Post by High Priestess on Sept 15, 2018 16:29:10 GMT
That's a new argument -- I've not seen city leaders propose this before: that tenants in rent stabilized units (eg those benefitting from some degree of rent control) should be permitted to rent out space in their unit on AIrbnb.
www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-rental-ordinance-20180913-story.html
This is a strange proposition, because it's basically arguing that while the owner of that apartment should be prohibited both from renting it out as a short term rental, AND from raising the rent beyond a certain small amount annually, the renter of that space would be permitted to sublet it AND charge a higher rent for the space, than the owner themselves is permitted to do.
To me that sounds quite a lot like giving the tenant greater rights to the property than the owner themselves has. In fact, that's exactly what it would do -- it would allow the tenant to profit more from someone else's property, than the owner themselves is permitted to do.
I see no problem with a property owner allowing their tenant to sublet, if they so choose....or even to profit more off the space than the owner themselves, if they have the incentive to do that....but only so long as the property owner is not legally prohibited from charging the same rents that the tenant is receiving when subletting. IN other words, if the owner is bound by rent stablization, so too should the tenant, as a subletter, be bound to the same limits.
That's what is actually already law in cities with rent control, like San Francisco, where a tenant who sublets a place is not legally permitted to charge higher rents than they themselves are paying. Many do that, however, and there are lots of stories of people living in rent controlled units who profit from them and actually own property elsewhere...which they may be financing from their arbitrage of a subsidized space. I know two such tenants personally. THey live in rent controlled units and own homes in other cities...one owns several homes in another state, and the second rents a rent controlled unit in San Francisco, and owns a large ranch in a rural area north of San Francisco, which he rents out on Airbnb and VRBO. This by the way, points up the serious problem with rent control. People who have no need of rental subsidies, are receiving charity/subsidies, because there is no means testing or income qualification to receive such "aid." In fact these tenants may be wealthier than the owner they are renting from! In one of these two cases I believe that to be true.
While it's up to the landlord to intervene if they want to stop this, the law should at the least not prevent an owner from stopping this, if they discover it is happening and want to stop it.
www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-rental-ordinance-20180913-story.html
This is a strange proposition, because it's basically arguing that while the owner of that apartment should be prohibited both from renting it out as a short term rental, AND from raising the rent beyond a certain small amount annually, the renter of that space would be permitted to sublet it AND charge a higher rent for the space, than the owner themselves is permitted to do.
To me that sounds quite a lot like giving the tenant greater rights to the property than the owner themselves has. In fact, that's exactly what it would do -- it would allow the tenant to profit more from someone else's property, than the owner themselves is permitted to do.
I see no problem with a property owner allowing their tenant to sublet, if they so choose....or even to profit more off the space than the owner themselves, if they have the incentive to do that....but only so long as the property owner is not legally prohibited from charging the same rents that the tenant is receiving when subletting. IN other words, if the owner is bound by rent stablization, so too should the tenant, as a subletter, be bound to the same limits.
That's what is actually already law in cities with rent control, like San Francisco, where a tenant who sublets a place is not legally permitted to charge higher rents than they themselves are paying. Many do that, however, and there are lots of stories of people living in rent controlled units who profit from them and actually own property elsewhere...which they may be financing from their arbitrage of a subsidized space. I know two such tenants personally. THey live in rent controlled units and own homes in other cities...one owns several homes in another state, and the second rents a rent controlled unit in San Francisco, and owns a large ranch in a rural area north of San Francisco, which he rents out on Airbnb and VRBO. This by the way, points up the serious problem with rent control. People who have no need of rental subsidies, are receiving charity/subsidies, because there is no means testing or income qualification to receive such "aid." In fact these tenants may be wealthier than the owner they are renting from! In one of these two cases I believe that to be true.
While it's up to the landlord to intervene if they want to stop this, the law should at the least not prevent an owner from stopping this, if they discover it is happening and want to stop it.