Maybe everything should be capped at 3% since that’s the standard BS bonus we all get each year.
You get a bonus?
Aww… Yeah, if you don’t, move to a different job 😉. Easier said than done, I know. My dad and mom never got bonuses of significant value but when they did get extra money as bonus they were so happy. I get a bonus but I’m not really money driven. It makes my wife happy.
Oh man, I wish…
Landlords say that would push them to see
Good. Do it. DO IT.
I get the concern that small landlords will sell to big corpos who can handle the thinner margin, but for those smaller landlords that have paid off their property, or bought 10+ years ago, the margins are already super high, so the 3% cap isn’t going to cause them to sell when they have a $1200 mortgage and are collecting $2800 in rent, or no mortgage at all in many cases so pure profit more or less
↑ supply or ↓ demand. As much as it frustrates politicians, these are the only true levers.
Of course, economists have successfully predicted 5 out of the last 3 recessions so who knows. Why don’t you go ask Chat GPT.
So we should keep going after land with its perfectly inelastic supply, then.
Landlords say this would push them to sell.
Yay? Maybe then it could be sold to people who are desperate to get off of the rental merry-go-round.
As in, these homes will be owned by people who actually live in them; non-parasites who aren’t going to be sucking the lifeblood out of hard-working, working-class Americans.
Maybe instead of being landlords, these parasites could actually go out and get a job?
Sounds like we don’t only need to cap increases at 3%. We also need to give loan assistance programs so the people currently living there can capitalize on the sudden availability. Otherwise, you get into the situation of “I’m spending $2000 on rent now, the mortgage + escrow payment on the same property would be $1500, but the bank says I don’t qualify”.
If you can’t buy it while renting today, you won’t be able to buy it tomorrow when your landlord sells it. The house will be bought by a corporate investor and you’ll get fucked. Just like it’s happening in the UK right now. Prepare for mass homelessness.
This is first order thinking. What this would cause is much much less building of units that people would rent, so the total supply would slow way down and housing would get worse.
Wouldn’t lower land prices mean higher ROIC and lower risk for developers (individual or corporate) ? And this hence lead to more housing?
New units can still charge whatever they want.
But they still would not be able to keep up with inflation, and this would just be one more stone on a heap of other regulations that make it not worth building housing.
Wouldn’t they just calculate the net present value of the average rental? Most people don’t rent at one place for long, and everybody dies eventually.
Might be depend on your area but around me we’ve had a cap for a few yesrs and units are still going up (not necessarily affordable ones).
Sure there will be some building, but it will be greatly decreased to what it would. If anything the builders will just do spec homes or move out of the market. I actually moved from a state with a cap (Oregon), and most of the landlords (including myself) just sold off any residential real estate.
As a landlord, you might be a little biased?
Maybe the landlords would be willing to rent all the unused housing then.
Happy cake day. :)
Thank you! What a year it’s been.
Unfortunately, I think you’re right. What is the solution to outrageous rent that doesn’t involve the government providing more rent subsidies that simply funnel public money into the hands of property owners? That solution encourages property owners to raise rent because the government will increase subsidies to cover the difference.
The problem is the government makes it too hard and expensive to build anything. People dont realize this but on average the government adds over $100k per single family house that is built. As a person that is in housing, my number one issue is with the government, and they only make it worse. So the solution is to greatly reduce the amount the government is involved in the creation of new housing.
You mean like safety regulations? I hear this same shit from sales all the time complaining about factory of safety in design. “I told the customer it would only be $X, and now it’s so much more!”
No
No, and…?
I’m genuinely interested in how government involvement increases the cost. I honestly don’t know. Like, is it dealing with zoning and permitting? I hope my good-faith intent is coming through here, I’m not just trying to bait an argument.
Get rid of renting entirely and watch the quality of communities improve overnight.
Who would own the housing?
The people living in it?
Who would have built it for them and how would they have been paid?
I think they’re referring to already-existing communities.
It still the same problem, where would they get the resources to get ownership of that real estate?
Depending on how exactly we’re “getting rid of renting”, I don’t think they would be purchasing the building at today’s prices. The landlord is SoL… at best. ;-)
Pushpush
Oh no?
I fail to see the downside.
Homelessness is a downside.
Those new tenants (if the new buyer is a landlord) will have to pay a higher rate
Sure, the landlords are going to sell each otger the houses every year to be able to raise the rents. Lol!
Good.
Good?
Good.
Excellent!
Hurray!
Huzza!
State forces people to invest their money if they don’t want it to be inflated into nothing, people choose housing in the hope to save wealth for the future. State destroys the value of the savers by devaluing housing. A fine example of the failure of central planning.
Housing is not suppose to be an investment. It’s suppose to HOUSE people. That fact that it is the most profitable investment is a failure of the legislature.
Housing is not suppose to be an investment.
That’s supports what I said.
That fact that it is the most profitable investment is a failure of the legislature.
That’s what I said (not the most profitable though, just profitable).
One more time for the slow people I guess:
Housing can’t be affordable AND a good investment. Investments have to grow above inflation. Affordable things CAN’T grow above inflation.
Ok so then stop investing in assets whose prices are propped up by the state. 🎻
That’s what I do, I only buy bitcoin.
Ok so then why are you calling these rent-seeking parasites “savers”? They’re relying on state violence for their investment to make any return at all.
Anything that becomes a vehicle for savings will have a higher market price than it otherwise would. Higher housing prices hurt tenants and taxpayers, higher imaginary points prices hurt nobody.
These pricks aren’t your buddies and they aren’t “saving”. Fuck 'em.
Another bad economics take from swinging koala, must be a day ending in Y
Cheaper homes in L.A.? We can’t have that!
Just as long as they also cap property tax and insurance increases at 3%, I’d be fine with that. I had both more than double in price in 3 years.
Property tax is alreadly locked in California.
Prop 13 is one of the main reasons i moved out of CA
California is already draining itself to cater to tax breaks for property owners, and capping insurance increases would rapidly accelerate the current flight of insurers out of the state.
And you want that in exchange for a rent hike cap on 51,700 rent-controlled units, in a city of 4 million? Seriously?
Nah. Property tax is good. It pays for better community spaces and services. Better roads, local infrastructure, public transit, schools. It probably didn’t go up very much if at all as a percentage of your property value. They likely just reassessed your property value and they’ve doubled since before COVID. It’s completely normal for taxes to go up with property value.
Insurance etc… yeah, a call would be nice
The push to change the county’s rent stabilization rules yet again was met with skepticism by Supervisors Janice Hahn and Kathryn Barger, who voted against the proposal. They said they were worried that the government was overburdening smaller property owners who rely on the rent to pay their bills.
LOOOOL
If landlords have trouble to pay their bills, may I suggest them to consider some austerity? Perhaps spend less on coffee? They give up their avocado toast? Or maybe pass up on their weekend escapades in humble leisure trips to Singapore?
Landlords just need to pull themselves up by the bootstraps.
“We’ve once again put these struggles on the back of landlords,” Barger said.
Oh no… anyway…
