Re:A Chronicle reporter went undercover in high school
by chung8123 on Friday March 29, 2024 @01:12PM
(#39866488)
They really need to get rid of RSO and Prop13 at the same time. Both laws do the same effective thing, one for the renter and one for the homeowner.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:A Chronicle reporter went undercover in high school
by nick7376182 on Friday March 29, 2024 @01:33PM
(#39866770)
Keep RSO but get rid of Prop13 on any non-owner occupied buildings. Multi unit buildings that are not individual condos should automatically be voided out of Prop 13 anyways.
Re:A Chronicle reporter went undercover in high school
by KerrAvon on Friday March 29, 2024 @02:14PM
(#39867224)
They recently got rid of Prop 13 on inherited homes -- apparently because people got real mad at Jeff Bridges for having a second home -- which is currently fucking me over personally because it's taking a long time to prep the inherited property for sale.
Re:A Chronicle reporter went undercover in high school
by nick7376182 on Friday March 29, 2024 @02:21PM
(#39867311)
Sorry for your loss.
Given that you are selling it rather than rent it out, it seems to have the intended effect. Just as when I renovated a vacant RSO duplex, I sold it rather than enter rent control again.
Incentives do work, but we accidentally incentivised and subsidized a whole bunch of mom and pop landlords with prop 13.
Re:A Chronicle reporter went undercover in high school
by bombcar on Friday March 29, 2024 @03:39PM
(#39868129)
What is RSO?
The subsidization of mom and pop landlords with Prop 13 basically translates into lower rents overall; without it rents would have to rise (or total rentals decrease, which may be a desirable outcome).
Re:A Chronicle reporter went undercover in high school
by dredmorbius on Friday March 29, 2024 @05:29PM
(#39869223)
I'm presuming "rent stabilization ordinance", which is specific to Los Angeles, best I can tell:
<https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/los_angeles/latest/lam...>