Skip to content
×
Try PRO Free Today!
BiggerPockets Pro offers you a comprehensive suite of tools and resources
Market and Deal Finder Tools
Deal Analysis Calculators
Property Management Software
Exclusive discounts to Home Depot, RentRedi, and more
$0
7 days free
$828/yr or $69/mo when billed monthly.
$390/yr or $32.5/mo when billed annually.
7 days free. Cancel anytime.
Already a Pro Member? Sign in here

Join Over 3 Million Real Estate Investors

Create a free BiggerPockets account to comment, participate, and connect with over 3 million real estate investors.
Use your real name
By signing up, you indicate that you agree to the BiggerPockets Terms & Conditions.
The community here is like my own little personal real estate army that I can depend upon to help me through ANY problems I come across.
California Real Estate Q&A Discussion Forum
All Forum Categories
Followed Discussions
Followed Categories
Followed People
Followed Locations
Market News & Data
General Info
Real Estate Strategies
Landlording & Rental Properties
Real Estate Professionals
Financial, Tax, & Legal
Real Estate Classifieds
Reviews & Feedback

Updated over 3 years ago on . Most recent reply

User Stats

2
Posts
0
Votes
Laure Jo
0
Votes |
2
Posts

Tenant and replacement questions re: SB 330/SB 8

Laure Jo
Posted

A lot of legislative things in CA this month. I have a question about SB 330, which was just extended until 2030 with the signing of SB 8.

I have a fourplex in LA County (not city) that is fully occupied. In the future, I'd like to raze it and build two or three units, depending on the funds and plan in the future. The fourplex only exists because the zoning has been grandfathered in, on paper it is R2.

This is my understanding of how SB 330 would affect my project:

  • If I raze the building, I can't build anything less than four units ("An affected city or an affected county shall not approve a housing development project that will require the demolition of occupied or vacant protected units, unless all of the following apply: (A) (i) The project will replace all existing or demolished protected units.)
  • Additionally, because the units exist under rent control (market rate), the rents of the new buildings in the future must also be rent controlled. (Same quote as above)
  • I won't be evicting tenants so would be planning my project around them leaving naturally. I am reading correctly that I would not have to offer any first right of return to people who leave voluntarily?
  • According to YIMBY Law's interpretation of the law, the new buildings that replace the old ones have to be made affordable as defined by HUD, even if the current rents in the old building aren't. And this affordability has to stick for 55 years.

Am I misinterpreting this? This seems really draconian and discourages anyone to build anything new...

    Most Popular Reply

    User Stats

    11,802
    Posts
    13,784
    Votes
    Bruce Woodruff
    #2 All Forums Contributor
    • Contractor/Investor/Consultant
    • West Valley Phoenix
    13,784
    Votes |
    11,802
    Posts
    Bruce Woodruff
    #2 All Forums Contributor
    • Contractor/Investor/Consultant
    • West Valley Phoenix
    Replied
    Originally posted by @Laure Jo:
    Originally posted by @Bruce Woodruff:

    Why would you want to have anything to do with Real Estate in California? Letting a Government run your business is not my cup of tea....

    Having said that, if you can tolerate the Govt being involved, you can make a lot of money...just play the game.

     Yeah, so true, especially if I'm reading this bill correctly. Family has been here for generations and I inherited a lot of property here in SoCal tho and am trying to figure out what best to do with them in next 10-15 years.

    Sell everything now while the market is topped out. Move to a state that will mind it's own business (as much as possible). Relax and enjoy life.....

    Loading replies...