Rent Control Backfiring? (how much, homes, employment)

[opossum1]

^ Because it's about continuity and stability in the community, the connections that are the cornerstone and the fabric of the community itself.
(I suspect these words will fall on deaf ears in modern day CA)
Without these things, the "society" is just a collection of hostile to each other individuals, wolf-eat-wolf horde - hopefully not what civilized countries are aspiring to be at this day and age. Taking the other path, not caring about anyone around...will reap what they saw indeed, at the end. Then come the neighbors that hate each other and are suing each other left and right, generally transient population, the street crime, rude/hateful culture, growing inequality and eventually a collapse of society itself.

[Teacher Terry]

I don’t totally disagree with you guys. But most people expect a normal raise in rent every year but not 30%. Renters have few rights here and they are throwing people out for no reason, remodeling and then really jacking up prices. We had a few rentals for awhile and in fact didn’t raise the rent if they were good renters taking care of the property. We would wait for them to move out to raise rents.

[Des-Lab]

Originally Posted by Teacher Terry

Renters have few rights here and they are throwing people out for no reason, remodeling and then really jacking up prices.

Actually from a business perspective, that's a VERY good reason to do exactly that.

If I was renting a place for $1500/mo and came to the realization that I could get double or even triple that by sinking in a few grand in renovations and upgrades which would pay for themselves and then some in a very short time, why in my right mind wouldn't I?

Real estate is a business, not a charity. If some landlords want to "be nice", that's their right. But unless we are a totalitarian society where Capitalism is outlawed, nobody should be FORCED to do that.

[bad debt]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

I mean any “unregulated” aspect of business that can be profitably exercised will often have an adverse effect on some populations.

Example apropos this thread topic: sro buildings closed and redeveloped. Low income, retired, disabled people live many years, some their whole lives, in a neighborhood or city and over time can’t pay increasing rates for housing in the region they have long / always called home. Sro’s eventually their last chance to live out their lives / remaining years. The real estate development industry has many regulations, yes. But these old sro’s are one by one disappearing. Major contributor to homelessness as the tenants have nowhere else to go. These folks don’t have savings to start anew elsewhere. Many have no connections elsewhere anymore. Life wouldn’t be a grand new adventure starting over even if they did have some bucks. They’re often sick. They’re tired. They cling to their little familiarities with desperation.

I understand these people’s problems aren’t the fault of developers and landlords. But they become a sad burden on larger society as they are forced onto the streets. I’m not proposing the landlords suffer the burden. I’m pointing out the issue. It’s easy to say: “the market will self regulate.” But it’s bulltweet. The market will maximize always, and that will come at some considerable loss to certain demographics that then burden society in other ways. Meanwhile the developers profit anyway while the public becomes increasingly burdened.

It’s a conundrum.

Highest and Best Use. That's what is best for the land.

If people (society) want to keep SRO's functional then they will have pay to keep them in place. However, that doesn't seem to be the case, therefore they are shut down and the people currently living in them go on the street and people (society) get to pay for the burden in other ways.

[opossum1]

The mentality "I can do whatever the hell I want with my property, including raise the rent 10 times" is great but one shouldn't forget that all this only works as soon as society one lives in provides various forms of support for all these investment activities. Including support provided in the form of basic safety.... remember that in disenfranchised society it all can be gone and quickly (especially the safety part). Look at some other countries where it happened.

It's time to acknowledge and write into law that housing is not merely an investment instrument but a fundamental human need and core aspect of healthy, functional society, and institute restrictions to guard it from abuse (including banning foreign buyers) because this housing issue is destroying individual communities and the country from inside.

[Mr5150]

Originally Posted by Teacher Terry

Reno has escalating rent and house prices and it’s making people homeless. Landlords are demanding huge increases which the wages don’t support. Locals are being driven out while Californians are moving in. We also have attracted tech companies with higher wages. It’s a dilemma and I don’t know enough about rent control to have a educated opinion although that has been suggested by our mayor.

This true. My dtr lives in Reno and said the rents went up a $1000 a month in her complex for new renters! Existing renters only saw a small increase of $100

[Mr5150]

Originally Posted by Des-Lab

Actually from a business perspective, that's a VERY good reason to do exactly that.

If I was renting a place for $1500/mo and came to the realization that I could get double or even triple that by sinking in a few grand in renovations and upgrades which would pay for themselves and then some in a very short time, why in my right mind wouldn't I?

Real estate is a business, not a charity. If some landlords want to "be nice", that's their right. But unless we are a totalitarian society where Capitalism is outlawed, nobody should be FORCED to do that.

My guess is you are sitting pretty as are we. But you seem to lack compassion. Here is the deal: say I bought rentals five years ago and have doing well charge X$ rent. Then I decide to kick out my faithful tenants so I can triple rent. There is a word for that: GREED. I support the right to make a buck, but I detest greed at the expense of the working class

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by bad debt

Highest and Best Use. That's what is best for the land.

If people (society) want to keep SRO's functional then they will have pay to keep them in place. However, that doesn't seem to be the case, therefore they are shut down and the people currently living in them go on the street and people (society) get to pay for the burden in other ways.

Heh. Are you taking the position that what’s “best for the land” is the point of human existence, really? We exist to maximize land use for a select few at the expense of many?

I am completely familiar with the business philosophy of highest and best use. I am also completely educated to the scientific truths compiled by anthropology, biology, zoology. Homo sapiens are social creatures by design. We do not exist as societies to serve only select individuals.

For a guy who just proposed a list of terms in need of definitions in another thread, you fail to apply the same rigor to your own argument here.

Define: “highest and best use”. Maximizing financial profit regardless of human effect? Or is the principle of highest and best use ultimately for social benefit?

Capitalism does not thrive in a decimated market. Capitalism is not applied best to temporarily enrich only small segments of society. Capitalism thrives, highest and best, when it accommodates and serves the benefit of its largest potential market. This is where presidential candidate Andrew Yang is making his most important case: the point of capitalism is ultimately to serve humanity. He calls that philosophy “Human Centered Capitalism”. Good idea for you to contemplate on that idea you have clearly missed.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by Des-Lab

Actually from a business perspective, that's a VERY good reason to do exactly that.

If I was renting a place for $1500/mo and came to the realization that I could get double or even triple that by sinking in a few grand in renovations and upgrades which would pay for themselves and then some in a very short time, why in my right mind wouldn't I?

Real estate is a business, not a charity. If some landlords want to "be nice", that's their right. But unless we are a totalitarian society where Capitalism is outlawed, nobody should be FORCED to do that.

But they do need to be regulated to stay in bounds of society’s needs ... otherwise they kill the golden goose.

[Des-Lab]

Originally Posted by opossum1

The mentality "I can do whatever the hell I want with my property, including raise the rent 10 times" is great but one shouldn't forget that all this only works as soon as society one lives in provides various forms of support for all these investment activities. Including support provided in the form of basic safety.... remember that in disenfranchised society it all can be gone and quickly (especially the safety part). Look at some other countries where it happened.

It's time to acknowledge and write into law that housing is not merely an investment instrument but a fundamental human need and core aspect of healthy, functional society, and institute restrictions to guard it from abuse (including banning foreign buyers) because this housing issue is destroying individual communities and the country from inside.

This has angry, disgruntled, priced out "I demand you pay for me" renter written all over it. I can't and won't even try to argue this mess any further. It's clear you are basing your argument on emotions and wants, not facts or logic. And as anyone with even 8th grade debating skills can tell you, that is always a lost cause. Next comes your ad hominiem.

Originally Posted by Mr5150

My guess is you are sitting pretty as are we. But you seem to lack compassion. Here is the deal: say I bought rentals five years ago and have doing well charge X$ rent. Then I decide to kick out my faithful tenants so I can triple rent. There is a word for that: GREED. I support the right to make a buck, but I detest greed at the expense of the working class

I already addressed this. Does this distinction cut both ways? How is demanding (for example) to only *have* to pay $750 for something when on the open market, it's worth $1500 not being every bit as greedy?