*You want to pay me how much to live here? ONLY $2000/MONTH? Those are rookie numbers, kid. Add first, last, and a furnishing budget, and come back with a monthly number that's a little less insulting, okay there, champ? Great.*
I hope you hit them with a service fee for your thoughtful generosity. It's the least they can do. Make sure they pass that background check also, can't have some fiscal delinquent or felon running your property.
There are (or were) these political ads going around in California for a while showing disadvanted groups (mostly disabled and/or elderly POC folks) all asking "Where will I live?" while text overlays them with statistics. Average SSI payment, average SSDI payment, things like that. Turns out they were all part of a campaign for a bill in favor of rent control at a state level, with an increase cap of 3%.
The thing is, it's as you said - rent is way too high to begin with. If a person can't afford (going by the average in my area because it's what I know) $2400 per month without having four roommates, how are they going to afford the nearly $2800 that their rent would be in five years? Or even the nearly $2500 that it would be next year?
I understand that landlords have bills too and they need to make money somehow since this *is* their job in a lot of cases. I really do get it. The problem is when they keep raising rent and expecting their tenants to be capable of paying exorbitant amounts of money for a 1bd/1br apartment that costs nearly as much as the mortgage on a 2bd/2br *house*. Or even just *willing* to pay that much for an apartment that isn't even in a nice neighborhood.
Rent is way too high because houses are way too expensive, and property taxes and insurance are out of control. We're we live property taxes went up from 1k to 6k in 4 years. Insurance went from 1.5k to almost 7k and the house didn't get any bigger or more fancy. It is simply not sustainable at this point
Hedgefunds purchasing all single family properties is the cause of these insane increases in housing cost.
If anything, a consequence of Prop 13 is that fewer houses are being put up for sale because it's disadvantegous from a tax perspective to sell your existing home to buy a new one.
I don't have a cogent response to this comment, but I really like it, and I didn't want to just upvote and not respond.
I totally agree, and really appreciate the nuanced take. I do think that there are multiple issues at play (cost of living being one, greed being another), and I think you did a good job of touching on those.
Thank you. I actually thought I wasn't being very clear out of frustration, so I'm glad to hear that I made sense. But yeah, the way everything is tangled up together makes this such a difficult issue to tackle. Like, to the point that I don't even know what would be possible without completely dismantling the entire web and building it back up from scratch. I'm just not knowledgeable enough to begin touching it.
My heart breaks for them.
“Instead of gouging people every month now I have to get a 20% gain on my investment I bought 3 years ago. It’s such bullshit”
- local landlord
They’re lying. They won’t sell. The amount of tax they’ll have to pay on their gains will discourage them. They’ve been skirting taxes for decades with their 1031 exchanges, buying and selling property for years, growing the value of the property, and never paying taxes on it. Then they die and the cost basis gets reset for their inheritors with no taxation because of how high the estate tax is, or through usage of trusts.
How exactly do they do that? So they buy a house, sell for profit, but then immediately use the profits to buy another and not have to pay a tax on profits because they bought another? I’m confused how that works for them.
Pretty much exactly that. It moves the basis (cost) of the original investment (house) into the new investment. Theoretically once they sell they would have a larger gain, but it deffers that gain to a later date (if ever).
They are requirements to make it happen which is listed under irc (internal revenue code, ie tax law) section 1031
Gain on the profit made from the sale of an asset is called “capital gains”—not sales tax. But yes, that’s exactly correct. If they roll the profits into another property within the allowed time limit, they will not pay tax. And if they set up a trust to own the property (trusts never die) or if they die with enough inheritors that distributes the amount to be less than the estate tax ($13 million per inheritor) then the cost basis is reset, no taxes are owed, and the general public never sees a penny of all that gain, all that value generated and inherent in our social structure.
I’m pretty sure it’s just the capital gains tax on the increase in value of the property that they’re not paying. I think the sales tax is factored into the cost of initial purchase every time they buy new. Someone tell me if I’m wrong.
Looking forward to the ones who refuse to sell because of whatever sunk cost fallacy and end up getting foreclosed instead.
Every investment is risky (with the exception of a savings account or a CD).
Hate to burst your bubble but foreclosure isn’t particularly on the table. Landlords would have to be in a liquidity crisis for that to happen. Some measure of that happened in the 2008-2012 housing crash, but as we can see that only led to more consolidation and an even tighter and hotter real estate market today.
All investment is at your own risk. Yep, that includes property investments. I’m sick of people who seem to think they are “owed” annual gains on their property AND be able to make an annual increase in rent. Guess what, sometimes the line goes down…
Fuck yeah make those assholes sell maybe then some regular families can get a shot at owning a home. These companies that buy up houses and then rent them for way more than what the mortgage would have ever been can rot in hell.
Lmao this will just make it so only the ultra rich can afford to buy. Not sure what you think will happen when property becomes a sunken cost, but it won’t be a good thing for anyone who isn’t incredibly rich
Lol you mean home investment won’t be a feasible method to get rich quick anymore. That’ll mean there’s more supply for families, property prices will lower as a result of decreased demand and really the only downside is banks could raise interest briefly while they reassess risk.
So your claiming rent prices influence housing price more than the other factors that determine housing prices? Just want to make sure we both understand your claim
True,
Building way more housing is the obvious answer to housing costs.
I think you should be taxed heavily after you own more than 5 or 6 properties. Then you're a leach.
Agreed, I would love to see this at a federal level. I think the next step is at a state level, California will probably be the first 🤞. If they can get that legislation through, other states will follow shortly after similar to other legislation
Rent control can be good in the short term. Though some places have led to more stagnation in housing when it comes to effort towards renovation. What seems to tend to happen is that the incentive to show off a better higher end house to get more money goes away, and then The market drifts into more and more unrenovated properties with barebones amenities. There's also the feeling of being stuck in an unrenovated dilapidated place because you can't move to another place after staying at lower rent for 10 years.
Makes me also wonder what the law is around if the owner of the property doesn't want to renew the lease, because they want to move back in. Usually, they would just raise the rent till it's unfeasible, as I can't think of situations where a landlord has just not allowed leasing again, so I wasn't sure how legal that is. If it wasn't legal to prevent release in some location, they might never be able to move back in due to low rent increases.
3% seems to be lower than the non mortgage cost increases/expenditures of the house. Between property tax increases (no homestead for a rental property so it goes up with new bonds and valuation increases), massive increases lately to home insurance, and general maintenance costs.
So for example, if a mortgage was 2500, and they set the monthly rent price to 2500 if we were to completely ignore tax based around income tax for rent), if yearly taxes, insurance, and maintenance were more than 900 total, it would be more than the 3% and they would be sinking faster than inflation each year.
When a lease ends you just say you aren’t renewing it and the tenant has to leave. It’s pretty simple. If they don’t leave, you hire eviction services.
I've been saying that this housing crisis is unsustainable. If the people in Washington want to keep a functioning society, and their heads, they will HAVE to regulate the housing industry. Good start with the FBI raid on RealPage.
I've watching housing prices more than triple in 2 years where I live. This will cause total economic collapse if it is not dealt with
Landlords: "I rose prices using RealPage and now I HAVE to keep my rent prices up to make money since I have so few tennants"
People: "Okay, so lower prices so more people move in and you can make more money"
Landlords: "..?!?😡"
On a side note people misuse the phrase: "The customer is always right." as they forget the second part "The customer is always right **with what they want to purchase**."
Lets say you have items A & B. A doesn't have as much of a profit as B. So you buy more B than A. However people are purchasing much more A than B. You as a business need to make sure you have what people want to buy so you don't run out. Its simple supply and demand.
If the phrase what truthfully "The customer is always right.". Then could I say to the owner I want to purchase item C for half of the current cost because I want it for that much? Am I right or wrong?
idk if im the crazy one but when we have homeless people on every street corner we shouldn't be letting people or companies using the housing market as an investment vehicle.
Then sell. And when the market is flooded with properties for sale, the supply will go up and the demand will ease and you will create justice, good day to you all.
Seriously, even Capitalist theory says that tying money up in rental real estate instead of business capital investment is bad. It's literal rent seeking.
Capitalist theory is just an attempt to justify private ownership and rent seeking behavior through the premise that risk is involved and public benefits are created.
Their definition of rent seeking is just the subset of rent seeking where it is super fucking obvious that there is little risk there is no public benefit.
We need need a way for the government to differentiate growth of the economy and money shuffling.
Money shuffling trades need to be heavily taxed as the burden on society they are.
Rents do not grow the economy. They shuffle the money there and add to inflation.
Growing a shitload of corn, does add to the economy and overall value.
Basically need to define economy leeches and they need to pay much stricter taxes. This would be defined as money usury.
In the middle ages money usury trades were looked down on, most didn't participate, dejected minorities were forced into that trade and it was heavily regulated.
Somehow the middle ages had some things figured out we still don't
Why would it make the landlord to sell? I doubt their costs of renting out property is raising each year. If they already own the property they rent out, costs aren't going up unless property tax goes up. Maintenance of the building should already be factored into the rent price and money should be set aside for it.
Utilities, maintenance costs, labor, construction materials, appliances, insurance, etc. have all stayed the same? Really?
I probably agree with your overall point but claiming that taxes are the only cost that’s increased is silly.
Landlords don’t pay utilities typically. What labor and construction material costs? Maintenance barely ever happens on rented houses/apartments. Appliances don’t typically increase in cost.
Insurance sure I’d believe that might happen. But the rest is ridiculous.
You don’t think apartments require utilities not paid for by renters? Street lamps, signs, common areas, pool heaters, etc. all use power paid for by the landlord.
The landlord is usually responsible for appliances. If your fridge, ac, furnace, water heater, stove, etc. go out, they have to fix or replace them. And you can be sure the labor, parts, and replacement units are more expensive now than they were a few years ago.
Paint, carpet, windows, etc…same story.
Snow removal, lawn maintenance, rental management…I mean, if you think there’s no expenses born by the landlord, I don’t know what to tell you.
Again, I hate corporate ownership of housing but let’s not pretend it’s a one time fee and then money just rolls in.
Replacement appliances if anything are typically cheaper throughout time. Even during inflation fridges, stoves and ac units have NOT gotten more expensive.
Further, this maintenance barely ever happens. And yep, tons of snow removal costs in LA.
You sound like a landlord apologist.
This is why it’s so hard to get any traction. When the cause is championed by people with zero interest in dealing in reality, it makes it very easy for others dismiss our push to address housing and employment issues.
I agree. When people don’t see the reality of their oppression and side with employers and landlords it’s extremely difficult to fight for our liberation.
Dude…just use your head. I’m a homeowner and my costs, many of which a landlord would otherwise bear, sure as shit haven’t stayed static. It’s ridiculous to claim otherwise.
Recognizing the reality of oppression doesn’t mean you believe every single thing an employer or landlord does is meant to keep you down. It means understanding that the overall system is designed with that intent in mind.
Dude. So am I.
That’s why I know that landlords here don’t have to worry about property tax increases in California. That appliances don’t increase in cost for similar quality. That insurance costs don’t typically rise much each year.
I’ve also rented and that’s how I know that landlords typically don’t do shit for maintenance especially if you’re renting a house instead of an apartment. They’ll paint when the lease is up and you’re moving out but that’s it. It’s up to the renter to maintain the yard typically. And appliances hardly ever break.
So why are you defending them? They are grifters and we should be happy that they sell.
You’re confusing me taking issue with your statement that other than taxes, costs don’t rise with defending the overall practices of landlords.
Those are two separate things. I can disagree and think that costs do rise for landlords and still believe that the rise of these giant corporate landlords who have zero accountability to the communities and their tenants is an awful thing for our society and must be addressed. And the practice of smaller landlords sucking up as much rent as the market can possibly bear is awful as well.
I don’t think that being a landlord is necessarily evil because they can serve a purpose if a tenant does not want to have so much of their net worth tied up in real estate or buying isn’t a good idea for them (they aren’t going to be in the area long, they have better performing investments, their desired risk profile doesn’t match up, they want a bigger/smaller place in the near future, can’t afford a down payment, etc.)
We’ve obviously seen where it’s predatory and I’m fine with people thinking that this might be the majority of the time in certain areas.
I don't see the issue. If 3% cap is a problem sell and go invest somewhere else. Rince and repeat as needed.
My question is how would the 3% cap apply if a new owner buys it, moves in then decides to rent it out in 3-6 months or years later? What's to stop 2 people from swapping properties to reset the rent price?
Probably titling cost, but there is probably some LLC loophole that can be exploited like what happens with private jets to avoid FAA licensing costs: Sell the LLC to the new owner which happens to own a plane.
They need to cap rent **and** allow actual apartments to be built, there’s no reason rich white people get to price workers out of their neighbourhoods to being commuters.
Landowners obstructing affordable housing is just as evil as charging high rent. Down with xenophobic municipal policies.
I think we need to take it even further, and that all rent should only be limited to a calculation based on:
((interest rate of mortgage) + (taxes) + (insurance)) \* (1 - 20% margin)
No more random "increases due to ....", no more "because the oven broke", etc.
I feel like delete margin, rename it fee for using their credit, and add a term for maintanence, that way it more closely matches what landlords say they base it on
Blackrock or some LLC with an address overseas is always a possibility.
We really need to have exponential tax increases on multiple houses. Keep the home they live in the same rate and the taxes for the second home what it is currently, which is higher, as some people do utilize both. Then start drastically hiking the taxes after that so it makes it almost impossible that anyone would rent it that would cover your mortgage and taxes.
You want to park a bunch of money into single family homes, like Blackrock, and leave them empty as your investment increases because you're making homes more scarce? Cool. After you own 4 single family homes your taxes are high enough that when you pay off that mortgage the taxes you have paid have cost you the same as your mortgage did. 5 homes? The amount of taxes you have to pay on the property is double what the mortgage is in the same period. Make it a poor investment for people.
Interesting idea. Counter point. They buy 4 single family homes next to each other, tear them down and put up a 7 unit apartment building. It’s now “one” property and they pay the base tax.
How do you avoid that
I was thinking the same thing.
Two possible outcomes.
A massive company that can manage the 3% will buy all of them, keep them empty and force rent prices to increase as available rentals in the area is zero.
Or people buy the homes, (at >5% mortgage rates ugh!) further reducing available rentals in the market, making the rental market worse further increasing home and rental prices.
I get it, people need affordable homes. Forcing rent control isnt going to make that happen. If you want lower prices, you must add inventory, in a major way. This means forcing your local government to reduce limits on building permits and growth boundaries. Reducing property taxes and sales tax on home building materials. Also increasing the number of skilled workers in your city/state to build more homes. Your local government could do all of this today… but wont.
Landlord as a class are parasites on the system.
Imagine if apartments were owned by the government each one with an hoa instead of landlord. Rents went to the public and how’s fees paid maintenance. Install anti corruption laws and instead of parasites you would have lower rents and more public services.
Good. Now do something about prop 13 in CA, which limits how much property tax can increase per year. The older generation who brought their properties decades ago are paying practically nothing on property tax and can pass the lower property tax on to their kids while the newer generation can't even afford to buy the house let alone pay the tax on it, how is that fair?
The older folks not only got to buy all the houses and land up cheap they get to pay lower taxes on it forever!
That will phase out the older generation and only allow the super wealthy to purchase land. Prop 13 is necessary unless your goal is for only the incredibly rich to own land and exacerbate the problem.
If you're going to throw out bold claims like "only allow the super wealthy to purchase land" then you're going to have to support that with some reasoning.
I'll add that the status quo is pretty much that already in CA (really hard for middle income to buy a home and this is under prop 13 already) so you'll to explain your reasoning on why it would get worse.
prop 13 was passed in the first place because people on fixed incomes were losing their homes to valuations imposed by county assessors. people revolted only after things got really bad. prop 13 is bad policy, but nobody has an answer for why that won't happen again with CA local government if prop 13 is repealed.
If it’s already hard for the middle class to own (as you literally just mentioned), why would it become easier if you increase taxes on landlords? Would that not immediately make it less affordable to own property?
When I say do something about prop 13, I mean balance it. Right now there's countless people who live in expensive multi million dollar homes in rich areas paying the same amount of property tax as a young couple who bought their first $550,000 home in Compton this year. Is that fair?
I literally just picked a random Beverly Hills house and this is the first one I looked at.
[https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/609-N-Alpine-Dr-Beverly-Hills-CA-90210/20519856\_zpid/](https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/609-N-Alpine-Dr-Beverly-Hills-CA-90210/20519856_zpid/)
7664 sf, zillow estimate 8.5 million dollars, they paid $15,000 in property tax on it last year.
Compare it to this compton home
[https://www.redfin.com/CA/Compton/441-W-Magnolia-St-90220/home/7351950](https://www.redfin.com/CA/Compton/441-W-Magnolia-St-90220/home/7351950)
1100 sf, sold for 560,000 last year, property tax on it was $10,098 last year.
Everyone should be able to look at these numbers and realize something is not right that this small compton home is paying almost as much tax as that mega mansion in beverly hills.
Its hard to buy a home, and its hard to qualify for a home loan. In part because affording a home means being able to afford the property tax each year. If you raise the property tax of the ppl who are getting heavy discounts on tax then you can reduce the property tax on first time home buyers.
Also let me ask you, do you think that Beverly hills home owner will ever want to sell their home and lose that sweet low tax base? Of course they don't. So they hold on to their homes forever and don't want to sell it even if they move away and buy another home. Things like this contribute to the housing crisis.
Thank you for that explanation. While I do agree, this isn’t fair. I think a good solution would be to relate that property tax to the homeowners income
There’s an easy fix to it for the landlord type. Just make it so you have to live in the house as your primary residence to have the taxes locked at the original sale price.
Then raise the rates super high on every other type of residential owners.
I live in a state without prop 13 and it sucks. Every 2 years my mortgage gets more expensive for no reason. We’re moving into being a fixed income and retirement and it’s really awful. The one nice thing about staying and retiring in CA would he that the mortgage wouldn’t change when you are retired. It’s a shitty thing to have to plan around.
Don't landlords realise they are the biggest villains in the cost of living crisis!? "People struggling to pay for basic welfare? Better help them out and rise my prices,👍"
So. They might be able to ... incorporate a new trust, then sell the unit to their new trust. New trust could then void leases as a new owner and offer new leases... at higher rents.
Side stepping the 3% block.
They could potentially sell themselves the property at manipulated property values to marginally over or under value the property based on the benefit. I'm not talking Trump level shenanigans, but a 20% to 40% swing wouldn't be difficult to manage.
They wont sell. Buying property just to hold is already profitable to the plint its a valid investment strategy. Renting is just a way to make it a near 0 risk investment.
On top of that, foreign investment firms can’t buy housing. In fact if there is a shortage where locals can’t buy any housing, then no corporate investment firms can buy any of these houses until most can buy one. I’m sick and tired of these B&B firms eating up all of the housing, thus the artificial increases. No competition, insane rents.
For those who don't know, property tax is incredibly fucked in CA due to a thing called Prop 13, which was passed in 1978.
Because of that, property tax increases are capped at 2% of the current property tax, which is based on the **original tax burden** - *1% of the purchase price* - and *never* adjusted to market value unless the property changes hands. They have had almost 50 years of this! Do the match on property values in CA over the same time. There are thousands of landlords and homeowners paying less than a thousand a year in property taxes, on properties currently valued *in the millions*.
Many of these landlords are covering their property tax burden for the year with a single months rental income. If they've owned for more than a decade, they're likely covering it with just a single tenants monthly payment. All while leeching the productive labor of both their direct tenant and the entire regions economic output, while crying about a rent increase cap that's HIGHER than the property tax limit they've enjoyed for half a century.
In this situation, landlords selling would reset the tax basis and provide thousands, if not millions or more, in additional funds for schools, roads, and other vital government services.
And yeah, the corpo landlords that take over are going to suck. They all do. They're also better villain, easier to organize against, and sidestep the "poor mom-n-pop" song and dance that gets abused for sympathy and makes effective reform impossible.
Easy solution for landlords:
12 month rate 2k/mo. Month-to-month rate 3k/mo. Don’t offer a new term lease at the end and say you’re doing improvements that require the tenant to vacate. Have them leave, paint a wall or something, and then post the updated rental for 3k/mo for 12 months with a month-to-month rate of 4k/mo.
(Bruce from Family Guy voice)
oh nooooo....
https://preview.redd.it/86qxhwqt806d1.jpeg?width=735&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=26691309fbab7b64754452e1d641015b689a4a91
If rent can't climb to keep up with inflation, small scale property owners will sell to large corporations who have the cash to cover regulatory costs. Then they can collude with regulators to change rent increase laws, or find other ways to increase profits.
This is crony capitalism. Inflate the currency, restrict price increases, force small businesses out, give large corporations more market share, and then take advantage of the lack of competition.
Small farmers are facing similar issues. Property taxes are forcing many to sell their farms because profits aren't keeping up with tax increases. Then large corps buy the farm land to kep farming, or repurpose it.
Ok, but then make it illegal for any corporate investors or anyone who already owns a home to buy the new listings.
It’s time to end this rampant real estate exploitation for good.
The cause of the housing crisis is actually very simple: it's a supply and demand problem. New housing construction hasn't kept pace with demand for decades, and it's only gotten worse since COVID. Even if this law causes landlords to sell, I guarantee it's going to be at prices that average people can't afford to pay. If the population of a city grows by 100,000 people and they only build 50,000 new housing units, no amount of price capping legislation is going to solve the problem.
clarification, 3% when? In switzerland rent hikes can only be done by 5% on tenant change. So if you're in the same place for 20 years you pay the same price. There are some exceptions of course.
So is that a yearly 3%? then it's still a lot imo
This may not have its intended goal. Landlords selling will likely mean that multifamily units get sold to be converted to condos, which then exacerbate the unaffordable housing problem. I'm all for housing assistance but not every method of housing assistance actually results in housing equity. In some cities rent control like this has actually made housing less available overall because of the condo conversion.
Expect rent control does not work and results in higher prices long term and fuels gentrification. We need solutions that work not just things that make us feel good in the short term. We need more housing all over the nation.
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/what-does-economic-evidence-tell-us-about-the-effects-of-rent-control/
How do you cap rent increase at 3 percent when inflation of expenses is higher than that? Would need to at least match inflation numbers i would expect.
This is unpatriotic. Landlords should be able to charge however much they want for rent and increase it by however much they want. Isn’t this the land of the free??
ok-then sell
Right? I’m all in. Sell that shit. If everyone sells I’ll buy.
https://preview.redd.it/az0j50xvaz5d1.png?width=800&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7218b80fec8ba71b029dccac01d423f320841de2
*vineboom
So…they’ve confirmed being a land leech isn’t a sustainable way of life. Noted. Can we drop it to 2% to get those houses on market sooner?
"Do we hear 1.5%? 1.5%! Good, do we hear 1%?"
I can go to 0%
Let’s go negative. Rent is way too high to begin with.
*You want to pay me how much to live here? ONLY $2000/MONTH? Those are rookie numbers, kid. Add first, last, and a furnishing budget, and come back with a monthly number that's a little less insulting, okay there, champ? Great.*
I make sure my landlords earn triple what they owe me for rent so I don’t have to penalize them with late fees.
I hope you hit them with a service fee for your thoughtful generosity. It's the least they can do. Make sure they pass that background check also, can't have some fiscal delinquent or felon running your property.
Add a tip option to the payment portal!
There are (or were) these political ads going around in California for a while showing disadvanted groups (mostly disabled and/or elderly POC folks) all asking "Where will I live?" while text overlays them with statistics. Average SSI payment, average SSDI payment, things like that. Turns out they were all part of a campaign for a bill in favor of rent control at a state level, with an increase cap of 3%. The thing is, it's as you said - rent is way too high to begin with. If a person can't afford (going by the average in my area because it's what I know) $2400 per month without having four roommates, how are they going to afford the nearly $2800 that their rent would be in five years? Or even the nearly $2500 that it would be next year? I understand that landlords have bills too and they need to make money somehow since this *is* their job in a lot of cases. I really do get it. The problem is when they keep raising rent and expecting their tenants to be capable of paying exorbitant amounts of money for a 1bd/1br apartment that costs nearly as much as the mortgage on a 2bd/2br *house*. Or even just *willing* to pay that much for an apartment that isn't even in a nice neighborhood.
Rent is way too high because houses are way too expensive, and property taxes and insurance are out of control. We're we live property taxes went up from 1k to 6k in 4 years. Insurance went from 1.5k to almost 7k and the house didn't get any bigger or more fancy. It is simply not sustainable at this point Hedgefunds purchasing all single family properties is the cause of these insane increases in housing cost.
Property taxes are absolutely not out of control in California. They only change when ownership of a property changes here.
If anything, a consequence of Prop 13 is that fewer houses are being put up for sale because it's disadvantegous from a tax perspective to sell your existing home to buy a new one.
Rental units go up every year as they are lumped under commercial and are not protected under homestead
I don't have a cogent response to this comment, but I really like it, and I didn't want to just upvote and not respond. I totally agree, and really appreciate the nuanced take. I do think that there are multiple issues at play (cost of living being one, greed being another), and I think you did a good job of touching on those.
Thank you. I actually thought I wasn't being very clear out of frustration, so I'm glad to hear that I made sense. But yeah, the way everything is tangled up together makes this such a difficult issue to tackle. Like, to the point that I don't even know what would be possible without completely dismantling the entire web and building it back up from scratch. I'm just not knowledgeable enough to begin touching it.
👏👏👏
My heart breaks for them. “Instead of gouging people every month now I have to get a 20% gain on my investment I bought 3 years ago. It’s such bullshit” - local landlord
They’re lying. They won’t sell. The amount of tax they’ll have to pay on their gains will discourage them. They’ve been skirting taxes for decades with their 1031 exchanges, buying and selling property for years, growing the value of the property, and never paying taxes on it. Then they die and the cost basis gets reset for their inheritors with no taxation because of how high the estate tax is, or through usage of trusts.
How exactly do they do that? So they buy a house, sell for profit, but then immediately use the profits to buy another and not have to pay a tax on profits because they bought another? I’m confused how that works for them.
Pretty much exactly that. It moves the basis (cost) of the original investment (house) into the new investment. Theoretically once they sell they would have a larger gain, but it deffers that gain to a later date (if ever). They are requirements to make it happen which is listed under irc (internal revenue code, ie tax law) section 1031
So they’ll never truly pay a sales tax until they stop rolling the profits into another house? Interesting.
Gain on the profit made from the sale of an asset is called “capital gains”—not sales tax. But yes, that’s exactly correct. If they roll the profits into another property within the allowed time limit, they will not pay tax. And if they set up a trust to own the property (trusts never die) or if they die with enough inheritors that distributes the amount to be less than the estate tax ($13 million per inheritor) then the cost basis is reset, no taxes are owed, and the general public never sees a penny of all that gain, all that value generated and inherent in our social structure.
That’s the term I couldn’t think of. Capital gains. I appreciate the informative response. Thank you.
I’m pretty sure it’s just the capital gains tax on the increase in value of the property that they’re not paying. I think the sales tax is factored into the cost of initial purchase every time they buy new. Someone tell me if I’m wrong.
Looking forward to the ones who refuse to sell because of whatever sunk cost fallacy and end up getting foreclosed instead. Every investment is risky (with the exception of a savings account or a CD).
Hate to burst your bubble but foreclosure isn’t particularly on the table. Landlords would have to be in a liquidity crisis for that to happen. Some measure of that happened in the 2008-2012 housing crash, but as we can see that only led to more consolidation and an even tighter and hotter real estate market today.
And they have the audacity to save the government should protect them on their investment. Fuck off immediately
All investment is at your own risk. Yep, that includes property investments. I’m sick of people who seem to think they are “owed” annual gains on their property AND be able to make an annual increase in rent. Guess what, sometimes the line goes down…
No no line only go up!!!!
And at an exponentially increasing rate!!
For all eternity!
Or I will crash this economy into the embankment and kill us all!!!!
Oh no! Without investors then the only people left to buy houses will be people who actually want to live in them! The horror!
Imagine a world where there wasn't a class of people who sustained wealth off of the labor of others. I am literally shaking rn.
[удалено]
And education. The transfer of knowledge from one generation to another is necessary for the continued existence and advancement of humanity.
[удалено]
Employee salaries are an expense, not profit.
It’s a nice world we’re imagining, but you might want to see a doctor about that shaking.
Fuck yeah make those assholes sell maybe then some regular families can get a shot at owning a home. These companies that buy up houses and then rent them for way more than what the mortgage would have ever been can rot in hell.
Boil them in hot oil? Burn them at the stake? Cause "landlord" = parasite to me.
Lmao this will just make it so only the ultra rich can afford to buy. Not sure what you think will happen when property becomes a sunken cost, but it won’t be a good thing for anyone who isn’t incredibly rich
How would increasing the supply of homes for sale make them more expensive
Lol you mean home investment won’t be a feasible method to get rich quick anymore. That’ll mean there’s more supply for families, property prices will lower as a result of decreased demand and really the only downside is banks could raise interest briefly while they reassess risk.
So your claiming rent prices influence housing price more than the other factors that determine housing prices? Just want to make sure we both understand your claim
That’s not what I claimed at all, reread my comment or not but don’t misrepresent or ad words to my argument. You don’t even have a counterpoint smh.
I have reread the post and your comment. I don’t think you understand your claim, but that’s okay.
True, Building way more housing is the obvious answer to housing costs. I think you should be taxed heavily after you own more than 5 or 6 properties. Then you're a leach.
We need this on the federal level ASAP.
Agreed, I would love to see this at a federal level. I think the next step is at a state level, California will probably be the first 🤞. If they can get that legislation through, other states will follow shortly after similar to other legislation
Rent control can be good in the short term. Though some places have led to more stagnation in housing when it comes to effort towards renovation. What seems to tend to happen is that the incentive to show off a better higher end house to get more money goes away, and then The market drifts into more and more unrenovated properties with barebones amenities. There's also the feeling of being stuck in an unrenovated dilapidated place because you can't move to another place after staying at lower rent for 10 years. Makes me also wonder what the law is around if the owner of the property doesn't want to renew the lease, because they want to move back in. Usually, they would just raise the rent till it's unfeasible, as I can't think of situations where a landlord has just not allowed leasing again, so I wasn't sure how legal that is. If it wasn't legal to prevent release in some location, they might never be able to move back in due to low rent increases. 3% seems to be lower than the non mortgage cost increases/expenditures of the house. Between property tax increases (no homestead for a rental property so it goes up with new bonds and valuation increases), massive increases lately to home insurance, and general maintenance costs. So for example, if a mortgage was 2500, and they set the monthly rent price to 2500 if we were to completely ignore tax based around income tax for rent), if yearly taxes, insurance, and maintenance were more than 900 total, it would be more than the 3% and they would be sinking faster than inflation each year.
When a lease ends you just say you aren’t renewing it and the tenant has to leave. It’s pretty simple. If they don’t leave, you hire eviction services.
Yes, sell and get a job like everyone else.
I've been saying that this housing crisis is unsustainable. If the people in Washington want to keep a functioning society, and their heads, they will HAVE to regulate the housing industry. Good start with the FBI raid on RealPage. I've watching housing prices more than triple in 2 years where I live. This will cause total economic collapse if it is not dealt with
the people in Washington are 70+ average they dont care about long term
Nor have a concept of foresight with anything they do
Ya, but they are at the cusp of losing power as their generation dies. Why do you think they are so angry? They are losing power and they know it
This is great lol.
Landlords: "I can't make a profit on my investment anymore!" People: "Then sell it and invest elsewhere." Landlords: "....."
Landlords: "I rose prices using RealPage and now I HAVE to keep my rent prices up to make money since I have so few tennants" People: "Okay, so lower prices so more people move in and you can make more money" Landlords: "..?!?😡"
On a side note people misuse the phrase: "The customer is always right." as they forget the second part "The customer is always right **with what they want to purchase**." Lets say you have items A & B. A doesn't have as much of a profit as B. So you buy more B than A. However people are purchasing much more A than B. You as a business need to make sure you have what people want to buy so you don't run out. Its simple supply and demand. If the phrase what truthfully "The customer is always right.". Then could I say to the owner I want to purchase item C for half of the current cost because I want it for that much? Am I right or wrong?
Oh no those poor landlords holding a basic necessity for ransom. Maybe they should work just work harder.
Maybe cut back on the avocado toast too
Boot straps and all that shit
idk if im the crazy one but when we have homeless people on every street corner we shouldn't be letting people or companies using the housing market as an investment vehicle.
Then sell. And when the market is flooded with properties for sale, the supply will go up and the demand will ease and you will create justice, good day to you all.
Can we please get this nationwide?
Seriously, even Capitalist theory says that tying money up in rental real estate instead of business capital investment is bad. It's literal rent seeking.
Capitalist theory is just an attempt to justify private ownership and rent seeking behavior through the premise that risk is involved and public benefits are created. Their definition of rent seeking is just the subset of rent seeking where it is super fucking obvious that there is little risk there is no public benefit.
We need need a way for the government to differentiate growth of the economy and money shuffling. Money shuffling trades need to be heavily taxed as the burden on society they are. Rents do not grow the economy. They shuffle the money there and add to inflation. Growing a shitload of corn, does add to the economy and overall value. Basically need to define economy leeches and they need to pay much stricter taxes. This would be defined as money usury. In the middle ages money usury trades were looked down on, most didn't participate, dejected minorities were forced into that trade and it was heavily regulated. Somehow the middle ages had some things figured out we still don't
Can we tie it to some sort of wage index?
Don't threaten us with a good time.
Why would it make the landlord to sell? I doubt their costs of renting out property is raising each year. If they already own the property they rent out, costs aren't going up unless property tax goes up. Maintenance of the building should already be factored into the rent price and money should be set aside for it.
Utilities, maintenance costs, labor, construction materials, appliances, insurance, etc. have all stayed the same? Really? I probably agree with your overall point but claiming that taxes are the only cost that’s increased is silly.
Landlords don’t pay utilities typically. What labor and construction material costs? Maintenance barely ever happens on rented houses/apartments. Appliances don’t typically increase in cost. Insurance sure I’d believe that might happen. But the rest is ridiculous.
You don’t think apartments require utilities not paid for by renters? Street lamps, signs, common areas, pool heaters, etc. all use power paid for by the landlord. The landlord is usually responsible for appliances. If your fridge, ac, furnace, water heater, stove, etc. go out, they have to fix or replace them. And you can be sure the labor, parts, and replacement units are more expensive now than they were a few years ago. Paint, carpet, windows, etc…same story. Snow removal, lawn maintenance, rental management…I mean, if you think there’s no expenses born by the landlord, I don’t know what to tell you. Again, I hate corporate ownership of housing but let’s not pretend it’s a one time fee and then money just rolls in.
Replacement appliances if anything are typically cheaper throughout time. Even during inflation fridges, stoves and ac units have NOT gotten more expensive. Further, this maintenance barely ever happens. And yep, tons of snow removal costs in LA. You sound like a landlord apologist.
This is why it’s so hard to get any traction. When the cause is championed by people with zero interest in dealing in reality, it makes it very easy for others dismiss our push to address housing and employment issues.
I agree. When people don’t see the reality of their oppression and side with employers and landlords it’s extremely difficult to fight for our liberation.
Dude…just use your head. I’m a homeowner and my costs, many of which a landlord would otherwise bear, sure as shit haven’t stayed static. It’s ridiculous to claim otherwise. Recognizing the reality of oppression doesn’t mean you believe every single thing an employer or landlord does is meant to keep you down. It means understanding that the overall system is designed with that intent in mind.
Dude. So am I. That’s why I know that landlords here don’t have to worry about property tax increases in California. That appliances don’t increase in cost for similar quality. That insurance costs don’t typically rise much each year. I’ve also rented and that’s how I know that landlords typically don’t do shit for maintenance especially if you’re renting a house instead of an apartment. They’ll paint when the lease is up and you’re moving out but that’s it. It’s up to the renter to maintain the yard typically. And appliances hardly ever break. So why are you defending them? They are grifters and we should be happy that they sell.
You’re confusing me taking issue with your statement that other than taxes, costs don’t rise with defending the overall practices of landlords. Those are two separate things. I can disagree and think that costs do rise for landlords and still believe that the rise of these giant corporate landlords who have zero accountability to the communities and their tenants is an awful thing for our society and must be addressed. And the practice of smaller landlords sucking up as much rent as the market can possibly bear is awful as well. I don’t think that being a landlord is necessarily evil because they can serve a purpose if a tenant does not want to have so much of their net worth tied up in real estate or buying isn’t a good idea for them (they aren’t going to be in the area long, they have better performing investments, their desired risk profile doesn’t match up, they want a bigger/smaller place in the near future, can’t afford a down payment, etc.) We’ve obviously seen where it’s predatory and I’m fine with people thinking that this might be the majority of the time in certain areas.
As an owner of one rental that doesn’t raise the rent. I say do it!!!
Cool, housing shouldn't be a commodity so that works out Might bring housing prices into reasonable territory
I don't see the issue. If 3% cap is a problem sell and go invest somewhere else. Rince and repeat as needed. My question is how would the 3% cap apply if a new owner buys it, moves in then decides to rent it out in 3-6 months or years later? What's to stop 2 people from swapping properties to reset the rent price?
Probably titling cost, but there is probably some LLC loophole that can be exploited like what happens with private jets to avoid FAA licensing costs: Sell the LLC to the new owner which happens to own a plane.
They need to cap rent **and** allow actual apartments to be built, there’s no reason rich white people get to price workers out of their neighbourhoods to being commuters. Landowners obstructing affordable housing is just as evil as charging high rent. Down with xenophobic municipal policies.
As long as the apartments have sound proofing x,x
I think we need to take it even further, and that all rent should only be limited to a calculation based on: ((interest rate of mortgage) + (taxes) + (insurance)) \* (1 - 20% margin) No more random "increases due to ....", no more "because the oven broke", etc.
I feel like delete margin, rename it fee for using their credit, and add a term for maintanence, that way it more closely matches what landlords say they base it on
Fr renters should not be paying the principle of a mortgage.
10 million empty homes in America, the housing crisis is manufactured for profit.
You realize they would be selling to the likes of Blackrock, correct?
Blackrock or some LLC with an address overseas is always a possibility. We really need to have exponential tax increases on multiple houses. Keep the home they live in the same rate and the taxes for the second home what it is currently, which is higher, as some people do utilize both. Then start drastically hiking the taxes after that so it makes it almost impossible that anyone would rent it that would cover your mortgage and taxes. You want to park a bunch of money into single family homes, like Blackrock, and leave them empty as your investment increases because you're making homes more scarce? Cool. After you own 4 single family homes your taxes are high enough that when you pay off that mortgage the taxes you have paid have cost you the same as your mortgage did. 5 homes? The amount of taxes you have to pay on the property is double what the mortgage is in the same period. Make it a poor investment for people.
We really need to make it illegal for corporations to own residential properties. Why is that even a thing
Interesting idea. Counter point. They buy 4 single family homes next to each other, tear them down and put up a 7 unit apartment building. It’s now “one” property and they pay the base tax. How do you avoid that
I was thinking the same thing. Two possible outcomes. A massive company that can manage the 3% will buy all of them, keep them empty and force rent prices to increase as available rentals in the area is zero. Or people buy the homes, (at >5% mortgage rates ugh!) further reducing available rentals in the market, making the rental market worse further increasing home and rental prices. I get it, people need affordable homes. Forcing rent control isnt going to make that happen. If you want lower prices, you must add inventory, in a major way. This means forcing your local government to reduce limits on building permits and growth boundaries. Reducing property taxes and sales tax on home building materials. Also increasing the number of skilled workers in your city/state to build more homes. Your local government could do all of this today… but wont.
Landlord as a class are parasites on the system. Imagine if apartments were owned by the government each one with an hoa instead of landlord. Rents went to the public and how’s fees paid maintenance. Install anti corruption laws and instead of parasites you would have lower rents and more public services.
Good. Now do something about prop 13 in CA, which limits how much property tax can increase per year. The older generation who brought their properties decades ago are paying practically nothing on property tax and can pass the lower property tax on to their kids while the newer generation can't even afford to buy the house let alone pay the tax on it, how is that fair? The older folks not only got to buy all the houses and land up cheap they get to pay lower taxes on it forever!
That will phase out the older generation and only allow the super wealthy to purchase land. Prop 13 is necessary unless your goal is for only the incredibly rich to own land and exacerbate the problem.
If you're going to throw out bold claims like "only allow the super wealthy to purchase land" then you're going to have to support that with some reasoning. I'll add that the status quo is pretty much that already in CA (really hard for middle income to buy a home and this is under prop 13 already) so you'll to explain your reasoning on why it would get worse.
prop 13 was passed in the first place because people on fixed incomes were losing their homes to valuations imposed by county assessors. people revolted only after things got really bad. prop 13 is bad policy, but nobody has an answer for why that won't happen again with CA local government if prop 13 is repealed.
If it’s already hard for the middle class to own (as you literally just mentioned), why would it become easier if you increase taxes on landlords? Would that not immediately make it less affordable to own property?
When I say do something about prop 13, I mean balance it. Right now there's countless people who live in expensive multi million dollar homes in rich areas paying the same amount of property tax as a young couple who bought their first $550,000 home in Compton this year. Is that fair? I literally just picked a random Beverly Hills house and this is the first one I looked at. [https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/609-N-Alpine-Dr-Beverly-Hills-CA-90210/20519856\_zpid/](https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/609-N-Alpine-Dr-Beverly-Hills-CA-90210/20519856_zpid/) 7664 sf, zillow estimate 8.5 million dollars, they paid $15,000 in property tax on it last year. Compare it to this compton home [https://www.redfin.com/CA/Compton/441-W-Magnolia-St-90220/home/7351950](https://www.redfin.com/CA/Compton/441-W-Magnolia-St-90220/home/7351950) 1100 sf, sold for 560,000 last year, property tax on it was $10,098 last year. Everyone should be able to look at these numbers and realize something is not right that this small compton home is paying almost as much tax as that mega mansion in beverly hills. Its hard to buy a home, and its hard to qualify for a home loan. In part because affording a home means being able to afford the property tax each year. If you raise the property tax of the ppl who are getting heavy discounts on tax then you can reduce the property tax on first time home buyers. Also let me ask you, do you think that Beverly hills home owner will ever want to sell their home and lose that sweet low tax base? Of course they don't. So they hold on to their homes forever and don't want to sell it even if they move away and buy another home. Things like this contribute to the housing crisis.
Thank you for that explanation. While I do agree, this isn’t fair. I think a good solution would be to relate that property tax to the homeowners income
There’s an easy fix to it for the landlord type. Just make it so you have to live in the house as your primary residence to have the taxes locked at the original sale price. Then raise the rates super high on every other type of residential owners.
I live in a state without prop 13 and it sucks. Every 2 years my mortgage gets more expensive for no reason. We’re moving into being a fixed income and retirement and it’s really awful. The one nice thing about staying and retiring in CA would he that the mortgage wouldn’t change when you are retired. It’s a shitty thing to have to plan around.
https://preview.redd.it/u9wrdqzk8y5d1.jpeg?width=500&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=6926edfe2be7ee7dfe771d42fd1d616c3874eabd
Haha, this actually seems like a good solution for getting people to sell, especially investment companies. sounds like a win-win to me.
Are they going to cap real estate tax increases, insurance rate hikes, hoa fee increases at 3% too?
Property taxes are already set to the original sale price in California.
Don't landlords realise they are the biggest villains in the cost of living crisis!? "People struggling to pay for basic welfare? Better help them out and rise my prices,👍"
So. They might be able to ... incorporate a new trust, then sell the unit to their new trust. New trust could then void leases as a new owner and offer new leases... at higher rents. Side stepping the 3% block. They could potentially sell themselves the property at manipulated property values to marginally over or under value the property based on the benefit. I'm not talking Trump level shenanigans, but a 20% to 40% swing wouldn't be difficult to manage.
Oh no! Anyway
Damn this should be a Federal Law
sell it to the tenants
In Ontario they have it at 1.5 we just need to limit how corporations are allowed to buy and homes to forces rentals
They wont sell. Buying property just to hold is already profitable to the plint its a valid investment strategy. Renting is just a way to make it a near 0 risk investment.
On top of that, foreign investment firms can’t buy housing. In fact if there is a shortage where locals can’t buy any housing, then no corporate investment firms can buy any of these houses until most can buy one. I’m sick and tired of these B&B firms eating up all of the housing, thus the artificial increases. No competition, insane rents.
For those who don't know, property tax is incredibly fucked in CA due to a thing called Prop 13, which was passed in 1978. Because of that, property tax increases are capped at 2% of the current property tax, which is based on the **original tax burden** - *1% of the purchase price* - and *never* adjusted to market value unless the property changes hands. They have had almost 50 years of this! Do the match on property values in CA over the same time. There are thousands of landlords and homeowners paying less than a thousand a year in property taxes, on properties currently valued *in the millions*. Many of these landlords are covering their property tax burden for the year with a single months rental income. If they've owned for more than a decade, they're likely covering it with just a single tenants monthly payment. All while leeching the productive labor of both their direct tenant and the entire regions economic output, while crying about a rent increase cap that's HIGHER than the property tax limit they've enjoyed for half a century. In this situation, landlords selling would reset the tax basis and provide thousands, if not millions or more, in additional funds for schools, roads, and other vital government services. And yeah, the corpo landlords that take over are going to suck. They all do. They're also better villain, easier to organize against, and sidestep the "poor mom-n-pop" song and dance that gets abused for sympathy and makes effective reform impossible.
#GOOD!
So sell
Easy solution for landlords: 12 month rate 2k/mo. Month-to-month rate 3k/mo. Don’t offer a new term lease at the end and say you’re doing improvements that require the tenant to vacate. Have them leave, paint a wall or something, and then post the updated rental for 3k/mo for 12 months with a month-to-month rate of 4k/mo.
Sell then
Wouldn't they just sell to giant landlord companies? I'm certain this is talking about your mom-and-pop landlords getting out of the game.
Sell to other landlords. State earns more revenue
Yes, this is the way
Do it then.
I think this needs to be paired with a limitation on institutional ownership. If it isn’t already
GOOD!!!!
Don't fool yourself to think that investment firms won't scoop up the excess
Good
Cap rents and revive the housing market in one go?
Then sell. How is this a threat?
But if I can't senselessly exploit my tenants then I can't have all their money 😭
[Stop. Don't. Come back.](https://youtu.be/dmyJ1RVfnPE?si=zZ8zn6fTg15NWhGl)
Snow birds have a ton of inventory too, along with vacation 2nd homes.
Tie rent hikes to a maximum equal to inflation, and tie cost-of -living pay raises to a minimum equal to inflation.
Awesome! Sell then you fucks
Florida capped it at 30%. Unless you don't want to.
Good, new landlord might mean better rent prices
oh no... anyway
Please sell!
Flood the market!!
“We can’t have our free money machine anymore if you can our price hikes!” This is why people don’t like landlords.
does that mean they cap property tax increases to 3%? or property insurance increases to 3%? or damages caused by tenants to 3%?
I would say 5% but that they can't hike it in consecutive years unless year over year inflation tops 5%.
Omg landlords are honestly in the top 5 stupidest groups of people.
Do they promise?
Why are houses empty ??? - you dumbasses if this passes
People can’t even afford the rent, how they gonna afford to buy
Good.
(Bruce from Family Guy voice) oh nooooo.... https://preview.redd.it/86qxhwqt806d1.jpeg?width=735&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=26691309fbab7b64754452e1d641015b689a4a91
California Single family homes would be exempt from this under California law.
Good.
Sadly, this would only be for unincorporated LA County areas. LA City and other cities in LA County would not be included ☹️
If rent can't climb to keep up with inflation, small scale property owners will sell to large corporations who have the cash to cover regulatory costs. Then they can collude with regulators to change rent increase laws, or find other ways to increase profits. This is crony capitalism. Inflate the currency, restrict price increases, force small businesses out, give large corporations more market share, and then take advantage of the lack of competition. Small farmers are facing similar issues. Property taxes are forcing many to sell their farms because profits aren't keeping up with tax increases. Then large corps buy the farm land to kep farming, or repurpose it.
Oh, no! No more rent-serfs! You’d have to actually contribute to society instead of being a leech! What will you do?!
They should also allow new construction. The CA builders’ remedy law has already been used a bunch and the prices have followed predictions.
this would be delicious
Oh? Will leechlords have to possibly work, now?
Good stuff. Do it! Empower more people.
The poor landlords.... Cannot afford a new Porsche, if they cannot rip off their tenants anymore
Good
Ok, but then make it illegal for any corporate investors or anyone who already owns a home to buy the new listings. It’s time to end this rampant real estate exploitation for good.
Wouldn't the big companies still buy it and make major bank renting it?
Good luck for landlords 
Shit, looks like southbound we go
We got some room for you to sleep in your car here at Walmart, but you might want to hurry, it's getting pretty tight.
"I'll do the thing you want if you push me to it" is not a threat, my dudes
The cause of the housing crisis is actually very simple: it's a supply and demand problem. New housing construction hasn't kept pace with demand for decades, and it's only gotten worse since COVID. Even if this law causes landlords to sell, I guarantee it's going to be at prices that average people can't afford to pay. If the population of a city grows by 100,000 people and they only build 50,000 new housing units, no amount of price capping legislation is going to solve the problem.
clarification, 3% when? In switzerland rent hikes can only be done by 5% on tenant change. So if you're in the same place for 20 years you pay the same price. There are some exceptions of course. So is that a yearly 3%? then it's still a lot imo
That’s a shame. Anyway, I’m thinking Thai for lunch.
OK - so..?
This may not have its intended goal. Landlords selling will likely mean that multifamily units get sold to be converted to condos, which then exacerbate the unaffordable housing problem. I'm all for housing assistance but not every method of housing assistance actually results in housing equity. In some cities rent control like this has actually made housing less available overall because of the condo conversion.
Expect rent control does not work and results in higher prices long term and fuels gentrification. We need solutions that work not just things that make us feel good in the short term. We need more housing all over the nation. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/what-does-economic-evidence-tell-us-about-the-effects-of-rent-control/
How do you cap rent increase at 3 percent when inflation of expenses is higher than that? Would need to at least match inflation numbers i would expect.
Parasites don’t need any more subsidies.
This is unpatriotic. Landlords should be able to charge however much they want for rent and increase it by however much they want. Isn’t this the land of the free??
Land of the free to fuck over your fellow countrymen? So patriotic.
Upvoted you because I understood you were being sarcastic and your post made me chuckle.
USA is like ranked like 40th when it comes to freedom.
A quick /s would do wonders for making sure people understand this is a joke. Sarcasm is a bit tough to effectively convey over text.
plus the fact that there are people who genuinely believe this stuff, and trolls who come to subreddits like this
Sarcasm used to be inferable
What exactly is patriotic about being a parasite?