All Forum Posts by: Denise G.

put up pictures from your last lease listing.  If/when it is empty you can offer a FaceTime or video tour

Hi Dana, thanks for posting the legislation.  Two points.  1) Caanet is not asking you to send money. you are adding your name to a letter to your state legislator. I am not really seeing the part about having to give them money 2) here is the excerpt from the proposed legislation. it clearly states that the court can make the call to have the tenant stay and pay a reduced rent if they show hardship.  

The way I am reading it, it is not saying that the whole debt needs to be repaid.  This proposal is throwing the legal agreement between the landlord and tenant out the window. And it is not taking into account any hardship the landlord may be experiencing. It seems like you are seeing something I am not.

 "the bill would also authorize a defendant, for any residential unlawful detainer action that includes a cause of action for a person continuing in possession without permission of their landlord, to notify the court of the defendant’s desire to stipulate to the entry of an order. The bill would require the court, upon receiving that notice from a defendant, to notify the plaintiff and convene a hearing to determine whether to issue an order, as specified. The bill would require the court, if it determines that the tenant’s inability to stay current on the rent is the result of increased costs in household necessities or decreased household earnings attributable to the COVID-19 virus, to make an order for the tenant to remain in possession, to reduce the rent for the property by 25% for the next year, and to require the tenant to make monthly payments to the landlord beginning in the next calendar month in accordance with certain terms. The bill would require declarations under these procedures to be filed under penalty of perjury."

Keep in mind the ICU is overflowing, but many other departments have had staff sent home or asked to take vacation.  So the hospitals are not at max capacity, just their ICU units are.

Here we go again:

https://caanet.org/votervoice/

A new legislative proposal in response to COVID-19 would force every rental property owner in California to reduce rents by 25%.

AB 828 by Assemblyman Phil Ting ignores the robust rent and eviction controls already in place statewide. It provides no assurances that landlords can collect rent, remove problem tenants, or get a fair hearing in the court system. Read CAA's letter opposing AB 828 here.

This bill denies equal justice to housing providers by:

• Forcing landlords to reduce rents by 25% even if a tenant cannot demonstrate a hardship or need.
• Allowing judges and the court system to set rents and change the rental agreements already in place.
• Assuming every tenant is facing a hardship related to COVID-19 and must be compensated for this hardship.
• Protecting nuisance tenants as it does not require tenants to answer an unlawful detainer complaint
• Mandating that rental property owners demonstrate an economic hardship to collect the contracted rent.

AB 828 is an unfair attempt to allow the government and the courts to give reduced rent to all tenants even if they have face no economic hardship, and it provides safeguards for landlords.

Contact your state legislator and ask him or her to VOTE NO on AB 828.

maybe if they showed proof their unemployment check was 40% the rent rate. 

friends in #SanJose. Your help is appreciated!! Please share, email and speak up. Oppose the San Jose City Council's Effort to Prohibit Owners from Collecting Rent ( to recover lost rent in the future)

A proposal by San Jose City Councilmembers Carrasco and Peralez would prohibit rental property owners from collecting any rent from tenants who have suffered a COVID-19 related income loss. The ordinance, proposed to last 90 days, would make it illegal for a property owner to recover any lost rent after the ordinance expires. Carrasco and Peralez are asking the council to enact this emergency ordinance on Tuesday, April 5, and make it retroactive to April 1, 2020. If approved, landlords would likely have to refund any collected rent from impacted tenants. The ordinance also could be extended after the 90-day period ends.

Landlord advocates argue that this ordinance is blatantly illegal, as it violates state and federal law, and is likely unconstitutional. The illegality of the proposal, however, hasn’t deterred the authors from attempting to rush its approval.

Property Owners Need to Speak Up. Here's How:

Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, council meetings occur virtually, so we need impacted property owners to email their opposition to the ordinance, which will be entered into the record as a public comment. The council needs to hear that you are doing what you can to assist your tenants in this difficult time but that you also still have an obligation to pay your mortgage bill, maintenance costs, utility bills, and payroll to support your employees and vendors. Moreover, council members need to understand that forbearance doesn’t relieve you as the property owner of your financial obligations.

To have an impact, you must email your comments to cityclerk AT sanjoseca.gov by 12:00PM, Tuesday, April 7. Below is a draft letter that you can send as-is or personalize:

Dear Mayor Liccardo and City Council members,

I am a property owner in San Jose who has worked hard to care for my building and the residents who call my building home. Like my residents, I worry about the impact the COVID-19 pandemic is having on our community. As a housing provider, I want to keep my tenants housed while continuing to pay my vendors and employees. However, the proposal authored by Councilmembers Carrasco and Peralez places me in financial peril and essentially stops me from working with my tenants to develop a plan through which we can all come out of this crisis with our homes and the ability to pay our bills.

I am working with every tenant impacted by the COVID-19 crisis. While deferring rent may be necessary temporarily, being forced to forgive rent would leave me unable to pay the mortgage, my employees in our rental community or the vendors who service the units. The domino effect of this proposal is catastrophic.

As an owner of rental units, I can seek SBA assistance or mortgage forbearance, however, these requests take time to materialize, as I am not the only one trying to get help and there is no guarantee I will get approved for this assistance

I ask the City Council to focus on real solutions to this crisis, such as financial assistance to tenants to help them pay rent or to landlords who are deferring rent.

I can tell you they need to be serviced annually ( to de-scale)

have you considered more afforrdabble markets like the central valley, or is that too costly still?

i think it depends on where you live and going rents.   I am just looking into property management for the first time.  I think this how you calculate it, but maybe I am wrong.   Example.  A property manager in my area today quoted 8% plus a lease fee of around $500.     Rents are about $3800.  So that is  $3800X 12 months= $45,600 in rent .  $45,600 * 8%= $3648 annual fee.   $3648  plus $500 lease fee=  $4148    Original 45,600/ $4148= 10.99%.   Is this how you calculated it- but with different numbers or am I calculating it wrong?

if they are below the legal age minimum to work, i don't think you want anytthing documented....