Have been stewing over the behavior of a few of our competitors, who skirt city law in order to drive up the returns they earn on deals. All businesses are subject to some level of government regulation. For a variety of reasons, including the fact that the assets are immovable, the ownership of rental housing
Experienced real estate investors know to keep an eye on replacement cost when considering rehab deals. The idea is to try to ensure your property will have a cost advantage vs. its neighbors. The thought process is pretty simple: When considering doing a project, you want to look at what it would cost a competitor
Owners of non-rent stabilized apartment buildings in Los Angeles with rents below market (eg most of them) ought to be considering their options in light of the likely repeal of Costa-Hawkins. Two obvious courses of action: Sell now, while the market continues to (mistakenly, in my view) place a premium on non-RSO buildings; or Immediately
As a housing supplier, it is in my financial interest for the government to continue to block development of new housing at a scale commensurate with demand. However, as an American who loves cities, in general, and Los Angeles, in particular, I am strongly in favor of loosening restrictions on development. More housing equals lower
Here are some pictures that drive me insane: These are pictures, respectively, of the Vermont /Beverly, Soto/1st, and Vermont/Santa Monica Metro stops. Why do they drive me insane? As a city, we are spending billions of dollars to build out our currently-woefully-inadequate public transportation system to turn LA into a normal city. The single