CPI bears no relationship to the high tax burden, insurance, maintenance, repair costs of landlords. Small owners who maintain “affordable” properties , often just a single duplex, don’t have the buffer that a large corporation does. Please listen to the small landlords… don’t artificially tie rent to an unrelated CPI number, don’t try to include small owners of single duplexes into the bureaucratic morass of rent control, and don’t codify allowing overcrowding in rentals.
CPI program will cost a lot of administrative expense. Why doesn't city use this money to help renters directly? Why making it so complicated to everyone instead of simple 5%? Renters can't even predict how much rent will be increased. Owners will no longer lower their rent in order to find tenants. It is lose-lose scenario. CPI will twist the normal business relationship between owners and renters.
Stay with 5% and stop making new problems. We are not criminals; we are working hard to provide Housing in old properties that take constant maintenance. ARO is already too complicated; older landlords without primary language of English are already having a hard time with forms and regulations.
You've just put in 5%; give it time to see how it's working. Public registry is not needed if using 5% because people can calculate allowable increase. Public registry is controversial; invades tenants and landlords rights to privacy; and it costs extra money. It creates strife between the tenants. Our tenants do not want all their names submitted to the City. And we do not want to give copies of our lease with tenant's name to the City; extra cost; no reason.
The ARO was only recently changed. We need to leave it alone and give it time to see how it's working. All this work went into passing this last time around so why are we again already suggesting new changes to it?? Nobody even knows if it's working or not...
support 5%
Old apartment incurs additional expenditure such as replastering the pool. Class C small apartment does not have manpower to manage the additional paper works of pass through application and keeping track of it. Small apartment needs to build up reserve for the unexpected expenditure, which is common for old apartment. With CPI cap, we all will become slumlord, or sell the apartment to the slumlord.
Please leave ARO alone for a while and let the dust settle - get some data first to make informed decisions. Furthermore, CPI is a poor benchmark for rent increases, as costs are rising much faster than CPI. Finally, to police ARO, the housing dept must staff up significantly, and those costs are also passed onto the owners. See what happens first before adding staff.
We should leave our recently updated ARO alone. The prior changes were worked on for over a year we do not have any data to justify a change so soon. We should not start creating new laws for a problem we do not have as we will likely create new problems.
CPI bears no relationship to the high tax burden, insurance, maintenance, repair costs of landlords. Small owners who maintain “affordable” properties , often just a single duplex, don’t have the buffer that a large corporation does. Please listen to the small landlords… don’t artificially tie rent to an unrelated CPI number, don’t try to include small owners of single duplexes into the bureaucratic morass of rent control, and don’t codify allowing overcrowding in rentals.
CPI program will cost a lot of administrative expense. Why doesn't city use this money to help renters directly? Why making it so complicated to everyone instead of simple 5%? Renters can't even predict how much rent will be increased. Owners will no longer lower their rent in order to find tenants. It is lose-lose scenario. CPI will twist the normal business relationship between owners and renters.
Stay with 5% and stop making new problems. We are not criminals; we are working hard to provide Housing in old properties that take constant maintenance. ARO is already too complicated; older landlords without primary language of English are already having a hard time with forms and regulations.
You've just put in 5%; give it time to see how it's working. Public registry is not needed if using 5% because people can calculate allowable increase. Public registry is controversial; invades tenants and landlords rights to privacy; and it costs extra money. It creates strife between the tenants. Our tenants do not want all their names submitted to the City. And we do not want to give copies of our lease with tenant's name to the City; extra cost; no reason.
The ARO was only recently changed. We need to leave it alone and give it time to see how it's working. All this work went into passing this last time around so why are we again already suggesting new changes to it?? Nobody even knows if it's working or not...
support 5%
Old apartment incurs additional expenditure such as replastering the pool. Class C small apartment does not have manpower to manage the additional paper works of pass through application and keeping track of it. Small apartment needs to build up reserve for the unexpected expenditure, which is common for old apartment. With CPI cap, we all will become slumlord, or sell the apartment to the slumlord.
Please leave ARO alone for a while and let the dust settle - get some data first to make informed decisions. Furthermore, CPI is a poor benchmark for rent increases, as costs are rising much faster than CPI. Finally, to police ARO, the housing dept must staff up significantly, and those costs are also passed onto the owners. See what happens first before adding staff.
We should leave our recently updated ARO alone. The prior changes were worked on for over a year we do not have any data to justify a change so soon. We should not start creating new laws for a problem we do not have as we will likely create new problems.
Rent Registry is a violation of tenant's private information. City should provide a release form for tenant's to sign.