Met

@AbundantHousing @cd4losangeles @nithyavraman @Ahlasunset @EastsideForAll @DTLA4A @sfv4all_la Is your goal to make housing abundant by getting her elected so more people leave LA and increase vacancy? No need to build. Genius!

Pro-housing leaders 🏙️, We need you! It’s time to rally together and elect our endorsed candidate, Nithya Raman, as Los Angeles Mayor 🎉🗳️ Check out the amazing opportunities below, hosted by some of our awesome AHLA chapters 💪✨ Don’t miss out—RSVP and let us know if you can make it. We’d love to see you there! 🙌 Let’s build a better LA together 🏡💙 Links in bio 🔗 #AHLA #Nithyaformayor #nithyaforthecity

@BarryRoland19 @babaksilvio Who’s your lawyer? 30k hab is great

LA multifamily back of the envelope underwriting below. You're welcome.

@DRand2024 @otter401 @cayimby Right, you know it’s not true but you spread misinformation. What’s your angle?

@metgroupinc @otter401 @cayimby Not true at all

There have been some strong but necessary back-and-forths between the rent controlled apartment landlord community and @cayimby Here's my two cents. 1. Getting to a completely workable and finished set of laws that promote new rental apartment production is like navigating an obstacle course. Each obstacle needs to be overcome. There are multiple obstacles. Getting through, say 1-5 is great progress. But if obstacles, say 6-9 remain, the work isn't done until all are overcome. I made a lengthier post about this that I'll link to in the post after this one. Things like reforming ULA and similar transfer taxes is currently top of the list of CAYimby's legislative goals radar and they are working on it (though nothing is likely to happen until the Jarvis ballot measure and competing measure are voted on in Nov). CAYimby is 100% our ally on this issue. 2. CAYimby (along with groups like HAC, SPUR, etc) have done fantastic work getting us to place where a lot of rental housing developments can be done as-of-right, esp affordable housing projects. As just one example I'm currently dealing with a recalcitrant city on a 100% affordable LIHTC project in the Bay Area. State housing law is clearly on our side, the city atty has advised his recalcitrant city council that they're acting illegally, we will prevail in short order, and this housing will get built Another example is the fact we started four new large market rate projects in Santa Monica in the past year and will start a fifth before year end. Our market rate and LIHTC starts comprise a lot of new housing units, and absolutely none of it would have been possible without the efforts and successes of CAYimby and others. 3. Part of the disagreement I cited above is that we're talking about two businesses; new development and older rent controlled properties. The owners of the older rent controlled properties criticize CAYimby's support for candidates who support the reform of ULA and similar tt's, but are bad on the eviction process for non-payment and annual rent increases as a % of CPI capped below OpEx growth. I get this. They are correct. The eviction process and rent caps that don't keep pace with OpEx don't work and will eventually lead to our oldest/most affordable rental housing stock falling into disrepair as is occurring in NYC. IMHO this is the basis on which owners and operators should fight back. Allowing for 12-15 mos of non-payment for contested evictions (that the City and County fund) coupled with rent increases capped below OpEx growth will absolutely lead to disrepair, the wasting of these assets, and will increasingly draw predatory landlords who will be the buyers of last resort who buy these properties on the cheap, pocket the rents, don't keep up with OpEx/CapEx and run the properties into the ground as is occurring in NYC. I've regularly posted that our housing shortage and high rents are the product of decades of under building because this was the will of the voters reflected by the officials they elected over decades. Landlords didn't create this problem, and should not bear the cost. The voting public created this problem and the public needs to bear the cost. This is of course its own battle and we'll see if it goes anywhere. My belief, unfortunately, is that like NYC each successive LA Mayor, City Council and County Supervisor will follow in the footsteps of NYC, kick the problem down the road until it becomes some future Mayor's, City Council's and County Supervisor's problem when the older rental housing stock becomes uninhabitable as has occurred with 300k units and growing in NYC 4. All that said, there's commentary that concludes that the policies that affect older rent controlled properties will similarly affect new apartment production and chill new development. At the risk of getting a little sideways with my good friends who own and manage older rent controlled housing stock, I have to say this isn't really true. I talk a lot with the institutions that fund new apartments. I've yet to hear a single group express that the issues that affect the older stock impact their underwriting of new projects. This is because new apartment development is not burdened by rent control and new apartment projects are generally Class A with Class A tenants that rarely go through an eviction process for non-payment and usually don't contest evictions when they do occur. The capital markets for new development care about the policies/laws that affect new development. And this primarily is ULA and similar transfer taxes in other cities, which CAYimby is very much involved in reforming. Conclusion: -What's happening to owners and operators of rent controlled properties is wrong and it sucks. This is its own fight separate from policies and laws that promote new development, which CAYimby has championed. -CAYimby is absolutely responsible and deserves the credit for laws and policies that allow new apartment development, even when that means they endorse candidates that are problematic with the older rent controlled stock. IMO older rent controlled apartments and new apartment development are two distinct matters.

@DRand2024 @otter401 @cayimby I ask because you know it to be false, as with my other points I made, and you still repost it

@metgroupinc @otter401 @cayimby Not sure what are you asking me? @otter401 made an extremely compelling case distinguishing between the economics of new construction vs owning existing older RSO stock. Yes, some new units are RSO b/c of LA’s rent control recapture ord.- but very few market rate projects

@otter401 @cayimby @DRand2024 you know this to be false yet say nothing?

@otter401 @cayimby Also, I’m sure you know that a decent amount of new construction is RSO because if an rso building is demolished the new building is RSO. So every point you made is a lie and you know better. What’s your angle?

@mnolangray @LA_Multi_Fam Brother she’s running on tenant protections….. and is a communist who does not believe in property rights.

@LA_Multi_Fam I think the upside risk that Nithya will make agencies more pro-housing, and take an actual interest in solving the city's problems, is greater than the downside risk that some investors won't like her vibe, or that she'll be able to cow the council into bad tenant reforms.

Nolan and the Yimby's will go to mat for the biggest socialist anti landlord politicians on the city council, and then be surprised why no is going to build in LA...

@schneider @grok who is the head of the homeless committee in La city council?

Whatever you think of Nithya, I think we can all recognize how refreshing it is to have a politician present actual policy ideas to fix things, and not just complain with no real solution.

@neilblock @animerobin0 @DRand2024 The developer doesn’t own the land or plan to operate or sell to someone who operates the property?

@metgroupinc @animerobin0 @DRand2024 Developers and landlords are typically two different groups

Two things bumming me out this Friday evening - The pathetic state of the CA Governor’s race; and - The intensifying online battle between YIMBYs and LA landlords.

@animerobin0 @DRand2024 I genuinely need you to explain this logic to me. How can a yimby who builds housing not be considered a landlord

@DRand2024 Tom Steyer seems ok YIMBYs are interesting in increasing housing affordability and landlords fundamentally are not

@LA_Multi_Fam @mnolangray God bless you for having the patience to try to get through to these people.

@mnolangray I am incredibly surprised they endorsed Faiza who drafted ULA, and Hugo that is going to be gunning for 20 more eviction moratoriums / rent freezes. You guys are Insane! How the fuck is anyone going to put a dollar into this market if they’re successful.

The Los Angeles real estate community, particularly landlords, loses virtually every single policy battle it tries to fight, and yet it never seems to inspire any critical self reflection or political humility.

@reporterliz They were promised “permanent housing” but were given “time limited vouchers” which lasted 1-2 years and once funding ran out they forced owners to evict the tenants. They are now fixing the problem with….. “time limited vouchers”

Under L.A. mayor's $300-million homeless program, 40% have returned to the street latimes.com/california/sto…

@NimaZ @BarryRoland19 I’ve been looking on balboa peninsula. This sounds like the dream

@BarryRoland19 @metgroupinc lol. Barry come to Newport. Great place to live. Even though I’m committed to LA multi family I get to escape when I come home to OC.

New LA multifamily owners will literally put all their money in a building, after everything everyone knows, and then complain the very next day: “rent control is such bullshit how am I expected to make money with 3% a year California is a communist state arghh hey wtf why am I being sued for mold oh man evictions are so expensive this is so unfair wahhh wahhh wahhh”

@tovihomie No windows in bedrooms?

@bobbyfijan How would you get the Oz benefits for build to sell?

Building FOR SALE single-family homes and rowhomes in Opportunity Zones! LFG!!!! 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸

@SinaiLawFirm So they can charge you $1000/ft for a garage with a bathroom

Why are there so many homes for sale with an ADU? What am I going to do with a detached two bedroom that’s taking up yard space? Rent it out? I bust my ass to finally buy a house to become a landlord? Why are people doing this?

@DallasAptGP I’m an OZ orphan and would love to discuss

Opportunity Zone projects fail. Not ours, thankfully. But some do. It does not usually mean the money is gone. The developer sells the land. Investors get 40 to 80 cents on the dollar back. But the cash comes back to the fund. And if the fund just sends it to investors, the OZ tax benefits disappear. This does not only happen with bad deals. Sometimes the project works and the developer sells early or refinances. Cash comes back to the fund for good reasons too. Either way, the fund is sitting on money it did not plan to have. The ten-year clock is still running. And nobody knows what to do next. The IRS gives these funds twelve months to put that cash into a new OZ project. If they do, the tax benefits survive. The clock keeps running. Twelve months sounds like a lot of time. It is not. I call this orphan money. Cash inside an OZ fund that needs a new home. The original deal is over. Maybe five or six or seven years are left on the clock. The fund does not need a ten-year project. It needs something shorter that still works. Most GP's pass on this. They don't know OZ or if they do...they only understand raising fresh capital and building for a decade. That is their model. When a fund shows up with orphan money and a shorter timeline, the sponsor says no. Too complicated. Too small. Not worth the headache. So the fund manager or their CPA or their tax attorney starts making calls. "No. No. No." The twelve-month window gets smaller. If you are a tax attorney or CPA, you have seen this. Your client calls in a panic. Their OZ fund has cash. The original deal is done. They think the tax benefits are gone. They are not. But they will be if nobody moves. This is what we do at Savoy. We have helped over 25 separate OZ funds put capital into our projects. Gut renovations and ground-up apartments in Texas. Several of those funds came to us with orphan money. Cash from a sale. Proceeds from a refinance. Leftovers from a deal that fell apart. Their advisors needed a sponsor who understood the problem and could build on a shorter clock. We are a developer, general contractor, and property manager. We control the build. We control the lease-up. We control the management. That is how we deliver a project on a compressed timeline. We understand OZ compliance because we have lived inside the structure since 2020. And we have enough deal flow to match orphan capital with the right project when the call comes. If you advise clients with OZ funds sitting on cash, send them our way. The tax code gave your client a second chance. They still need someone who can build it.