The poor little landlords! They have to find something else to do with their lives besides sitting on their rear ends most of the month and laughing all the way to the bank once a month.
The problem is raising rents are always due to lack of supply. I used to be very supportive of rent control but realized it’s just a shitty band-aid on the real problem - lack of housing.
It will keep rents low for a bit, but won’t fix the fundamental problem that allows high rents in the first place: and people will still struggle to find housing.
And you can bet your ass that any new will have massively increased rent or prices to compensate.
The real fix, like everywhere else, is to kick out the nimbys and allow building again
It will force them to sell, which will perhaps make buying a home more affordable, so less people have to pay rent and more people pay a mortgage on a home they bought.
It generally doesn’t though. People who rent aren’t suddenly going to be able to afford to buy. If you look at cities that do these policies, homeownership rates do go up, but the entire lower income community is basically evicted from the city. It’s basically accelerated gentrification.
Well, the British government has introduced a lot of changes recently, that made the landlord lives harder and landlords did start to sell. Now we have a situation, where people fight over places to rent, most places don’t even get advertised, people take them without viewings and rent prices have skyrocketed. All while housing stock in general got noticeably reduced. And, of course, homelessness is through the roof.
landlords did start to sell
while housing stock in general got noticeably reduced
I’m not sure how those two things can coexist. So landlords started selling but then nobody that owned just one property sold so despite the influx of properties being listed for sale, the stock reduced? So there’s fewer rental units which has people trying to get into them but there aren’t more people purchasing the properties?
These types of policies also affect the types of units that get built. If rental units are a risky business move, then more construction will go towards larger single family homes, which are 1) less space efficient (fewer units), but 2) much more expensive (so the builder gets their money’s worth)
The other thing is with rent control, housing stock will decrease because people will not move. If you are in a rent controlled unit, you’re very strongly incentivised to never leave : because while your rent has been grandfathered to a low price, when you move you’ll suddenly starting paying the inflated rates everyone else has been paying to offset the sub-market rents you had. Live in the same place long enough and this could be a 1000% increase.
While I sympathize with high rent prices, it’s still no different than say someone who owns a Wedding venue and rents out the location, tables, chairs, etc. They paid for the initial investment and are making money off of it through rental. That’s how investments work. Otherwise, what benefit is there to owning it outside of selling it outright.
People require housing. They dont require wedding venues
Yes, but it isn’t fair to expect anyone to provide housing at their own personal loss. I agree that people need homes, and we’re on the same page there. However, consider it this way. If you could earn more by charging a higher amount, would you charge less out of generosity, or would you try to maximize your income? This applies to anything. If you’re selling a car, would you sell it for less just to be nice, or would you sell it to the highest bidder? People need cars too. You see my point?
Then don’t provide housing at all, let the market be affordable enough that people can buy housing. All rental companies provide is a funnel to keep the impoverished from saving their money to buy a home they can’t fathom according anyways. Same thing with house flippers. Buying a shit hole and giving it a paint job should not make it worth 3x the value you bought it at. Affordable housing is not the job of citizens, it is the job of the government and the government is doing its job making said housing, more attainable through rent caps.
If the government gets involved, the owners will just sell, making homeownership even more unaffordable and reducing rent options. What you want is less greed in the world, and that isn’t going to happen in its current state.
I’m not the one downvoting you, but I think this is where you might lose me - I agree that people will buy housing and rent it out if they can make a profit, and we’ve had landlords doing that basically forever. But if the government gets involved and owners sell, I don’t see how home ownership can be more unaffordable. Basically we have a hugely constrained supply of housing. If, say, there were 50 skyscrapers full of apartments that went up overnight in San Francisco that charged $1000/month, rents would have to go down everywhere else because there would be the introduction of so much supply that nobody would pay more than that cost (because that’s the alternative to where they’re living now). Obviously that’s a fantasy scenario, but the various governments (city, state, and fed) all are not doing anything to move towards that goal, which would create supply equal to demand. If current landlords sell, then that would drive prices further down, not up - you’re literally increasing the supply again, and also because they will be competing against each other to sell, it should drive down prices for those homes as well.
people don’t need cars the same way they need shelter and food. I’m sick of landlords acting like they’re providing some kind of social service when they financially benefit from the arrangement at the expense of the tenant, whom unlike the landlord has nothing to show for years of renting, where the landlord has now paid off their mortgage and has more capital to purchase further properties… Its an inherently self concentrating system - a renter will struggle more to buy a single property than a landlord does to add “another investment to their portfolio” through more favourable loan securitization and asset evaluation.
Landlords provide housing the same way scalpers provide tickets - considering they amass a huge majority of a working individual’s income despite contributing nothing themselves and sitting sedentary for their serfs to pay their wages, I dont really give a shit what income maximisation they pursue. Anything more than a dollar is a profit, and one which they are just as likely to have “earned” from inheritance as they are from any actual hard work and skilful property quisition.
If it’s so tragic and unprofitable to be a landlord, might I suggest selling up and getting the fuck out of the equation, instead of playing monopoly with the housing supply and acting like you’re a saint for refusing to fix the fucking mould problem, so I can pay for your ugly family’s next holiday instead of having a stable roof over my head.
I have no vested interest, as I’m not a landlord. My point is that people generally won’t settle for less when they can earn more. Regardless of how essential the item or service is, businesses and individuals will always aim to maximize their earnings if the market allows it. It would be a poor financial decision not to. Whether someone feels resentful because others profit off of them (which, by the way, is all of us in America when we buy foreign goods who use children for harvesting raw materials or other labor), it’s irrelevant to the situation. It isn’t going to change until God changes it.
if the market allows it. That’s the point, the market works fine to incentivise me in choosing fruit loops over other cereals - but if the market is captured, monopolised, or poorly regulated, market forces don’t apply properly.
I don’t hold off renting because it’s a luxury I can do without, I rent because it’s an inelastic need for shelter, and I don’t have anywhere near enough capital to pursue ownership. The issue is that landlords are not just an enterprising part of that dynamic, they knowingly and maliciously gouge prices far in excess of any actual tangible value of their shitbox studio, because they know that if it’s difficult to move and everybody else is doing it, they can bleed their working single-mother tenant dry. At the end of that transaction, the mother has invested in the owner’s 4th mortgage and gets evicted when she falls a week behind, with less wealth than she had to start with. That’s why there was this article about capping RAISES to rent in an LA county.
Here in Australia (we’re not all american), it’s becoming a really significant problem - housing has been nearly entirely commodified since the millennium, while social housing and support services have effectively crumbled. My rent in Sydney is now 80% of my income alone - and that’s for a below average rent and an above average income - I’ve been fortunate, and I’m still at the point of having to sell assets to keep dry in the rain. The days of a single income blue collar family owning a home outright in less than a decade are long gone, and I know of 190k household couples now priced out of crappy suburbs.
It isn’t going to change until God changes it.
There is no god, so he won’t be changing it - but well written legislation might. The first step in fixing a problem is acknowledging there is one, and to that effect calling a spade a spade - of course it’s human nature for those who can to maximise their wealth, but I’ve also got the right to treat them like the parasites they are when they claim to be ‘providing’ anything after they hoard it all, then earn a living by exploiting multiple people’s need for shelter who, without multi-property scabs like landlords, would be buying and selling less affected by speculative values. Landlords don’t provide a service, they’re a cartel keeping house prices high.
You are mistaken. I mean, I got married, and I rented a space for it. I payed it once. It’s 20 years behind me. It was a one time deal. The two have nothing to do with each other. You’re obviously kinda dumb. Or lazy. Or both. I mean, come one, that’s your comment? It’s so stupid. *edit really with the hate on this comment? Maybe I need to expand to make it clear that this person is an idiot. Rent a home to people: You lock them into a contract that is usually 12 months or more, they have to pay you all that time, plus, if they decide they don’t want to move at the end of the contract, they just stay there and the landlord doesn’t have to do jack shit. No painting or sprucing up. Rent out a wedding venue: one time deal agreed upon. Owner actually has to keep up the space where people get married, actually has to work for the money because the people get married there, have the event, and leave because that’s a whole different fucking thing. Bottom line of my comment: landlords just live off other people paying them money with little effort, whereas owners of a special occasion space actually have to work hard at attracting new customers, not renters who are going to live in the space. Are we really this stupid now that I had to explain that? I mean, really. People seem to be taking a stupid pill today.
“Landlords say that would push them to sell.”
So, you’re saying it would increase available housing supply? Sounds great.
Oh, and for the record, they will not, in fact, sell. Most housing in Ontario is still under a 2% annual rent increase limit. Landlords are doing just fine (and by “Just fine” I of course mean “We have a national housing crisis because landlords are hoarding all the available supply”)
This idiots are too high on their own farts to realize this propaganda ain’t working lol
Oh my God oh my God if the landlords have to sell, that would be… Check notes… That would be really good for people who want to buy houses.
this is what is known as “a feature, not a bug”
SIKE! sold houses are only bought by corporate holding companies, now you’ve lost even more rights!
In France there is a law that forces you to sell to your tenant if he has the highest bid
Why would you need a law to make someone sell to the highest bidder?
Because sometimes there’s a tie
Or the landlord might just want to spite the tenant, or he might want to sell to a “new” buyer who turns out to be business partner/cohort/shell LLC/etc.
Wouldn’t most people sell to the highest bid anyway?
Yes but we had our fair share of assholes
Never any history of racial segregation in the housing market, nope. No Sir. Never.
Are people really accepting less money so they don’t sell to brown people? Like why would you care? You’re selling the property. You don’t have to deal with the new owners if you happen to be racist.
Granted, this article was from all the way back in… last week.
“An African-American woman’s quest to buy a pricey condo near the Virginia Beach Oceanfront – impeded by the white homeowner’s refusal because of her race – is just the latest example.”
“…landlords frequently use subtle methods or mask the real reasons why they don’t want people to move in.”
Wouldn’t you sell to the highest bidder anyway?
I mean, my wife and I didn’t sell to the two highest bidders on our first house because the fuckers were obviously going to rent it out.
One was a bid entered by a piece of software often used by flippers and rental companies (had branding at the bottom of the pages etc) and the other was a cash in hand bid with an overt offer of more under the table, which is fairly illegal where we live.
We selected third place, someone who had messy handwriting, obviously has been written by two different people, and ended the bid with “777” which was cute and showed us not only were they human, they really wanted the place. And no wonder, with offers like the first two likely happening on nearly every sale in the area.
I did that myself with a home. I ignored the high bid in favor of selling at a steep discount to a young family.
deleted by creator
Idk, something like 12% of all metro Atlanta area homes are leased out by about 3 rental property companies. That’s a huge amount.
deleted by creator
Comparing across the nation doesn’t really matter in things like real estate where prices, inflow vs outflow of people etc vary wildly, particularly when talking about the actual impact on the average person within the locality.
“Cherry picked by source to increase clicks” what sort of landlord boot licking is this lmao. Amherst Holdings (owns almost 40,000 homes nationally), Pretium Partners (owns around 80,000 homes nationally), and Invitation Homes (also around 80,000 nationally) own through subsidiaries 11% of all single family homes across metro Atlanta for rental purposes.
This isn’t opinion or spin, it is fact.
Most of their ownership (9.2% of that 11%) is from houses in the lower half of median home value, effectively ripping those inventories out of the market for first time home buyers and inflating the price of those tiers of homes for first time home buyers.
Maybe you’re confused about what “Metro Atlanta” means. It’s not just the City of Atlanta. Metro Atlanta is spread across 5 counties, from the heart of downtown to some real yeehaw rural areas of the outer counties.
deleted by creator
0.2% nationally != 0.2% locally.
Link to the research: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/24694452.2023.2278690
Read it for yourself.
But worse for those looking for a rental.
Rent control is a bandaid on a real problem that makes things worse long term. What California needs is build more, which means end the NIMBY and unfreeze property taxes so those seating on underutilized land are forced to develop it or sell.
LVT, not property tax. You want to tax the value of the land, not the value of the property built on it.
Would property taxes actually do much? They’re so little even in high property-tax states that I think you’d need to do a lot more than that to FORCE rich people to utilize their other properties. High taxes would potentially push more costs on renters. Maybe we should just outlaw having more than 1 or 2 homes… including for real estate companies and banks :)
High taxes would potentially push more costs on renters.
Potentially, but I think here not so much. Competition drives prices down. In a perfectly competitive market, prices are pretty much equal to the cost of production. In that case, any tax would be completely passed on to the customer. But you can’t produce land at a certain location. My guess is that rents are largely determined by willingness to pay.
I keep wondering how to make the law do that. Making a company is like $100, that’s nothing compared to the house price. They would just have shell companies all over each owning a single location. 123 Fake St., LLC; 124 Fake St., LLC; etc.
You’d limit Ultimate Beneficial Ownership of the properties, not direct ownership.
I’d probably do something like: No individual or private entity may have Direct, Indirect or Ultimate Beneficial Ownership exceeding or of multiple of any of X(2-5?) Single Family properties, Y(2-3?) low density Multi-tenant properties, or Z(1-2?) high density Multi-tenant properties. Excluding the first wholely and solely owner occupied property. Excluding Ultimate Beneficial Ownership of less than A(.01-5?)% of a property. Excluding Ownership less than B(30-180?) days. Failure to comply results in forfeiture of newer ownership to REGULATOR-TBD until compliance is met. Multi-tenant properties have C (5-10?) residences
IANAL, probably some other loopholes that need closing. But the intent would be to limit consolidated ownership of many properties. But not impact several of the more reasonable ownership structures, nor impact churn of properties. The regulator would sell whatever extra it gets to fund housing programs.
How will that work for individuals who own .00001% of hundreds of homes (by owning shares of several real estate holding companies)?
Also, mega rich people don’t to legally own anything. It is owned by a trust with undisclosed beneficiaries. It is also routed via multiple offshore dummy corporations. It is set up this way so that tax agencies can never figure out incomes and inheritances.
Hmm build more. I’d be curious to see the stats on this. California has probably built 10 times more than the rest of the country combined over the last decade or so. People need to GO THE FUCK BACK HOME.
That’s-the-point.gif
Sounds like that’s by design. If they all wanna sell prices come down on that front as well. Sounds like it should be capped at 2 percent to me.
0%. Rent when established is the rent for the unit in perpetuity.
Decide to rent? You get to rent it out until it’s no longer worth it, then it becomes owner occupied forever or torn down for high density housing. Sounds great to me!
“This would never work!1111oneoneone” - my last apartment was $1425 when I moved in and $1500 after I moved out 10 years later. If they rent it out again as-is it would be all of $1800 at most… but they could still make money at $1425/mo, or even less, after water/insurance/property taxes and income tax.
Landlords will complain every time any government, local, regional or national, attempts to regulate their bullshit, and plenty of people will rush in to take their side because they see themselves as temporarily embarrassed ghouls. Tax them to hell and back.
they see themselves as temporarily embarrassed ghouls
Even beyond that, there’s little understanding of landlordism as a patronage system. “Oh, that person just saved up a bunch of money to buy a second property and then spends a lot of time and energy maintaining it, so they deserve a profit!” is just people regurgitating real estate propaganda.
You’re not describing the lion’s share of properties owned by hedge funds, wherein cheap access to low interest debt gives a handful of mega-banks and billionaires the ability to gobble up 40%+ of outstanding real estate. You’re not describing the process of slumming a neighborhood through deliberate public-sector disinvestment, before forcing people out through petty fines and over-policing until you can snatch up the real estate on the cheap at public auction or estate sale. You’re not discussing how red-lining and eminent domain can be used to shrink housing supplies by limiting who has access to which schools or public utilities. Or how tax incentives can be used to drain off public funds for profit-chasing private sector enterprises.
Even before you get into the delusional would-be landlord, you’ve got this enormous network of socio-economic back slapping and dick jerking that is fundamental to the creation of a landlord class that we simply don’t talk about.
Won’t someone think of the landlords?!?
I do, but I can’t decide if I should bbq or braise them :-(
Gross. You really shouldn’t eat garbage…
I think there is quite an easy solution to the housing issue we’re facing: exponential tax increase per property.
There is no reason for someone to own more than one property in a city. No reason at all. But even if you could find one - let’s say the first 2-3 properties (defined as houses/apartments of less than X area each) have regular taxes. But then? Then it gets retarded. 500k more per year for the fourth one. 4 mil extra a year for the fifth. 50 mil extra for the sixth. One billion for the seventh. You’re a property developer? You have until 2 years after the property was finisbed to make sure someone has bought every little bit of it, otherwise that 40 apartment building will end up costing you twice the foreign debt.
Can’t pay the taxes? You can always sell the place, at a fair market value. Let’s say your two uncles died in a short timespan and they both left you their houses, but you had some property already and now you’re up to 5 residential properties but you’re not prepared to pay the extra few million. You can always list their houses. Every month they are listed and don’t get bought, you reduce the price by 5%. Overvaluing the property gets it confiscated - you surrender your property to the state, which then distributes it to those in need in a lottery. You can also opt to just give away some of your less desirable properties directly instead of trying to sell them.
But no, that’d be sudden death for all the retards who keep building, all the fuck heads who keep buying and holding, and all the politicians whose pockets get padded for listening to whichever lobby.
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!
There’s an average renter turnover. If the market would usually see a 5% increase yoy, and average stay us 5 years, this 3% policy means you’d have tenents “underpaying” by about 13%. So, to compensate, instead of new leases being 27% more expensive, they’ll be 40% more expensive after 5 years.
The root cause of all the raising home prices and rents is always the same: nimbys and lack of housing supply. Rent control works for people who are already in a home, but makes the problem worse for everyone else (who move, or become adults, etc)
Oh nooooo …
Hi, that’s what I wanted to say!
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…
Good?
Good.
Excellent!
Hurray!
Huzza!
They’d flood the market with properties shifting us along the supply curve to allow younger people to afford properties?
Darn, that’d be so… awful? No, I was looking for awesome.
It probably won’t flood the market as property/land is sort of like gold. Renting it is just extra money on top of land value rise. It only gets rarer. (In desirable locations)
The problem is basic. Everyone wants to live at A but A has finite amount of space. This is the core theme of property gold. Renting is just double dipping
The solution is complex. It isn’t to expand A but to make B equally attractive. If the small area in city was not the ultimate goal of whole country the price boom would rapidly crash overnight.
What is priced isn’t property but dreams and aspirations, prestige, bright future in the city of opportunity. Even love in a way because good luck finding someone in some rural mud hut.
Hence the inaction of government to invest in the rural areas adds to the housing bubble. And of course capitalism itself prays on individuality at the cost of community. Me get rich in the city vs Build community and improve what is around me for me and others. The second is not advisable to anyone to even attempt.
Everything is fuelled into those few acres of asphalt and concrete. The impossibly hot focus point of the nation.
So incredibly fierce that you can die out of heat even during winter. The speed limits on the arteries are rather minimums than maximum as the circulation of wealth cannot tolerate stopping for even the 20 seconds of red light. Every crossing is a race starting line but there is no end. Furious engines roar jolting towards the success.
The night is day and the day is madness.First person I’ve seen who didn’t say it increases supply.
Nice.
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
Introduce additional legislation that limit property sales to corporations and I’ll donate to yer campaign
