Didn't We The People Just Vote AGAINST Rent Control? (San Francisco: cheap apartments, rentals)

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by CaliRestoration

Let me help you. It doesn't. It actually hurts a lot more than it helps in the long or short run.

Thanks anyway, but I really don't need your help

[InchingWest]

Originally Posted by Des-Lab

So what? It's a one party rule state.

It's illegal. Go ahead. Whatcha gonna do about it?

Good luck finding a politician or attorney that will both back you and have the clout to stop this.

Rent Control = "Socialism for thee, but not for me".

How many people sitting on big city rent control boards own rental properties? My guess is that they all do.

And how many of them are subjected to it? Probably none, so they benefit from the unbalanced demand/supply windfall that results.

There's a reason why nearly every law written in the past several decades applies to some people but not to others, or more specifically to some arbitrary circumstances/thresholds, but not others.

And to think that they won't allow the building of more units to satiate market demand even in the face of a crushing housing shortage and a homelessness crisis.

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by payutenyodagimas

then that should be the time Sec 8 comes in, not control rent

There's no section 8 available for them. There are a limited number of vouchers and that number is being reduced again next year. The section 8 list here in Sac County is closed now, it was open several months ago and 44,000 people applied, 7,000 of them were chosen at random to be put on a waitlist for a voucher, it wll probably be 5 years before they open it again.

And now that people are being priced out of the bay area, people are moving to Sacramento and commuting so the rental market is super tight and very few landlords will even consider a section 8 voucher any more.

I don't have any answers, it seems to be a growing problem without a solution.

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by InchingWest

Rent Control = "Socialism for thee, but not for me".

How many people sitting on big city rent control boards own rental properties? My guess is that they all do.
And how many of them are subjected to it? Probably none, so they benefit from the unbalanced demand/supply windfall that results.
And to think that they won't allow the building of more units to satiate market demand even in the face of a crushing housing shortage and a homelessness crisis.

In urban areas there isn't a lot of land to build on, and there is still an unmet demand for expensive housing, so if you are a builder - are you willing to build 100 low income apartments that rent for $1500 a month or would you prefer to build 50 luxury condos that rent for $4,000 a month? That problem exists even in areas with plenty of room to build on, I'm in Sacramento and you know what's being built here? $450,000 SFH's which represent a huge bargain to SF Bay area refugees, but that leaves the 'indigent population' who work at Amazon warehouse or at some lower paid State job with nowhere to live, what do you suggest, should we forbid the construction of more rabbit warren subdivisions until the demand for lower income apartments is met?

[CaliRestoration]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

Thanks

You're welcome.

[SOON2BNSURPRISE]

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.

Sadly the state does not normally end legislation. I am guessing that 3 year window will go on for ever.

[SOON2BNSURPRISE]

Rent control does not solve the problem. Allowing developers to build properties is how you solve the problem. Demand is already there. Supply, not so much. Does not much matter what the rent is if the supply hasn't increased.

One way to reduce the number of rentals is to pass rent control laws. That is a great incentive for an owner to sell off the apartments as condos. Tell me how many of the renters are in a position to buy their current apartment?

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by SOON2BNSURPRISE

Rent control does not solve the problem. Allowing developers to build properties is how you solve the problem. Demand is already there. Supply, not so much. Does not much matter what the rent is if the supply hasn't increased.

One way to reduce the number of rentals is to pass rent control laws. That is a great incentive for an owner to sell off the apartments as condos. Tell me how many of the renters are in a position to buy their current apartment?

Developers can certainly build where I live (Sacramento) but they sure as heck aren't building anything that is affordable for most hourly workers. As long as there is an unmet demand for expensive housing, that is what builders will construct, they aren't charities, they won't build cheap apartments when they can build expensive ones - why would they? It certainly doesn't look like the City or the County are being 'stingy' with building permits, there are at least 185 new home communities in the County. The problem is the lack of affordable rentals, and there is no incentive for a builder to construct them when they can make more building SFH's or expensive apartments or condos.
https://www.newhomesource.com/commun...caAmXqEALw_wcB

[Bill the Butcher]

Where did Des-Lab's rant go?

[NewbieHere]

I’ve been raising rent in anticipation of rent control . But 7% is what I like to have, since I only raised 3%.