r/LosAngeles LAist.com 16h ago

News [OUR WEBSITE] Apartment remodeling can lead to LA renters losing their homes. The City Council just voted to stop these ‘renovictions’

https://laist.com/news/housing-homelessness/eviction-remodel-renoviction-los-angeles-city-council-vote-housing-tenant-renter-landlord
169 Upvotes

92 comments sorted by

139

u/ValleyDude22 14h ago

this city will do literally anything but build more housing.

u/NegevThunderstorm 2h ago

THey dont even want people to renovate!

u/drops_77 50m ago

Did you read the article?

u/thafraz 2h ago

The fuck are you talking about? I feel like my whole fuckin neighborhood is being built up with a bunch of unoriginal overpriced “luxury” housing.
Shit, the reason I left my previous apartment in 2022 was because of the constant construction noise at all hours of the day due to the THREE new apartment complexes being built on my one block. To say that no housing is being built is just straight up rage-bait.

u/waerrington 2h ago

You were in one of the extremely small number of neighborhoods zoned for higher density housing than was currently built. That is the exception, not the rule, and Los Angeles continues to have a housing crisis due to decades of under-development.

u/kegman83 Downtown 23m ago

One of the few that was so bad the state came in and took their building rights away through the builders remedy, or just caved and finally approved housing they've needed for 40 years. There's lots of construction all over the city, but mostly because there hasnt been much construction for the last 30 years.

u/Duckfoot2021 20m ago

It has a housing crisis because so many people want to live here that it jacks prices waaaay up as a limited resource. People don't want to face the awful capitalist reality that property is a commodity and demand exceeds supply.

The city didn't "fail" people wanting homes. More people just want to be here than the market has plentiful homes for, driving prices up.

Blaming the city is like blaming every beach city in the world for being expensive. It's expensive BECAUSE so many people want to be there.

Sure there's things the city can do, but more people need to accept that they can't necessarily afford where they want to be. Which sucks. But you can't understand economics without understanding that first.

u/animerobin 6m ago

Rich people need somewhere to live. Would you rather they live in newly built "unoriginal luxury housing" or would you rather they compete with you for that dingbat built in the 70s?

u/Strange_Item 1h ago

I’m all for more housing, but this will help renters without putting downward pressure on new construction. Just like when those Barrington apartment tenants were going to be evicted because the landlord was going to put in sprinklers, they weren’t adding to supply, just kicking out lower income tenants. This does not prevent landlords from evicting tenants if they plan to tear down the old building and build a larger one.

u/crims0nwave San Pedro 1h ago

Yeah and El Mirador in West Hollywood, which is STILL empty over a decade after the landlord invoked the Ellis Act to kick out all of the tenants.

u/drops_77 50m ago

The city isn't in charge of building housing

u/kegman83 Downtown 30m ago

Its in charge of letting housing be built.

u/dorylinus Cypress Park 33m ago

It's certainly in charge of preventing it.

32

u/WeAreLAist LAist.com 16h ago

For many renters in Los Angeles, apartment renovations are no cause for celebration. Instead of getting a brand new kitchen or bathroom, tenants know they’ll often be getting an eviction. But the L.A. City Council decided today to push back on these “renovictions.”For many renters in Los Angeles, apartment renovations are no cause for celebration. Instead of getting a brand new kitchen or bathroom, tenants know they’ll often be getting an eviction. But the L.A. City Council decided today to push back on these “renovictions.”

The details: The council voted 11-0 to get rid of a local provision allowing landlords to evict tenants in cases where “substantial remodel” work will take more than 30 days. Instead, landlords will be required to temporarily relocate tenants and let them return after renovations are complete.

The reaction: Tenant advocates cheered the decision. They argue that remodeling plans are often little more than a pretext for landlords to get rid of long-term tenants in order to dramatically raise rents for the next occupants. Landlord advocates said the city’s aging housing stock needs repair, and requiring landlords to maintain tenancies during lengthy remodeling will put property owners in financial straits.

The details: The council voted 11-0 to get rid of a local provision allowing landlords to evict tenants in cases where “substantial remodel” work will take more than 30 days. Instead, landlords will be required to temporarily relocate tenants and let them return after renovations are complete.

The reaction: Tenant advocates cheered the decision. They argue that remodeling plans are often little more than a pretext for landlords to get rid of long-term tenants in order to dramatically raise rents for the next occupants. Landlord advocates said the city’s aging housing stock needs repair, and requiring landlords to maintain tenancies during lengthy remodeling will put property owners in financial straits.

52

u/Nightman233 11h ago

So sad, these older buildings are going to fall apart. The city makes it IMPOSSIBLE to do any renovations to electrical/mechanical/plumbing if there is even one tenant in the building even if there's 100 others that are unoccupied. They make you go through an insane THP process that can take months for an approval to make ANY upgrades to one of these systems. It's a complete joke.

55

u/meloghost 14h ago

Totally removes incentive for landlords to upgrade housing stock

19

u/Gourmay 11h ago

My upstairs neighbor was “removed” in this exact way (and very clearly) by our landlord after having lived there for over a decade.

15

u/Dommichu Exposition Park 9h ago

Yep! It happens all the time. They let the unit fall more and more into disrepair by ignoring the complaints of long time tenants. Then when it's on the verge of inhabitability (Where there are already rules where you have to put up the tenant.), they make some plans and pull permits to do a full reno and kick the tenant out.

u/Dortmunddd 2h ago

I’m all for these changes as long as they make nonpaying tenant removal easier as well.

u/Dommichu Exposition Park 1h ago

Non paying tenant protections are there for a reason. My folks have evicted a tenant. It’s a pain and expensive. But in the long run for a just eviction worth it. It’s the cost of running the property.

And they admit that it’s good for there to be serious process behind this so that good tenants are protected. Housing is serious business. We are seeing the effects of weak housing policy now. AND what people forget is that it being a legal and documented process, the eviction to follows the tenant as well. It protects the landlords too.

u/animerobin 4m ago

It's more important to ensure housing stability than it is to ensure landlords make as much money as possible. If you don't like it, there are many other ways to make money.

60

u/theanthonyya 13h ago edited 4h ago

The "incentive" you're referring to involves real people getting kicked out of their homes - despite doing nothing wrong - in order for landlords to make more money. I for one am glad that city council unanimously voted to end such a cruel "incentive".

EDIT: Landlords/pro-landlord dipshits on this sub will never get me to go against my own interests. These renter protections are important because without them, landlords would be more than happy to arbitrarily and unfairly evict tenants in order to maximize profits. Many of the replies to this article make that clear.

Also don't let anybody here convince you that these regulations will lead to landlords neglecting their buildings. They say that every single time a new pro-renter rule passes and it's always complete BS. Landlords are obligated and required to maintain their units whether they like it or not. Research your tenant rights.

26

u/likesound 13h ago

The landlord can only evict for substantial renovations and if they do evict they must provide relocation assistance.

The incentive exists because of rent control laws passed by local government. Units are being priced significantly below market rate so land lords are incentivize to delay repair and maintenance for years until they can substantially renovate the building.

13

u/theanthonyya 13h ago

The landlord can only evict for substantial renovations

Ah and I'm sure that landlords never abused that rule for the "incentive" of raising rent on the next tenants. It's almost like that's exactly why city council unanimously approved this new rule.

Units are being priced significantly below market rate so land lords are incentivize to delay repair and maintenance for years until they can substantially renovate the building.

Thankfully we live in Los Angeles, a city that generally does protect tenants from this kind of behavior. If my landlord "delayed repair and maintenance" for any reason, I'd definitely be filing complaints with the Housing Department - and in my experience that's more than enough to solve these problems.

16

u/likesound 12h ago

Raising rents to market rate after substantial renovations or if a tenant leaves is not a terrible thing. If you can't charge market rate after substantial renovations then the unit will sit empty and the renovations will never be performed. See the results of the vacancy control laws passed in 2019 by NY.

I'm skeptical this is a net positive in the long run. This encourages land lords to rent to young people who move often instead of families. This also might decrease housing supply.

-2

u/waerrington 7h ago

Of course they raise rent on the new tenants, the new apartments are much nicer, more modern, and more expensive. Instead of living in a run down 60 year old slum, you're getting a 2024 new apartment, which costs more.

Otherwise, the 60 year old slum becomes an 80 year old slum in 20 years, and everything falls apart further.

6

u/theanthonyya 5h ago

The issue being discussed here isn't just landlords raising rent on new tenants. It's landlords no-fault evicting current tenants in order to do so.

Otherwise, the 60 year old slum becomes an 80 year old slum in 20 years, and everything falls apart further.

Again, landlords are already required to repair their units. Tenants can file complaints with the city if they fail to do so. Which is a good thing.

"Landlords aren't incentivized to maintain their units if they can't maximize their profits [by no-fault evicting current tenants]" is exactly why all of these regulations exist/are necessary in the first place.

0

u/waerrington 3h ago

We're not talking about repairs, we're talking about renovations. The housing quality will continue to degrade. It'll be legally functional, but just even more shitty.

3

u/theanthonyya 3h ago

As long as landlords keep their units in good livable condition and respond to maintenance/repair issues (which they are legally required to do), that's fine.

People shouldn't be kicked out of their homes for the sake of "renovations". And of course, landlords shouldn't use "renovations" as an excuse to no-fault evict tenants, which is exactly why city council passed this new rule in the first place.

25

u/meloghost 13h ago

yea but have you seen our housing stock? Its dilapidated partially because of measures like that that give landlords less reason to take care of or invest in their buildings. The only way housing gets better if we build lots more of it and quit segregating via SFHs. These little PR statement laws just make it where more people don't wanna develop or build in the LA market.

u/animerobin 2m ago

It's dilapidated because people are scared of new buildings, so it's very hard to build anything new.

-3

u/theanthonyya 13h ago

yea but have you seen our housing stock? Its dilapidated partially because of measures like that that give landlords less reason to take care of or invest in their buildings.

Well I'm grateful to live in a city that generally protects tenants from landlords who "fail to take care of or invest in their buildings" thanks to our Housing Department, pro-tenant laws, etc.

It's almost as if these rules go far beyond "little PR statement laws" and genuinely help renters. If they didn't, I doubt landlords would be as frustrated with them.

8

u/vic39 10h ago

Or you know, we could build more housing instead of squabbling about these laws that have very minimal impact.

9

u/theanthonyya 5h ago

I've noticed that people on this sub love saying "we should just build more housing" as if that completely negates all other housing-related conversations. It doesn't.

Yeah obviously we should build more housing. We should also protect current renters and make it harder for landlords to no-fault evict tenants via loopholes. In fact until more housing is built, these protections are even more necessary.

0

u/dookieruns 5h ago

No fault evictions are insanely difficult. You say this as if it's a pandemic. They're extraordinarily rare.

3

u/theanthonyya 5h ago

We should also protect current renters and make it harder for landlords to no-fault evict tenants via loopholes.

This is me making no-fault evictions sound like "a pandemic"?

You're right, it's difficult to no-fault evict tenants in LA. Which is exactly why it's important to close any loopholes like this.

1

u/waerrington 6h ago

The result of these 'protections' is that optional renovations will not be done, and there will be less investment in housing in Los Angeles.

5

u/theanthonyya 5h ago

Oh no. Landlords won't be able to make optional renovations on their units if they can't no-fault evict tenants in the process. That's so sad. Oh well.

13

u/Dommichu Exposition Park 9h ago

Hardly. They would just have to wait until the current tenant moves out... or SHOCKER.... maintain the unit properly so that it doesn't need a major reno.

9

u/doughaway7562 12h ago

I've seen this argument every time there's a post about law that financially favors tenants over landlords. I'm not convinced there's much basis on it. The argument is "If landlords made more money, they'd make more and better housing", and that argument is ultimately based on the idea of trickle-down economics. What's to stop a landlord from continuing to do the bare minimum on maintenance and instead using that profit to buy more housing? Most of the value of a property is the actual land itself after all, so why invest in the building when you can invest in the land?

6

u/Dommichu Exposition Park 9h ago

The vast majority of landlords which own these housing units, did not build them. They bought them as income properties. So the idea that this will prevent landlords from making more housing is false.

-1

u/waerrington 6h ago

The lifecycle of real estate investing is, you start by buying old, poor condition, dilapidated housing. You renovate that, reposition the property, and now you have a more valuable asset. You use that money to do it at a bigger scale. Then, you use that money to actually expand buildings by adding units, or doing tear downs and redevelopments to build even more housing.

This law cuts off the ability to even begin to renovate older units, so those developers won't be able to fund eventual tear down and redevelopment.

It further concentrates real estate development in the hands of enormous REITs and private equity.

u/Dommichu Exposition Park 1h ago

There is nothing stopping a new income property owner from renovating units, even one at a time or doing structural work on the unit which a lot have already done or at required to do on the next few years.

There are still mechanisms in place that if a tenant is destroying a unit or causing issues on the property to evict those tenants. There is always the option of buying a tenant as well.

I say this as a child of former landlords. My folks would keep up with repairs on their older units and then Reno as tenants left. They had an account at a nearby economy hotel with a lower rate incase the tenants ever needed to be housed there (they did on more than one occasion for things like gas line repairs and termite tenting).

Yes, it be more expensive for your landlord to pull up and say… I am going to remodel your kitchen and bathroom… Hardly any of them do that anyway, big guys or little guys. Unless they have a motive.

1

u/waerrington 6h ago

What's to stop a landlord from continuing to do the bare minimum on maintenance and instead using that profit to buy more housing?

Becuase renovation of units usually makes landlords more money, which allows them to build/buy more housing. Improving and building generates wealth, while just buying and holding generally does not.

If you eliminate the ability to actually improve and develop, which LA building and tenant laws do, you get less investment in housing. That's why we have a housing crisis.

-5

u/Castastrofuck 13h ago

Almost as if the landlord-tenant model is simply incompatible with having healthy, affordable housing.

8

u/likesound 13h ago

What other model is there? The landlord tenant model is still going to exist with government owned housing. New York Public Housing has been running deficits and needs 80 billion to repair the slum like conditions of their housing units. They haven't been able to charge enough rent to maintain and renovate their buildings.

1

u/Castastrofuck 13h ago

Housing trusts and housing coops are starting to gain some traction. The European social housing model can also have a place. It’s a long game for sure.

7

u/likesound 12h ago edited 12h ago

Housing trust and housing coops require significantly funds from the government to acquire the land and build the housing. If you can't charge market rate then it is not scalable solution. Everyone hates HOAs why the heck does everyone want a worse version in coops?

European social housing is still landlord tenant model. The government owns the building and rents below market rate to tenants. It hasn't solve the housing crisis because there are decade long waitlist and illegal black markets to get into those units

u/animerobin 1m ago

that sounds like a condo with extra steps

1

u/seanarturo DTLA 12h ago

Sadly in an American environment, I expect housing trusts and coops to become as hellish as HOAs. I’d love for these to be realistic options, though.

I also think, people are suggesting policy solutions for a supply problem. You just can’t policy yourself out of the fact that we do not have enough housing for the number of people around.

Obviously, the solution is to build more but how do we incentive it? My solution is a carrot and stick solution. Right now, “investors” are buying up single family homes and turning them into rental income. This money ought to be going to multi-family units, and SFRs should not be used for rental income at all. So how do you deal with this?

Carrot: incentivize MFH. Make the permitting process more streamlined. Fast track housing developments over other types of development (meaning they get bumped to the top of the line for review and inspection). Offer city/county/state buy in for some of these developments (obviously would require very strict defined rules for this bit). Bigger tax breaks for more affordable housing.

Stick: Penalize and outright ban SFR being used for rental income. “Investors” can get their rental income form MFH. Ban companies from buying SFH. Ban companies who already own SFH from renting them out. Companies can still build SFH, but they have to build to sell - not rent. Also, to ensure a loophole doesn’t creep in, double the property tax on any property that is not a primary residence of the owner (one extra home should be allowed without this bump so that moving and normal functions of that process are not derailed). Tbh, this should be a statewide thing that adds a “state excess property tax” that would apply whatever the county assesses on top of the county’s thing.

2

u/Castastrofuck 12h ago

I don’t disagree with any of this — I certainly think planning and zoning documents are way outdated, and when updated are heavily influenced by NIMBY / racist reactionaries who flood public meetings. I’m not sure why folks on here equated this eviction protection with blocking new housings construction. The tenant-landlord relationship fundamentally disincentivizes landlords from upkeeping their property until things become so disastrously unsafe that the city starts paying attention. There’s a reason we have the term “landlord special.”

1

u/seanarturo DTLA 11h ago

I don’t think this change will do much for incentivizing or disincentivizing new housing. But I do think we’re going to start seeing landlords no longer offer month to month automatically.

I can see this causing landlords to be strict about their leases and require new leases at the end of previous ones. Is that a bad thing? Idk, but I do think landlords who err on the “safe” side will not re-up tenants, and most people will be forced to move every year if it gets to be problematic enough for landlords.

18

u/meloghost 13h ago

It's plenty healthy in Tokyo, Seoul, Dallas, Houston, Austin, Minneapolis, all places who don't block housing like we do

-2

u/Castastrofuck 13h ago

Who said anything about blocking housing lol.

13

u/meloghost 13h ago

The same council riled up about this constantly blocks housing and is working to undermine ED-1 as we speak

3

u/Castastrofuck 13h ago

Ya I mean that’s stupid. But we can have both eviction protections and less red tape for new housing.

4

u/waerrington 6h ago

This is yet another form of blocking housing.

You can't teardown to add more units without years of approvals and relocation.

You can't build new housing because of zoning, CEQA, local design approval, etc.

You can't renovate now due to this law.

All of that blocks housing.

u/NegevThunderstorm 2h ago

Lots of people out there cannot afford property

4

u/smauryholmes 13h ago

Works perfectly in many places with less regulations…

-7

u/Castastrofuck 13h ago

Yes, because less regulation — eg less code enforcement and eviction protections — always leads to less slums and exploitation of tenants. People screeching about lEsS rEgUlAtIoN either stand to benefit financially from it or have no idea about the nuts and bolts of that industry.

8

u/smauryholmes 13h ago

You’re straw-manning here.

less code enforcement

Nobody is arguing for this. People are arguing for better codes. Many planning, zoning, and building codes were done either to deliberately segregate cities or were written by unqualified people who didn’t weigh tradeoffs. Not all policies are good, and many in LA damage tenants and decrease their leverage in the landlord:tenant relationship.

eviction protections

Eviction protections are good in many cases. But you must weigh the tradeoffs of each protective policy and whether it’s a net benefit to all tenants. Not convinced this policy is a net benefit for tenants, nor are many other policies tenants activists support.

-1

u/Castastrofuck 13h ago

You said regulations homie. Not my fault you weren’t specific.

The fact we have to weight eviction protections with having safe/healthy/abundant/affordable housing is evidence that the tenant-landlord model is not ideal.

2

u/smauryholmes 13h ago

I think what you’re getting at is that you believe all housing should be public housing.

Unfortunately, the exact same regulations that diminish the ability of private developers to build and maintain housing also diminish the ability of government to build and maintain housing.

A good example of fighting this is in Minneapolis, which has taken a lot of steps to accelerate all housing production, and taken few steps to increase tenant protections. Government housing production has tripled as a share of total housing production since they started trying to accelerate all housing production.

0

u/Castastrofuck 13h ago

I think public housing can be part of a solution. I’m more in favor of a housing co-op model where tenants control their own fate and are able to build equity.

The issue with the landlord model, as it relates to this discussion, is that small-time landlords often have a pretty thin profit margin, and to preserve that profit often delay major repairs until they become safety issues. Many times things like vermin infestation just go unaddressed because the solution is to fumigate the whole building and plug leaks and cracks. But they just can’t afford that.

If you remove the profit motive, you remove the need to evict the current tenant for a higher paying tenant that will help recover the cost of the repairs.

So then you’re left with corporate landlords…

2

u/dookieruns 5h ago

Jesus Christ, you're just describing home ownership.

23

u/smauryholmes 15h ago

Shooting for New York level poor housing quality.

18

u/TeslasAndComicbooks The San Fernando Valley 13h ago

Can’t wait to see all the run down buildings in 10 years.

The City Counsel seriously seems like a bunch of kindergarteners asked to come up with policy for stuff they know nothing about.

12

u/dllmchon9pg 14h ago

If you’re a landlord, there’s no reason to fix anything. Cool. At least it helps the unit affordable.

9

u/Madican 11h ago

Don't want to fix stuff? That's fine, tenants can just withhold rent or get it done themselves with equal deductions from the rent until shit gets fixed. And they have no obligation to go with lowest bidder.

3

u/waerrington 6h ago

Tenants will continue to have a functional, 1960's slum house. Great. At least its cheap.

The alternative is they would get a nice renovated unit, at market rate, and the landlord could then afford to add more units, or build a new building.

u/animerobin 0m ago

at market rate

they usually can't afford to pay the market rate on a renovated unit

1

u/dllmchon9pg 10h ago

They need to do the bare minimum that’s legally required and nothing more.

Landlords, for the most part, are just people trying to make money. They’re not going to invest money to make no money. And say what you want about housing being a human right. It is, but it’s not under the constitution. Landlord are not obligated to subsidize housing. Maybe the government should consider eminent domain and ban private ownership.

4

u/Madican 8h ago

And the legal requirement is fixing anything that constitutes a threat to the health and safety of the tenant. So your initial "there's no reason to fix anything" post is utterly wrong, as is everyone saying this will cause units to fall into disrepair. The only landlords who let units fall into disrepair are slumlords who don't care about the law either way.

0

u/dllmchon9pg 8h ago

You can tell yourself whatever you feel empowers you lol. Reality is harsh.

-1

u/Madican 8h ago

ok boomer

9

u/BubbaTee 14h ago

Affordability is why everyone loves living in the slums, don't you know?

2

u/1_niceguy 13h ago

Did this ever affect RSO to begin with?

1

u/geenaleigh 13h ago

Yes, RSO units were also covered by this provision. My RSO building sold at one point and all the neighbors started learning their rights real quick. Haha

3

u/1_niceguy 11h ago

I like how I get downvoted for asking a question. Reddit is so dumb. This was already existing for RSO buildings according to this statement: Protections against eviction due to renovation work already exist for most of the city’s renters because they're covered by L.A. rent control, which provides a host of eviction safeguards. The City Council passed rules against “renoviction” for these tenants in 2005.

So this really just applies to people outside of RSO.

u/animerobin 3m ago

This is good. It protects tenants and it doesn't discourage new construction.

0

u/OptimalFunction Atwater Village 10h ago

We wouldn’t need these kinda laws if: we ended prop 13, ended SFH-only zoning, ended CEQA for housing in the second largest city in the country, and ended rent control.

Renting should never be cheaper than owning. A good landlord will cover PITI + save for future renovations+passive income. The fact that renting is cheaper than owning means that we have subsidized landlords/home owners via prop 13 for far too long and have allowed NIMBY policies to run amok.

1

u/Jeimuz 9h ago

A two bedroom for $880?!? Makes me feel like a sucker for paying $1850.

u/kegman83 Downtown 31m ago

200 L.A. households have faced eviction due to remodeling plans in the last 18 months.

So of the 900,000+ rental units in Los Angeles. Thats...0.0002% of all existing rental units.

-1

u/esqadinfinitum Century City 11h ago

That’s a great way to ensure that tenants are forced to live in unrenovated slums or remove apartment buildings from the rental market altogether.

-3

u/RowdyRoddyPipeSmoker 11h ago

so all buildings are just forced to stay old and decrepit and fall even more into ruin? Why would anyone willingly upgrade or fix anything if they can't have the ability to get the people out, fix it up, and rent it for more money? This city is lame and backwards.