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.
“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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
deleted by creator
SELL UP MOTHERFUCKERS
“But if I sold it, I’d lose money!!!”
good, get a real job
My mom is in her sixties, not everyone wants to work until the day they die
Guess she should have saved for retirement then like the rest of us have to do.
How does a housewife save for retirement?
With the money that put a roof over her head and food in her mouth, same as the rest of us.
My dad’s no longer paying anything to her, and he wasn’t contributing to any retirement account for her when they were married
Guess he should have been doing that. And maybe she should have been somewhat aware of their financial situation. It sounds like your mom is a product of her own poor decisions.
She’s doing fine as a landlord, thank you
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.
Is there a downside further in the article or is it just all positive news?
The downside is they’ll just be bought up by corporations who will be even shittier landlords.
If the market is adequately regulated they wont be shittier landlords. There somehow is this romantic idea of smaller scale landlords to be like the good old guy that want to help a family find a good place and accept a modest profit. They exist, but the majority are just equally cutthroat like large corpos. Difference is that large corps have more means to be strategic about it and accept risks like 5% of tenants suing successfully while the rest just accepts the illegal treatment.
Let me tell you how it works in the real world right here right now in the UK. Large corpos set targets on how many rentals they want to acquire. For example, Lloyds announced a few years ago that they’re building a portfolio of 50k properties. Yes, fifty fucking thousand homes!
And so small landlords are forced to sell due to changes in the law. Corporate investors buy them in an instant at full asking price or even higher to ensure that property value doesn’t go down and so you, a mere mortal, can’t buy shit.
Next, they freeze the properties and don’t release anything on the market. That creates an insane housing shortage and rental prices go through the roof. A few years later they will start introducing their portfolio to the market slowly to avoid crashes at 2-5x price compared to just last year. People are desperate and pay through the nose.
Boom! Mega profits! What is your 3% yearly cap when they just jacked up the price five times? It will take many years to make a dent.
You know what would help against that? regulating how much property a company can acquire in an area. within a certain timeframe. Or regulating that the land tax and similiar things go up after having say more than a hundred or a thousand properties.
This is arguments for regulation not against it.
Land tax would be grand!
If the market is adequately regulated
Well there’s your first mistake lol
It is not an argument against regulation though. Regulation of markets like housing and healthcare, is reasonable and necessary. These cannot work as free markets because the one side has their life depending on it, wheras the other just can have another customer.
living isn’t a requirement, have you seen how many people willingly consume drugs and sugar despite knowing the risks. Let the free market collapse the upper class (almost certainly after the working class but still)
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
“We’ve once again put these struggles on the back of landlords,” Barger said.
Oh no… anyway…
Why would that push them to sell?
Edit: so the interest rates have risen several percent along with the cost or labor and materials eating into the profits of serial buyers who leverage loans to buy more on previously purchased properties. If they don’t jack up the rent, they can’t manage the debt.
That said, fuck those guys, hope they go bankrupt. This isn’t someone who has an extra property they invested in years ago, these are the clowns buying everything up and squeezing the market.
Because they’re over leveraged. They’ve purchased assets when rates were low and now that rates have gone up they haven’t factored this into their profit margins and would either go under or not make enough.
It’s disgusting. If you have enough money to play the game you should have enough money to live with the consequences and a tenant isn’t your get out of jail free card for your shitty planning.
I don’t understand. If they get a fixed rate at the time of purchase what difference does it make that rates have gone up?
Very often these aren’t traditional fixed-rate mortgages. That’s what they probably have on their “primary” home, but when you’re buying homes with the explicit purpose of using them as income generators, the landscape of available loans changes.
If someone buys a home that was rented. Would the cap apply to them? Because this might result in a loophole
That’s a good question. But keep in mind that there are significant taxes associated with selling a home in most places that would dissuade landlords from trying to game the system that way. Then again, they’re just one more loophole from making that plan work.
I’m giving it to my brother. Or just sell it for $100 to yourself
I’m old enough to remember when the government has tried to cap the cost of one thing while ignoring other factors. It never ends the way the government thinks it will.
That’s bullshit. Nyc has rent stabilized apartments and it’s fucking fantastic. Not perfect of course, but really really good. Those apartments are highly sought after. The biggest problem is that there aren’t remotely enough of them
Almost like no one wants to build any because they can’t be invested in and the only people it works for are those who already got one.
Maybe housing shouldn’t be an investment?
It shouldn’t be - but ill tell you right now that no one will be a landlord unless they can make money from it, and people who move out of home at 18 won’t have the money saved to buy straight away.
Make no mistake, I don’t like the housing crisis and its causes either but I know rent caps isn’t how we fix it long term.
Why do we need people to be landlords?
Housing coops and government-owned housing work out fine.
Yes they could - but they aren’t being used.
Plus, you know, that’s socialism or communism or something else people don’t like for some reason.
If you’re talking about a government that is ignoring other factors, which is not true in this situation. Go read the article.
But even in general, if you’re trying to argue that the government can’t possibly solve the problem of mega corporations buying up tons of property, making tons of money, and screwing over millions of Americans, then you might be right but I sure hope you’re wrong.
No agency/group/organization can possibly account for all factors. They are going to fail to take something into account.
That something is going to blow up in their face.
I remember when the government tried to tell truckers they couldn’t charge more to ship products. The government failed to take into account a little item called gas, to this day I can’t figure out how they screwed that one up. Guess what the truckers did.
They put the keys on the dash and said f u. Ask truckers who drove during the 70s and 80s and they will tell you about it.
This too will blow up in people’s faces.
Is rent getting out of control? Yes. But if someone says “ oh we’ll just put a cap on how much can be increased and that will fix the problem”. It tells me they are just delusional. How do we fix the problem? I don’t know. But yeah this will end badly.
I think you’ve backed yourself into a corner that’s hard to support. Originally you were saying that they didn’t take into account enough factors, and I pointed out that in fact they had researched the issue extensively. Now you’re claiming that they didn’t take into account all possible factors… I agree with you on this claim, but I don’t agree with your conclusion. Because if the claim is that failure to take into account all possible factors will lead legislation to fail, then we have thousands of examples to the contrary. Many laws have succeeded throughout history across hundreds of countries around the world. And not once had the lawmakers considered all possibilities and all implications of the laws that they were creating.
What is the best approach to fixing housing prices? I don’t know. Will this method succeed? Maybe. But if you’re assuming that it’s going to fail because the issue is complex, then history says your assumption is unwarranted.
A 3% cap is absurdly low. While people are saying “don’t threaten me with a good time,” this also means there are going to be fewer new units. Although considering how few units many CA cities have been adding (some have even removed units), it might not have too much of an effect on that regard. I would could see maintenance on existing units dropping and many more unofficial units popping up.
Fewer units, but more home ownership.
We don’t want to be a nation of renters. It’s not good for society; it’s only good for a minority of individuals.
And fewer new units? Where are you pulling that from? It just means developers will be building for home owners, not renters. Like they did back in the Good Old Days, when young people could actually realistically consider buying a home someday. You know, re-creating the conditions that the younger generations are always bitching about that boomers had which aren’t available anymore. Back when not all the land was owned by a few giant corporations.
Fuck renters. Fuck them right in the ear. They can all go eat a dick.
Disclaimer: I’ve owned every house I’ve lived in since 1998, and even with that collateral, every purchase has gotten harder to find and more expensive. So much of America is owned by property developers, it’s disgusting.
Fuck. Renters.
You…blame the people who can’t afford to own for renting and also blame that same situation for making it harder for you to buy? You seem to be missing the point here.
Noun: renter |ren-tur|
-
Someone who pays rent to use land or a building or a car that is owned by someone else • the landlord can evict a renter who doesn’t pay the rent = tenant
-
An owner of property who receives payment for its use by another person
It’s not my fault the stupid word means both people renting, and the owners who rent the place out. I’d hoped the context would have made it clear to which I was referring, in each use.
Lol I’ve never in my life heard a landlord referred to as a renter. It’s a funny situation but I have to say this ones on you :p
-
Landlords say that would push them to see
Good. Do it. DO IT.
