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.
They often are under rent control and/or stabilization.
Often?!?!? Only four states have any locations with rent control - California, Maryland, New Jersey, and New York, along with parts of DC. Just FYI, 35 states have laws, regulations, or statutes that specifically do not allow communities to adopt rent control policies.
Yes, because renters are a powerless minority in every state except CA and NY.
Outside those two states, whenever local grumblings of rent control emerge, alarmed landlords run to their legislature for a statewide ban, which usually prevents future grumblings.
I have never known, after 30 years in this business, of a PAC or coalition of Landlords that has the strength to affect State laws. Are you the owner of a rental property or just extremely jealous? Renting properties is a business just like any other.....Should the government regulate the price of a MacDonald's burger? Actually, the general market aka FREE MARKET does a fine job of setting rental rates.
If there is rent control, how does the property owner manage paying the ever increasing taxes and insurance? My rent increases typically just cover those increased amounts. There is no rent control in my area.
All income must be proven.
They struggle to.
I have a friend whose great-grandfather owned a building in the city (Manhattan). Store front and several stories of rental units above. All rent controlled when his grandfather took over the building, and FF a minimum of 60+ years? Still rent controlled.
The "family" eventually put their own business in the store front - his grandfather did, it's now run by the 3rd generation (my friend), and it has done and still does very well...but it's not supposed to make up for the lack of rent vs. expenses to keep a pre-war building up to code. For other people to live in and enjoy. For next to nothing in rent and compared to what it costs to live in the same sized apartment a few blocks over and up/down in an non-rent controlled building.
And apparently, 90% of the tenants were "grandfathered" in to their grandparents rent rates. Thankfully that has changed,slowly, and over time...but the rent is still nowhere near present day market value & for the same in a non-rent controlled building in the same neighborhood.
He has mentioned that the city does give a break in the property taxes due to the fact that it is a rent controlled building.
All I know is what I have heard him complain about & hire lawyers for over the past 15 years.
Bottom line seems to be that the city ends up with folks who can't afford to live in the city while they demand that "the city" should do more for them. So they can live in a city that they can't afford live in when they walk out of their "rent controlled" apartment.
So much common sense going on there.
Last edited by Informed Info; 09-15-2016 at 11:15 PM..
Often?!?!? Only four states have any locations with rent control - California, Maryland, New Jersey, and New York, along with parts of DC. Just FYI, 35 states have laws, regulations, or statutes that specifically do not allow communities to adopt rent control policies.
I was sure it was a majority of states, but didn't know exactly how many - thank you for the info.
That does not surprise me one bit; the usual scenario works like this:
Somewhere, at some time, local rents skyrocket --> alarmed renters start talking about rent control --> alarmed landlords RUN to their buddies in the legislature for a statewide ban --> legislators know where campaign dollars come from, and give landlords what they want.
Simple as that. To pass rent control locally requires a supermajority of renters large enough to deliver enough votes, plus some crisis that causes sustained panic or outrage in renters. A number of local rent controls were passed in California after Prop 13 passed and the rent reductions promised by Prop 13 supporters did not materialize.
Detroit voters qualified a rent control initiative for the 1988 general election ballot, but landlords got the legislature to pass a statewide ban so fast that the initiative did not reach the ballot.
Two years later, the incumbent Democrat governor lost in a squeaker, with a poor vote total in Detroit. Served him right.
FWIW, since I consider rent control (price control) and zoning (supply control) opposite sides of the same regulatory coin, I believe states should either ALLOW BOTH LOCALLY or PROHIBIT BOTH LOCALLY. As we can obviously see, legislatures have taken sides and picked winners and losers, with an tilted playing field.
I have a friend whose great-grandfather owned a building in the city (Manhattan). Store front and several stories of rental units above. All rent controlled when his grandfather took over the building, and FF a minimum of 60+ years? Still rent controlled.
The "family" eventually put their own business in the store front - his grandfather did, it's now run by the 3rd generation (my friend), and it has done and still does very well...but it's not supposed to make up for the lack of rent vs. expenses to keep a pre-war building up to code. For other people to live in and enjoy. For next to nothing in rent and compared to what it costs to live in the same sized apartment a few blocks over and up/down in an non-rent controlled building.
And apparently, 90% of the tenants were "grandfathered" in to their grandparents rent rates. Thankfully that has changed,slowly, and over time...but the rent is still nowhere near present day market value & for the same in a non-rent controlled building in the same neighborhood.
He has mentioned that the city does give a break in the property taxes due to the fact that it is a rent controlled building.
All I know is what I have heard him complain about & hire lawyers for over the past 15 years.
Bottom line seems to be that the city ends up with folks who can't afford to live in the city while they demand that "the city" should do more for them. So they can live in a city that they can't afford live in when they walk out of their "rent controlled" apartment.
So much common sense going on there.
New York - city and state - are a peculiar case because they have a staggering proportion of renters. NYC rent control was a product of housing shortages during WW II, and when returning troops kept the housing shortage going, rent control was extended. Landlords were never able to get a statewide rent control ban passed because NYC has had sufficient legislative power to block it, even though the State Senate was in Republican control for decades.
I was sure it was a majority of states, but didn't know exactly how many - thank you for the info.
That does not surprise me one bit; the usual scenario works like this:
Somewhere, at some time, local rents skyrocket --> alarmed renters start talking about rent control --> alarmed landlords RUN to their buddies in the legislature for a statewide ban --> legislators know where campaign dollars come from, and give landlords what they want.
Simple as that. To pass rent control locally requires a supermajority of renters large enough to deliver enough votes, plus some crisis that causes sustained panic or outrage in renters. A number of local rent controls were passed in California after Prop 13 passed and the rent reductions promised by Prop 13 supporters did not materialize.
Detroit voters qualified a rent control initiative for the 1988 general election ballot, but landlords got the legislature to pass a statewide ban so fast that the initiative did not reach the ballot.
Two years later, the incumbent Democrat governor lost in a squeaker, with a poor vote total in Detroit. Served him right.
FWIW, since I consider rent control (price control) and zoning (supply control) opposite sides of the same regulatory coin, I believe states should either ALLOW BOTH LOCALLY or PROHIBIT BOTH LOCALLY. As we can obviously see, legislatures have taken sides and picked winners and losers, with an tilted playing field.
The rental agreement is a contract and if both parties honor it, there should not be a problem! I get rid of tenants who don't hold up their end of the contract. Its just that simple.
That does not surprise me one bit; the usual scenario works like this:
Somewhere, at some time, local rents skyrocket --> alarmed renters start talking about rent control --> alarmed landlords RUN to their buddies in the legislature for a statewide ban --> legislators know where campaign dollars come from, and give landlords what they want.
Simple as that. To pass rent control locally requires a supermajority of renters large enough to deliver enough votes, plus some crisis that causes sustained panic or outrage in renters. A number of local rent controls were passed in California after Prop 13 passed and the rent reductions promised by Prop 13 supporters did not materialize.
Detroit voters qualified a rent control initiative for the 1988 general election ballot, but landlords got the legislature to pass a statewide ban so fast that the initiative did not reach the ballot.
As it should be. It's my property.
My husband and I worked hard, scrimping and saving, to buy our first house, a little 800 sq ft 3 bedroom, 1 bath cottage that was a nasty, broken pig sty, including a poop filled toilet and cat urine soaked ripped carpet. We worked on it for months after work and on weekends. A lot of sweat equity went into that place. When we were transferred and couldn't sell it in what turned into a sluggish housing market we had no choice but to rent it out. We ended up doing this at every post we went to that we knew we'd be stationed more than a year. We earned our property, none of it came for free. Why should you get the fruit of my hard labor? That belongs to me.
If you want to decide how much should be charged for renting a piece of property buy your own little essentially condemned property and fix it up. HUD still has renovation programs for the low income that only require you to personally occupy the property for two years.
__________________
When I post in bold red that is moderator action and, per the TOS, can only be discussed through Direct Message.
All you are doing there is teaching the applicants what to lie to you about, unless the requirement that you are posting is something that you can verify independently.
My ads all say "non-smoking house and grounds" and I still get about 30% of applicants who are smokers. Most of them stink of tobacco but lie about being a smoker. You warned them that you don't want more than 5 people, so your applicants will simply tell you that it is 4 of them and then after the lease is signed the additional 2 will sneak in.
You've told them how much income they need to claim they are earning. You've told them to hide the purple couch-- they aren't getting rid of it, they will move it in after the lease is signed. You've told them to not tell you that they keep the dog chained outdoors.
You can put in your credit score requirement, but from experience I can tell you for certain that the majority of tenants don't have a clue what their credit score is. At least that is a requirement that you can verify.
Maybe you can verify 3 years on the job, maybe you can't. A lot of businesses will refuse to give you any information at all. Some of them won't even verify that the applicant works for them, let alone how much they earn or how long they have been there.
Felonies you can check on, but all of a sudden, the felony thing might be considered discrimination (keep up with Fair Housing rulings)
You can say "no section 8" and they will still come and waste your time and not tell you that they are Section 8 until after you hand them the application. My local housing authority trains their clients to never say they have Section 8. They are taught to go and charm the landlord and at the very last section to say that their rent is guaranteed by "housing works".
I don't think you are saving yourself any work and you certainly are not being any more ethical than anyone else.
I love how you paint tenants as liars, scumbags or idiots. Not all of us are dishonest. Not all of us leave a mess. Not all of us want to waste OUR time and effort. Personally I like the ads that give a lot of detail about what will qualify/disqualify because I am an honest person and don't want to waste my time OR the LLs time. I know my income, I know my credit score, I will not lie about the number of people or pets that will live there.
So while there are some liars and cheats (as there are in ANY business), there are also honest, hardworking people who just want a nice place to live.
I love how you paint tenants as liars, scumbags or idiots. Not all of us are dishonest........... .
No, of course, not all tenants are liars and scum bags. But the good honest tenants are usually already in a rental and not moving because they are not being evicted. Their landlord wants to keep them, so they aren't out applying for a new rental.
I get a few decent people applying and I pick a tenant from those few. But in addition, I get up to 150 other people calling who can't meet the requirements. At least 30, or even more, of them will still apply, I assume they think I am lying to them about checking their credit and references. Easily 1/3 of them, and often more, will lie about who their current landlord is and will deny ever having a prior landlord. A dozen of them will lie about how much they earn or even about where they work.
Several will try to sneak in a breed of dog that I don't allow. All of them will lie about their credit report. Or else they think that 19 collections from assorted consumer debt is going to count as a medical emergency and they consider that to be a good credit report.
Maybe 1/3 oft them lie about smoking (but those might be the same ones who lie about their current landlord.) Several of them will lie about their criminal record. Most of them lie about why they are moving.
A few of them are so filthy dirty that they can't possibly have bathed within the past month.
Normal people tend to think that most people are pretty decent. Landlords and policemen learn differently. The world is full of lying, cheating, law bending, self-serving scum bags. Normal honest people don't come into contact with them that much, or else they don't learn enough about them to know how dishonest they are.
If you think that everyone is nice and everyone is honest, you are going to meet some disappointment at some point in your life.
By the way, it isn't unusual for me to see someone I rejected on the news a few months later, being arrested for drug dealing or assault. I've got nice places, but even scum hopes to live in a nice place, so they try to trick their way in.
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.
Not all of us are dishonest. Not all of us leave a mess. Not all of us want to waste OUR time and effort. Personally I like the ads that give a lot of detail about what will qualify/disqualify because I am an honest person and don't want to waste my time OR the LLs time. I know my income, I know my credit score, I will not lie about the number of people or pets that will live there. 
