371–380 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When did I blame Republicans?
You having problems reading your past posts? You just basically said evil Republicans are blocking common sense housing solutions and indicated the solution is an even greater proportion of Democrats but then said that a Democrat blocked it and their numbers don't matter.
Chiu is being misleading, to put it mildly.
The median home value in Texas is under $200,000; in Dallas it's only $213,000. In Florida it's $235,000; in Tampa it's $219,000. In Illinois it's $182,000; in Chicago it's $226,000. In Pennsylvania it's $174,000; in Pittsburgh it's $146,000. In Ohio it's $140,000; in Cincinnati it's $144,000. And so on. So much for every corner of America.
In California it's $548,000; in San Francisco it's $1.3 million. California's housing problems are in fact not a national problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> if strict can give equal chances to tenants no matter your background. The GP's point is that it gives equal chances to tenants to stay . New tenants do not benefit from rent control, they instead are hurt by the higher prices due to lower supply.
The supply problem has nothing to do with rent control.
I'm a renter in Oregon and I've been outspoken about this long before the laws were passed. From my experience, people who support heavy laws, regulations and taxes don't spend enough time considering potential side effects. They feel like with enough support, they can just force anything they want to happen, while completely disregarding the market. I feel like an amount of the general public just wants Big Daddy go…
Well, i disagree with your opinion. Silicon Valley has been attracting a lot of people from lot of states, who all need housing. Remember , size of California is fixed. Housing in Silicon valley doesn't grow at the same rate as number of people coming here. Added to that, foreigners living in foreign countries ( who have never visited USA, who have no intention of living in USA) are able to own land/houses in silicon…
The problem is much simpler, it's one of supply and demand. That's it.
Moreover, ironically, one could argue that waiting for the government to step in and save the people from the, gamed by the foreigners apparently, market is very unAmerican.
This rent control is a result of populism - plain and simple. Rent control works for those already renting - and that is about it! Everyone else suffers: those moving to the area, the landlords and those wanting to build more.
Actually, existing property owners benefit. So really is populism--the only people it hurts are landlords and people who don't live there yet.
There is no functioning market to begin with. Housing prices and rent are through the roof in California, yet supply is not rising to meet demand, largely because existing owners oppose new construction. Turnabout is fair play. If owners organize politically to control supply, tenants can organize politically to control prices.
Let's just not even talk about the fact that regulation is the reason why housing is scarce, let's just assume California is 100% at capacity. How the hell does rent control increase turnabout? It just let's people who got in at the right time have their status as a resident enforced indefinitely, when there are plenty of people who are willing and able to pay far more in order to live there.
AKA ignore the entire foundation of the previous poster's point?
Edit: upon re-reading your comment I think maybe you don't know what the phrase 'Turnabout is fair play.' means.
There is no functioning market to begin with. Housing prices and rent are through the roof in California, yet supply is not rising to meet demand, largely because existing owners oppose new construction. Turnabout is fair play. If owners organize politically to control supply, tenants can organize politically to control prices.
Let's just not even talk about the fact that regulation is the reason why housing is scarce, let's just assume California is 100% at capacity. How the hell does rent control increase turnabout? It just let's people who got in at the right time have their status as a resident enforced indefinitely, when there are plenty of people who are willing and able to pay far more in order to live there.
It doesn't solve anything directly, but it's an attack on the prosperity of the people who are maintaining artificial restrictions on new construction.
A laissez-faire approach to both construction and rent would probably be a better option. But that's already not happening, and it's not going to happen without pressuring homeowners and landlords to stop opposing construction.
I'm a renter in Oregon and I've been outspoken about this long before the laws were passed. From my experience, people who support heavy laws, regulations and taxes don't spend enough time considering potential side effects. They feel like with enough support, they can just force anything they want to happen, while completely disregarding the market. I feel like an amount of the general public just wants Big Daddy go…
That’s definitely the general mentality in Portland, so I’m not surprised.
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…
Also 2. Realize that not everybody in the world needs to or should live in the Bay Area/Hollywood. 3. Don't pass statewide laws catering primarily to the group of people aspiring to do so.
Entitlement was never a core tenant (no pun intended) of the American dream.