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.
If the Feds or states want low cost rents then they should pay for it, not the property owners.
Rent control lowers property values, causes the landlord to not care for the property and forced a private citizen to provide welfare when they don't want to.
Time to end rent control.
I take it you are a home/apartment house owner and not a renter. Paying more rent doesn't guarantee better service. And when you don't get service some slumlord tell you - if you don't like it move.
Yes, stop rent control and have tenants work for the owner trying to meet their rent every month or have families double up in a 2 bedroom apartment so that they can put a roof over their head, but that can't happen because that would be illegal. Raise the rent on a $1,500 a month apartment to $3,000. Stop rent control so those living on fixed income can find themselves homeless because they can't afford double the rent imposed.
Well, I can understand both sides of the issue. But, it would be an atrocity if the Supreme Court ruled that New York City's rent control laws are unconstitutional. The Supreme Court simply should not have any jurisdiction in the matter. It is a city/county/state issue, and the federal government has a very narrow mandate, and should not be able to deal with issues beyond that.
As for rent control. It really isn't about economics. Rents will float based on what people are willing to pay. If you have rent control, then you are artificially lowering the price of rents, which suppresses the value of real estate. If the real estate value is depressed, then you have less incentive for investment. The lower prices tends to attract people whom can afford the low rate(which tends to be the poorer, who tend to have higher crime rates).
Basically, rent control does more to weaken the economy, and to draw in criminals, than it actually does to raise up anyones quality of life.
But if New York wants to do it, it should be their right. And I'll be disappointed if the Supreme Court tries to abuse the commerce clause again to push their own ideologies.
If the Feds or states want low cost rents then they should pay for it, not the property owners.
Rent control lowers property values, causes the landlord to not care for the property and forced a private citizen to provide welfare when they don't want to.
Time to end rent control.
That's a simplistic view on a very complicated issue. Cities like NYC can't just scrap things like rent control and run working class people out of the city. The city needs a large number of low skilled laborers that can afford to live in the city on low incomes. They're the life blood of the city. Add that to the people on fixed incomes, and it would be a disaster.
Stopping rent control will put countless people on fixed incomes out on the street.
Not out on the street necessarily. They'll just have to rent somewhere else, where they can afford the rent.
Rent is just going to go up, that is the real world. And it will go up faster in places that people find desirable.
I would love to live in Manhattan, in trump tower, 30th floor, overlooking central park. I want the government to force "The Donald" to give me cheap rent, because otherwise I won't be able to afford to live there.... That is effectively the nature of rent control.
That's a simplistic view on a very complicated issue. Cities like NYC can't just scrap things like rent control and run working class people out of the city. The city needs a large number of low skilled laborers that can afford to live in the city on low incomes. They're the life blood of the city. Add that to the people on fixed incomes, and it would be a disaster.
The question is, what would actually happen if rent control was abolished tomorrow? You are right, NYC needs low-paid laborers for all its shops and restaurants that are everywhere there. And you are again right, if they repealed rent control, the cost of renting would tend to go up. But how would the higher rents affect low-paid laborers?
If the laborers were no longer able to live in the city because of high rents, and couldn't afford to commute to work every day. Then the restaurants in NYC would either go out of business from lack of labor, or they would have to compensate their employees more, since they would have to commute from further(and prices in NYC would go up as a result). Thus potentially making NYC less attractive to begin with, thus suppressing rent prices back to lower levels because of less demand for people renting there.
The question in this situation is, who actually benefits and who actually pays as a result of rent control(government regulation).
If there was no rent control and markets were allowed to work, then the cost of high rents in a sense would be paid by everyone. But when government regulation comes in and controls rents. The costs of the rent control are generally transferred to a smaller group of people in disproportionate ways, usually for the benefit of another small group of people. And that is a problem.
That's a simplistic view on a very complicated issue. Cities like NYC can't just scrap things like rent control and run working class people out of the city. The city needs a large number of low skilled laborers that can afford to live in the city on low incomes. They're the life blood of the city. Add that to the people on fixed incomes, and it would be a disaster.
That's not what will happen. There is simply not enough demand to make all of NYC unaffordable rent wise. Although rent stabilized folks in prime neighborhoods would most likely have to relocate to cheaper areas of the city. No one is entitled to live in Manhattan below 96th Street.
So did SCOTUS actually take the case? We were talking about this on the NYC boards a few months ago and folks seemed to think the case wouldn't be taken.
That's not what will happen. There is simply not enough demand to make all of NYC unaffordable rent wise. Although rent stabilized folks in prime neighborhoods would most likely have to relocate to cheaper areas of the city. No one is entitled to live in Manhattan below 96th Street.
Rent control and rent stabilization are two different matters. If they can do away with rent control the next step would be doing away with rent stabilization.
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.
