The cap may be increased for rent-stabilized apartments by 3%. The owners of the land cried Foul

Valerie Valentine bought a triplex in South Los Angeles two weeks ago, and she already admits she made a bad investment.

Credits add up quickly for a small homeowner, from $1,000 to open water for $6,000 in annual property taxes. He worries that the amount he collects from the rental will not be enough to cover his expenses.

As the city is about to make the first major change in militarization since 1985, with potential annual rent increases of 3%, landlords like Valentine fear that Los Angeles will become a hostile environment for them.

“It’s Draconian,” said Valentine, who is also a four-unit structure in the state. “Decreasing the amount we can raise rent is a slap in the face. They favor one side of the road more than the other.”

On the other hand, the tenants, who far exceed the landowners in the city, have forced that the council of the City Council will support the 3% cap of the units of residents proposed before 1978, which is the house of the residents of the city.

The current cap for rent-stabilized units is between 3% and 8%, depending on inflation, rising to 10% if landlords pay for utilities.

Another tenant, Cindy Moran, 31, has lived in a rent-stabilized one-bedroom apartment in the food park with her parents since she was born. Now they are facing eviction, said their landlord, saying that he wants to enter the property.

Motan believes he is trying to convert the property into 120 units of affordable housing. He is afraid that they will not be able to find another apartment as cheap as the $700 a month they are paying.

“I meet people every day who are paying $2,000 for a one-bedroom. They can’t afford a 10% increase,” Moran said. “We need to think about the big risk now.”

The proposed revision to the Statillization Ordinal, which has been on the books since 1979, would be a major change for employers. Many parts of the country are struggling with housing affordability problems, and after the democratic elections Zohran Mamdani won the New York City elections on the promise of ‘creating the rent.’

Most Angelos rent, and more than half are subsidized — meaning they spend more than 30% of their income on rent, according to the Los Angeles Department of Housing. One in 10 Angelos pay 90% of their income on rent, the department said in a report this year.

Last week, the City Council and Holingness Council and Homes Committee passed the 3% proposal, written by Councilor Nigama Raman, by a 3-2 vote. It goes before the full council on Wednesday.

Under Raman’s proposal, annual premium increases would come out at 3%, or 60% of the Consumer Price Index, whichever is lower.

The new floor in the annual tax increase, now 3%, would be 0%. That means that in years with no inflation, landlords would not be able to raise rents at all.

“There’s a need to change it,” said Shane Phillips, director of the housing center at UCLA’s Lewis Center for Regional Policy Studies, who wrote a 2019 report on the Reform Stormization Ordinance. He believes the cap should be around 5%, tied directly to inflation.

“I think this pendulum swing is too far,” he said.

Besides making it harder for small landowners to turn a profit, some fear Raman’s proposal could freeze development in a city that desperately needs housing.

In LA, new construction on the same site that was developed is subject to the Rent Syntilization Ordinance, except that 20% of the new units are affordable to low-income families.

A lower cap on rent increases could cause developers to forego building in many of those properties, said Zachary Pittes, the Los Angeles director of YIMBY Action, which issues affordable housing.

“The unexamined results could set back the city’s housing goals at a time when increasing supply is critical to affordability and affordability,” the statement said.

Ramin said he will “work to ensure new production is not affected by these changes.”

“Only more provision can help reduce costs for everyone in this city,” the statement said.

The current cap on rent increases has helped Jenny Colon stay in her stable, two-bedroom North Hills apartment for more than 30 years. He was paying $981 a month but is moving out because of a dispute with his landlord. His new apartment, outside the city, costs $ 1,600 a month.

“A low annual rate of increase creates a stable and safe housing environment,” said Colon, who supports Raman’s proposal.

But some say lowering the allowable increase could be more detrimental to renters, as the fall in income could result in homeowners spending less to operate their properties.

“Some moms and littles and minipops will never have that kind of money again,” said Paul Jingman, property owner and landlord. “They will replace the roof next year because they don’t have the money for it.”

Landlords also may be incentivized to evict long-term tenants who are behind on payments, so they can charge market rates to new tenants, says UCLA’s Phillips.

City law allows landlords to charge market rates to new tenants, although the cap on the increase kicks in for that tenant after that.

The City Department of Housing recommended a 2% floor and a 5% ceiling, both tied to the consumer price index. City Councilman Bob Blumenfield is putting forward motions in the committee on homeless shelters that align with that recommendation, but he was the only vote against it.

Most of the cities in California with dynamic apartment developments put the fence between 3% and 5%, the Department of Housing says.

Raman pointed out that the Department’s recommendations did not go far enough to address the taxes it has “exposed.”

“I think what is ahead of us is the opportunity to change the costs of employers, that for me for a long time,” he said.