years does this tenant still need the protection? If the tenant still does then something structurally is wrong with the tenant situation and it shouldnât be the landlordâs responsibility to continue to provide the protection anymore. In my view this is a very reasonable balance of power between landlords and tenants but I donât see anyone even raise this possibility. The only reason I can think of is tenants are too greedy that they wonât accept anything less than forever protection. Itâs not just the landlords who are greedy after all.
My guess is Costa-Hawkins will be repealed in a few years, and rent control will cover the single units the following day (or maybe even retro to some date before that to prevent preemptive ârent gougingâ). That will really discourage new housing production by driving away investors, which means the rents will continue to stay at elevated levels.
Time to start shopping MFHâs in newly-rent-controlled California cities. Most mom-and-pop landlords in these newly-rent-controlled cities donât know how to handle tenants under rent control, so deals are to be had with all the FUD going on. Get started on making good use of your scare tactics. Buy away my friends! 
Running into a theatre on 
?
I still donât get this. If this new law is conflicting with Costa Hawkins why is this not an issue? Canât corporations sue to block the new law? Prop 10 didnât pass last year but lawmakers can just pass a new law to partially repeal it without having to resort to voters? Then they can just pass a new law to completely repeal Costa Hawkins, right? 
For the the progressives and socialists. Do your homework. The Swedish model is not as Socialist as you think. We hear: âSweden is a socialist success.â Thatâs wrong, says Johan Norberg Official and Free To Choose Network in a documentary called âSweden: Lessons for America?â
BTW, rent control turned my Berkeley from the most desirable place to live in BA to a socialist backwater in 20 years. It is now recovering a bit due high demand for owner occupied SHRs.
People also forget that rent control turned SF into a high crime shit hole in the seventies and early eighties when 100k middle class families and union workers left town. A city filled with run down roach infested sub standard housing. Tech brought the city back to its former glory despite the best efforts of âprogressives to drag it back into the abyss â
Hilarious. They are looking to apply just cause evection rules to apartment buildings which are 15 years old and younger. I can already tell you what is going to happen. What will happen is that construction of multi family units will crater.
This is because there will be no demand for multi family buildings in the resale market. Originally AB1482 was set to apply to MFH 15 years and older on the hopes that the 15 year âgrace periodâ would still allow there to be a secondary market for MFH. Now the secondary market for MFH will go away, and no one will build anymore MFH.
The city can relax permitting and all that jazz to âencourageâ MFH construction but that wonât do anything - no point in making it less onerous to build if there is no demand.
All this will then conspire to push up rental prices of existing housing because the supply of housing will stay fixed while millenials, which number 10 million more than Gen-X, enter their adult years and look for housing.
Then what will happen is that when AB1482 expires, legislators will have 10 years of data to reflect on that will have shown that the passage of AB1482 put into sequence a series of events that depressed housing construction ⌠and whether or not legislators then take the hint and elect not to extend AB1482 is anyoneâs guessâŚ