What do you think about rent control/mandated affordable apartments?

[BrownTown]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

Whaaaaaat??? I would think most if not all renters would be for it.

Here's an article from April, before the initiative to repeal Costa-Hawkins made it to the November ballot in California:

https://www.dailynews.com/2018/04/09...-rent-control/

I know we're a democracy and all, but I wish people would stop pretend that what most people want has any bearing on whether or not something makes sense. If you ask most people what taxes they support and what handouts they support you'll end up with virtually everyone wanting a massive budget deficit and that's simply not sustainable forever (as much as people continually want to bury their heads in the sand and act like it is). It sure sounds nice on TV to say just tax the top 1% and give everyone else all the free shit they want, but the math simply doesn't work. Saying a poor person doesn't have a right to live in Manhattan and it would make a lot more sense for them to live somewhere cheaper doesn't make you a heartless villain. Most of us here probably make more (and in many cases much more) than the median income and yet even here I doubt most of us feel entitled to the most expensive locations in the country. I live in New Jersey and I don't feel as though I'm somehow being discriminated against because I can't afford Manhattan.

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by BrownTown

I know we're a democracy and all, but I wish people would stop pretend that what most people want has any bearing on whether or not something makes sense. If you ask most people what taxes they support and what handouts they support you'll end up with virtually everyone wanting a massive budget deficit and that's simply not sustainable forever (as much as people continually want to bury their heads in the sand and act like it is). It sure sounds nice on TV to say just tax the top 1% and give everyone else all the free shit they want, but the math simply doesn't work. Saying a poor person doesn't have a right to live in Manhattan and it would make a lot more sense for them to live somewhere cheaper doesn't make you a heartless villain. Most of us here probably make more (and in many cases much more) than the median income and yet even here I doubt most of us feel entitled to the most expensive locations in the country. I live in New Jersey and I don't feel as though I'm somehow being discriminated against because I can't afford Manhattan.

Oh I'm sorry, that's right, the news article I posted only talks about California and Californians wanting rent control.

I guess everyone else in the United States doesn't mind that their rent gets jacked up willy-nilly. Because somehow, that's better for everyone! So I guess everyone else in the US will be better off, and California renters are screwed, especially if Costa-Hawkins gets repealed. Oh well. More power to the non-rent-controlled folk. You have it better!

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

You perhaps need to differentiate between the long-term homeless and the briefly homeless.

Why do I need to do that? Homelessness is homelessness. No one should ever get to that point.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

Why do I need to do that? Homelessness is homelessness. No one should ever get to that point.

"Briefly homeless" isn't a problem. I lived in my car (motel room every couple days) for a while when I arrived in California to finish my B.Sc. there, because the apt I had found - the best deal I could find - was only available on the first day of the following month.

I was temporarily, briefly homeless... and recovered from it.

[10023]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

Whaaaaaat??? I would think most if not all renters would be for it.

Here's an article from April, before the initiative to repeal Costa-Hawkins made it to the November ballot in California:

https://www.dailynews.com/2018/04/09...-rent-control/

Most renters don’t benefit from it. Most renters are hurt by it. For 8 years in NYC, I paid more rent because rent control exists.

And no, no one is homeless because the rent is high. If they’re not mentally ill, they’re homeless because they’re a stubborn ass or an idiot. A rational person doesn’t live on the streets in whatever neighborhood because they can’t afford rent, they move to a cheaper neighborhood. So they have a long commute... boohoo. There are high net worth people in NYC or London who commute an hour each way because that’s how they get the living arrangement they want. And if you’re talking about people who sleep on friends’ sofas, stay with family, etc... these people aren’t really “homeless”.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

In most places it's probably not an issue, but in more competitive, high-cost markets it absolutely is a real possibility. Rapid gentrification and price increases aren't common; or, the more likely scenario is if a building is sold to a new landlord, that they're likely to jack up the rents to recoup the cost of the sale.

In a free market economy that is the property buyer’s right.

One of the things you aren’t acknowledging is that “ownership” gives you rights that “lessees” don’t have, but being the owner you also have burdens that lessees don’t.

Owners have to maintain the building at their own costs. Tenants dont.
Owners have to pay the property tax and insurance on the property. Not tenants
Owners have to pay the mortgage, tenants don’t
Owners have to deal with zoning issues, not tenants
Owners have to deal with any medico-legal liabilities related to their property, not tenants

So if the owner is going to be stuck with all this, then they deserve certain rights, such as deciding what to charge to live in their property.

Tenants can’t have their cake and eat it too. You can’t have all the benefits of being a tenant while also have the rights of ownership. If you want to have the rights of ownership, then go buy your own property.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

Maybe where you live, but definitely in Los Angeles, there are many people who are homeless not necessarily because they are mentally ill. Many do start living out of their cars because they got evicted/could no longer afford rent.

I don't know why this is even a concern of yours, being that your state doesn't even have rent control. So you don't have to worry yourself about "subsidizing other people's rent" and "flawed policies."

I bring it up because there is a sizable movement out there to bring rent control to Chicago

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

So if the owner is going to be stuck with all this, then they deserve certain rights, such as deciding what to charge to live in their property.

Owners are free to charge whatever amount they see fit. The problem comes when they want to increase the amount beyond what was originally agreed upon with the lessee.

Also note that in rent controlled jurisdictions, if there is a valid reason for the rents to be increased above the guideline amounts (eg. if it needs extensive repairs), there are mechanisms in place that would allow the landlord to apply to increase the rent accordingly.

Just deciding that you want more money than was originally agreed upon however, is not one of them.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

In a free market economy that is the property buyer’s right.

One of the things you aren’t acknowledging is that “ownership” gives you rights that “lessees” don’t have, but being the owner you also have burdens that lessees don’t.

Owners have to maintain the building at their own costs. Tenants dont.
Owners have to pay the property tax and insurance on the property. Not tenants
Owners have to pay the mortgage, tenants don’t
Owners have to deal with zoning issues, not tenants
Owners have to deal with any medico-legal liabilities related to their property, not tenants

So if the owner is going to be stuck with all this, then they deserve certain rights, such as deciding what to charge to live in their property.

Tenants can’t have their cake and eat it too. You can’t have all the benefits of being a tenant while also have the rights of ownership. If you want to have the rights of ownership, then go buy your own property.

This is one issue that annoys me without end. I think everyone is for basic tenant laws, right? A landlord that literally acts like a LORD is an issue.

However, some points:

1. Last year my apartment flooded in the bathroom due to a huge storm(it was crazy). My building had people come in, take down all the walls, and do "disaster relief" or whatever it is. For one week people were coming in and out working, taking things out, drying stuff, putting walls back up, redoing baseboards etc. How much do you think that cost? I wouldn't know, I didn't pay it.

2. My dad has been renting houses for sometime. His last tenant left(and they have zero fault in this, of course) in one of his larger rental homes and he was left with around 35k in roof issues, a balcony issue(it was weird) and some random things here and there. 35k. He paid out of pocket and wont make that up for years because he cant charge enough rent to pay the mortgage and make that much profit(it was originally his home, he didn't think about the profitability of it). Now he is stuck with it, he cant sell the home in the small town its in because its too unaffordable and theres too little buyers at that price range.


Imagine if a tenant decided they wont move, and based on some places, that would be legal. He would have a house that is deteriorating even more while someone else is living there, for free. That's INSANE>

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

Owners are free to charge whatever amount they see fit. The problem comes when they want to increase the amount beyond what was originally agreed upon with the lessee.

Also note that in rent controlled jurisdictions, if there is a valid reason for the rents to be increased above the guideline amounts (eg. if it needs extensive repairs), there are mechanisms in place that would allow the landlord to apply to increase the rent accordingly.

Just deciding that you want more money than was originally agreed upon however, is not one of them.

I'm not following you.

When you sign a lease it's typically for 1 year. Obviously you can't change the rent during that period.

Once the lease is over, that's when you adjust the rent, at the time of renewal.

[pdxtex]

last i heard rents have been flat or even decreasing in a lot of big markets so this cross country building boom is helping. i think a city should expect to take a loss once they become a landlord. affordable housing doesnt do anything to address why the wages are low, its just putting a band aid on a larger wound. meh....

[10023]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

I bring it up because there is a sizable movement out there to bring rent control to Chicago

Why? Chicago is cheap. No one has to live in Lincoln Park.

[10023]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

Owners are free to charge whatever amount they see fit. The problem comes when they want to increase the amount beyond what was originally agreed upon with the lessee.

Also note that in rent controlled jurisdictions, if there is a valid reason for the rents to be increased above the guideline amounts (eg. if it needs extensive repairs), there are mechanisms in place that would allow the landlord to apply to increase the rent accordingly.

Just deciding that you want more money than was originally agreed upon however, is not one of them.

Rents are only agreed for the period of the lease, which is usually one year (sometimes two). By no means is there any rent agreed in perpetuity.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by 10023

Why? Chicago is cheap. No one has to live in Lincoln Park.

Don't ask me, ask the local rent control advocates

[10023]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

Why do I need to do that? Homelessness is homelessness. No one should ever get to that point.

Homelessness has nothing to do with rent being high. If it’s not mental illness, then it’s someone being a stubborn ass and not moving to a cheaper neighborhood. Even high income professionals deal with hourlong commutes in places like London or NYC to have the living situation they prefer. You have to be mentally ill or seriously stupid to sleep on the street before just moving elsewhere. And if you mean people sleeping on friends’ sofas or with family, they’re not really homeless.

[Pedestrian]

Repeal Of Rent Control Limits To Have Chilling Effect On Housing, Construction
Sacramento
September 6, 2018
Joseph Pimentel, Bisnow Los Angeles

Passed in 1995, the Costa-Hawkins Act prevents (California) cities from expanding rent control laws, prohibits rent control on newly constructed apartments built after 1995 and single-family homes and condos, and allows multifamily owners to raise rents to market rate when tenants move out. About two dozen cities in the state, such as Santa Monica and Berkeley, adopted some form of rent control ordinance before Costa-Hawkins went into effect.

Repealing Costa-Hawkins (as proposed) would allow other cities to adopt their own rent control policies. Proponents of Prop. 10 say lower and middle-class families that rent cannot keep up with the high cost of living and yearly rent increases and are struggling to pay rent. More than 1.5 million renters in the state are paying 50% of their income toward rent, according to a study by the California Department of Housing and Community Development . . . .

If developers and investors are not going to build more housing or units because of the cost and rent control limits, there would be less work. “For every five construction workers that are in the pipeline and set for retirement, there is only one coming in through the apprenticeship or journeyman [program] to backfill them . . . . We’re going to have a huge vacuum of skilled workforce.”

Read more at: https://www.bisnow.com/sacramento/ne...medium=Browser[/quote]

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

Why do I need to do that? Homelessness is homelessness. No one should ever get to that point.

Because the factors that cause it and the things that would minimize it are quite different and your statement that a substantial number of the homeless at such because they can't afford rent applies only to the briefly homeless.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by 10023

Rents are only agreed for the period of the lease, which is usually one year (sometimes two). By no means is there any rent agreed in perpetuity.

Effectively there is where there is rent control. The initial rent controls the future rent, sometimes for decades.

[Investing In Chicago]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

Owners are free to charge whatever amount they see fit. The problem comes when they want to increase the amount beyond what was originally agreed upon with the lessee.

Also note that in rent controlled jurisdictions, if there is a valid reason for the rents to be increased above the guideline amounts (eg. if it needs extensive repairs), there are mechanisms in place that would allow the landlord to apply to increase the rent accordingly.

Just deciding that you want more money than was originally agreed upon however, is not one of them.

That is what a lease is for.

[10023]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

Effectively there is where there is rent control. The initial rent controls the future rent, sometimes for decades.

But only where there is rent control. I’m not sure MonkeyRonin understands the basic concept of renting otherwise.