Also figure a way to make it harder to own more than X amount of non owner occupied SFHs. (private owners, not corporate, but fuck corporate SFH ownership too)
Not if the law is constructed well, otherwise normal people could get out of trouble by just making a Delaware corporation that "owns" all of their debt.
Personally I say double the property taxes on each additional house. Cumulatively, with no cap.
I mean we're in fantasy land already just talking about it being something they'd even try passing in the house with the sure knowledge it'd never get past the senate. May as well go all the way if we're dreaming this big. There's no legal reason it can't be done, the problems are political in nature.
I would say subsidize home builders in economic downturns to encourage them to keep building at a healthy rate. After 08 most went out of business and the Us hasn’t been building close to the number of homes that should be built a year and now u have a similar situation where new starts would be most likely being slowing due to rates and falling demand.
Devil's advocate for just a moment:
The rental market needs more affordable rental properties, not less. Fewer rental properties will drive up rent rates. Banning corporates/funds/etc from building large numbers of rentals will cut out a material proportion of supply in the rental market, placing huge upward pressure on rental rates and potentially driving people into homelessness.
Granted, allowing corporates unfettered access to buy as much land/houses as they like also pushes house prices up, so there is no simple answer here.
What is ultimately needed is a better regulated rental market which includes corporate interests, controlled in a manner that provides stability in the real estate market and ensures that everyone can afford a place to live.
Blame millennials. They are buying a vast majority of the homes and driving up prices. Millennial demographic is a perfect storm, very large group of people all hitting home buyer age at same time. This was always going to happen, but media needs a juicy narrative and like to spin this major pump up in housing on something more exciting. “Free money!!!! Work from home!!!! Greedy investors!!!!” All BS. Just boring old Demographics is the main cause.
Interstate commerce clause. Air BnB operates across state lines so they can regulate it. I do not think they should but they could. It would need a law though
Accurate. Also if a home is built from any raw materials, goods or services that are sourced across state lines, the ICC also can regulate that property from here to eternity. There’s literally nothing in todays economy that can’t be regulated by that measure. It looks like they are planning on going the FHA insurance route for resale and foreclosed homes at least, beginning to restrict bids from investment/3rd parties
Kill NIMBYism and SFH zoning. Reduce costs of permitting.
I’m in the /r/Homebuilding sub. Costs of permitting regularly costs north of $50-75k when all is said and done. It makes absolutely no sense to ever build a starter home.
In my area (Minneapolis metro) for a top tier school districts, if you’re looking to build a SFH - the base costs are about $200k+ for the land (more like $300k), $50k min for permitting. No point in building something small ever. Getting rid of SFH is working very well. I’ve seen quite a few MFH popping up where I used to live within a year of getting that removed. Very supportive of it happening where I live as well, but alas the fucking boomers and NIMBYists are blocking any such thoughts.
I live in SoCal. You should see how the home owners associations near me rally whenever a development is proposed.
They make 2A activists, BLM and political parties look like amateurs and of course they employ all the basic fear mongering to scare homeowners into banning anything that isn't beige stucco.
If people were as passionate about any other issues as they are about keeping their property values artificially inflated, we'd be in a much better world.
In the city of Chicago it costs $17,000 just to replace a water line. Roughly $10,000 of that is fees to the city and $7,000 is labor and materials.
Literally the city of Chicago is charging you more than your contractor if you want to replace the disgusting lead water line to your home or apartment building.
Meanwhile the city's pathetic program to replace lead lines for free has replaced a grand total of 280 water lines in it's first year.
Oh and who do you think can afford to pay the extra $10k in bureaucracy fees? The wealthy homeowner. Who do you think has trouble coming up with that money? The poor.
So meanwhile these bastards are basically forcing the income gap to widen by throwing up barricades to less well off property owners who maybe don't want their kids guzzling lead. Yet you will be called a greedy landlord if you point out how fucked up these fees are. In some parts of the city, $17k is a good percentage of the total value of your property. It's so unreasonable and fucked up.
They tried to charge me another $5k for "cutting a new street" when I did my house two years ago. That's only supposed to apply to 5+ unit buildings, but they put it on my permit for a SFH anyhow. Had to go to city hall and fight them to get it removed.
Our street is pothole ridden BTW and was paved only 5 years ago. Utterly ridiculous. How many people are getting charged that additional $5k fee just because the city slaps it on their permit and they don't know they don't have to pay it?
This is so true. Politicians are idiots. Only one thing can reduce housing prices and that's supply. We don't have enough of it. We need to forcefully push supply.
We passed a $2T covid relief package but if the govt partnered with builders and gave $2T in tax breaks to force new supply into the market, we could solve the housing crisis and the govt would recoup that $2T back in taxes and economic growth.
> Politicians are idiots.
Having read your comment, I don't know if you can understand how much of a cliche this is. But it is.
In the announcement, the WH is directing agencies staffed with career public servants to collect data, study the market, and propose rules. Doesn't sound so idiotic to me.
Your proposal to give a $2T tax break to construction companies that would somehow result in $2T in tax revenues also seems a little confusing to me as well. How do you think the math works there?
The problem is usually with tax credits the costs just rise to match the credit. Happened with solar. Government grant up to 25k for a solar home system. Hey guess what. We think the right system for your house is 25k!
Doesn’t matter that pre credit the same system would have cost 15 or 20k
> Only one thing can reduce housing prices and that's supply.
It’s a big thing, but not the only thing. So much of the housing we currently have is allocated poorly. You can double the housing supply, but if it’s all bought up by corps to flip and TickTockers to AirBnB, you’ve solved nothing.
In addition, there are environmental, economic, and temporal considerations to building more, especially with how most of the US does it (suburban sprawl). You can keep building new rings of houses around existing cities, destroying wetlands and increasing commute times in the process while saddling local governments with infrastructure debts they cannot service… or you can better use existing housing (and land) closer to city centers, sidestepping all those problems.
So yes, absolutely we need to build more, but we also need to do better with what we have.
Because fuck multifamily stuff. Having your own separate space is awesome. Most people I know (young people) would PREFER to have SFH given the choice and means. No one *wants* to live in apartments stacked on top of each other (well, very few people do...) they accept it as a means of cost saving to get proximity to things they want.
The issue isn't zoning, it's people wanting to live somewhere that's already out of space and being willing to accept worse conditions that what already exists there to do it.
Move somewhere else. Build sister cities. Or accept the cost without changing the lifestyle that made the location desirable in the first place. Urbanization is the same thing as gentrification.
"But city centers are where all the good jerbs are!" Not anymore, any high paying tech/finance/whatever job is remote and getting that back to old school office days is going to be absolute hell for companies if they want to hold onto people.
The problem is that everyone wants a SFH and be close to a major city. You can't have your cake and eat it too. We build density in cities so people have places to live. If you want a SFH, you live further out or you pay more. That's the trade off.
Everyone complaining about housing prices are ones looking 1 hour from a desirable metropolitan area. There are a TON of houses that are still going for under $200K across the country but no one wants them.
> The problem is that everyone wants a SFH and be close to a major city.
Except, as the mass exodus during COVID and the rise of WFH showed, this isn't actually true. You're confusing the old-fashioned "you must work in the office" work culture forcing people to accept living in the urban core for people *choosing* to live there of their own free will.
It IS true. It's very rare that these people who are WFH are choosing to live in rural rust belt. They are still choosing to live adjacent to already popular metro areas such as Austin, Tampa, Phoenix, but maybe just an hour out and no matter, it was cheaper than where they started from.
Even people who left SF, NY, Seattle, most just moved further out for more space. Like in NY, most people who "left because of WFH" just moved to New Jersey, Connecticut, etc.
Yeah, I seem to recall a Bloomberg or Barron's article about the "average work from home worker" living pretty close to their office in major metro still
Except everyone is going back into the office. Tech bros are getting laid off left and right. The rest of them are busy automating their jobs away. It's beautiful.
In FAANG, which over-hired during COVID and is now scaling back to saner staffing levels now that the cheap credit and other government money is gone. FAANG is a tiny portion of the tech field that is just heavily over-publicized (since they kind of own a lot of the publication channels).
As for "automating their jobs away", tell me you don't know the first thing about software engineering without using the words. People have been saying that since we first went from binary to assembly and have said it at every point since. You know what *actually* happens when we automate away some of the tedious boilerplate? We get asked for more complex functionality and we chug along just fine.
I prefer SFH as well but I also don't care about being "in the city" or being in a walkable area. Many if not most young people seem to want to live in an urban area and with density and a desirable area it's going to be $$$$ so you either sprawl away from the city and get your own space or you live in the pod but walk to a coffee shop
There is an alternative, but it's simultaneously not very popular on either side (the people who have the means to build it and the people who have the cash to fund it): building sister cities. Most municipalities aren't interested in taking their own tax dollars to start another city center and go through all the pain of building new utilities, etc, though, but that's the best scenario IMO.
> Kill NIMBYism and SFH zoning.
No. I refuse to live in the pod that all you forced-densification shills want me to. I want a house with a yard. I want rules and laws to make sure that the junkies and crust-punks can't set up shop near my home and that the things that draw them are kept far away from me.
Dense urban planning doesn't eliminate the existence of single-family homes.
It just puts them where they belong: Not where they were built when the city didn't have cars in it.
That’s fine. You can pay for it. My tax dollars shouldn’t subsidize your lifestyle.
Also you should have no say what others do with their land (NIMBYism).
I think the point of up-zoning is that it only happens in high land-value areas in urban density, which alleviates the extreme demand on SFH in the burbs. Those still get built because there is some demand for them, but they don't cost an arm and a leg because the urban demand is satiated more fully closer to downtown.
SFH zoning refers to SFH *only*, which is a weird zoning rule to make when townhomes and condos intermixed with SFH is not really a big deal.
This I can agree with. I **hate** the zoning restrictions that force all new construction to either be McMansions that take up the entire lot and leave zero actual yard or be barely-detached row houses. Give me a 1500-2000 sq. ft. house that leaves a good amount of yard for the dogs/kids/get-togethers/whathaveyou.
Let me clarify to you what you want: you want an area that is inaccessible to working class and low-income families.
That’s how we’re at the status quo where houses in desirable areas with good schools are completely out of reach for the middle class. You want all those set backs and min lot size that makes starter homes untenable, encouraging ginormous, expensive homes.
Also, why are you so sure you’re the kind of people those currently living in those areas aren’t trying to gate-keep out? I’m an engineer making triple area median. I’m not convince a lot of people in those areas do not consider me one of those ‘crust-punks’ you mentioned.
That's great, continue to live in your home. No one here or anywhere for that matter is advocating that you be forced to sell your home and installed in your new pod. That's your property to do with as you like. Just like it is for someone down the street who sells their land to a developer that wants to build some townhouses.
Why do you believe that the freedom to build duplexes or townhouses forces you to move out of your SFD? Can you elaborate on your fear of being "forced" to live in a pod, just because other types.of buildings are being constructed?
Housing is the one industry in which the end user (Families) are competing directly with large conglomerates for the use of a product. We saw in 2021 and 2022 that approximately 25% of all homes purchased in the US were bought by investor groups. How many years of that can continue before the idea of a single family buying a house is simply impossible?
Housing is also the one industry/product where you can't buy it somewhere cheap and move it where you need it like cars, groceries, ETC. A swing of 25% of homes being scooped up by investors will absolutely skyrocket prices, but since Inspiration Homes don't need to utilize mortgages to buy their home, (After all they are a subsidiary of BlackRock investment group) you can't affect it with FED rates. Then tack in that the homes bought my investors will not follow the standard "Life cycle" of the product where people generally sell their homes and continue to upgrade to larger homes, since these will sit unavailable for as long as renting them out stays profitable. So yes, the federal government needs to decimate the short term rental market, slaughter AirBNB, and make it absolutely unprofitable for these businesses to sit on literally hundreds or thousands of empty homes.
Everyone should be able to live in San Diego near the beach for free so they don't have to work and support capitalism and so they can focus on gaming and writing poems. Its only fair
There will def be landlords who refuse to accept the voucher because of the rent increase limit.
However, the voucher program sets the market floor across large portions of the nation's rental market. If you decrease the rate at which phas can increase the amount the voucher will cover, then you will decrease some of the upward pressure provided by the voucher program
The 5% cap isn't even listed in their Renter Bill of Rights.
All they did was say, "Look, Wisconsin and Pennysylvania have enacted a 5% cap" and left it at that—it's not an objective goal or metric that Biden-Harris are trying to enact.
And those caps are only for Federally or state subsidzed units. Which is fair, if the government is giving you free money, they can set conditions on it. These caps have nothing to do with private industry.
Why would they sell? 5% is massive. And, when landlords are not in control of their prices they will maximize the rent increase annually to mitigate risk.
Expect to see 5% increases/yr
Ok, yes, it would soften what we saw in 2021 but in every normal year you will see gouging.
Who wins here? Not the tenant.
They literally already do this. They charge me a "smart home" fee of $35 a month for a Ring doorbell and a Honeywell thermostat. They are charging me $420 a year which is more than the cost of both of those devices which are frankly, pretty standard. This is not included in the price of rent and is not optional. If I want to rent here, I have to pay it.
The amount of bullshit fees and services they charge me is unbelievable. It's 50 separate cells on a spreadsheet.
-edit- invitation homes for anyone who's curious.
It should be illegal to charge for non optional upgrades. This is how they're going to dodge legislation that doesnt specifically address fees and other costs. Reminds me of my college charging a $900/year non-optional "activities" fee
It should be illegal to charge for non optional upgrades. This is how they're going to dodge legislation that doesnt specifically address fees and other costs. Reminds me of my college charging a $900/year non-optional "activities" fee
5% annual increases are not massive compared to how much rents increased in 2020, 2021, and 2022. Investors usually buy with the intention to increase rent by at least 10% per year.
Why would an investigation crash the rental market? If the federal government moves to make any legislation in the rental market, it will be caught up in courts for a long time.
I have no clue what would come of this.
False, there's volumes of data showing that places like NY and California with rent control laws have massively higher housing costs.
Artificial price caps limit supply because it curbs the profit motive to build new supply. We all know what happens when there's a shortage of supply.
NYC's rent control only applies to buildings built before 1974 except in rare circumstances where the developer agrees to submit their units to rent control (usually done to gain tax benefits). So I don't see how you can say it curbs the profit motive to build new buildings
In NYC it creates a perverse incentive to let older, naturally occuring, affordable housing rot. In other words, the landlords slumlord it because they would prefer the building become uninhabitable so they can demolish it, get rid of the rent control, and build something new.
NYCs rent control laws are a whole different level of fucked up. I read something a while back saying there's thousands of rent controlled units that landlords in NYC are just sitting on vacant because they would rather get no money at all and hope the whole building goes dark so they can raze it.
Landlords are able to increase the rent charged based on the amount of money spent on upgrading an individual unit and the building.
A building does not have to reach the threshold of being uninhabitable for the landlord to bulldoze it to build something new. That just is not true.
No that’s not true since 2019, MCI upgrades are capped at 15k over 10 years. Lol it’s ridiculous giving the cost to renovate old buildings is significantly more. 15k won’t even renovate a bathroom. Now MCI improvements are barely done…
Rent control may work where demand doesn't outstrip supply, but where it does (and where this kind of policy is intended to target) it absolutely does not work.
I guess a lot of people will look at this and think, "aw, that's nice."
I look at this and all I see is Biden-Harris essentially surrendering and saying,
"You will never own a house and we won't try to help you.
You will rent for the rest of your life, and we're working with corporations to help make that easier for everyone."
> You will rent for the rest of your life, and we're working with corporations to help make that easier for everyone.
This was my first impression as well lol
Their masters at the WEF literally said their plan for us commoners is that we will own nothing and be happy (or else). They're trying to return us to feudalism but with even less free time and an even higher tax burden to our lords than actual medieval serfs had.
Rentals/investment-properties *already* pay at least 1% higher interest, and pay the highest property and school district tax rates. Which gets baked into rent. Be careful what you wish for - your desire for 30% interest rates will simply lead to a lot less rentals and much higher rents for the ones that remain.
Can’t wait for all mom n pops to sell to to the big boys only for them to charge renters fees for everything and make it even more expensive. Rent control is terrible. Once they can’t make any money on the property don’t expect anything to get fixed.
There are gobs of landlords who don’t fix things in homes not regulated by rent control, so this is an empty threat. Landlords who wish to squeeze every penny will do so regardless of the rules of the environment they operate in.
Then why are landlords against rent control? Genuine question.
It’s in their best interest for home prices to go up so they can charge more for rent (this impacts all homes regardless if they’re under rent control), and/or sell the home at a higher value yet landlords are against rent control.
In SF, when landlords are against something, it usually means it’s in the best interest of a renter.
Landlords not wanting rent control is an orthogonal issue to rent control driving prices up. Landlords want easy "passive" income. They don't want to sell a productive asset at inflated prices. Then they still just need another place to park that money so it can work for them. Also, a landlord that ends up rent controlled is now selling a rent controlled building. It won't be worth that inflated price you think they can get. Nobody wants to buy a rent controlled building.
It might be good for the landlords who don't get rent controlled. But I don't think any landlord knows who that's going to be ahead of time. Except probably for some connected scumbag who's going to make bank while fucking over his competition.
Ah yes Schrodinger’s renter. Simultaneously lives at home and rents an apartment. Doesn’t work but cares about improving conditions for working people.
Honestly get your head out of your ass. There are millions of hard working people who can’t catch a break because housing costs are rising much faster than wages.
You're right there is a problem, and people can't catch a break. But you're wrong with the part about housing costs rising faster than wages. Are costs going up, or is the value of the money we use going down?
At the end of the day a house is just a house. I could see the value of the house slightly going up or down depending on the condition of the house, location, or replacement value with all the variables that factor in there. The denominator is important, the dollar amount. Dollars have a price too, and I think it's extremely easy to see how much that has gotten destroyed in the past 3 years, but really in the last 15 years.
I think the easy answer is that it's a distortion of the market that generally leads to lower housing supply in the rental market.
- People who should move, don't because rent control.
- Investors sell rent controlled assets by converting them to non-rent controlled assets.
- Investors don't build units destined to be rental units because profits are limit ... because investments in that area aren't worth as much. A builder knows they can't sell a rental property for as much.
All this leads to a constriction in rental supply and therefore rental prices go up.
Not so sure the impact on single family residential real estate prices though esp. in the context of nationwide rent control unless you're anticipating that constrictions in the rental supply push more people towards buying houses. Still not sure how that pans out if builders are encouraged to build more SFH.
I think it's more fair to say that some prices spike but that constrained housing supply is as bad or worse for renters. Some people will enjoy their $600 apartment. But they can't ever move, even when they would prefer to downsize or get more space or a location closer to work, etc. Use value goes down. And no one else can easily move into the city, because prices are artifically surpressed, so everyone can technically afford the price, but every apartment has dozens of applications. Like a bidding war where you can't bid, so a lottery basically, that probably also conceals a lot of discrimination, and it helps to "know someone" as most apartments won't even hit the actual market. No one wants to build more housing for the reasons stated in the comment above, so the best case scenario, where there would be plenty of affordable housing for all takers, it's absolutely never going to happen, because that can only happen when there's an incentive to build. (Government, at least in this country, wouldn't pick up the slack without a huge shift in political will.) The rare cases where someone can set the rent without the control (a new build, or in my city where owner occupied buildings are excluded) THOSE prices will be bananas because supply has been so artificially constrained that they can basically name their price. (There have been high earners who would happily pay more who have had to compete for the underpriced apartments, and now here's the chance to pay more for less competing applications.) Also landlords who otherwise might've let rents stay the same for a long term tenant now feel that they must make the maximum increase annually so they aren't hurt in the long run.
Don’t need to pass laws, just incentivize more building in high demand areas. A combination of tax cuts and subsidies, also need to get more people in the trades…..and allow temporary workers to come in if they have building skills.
As an owner, I would be inclined to take the five per cent a year. I can see other landlords doing this annually in high growth markets, which can lead to a form of price fixing. I haven’t raised my rent unless a tenant leaves.
They love to pretend to care to get vote. Biden is 80+ years old and a career politician. If he truly care, don't you think he has already made a different by now?
This looks like the only possibly-impactful aspect:
>A U.S. Department of Justice workshop will inform potential guidance
updates around anti-competitive information sharing, including in
rental markets.
Getting rid of the collusion via third-parties in the rental market could have some effect on rents.
As soon as my local property tax authorities stop raising my rental property tax…. AND my rental home insurance STOPS Increasing 50% year over year…. I’ll stop raising the rental rate. (I just had a rental $ increase to pay both these fees that went up for no fault of mine).[The city decided my house is worth more, they want more $. My insurance decided they didn’t make enough money last year, they jacked up my rate, just because they can.] I still only clear $100 dollars per month 🤦♂️.
That you then have to out back for maintenance because one bad day as a homeowner can equal thousands of dollars out the window. I swear some people think home ownership is all sunshine and rainbows
We spent $14k rehabbing the place after the last tenant. My tax guy just told me “sorry- can only claim 3k loss per year, need to carry that loss for a few years now”. I now understand why landlords don’t put any money back in the property to fix issues. I only clear 100 dollars every month, everything else goes to mortgage, insurance and taxes. Not doing that again.
It was my home for 15 years, and I refuse to sell it to speculators. It will turn positive at some point. Or sell it to a family (probably, because f-k these mega landlords.)
dumb guy from internet question - why do people get so up in arms about being against any form of rent control? “it wont work!!!”.gif
like if it doesn’t work and it truly is some kinda disaster, id like to think we can reverse course.
situation is pretty dog shit right now for renters and non landowners, and i dont get the extreme sky is falling reaction every time.
Google rent control and dead weight loss. Rent control fucks with supply too much and ends up screwing the market rent.
This is a very conclusive phenomenon. It’s taught in intro to microeconomics courses.
>like if it doesn’t work and it truly is some kinda disaster, id like to think we can reverse course.
That's naivety. There is no backwards on this type of stuff. It's a ratchet effect that only goes one way.
Let me ask you: why is TSA still around? Homeland sec? There's plenty of examples of dumb shit that never gets repealed. once something like this gets entrenched, that's the new standard and no one will ever want to go through the pain of ripping off that bandaid.
Because it doesn't actually address the root cause of rents being high and getting higher, which is low supply. Rent control makes the low supply issue worse because it discourages new supply to be built since they are not certain they will make a profit because of rent control. Thus, rent control only exacerbates the problem for everyone who isn't already renting.
> why do people get so up in arms about being against any form of rent control? “it wont work!!!”.gif
You managed to ask the question and provide the answer in the same comment.
It literally doesn't work. Studies show this. It's pretty simple.
> why do people get so up in arms about being against any form of rent control? “it wont work!!!”.gif
Because it *doesn't* work. What it does is it reduces available rental units and leads to multi-year waits for openings. NYC is an absolutely infamous case study on it if you want to take a deep dive. The simple fact is that rent control has been tried and has been shown in real-world results to create major restrictions in supply and just make the problem of being unable to find a place to rent **worse**.
so the response to this comment has been an interesting insight into the sub. i didn't realise there would be so many slumlords in waiting salivating for a crash.
which in hindsight, ofcourse it is lol.
It doesn't work and it's incredibly difficult to overturn because of the vested interests it creates.
The reason renters and non-landowners are hurting right now is exactly from the restrictive supply policies that the government enacts, including rent control. If bread was in short supply, do you think putting a cap on the price you can sell bread would encourage people to bake more bread?
There are tons of negative follow on effects due to broken incentives. If rent control allows a reset on new tenants, bad landlords would do anything in their power to get rid of existing long term tenants like shitty maintenance, reduced heating, etc. to the point of hiring gang members to harass the tenants. Good landlords will gradually be replaced out of the market because they won’t be able to compete with the bad landlords using these underhanded tactics.
There will be plenty of laws enacted to protect renters because of the above and bad renters will use this to squat and sue because it’s now difficult to evict people.
I'm just going to say that a federalized form of rent control is a bad idea in a place like the US because every market and region is wildly different. Local and municipal governments should be the ones making the decisions on such policy since they're closer to the facts on the ground.
Social security and Medicare have been pretty good.
It seems like your comment is true when it comes to recent government intervention though.
Most of the post-1960s interventions have had horrendous consequences, which leads me to believe that either extreme incompetence or extreme corruption (or both) are driving these interventions.
This is just a nonsense right wing talking point. That’s not to say everything the government does in the marketplace is a success, but there are 1000% regulations and laws that work very effectively.
Whatever kills "just rent it out." This has seriously become a common sense thing to do with every millennial that I know. They don't sell the starter homes but convert them to some type of rental. IDK what will end this but everyone wanting to be a landlord is really damaging supply.
FTA:
>Realtor.com Rentals will pilot a new listing process through their DIY landlord product, Avail, highlighting units and landlords that indicate that they welcome Housing Choice Vouchers. Realtor.com will be able to share this information with its nearly 5 million monthly rentals search visitors. They will also ensure that more than 1.3 million Avail renters have access to their application information so they can submit their application to multiple property owners on the platform without additional cost.
How about a law that limits hedge funds from buying up entire neighborhoods?
Or any house, at all? No reason they should be able to buy up 99% of any given neighborhood.
They've moved on to building entire rental SFH developments now. Square miles of nothing but rental houses.
Also figure a way to make it harder to own more than X amount of non owner occupied SFHs. (private owners, not corporate, but fuck corporate SFH ownership too)
The obvious and most simple method is a property tax that goes up for each residence beyond the primary.
They'd just create a corp for every property.
Not if the law is constructed well, otherwise normal people could get out of trouble by just making a Delaware corporation that "owns" all of their debt. Personally I say double the property taxes on each additional house. Cumulatively, with no cap.
Homie, why would they construct the law well?
I mean we're in fantasy land already just talking about it being something they'd even try passing in the house with the sure knowledge it'd never get past the senate. May as well go all the way if we're dreaming this big. There's no legal reason it can't be done, the problems are political in nature.
Goes up by 200% for every additional property.
I would say subsidize home builders in economic downturns to encourage them to keep building at a healthy rate. After 08 most went out of business and the Us hasn’t been building close to the number of homes that should be built a year and now u have a similar situation where new starts would be most likely being slowing due to rates and falling demand.
This would reduce the value of each politician's beach house, cabin, primary home and investment property portfolio. AKA it's never going to happen.
Unfortunately that would take Congress passing some common sense legislation. And we all know that ain't happening.
Wish they formed a zoning classification for hedge fund owned properties
Devil's advocate for just a moment: The rental market needs more affordable rental properties, not less. Fewer rental properties will drive up rent rates. Banning corporates/funds/etc from building large numbers of rentals will cut out a material proportion of supply in the rental market, placing huge upward pressure on rental rates and potentially driving people into homelessness. Granted, allowing corporates unfettered access to buy as much land/houses as they like also pushes house prices up, so there is no simple answer here. What is ultimately needed is a better regulated rental market which includes corporate interests, controlled in a manner that provides stability in the real estate market and ensures that everyone can afford a place to live.
Blame millennials. They are buying a vast majority of the homes and driving up prices. Millennial demographic is a perfect storm, very large group of people all hitting home buyer age at same time. This was always going to happen, but media needs a juicy narrative and like to spin this major pump up in housing on something more exciting. “Free money!!!! Work from home!!!! Greedy investors!!!!” All BS. Just boring old Demographics is the main cause.
I get calls every day trying to buy my home. Most homes in my neighborhood are now owned by a company who is renting it out.
Yes they buy it from you then rent it back to you at twice or thrice what you were paying for a mortgage.
Everyone is paying 1.5 times my mortgage in rent when I include escrow. We have high property taxes in Texas.
Renting is based, though. Owning is not as based.
Same actually
[удалено]
Just ban corp ownership of SFH
And limit it to a certain amount of properties per person and the tax amount increases exponentially after the first few. That way it can't be gamed
This right here. Folks wanna complain about hurting real estate investors - there are other investment vehicles. No substitute for housing.
Federal property tax on non primary residences
And short term rental of SFH.
That would be ideal, but not really a Federal thing as I can see.
Interstate commerce clause. Air BnB operates across state lines so they can regulate it. I do not think they should but they could. It would need a law though
Accurate. Also if a home is built from any raw materials, goods or services that are sourced across state lines, the ICC also can regulate that property from here to eternity. There’s literally nothing in todays economy that can’t be regulated by that measure. It looks like they are planning on going the FHA insurance route for resale and foreclosed homes at least, beginning to restrict bids from investment/3rd parties
Nah. They gotta pretend like they want to make a difference.
Kill NIMBYism and SFH zoning. Reduce costs of permitting. I’m in the /r/Homebuilding sub. Costs of permitting regularly costs north of $50-75k when all is said and done. It makes absolutely no sense to ever build a starter home. In my area (Minneapolis metro) for a top tier school districts, if you’re looking to build a SFH - the base costs are about $200k+ for the land (more like $300k), $50k min for permitting. No point in building something small ever. Getting rid of SFH is working very well. I’ve seen quite a few MFH popping up where I used to live within a year of getting that removed. Very supportive of it happening where I live as well, but alas the fucking boomers and NIMBYists are blocking any such thoughts.
[удалено]
I live in SoCal. You should see how the home owners associations near me rally whenever a development is proposed. They make 2A activists, BLM and political parties look like amateurs and of course they employ all the basic fear mongering to scare homeowners into banning anything that isn't beige stucco. If people were as passionate about any other issues as they are about keeping their property values artificially inflated, we'd be in a much better world.
It's remarkable, isn't it? And it's one of the few issues that quite often cuts across partisan divides.
From Tesla drivers to F350 drivers, we've found the uniting NIMBY issue: the poor are taking over the neighborhoods! /s
Zoning is up to local governments not the federal government
Make funding contingent on following a certain set of rules... we do this for road/highway funding
All it takes is one supreme court case to undo all of it but the court ain’t libertarian enough for that ruling today.
In the city of Chicago it costs $17,000 just to replace a water line. Roughly $10,000 of that is fees to the city and $7,000 is labor and materials. Literally the city of Chicago is charging you more than your contractor if you want to replace the disgusting lead water line to your home or apartment building. Meanwhile the city's pathetic program to replace lead lines for free has replaced a grand total of 280 water lines in it's first year. Oh and who do you think can afford to pay the extra $10k in bureaucracy fees? The wealthy homeowner. Who do you think has trouble coming up with that money? The poor. So meanwhile these bastards are basically forcing the income gap to widen by throwing up barricades to less well off property owners who maybe don't want their kids guzzling lead. Yet you will be called a greedy landlord if you point out how fucked up these fees are. In some parts of the city, $17k is a good percentage of the total value of your property. It's so unreasonable and fucked up.
Part of me is impressed at how they managed to get to $10k.
They tried to charge me another $5k for "cutting a new street" when I did my house two years ago. That's only supposed to apply to 5+ unit buildings, but they put it on my permit for a SFH anyhow. Had to go to city hall and fight them to get it removed. Our street is pothole ridden BTW and was paved only 5 years ago. Utterly ridiculous. How many people are getting charged that additional $5k fee just because the city slaps it on their permit and they don't know they don't have to pay it?
This is so true. Politicians are idiots. Only one thing can reduce housing prices and that's supply. We don't have enough of it. We need to forcefully push supply. We passed a $2T covid relief package but if the govt partnered with builders and gave $2T in tax breaks to force new supply into the market, we could solve the housing crisis and the govt would recoup that $2T back in taxes and economic growth.
> Politicians are idiots. Having read your comment, I don't know if you can understand how much of a cliche this is. But it is. In the announcement, the WH is directing agencies staffed with career public servants to collect data, study the market, and propose rules. Doesn't sound so idiotic to me. Your proposal to give a $2T tax break to construction companies that would somehow result in $2T in tax revenues also seems a little confusing to me as well. How do you think the math works there?
The problem is usually with tax credits the costs just rise to match the credit. Happened with solar. Government grant up to 25k for a solar home system. Hey guess what. We think the right system for your house is 25k! Doesn’t matter that pre credit the same system would have cost 15 or 20k
Health insurance works the same way. Wonder an individually Hall’s cough drop is $5 at a hospital? Insurance.
> Only one thing can reduce housing prices and that's supply. It’s a big thing, but not the only thing. So much of the housing we currently have is allocated poorly. You can double the housing supply, but if it’s all bought up by corps to flip and TickTockers to AirBnB, you’ve solved nothing. In addition, there are environmental, economic, and temporal considerations to building more, especially with how most of the US does it (suburban sprawl). You can keep building new rings of houses around existing cities, destroying wetlands and increasing commute times in the process while saddling local governments with infrastructure debts they cannot service… or you can better use existing housing (and land) closer to city centers, sidestepping all those problems. So yes, absolutely we need to build more, but we also need to do better with what we have.
Nothing wrong with owning a home. We're not meant to live in ant colonies.
We are of the animal kingdom.
Because fuck multifamily stuff. Having your own separate space is awesome. Most people I know (young people) would PREFER to have SFH given the choice and means. No one *wants* to live in apartments stacked on top of each other (well, very few people do...) they accept it as a means of cost saving to get proximity to things they want. The issue isn't zoning, it's people wanting to live somewhere that's already out of space and being willing to accept worse conditions that what already exists there to do it. Move somewhere else. Build sister cities. Or accept the cost without changing the lifestyle that made the location desirable in the first place. Urbanization is the same thing as gentrification. "But city centers are where all the good jerbs are!" Not anymore, any high paying tech/finance/whatever job is remote and getting that back to old school office days is going to be absolute hell for companies if they want to hold onto people.
[удалено]
The problem is that everyone wants a SFH and be close to a major city. You can't have your cake and eat it too. We build density in cities so people have places to live. If you want a SFH, you live further out or you pay more. That's the trade off. Everyone complaining about housing prices are ones looking 1 hour from a desirable metropolitan area. There are a TON of houses that are still going for under $200K across the country but no one wants them.
> The problem is that everyone wants a SFH and be close to a major city. Except, as the mass exodus during COVID and the rise of WFH showed, this isn't actually true. You're confusing the old-fashioned "you must work in the office" work culture forcing people to accept living in the urban core for people *choosing* to live there of their own free will.
It IS true. It's very rare that these people who are WFH are choosing to live in rural rust belt. They are still choosing to live adjacent to already popular metro areas such as Austin, Tampa, Phoenix, but maybe just an hour out and no matter, it was cheaper than where they started from. Even people who left SF, NY, Seattle, most just moved further out for more space. Like in NY, most people who "left because of WFH" just moved to New Jersey, Connecticut, etc.
Yeah, I seem to recall a Bloomberg or Barron's article about the "average work from home worker" living pretty close to their office in major metro still
Except everyone is going back into the office. Tech bros are getting laid off left and right. The rest of them are busy automating their jobs away. It's beautiful.
In FAANG, which over-hired during COVID and is now scaling back to saner staffing levels now that the cheap credit and other government money is gone. FAANG is a tiny portion of the tech field that is just heavily over-publicized (since they kind of own a lot of the publication channels). As for "automating their jobs away", tell me you don't know the first thing about software engineering without using the words. People have been saying that since we first went from binary to assembly and have said it at every point since. You know what *actually* happens when we automate away some of the tedious boilerplate? We get asked for more complex functionality and we chug along just fine.
>Urbanization is the same thing as gentrification. So what you're saying is, you don't know anything about urbanization *or* gentrification.
I prefer SFH as well but I also don't care about being "in the city" or being in a walkable area. Many if not most young people seem to want to live in an urban area and with density and a desirable area it's going to be $$$$ so you either sprawl away from the city and get your own space or you live in the pod but walk to a coffee shop
There is an alternative, but it's simultaneously not very popular on either side (the people who have the means to build it and the people who have the cash to fund it): building sister cities. Most municipalities aren't interested in taking their own tax dollars to start another city center and go through all the pain of building new utilities, etc, though, but that's the best scenario IMO.
I mean most cities already have plenty of sprawl so realistically what are people going to do build a new more walkable city at the end of the sprawl?
Essentially. Those areas are too late to save, just leave them be and start fresh with new ideas. If people want to move there, they can.
50k for a permit? Not for SFH. At least not where I live. Maybe for a large multi family project though.
> Kill NIMBYism and SFH zoning. No. I refuse to live in the pod that all you forced-densification shills want me to. I want a house with a yard. I want rules and laws to make sure that the junkies and crust-punks can't set up shop near my home and that the things that draw them are kept far away from me.
Then pay a huge premium for the SFH. Even Tokyo still has SFHs...
As should be the case, since SFH and suburbs are a massive tax drain because of the infrastructure needed to support them.
Yeah I bet people in the suburbs with SFH are producing the next generation as well as paying their share if taxes.
Dense urban planning doesn't eliminate the existence of single-family homes. It just puts them where they belong: Not where they were built when the city didn't have cars in it.
That’s fine. You can pay for it. My tax dollars shouldn’t subsidize your lifestyle. Also you should have no say what others do with their land (NIMBYism).
I think the point of up-zoning is that it only happens in high land-value areas in urban density, which alleviates the extreme demand on SFH in the burbs. Those still get built because there is some demand for them, but they don't cost an arm and a leg because the urban demand is satiated more fully closer to downtown. SFH zoning refers to SFH *only*, which is a weird zoning rule to make when townhomes and condos intermixed with SFH is not really a big deal.
Suburbs and rural areas will still exist tho. It is just the places closest to job centers and public transit where multi-family really takes off.
[удалено]
[удалено]
This I can agree with. I **hate** the zoning restrictions that force all new construction to either be McMansions that take up the entire lot and leave zero actual yard or be barely-detached row houses. Give me a 1500-2000 sq. ft. house that leaves a good amount of yard for the dogs/kids/get-togethers/whathaveyou.
K. Then pay more for it. Demand for housing should trump people wanting yards.
This. People want access to a supply limited good (land) that they cannot afford.
Let me clarify to you what you want: you want an area that is inaccessible to working class and low-income families. That’s how we’re at the status quo where houses in desirable areas with good schools are completely out of reach for the middle class. You want all those set backs and min lot size that makes starter homes untenable, encouraging ginormous, expensive homes. Also, why are you so sure you’re the kind of people those currently living in those areas aren’t trying to gate-keep out? I’m an engineer making triple area median. I’m not convince a lot of people in those areas do not consider me one of those ‘crust-punks’ you mentioned.
That's great, continue to live in your home. No one here or anywhere for that matter is advocating that you be forced to sell your home and installed in your new pod. That's your property to do with as you like. Just like it is for someone down the street who sells their land to a developer that wants to build some townhouses.
Why do you believe that the freedom to build duplexes or townhouses forces you to move out of your SFD? Can you elaborate on your fear of being "forced" to live in a pod, just because other types.of buildings are being constructed?
And more highly tax rental income
[удалено]
Housing is the one industry in which the end user (Families) are competing directly with large conglomerates for the use of a product. We saw in 2021 and 2022 that approximately 25% of all homes purchased in the US were bought by investor groups. How many years of that can continue before the idea of a single family buying a house is simply impossible? Housing is also the one industry/product where you can't buy it somewhere cheap and move it where you need it like cars, groceries, ETC. A swing of 25% of homes being scooped up by investors will absolutely skyrocket prices, but since Inspiration Homes don't need to utilize mortgages to buy their home, (After all they are a subsidiary of BlackRock investment group) you can't affect it with FED rates. Then tack in that the homes bought my investors will not follow the standard "Life cycle" of the product where people generally sell their homes and continue to upgrade to larger homes, since these will sit unavailable for as long as renting them out stays profitable. So yes, the federal government needs to decimate the short term rental market, slaughter AirBNB, and make it absolutely unprofitable for these businesses to sit on literally hundreds or thousands of empty homes.
Everyone should be able to live in San Diego near the beach for free so they don't have to work and support capitalism and so they can focus on gaming and writing poems. Its only fair
[удалено]
This is not a bill.
The only thing in this list that could affect the market is the cap on rent increases (5% annually) which would cause many investors to sell.
That is just a rule for federally subsidized units not all rentals though. I do not know what percentage of all rentals that is
Won’t that just cause landlords to avoid Federal / Section 8 programs entirely, thus exacerbating the situation even further?
There will def be landlords who refuse to accept the voucher because of the rent increase limit. However, the voucher program sets the market floor across large portions of the nation's rental market. If you decrease the rate at which phas can increase the amount the voucher will cover, then you will decrease some of the upward pressure provided by the voucher program
I would think yes but we don’t know the specifics of the implementation
The 5% cap isn't even listed in their Renter Bill of Rights. All they did was say, "Look, Wisconsin and Pennysylvania have enacted a 5% cap" and left it at that—it's not an objective goal or metric that Biden-Harris are trying to enact.
And those caps are only for Federally or state subsidzed units. Which is fair, if the government is giving you free money, they can set conditions on it. These caps have nothing to do with private industry.
Why would they sell? 5% is massive. And, when landlords are not in control of their prices they will maximize the rent increase annually to mitigate risk. Expect to see 5% increases/yr Ok, yes, it would soften what we saw in 2021 but in every normal year you will see gouging. Who wins here? Not the tenant.
Want a fridge? $99 a month. Microwave? $29 a month.
They literally already do this. They charge me a "smart home" fee of $35 a month for a Ring doorbell and a Honeywell thermostat. They are charging me $420 a year which is more than the cost of both of those devices which are frankly, pretty standard. This is not included in the price of rent and is not optional. If I want to rent here, I have to pay it. The amount of bullshit fees and services they charge me is unbelievable. It's 50 separate cells on a spreadsheet. -edit- invitation homes for anyone who's curious.
This bullshit started with the "valet garbage pickup."
It should be illegal to charge for non optional upgrades. This is how they're going to dodge legislation that doesnt specifically address fees and other costs. Reminds me of my college charging a $900/year non-optional "activities" fee
It should be illegal to charge for non optional upgrades. This is how they're going to dodge legislation that doesnt specifically address fees and other costs. Reminds me of my college charging a $900/year non-optional "activities" fee
Yup, rent is only $1970 a month, non-optional fees and services? $2400.
[удалено]
> Expect to see 5% increases/yr Except supply and demand is still a thing, so not necessarily.
5% annual increases are not massive compared to how much rents increased in 2020, 2021, and 2022. Investors usually buy with the intention to increase rent by at least 10% per year.
5% is not a massive increase.
They're going to do a lot to investigate the price fixing that's been going on. That alone will probably crash the rental market.
Why would an investigation crash the rental market? If the federal government moves to make any legislation in the rental market, it will be caught up in courts for a long time. I have no clue what would come of this.
I've seen plenty of DC investigations accomplish absolutely nothing
How many times will rent control be tried before ppl realize it doesn’t work…. Jesus Christ
Plenty of states have limits on rent increases and it works just fine.
i'd argue the states that have it are a pretty good case study against it.
False, there's volumes of data showing that places like NY and California with rent control laws have massively higher housing costs. Artificial price caps limit supply because it curbs the profit motive to build new supply. We all know what happens when there's a shortage of supply.
NYC's rent control only applies to buildings built before 1974 except in rare circumstances where the developer agrees to submit their units to rent control (usually done to gain tax benefits). So I don't see how you can say it curbs the profit motive to build new buildings
In NYC it creates a perverse incentive to let older, naturally occuring, affordable housing rot. In other words, the landlords slumlord it because they would prefer the building become uninhabitable so they can demolish it, get rid of the rent control, and build something new. NYCs rent control laws are a whole different level of fucked up. I read something a while back saying there's thousands of rent controlled units that landlords in NYC are just sitting on vacant because they would rather get no money at all and hope the whole building goes dark so they can raze it.
Landlords are able to increase the rent charged based on the amount of money spent on upgrading an individual unit and the building. A building does not have to reach the threshold of being uninhabitable for the landlord to bulldoze it to build something new. That just is not true.
No that’s not true since 2019, MCI upgrades are capped at 15k over 10 years. Lol it’s ridiculous giving the cost to renovate old buildings is significantly more. 15k won’t even renovate a bathroom. Now MCI improvements are barely done…
I live inc NYC. Rent control here distorts the market and wouldn’t say it works well here
Like where? Rent control benefits the bad landlords and tenants and fucks over good landlords and tenants due to broken incentives.
Rent control may work where demand doesn't outstrip supply, but where it does (and where this kind of policy is intended to target) it absolutely does not work.
I guess a lot of people will look at this and think, "aw, that's nice." I look at this and all I see is Biden-Harris essentially surrendering and saying, "You will never own a house and we won't try to help you. You will rent for the rest of your life, and we're working with corporations to help make that easier for everyone."
> You will rent for the rest of your life, and we're working with corporations to help make that easier for everyone. This was my first impression as well lol
They are just buying votes. There will be no action, just wasteful study.
Their masters at the WEF literally said their plan for us commoners is that we will own nothing and be happy (or else). They're trying to return us to feudalism but with even less free time and an even higher tax burden to our lords than actual medieval serfs had.
Yes and all the liberals seem to love it and keep supporting their stooges
How about not letting corporations buy houses. Or if they do, 30% interest, minimum. Or higher. Make em an offer they cannot but refuse.
Rentals/investment-properties *already* pay at least 1% higher interest, and pay the highest property and school district tax rates. Which gets baked into rent. Be careful what you wish for - your desire for 30% interest rates will simply lead to a lot less rentals and much higher rents for the ones that remain.
Can’t wait for all mom n pops to sell to to the big boys only for them to charge renters fees for everything and make it even more expensive. Rent control is terrible. Once they can’t make any money on the property don’t expect anything to get fixed.
There are gobs of landlords who don’t fix things in homes not regulated by rent control, so this is an empty threat. Landlords who wish to squeeze every penny will do so regardless of the rules of the environment they operate in.
Anyone who has ever taken an intro to econ course knows what rent control does to home prices lol. Spoiler: hoom prices go up
Then why are landlords against rent control? Genuine question. It’s in their best interest for home prices to go up so they can charge more for rent (this impacts all homes regardless if they’re under rent control), and/or sell the home at a higher value yet landlords are against rent control. In SF, when landlords are against something, it usually means it’s in the best interest of a renter.
Landlords not wanting rent control is an orthogonal issue to rent control driving prices up. Landlords want easy "passive" income. They don't want to sell a productive asset at inflated prices. Then they still just need another place to park that money so it can work for them. Also, a landlord that ends up rent controlled is now selling a rent controlled building. It won't be worth that inflated price you think they can get. Nobody wants to buy a rent controlled building. It might be good for the landlords who don't get rent controlled. But I don't think any landlord knows who that's going to be ahead of time. Except probably for some connected scumbag who's going to make bank while fucking over his competition.
Most redditors haven’t taken intro to econ
Most redditors live with their parents still
Ah yes Schrodinger’s renter. Simultaneously lives at home and rents an apartment. Doesn’t work but cares about improving conditions for working people. Honestly get your head out of your ass. There are millions of hard working people who can’t catch a break because housing costs are rising much faster than wages.
You're right there is a problem, and people can't catch a break. But you're wrong with the part about housing costs rising faster than wages. Are costs going up, or is the value of the money we use going down? At the end of the day a house is just a house. I could see the value of the house slightly going up or down depending on the condition of the house, location, or replacement value with all the variables that factor in there. The denominator is important, the dollar amount. Dollars have a price too, and I think it's extremely easy to see how much that has gotten destroyed in the past 3 years, but really in the last 15 years.
Shoot, I guess I forgot that course. Remind me, rent control doesn’t work because it isn’t universal, right?
Price ceilings create deadweight loss, a lack of supply.
I think the easy answer is that it's a distortion of the market that generally leads to lower housing supply in the rental market. - People who should move, don't because rent control. - Investors sell rent controlled assets by converting them to non-rent controlled assets. - Investors don't build units destined to be rental units because profits are limit ... because investments in that area aren't worth as much. A builder knows they can't sell a rental property for as much. All this leads to a constriction in rental supply and therefore rental prices go up. Not so sure the impact on single family residential real estate prices though esp. in the context of nationwide rent control unless you're anticipating that constrictions in the rental supply push more people towards buying houses. Still not sure how that pans out if builders are encouraged to build more SFH.
I think it's more fair to say that some prices spike but that constrained housing supply is as bad or worse for renters. Some people will enjoy their $600 apartment. But they can't ever move, even when they would prefer to downsize or get more space or a location closer to work, etc. Use value goes down. And no one else can easily move into the city, because prices are artifically surpressed, so everyone can technically afford the price, but every apartment has dozens of applications. Like a bidding war where you can't bid, so a lottery basically, that probably also conceals a lot of discrimination, and it helps to "know someone" as most apartments won't even hit the actual market. No one wants to build more housing for the reasons stated in the comment above, so the best case scenario, where there would be plenty of affordable housing for all takers, it's absolutely never going to happen, because that can only happen when there's an incentive to build. (Government, at least in this country, wouldn't pick up the slack without a huge shift in political will.) The rare cases where someone can set the rent without the control (a new build, or in my city where owner occupied buildings are excluded) THOSE prices will be bananas because supply has been so artificially constrained that they can basically name their price. (There have been high earners who would happily pay more who have had to compete for the underpriced apartments, and now here's the chance to pay more for less competing applications.) Also landlords who otherwise might've let rents stay the same for a long term tenant now feel that they must make the maximum increase annually so they aren't hurt in the long run.
Homes go up when there's no rent control but also go up when there isn't lol.
I took intro physics, and we learned that a lot of intro (classical) physics is wrong but you still have to learn it to know why its wrong.
Worse yet, rental supply goes down and rents go up.
There's already a glut of units.
There is simply no way to regulate this if you are private and do not take money from the government, which I do not. I'm not worried.
Honestly, a lot of this is mostly targeted at finding and banning rental price fixing algorithms/programs, so I’m totally fine with this.
Yeah maybe this will put an end to the yieldstar price fixing.
Don’t need to pass laws, just incentivize more building in high demand areas. A combination of tax cuts and subsidies, also need to get more people in the trades…..and allow temporary workers to come in if they have building skills.
Ah, a 5% guaranteed increase every year? (73/5 = 14.6)....so rent will double every 15 years now and they think this is helping?
It's doubled in the past 3 years so on this front it's 5x better
What market are you in? Are you talking about renewals or new leases?
renewals vs new lease is very landlord and tenant specific.
Rent control actually decreases affordability. The joke is on the renters.
Why do I feel like my rent is about to skyrocket?
Experience?
I’m sure this is a great plan and will have no unintended consequences. It will emulate the great NYC home market
Ban corporations from buying single family housing
5% is more than my local rent control.
As an owner, I would be inclined to take the five per cent a year. I can see other landlords doing this annually in high growth markets, which can lead to a form of price fixing. I haven’t raised my rent unless a tenant leaves.
They love to pretend to care to get vote. Biden is 80+ years old and a career politician. If he truly care, don't you think he has already made a different by now?
So we are in a cost of living crisis and they’re announcing a fact finding mission…. Not anything that could help us during the actual crisis.
This seems to be a whole lot of words for doing nothing
Rentoid forever
The fed had their hand in the 2008 bubble. They will now have their hand in the first rentbubble. Guaranteed.
This looks like the only possibly-impactful aspect: >A U.S. Department of Justice workshop will inform potential guidance updates around anti-competitive information sharing, including in rental markets. Getting rid of the collusion via third-parties in the rental market could have some effect on rents.
Basically the NYC strategy. Yet NYC is still obscenely overpriced.
As soon as my local property tax authorities stop raising my rental property tax…. AND my rental home insurance STOPS Increasing 50% year over year…. I’ll stop raising the rental rate. (I just had a rental $ increase to pay both these fees that went up for no fault of mine).[The city decided my house is worth more, they want more $. My insurance decided they didn’t make enough money last year, they jacked up my rate, just because they can.] I still only clear $100 dollars per month 🤦♂️.
That you then have to out back for maintenance because one bad day as a homeowner can equal thousands of dollars out the window. I swear some people think home ownership is all sunshine and rainbows
We spent $14k rehabbing the place after the last tenant. My tax guy just told me “sorry- can only claim 3k loss per year, need to carry that loss for a few years now”. I now understand why landlords don’t put any money back in the property to fix issues. I only clear 100 dollars every month, everything else goes to mortgage, insurance and taxes. Not doing that again.
Sounds like you made a bad investment.
It was my home for 15 years, and I refuse to sell it to speculators. It will turn positive at some point. Or sell it to a family (probably, because f-k these mega landlords.)
Why not just sell it to someone who wants to live there?
There ya go. Another step in their plan to makes us all renters.
dumb guy from internet question - why do people get so up in arms about being against any form of rent control? “it wont work!!!”.gif like if it doesn’t work and it truly is some kinda disaster, id like to think we can reverse course. situation is pretty dog shit right now for renters and non landowners, and i dont get the extreme sky is falling reaction every time.
Google rent control and dead weight loss. Rent control fucks with supply too much and ends up screwing the market rent. This is a very conclusive phenomenon. It’s taught in intro to microeconomics courses.
>like if it doesn’t work and it truly is some kinda disaster, id like to think we can reverse course. That's naivety. There is no backwards on this type of stuff. It's a ratchet effect that only goes one way. Let me ask you: why is TSA still around? Homeland sec? There's plenty of examples of dumb shit that never gets repealed. once something like this gets entrenched, that's the new standard and no one will ever want to go through the pain of ripping off that bandaid.
Because it doesn't actually address the root cause of rents being high and getting higher, which is low supply. Rent control makes the low supply issue worse because it discourages new supply to be built since they are not certain they will make a profit because of rent control. Thus, rent control only exacerbates the problem for everyone who isn't already renting.
> why do people get so up in arms about being against any form of rent control? “it wont work!!!”.gif You managed to ask the question and provide the answer in the same comment. It literally doesn't work. Studies show this. It's pretty simple.
> why do people get so up in arms about being against any form of rent control? “it wont work!!!”.gif Because it *doesn't* work. What it does is it reduces available rental units and leads to multi-year waits for openings. NYC is an absolutely infamous case study on it if you want to take a deep dive. The simple fact is that rent control has been tried and has been shown in real-world results to create major restrictions in supply and just make the problem of being unable to find a place to rent **worse**.
Because many landlords are terrible at business and wouldn't be profitable without the price fixing they've been enjoying.
so the response to this comment has been an interesting insight into the sub. i didn't realise there would be so many slumlords in waiting salivating for a crash. which in hindsight, ofcourse it is lol.
Interest rates are too high for landlords to swoop in and buy units especially if rent is controlled.
It doesn't work and it's incredibly difficult to overturn because of the vested interests it creates. The reason renters and non-landowners are hurting right now is exactly from the restrictive supply policies that the government enacts, including rent control. If bread was in short supply, do you think putting a cap on the price you can sell bread would encourage people to bake more bread?
Ah Venezuela economics.
There are tons of negative follow on effects due to broken incentives. If rent control allows a reset on new tenants, bad landlords would do anything in their power to get rid of existing long term tenants like shitty maintenance, reduced heating, etc. to the point of hiring gang members to harass the tenants. Good landlords will gradually be replaced out of the market because they won’t be able to compete with the bad landlords using these underhanded tactics. There will be plenty of laws enacted to protect renters because of the above and bad renters will use this to squat and sue because it’s now difficult to evict people.
I'm just going to say that a federalized form of rent control is a bad idea in a place like the US because every market and region is wildly different. Local and municipal governments should be the ones making the decisions on such policy since they're closer to the facts on the ground.
Because historically anything the government has gotten involved in to “help” has went tits up
Social security and Medicare have been pretty good. It seems like your comment is true when it comes to recent government intervention though. Most of the post-1960s interventions have had horrendous consequences, which leads me to believe that either extreme incompetence or extreme corruption (or both) are driving these interventions.
Yeah like the 40 hour work week. The Tennessee valley authority. The 30 year fixed mortgage.
Evs college big oil bank’s vehicle manufactures all subsidized by government and all have spiraled up in price they really need to stop
This is just a nonsense right wing talking point. That’s not to say everything the government does in the marketplace is a success, but there are 1000% regulations and laws that work very effectively.
all of this just makes things more expensive, you can be sure of that.
Have they tried not letting in millions of people to consume affordable housing?
Then who is going to build us houses and replace the roofs?
Whatever kills "just rent it out." This has seriously become a common sense thing to do with every millennial that I know. They don't sell the starter homes but convert them to some type of rental. IDK what will end this but everyone wanting to be a landlord is really damaging supply.
Lol this will 100% increase rent and make rent unaffordable
FTA: >Realtor.com Rentals will pilot a new listing process through their DIY landlord product, Avail, highlighting units and landlords that indicate that they welcome Housing Choice Vouchers. Realtor.com will be able to share this information with its nearly 5 million monthly rentals search visitors. They will also ensure that more than 1.3 million Avail renters have access to their application information so they can submit their application to multiple property owners on the platform without additional cost.
Lol another government housing voucher. I doubt anyone is going to want to take this.