Didn't We The People Just Vote AGAINST Rent Control? (Yucaipa: apartments, for rent)

[veritased]

Originally Posted by NewbieHere

There should be a temporary law to stop these scammers when there’s a natural disaster like a big happened, but a blanket law is really bad.

Exactly. But California Democrats specialize in BAN IT ... before they can even think about the consequences, or really use any brain cells, they just BAN IT.

[Cinema Cat]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

It limits the annual increase in rent to 7% per year plus the cost of living and expires in 3 years. ...

These things never expire. New York City enacted rent control in the 1943 as a "temporary measure" due to World War Two. It never ended.

In 1942, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Emergency Price Control Act into law. The goal of the act was to prevent inflation in the booming, fully employed wartime economy by setting price controls nationwide. In November 1943, the Office of Price Administration froze New York rents at their March 1, 1943, levels. ...

New York's current rent control program began in 1943. It is the longest-running in the United States. The state of New York took over when federal regulation ended in 1950. ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent_control_in_New_York

[settled00]

Originally Posted by wac_432

This is so un-democratic and against the clear will of the people.
https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/05/...rent-cap-bill/

60% of the population voted against Prop 10, which would have allowed localities to enact targeted rent control laws. Now Sacramento is forcing blanket rent-control on all of us, when the people clearly sent them a message in 2018, that we do not want rent control.

I know, right? Seems like this governor and the previous two do whatever they want to do regardless of the people's vote. It resembles absolute power to me. Is this how they'll run the US administration when/if they take over in 2020? Will California become the proof of concept for the socialists to move it forward to the rest of the states? I personally feel that Trump is our only hope to prevent the rest of the nation from being ran just like California or worse, Venezuela, but that's another thread.

[artillery77]

Originally Posted by Csonka

How so? How is having a manageable rent a bad thing for the renter?

Rent can be managed in two ways. An artificial cap is one way and the way the Democrats are moving forward. It doesn't fix the problem. It makes it worse by stopping further investment.



Investment increases total supply. If you have more supply on the market, prices will fall until the point where it no longer makes sense to produce more residences.



It happens all the time in the commodity markets. The best solution to high oil prices, is high oil prices. The best solution for low oil prices is low oil prices.



The difference is that the government can cap the total units built in an area. If they then also cap the rent that can be paid for an area LL's inherently know that politicians will side with renters as that's where the votes are. There's nothing to also limit property tax increases, or keep input costs at the same level.



In NYC people get stuck in positions where they have to sell unit that would be popular because they take a loss holding them, and as kids of tenants get grandfathered into their parent's rent rates....they realize they will lose money the entire time and not outlive the tenant's generational family to ever see a gain.



If you hold properties already, you stop maintenance work to save costs. You certainly don't invest the time and money to create more....making an imbalance even worse....and keeping people there even more in favor of rent controls. The problem never gets addressed for all people, just the people already in a unit....it becomes a question of who really owns the beneficial rights to a unit.



Best to invest money in markets that look promising and where property rights may be more fully enjoyed.

[CaliRestoration]

Originally Posted by Csonka

How so? How is having a manageable rent a bad thing for the renter?

It's simple economics. Very simple.

I am a supplier of rentals (as of last count, nearly 20 properties across 5 states).

To put it simply, if you make the the business of offering a rental unit into the market (which we'll call the supply of rentals) too difficult for me to make a profit, I'll simply leave the market, and my rentals will no longer be available for you to rent.

That has a downstream effect of making it HARDER for those looking for rentals to actually get one since supply is dwindling and being constrained by government regulation.

Think about this, of all the rent control markets (Los Angeles, New York, etc), have you actually seen the amount of lower end rentals increase or is the competition for the rentals that do hit the market so fierce that they have dozens of applications waiting as soon as they are listed? If you can answer that question honestly, then you know the answer to your original question.

[neutrino78x]

Originally Posted by CaliRestoration

To put it simply, if you make the the business of offering a rental unit into the market (which we'll call the supply of rentals) too difficult for me to make a profit, I'll simply leave the market, and my rentals will no longer be available for you to rent.

That has a downstream effect of making it HARDER for those looking for rentals to actually get one since supply is dwindling and being constrained by government regulation.

I agree with you on this. However, you might not support my idea: I would ban all new construction of single family homes in large cities. Any time a residential building is demolished, it must be replaced with another residential building that houses at least three times as many people.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by neutrino78x

I agree with you on this. However, you might not support my idea: I would ban all new construction of single family homes in large cities. Any time a residential building is demolished, it must be replaced with another residential building that houses at least three times as many people.

Great. Do we get to rename the city Sardinecania too?

[mysticaltyger]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

It limits the annual increase in rent to 7% per year plus the cost of living and expires in 3 years. It also exempts anyone who has fewer than 10 single family homes for rent and properties that are less than 10 years old- and it expires in 3 years. This came about due to the greed of landlords who doubled and tripled rent after the Paradise fire when residents of that town were displaced. Oregon has a similar law and there is no indication that landlords are going broke because of it.

What about the greed of NIMBYs and bureaucrats who block every attempt to build housing? The best way to keep greed in check is to build more housing. Even liberal media outlets are admitting it:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/17/u...ng-crisis.html

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by mysticaltyger

What about the greed of NIMBYs and bureaucrats who block every attempt to build housing? The best way to keep greed in check is to build more housing. Even liberal media outlets are admitting it:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/17/u...ng-crisis.html

And what about the lack of rational analysis of those who believe the answers to societies’ problem are always to grow? Rather than put our minds and efforts toward the incentivizing of reducing populations - we just blindly continue crapping our nests.

“Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell.” - Edward Abbey

[ysr_racer]

Originally Posted by CaliRestoration

To put it simply, if you make the the business of offering a rental unit into the market (which we'll call the supply of rentals) too difficult for me to make a profit, I'll simply leave the market, and my rentals will no longer be available for you to rent.

Please don't bring logic and reason to an Internet discussion about California