Mission Valley Projects Shouldn't Depress Local Rents

Robert Griswold | Steven R. Kellman | Ted Smith
27-Sep-1998 Sunday

This column on issues confronting renters and landlords is written by Certified Property Manager Robert Griswold, host of Real Estate Today! (KOGO Radio, 1 p.m. Saturdays) and by attorneys Steven R. Kellman, director of the Tenants' Legal Center, and Ted Smith, principal in a law firm representing landlords.

Q: I notice a lot of apartment construction in Mission Valley. Once they open, will that depress rents in the area at existing developments?

A: Griswold: Hardly. The only rental housing units being built in large numbers throughout San Diego County are high-end luxury units with rents of nearly $1,000 for one bedrooms and $1,200-plus for two bedrooms. While there will probably be a short-term impact on directly competitive high-end properties in the immediate area, the long-term effect will be negligible.

San Diego rental housing construction is still very low compared to the '70s and '80s and construction of moderately priced rental units is virtually nonexistent. The high demand for rental housing and lack of new construction will continue to plague a rental housing market that is already in disequilibrium.

Long-range planning and mutual cooperation by both the public and private sectors is necessary to address the serious challenge posed by the lack of affordable housing. If reasonably priced rental housing is not available, the long-term consequences to our local economy are bleak.

Smith: As an attorney and rental property owner, in my opinion, no. The rental housing shortage continues. The market is improving. Residents are moving into the area. And, the units you refer to are high end. While there may be a temporary exodus to the new properties, this will be more than compensated by the steady flow of new residents to existing developments.

Q: I have lived in my rental home for 11 years. While I did not have a pet when I moved in, I got a dog about 10 years ago. I do not have a "pet deposit" or do not pay any additional "pet rent". My dog has caused irreparable damage to the carpet.

I know that when I eventually move, the carpet will need to be replaced, but shouldn't the landlord share some of the cost due to normal wear and tear? How would we settle who owes what percentage?

A: Griswold: If you have lived on the same carpet (even if it was brand new when you moved in) for 11 years, then this is clearly normal wear and tear and you should not be charged anything.

If the carpet has been replaced in the past 5-10 years, you should only pay a portion of the replacement cost. There is no magical answer to the percentage, but it should be based on what the remaining life of the carpet would have been if your pet hadn't destroyed it.

As an illustration only assume that your carpet had a 10-year life and cost $1,000 to replace. If your pet destroyed it in five years, it might be reasonable to charge you for up to $500 to compensate the landlord for replacing the carpet five years earlier than anticipated.

As far as what should you do now, you can either bring the issue up to your landlord now -- which I would do if you were considering staying for any period of time since you should get new carpet -- or you can just leave things alone until you move.

Q: For the past three months we have rented a home with a small and beautifully landscaped back yard. It is mostly bushes, mature pine trees, and bark ground cover with a little grass and river-rock borders.

Approximately 300 square feet of the back yard was taken up by a nice wooden deck. The deck had fairly extensive termite damage so the property manager and owner decided to remove it.

It has already been removed, but I am not happy about the choice for replacement -- grass. Because of the high cost of replacing the deck ($500 for lumber plus labor), the decision was made to replace it with a lawn.

The deck was one of the things that attracted us to this house and was a large part of the backyard design.

Is there any way we can force the landlord to spend some additional money on landscaping above and beyond the lawn? We are willing to live without the deck, but we think a few hundred dollars spent to match some of the existing backyard features (like additional border and stepping stones) is reasonable.

Also, some of the in-ground lawn sprinklers will now be in the middle of the lawn instead of at the edge of the raised deck. They need to be moved to less damage-prone spots.

The property manager has not shown much interest in discussing this possibility. We are month-to-month tenants. Do we have any legal backing here?

A: Griswold: You do not have a very strong legal position since the deck is really an amenity, not a health and safety issue. Unless there were specific verbal or written agreements about the potential deck removal, combined with an agreement to either require replacement or adjust your rent, you are unfortunately out of luck on any legal standing.

The other option is to offer a compromise where you will pay some additional rent toward the deck. For example, maybe you could offer $50 a month for the next eight to ten months so that you are actually paying for approximately 50 percent of the deck replacement cost.

The only other argument you could make is "loss of use," in which case your loss would be limited to the fair market value of the deck for 30 days (since you are on a month-to-month).

I think your best bet is to offer to pay some or even all of the cost of the deck replacement or learn to live without it. Good luck!

IF YOU'RE A TENANT OR LANDLORD, the authors stand ready to answer your questions in this column, although letters cannot be answered individually. Write them at: Rental Roundtable, Homes Section, San Diego Union-Tribune, P.O. Box 120191, San Diego, CA, 92112-0191. Or you may e-mail them at rgriswold@retodayradio.com

Back to 1998 Rental Roundtable Index

Robert Griswold and the Real Estate Today! radio show strongly support the intent and the letter of all federal and state fair housing laws. As a reminder to all owners and managers of real estate, note that all real estate advertised is subject to the Federal Fair Housing Act, which makes it illegal to advertise "any preference, limitation, discrimination because of race, color, national origin or ancestry, religion, sex, physical disability, or familial status, or intention to make any such preference, limitation or discrimination." Additional state and/or local fair housing laws may also apply. Be sure to inform all persons that all dwellings offered or advertised are on an equal opportunity basis.

FHEO Logo

Revised and Updated - Wednesday, April 26, 2006

Robert S. Griswold, CRE, CPM, CCIM, PCAM, GRI, ARM
Griswold Corporate Center
Griswold Real Estate Management, Inc.
5703 Oberlin Drive, Suite 300
San Diego, CA 92121-1743
Phone: (858) 597-6100
Fax: (858) 597-6161
Email: rgriswold.ret@retodayradio.com