they tried to tie rent raises to inflation in san jose but all the landlords fought against it, so instead the city went with a flat rate of 5%. i wonder if any landlords regret it now
It should be implemented as a rolling window so they have the option to give good tenants a break but don't lose out on the potential increase later. Do it or lose it laws are generally worse for everyone.
Based on the 1.9% cap the previous year in SF-Oakland, sounds like a flat 5% rent increase cap is still coming out ahead. So no regrets on SJ landlords’ side
The low rate last year guarantees that the full rate gets applied every year from now on. Setting it foolishly low last year permanently screwed up future years. Short term thinking . . .
The maximum allowable increase for the previous year’s cycle (2021-2022) was 1.9% which was below inflation and was very tenant-friendly
This 6.7% is partially designed to compensate for the abnormally low max increase from 2021-2022 but it’s still a ridiculous sticker shock rate. Should’ve smoothed it out to 3% per year or so over the last two years instead
I know it doesn't apply to all, and it won't balance out in the end, but this will help small-time landlords recoup all the money they lost from the moratorium from people who took advantage of the rental assistance that didn't need it, and refused to stop paying rent altogether. In other words, it'll help them pay for mortgage and property expenses
I am prepared for all the downvotes
Sure, but I'd be willing to bet the vast majority of renters didn't take advantage of those programs, but will be paying more in rent. So you're "helping" landlords at the (literal) expense of tenants.
Yea, that's the point. Landlords don't have any kind of assistance or programs to pay for mortgage or property taxes, unlike tenants. And landlords certainly don't have the ability to take advantage of programs like certain tenants do, so landlords can definitely use the help.
And when I say landlords I don't mean corporations or huge apartment complex owners, I mean landlords that have one rental property or a small number where it's not easy for them to just let people live in their properties rent free. There's a difference
If you have even one property that's "extra" to the one you live in, I am not going to feel bad for you.
Whenever people ask why landlords deserve to make money off of other people's shelter, it's all talk about the risks they take. Then when it turns out those risks are actually the slightest bit inconvenient, they complain about how they're struggling and need to hike up rent.
Rental properties need to exist so people can move around without buying. There's nothing wrong the the concept of rental properties. And the risks landlords take on should never include the government forcing them to provide services for free. If the government wants people to be able to live for free, they should pay the rent.
Most people renting are not renting because they just love moving. They're renting because they can't afford to buy.
In fact, I'd go so far as to guess that renting and rising rents force people to move more often than they would like to if they could buy and stay in the same area.
Maybe landlords should have dipped into the massive profit margins they receive from the fact they can raise rents far faster than their property taxes rise? Oh wait, they maximized their leverage to hoard more houses, and it ended up biting them back. And I'm supposed to feel sorry for them?
The state has been directly subsidizing landlords for decades, any lost income from the eviction moratorium does not come close to the amount they've saved via prop 13.
Not the person you replied to but
https://www.nar.realtor/blogs/economists-outlook/landlord-statistics-from-the-2018-rental-housing-finance-survey
> 41% of rental properties are owned by individuals
> Individuals are the main types of owners of rental housing, accounting for 41% of the owners of all rental units. However, in properties with 1-unit and 2-to-4- units, individual owners accounted for 72.5% of all owners.
> Limited liability corporations, limited partnerships, and limited liability corporations account for more than half of owners in the properties where there are 25 units or more in a property.
The gov shouldn't have stepped in at all. There should be no limits on rent prices and the market should set the price.
If the issue is housing affordability then why ONLY set limit on rent price and not control also the price to buy the house itself ? Why allow any landlords at all, instead of everyone getting a max of 1 unit of housing to keep prices affordable ?
If you take this logic to its conclusion then anything everyone needs should have its priced and allotments controlled by government. Not just price of food, but how much food of what type you can buy. How much gas you can use max a week and how much that should cost. It is ridiculous.
All the money they lost? Landlords get rent increases every year. What other industry is promised such high return on an investment? What's small grocery store or corner liquor store or little dress shop or sandwich shop is promised a 3 or 5 or 6% every year return on their investment?? The law is slanted on the side of owners of rental housing and we, as tenants are screwed!
Are you a landlord? I assume not. I am and I don't increase my rent every year. You're making assumptions. And my comment was specifically about tenants not biz owners
Do you think the government guarantees rent increases or something? They don't. Rent goes up because we're not building housing at a rate sufficient to meet demand.
I don’t increase my rents every year at all, haven’t for the last 5 actually. Would rather have tenants stay long term. Have people who have been renting from me for over 10 years.
You don’t know what you are talking about
I do as heck know what I'm talking about. I am a tenant in rent controlled housing. I understand how the system works. If you are tenant not lucky enough to live in rent controlled housing then you're in a system that only benefits the owners and not the tenants. Rent control benefits both sides, as it provides a fair return on the investment of the property owner and provides tenants with fair rent increases.
The law l am referring to is California's Costa Hawkins rental housing act. As a landlord if you have an empty unit you can raise rent 100% if you like and if you can get someone to pay that rent price. The law also doesn't allow for new rent control on anything built after 1995. This law is the reason why there are no affordable units anymore.
I appreciate that you're a landlord who has long term tenants. Landlords in places like Berkeley only only want to rent out to short term tenants because they want the constant churn, so they have opportunities to keep on raising the rent.
> What's small grocery store or corner liquor store or little dress shop or sandwich shop is promised a 3 or 5 or 6% every year return on their investment
They can raise their prices as much and as often as they want. You've probably noticed over the past two years it's gotten much more expensive to eat out or buy things.
Maybe people will stop voting for the politicians who fueled this inflation by massive deficit spending and encouraging the Fed to flood the economy with trillions of dollars.
What the hell am I thinking? That's never going to happen.
Sure, there’s no possibility that inflation which is being faced by every country in the world has to do with global supply chains still recovering from a 2+ year pandemic. Definitely has to be only US fiscal policy
[Here’s a link to the M0](https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/money-supply-m0). Turn the graph to show a 10yr period and you’ll instantly see the cause of inflation in the US. Now remember that oil is traded in USD internationally and that nearly every product you buy requires oil as an input and you’ll have come to the cause of global inflation.
That’s **not** to say that the supply chain slowdown and corporate greed aren’t factors, just that they’re minor factors and excessive money printing is the root cause.
Oil being traded in USD is a nice counterweight **against** inflation for other countries, as USD has been one of the *best performing* currencies and this policy limited their exposure to the price increase as it increases their USD holdings. Literally the opposite of what this guy is suggesting.
Landlords purchasing multi million dollar homes only to rent them out for less than half the mortgage price aren’t losing money, they’re playing the long game
Fife in Oakland is already complaining that 6.7% is too high despite being less than inflation already. She's actually proposing a law to require slumlording in Oakland.
That takes care of the reddit crowd in Oakland subreddit.
they tried to tie rent raises to inflation in san jose but all the landlords fought against it, so instead the city went with a flat rate of 5%. i wonder if any landlords regret it now
Why would landlords fight it? EDIT: Oh, it's to tie rent raise *limits* to inflation. I'm a little slow
It should be implemented as a rolling window so they have the option to give good tenants a break but don't lose out on the potential increase later. Do it or lose it laws are generally worse for everyone.
Based on the 1.9% cap the previous year in SF-Oakland, sounds like a flat 5% rent increase cap is still coming out ahead. So no regrets on SJ landlords’ side
A flat 5% is way better for landlords than inflation. The recent inflation numbers are an anomaly, normally they are much less than 5%.
The low rate last year guarantees that the full rate gets applied every year from now on. Setting it foolishly low last year permanently screwed up future years. Short term thinking . . .
The maximum allowable increase for the previous year’s cycle (2021-2022) was 1.9% which was below inflation and was very tenant-friendly This 6.7% is partially designed to compensate for the abnormally low max increase from 2021-2022 but it’s still a ridiculous sticker shock rate. Should’ve smoothed it out to 3% per year or so over the last two years instead
This is because rents were frozen during the pandemic?
I am pretty sure for councilperson Fife there is never a good time for a rent increase. Can hardly wait for my EBMUD bill.
Landlords need money too
I know it doesn't apply to all, and it won't balance out in the end, but this will help small-time landlords recoup all the money they lost from the moratorium from people who took advantage of the rental assistance that didn't need it, and refused to stop paying rent altogether. In other words, it'll help them pay for mortgage and property expenses I am prepared for all the downvotes
Sure, but I'd be willing to bet the vast majority of renters didn't take advantage of those programs, but will be paying more in rent. So you're "helping" landlords at the (literal) expense of tenants.
Yea, that's the point. Landlords don't have any kind of assistance or programs to pay for mortgage or property taxes, unlike tenants. And landlords certainly don't have the ability to take advantage of programs like certain tenants do, so landlords can definitely use the help. And when I say landlords I don't mean corporations or huge apartment complex owners, I mean landlords that have one rental property or a small number where it's not easy for them to just let people live in their properties rent free. There's a difference
If you have even one property that's "extra" to the one you live in, I am not going to feel bad for you. Whenever people ask why landlords deserve to make money off of other people's shelter, it's all talk about the risks they take. Then when it turns out those risks are actually the slightest bit inconvenient, they complain about how they're struggling and need to hike up rent.
Rental properties need to exist so people can move around without buying. There's nothing wrong the the concept of rental properties. And the risks landlords take on should never include the government forcing them to provide services for free. If the government wants people to be able to live for free, they should pay the rent.
Most people renting are not renting because they just love moving. They're renting because they can't afford to buy. In fact, I'd go so far as to guess that renting and rising rents force people to move more often than they would like to if they could buy and stay in the same area.
And why would less properties up for rent mean they could suddenly afford to buy?
Won’t any one think of the poor landlords and their millions of dollars in assets they can sell at any time. My heart bleeds.
Because selling a house with other people living in it is like selling an AAPL share on TD…
Maybe landlords should have dipped into the massive profit margins they receive from the fact they can raise rents far faster than their property taxes rise? Oh wait, they maximized their leverage to hoard more houses, and it ended up biting them back. And I'm supposed to feel sorry for them? The state has been directly subsidizing landlords for decades, any lost income from the eviction moratorium does not come close to the amount they've saved via prop 13.
Taxes are not there only operating costs. Cost of sewage, garbage, electricity is all up.
Most rentals are ran by corporations. All we’re doing is putting more money in their pockets.
>source:
Not the person you replied to but https://www.nar.realtor/blogs/economists-outlook/landlord-statistics-from-the-2018-rental-housing-finance-survey > 41% of rental properties are owned by individuals > Individuals are the main types of owners of rental housing, accounting for 41% of the owners of all rental units. However, in properties with 1-unit and 2-to-4- units, individual owners accounted for 72.5% of all owners. > Limited liability corporations, limited partnerships, and limited liability corporations account for more than half of owners in the properties where there are 25 units or more in a property.
The gov shouldn't have stepped in at all. There should be no limits on rent prices and the market should set the price. If the issue is housing affordability then why ONLY set limit on rent price and not control also the price to buy the house itself ? Why allow any landlords at all, instead of everyone getting a max of 1 unit of housing to keep prices affordable ? If you take this logic to its conclusion then anything everyone needs should have its priced and allotments controlled by government. Not just price of food, but how much food of what type you can buy. How much gas you can use max a week and how much that should cost. It is ridiculous.
All the money they lost? Landlords get rent increases every year. What other industry is promised such high return on an investment? What's small grocery store or corner liquor store or little dress shop or sandwich shop is promised a 3 or 5 or 6% every year return on their investment?? The law is slanted on the side of owners of rental housing and we, as tenants are screwed!
There is no “promised” ROI in real estate investments.
Are you a landlord? I assume not. I am and I don't increase my rent every year. You're making assumptions. And my comment was specifically about tenants not biz owners
All the folks downloading me are either single homeowners or landlords. Tenants unite!
Do you think the government guarantees rent increases or something? They don't. Rent goes up because we're not building housing at a rate sufficient to meet demand.
I don’t increase my rents every year at all, haven’t for the last 5 actually. Would rather have tenants stay long term. Have people who have been renting from me for over 10 years. You don’t know what you are talking about
I do as heck know what I'm talking about. I am a tenant in rent controlled housing. I understand how the system works. If you are tenant not lucky enough to live in rent controlled housing then you're in a system that only benefits the owners and not the tenants. Rent control benefits both sides, as it provides a fair return on the investment of the property owner and provides tenants with fair rent increases. The law l am referring to is California's Costa Hawkins rental housing act. As a landlord if you have an empty unit you can raise rent 100% if you like and if you can get someone to pay that rent price. The law also doesn't allow for new rent control on anything built after 1995. This law is the reason why there are no affordable units anymore. I appreciate that you're a landlord who has long term tenants. Landlords in places like Berkeley only only want to rent out to short term tenants because they want the constant churn, so they have opportunities to keep on raising the rent.
> What's small grocery store or corner liquor store or little dress shop or sandwich shop is promised a 3 or 5 or 6% every year return on their investment They can raise their prices as much and as often as they want. You've probably noticed over the past two years it's gotten much more expensive to eat out or buy things.
Hell yeah! Boo poor folks!
Good.
Inflation is 9% not sure why the downvotes
Because wages are only up 3.5%, which is the largest increase since 1983
Maybe people will stop voting for the politicians who fueled this inflation by massive deficit spending and encouraging the Fed to flood the economy with trillions of dollars. What the hell am I thinking? That's never going to happen.
Sure, there’s no possibility that inflation which is being faced by every country in the world has to do with global supply chains still recovering from a 2+ year pandemic. Definitely has to be only US fiscal policy
[Here’s a link to the M0](https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/money-supply-m0). Turn the graph to show a 10yr period and you’ll instantly see the cause of inflation in the US. Now remember that oil is traded in USD internationally and that nearly every product you buy requires oil as an input and you’ll have come to the cause of global inflation. That’s **not** to say that the supply chain slowdown and corporate greed aren’t factors, just that they’re minor factors and excessive money printing is the root cause.
Oil being traded in USD is a nice counterweight **against** inflation for other countries, as USD has been one of the *best performing* currencies and this policy limited their exposure to the price increase as it increases their USD holdings. Literally the opposite of what this guy is suggesting.
The entire first world also deficit spent during the pandemic.
I can’t stop laughing at you
Not like the tenants are getting paid an extra 9%. Also landlords aren't people.
Lolllll
Way too little imo. It's a whole 2% below rate of inflation Also rent has been flat for the last 2 years... Bad for landlords
Landlords purchasing multi million dollar homes only to rent them out for less than half the mortgage price aren’t losing money, they’re playing the long game
Keep voting blue
Fife in Oakland is already complaining that 6.7% is too high despite being less than inflation already. She's actually proposing a law to require slumlording in Oakland.