Introduce additional legislation that limit property sales to corporations and I’ll donate to yer campaign
They’d flood the market with properties shifting us along the supply curve to allow younger people to afford properties?
Darn, that’d be so… awful? No, I was looking for awesome.
First person I’ve seen who didn’t say it increases supply.
Nice.
Is it really functionally any different? “increases supply” is a decent shorthand
Isn’t that exactly what they just said?
good, get a real job
My mom is in her sixties, not everyone wants to work until the day they die
Guess she should have saved for retirement then like the rest of us have to do.
How does a housewife save for retirement?
With the money that put a roof over her head and food in her mouth, same as the rest of us.
My dad’s no longer paying anything to her, and he wasn’t contributing to any retirement account for her when they were married
Guess he should have been doing that. And maybe she should have been somewhat aware of their financial situation. It sounds like your mom is a product of her own poor decisions.
She’s doing fine as a landlord, thank you
Good. Fuck landlords. There should be a law they can only own multi family units.
Oh my God oh my God if the landlords have to sell, that would be… Check notes… That would be really good for people who want to buy houses.
Sounds like that’s by design. If they all wanna sell prices come down on that front as well. Sounds like it should be capped at 2 percent to me.
Cheaper homes in L.A.? We can’t have that!
deleted by creator
Sell to whom, though?
The people enjoying the suddenly over-supplied market that used to pay way over mortgage to rent from these fucks.
Foreign investors (in part)
I want to see a crack down on that too
Why would that push them to sell?
Because they’re over leveraged. They’ve purchased assets when rates were low and now that rates have gone up they haven’t factored this into their profit margins and would either go under or not make enough.
It’s disgusting. If you have enough money to play the game you should have enough money to live with the consequences and a tenant isn’t your get out of jail free card for your shitty planning.
Costs rising more than 3% a year. Since it’s California I’d imagine the insurance is going up much faster than 3% of total ownership costs. If small landlords cannot stay in the black because they can’t afford the insurance with capped rent increases they will sell to the entities that can afford to self-insure. Corporations like BlackRock
3% was the top annual pay increase at the Fortune 500 company I used to work at. 3% max increase for those that “exceeded all expectations”. Probably less than 1/3 of employees.
So if it’s good enough for a Fortune 500 company, it’s good enough for every landlord. 3% max, and only to max 1/3 of their locations/rooms.
One of the issues is if material costs to maintain the property increase steeper than this cap.
Though the solution is pretty practical – cap it at inflation.
Don’t really care honestly, since the prices they’re charging now are nowhere near their operating costs as it is.
They can take a hit to their profit. Or sell an “unprofitable” property.
This is the truth. You need to create conditions that make renting unprofitable and unsustainable, and all of a sudden property prices will begin to fall as landlords sell. This happened in London after WW2, when renting was over-regulated and most of the residents ended up owning their own apartments as landlords sold off property. After deregulation, the reverse trend began again.
If someone buys a home that was rented. Would the cap apply to them? Because this might result in a loophole
That’s a good question. But keep in mind that there are significant taxes associated with selling a home in most places that would dissuade landlords from trying to game the system that way. Then again, they’re just one more loophole from making that plan work.
I’m giving it to my brother. Or just sell it for $100 to yourself
The poor little landlords! They have to find something else to do with their lives besides sitting on their rear ends most of the month and laughing all the way to the bank once a month.
Well, the British government has introduced a lot of changes recently, that made the landlord lives harder and landlords did start to sell. Now we have a situation, where people fight over places to rent, most places don’t even get advertised, people take them without viewings and rent prices have skyrocketed. All while housing stock in general got noticeably reduced. And, of course, homelessness is through the roof.
landlords did start to sell
while housing stock in general got noticeably reduced
I’m not sure how those two things can coexist. So landlords started selling but then nobody that owned just one property sold so despite the influx of properties being listed for sale, the stock reduced? So there’s fewer rental units which has people trying to get into them but there aren’t more people purchasing the properties?
While I sympathize with high rent prices, it’s still no different than say someone who owns a Wedding venue and rents out the location, tables, chairs, etc. They paid for the initial investment and are making money off of it through rental. That’s how investments work. Otherwise, what benefit is there to owning it outside of selling it outright.
People require housing. They dont require wedding venues
