When it comes to our good friends in Sacramento (and other regulatory loving courts in California), it is clearly clear that Lunetics has captured the shelter. For our Sacramento friends, 120 of them are – 40 state senators, and 80 state assembly members.
Every and every year, so-called, during about nine months, several weeks brakes, four-day work weeks “legislative session”, our 120 elected officers are in competition. The competition is not to win a trophy or some awards, nor is it a “victory” for the people of California … It is a competition to see who can get their name on many proposed pieces of law. It is a competition of “throw ‘it” against the wall and see what sticks. ,
When going to each new legislative session, we know to expect more than 3,000 proposed bills, virtually involving dozens of housing related bills that mostly harm our lower line by implementing increased costs, low revenue, or more risks. Many proposals we view are only the “re-trends” of ideas that have come before the years and which were rejected by the sound … failed to make it through an essential committee, not taken for votes, voted, or rare examples, vetoed by our beloved governor.
Ideas like “Bain the Box” have been proposed at least four times before, and we will probably see it again under the name of some other favorable MLA-“Bain the Box” is a concept that will impose a ban on asking questions about previous hooliganism on a rental application, which may be given a leg-up (or not) to give a leg-up (or not) to give his time.
If only we can have less “friends” in Sacramento that only work -time work. Then, perhaps, we will not lead our 50 other United States in the amount of rules … It is true, when we talk about regulations, we also carry forward New York. It seems that our MLAs never fulfill the issue that they do not want to fix. And, like many other things, California is in minority, which is one of the nine states with Fultime State MLAs with Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania, Alaska, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts and Ohio. Just look at Texas … This is the state legislature that meets every other year as Nevada and many other states. Our problem is that we have a lot of “cooks in the kitchen”, which are very high that we do not like and there is no hunger for it.
The foolishness of the proposed law this year is no different. While many proposals being made so far are only “spot bills” which have very little or no substance, but one set should be in some form of writing from the legislative deadline, and which will be “rented and modified” later, possibly in some new attacks at rented residence, some standouts are: some standouts:
“Good” – “Good Side” has a couple of proposals to fund small fare subsidies that we call “shallow fares”, which help to eliminate the rental. The proposed subsidy will clearly come from normal funds and will not deal with our property tax bills … at least they will not do this time. There is also a proposal, which will probably never see daylight, housing providers are notified by their tenants for the first time to protect them from liabilities for habitual issues (or dilapidations). There is also a proposal to expand the types of professionals (in this case, civil engineers) which can conduct balcony inspection and one will require the state to publish the amount of acceptable fare under the Tenant Protection Act (Assembly Bill 1482), so we are 100% sure what the amount is.
“Bad” – as it always goes to California here, always worse than the best, and badly passes less often. Fortunately, I would say, we have about 80% -85% success rate “murder” or our lobbying team and our California Rental Housing Association (Calrha) have been getting adequate concessions on some poor bills over the years due to efforts by the Rental Housing Association (Calrha). For this year, one of our Sacramento Assembly members feel that taxpayers should pay for “the rights of tenants and security offices” to make more housing rules because we need more housing rules … don’t you think? You can only guess where it will be passed, where will it be going, but wait … When do we get our office for the rights and security of the landlord? “
This is followed by Ardent Socialist Assembly Alex Lee which wants to ban the homeowner in California for more than 1,000 individual assets. Another idea includes that the security deposit should be deposited in the interest bearing accounts and pay interest at the end of the tenure – imagine the bad dreams of calculating it how much interest is outstanding when many tenants have been coming to an account for years? Then there is a proposal that will ban a tenant’s safety deposit from the cleaning fee like cleaning the carpet – no problem, the tenants always cleaned themselves, they are not… no!
Then “ugly” is – as the forest gump once said appropriately, “stupid as stupid.” And boy oh boy, our state legislature often “. He did this with this one. You can cry it for yourself: “Assembly Bill 2216 (Assembly Member Honey): Common Home Pets – This bill will tell the intention of the Legislature [is] To make laws related to the capacity of a landlord to ban common domestic pets in residential tenants. ,
Obviously, this bill has to be drafts before finalizing, but you can see what is coming … and, it’s not going to be good. Of course, why this situation was not implemented on housing providers, forcing them to accept pets? No size range or breed limit … no question asked. As I understand it, this proposal will be banned when asked about pets on a rental application. Will this bill create a new “class” for discrimination against the owners of pets, which remains to be seen.
There are many reasons that it is very wrong to force us to accept pets.
First of all, in most of our properties, there is no yard for pets to relieve or play themselves.
Second, the owners could be responsible if they knew that there is a history history of a tenant’s pet, and whether it is responsible, a claim that is valid or not against the owner is not against the owner, as a result of liability insurance policy, the loss of that coverage may be renewed.
Third, each tenant is not a responsible pet owner, does not clean after his pets or lets them go out to bark enough exercise or curtain.
Fourth, pets can depend on the owner and damage a rental unit.
And, the final but at least, other residents do not want to live on a property that has a dog if they have a previous cutting event or even some residents may be allergic.
In the history of bad thoughts, it can be historically important … a standout. See, don’t misunderstand me … I have been saved once, I love 140 pound female St. Bernard, who lives with me in my apartment building. But, this is my choice because I own my building and I know I am responsible.
This forcibly pet situation causes havoc for all of us. And, havoc can be expensive.
Daniel M. Yukelson is the Executive Director of the Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles