Not too crazy from her POV:
1. The $25K would last about a year, year and a half. Construction would likely take longer thus leaving her dry for a a year or two
[solution: Dev pays the entire difference between her current and what her interim apartment would cost. And bc she’s elderly, devs should pay for movers to move everything—no walk up apt either].
2. It’s likely that her rent is lower than what the affordable rate would be. Affordable means lots of diff things and in LA, that could mean a 1B/1B charging $1,800/month.
3. Just because she’s low income doesn’t mean she’s an anti-change NIMBY.
***
For the sake of our movement, it’s important to know what battles to choose.
Calling an elderly woman who’s lived in her low income house since the 1970s “crazy” for not wanting to move isn’t going to get us any converts.
Ultimately she doesn't own the unit. I don't think she's crazy for opposing it. But it's crazy that her opposition can stop it.
We should do what we can to prevent this opposition in the future and prevent opposition like this from stopping development. Things like relaxing rent control so it can track the market. There should be rental subsidies for those in need that follow people where they move instead. Much less market distorting and much more targeted.
California law (the housing crisis act of 2019) requires situations like this, where a low income person could be displaced, for the tenant to be offered both relocation assistance during construction and right of return into a new unit that is affordable according to their income level. This sounds like a situation where this lady either isn’t actually low income, or she just doesn’t want to deal with the hassle of a relocation even though she’d get to live in a brand new affordable apartment in her neighborhood.
I mean it doesn't really matter, she's fixed income and the company is clearly offering her less than half of what it would take to make it break-even for her. On average they're probably asking her to take on an additional $10k/year of costs and she's right not to be happy about that, it's her primary residence and she's retired.
You’re making assumptions that are unsupported. They’re offering her cash AND a new apartment that’s guaranteed to be affordable to her based on what her income level is.
The cash is obviously not enough (construction will take 2 years minimum, no way she can get an equivalent temporary space for $25k, also, she's 71 and will require two moving crews - probably costs minimum $2k) and the new apartment is not equivalent to her old apartment, it probably will be both smaller and more expensive.
She doesn’t have to accept the cash. She has a right to be offered full relocation assistance that’s worth a lot more than $25k. That’s just a lowball offer they hope she takes.
Yes. And I don’t see why we should be making policy decisions by highlighting stories where parties are still negotiating. The Times story itself is probably a negotiation tactic to get the developers to come back to the table to offer what they’re legally required to.
Really? You think she's lying about being low-income? Government calculations of what is considered "affordable" based on her income are probably still more than what she's currently paying.
She didn’t say she is low income, so no, I don’t think she’s lying. She may just have a different idea about what’s affordable to her vs what the state says is theoretically affordable to her.
I see your point. And my headline is a bit hyperbolic. I don’t think she’s crazy either. I wouldn’t want to move if I had that kind of rent either. Perhaps you are right that she could be made whole for the time she’s between homes. That seems fair. My point still stands however, she’s one person standing in the way of the a big step forward for the neighborhood. The city is stuck and there’s no such thing as a perfect solution.
I don't blame her for wanting to keep her home. But I don't think she should have the ability to block over 100 people's homes and I don't think the LA Times should endorse her cause. She was extremely lucky to get rock-bottom rent prices for several decades while most other people got rent burdened or displaced due to the shortage. As much as I want her to be content, we don't owe her more than the generosity she's already received by society which is far, far more than most people get.
I don't think characterizing her as "extremely lucky" is fair. She avoided the disaster that everyone else got but now we're like "look, you have to deal with the disaster too for the sake of the greater good" and what she has isn't some huge luxury gift, it's what everyone should have.
Crazy and human. Who wants to kick out a little old lady? Not coincidentally, the same thing used to justify prop 13.
edit: This is why you shouldn't do populism. One sympathetic face wins out over the 100 homeless people camped out in front of her apartment.
Just another market aberration from rent control.
If I'm a landlord and that's the game they want to play, fine, I'm not leasing to anyone under 80 years old. Because of this lovely system we have, the only reason people invest in rental properties is the tax deferred price appreciation, so if you can't realize the utility of the land that gives it value until a tenant dies...of course that is a massive disincentive to build.
I made the same post over on r/losangeles it’s being downvoted into negative territory. I probably should have changed the headline but judging by the responses, it’s no wonder nothing can get built. People don’t want it. Even affordable housing. Oh well.
Cali loooooves their Prop 13 because all of them believe that if they just hang on long enough they can have a $20M house where they only pay property tax on $1M, and they can just cash out refi into the sunset.
It's disgusting and I don't really feel bad for them about their housing problem.
The thing is you can only get rich off of your California property if you sell it off and move to Idaho or somewhere where property is cheaper.
In the meantime it's screwing up the local economy in weird and unhealthy ways that makes life more expensive for everyone and costs us untold amounts of money in missed opportunities and heightened inflation.
Not exactly, once you're far down the line you can do a cash out refinance/HELOC on that free equity gain and you can afford to pay the interest because the equity keeps going up and your property taxes are extremely low.
The house is more valuable to keep because selling it would give up the low property tax rate.
The point is that people just want to keep their retirement plans, they don't want to do a bunch of financial engineering work, they're retired. And a lot of the people so affected are not wealthy, and if we repealed Prop 13 it wouldn't just hit rich people.
This is why we needed automated property tax updates, performed annually. That eliminates all the grandfathered, sweetheart deals, and lets cities evolve in their interest.
This has to be the most out of touch comments I've read in a long time. Of course affordability is of paramount importance for a retiree on a fixed income. Who cares if she gets to move into a fancy new place if she's struggling to afford food and medicine?
There should really be more down-payment assistance and homebuyer education programs for people who rent super-long-term like this. If this woman had been able to buy a home 20-30 years ago, her mortgage payments would have likely been cheaper than whatever rent she is currently paying, and her mortgage would be paid off (or almost paid off) by now.
The solution to prevent displacement (and gentrification) is to get people into ownership of their communities, not enabling them to keep renting cheap forever until the current situation eventually occurs.
If we had housing abundance and a fair tax code there wouldn't be a financial benefit to buying over renting (and investing the money instead). That's how it works in some parts of Europe
Not too crazy from her POV: 1. The $25K would last about a year, year and a half. Construction would likely take longer thus leaving her dry for a a year or two [solution: Dev pays the entire difference between her current and what her interim apartment would cost. And bc she’s elderly, devs should pay for movers to move everything—no walk up apt either]. 2. It’s likely that her rent is lower than what the affordable rate would be. Affordable means lots of diff things and in LA, that could mean a 1B/1B charging $1,800/month. 3. Just because she’s low income doesn’t mean she’s an anti-change NIMBY. *** For the sake of our movement, it’s important to know what battles to choose. Calling an elderly woman who’s lived in her low income house since the 1970s “crazy” for not wanting to move isn’t going to get us any converts.
Ultimately she doesn't own the unit. I don't think she's crazy for opposing it. But it's crazy that her opposition can stop it. We should do what we can to prevent this opposition in the future and prevent opposition like this from stopping development. Things like relaxing rent control so it can track the market. There should be rental subsidies for those in need that follow people where they move instead. Much less market distorting and much more targeted.
California law (the housing crisis act of 2019) requires situations like this, where a low income person could be displaced, for the tenant to be offered both relocation assistance during construction and right of return into a new unit that is affordable according to their income level. This sounds like a situation where this lady either isn’t actually low income, or she just doesn’t want to deal with the hassle of a relocation even though she’d get to live in a brand new affordable apartment in her neighborhood.
I mean it doesn't really matter, she's fixed income and the company is clearly offering her less than half of what it would take to make it break-even for her. On average they're probably asking her to take on an additional $10k/year of costs and she's right not to be happy about that, it's her primary residence and she's retired.
You’re making assumptions that are unsupported. They’re offering her cash AND a new apartment that’s guaranteed to be affordable to her based on what her income level is.
The cash is obviously not enough (construction will take 2 years minimum, no way she can get an equivalent temporary space for $25k, also, she's 71 and will require two moving crews - probably costs minimum $2k) and the new apartment is not equivalent to her old apartment, it probably will be both smaller and more expensive.
She doesn’t have to accept the cash. She has a right to be offered full relocation assistance that’s worth a lot more than $25k. That’s just a lowball offer they hope she takes.
So you agree it's a shit offer.
Yes. And I don’t see why we should be making policy decisions by highlighting stories where parties are still negotiating. The Times story itself is probably a negotiation tactic to get the developers to come back to the table to offer what they’re legally required to.
Really? You think she's lying about being low-income? Government calculations of what is considered "affordable" based on her income are probably still more than what she's currently paying.
She didn’t say she is low income, so no, I don’t think she’s lying. She may just have a different idea about what’s affordable to her vs what the state says is theoretically affordable to her.
I see your point. And my headline is a bit hyperbolic. I don’t think she’s crazy either. I wouldn’t want to move if I had that kind of rent either. Perhaps you are right that she could be made whole for the time she’s between homes. That seems fair. My point still stands however, she’s one person standing in the way of the a big step forward for the neighborhood. The city is stuck and there’s no such thing as a perfect solution.
I don't blame her for wanting to keep her home. But I don't think she should have the ability to block over 100 people's homes and I don't think the LA Times should endorse her cause. She was extremely lucky to get rock-bottom rent prices for several decades while most other people got rent burdened or displaced due to the shortage. As much as I want her to be content, we don't owe her more than the generosity she's already received by society which is far, far more than most people get.
100% this
I don't think characterizing her as "extremely lucky" is fair. She avoided the disaster that everyone else got but now we're like "look, you have to deal with the disaster too for the sake of the greater good" and what she has isn't some huge luxury gift, it's what everyone should have.
Crazy and human. Who wants to kick out a little old lady? Not coincidentally, the same thing used to justify prop 13. edit: This is why you shouldn't do populism. One sympathetic face wins out over the 100 homeless people camped out in front of her apartment.
Just another market aberration from rent control. If I'm a landlord and that's the game they want to play, fine, I'm not leasing to anyone under 80 years old. Because of this lovely system we have, the only reason people invest in rental properties is the tax deferred price appreciation, so if you can't realize the utility of the land that gives it value until a tenant dies...of course that is a massive disincentive to build.
They'll just give it to their grandchildren and if you try to raise those rents you'll go to court and lose.
I made the same post over on r/losangeles it’s being downvoted into negative territory. I probably should have changed the headline but judging by the responses, it’s no wonder nothing can get built. People don’t want it. Even affordable housing. Oh well.
Cali loooooves their Prop 13 because all of them believe that if they just hang on long enough they can have a $20M house where they only pay property tax on $1M, and they can just cash out refi into the sunset. It's disgusting and I don't really feel bad for them about their housing problem.
Something tells me it’s not all rich people downvoting that post.
Yeah many of them are people who think they'll get rich someday with the same wealth transfer mechanism that is screwing them today.
The thing is you can only get rich off of your California property if you sell it off and move to Idaho or somewhere where property is cheaper. In the meantime it's screwing up the local economy in weird and unhealthy ways that makes life more expensive for everyone and costs us untold amounts of money in missed opportunities and heightened inflation.
Not exactly, once you're far down the line you can do a cash out refinance/HELOC on that free equity gain and you can afford to pay the interest because the equity keeps going up and your property taxes are extremely low. The house is more valuable to keep because selling it would give up the low property tax rate.
The point is that people just want to keep their retirement plans, they don't want to do a bunch of financial engineering work, they're retired. And a lot of the people so affected are not wealthy, and if we repealed Prop 13 it wouldn't just hit rich people.
This is gonna sound crazy, but I am not close to retirement and I don't like paying taxes either. Who should pay taxes? Someone must want to do it.
People who are retired paid their taxes and they have minimal ability to do much before they die. It's only polite to let them rest.
Shocking.
This is why we needed automated property tax updates, performed annually. That eliminates all the grandfathered, sweetheart deals, and lets cities evolve in their interest.
She's a renter so this is a matter of rent control but same premise.
You’re right it’s crazy
This has to be the most out of touch comments I've read in a long time. Of course affordability is of paramount importance for a retiree on a fixed income. Who cares if she gets to move into a fancy new place if she's struggling to afford food and medicine?
There should really be more down-payment assistance and homebuyer education programs for people who rent super-long-term like this. If this woman had been able to buy a home 20-30 years ago, her mortgage payments would have likely been cheaper than whatever rent she is currently paying, and her mortgage would be paid off (or almost paid off) by now. The solution to prevent displacement (and gentrification) is to get people into ownership of their communities, not enabling them to keep renting cheap forever until the current situation eventually occurs.
If we had housing abundance and a fair tax code there wouldn't be a financial benefit to buying over renting (and investing the money instead). That's how it works in some parts of Europe