Really cute apartments in Hollywood
Sep 5th, 2019, 06:31 AM
#41
Yes, plenty of legal short term rental options available = hotels.
Beautiful sunset views from the HGI also. Wonderful huge breakfast, one of the best I've had in a long time. Beautiful room with the Hollywood sign as a back drop - reminds me of a Kimpton hotel. I was on an upper floor, one of the more recently renovated rooms.
Beautiful sunset views from the HGI also. Wonderful huge breakfast, one of the best I've had in a long time. Beautiful room with the Hollywood sign as a back drop - reminds me of a Kimpton hotel. I was on an upper floor, one of the more recently renovated rooms.
Last edited by starrs; Sep 5th, 2019 at 06:36 AM.
Sep 5th, 2019, 06:50 AM
#43
I don't know. But I do know it's a legal rental.
"Transient" is a legal term, BTW.
https://definitions.uslegal.com/t/transient/
NOT the equivalent of the "n word" as you claimed.
"Transient" is a legal term, BTW.
https://definitions.uslegal.com/t/transient/
NOT the equivalent of the "n word" as you claimed.
Sep 5th, 2019, 06:53 AM
#44
Original Poster
All I can repeat is that “transient” is not a positive term where I live. It was first used on this thread by someone who did not mean it in a flattering way, describing the influx of people staying there. It’s completely beside the point, anyway.
“Transient is also a noun meaning "a person who moves from place to place; a homeless person." The word comes from Latin transire, "to pass over," so you can think of it as describing things that are quickly passed over.” From vocabulary dot com.
Villa Valentino is operating legally. I made sure of that before we rented there.
“Transient is also a noun meaning "a person who moves from place to place; a homeless person." The word comes from Latin transire, "to pass over," so you can think of it as describing things that are quickly passed over.” From vocabulary dot com.
Villa Valentino is operating legally. I made sure of that before we rented there.
Last edited by MoBro; Sep 5th, 2019 at 07:01 AM.
Sep 5th, 2019, 07:34 AM
#45
Original Poster
Again, as I have said multiple times, I did not choose to stay in an illegal property, and had no knowledge of its long ago past. There was certainly no discord amongst visitors or residents I encountered there.
If it meets city rules & regs, I will stay there again.
If it meets city rules & regs, I will stay there again.
Last edited by MoBro; Sep 5th, 2019 at 07:37 AM.
Sep 5th, 2019, 08:49 AM
#46
If it were operating legally then, by law, every listing for the rental would include it's current city registration number.
It's currently operating illegally, as of July 1st.
If you believe otherwise then just ask the front desk to see their city registration permit.
It's currently operating illegally, as of July 1st.
If you believe otherwise then just ask the front desk to see their city registration permit.
Sep 5th, 2019, 09:30 AM
#47
Original Poster
“If it were operating legally then, by law, every listing for the rental would include it's current city registration number.”
I don’t know for sure, but these could very well be listed. I was told their “documentation is in order” prior to renting.
I think it’s a stretch to assume it’s illegal at this point. That is not what I was told.
I don’t know for sure, but these could very well be listed. I was told their “documentation is in order” prior to renting.
I think it’s a stretch to assume it’s illegal at this point. That is not what I was told.
Sep 5th, 2019, 10:34 AM
#48
Well, this is a fun thread! Blaming MoBro for staying in a place that she thought was legal isn't fair. On the other hand, upon finding out that the place probably isn't legal and the lengths that the owners went to displace the residents, I don't think I would have chosen to continue to defend the owners. The research some of you did is very interesting and I'm glad I read it.
Sep 5th, 2019, 10:54 AM
#49
Original Poster
Thanks, Suki.
I do not think it is illegal. Others may assume it is, but don’t really know. I did ask the manager.
It is a fabulous rental space, so I thought I’d share it. No doubt, many properties have interesting backgrounds, told from different viewpoints. None of which are entirely accurate. So I take it all with a grain of salt. I am not defending anyone.
I do not think it is illegal. Others may assume it is, but don’t really know. I did ask the manager.
It is a fabulous rental space, so I thought I’d share it. No doubt, many properties have interesting backgrounds, told from different viewpoints. None of which are entirely accurate. So I take it all with a grain of salt. I am not defending anyone.
Last edited by MoBro; Sep 5th, 2019 at 11:12 AM.
Sep 6th, 2019, 07:23 AM
#50
This is an interesting thread, and the property will be a great little rental option once (if) it gets permitted as the owners have now sought from the City.
I don't care how often you insist: "IT IS OPERATING LEGALLY". As my mother used to say, just because the person trying to sell you the Brooklyn Bridge tells you she owns it doesn't make it so. The only "proof" you offer is you asked the manager, or at the beginning of this thread, in response to Jean's comments, you insisted that you had checked into it before renting and confirmed "it's legit", because you would not have rented it.
And the issue raised by others suggesting that you may have been duped is not a matter from years past. Unfortunately, here, the issue has been continuing for many years and still exists. As for the "legal" vs. "illegal" issue, the property has never been permitted as a hotel (boutique or otherwise), and STRs, based upon various ordinances in the City of Los Angeles, have never been permitted for this type of property. That said, there has been no enforcement while the City got its act together to come up with a reasonable solution. This type of property is not and cannot be subject to the provisions of the new STR ordinance because it falls outside the ordinance. It was an unpermitted rental and remains an unpermitted rental, and IS subject to enforcement, fines, and penalties for conducting this business, presumably without a business license, much less a permit.
I appreciate that you softened your tone a bit that you may have been duped that it was by softening your later comments assertion: "I was told their “documentation is in order” prior to renting." and "I do not think it is illegal. Others may assume it is, but don’t really know. I did ask the manager."
Again, I am certain you wanted to share this "find" in good faith, and truly believed the puffing (actually, it wasn't even puffing, but "terminological inexactitude" as Churchill politely called it) of the manager/owner. And the owners have, in good faith, updated the property and obtained permits for most of the upgrades (even then, in a number of instances, they got the permit, but didn't finalize the permit by having an inspector come out). But the owners also left certain things off the property that makes it look nice (like no screens on some of the windows) that would NEVER pass inspection in the City of Los Angeles, not to mention a sprinkler system that will be required in each unit.
Again, something to consider in the future, but not now.
.
I don't care how often you insist: "IT IS OPERATING LEGALLY". As my mother used to say, just because the person trying to sell you the Brooklyn Bridge tells you she owns it doesn't make it so. The only "proof" you offer is you asked the manager, or at the beginning of this thread, in response to Jean's comments, you insisted that you had checked into it before renting and confirmed "it's legit", because you would not have rented it.
And the issue raised by others suggesting that you may have been duped is not a matter from years past. Unfortunately, here, the issue has been continuing for many years and still exists. As for the "legal" vs. "illegal" issue, the property has never been permitted as a hotel (boutique or otherwise), and STRs, based upon various ordinances in the City of Los Angeles, have never been permitted for this type of property. That said, there has been no enforcement while the City got its act together to come up with a reasonable solution. This type of property is not and cannot be subject to the provisions of the new STR ordinance because it falls outside the ordinance. It was an unpermitted rental and remains an unpermitted rental, and IS subject to enforcement, fines, and penalties for conducting this business, presumably without a business license, much less a permit.
I appreciate that you softened your tone a bit that you may have been duped that it was by softening your later comments assertion: "I was told their “documentation is in order” prior to renting." and "I do not think it is illegal. Others may assume it is, but don’t really know. I did ask the manager."
Again, I am certain you wanted to share this "find" in good faith, and truly believed the puffing (actually, it wasn't even puffing, but "terminological inexactitude" as Churchill politely called it) of the manager/owner. And the owners have, in good faith, updated the property and obtained permits for most of the upgrades (even then, in a number of instances, they got the permit, but didn't finalize the permit by having an inspector come out). But the owners also left certain things off the property that makes it look nice (like no screens on some of the windows) that would NEVER pass inspection in the City of Los Angeles, not to mention a sprinkler system that will be required in each unit.
Again, something to consider in the future, but not now.
.
Sep 6th, 2019, 08:53 AM
#51
Original Poster
Please provide proof that it is actually illegal and has operated unpermitted, as you claim.
I see only assumptions, same as mine. What is your source?
Please provide a credible, valid, current document which finds this building to be illegal.
Having been there in person, I have a hard time believing they are flat-out "illegal". Given the good management practices I experienced, the great care given to the place, and the people I met there, it doesn't seem like the shady operation of stupid people, pouring money into an "illegal" property.
I am sincerely interested in the true standing of this property.
Thank you.
P.S. "Duped"? WTH. I don't feel duped by any stretch of the imagination. We had a fantastic apartment at a great price, and I'm still not convinced that your, or anyone else's, assumptions are any better than my first-hand experience there.
I see only assumptions, same as mine. What is your source?
Please provide a credible, valid, current document which finds this building to be illegal.
Having been there in person, I have a hard time believing they are flat-out "illegal". Given the good management practices I experienced, the great care given to the place, and the people I met there, it doesn't seem like the shady operation of stupid people, pouring money into an "illegal" property.
I am sincerely interested in the true standing of this property.
Thank you.
P.S. "Duped"? WTH. I don't feel duped by any stretch of the imagination. We had a fantastic apartment at a great price, and I'm still not convinced that your, or anyone else's, assumptions are any better than my first-hand experience there.
Last edited by MoBro; Sep 6th, 2019 at 09:40 AM.
Sep 6th, 2019, 09:57 AM
#52
It would be much easier to prove that the apartments are legal than to prove that they are illegal. Just ask them for their city registration number, which as of July 1st was supposed to be in all of their rental listings. What is the reason that it is not?
And if it's legal, why in July did they apply for a license to operate as a hybrid ? They're already operating as a hybrid as you pointed out in your first post....they have both long-term and vacation-rental tenants in the same building.
And if it's legal, why in July did they apply for a license to operate as a hybrid ? They're already operating as a hybrid as you pointed out in your first post....they have both long-term and vacation-rental tenants in the same building.
Sep 6th, 2019, 10:02 AM
#53
Original Poster
Again, clark, you make good points, but they are still just assumptions. How do you know they applied for this or that, and when? What sources do you have?
I thought you said above, that Nov 1 is the deadline.
Those of you who are convinced this is illegal-- it's in your court, not mine.
I thought you said above, that Nov 1 is the deadline.
Those of you who are convinced this is illegal-- it's in your court, not mine.
Sep 6th, 2019, 10:05 AM
#54
MoBro, those questions you pose of me should have been questions posed by you, and the offer of proof to your assertions should be on you, not those reading your post.
I'm not going to cite you the entire LAMC regarding regulations, but below is a link to the permits required of a hotel, or an apartment hotel:
https://finance.lacity.org/business-requiring-permits
If you are interested in checking out the various housing and business regulations, please see:
http://library.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/California/lamc/municipalcode?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=a mlegal:losangeles_ca_mc
If you wish to review all of the building records and permits for this property, please go to the following link, which will provide you with documentation going back to 1919:
http://ladbsdoc.lacity.org/idispublic/
In short, if you are going to make the assertions that you make, you need to fact check first. Why don't YOU make the offer of proof? Or simply state you may have been given misinformation by the management or by the owners of Villa Valentino LP (which, by the way, pursuant to the State of California business records appears to be solely owned by another entity, Mortgage Co. of Santa Barbara, Inc.), mea culpa, and thank those who have posted for providing some clarity.
I'm not going to cite you the entire LAMC regarding regulations, but below is a link to the permits required of a hotel, or an apartment hotel:
https://finance.lacity.org/business-requiring-permits
If you are interested in checking out the various housing and business regulations, please see:
http://library.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/California/lamc/municipalcode?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=a mlegal:losangeles_ca_mc
If you wish to review all of the building records and permits for this property, please go to the following link, which will provide you with documentation going back to 1919:
http://ladbsdoc.lacity.org/idispublic/
In short, if you are going to make the assertions that you make, you need to fact check first. Why don't YOU make the offer of proof? Or simply state you may have been given misinformation by the management or by the owners of Villa Valentino LP (which, by the way, pursuant to the State of California business records appears to be solely owned by another entity, Mortgage Co. of Santa Barbara, Inc.), mea culpa, and thank those who have posted for providing some clarity.
Sep 6th, 2019, 10:05 AM
#55
Come on MoBro, it is not that difficult to figure out. If you have been operating legally as a "hybrid" , you do not have to apply for a city waiver to operate as a hybrid.
They wanted to become a "boutique hotel". They were unsuccessful in evicting all of their tenants and this is their last resort.
They wanted to become a "boutique hotel". They were unsuccessful in evicting all of their tenants and this is their last resort.
Sep 6th, 2019, 10:07 AM
#56
Original Poster
This has taken up way too much of my energy. I am recommending this place as a fantastic rental option.
I couldn't care less about pursuing the facts for you. It's your quest, not mine.
If you're concerned, don't rent there and research it for yourself.
Assumptions about evicting their tenants and last resort comments, are pure speculation. Nothing more.
I couldn't care less about pursuing the facts for you. It's your quest, not mine.
If you're concerned, don't rent there and research it for yourself.
Assumptions about evicting their tenants and last resort comments, are pure speculation. Nothing more.
Sep 6th, 2019, 10:15 AM
#57
"I couldn't care less about pursuing the facts"..
Well, we already knew that. You were the one who, above, declared this rental property legal. You stated it as fact, two or three times. I don't think asking you to prove that fact by asking the owner for their city license number was all that off-base, but you certainly have no obligation to do it. We posted a number of facts that lead us to believe that the property is operating illegally. You have not presented even one fact to back up your statement that it is legal. It just looks legal. Okay.
Well, we already knew that. You were the one who, above, declared this rental property legal. You stated it as fact, two or three times. I don't think asking you to prove that fact by asking the owner for their city license number was all that off-base, but you certainly have no obligation to do it. We posted a number of facts that lead us to believe that the property is operating illegally. You have not presented even one fact to back up your statement that it is legal. It just looks legal. Okay.
Sep 6th, 2019, 10:16 AM
#58
Original Poster
I have never once seen a single other thread where the poster was challenged to prove a place is legal.
At this point, I couldn't care less about giving any other recommendations here. This site has become a bully pit.
Do your own research. "It's not rocket science" (jeez- what a brilliant, creative and unusual thing to say!)
At this point, I couldn't care less about giving any other recommendations here. This site has become a bully pit.
Do your own research. "It's not rocket science" (jeez- what a brilliant, creative and unusual thing to say!)
Sep 6th, 2019, 10:31 AM
#59
Original Poster
""I couldn't care less about pursuing the facts"..
Well, we already knew that."
Clark, you edited out the key words I'd written: "I couldn't care less about pursuing the facts FOR YOU. It's your quest, not mine."
No, I don't live on Fodors, like some people do, starrs, and I haven't read every single thread as you do, or created a zillion posts about inane topics.
This explains why people complain about Europe and other boards being snake pits, due to certain posters who delight in twisting words and being queen of the hill.
Well, we already knew that."
Clark, you edited out the key words I'd written: "I couldn't care less about pursuing the facts FOR YOU. It's your quest, not mine."
No, I don't live on Fodors, like some people do, starrs, and I haven't read every single thread as you do, or created a zillion posts about inane topics.
This explains why people complain about Europe and other boards being snake pits, due to certain posters who delight in twisting words and being queen of the hill.
Last edited by MoBro; Sep 6th, 2019 at 10:40 AM.
Sep 6th, 2019, 10:48 AM
#60
That was another fun edit to watch! 
Most travelers know that certain cities require registration numbers for legal apartments. This thread is certainly the most interesing one I've ever read, with the OP taking it as a personal affront when other posters ask for documentation for the claim that the rental is legal. It's standard for tourist/ transient/ short term rentals.
On the Paris board is one example of the common knowledge -
"Paris for Christmas"
"We are seven people, including a 14-year-old. We want an apartment so we can have a place to hang out together in the evening. I can't find anything large enough, legal enough, and affordable enough in the city, so I've been looking at places on the outskirts."
In post #7, Macross offers a suggestion -
"https://www.airbnb.com/rooms/2254560...arer_id=688000
It has the registration #. There are many on there."
If you click on the link and read the description, near the bottom is the # clark was asking you for (but the Hollywood version, not the Paris version).
"License or registration number
7510201338829
Learn about this number"
If you click on that hyperlink, you'll see the explanation as to why the listing of the number that proves the rental is a legal rental is important.
"Some cities require that hosts obtain a license or registration number in order to list their homes on Airbnb. This field allows hosts to display that number directly on their listing to comply with local laws. " (more at the link)
Every single day on this forum and others, posters discuss about the availability of legal rentals. This is the first thread in which I've read such outrage by being asked such a simple question. It IS standard operating procedure to determine if a rental in a given city is a legal rental - or not.
If one claims a rental is legal, providing the # is the documentation that backs up that claim.
If one making that claim can't provide the # (it should be in the listing as Clark pointed out) the only assumption is that the rental is not a legal rental.
Registration/ license/ certification numbers are referenced on travel forums (including Fodors) every single day of the week.
Most travelers know that certain cities require registration numbers for legal apartments. This thread is certainly the most interesing one I've ever read, with the OP taking it as a personal affront when other posters ask for documentation for the claim that the rental is legal. It's standard for tourist/ transient/ short term rentals.
On the Paris board is one example of the common knowledge -
"Paris for Christmas"
"We are seven people, including a 14-year-old. We want an apartment so we can have a place to hang out together in the evening. I can't find anything large enough, legal enough, and affordable enough in the city, so I've been looking at places on the outskirts."
In post #7, Macross offers a suggestion -
"https://www.airbnb.com/rooms/2254560...arer_id=688000
It has the registration #. There are many on there."
If you click on the link and read the description, near the bottom is the # clark was asking you for (but the Hollywood version, not the Paris version).
"License or registration number
7510201338829
Learn about this number"
If you click on that hyperlink, you'll see the explanation as to why the listing of the number that proves the rental is a legal rental is important.
"Some cities require that hosts obtain a license or registration number in order to list their homes on Airbnb. This field allows hosts to display that number directly on their listing to comply with local laws. " (more at the link)
Every single day on this forum and others, posters discuss about the availability of legal rentals. This is the first thread in which I've read such outrage by being asked such a simple question. It IS standard operating procedure to determine if a rental in a given city is a legal rental - or not.
If one claims a rental is legal, providing the # is the documentation that backs up that claim.
If one making that claim can't provide the # (it should be in the listing as Clark pointed out) the only assumption is that the rental is not a legal rental.
Registration/ license/ certification numbers are referenced on travel forums (including Fodors) every single day of the week.
