741–750 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe more people selling property instead of collecting money forever for winning the land lottery 50 years ago it is a good thing.
That would remove rental units from the market and further increase cost of living for folks who can’t purchase. What would be the positive effects?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Landlords who choose to increase rents at the maximum rate permitted each year do so at the risk that they will be undercut by competing property owners who do not do so. Given this, I think that your property management company is offering you bad advice. Most landlords already increase rents at the maximum rate that the market will bear. Capping annual increases at 7% just ensures that in a year when the market wou…
One example I could imagine is that a landlord may not want to raise rents significantly on a long-term reliable tenant, but would want to increase rents when the reliable tenant leaves. “Market price” probably doesn’t include the cost risks of having a nightmare tenant.
(However, your example would still work, if the reliable tenant turns into a nightmare tenant.)
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.
Excluding people from work in productive areas perpetuates poverty.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
True, but if someone is already using it, it's shitty to increase the price that much. It makes it a bait-and-switch: offer for a reasonable price first, and once the family is all settled, jump a massive price increase on them. That's absolutely something that needs to be banned by law.
It's bad behaviour all right, but that doesn't automatically mean a law is the best fix. Tenants could ask for contract terms that forbid such raises. Or, if landlords are not forthcoming, they could take out insurance. And yes, such insurance would need to have its terms written carefully. And it probably doesn't exist as a product at the moment. But eg sponsoring the development of such insurance would be an easier…
If I were a landlord, this just means that rather than charging a higher rent following renovations, I'd have to front load my raising of rent while they were being planned / ongoing. It might become more standard practice to raise rent closer to that limit proactively in the state.
Proponents might argue that's fine--at least it gives a family more time to adjust or move out. In practice, though, it may just make it easier for that family to weather through the first bump and be in an even worse situation when they absolutely can't afford it next time around. They might have been better off moving with more money available when a bigger hike comes later.
But hey, we've never known California to shy away from band-aid legislation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The rent control laws in NYC aren't even nearly as bad as SF, despite how much they get demonized here on HN. In NYC units that might be _actually cheap_, as in rent controlled and not stabilized, number roughly 17k units _in total_. And only about 1/3 of those are significantly below market or in desirable neighborhoods. It's almost insignificant and the number of rent controlled units has gone down by roughly HALF…
I think rent stabilized apartments can go a lot higher than $2700. Lots of luxury buildings are taking tax abatements in exchange for rent stabilization and setting aside a number of rent controlled units.
There's other housing programs like Mitchell-Lama, some that are like what you mentioned, but that's a completely separate thing and a small amount of units. "Rent controlled" and "Rent stabilized" are technical terms in NY.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It doesn't cap total costs, it allows 5% per year increase, it doesn't apply to new homes If you tell everyone that you cannot increase more than 5% a year, this is used as a signal to all landlords to increase 5% a year. It's a coordination mechanism. And it helps hedge for years in which the market rent has increased by more than 5% and the landlord is unable to adjust. A commenter who is a landlord confirmed thi…
New homes being nicer is not a problem. It's good. (See https://www.planetizen.com/blogs/100293-how-filtering-increa... ) It's how we upgrade the national housing stock over time. Landlords already charge as much as the market can bear. Coordination isn't really necessary.
This statement doesn't mean anything.
Consider a game where you try to maximize revenue. You play along with other players with the same goal. If you set your rent too high, other players undercut you. You set the price too low, you leave money on the table. Now consider a rule that says you can at most raise the prices x% a year and the same is true for all players. Now you're anchored to this increase and an equilibrium is more likely to emerge such that every participant increases prices by that amount every year. Much like a minimum wage gives a signal to employers who rely on low cost labor to pay the minimum wage allowed. If you look at distribution of wages, you'll see a huge spike at the minimum as employers essentially use that value to coordinate among themselves.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is still rent control. The problems you see will not be fixed by the law. >I think one could sanely argue that allowing increases of up to 5% plus inflation is a suitable restrictio Based on what data? And no, it's not a 'sane' argument: 1) if 5% + inflation is above market rates then this rent control is either a no-op or detrimental because it may incentivize landlords to hike rent to maximum because they won't…
> [...] because it may incentivize landlords to hike rent to maximum because they won't have have the flexibility to do that in the future if the market changes. Relatively unlikely to have a big impact. Even without such a law they already have an incentive to raise rents as how as possible: profit. Mostly the law should be a no-op. I'm not sure what the argument is for why freedom of contract can't provide the "inc…
Mostly? Uh huh.
Sorry - then why are we wasting time with this law in then? Because OP and supporters certainly don't think it's a no-op. California doesn't think it's a no-op.
>Even without such a law they already have an incentive to raise rents as how as possible: profit.
That is such a shallow, nonsensical argument. By your logic explain why Starbucks isn't charging $5000 for a coffee ... because after all: profit.
I'm sure landlords would love to raise prices to astronomical levels. I'm sure tenants would love to live in the apartment for free. So tell me, why doesn't that happen? Why is it that prices in a market will tend to stable point?
>I'm not sure what the argument is for why freedom of contract can't provide the "increase They can. That's called a 'lease'. It's common.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The building was purchased, "refurbished" and the rent was reset to a very high number. And if someone was willing to pay that number, then that's what the place was worth.
Yea but moving as an individual is stressful and 10x moreso for families. We’re trying to keep people off the streets and from having to make bad decisions without hurting the landlords ability to capitalize on their investment. This is a compromise.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This has been tried in several countries, and it failed miserably. Rent control never worked. In Sweden you have to wait 20 years to get a flat with rent control. The only solution for the people is to increase the offer, how? by deregulating and allowing others to build more.
But this is not what the new bill is about. It doesn't cap total costs, it allows 5% per year increase, it doesn't apply to new homes, etc.
