Against AB 3088

62 Comments
Reads 6240

By Ernie Salomon

This is a question that I would like publicly answered by Limon and Jackson about their AB 3088 housing anti eviction bill.

Why have you put the the inability of millions of tenants to pay their rent during the Covid 19 Epidemic, squarely on the backs of landlords to finance?

The bill is immoral!  It places the cost of lost income of tenants during the Covid pandemic solely on the financial backs of landlords.  Landlords did not cause the Covid pandemic.

They are not to blame for tenants being unable to pay their rent because of income loss from shutting down employers with rulings that are imposed by our state's government.

Millions of workers have been thrown out of work by government edicts concerning Covid 19.  Many are on unemployment or have no income at all.  Is this the fault of landlords, ladies?  Well, is it?

Many landlords have mortgages and all have taxes, insurance and maintenance expenses, etc. They cannot operate on 25% of scheduled rents.  A huge number of tenants, especially in the high rent areas and the rest of California are marginally able to pay rent during normal times.  They will not be able to pay thousands in back rents when their payments are due.  

Eventually, landlords will raise rents higher than they normally do in order to recover the rents that they cannot recover.  Some landlords will leave their units vacant until this bill is no longer in effect. Other landlords will lose their properties when they are foreclosed by lenders.  AB 3038 does not protect landlords from foreclosure, it prevents them from collecting the 75% of their rents that they need to make mortgage, taxes, insurance and maintenance payments!

SB 3088 will also put a lag in the building of new residential units because landlords will not build new units while this law is in effect or there is the prospect of renewing it.

Why have Limon, Jackson and their associates in Sacramento, who all continue to receive their good sized taxpayer paid paychecks, health and pension benefits, put this Covid 19 crisis on the backs of just landlords?  Why don't they pass a bill making gas stations cut their prices by 75%?  The same for grocery stores, utilities and all other important resources: Cut all prices by 75%.  Sounds crazy?  Probably, but then this is what Jackson and Limon have thrust on landlords!

AB 3088 is a lousy law; an unfair law and most of all it is an immoral law!

Is it no wonder that a majority of people living in California have said that they would leave, if they could.  Many who can afford to leave, are leaving every day! Our state is going downhill in several measurable categories.  We have 50% of our country's homeless population and 34% of our country's welfare recipients, but we are only 12% of our country's population!   We have the highest median cost of housing in the entire USA!

Our state's GDP is up only about 1%!  Its tax base is shrinking!

More and more people are turning against government.  They cannot be blamed for doing so.  I am one of them!

Remember in November!


Do you have an opinion on something local? Share it with us at [email protected] The views and opinions expressed in Op-Ed articles are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of edhat.

Login to add Comments

62 Comments

Show Comments
Sail380 Sep 16, 2020 03:17 PM
Against AB 3088

As hard as it is to believe, landlords don't get to keep all the money. They pay income tax on the rents received and are now limited on tax deductions from S.A.L.T.. Except for potential appreciation it makes owning income property even less appealing.

citizenSB Sep 15, 2020 02:41 PM
Against AB 3088

Certainly this bill is illegal theft -A criminal act in which property belonging to another is taken without that person's consent. How is the landlord to collect when the renter moves out?
What's next? A new bill that will take 'excess funds' from you bank account? I can see it now every dollar over $2K removed from your bank account by the state of CA.

PitMix Sep 16, 2020 07:32 AM
Against AB 3088

Such fake news. Every dollar over $2K? Weird stuff like that makes people discount any portion of your argument that has any reasonable element. How does a landlord collect? Have you heard of Small Claims Court? Google it if you haven't. That's how they do it now.

a-1600200883 Sep 15, 2020 01:14 PM
Against AB 3088

$399K - right now in Santa Barbara area, other mobile homes in the area are even less:..... "Preview to purchase this spacious vintage 2004 3 bed, 2 bath unit located in an all age community. Great option for first time home buyers who want a prime location in walking distance to Haskell's Beach, the Bacara, Sandpiper Golf Course, Butterfly Preserve with great shopping areas and school districts. Cathedral ceilings greet you in the living room and the master suite. Full privacy landscaping includes multiple pots and fruit trees. recently updated pool and hot tub in park. This unit is only active one left. We saved the best for last!....." (Zillow)

Shame Sep 15, 2020 08:18 AM
Against AB 3088

SBSAND you are a responsible person with integrity this is lacking in so many people now. It easier to wait for a handout and not do what is right. I applaud you. I am a small landlord. I have a studio connected to my home. I am working hard to keep my home. My renter pays her rent for that I am very thankful. But she also works from home and her friend is staying here too because of being unemployed. My utility bills have all gone up since now they are there all day long, little things add up.

vvorker Sep 15, 2020 07:38 AM
Against AB 3088

Wonder how everyone's favorite slum lord Dario Pinni is doing these days?
Bet St. George has not been sleeping well too...
Enjoy the final days of Prop. 13, a brave new real estate world awaits us all!!

PitMix Sep 15, 2020 01:08 PM
Against AB 3088

Chip and Vorker, stop spreading the fake news. Prop 13 as it applies to residential real estate is not affected. Only commercial real estate, and those owners are doing just fine as you can see by all of the vacant properties on State Street because they don't need the income. Residential property taxes will stay the same so my neighbor in her house for 30 years will still pay $300 a year while I pay $8000 per year. When they passed Prop 13 the Jarvis people snuck in the tax break for commercial and it has been a boondoggle ever since.

Chip of SB Sep 15, 2020 11:56 AM
Against AB 3088

It will be very interesting indeed if prop 13 is overturned. A lot of people bought their homes and planned their finances and retirements assuming a predictable property tax bill over the long term. In addition, a lot of middle class families have homes in neighborhoods that have gentrified and skyrocketed in value. Are you willing to tax people out of their homes because their neighborhood gentrified and they aren’t rich enough to afford current market rate property taxes? That is exactly what was happening before prop 13.

EastBeach Sep 14, 2020 11:11 PM
Against AB 3088

My concern is for the mom & pop landlords who decided to put their savings into property as opposed to the stock market and depend on their rental income to live. An owner's capitalization rate for rental property can be as little as 3% in SB. That's not much to live on after rental expenses. So will be much less than 3% if tenants aren't paying rent! Some owners be forced to sell rather than bear the brunt of AB3088. Guess who's buying? It's the REIT's and real estate LLC's. These are exactly the "landlords" who have historically been driving rental prices up. So the affordable housing crises just get worse. What's the solution. I think we need to look at what other countries are doing. Their governments are helping their citizens pay rent. Socialism? Or what governments are supposed to do in times of crises.

a-1600202397 Sep 15, 2020 01:39 PM
Against AB 3088

Bigugly, a person who has “bought” a million dollar house has convinced the bank that they can pay off the mortgage over time. But that person does not have a million dollars now. Yes, they are in a better financial position than many other people, absolutely. But they don’t actually .have. the money. They owe it.

a-1600200155 Sep 15, 2020 01:02 PM
Against AB 3088

Mobile home parks still go for under $500K. Buy what you can afford because it is still out there.

biguglystick Sep 15, 2020 12:12 PM
Against AB 3088

There really is no such thing as a "modest house" in Santa Barbara money-wise. There just isn't. Maybe you are lucky enough to get your hands on some property... a small "modest" 2 bedroom single family home. Well, the median home value in Santa Barbara is $1,134,649. Santa Barbara home values have gone up 2.0% over the past year, it's INSANITY. If you buy a house in this market you are WEALTHY. Uber wealthy, in fact.

LCP112233 Sep 15, 2020 11:21 AM
Against AB 3088

Thank you for sharing @9:55. It is often assumed that because you are a landlord that you are rich. When in reality it is quite expensive to manage with the mortgage, taxes, insurance and the like. Not everyone with a house to rent is rich. And it can be quite devastating for ones future to lose such a large investment when no income is coming in.

a-1600188947 Sep 15, 2020 09:55 AM
Against AB 3088

There are many "mom and pop" rentals in SB. I used to rent one from my friend's parents years ago and then after my dad died my partner and I bought out my siblings to keep the family home. I don't have low taxes or low mortgage. I rent it out at a reasonable rate and the little extra we get is our retirement income, supplementing social security. Oh, and mortgage "forebearance" just means you owe it all in a lump sum later. Like that really helps when a tenant isn't paying anything for several months.
Painting renters or landlords with a broad brush is foolish and doesn't help solve the problem. It's a bad situation on both sides. No reasonable landlord wants to push people on the streets because they can't pay rent. If the tenants are only having to pay 25% then the owners should get some kind of mortgage discount or financial assistance as well.
This bill is completely lopsided and it should be amended or another bill should be introduced to provide financial relief for the small landlord/small rental business owner who doesn't have deep pockets or government connections.

Ahchooo Sep 15, 2020 09:26 AM
Against AB 3088

What are the chances that renters will ever have the money to pay back the postponed rent? Landlords can’t reasonably expect that to come in a timely manner. But then, they also can’t expect renters to pay now, if the renters have no income. It all sucks.

PitMix Sep 15, 2020 09:10 AM
Against AB 3088

LetMe, even in your example you are talking about a $200K investment for a garage conversion, so those people can also get by with 25% of the rent ($500/mo?) until January when they get the rest of it back. Do you think the landlord in this situation was depending on the rent to pay their mortgage? I doubt it. I know a couple that bought a home 2 years ago and are living in the garage and renting out the main house. I guess they might be in some trouble but both of them work for an internet startup so I think they probably can survive.

letmego Sep 15, 2020 08:51 AM
Against AB 3088

PITMIX, you realize it's a continuum, yes? There are also people who paid $400k-500k for their houses and then spent $ to convert the garage to rent it out. It's not "$200k" vs "$900k".

Ahchooo Sep 15, 2020 08:36 AM
Against AB 3088

Consider the case of the person/family who bought a modest house with the plan of renting out the converted garage to help cover the mortgage. Pretty sure that happens a lot on the Westside.

PitMix Sep 15, 2020 07:13 AM
Against AB 3088

Where are those mom and pop landlords you are talking about? I don't believe they exist. The 2020 economics of putting 20% down on a $900K house and then renting it out for $3,500/mo are not good. Any mom and pops that are renting houses bought them back in the day when houses cost $200K (1998). So property tax and mortgage payments are very low, and they can get by on 25% of 3,500/mo, with the rest being due in 2021. Don't cry for them, Argentina. The last landlord I had, bought her house in 1960 so only had income from the property and very small tax payments unless she decided to fix things up.

a-1600150046 Sep 14, 2020 11:07 PM
Against AB 3088

SBHA is making a pitch for more Section 8 housing landlords. Learned from their rental chart that I am charging my tenant well under Section 8 rates for something probably far better than typical Section 8 unit. . Does this still mean I am a greedy landlord? But they still want to take my rental income away? At this rate, any market "affordable rental housing" will bail out and go with Section 8 to make more money. (NB: the rest of the Section 8 landlord agreement chills one to the bone.)

Sail380 Sep 14, 2020 10:51 PM
Against AB 3088

Write a letter to Monique Limon. I have written a couple opposing some of her legislation. She has always written back with a thoughtful response.

a-1600122317 Sep 14, 2020 03:25 PM
Against AB 3088

The issue is not whether the landlord takes a risk; this issue is what happens when the landlord takes the rental property out of the rental inventory completely. after the price of renting it becomes a losing proposition. State legislators need to guard against over-reach. But this is an election year, so they are going for partisan pandering first.

PitMix Sep 16, 2020 07:36 AM
Against AB 3088

9:02, why are you saying they live there for free? They have to pay 25%, and then pay the rest back in 2021. That should cover some of the standard maintenance you refer to. As for the other stuff, choosing a bad tenant is always a risk when you rent property. But if you have to distort the facts to make your argument, I guess it wasn't that strong to start with.

a-1600185767 Sep 15, 2020 09:02 AM
Against AB 3088

PitMix, here is why a landlord will leave a unit empty rather than letting tenant live in it rent free: tenant wear and tear costs the landlord money - one plumbing back up, one replaced appliance, one subsidized relocation for a termite tenting, cheaper utility bills if included in the rent, additional property and liability insurance, and all the other ongoing costs that eat into the monthly income that all landlords face. Plus the hovering threat of a tenant who will fight any eviction tying up the property with legal maneuvers that can go on for over 6 months, particularly if they file for bankruptcy - that eats into any accumulated profits too and can easily wipe out any saved rental incomes. Mnay mom and pop landlords alreasy rent at net neutral income anyway because they are holding their property for equity value over time ,as part of their own financial investment portfolio. Many landlords live in terror of getting a tenant with an attitude because they know Calif landlord tenant law is totally stacked against them. When holding the propery primarily for equity value, renting it out in the interim in this state today has almost become not worth it. Leave the rental unit empty, sleep better at night and cut down on ongoing property owning expenses generated by tenant occupancy. makes a strong argument for getting out of the landlord business and simply call it a second home, or even a storage container for yourself.

PitMix Sep 15, 2020 07:14 AM
Against AB 3088

In your pie in the sky scenario, the landlord is just going to let the property sit nonproductive and take the loss on the tax payments? I doubt it. Not all of them are crazy like the commercial landlords on State Street.

Shmonk Sep 14, 2020 03:14 PM
Against AB 3088

Bull crap. I'm not going to hurt renters because I feel bad for landlords. Find a real job

Ahchooo Sep 14, 2020 07:18 PM
Against AB 3088

Yeah, a lot of us don’t much like the capitalist system that says that if you own property you can rent it out at market rate. But our whole country is based on that system. And many landlords are good, decent people who treat their tenants well. Probably most of them are. If they lose their property because they can’t make the mortgage, no one wins except other, richer people. That doesn’t help renters.

sblocal1967 Sep 14, 2020 02:43 PM
Against AB 3088

all investments come with risks - someone using rental properties as a source of passive income is no different than someone owning a travel related stock pre-CV and then getting crushed - gov't will always have their way of getting their hands on people's money - whether it through rental property legislation or capital gains taxes on stocks - I agree with poster that these type of laws suck - they end up subterfuging market forces and hurting the people they are trying to help

PitMix Sep 15, 2020 07:16 AM
Against AB 3088

3:22, the voter backlash occurred in 2010 and 2016 and look how that turned out. We've had enough of junior high voter backlash to last a lifetime.

sblocal1967 Sep 14, 2020 03:33 PM
Against AB 3088

I hope you are correct

a-1600122124 Sep 14, 2020 03:22 PM
Against AB 3088

You assume "government" will always be in the hands of Democrat liberals and government union employees. That guarantees voter passivity. So you might miss the voter backlash that is currently brewing. We have seen the future of more government control in our lives, and is a losing argument.

3P14159 Sep 14, 2020 02:38 PM
Against AB 3088

the telling thing about this is that commercial landlords are allowed to simply ignore this rule. the smaller guy, the landlord who owns 1-2 condo, has to adhere to the letter of the law. Of course, the former group pays very big taxes while the latter group does not. THAT is telling.

mast8 Sep 14, 2020 02:35 PM
Against AB 3088

Disappointing to see these windshield notes passing for civil discourse these days. Nothing alienates a reader faster than plenty of condescending, rhetorical questions and exclamation points (!)

doulie Sep 14, 2020 03:14 PM
Against AB 3088

MAST8 - Are you somehow connected with SBJOE?

a-1600118325 Sep 14, 2020 02:18 PM
Against AB 3088

The best arguments include both a "What" and a "How". You've done a reasonably decent job of spelling out what bothers you--I can see the argument and nodded my head a few times.

But the how? How do you want to solve this? We have millions of people in this country that barely scrape by as it is. I'm so glad to read about the amazing fortitude of others in the thread who would make their own bootstraps to pull themselves up by if that was the only job available. Great. Good for you. There are millions of others who either cannot. How do you want to deal with them? How happy would you be to see unemployed people in the streets? How would you like to then have your tax dollars go to feeding and housing more folks in dire need, rather than assisting them where they currently are now?

It is easy to find fault in a plan or process, it is much harder to actually design a solution that will work for most parties involved, at least most of the time. Your argument solves for one group while ignoring another entirely.

I'd encourage you to build full, complete arguments, rather than hamfisted halfsies.

Andrea Smith Sep 14, 2020 04:19 PM
Against AB 3088

Well for starters, a renter now has to certify why they cannot pay their rent under penalty of perjury if I understand the law correctly. So they are tightening it up. Perhaps the same could be done for landlords, where they must certify that they will lose their home or whatever if they cannot collect rents and there could be a similar exception. It's workable.

a-1600123907 Sep 14, 2020 03:51 PM
Against AB 3088

Here is the solution: look up on Zillow almost any community outside of expensive coastal California; even in the rest of California as well as all the other states. It will knock your socks off how affordable housing and rental price are. Demanding one lives only in expensive coastal California and only at someone else's expense is not a solution. The solution is to find where it works for your own income level and skill set - there is a world of wonderful housing options out there. There is little independent industry or career ladders in this area to keep anyone here who cannot afford the housing prices. And if you refuse to work for the leading and well-paying industry in town - the government -- you are simply not being realistic -and for that there are no solutions.

Ahchooo Sep 14, 2020 02:09 PM
Against AB 3088

I would love to hear Jackson and Limon address this problem. Obviously there are some landlords with enough resources to cover a gap in rent receipts. Just as obviously, there are some landlords without deep pockets, or any pockets at all. Surely Jackson and Limon have a response for this? Of course, anyone taking on the responsibility of property ownership knows that sometimes a tenant will not pay, and there will be months of legal hassle to deal with the problem. But generally you’d have only one non-paying tenant at a time, unless you have a lot of units. If what Ernie says is right, this bill is short sighted and unfair.

Andrea Smith Sep 14, 2020 01:50 PM
Against AB 3088

I am a renter, and I agree that this is really out of line to shoulder property owners with financial liability for people losing their jobs. I realize this is a difficult situation and we also don't want renters ending up homeless for something that also was not their fault but, this seems like overreach. Perhaps a property owner could challenge this through the courts, by filing for an eviction and when it's denied appealing? That is really the only way to address things like this. It really is just shifting responsibility to one innocent group over another innocent group and very unfair.

sbmh2015 Sep 14, 2020 01:21 PM
Against AB 3088

Yes, I'll remember in November. I'll remember what trump said, on tape, February 7th. 'it's airborne, Bob' .... '5 times deadlier than the flu, Bob'. But told the American people 3 weeks later ..'it's the same as the flu' ...'it will go away, like a miracle'. We are all still dealing with this b.s. because our president LIED to us. Look at other countries...Canada ZERO deaths last Friday, America had about 1200. Crystal clear where this problem started and who is responsible for it

a-1600149077 Sep 14, 2020 10:51 PM
Against AB 3088

And yet China handled the pandemic with an eye to keeping their citizens alive, and did a damned good job, given how little was known about the virus at the time. What did our federal government do? Whine about "it's not my responsibility" and blame it on others. That a gigantic failure of leadership, and left us looking like complete incompetents. Good thing we had some governors who knew what leadership, integrity, and science are.

Sail380 Sep 14, 2020 10:43 PM
Against AB 3088

Crystal clear where this problem started? I thought it started in China and the Chinese covered it up. What should Trump have done? Would you be a Trump supporter if he did what you said?

PitMix Sep 14, 2020 01:19 PM
Against AB 3088

"Is it no wonder that a majority of people living in California have said that they would leave, if they could. " I googled this and the only thing I could find is CNBC with a survey that said 53% of respondents have considered leaving due to the high cost of living, especially housing. Not that CA is not a desirable place to live, but that you have to work hard to afford it. Typical conspeak, where you take a fact and embellish it so that it promotes your worldview better.

RHS Sep 14, 2020 06:24 PM
Against AB 3088

Smith, you are right. California is a worse place now than it was 20 years ago and a hugely worse place than it was 60 years ago. Why? Because money came in to capitalize on the resources of the state. When my grandparents came here in the early 1900's it was the promised land. It was wonderful for a few decades after that but post WWII it became polluted, resources were overburdened, labor was exploited and so on. Now it is only fit for the uber wealthy and those who got a foothold decades back. So let people leave and make labor more valuable and reduce the environmental destruction. Good future it seems to me.

PitMix Sep 14, 2020 03:55 PM
Against AB 3088

Andrea, I don't know of anyone who has left the state recently. I know of a couple that left in the 80s. Maybe you and I run in different crowds?

Andrea Smith Sep 14, 2020 01:53 PM
Against AB 3088

PITMIX, while this is just anecdotal evidence, in the less than 20 years I've lived here, every friend I've made has left CA citing many of these reasons among others. In the comparatively short time I've lived here [not a lifelong resident] I've seen it go downhill fast, sadly. It was a much better place to live even just 10 years ago. You have to work hard anywhere you go really. But with all the taxation, you can hardly enjoy anything that CA has to offer - it would be better for many to live somewhere affordable, and save up for nice vacations which is almost impossible to do here especially areas like SB. It's not worth it to many.

PitMix Sep 14, 2020 01:04 PM
Against AB 3088

While I understand why Mr. Salomon may be concerned, this is an attempt to prevent of tragedy of epic proportions from occurring. Does anyone really want to see millions of families evicted from their homes through lack of funds, and does Mr. Salomon propose a solution to this? He does not. The bill says he is owed the money and will get it eventually, assuming the renters find employment and have any to give. Small landlords can also ask for mortgage forbearance. In my neighborhood a house was owned by a little old lady with a good lawyer. She put the house into a trust, and upon her passing her heirs assumed control and rent it out for market rates ($3,000/mo). They pay about $300/yr in property taxes based on what their grandmother owed, while I pay about $8,000/yr. I'm pretty sure this particular landlord can afford to get by on $750/mo (25%) until Jan 31. Really, how many landlords have recently bought property in SB to rent out unless it was for AirBnB? The economics of buying a current property for $900K to rent out are horrific unless you think you can get $400/night from vacationers.

Thomas John Sep 15, 2020 06:05 AM
Against AB 3088

Shhh! Don't tell anyone that 'helping the great American farmer...' by upping corn-based ethanol in gasoline is just a fat government subsidy.

GeneralTree Sep 14, 2020 08:36 PM
Against AB 3088

Chip - so bailing out the corporations and the rich is Marxism? Trump is a Marxist then?

PitMix Sep 14, 2020 03:54 PM
Against AB 3088

Chip, that is just scare tactics. True free market capitalism does not exist anywhere in the world because it is too grim to contemplate. Even Adam Smith knew that the people or government would have to make decisions in their rational self interest and not just purely based on economics if we are to live without children starving or working 16 hours a day in a factory. No one is proposing marxism, so take your finger off of your M-16 trigger. We are just looking for a way forward that keeps people in their homes. If you want something to worry about, worry about crony capitalism. That is a present danger where government is picking winners and losers every day.

Pages

Please Login or Register to comment on this.