California Approves Statewide Rent Control

Post by matchbok » Thu, Sep 12, 2019, 2:15 AM UTC

decebalus1 wrote: post #94

bhauer wrote: post #21

I am a landlord in Oregon, but not California. The curious, although ultimately predictable, outcome of the new rent control measure in Oregon is that while I have historically had an arrangement with my property management to be restrained in annual rent increases, they are now advising a default annual increase of the maximum allowed (7 percent before inflation). This is because larger adjustments cannot be made if…

> The real solution to a housing problem is to incentivize and facilitate the building of more housing. You need to have some degree of control. I live in a suburb close to a tech hub in WA. They built a lot of housing in the past 3 years. And I mean a lot. At least a couple of hundred of apartments on the market every year, after raising 3-4 buildings at the same time, in a town of 20k people. One would think that t…

Post by toast0 » Thu, Sep 12, 2019, 2:16 AM UTC

pitaj wrote: post #35

tmh79 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Limiting rent increases to max 8% (what this bill encodes) is only going to affect maybe 1-3% of lease agreements annually. This isn't about vast controls of housing stock, it about limiting 20% rent spikes people experience.

At the cost of further disincentives to actually building more housing. What a great idea. Every field of economics agrees that rent control causes harm to the people it's supposed to help.

Post by joshAg » Thu, Sep 12, 2019, 2:17 AM UTC

track_me_now wrote: post #258

joshAg wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing. The parent comment was arguing that because the law now says that rent couldn't increase by more than 7% they were now being advised to increase rent by that much every year (ostensibly because they are now planning to do this), and my response is that it's absurd to claim that anything in the law will change things so that you could make that sort of increase now if you couldn't already make that increase b…

you didn't have to make that response before the law, as a hot market that drove up rates by 15% could be addressed shortly. If you loose the option to make quick upward decisions and any downward movement is essentially irreversible, game theory suggests you'll try to minimize how much increase you leave on the table.

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Sep 12, 2019, 2:18 AM UTC

BurningFrog wrote: post #173

bhauer wrote: post #21

I am a landlord in Oregon, but not California. The curious, although ultimately predictable, outcome of the new rent control measure in Oregon is that while I have historically had an arrangement with my property management to be restrained in annual rent increases, they are now advising a default annual increase of the maximum allowed (7 percent before inflation). This is because larger adjustments cannot be made if…

If the marked could bear annual 7% increases, why didn't you make them before? What will probably happen is that you'll have a hard time filling your property after 1-2 years at the latest, and everything goes back to normal.

Post by icelancer » Thu, Sep 12, 2019, 2:19 AM UTC

wahern wrote: post #131

Rent control is about housing security for existing tenants. Even a perennial 7% increase can be better than discovering your rent will jump 300% next month. But rent control in the absence of housing supply increases will undoubtedly exacerbate the problem, and at a steady 7% inflation would also slowly price out existing tenants. Many parts of California already had rent control that was based on building age. Theo…