I'm a former property manager. Here's why I'm worried about the RSO update.

The road to Hell, as they say, is paved with good intentions.

I’m a firm supporter of renters’ rights, but I am also a former property manager.

I also live in the real world. Certain aspects of the update to the Rent Stabilization Ordinance are simply not realistic.

Prohibiting extra rent hikes for tenants with dependents? I think this is fair. Parents are financially burdened enough already - and in my experience, kids cause far less property damage (and less noise) than unruly adults.

Eliminating the 1-2% increase for landlords who cover utilities? Honestly, having had a horrible tenant who did not care that she was wasting obscene amounts of water, I have long felt that apartments should have separate meters. Tenants should really only be paying for the gas, water, and electricity they use - not subsidizing a neighbor. Passing responsibility for utility bills to tenants also incentivizes mindful use, which can also mean a lower bill. Unfortunately, separate meters may not be feasible for every building.

Now a 4% ceiling for allowable rent hikes is, unfortunately, cause for concern.

Insurance costs have risen significantly. Hell, the insurance market is a nightmare.

Maintenance costs money. I remember my boss telling me that Santa Monica had a lot of neglected older apartments when she was young because so many landlords couldn’t afford repairs under an earlier rent control law. I’ve heard of this happening in other states as well.

The Westside Current reports “As part of the plan, the council instructed staff to increase funding for repairs and rehabilitation measures to help mom-and-pop landlords who own between two and 10 units. The funding would come from Measure ULA and Los Angeles County Affordable Housing Solutions Agency.”

Yeah…do you really trust the city to help landlords pay for repairs when you already can’t count on the city for reliable street cleaning, infrastructure maintenance, or enforcement of existing laws? (More on the last one in a minute.)

There’s also property tax. While California isn’t the worst state for property taxes, they do cost something.

If owning rental property doesn't pencil out anymore, or if the city of Los Angeles becomes too difficult to work with, we will see an exodus of smaller landlords in particular. (The Westside Current has already sounded the alarm on that.)

Here’s a cautionary tale from my own career:

My former boss ran into a problem with a certain South Bay city that will not be named. Basically, the city was negligent, one of my boss’ buildings was damaged as a result, and the city refused to take any responsibility.

My boss decided that the city had become too much of a hassle, and chose to take her business out of it. She used the proceeds from selling to buy similar properties a few miles away in another city.

This had the unintended consequence of the tenants - all long-term renters - being displaced. Each and every tenant was swiftly evicted by the new owner, who only cared about raising the rents. (My boss was completely unaware of the buyer’s plans and was horrified when news of the mass eviction got back to her.)

Now, who do you think is going to buy all of those smaller buildings? I’ve got news for you - the buyers probably won’t be mom-and-pop owners. Expect large-scale investors - who have the financial cushion to handle problems - to scoop up a lot of those properties. Some of them may do so with the intention of tearing them down and building a new property that would not be subject to the updated ordinance. That means more displacement.

Councilwoman Nithya Raman, who came up with the update, states that the current rent stabilization ordinance “leaves gaping holes that put an enormous burden on tenants.”

You know what else places an enormous burden on tenants? The city’s consistent, and pathetic, failure to uphold the tenant protections it already has.

In theory, Los Angeles has the strongest protection for renters in the USA. In practice, we still have an illegal short-term rental epidemic, questionable use of the Ellis Act, a renoviction problem, abandoned construction sites going up in flames on a disturbingly frequent basis, and a troubling number of bad landlords who are facing no consequences whatsoever.

I’m curious as to why the city doesn’t simply do its job and enforce its existing laws instead of making a potentially risky change to an existing one. Hefty fines for violators could deter further misbehavior while helping with the city’s financial woes. THAT would have a positive impact on the rental market, and would be more likely to primarily drive away landlords of the predatory type without scaring off the law-abiding ones.

Builders are souring on LA. Do we really want to drive out small-scale owners of existing rental properties as well?