dailynews com

Los Angeles wants to tax landlords for vacant units

By John Phillips |

Just when you think things in the city of Los Angeles couldn’t be any more dysfunctional, they manage to take the cake yet again. The City Council is seriously kicking around a new tax on property owners for leaving homes vacant.

Just think of it as the “Tom Bodett tax” — either landlords leave the light on for ya, or they pay up.

City Councilmen Mike Bonin, Marqueece Harris-Dawson, Paul Koretz and David Ryu have asked city staffers to come up with a plan for an “empty homes penalty” or vacancy tax.

“No bed in this city should be empty when people are being forced to sleep on pavement. … Empty-home penalties encourage landlords to keep people housed, and they help raise needed funds to create more affordable housing. This is an important tool for addressing one of the root causes of homelessness in L.A., and it is a step we desperately need to take,” Bonin said.

Bonin claims that there are over 100,000 vacant units in Los Angeles, and about 60,000 homeless people. So just give every homeless person a vacant place to live and voila! No homeless.

The problem with this so-called solution to homelessness is that the lights may be on, but nobody’s home.

Penalizing the owners of vacant units is a typical big-government solution to an economic issue disguised as a remedy for homelessness. When all you have is a hammer, after a while everything starts to look like a nail.

Property owners are already operating vacant units at a loss because they pay property taxes, special assessments, mortgages and regular upkeep, but derive no income from them. Now you want to add to their losses. How does this lead to more affordable housing for Los Angeles?

Additionally, property owners say rental units usually sit empty when they are being sold or prepared for a major renovation (which can take years, given L.A.’s draconian permitting process). Both of these activities are good for neighborhoods and the tax pool.

When a home undergoes a major remodel, it increases the value of the property and the neighborhood. And when a home is sold, property taxes are set at the current and typically higher value. A sale also triggers numerous real-estate transaction taxes and fees that go to public coffers.

Everybody wins.

Except, apparently, for the Los Angeles City Council, who seem determined to punish property owners for the mess their own housing policies created.

There is seriously more wisdom coming from O.J. Simpson’s Twitter feed than from the City Council.

All of this foolishness is in response to the city being embarrassed by the fact that although the city and county spent nearly $600 million last year to combat homelessness, the number of transients shot up 16 percent to 60,000 people.

Of the city’s homeless population, the annual point-in-time count found 75 percent of them living outdoors, primarily in encampments on the streets.

In fact, homeless camping has become so widespread in L.A. it’s only a matter of time before there’s a special section devoted to it at REI.

Things are so out of control there is now a movement in the works to recall feckless Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti over his inability to stop the bleeding.

Garcetti hasn’t yet announced if he will sign on to Bonin’s wacky idea of hammering homeowners yet again, but I have a better idea.

If Garcetti is serious about providing public housing for the homeless, let’s start with his house.

The 6,000-square-foot Getty House is a three-story Tudor mansion with 14 rooms, seven bathrooms, tennis courts and a $25,000 chandelier.

I’d like to see the mayor’s face when the first homeless person takes a sink-shower in one of his bathrooms. Besides, you’d think Garcetti could easily relate to homeless people; He lives in public housing, is always asking people for money and the City Council doesn’t know what to do with him.

Hiking taxes on homeowners in the name of fighting homelessness may make Bonin and company feel better about themselves, but it will only make housing in Los Angeles more expensive, not less.

John Phillips can be heard weekdays at 6 a.m. to 10 a.m. on “The Morning Drive with John Phillips and Jillian Barberie” on KABC/AM 790.

"No bed in this city should be empty when people are being forced to sleep on pavement"

Yep, Phillips has the correct idea....send the homeless to all the extra bedrooms and 2nd homes owned by the city council.

facts are facts. there are plenty of shelters for people. The PEOPLE who need them don't like the rules to get shelter. They, homeless, tenants don't like the providers telling them you can't cook meth here- you can't drink yourself into oblivion, you can't smoke pot or cigarettes in the shelter and can't bring in cohabitation "friend" for the night. you need a shower you need yada yada yada!!!!!! Naw they like the street-- free money- sleep all day or night drink carry on--- you all know who they are.......

And after this is implemented (then fails miserably) they will go after the supermarkets to provide larger shopping carts. They will be required to be large enough for people to sleep in and must come with portable water dispensers for showering.

Here's a better idea:

At my last counting, Los Angeles has $750,000,000 in their Housing Fund from various scams designed to provide "housing" for the people in need. In reality, the money used to obtain property through any means and rent it out at above market rents.

The largest owner of income property in the City of Los Angeles is "THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES". MOST of these rentals are bringing in top dollar rents, not for low income people.

What a ridiculous waste of time.

There you go, Richard. Problem solved.

[[[[[..... city and county spent nearly $600 million last year to combat homelessness, the number of transients shot up 16 percent to 60,000 people......]]]]]]

LA does have the weather to attract the homeless, so that is part of the problem, but a lot of it is like feeding stray cats. $600 million spent on the homeless and the word goes out that it is a great place to be homeless.

The homeless all seem to be online. There are special websites about being homeless. You can easily find recommendations online about the best places to be homeless, and Los Angeles is way up at the top of the list. Not only is the weather perfect, the city spends a ton of money to make the homeless comfortable.

WMH,

Whenever I have an empty or a place is under repair I have some goodwill furniture and linens, etc. which I put in the place. I put this stuff (bed, dresser, and tables, recliner, kitchen table and a couple chairs, etc.) in the place.

My friend, the new tenant, is a long distance trucker, who stays there between runs. Maybe 4 days a month. I pay the utilities in this case.

When I get a new tenant, he moves to another place and furniture goes to my garage till needed.

Otherwise insurance goes way up because the place is vacant not to mention possible tax disallowances because the unit might be not available to rent.

Also, whenever I get a new unit, THE NEXT DAY, it goes up for rent AS-IS! This changes the tax treatment on new units. If a unit is not available to rent, any repairs or upgrades can be declared as additional basis by the govt. However, as I understand it, once a place is available for rent, most (but not all) repairs, etc are deductible as repairs. Some (like a new furnace, for example) must still be amortized over whatever time frame the govt allows.

So I always put a place up for rent the next day. Just coincidentally, my buddy the trucker needs a place. Go figure!

Don't buy a place and do thousands in repairs and upgrades which become part of the basis. Rent the place the next day, even if at a discount because of condition, THEN do the repairs and deduct them immediately.

I wonder how such an idea would stop rental inspection programs?