Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well..i'm guessing you're saying price controls would cause a shortage in rental housing like how gas price controls caused a shortage in gasoline.
There would be ways of resolving this issue. For one, the government could step in and undertake massive building projects to increase the supply.
Rofl. I guess you missed out on the whole federal housing projects thing that happened in the 50's - 60's. They were a complete disaster. The vast majority of them have been torn down.
Buddy, you don't understand real estate, leave it to people that do.
Well let's see. Today I patched a roof till I can get set to reroof, at a cost of thousands. I got my housekeeper lined up so tomorrow we can scrub and clean a house the tenants left a filthy mess. Oh yes they lost their deposit, it will cover maybe half the damages.
Then I sprayed weeds at four properties. Got the tools together to start welding a fence addition to keep the drug scum in the area of my apts from getting to my tenants cars - which I pay for floodlights and cameras.
Then I swept the common areas. Tonight I worked on the thousands of property taxes I have to pay, vertified the waster, sewer, trash and insurance is paid.
Tomorrow morning I'll be heading to the range for my weekly gunfighting training - because tenants, after they wreck your property, sell drugs from it, fail to pay their rent and cost you money to evict - then they hate you and sometimes want to KILL you, because just ruining the carpet, kicking holes in the walls and stealing isn't enough.
OP - my apts are for sale BTW. I will make you a heck of a deal! Then you can let everyone live free and clean up their garbage, and hope they don't shoot you.
And maybe in 30 years, if the tenants don't burn the place down by illegally smoking, you too will be able to retire..
Let's say you magically have totally free markets in your area. No zoning at all. Do you imagine that people with low incomes and sub-par credit will be able to outbid developers for the available land and build their 300 SF dream home? Not hardly. The developers would immediately buy up all the land and build places for the same prices as they current are building. They'd be thrilled and you'd still be renting.
Of course not. Both for-profit and non-profit developers would buy property; the for-profit developers would provide unaffordable housing and the non-profit developers would provide affordable housing, but I would expect a modest expansion of affordable housing options.
I want a free market in housing, which would result in more development and therefore increased supply and increase competition. Isn't that the American Way?
When did NIMBY and no/slow/smart growth take over?
There is a finite amount of desirable land to build housing. That property is going to the highest bidder who will in turn charge the highest rent the market will bear. The competition will be in better amenities, not lower price. Landlords are not running a charity.
Before I explain my idea, I want to say that I am a democratic socialist who supports Bernie Sanders' campaign.
Right now, there are certain apartments within communities that are rent-controlled. But rent-controlled apartments only comprise a small percent of the total rental housing market in any given city.
Why not extend rent control to encompass the entire rental market? It would mean that the rich landlords have to make do with less and the average American would have more money to spend on other goods and services, which would spread money around the economy, and allow increased savings, which leads to more investment. What are the downsides of a rent-control policy that is all-inclusive?
uhm...
property taxes go up every year
costs to fix/repair/replace items within a renatl, go up every year
heck a gallon of paint which was only 9.99 a decade or two ago, is not 26.00 ON SALE
NYC has the most " rent controlled" units. It depends on the size and age of the building as well as continuous occupancy going back to the 70's. As I understand it, these buildings recieve tax breaks which partially offset below market rental income.
Such units account for less than 2% of rental units in the city. A rent controlled building may be next door to a building where space is selling for $3000/ sq foot.
In some cases, rights have been passed on to subsequent generations, regardless of means.
Rent control is not the same thing as rent stabilized or other subsidized rental arrangements in the city.
While I never knew anyone who owned a building with some rent controlled units, I knew a few people who were grandfathered into rent controlled units they grew up in and they were not remotely low income.
Charlie Rangel owns a few rent-controlled apartments in NY. He uses them as offices. That is an abuse of the system.
Rofl. I guess you missed out on the whole federal housing projects thing that happened in the 50's - 60's. They were a complete disaster. The vast majority of them have been torn down.
Buddy, you don't understand real estate, leave it to people that do.
Doesn't that depend on WHO moves into that housing? Couldn't that be structured to keep out the lowlifes and let in better people?
I think public housing went down the drain in the '60s when Congress let in the welfare class WHO WERE PREVIOUSLY EXCLUDED BY MINIMUM INCOME REQUIREMENTS.
It should be something you EARN - just like you have to EARN a Social Security retirement benefit.
Please remember that landlords look at tenants as suckers and the dregs of society. They don't mind making money from their investment but when it comes to meeting their obligations then they blame the tenant. As bad as they claim being a landlord is you don't see them selling out do you?
Rents continue to skyrocket because there is no control. There are many seniors and whole families who are living in their cars or on the street because of these American profiteers. Most of the homeless are there because of a defunct government and an economy that serves only the rich.
I firmly believe that rent control is our only option. LL's, if you don't like it then sell out and invest in something where you can't hurt anyone.
There is nothing wrong with making a reasonable and sustainable profit, but today "reasonable and sustainable" have been replaced with a scorched earth policy.
Please do not pretend to speak for any of the landlords out there. Sure, some of the less-ethical ones view tenants as suckers, but I can assure you that the majority of us do not hold that view.
We do get to deal with some of the dregs of society if that is the market we work in. Low-income people need housing as much as upper-income people do. Those, like me, who serve that segment of the population are the ones usually scraping by. We're also finding ourselves repairing things that should never be broken, dealing with calls from code enforcement officers about tenants' messes and their effect on the neighborhood, etc. I'm having to completely renovate a house because of the damage one tenant caused. This is going to set my company back a long time. Between taxes, insurance and normal maintenance, we might get to the break-even point in about 5 years. Maybe some of us landlords are the suckers.
Don't get me wrong, the landlording business can be rewarding. But, don't speak for all of us or assume we light Cuban cigars with hundred dollar bills.
Rents tend to skyrocket more because of an increase in the demand for upper-end apartmetns and high-end amenities. One high-rise building can skew the average rate of rent in a smaller city. Charlotte is a perfect example of higher-end apartments skewing the average rent. We have over 10,000 units under construction with another 10,000 approved and ready to be built. Many of these are downtown or in desirable areas. Rents are well over $1,000/month, some quite a bit higher than that. This has contributed greatly to our average rent, referenced in an earlier graphic, reaching $900+ per month for a one-bedroom apartment. These buildings would not be built if the demand for them wasn't there. Who is to blame here? The landlord or the consumer?
I am a Democrat and I am very much against Rent Control. I think it does more harm than good to the housing market because it either makes it not worth it to build new housing thus creating a limitation on housing which causes market rate housing to climb, thus making the need for more rent controlled units to grow even though developers don't want to build something they will probably lose money on.
I am however for cities and counties putting on programs that either lease apartments or builds their own apartments that allow them to build for lower and middle incomes. I think the mistakes that have been made with public housing in the past has been the concentration of units and the poor handling of such units. A city or county program would have to handle living units the same way a developer handles their units.
Though I think the best form of rent control is to push for higher wages across the board so that no one is left behind and that a income wage gap isn't increased.
You don't want governments getting involved with individual real estate development or property management. It doesn't work.
Just say you support Section 42 housing (which actually works).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
