California renters emboldened. - Posted by David H

Real Estate Investing Real Estate Law
21

Re: California renters emboldened. - Posted by Tim Fierro (Tacoma, WA)

Posted by Tim Fierro (Tacoma, WA) on March 03, 2002 at 10:58:58:

I am sorry if my post came across as attitude, but I don’t know how any of us can know his problem yet. We know instead of 30 days, he might have to wait until 90 days to get some tenants moved out; but I don’t think the investor has said it was a problem.

We don’t know the investor’s game plan.

Yes, I think we agree that he wants, and probably will, sell all these properties. You may see it as a problem to get the tenants out because you see the 30 day notice given, the rally to get an extension, and the investor giving that extension. The investor did not come out and state he has to have everyone out in 30 days or else he has a problem.

It brings me back to his timeline. We are not the investor with this scenario and don’t know the details. What you might consider is 3 times longer (30 days, now up to 90 days) to get a tenant to vacate, might be a positive note to the investor if his goal was to have everyone out within 6 months. We don’t know his timetable, reasons for sale other than new investments, and what kind of price he is going to ask for; and whether or not he already has a buyer lined up for these in bulk.

We just don’t know, so we can’t tell if he has a problem.

If the property is valued at $67 million as is, but if $5 million was spent to tear it all down and prepare for a shopping mall would make it worth $90 million, are you prepared to give him $90 million now? No. To make it worth more you would need to get everyone out, and spend the $5 million to demolish, and then find the buyer he had for the $90 to see if they still wanted it.

Attitude, no, I don’t mean to give one. I am only trying to point out that what we all see is only a piece of the situation and we can not know all the details. Without details, we don’t know if he has a problem, yet.

Until then, it is all speculation and guessing.

22

Re: California renters emboldened. - Posted by Bryan in Cali

Posted by Bryan in Cali on March 01, 2002 at 21:25:52:

I have to say that the way people here are reacting is only going to make the landlord’s position worse. Saying “well these people rented month to month and now the LL has terminated these contracts and is within the law so the tenants should shut up and move” only makes us look like the Grinch Who Stole The Roof Over Their Heads and makes the socialists and the politicians stronger since they can now say “see landlords don’t care about you, all they care about is profit” which makes people want the politicians to “protect” them from the “evil” landlord. It just makes the tenants say that the landlord doesn’t care about them as people only profit numbers.

23

Re: Entitlement - Posted by Mark (SDCA)

Posted by Mark (SDCA) on March 04, 2002 at 14:24:31:

Two quick points…
First, I agree 100% with you. I have no idea why Cali has tenant/landlord laws since they don’t seem inclined to enforce them.

Second point is that government is whacked everywhere.
I take it you are in Texas?? Look at some of the insurance and judgment laws. I have a stack of judgments that aren’t worth the paper they are written on.
And me and all my tenants cannot get hazard insurance at anything like a reasonable price.

That’s what happens when government gets involved.

Cheers,

Mark

24

Re: California renters emboldened. - Posted by dan

Posted by dan on March 03, 2002 at 13:18:56:

i could be wrong … but i highly doubt the city of orangevale would allow anyone to tear down of all these houses to build a shopping mall. there is shortage of housing in greater sacramento as it is.

AND, if they did allow such a thing, you are making a bad assumption that the value of the land would go from $67 to $90 million … i don’t think so.

450 house … 1/4 acre each = 112 acres
$90 million / 112 acres = $800,000 per acre
112 acres = approximately 5,000,000 square feet
you could build on about a third of that land
which = 1,650,000 square feet
you would already be at $55 a square foot before you spent before you began to build anything and significan cost to put in roads, utilities, ect…
my point is that this is probably no feasable … my hunch that this guy had an “obvious problem” was less farfetched that your scenario.

I think an offer to buy ALL of his properties with the tenants in place might be attractive to him. WE FIND OUT IF HE REALLY DOES HAVE A PROBLEM IF IT SOUNDS ATTRACTIVE TO HIM.

I would offer him around $40 million (if the value of $67 million holds up) … he can cash out now all at once and not have to wait one by one for the properties to sell. I in turn have the time to operate them for a long period of time sell them as the natural attrition of the tenants occurs, causing no uproar from the community. As a matter of fact … I would imagine that I could get an immediate rental increase from these people because I saved them the time and hassel of moving.

it may well be worth the phone call to one of his attorney monday morning … i think i’ll do it.

25

Perhaps Right, But Wrong Perspective… - Posted by TRandle

Posted by TRandle on March 01, 2002 at 22:26:32:

Bryan,
I’m not sure I can safely disagree with you. Our country definitely has its share of folks who know what’s best for everyone else and its share of folks who maintain an entitlement attitude.

The slant on the story is what bothers me. It’s completely one-sided. There’s no accountability by the tenants. It’s perfectly okay if they want to be able to leave with only a 30 day notice and if they want to pay less than market rent, but it’s not okay if the owner serves them a 30 day notice to vacate.

It’s the bullsh1t “VICTIM” mentality that p1sses me off, and I assume many others as well. What the do-gooders and Democrats think aside, I can’t put myself in the landlord’s perspective because I’m not in that position. However, I “imagine” I’d be extremely upset.