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

[10023]

Originally Posted by mhays

Yes, why can't they just eat cake!?

Sorry, you're flat wrong here. I'm amazed that this is even debatable.

People are in a million situations. Maybe they've pissed their friends off or don't have any. Maybe they're justifying living on the street for a short time (which becomes longer) because a solution is just around the corner. Maybe they actually like living on the street. Maybe they stay in town so they can see their kid occasionally.

Whether you get this stuff or not, there are in fact a lot of sane people on the streets, and they're reportedly full of stories like this.

That person would be mentally ill. And if they like living on the street, then it shouldn’t be seen as a problem in need of a solution anyway.

[mhays]

No, you're pretty much just unaware on this one.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by Jonesy55

I don't necessarily disagree with that, but there probably should be regulation in place to ensure that landlords and rental agents are not actively encouraged to move people on after 12 months or whatever, like prohibiting one off fees for moving in, non-refundable (or dubiously withheld) deposits and so on. Those kind of regulations are fair enough imo to prevent unnecessary churn within the rental market just to give more profits to owners at the expense of stability for tenants.

If anything the regulations should encourage landlords to keep good tenants for the long term while giving them some flexibility to move people on if there is a genuinely good reason for doing so.

I don't know about large rental companies but I think the situation with most landlords are that they are happy to find a great tenant. Now, does that mean they will freeze their rent for a decade? Probably not. But it makes sense to keep them in.

Me and my girlfriend were looking at another unit in our old building after we found out it has been on the market for 6 months! So we thought, damn...we are about to get a deal. But no. No first months rent free or anything. So we passed. Now my dad, who has a few rental properties, would have been all over giving someone an incentive after he lost 6000-14000 in mortgage alone over that time period.

Finding a good tenant, one who pays on time, doesn't complain about small issues, doesnt tear the place up, have animals that destroy the place are great to find and I would hope most landlords would notice this and keep rent increases on the low side.

I don't think all landlords are Mother Teresa but I also dont buy the boogieman narrative you hear on here so often. Most landlords arent renting to some old lady in Manhatten for the last 30 years at 1200 a month and could kick her out and make 5000 a month tomorrow. These things can happen but in reality the real market-based increases arent much higher than the current rent. And in any case, my last apartment raised rent 0 after my first year renting then were going to raise our rent 55 dollars after our second year. We decided to pay a little more and go down the street. The rent increase was reasonable, but we moved for other reasons. I don't think it would be good business for my apartment complex to raise rent so high to have a potential 6 month vacancy.

[10023]

Originally Posted by mhays

No, you're pretty much just unaware on this one.

No, I’m not. A person who prefers to live on the street has an obvious mental illness, simply by virtue of the fact that they want to live on the street.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by 10023

No, I’m not. A person who prefers to live on the street has an obvious mental illness, simply by virtue of the fact that they want to live on the street.

While in 99% of cases I would agree, there are exceptions. Some people who don't have serious mental issues are always attracted to the romanticism of the "gutter punk" lifestyle (though they often develop drug/alcohol problems).

I'd also argue that if you are in an area that is warm year round and relatively low crime, there's no serious limitation other than cultural norms to living on the street.

[sopas ej]

"It's unclear how many people live in their cars by necessity, because the government does not track vehicular homelessness."

• Video Link

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

Most landlords arent renting to some old lady in Manhatten for the last 30 years at 1200 a month and could kick her out and make 5000 a month tomorrow. These things can happen but in reality the real market-based increases arent much higher than the current rent. And in any case, my last apartment raised rent 0 after my first year renting then were going to raise our rent 55 dollars after our second year. We decided to pay a little more and go down the street. The rent increase was reasonable, but we moved for other reasons. I don't think it would be good business for my apartment complex to raise rent so high to have a potential 6 month vacancy.

Most? Probably in a city full of highly transiet younger folks. But there may be more examples than you think. I can't get around one of my best friends, who is 20 years younger than me but has still been in SF now for 35 years, who pays $600/month for a pretty nice top floor studio in "lower Nob Hill".

[Gantz]

Originally Posted by jd3189

And this is the funny thing about this, especially in this thread and forum. This move to cheaper areas pretty much ensures more people will continue moving to the suburbs at the expense of more urban growth for cities. If people like 10023 say touch luck for those who can’t afford to live in the city ( which seems to be increasing in places like SF, LA, NYC, etc), those places are just going to be third world towns with super rich folks only surrounded by extreme poverty.

It's only this way because the poor are shackled and live in "affordable" housing in the first place. The poor pay $1,400/mo for "affordable" apartment in NYC instead of paying $350/mo market rate in Wilkes-Barre. And the big corps who rely on low skill low wage labor in these expensive metro areas have no incentive to raise wages, since they have a big supply of the poor being subsidized by the government willing to work for peanuts.

In fact, it’s already that way to a certain extent.


I understand apartment landlords have rights and power, but there should be some middle ground. It’s very counterproductive to mock the suburbs when they are doing a good job of taking people away from the cities, limiting their growth.

Yes, it is already that way, because the middle class are getting taxed to death to subsidize affordable housing/rent control for the poor.