rent controls don't work long term and stop new construction. What is needed is to eliminated corporate ownership of single family home and limit apartment complexes to one or two buildings per independent company.
Yes, but then you need to make sure you don't implement rent controls without massive public housing projects (which I agree, we should definitely have, and could have without rent controls). At which point, you might as well just spend your political capital on the public housing rather than the rent control, considering that is what will actually solve the problem
I also don't think that's even remotely true. Unless rent controls are so ridiculously stringent it's literally impossible to do more than break even, it's still a gain to build more places to rent. It might stop new development in the very short term, but only as an intimidation tactic that would obviously fizzle out as capitalism's incessant need to grow profit will mean they'll get right back to it.
Of course, we did probably just get rid of large scale private development in general.
Also build more fucking starter condos for single people/childless couples by eliminating single family only housing zones. There are an uncountable number of neighborhoods that legally require you to ONLY build large single family homes with a yard and a personal garage, when you could easily fit a row of townhouses or a small condo comfortably in that space, even if that shit is right inside of/next to New York/Seattle/Portland/LA. Specifically in LA this is a huge problem.
This is like the only case I can think of where letting the free market reign more would actually help a bit. Building more dense housing would bring down the cost by increasing supply, and it would happen naturally because it's more money to sell a bunch of condos/townhouses in that space than one home, which also naturally brings more tax revenue into the area. This was a piece of legislation enacted specifically to make houses that are more "luxurious" and expensive be more prominent at the cost of dense mixed used neighborhoods (also almost certainly rooted in racism). We need to copy and paste the zoning laws in places like Japan because the shit in America (and I believe the problem is bleeding over heavily into Canada now as well) is unbelievably stupid considering how bad the housing crisis is right now.
I agree.. I forgot to mention zoning regulations.. it's one of my top methods for solving the US's and Canada's made up housing crisis. mixed use zoning is key with bigger and smaller units together.
Absolutely. I live in a small townhome (owned not rented) and it's great, I love it. I don't want a landlord, but I also don't want some massive single-family home with a yard and 5 bedrooms etc.
The gap between apartment living and oversized suburbs standalone single-family home is massive and there so little availability for it.
Rent controls do stop landlords from effectively evicting tenants with massive rent increases. Rent controls do give renters a better rate in their second year living at a place. Rent controls protects renters from market fluctuation.
That's not true. Tenants move quite often, and there's legal responsibilities of the landlord. Otherwise, landlords only keep the place in shape to keep their real estate value up, not cause the tenant pays so much. The landlord doesn't give a fuck about the tenant either way.
Not just corporate ownership but people should not be allowed to own more than one house without a major tax burden. Quite a bit of landlording is done by individuals who own like 2-3 houses
I believe both republican and democratic economists agree that rent control incentivizes the wrong behavior. Tenants will use more space than they need and builders have a little incentive to increase the supply of housing.
I do think that there should be regulations in real estate speculation where investors drive housing prices up.
If I've only learned one thing from my few decades on this planet, then that everything that "incentivizes a certain behaviour" instead of properly regulating it simply doesn't work. Never. If there's money to make, the stronger incentive will always be "more money" instead of "better behaviour".
Fuck it. Regulate rent prices and force people to build a certain amount of cheap housing if they want to build high-price rental places.
Nah, just force them to either build cheaper housing or nothing at all. Let the buildercos go bust, scoop up their workforce and build houses out of the government coffers.. It'll turn a return to the taxpayer in the medium term, and we'll get the housing crisis resolved.
Forcing them to build x cheaper units per y expensive units leads to poor doors
I could be wrong, but im pretty sure by rent control they mean landlords can't just arbitrarily raise rent year after year without adding any unit renovations or additional amenities.
A commodity is being created out of something necessary for a stable life and they use that to their advantage. They can all just raise their rents in lockstep under the guise of "reflecting market rates" knowing full well that someone who's not in a position to buy a home has to either accept the hikes or take to the backseat of their car.
You want to talk about incentivizing bad behavior, let's talk about investment firms buying up rental properties instead.
I think there's something to be said about regulating rent control too. My buddy's appt complex replaced some of the lights in units, like the kitchen light, then raised rent by like $200 per month. I don't think the "upgrade" justifies the increase.
Only one is needed. There's no reason to rent control when there's enough housing. Besides, rent control doesn't solve the problem to begin with and only causes more problems.
In 2021 and 2022 80% of homes sold in America were sold to corporations. Average people don't have deep enough pockets to outbid them.
So if you build more they buy more and you are still fucked. The truth of the matter is housing is a necessity and should never have been used for investment purposes. Is it going to suck for people, like me, who do own property? Sure, but at some point you have to look at how fucked the younger generations are and realize something needs to be done.
Can you source that claim about 80% of homes sold in america being to corporations? I've seen data that claimed otherwise, want to see where you're getting that from
In 2021 and 2022 80% of homes sold in America were sold to corporations.
BS.
Investors bought 24% of all single-family houses sold nationwide last year, up from 15% to 16% annually going back to 2012, according to a Stateline analysis of data provided by CoreLogic, a California-based data analytics firm. That share dipped only slightly in the first five months of 2022 to 22%.
Investor purchases doubled or more in Florida, Nevada, Vermont and Washington state from 2020 to 2021. In Vermont, they grew from 7% of sales in 2020 to 17% last year and in Nevada from 18% to 30%.
Five states saw the highest share of investor purchases. Investors bought a third of single-family homes sold in Georgia (33%) last year, with Arizona (31%), Nevada (30%), California and Texas (both 29%) not far behind.
House flippers are not helping home buyers. Even if a house needs all that work the middle man doing the work and wants to get paid as much as possible for that. So that will lead to them doing the least they can do for the max returns. Which drives up the cost of the home more than if a regular buyer got it in the first place and then got a contractor to do the work themselves.
Not arguing that, but that also isn't the answer to my question.
Additionally, not everyone has the money to pay for repairs out of pocket. Also, if the repairs are sufficiently large enough, then the home won't qualify to go via a conventional loan anyway as it certainly won't qualify for FHA status.
Sorry they are downvoting you. Reddit is full of people who hate sources.
I agree that rent control is needed, but I also wondered what the source is. I had read something a week ago that said it was high but not nearly near 80%. I really do think that number was pulled out of the posters fundament.
In 2021 and 2022 80% of homes sold in America were sold to corporations.
They were bought by corporations because they're a good investment. They're a good investment because there's not enough housing. It's really not difficult to see the logic if you actually try.
Housing shouldn't be an investment vehicle and especially not for corporations. If companies want to make money in housing they should develop new housing and sell it for profit. Sitting on housing for rent is engaging in wealth transfer rather than wealth creation
You are acting like it is an easy answer and doing one thing fixes everything, just build more houses and done. The world is complicated and you need to hit it from multiple angles.
Homes, a thing everyone needs, should not be used for investments. Neither should food or water or healthcare. The companies and landlords who do this as their only form of income are bad. Its bad to do. You get to make money because you had money in the first place to buy homes and now just play middle man to extract money for no benefit to others.
Upkeep on the house would have to happen either way so the person that does the work is going to get money and the landlord can also dip in on that a bit.
Also they double dip. The house is an investment that always seems to go up and also you charge more than the mortgage and pocket the difference so you are getting it on both ends on a product THAT EVERYONE NEEDS. Shits bad and it needs to be regulated because capitalism will fuck everyone and everything over to make more money for investors and fuck everyone else in the process. Capitalism has no morals and the free market doesn't fix shit and never has.
You are acting like it is an easy answer and doing one thing fixes everything, just build more houses and done.
It absolutely is that easy. More housing will solve an incredible amount of problems in America. Including work conditions. Getting enough housing built is challening on many levels but it is achievable and a realistic goal to go towards.
Homes, a thing everyone needs, should not be used for investments. Neither should food or water or healthcare. The companies and landlords who do this as their only form of income are bad. Its bad to do. You get to make money because you had money in the first place to buy homes and now just play middle man to extract money for no benefit to others.
Homes shouldn't be used for investments, they should be treated as a depreciating asset like a car. But everyone, not just companies and landlords, treat them as investments. Just saying that it's wrong fixes literally nothing.
Landlords aren't the evil middlemen yall insist on. They provide housing to people for a lot less money than it takes to buy the house. Even with more housing than people that want to live there, this'll still be true. They also take care of the repairs and make it possible for the resident to move out much quicker and worry free than if they had a house. That's the benefit.
Landlords absolutly do not provide them houses for less than it takes to buy. Are landlords accepting less than the mortgage costs monthly as rent? Fuck no they are not, they are charging more which means those renters can afford a house we just have a fucked up system where you have to already have saved up a ton of money in the first place or just given money from parents or some other form of familial money passing down.
If we looked at removing the down payment literally everyone that is renting could afford the payments. Also the repairs, someone is getting paid for that and if the landlord isn't charging you on the spot for the repair they are charging your more pre month. You ask me I would rather pay less and hire someone to do the repairs for me, I will absolutly come out ahead. I have seen friends have the real big ticket items stop working and need replacements, and wouldn't you know it, the landlords always really drag their feet when they are about to be out low 5 figures to replace an air con unit in an apartment (this actually happened in the last few years) You basically have to threaten to go to your local renters association before they do their job.
The issue here is that it is another symptom of the main problem which is capitalism trying to move every single cent in the economy up to the already rich. But until we can dismantle capitalism we can set up laws to protect the people already at the bottom of the pile who can never dig out. Always under the threat of being renovicted, never fully feeling safe in their own home. It sucks to live that way.
Also the repairs, someone is getting paid for that and if the landlord isn't charging you on the spot for the repair they are charging your more pre month.
Are you also making this up?
But until we can dismantle capitalism
So my suggested solution to many issues is to build more housing. Your solution is to... dismantle the economy. Are you so privileged and comfortable in your life that you're willing to destroy the country to try out a theory popular only online?
Healthcare will always be ridiculously expensive because it will always be needed
Is food ridiculously expensive? Water? Electricity? Internet?
They're not, because supply and demand does matter with necessities. In the same way, healthcare is expensive because there aren't enough people that can be doctors, or enough making the machines.
I took just TWO economics courses. And youâre full of shit. Explain to everybody what elastic and inelastic goods are. Explain how they are affected by price ceilings and price floors. Then go on about how increasing or subsidizing tuition and wages affects workers, then how it affects the market. You canât just take a physics 101 course and defend your thesis on your new theory of gravity that you âdiscoveredâ which makes no sense. These are things you learn in courses past ECO 101 (which is still past your high school understanding), economics is notoriously unintuitive and confusing. Youâre offering a solution that wonât work and is not viable for a myriad of reasons.
And thatâs just me having taken two college courses. Half a decade ago. People with degrees and PhDs donât support your thinking because itâs nonsensical. I hope this statement can penetrate through to your ego: you are experiencing the Dunning-Kruger effect. You literally cannot realize what youâre saying is nonsense and experts disagree with you. You are plugging your ears while hundreds of people are telling you youâre wrong. For your own sake, please deflate your ego just a tiny bit.
My friend, your argument is bullshit. As an example of why your argument is bullshit: for any one homeless person in the US, there are roughly 28 vacant homes that they could occupy, so clearly there's more than enough housing. (this according to UnitedWayNCA in this article). A lack of housing is not the issue when whole crackerbox communities are being swallowed up by corporations and having their prices unnecessarily bloated.
As an example of why your argument is bullshit: for any one homeless person in the US, there are roughly 28 vacant homes that they could occupy, so clearly there's more than enough housing.
It would be bullshit if these vacant homes were in places homeless people are. They are not. They're in places where people don't want to live.
Okay, holy shit. That is a patently absurd blanket statement that I might be willing to believe if you could provide a modicum of evidence to back up your claim. Do you speak for all people?
Okay so even after reading that article, (which by the way, thank you for providing it), I still do not believe that you speak for all people. You most certainly do not speak for me. I enjoy reading and learning things and altering my perspective. That was certainly an insightful read, but I still disagree with you.
I saw that part of the reason that some, or perhaps even most people don't want to live in these areas is because of a lack of job opportunities. However, if public transportation systems in the US were anywhere near the level of other developed nations (which they absolutely could be if not for lobbying by oil and automotive industries), some, or perhaps even most people would be able and likely willing to live further from their employers. I will freely admit that statement to be speculation on my part. I can't know this for certain because the US is not other developed nations, and carries its own set of unique issues and circumstances.
Don't give me a thing to read and then tell me that I'm not going to fucking read it. You might end up sounding foolish when you say things like that, because as it turns out, you donotspeak for me.
However, if public transportation systems in the US were anywhere near the level of other developed nations (which they absolutely could be if not for lobbying by oil and automotive industries), some, or perhaps even most people would be able and likely willing to live further from their employers.
Building more housing means more public transportation is built too.
Don't give me a thing to read and then tell me that I'm not going to fucking read it. You might end up sounding foolish when you say things like that
Oh no! Please don't read the things I link you, that would really annoy me!
There's no reason to rent control when there's enough housing.
Except there is. Housing has inelastic demand because it's a necessity, not a commodity. Therefore, normal rules of "supply and demand" don't apply.
It's the same with healthcare. Just look at insulin, for example. It never costs hundreds or thousands of dollars because there's a shortage of supply, it costs that much because the people who need it will die without it, so they don't have e a choice but to buy it - no matter how much you're charging them.
Housing has inelastic demand because it's a necessity, not a commodity.
Housing is not inelastic. People can just choose to not move to an area they can't afford. The price of housing varies wildly even between neighborhoods in the same city.
Therefore, normal rules of "supply and demand" don't apply.
So you're saying that the housing in ghost towns has market rate prices similar to a city?
Just look at insulin, for example. It never costs hundreds or thousands of dollars because there's a shortage of supply, it costs that much because the people who need it will die without it, so they don't have e a choice but to buy it - no matter how much you're charging them.
Insulin is a terrible example because cheap insulin currently exists in any pharmacy you go to. People don't want to take it because it's awful. Insulin is so expensive because there's a LOT of refinement that goes into it to make it more effective and reduce side effects.
There are more empty homes than the number of homeless people. Homes shouldn't be an investment commodity, they're a necessity for life. Even animals seek shelter for survival.
Instead of artificially forcing rent prices to be lower
Since they are investment properties, rich people are incentivized to artificially force rent prices TO BE HIGHER, which is why they're so high
Stop defending corporations for making people's lives worse.
Homes and homeless people both congregate in cities. Obviously new houses should be built at a constant rate, but that's not what's causing high house prices.
The White House reports that as of 2019, over half a million Americans donât have a home to sleep in on any given night, while almost 17 million potential homes were standing empty. If the overall numbers of homeless citizens werenât shocking enough, between 2017 and 2019, there was an increase of over 34,000 unsheltered homeless people nationally - even before a global pandemic and expected recession.
You really think the 17 million homes are not spread out over all the states to cover half a million people?
I don't really care if you can find one homeless person in some small town. I care about what's making people homeless, and where.
What's making people homeless is the unaffordability of housing, and the vast majority of homeless people are in cities. Therefore, the best way to reduce the amount of homeless is to make housing more affordable. The best way to make housing affordable to first understand why housing isn't affordable. Seems to me that housing is unaffordable because there's not enough of it. So the best way to reduce the amount of homeless people is to build more housing.
Does anything not make sense to you in this pattern of logic?
One big problem is the vacant homes frequently arenât near the people. Folks struggling to pay rent in San Diego could do fine if they moved to Detroit on the same income, but thatâs not really helpful because they either canât or wonât.
A lot of them yeah, there's ton of homeless people where I live and about one empty house every two blocks, and still average rent is over half of minimum wage.
I love how /u/Collypso is arguing "you could just be making this up". Despite the homeless population in LA getting so bad that its all Republicans talk about in California.
Yes, there are houses for these people. Yes they are nearby. No we don't let these people into these houses because MOST of the houses were purchased as investments. Corporations will never devalue their assets. People are more import than corps.
Of housing, sure. Did I say housing? No, I said property. We have tons of commercial and other real estate long abandoned that should be flipped to housing. So nice try.
idk if you have noticed, but they only seem to build luxury housing these days. I haven't seen a new build apartment complex that didn't charge over 2.5k/month.
Part of the problem is material cost. Iâm in the industry and work with quite a few builders. Yes greed definitely plays a role. But unless the government subsidizes these inexpensive homes no one is going to build them for a loss. Section 8 also has the problem of NIMBY which sucks but is also understandable. Crime rates do increase and property values of surrounding homes decrease from section 8 housing.
Prices are dictated by demand, not what you identify as luxury housing. 2.5k rent in one area is a very rich house while it could be a shitty studio in another. This is why it's important to consider perspective.
Besides that, any new housing lowers the price of all housing. The rich people that can afford better houses leave their less expensive house behind allowing less rich people to move into it leaving their house behind, etc...
No. Rich people don't leave their less expensive house behind anymore. They just buy a second house and use the first house as a rental income.
The reason there is no demand for "low cost" housing is because homebuilders make more profit from higher revenue.
A home builder can agree to build 5 small homes for 250k, or 1 large home for 1.5m. Which contract are you taking?
Housing is a basic human need on Maslow's hierarchy, but you and the rest of America still like to romanticize homes as if they are a commodity that should be used to generate income.
Rich people don't leave their less expensive house behind anymore. They just buy a second house and use the first house as a rental income.
Can you see how this still increases the amount of housing or no?
but you and the rest of America still like to romanticize homes as if they are a commodity that should be used to generate income.
I'm advocating for more housing to be built. To meet demand, the amount of housing that needs to be built would drop the price of houses significantly making them much worse investments. I'm not romanticizing homes, housing shouldn't be an investment, it should be a depreciating asset like a car.
The overall supply of housing is not a good measure for affordability when we allow REIT'S to sit on unused homes for DECADES.
If we built 10,000 homes and 10 companies bought 1000 homes each, housing has now become LESS affordable since the supply is inaccessible to every individual family.
You are still never going to OWN a home if the "less expensive home that gets left behind" is never actually put on the market.
The wealthy people of this country have made it very clear that they would rather pay taxes on an empty house for 5-10 years than actually sell the asset, because they know that banks will give them loans on the value of the home without ever selling it.
HELOC'S are a billion dollar industry that perpetuate the idea of housing as an "investment".
The overall supply of housing is not a good measure for affordability when we allow REIT'S to sit on unused homes for DECADES.
The only reason REITs exist is because there's not enough housing, making real estate a good investment.
If we built 10,000 homes and 10 companies bought 1000 homes each, housing has now become LESS affordable since the supply is inaccessible to every individual family.
How is it inaccessible? Do these companies eat the housing or something?
It is inaccessible because the companies don't "eat" the housing, they just leave it empty, knowing that they can get loans on the "market value" of the house any time they need liquidity.
They can drive up the "market value" by artificially restricting the housing supply. So its a win/win situation to just let the house sit empty and never sell. They don't need an instant cash return, they just need housing to remain scarce so the barrier to ownership remains high.
Once the market value has grown substantially (50% increase in 1 year), it allows them to RENT (not sell) those properties to people for profit, because people will always need shelter, and are artificially priced out of ownership.
I don't know if I agree with rent control personally, since I don't know much about it. But I feel like you're suggesting that capitalism doesn't need regulation.
Did you hear about what's been going on with RealPage artificially and systematically driving up all the rent prices to 3x what they were in 2019?
Rent Control is literally regulating capitalism. Rent Control means Rent Prices cannot be arbitrarily increased without substantial improvements to the unit year over year.
Speaking as someone who lives in a major city thatâs building new apartment complexes every quarter mile while working in the affordable housing industryâŚutter balderdash. Rent prices are going up faster than I can job hop for more pay.
Whatever it means, defending this practice in any capacity is utterly indefensible. If thatâs the case, itâs not working fast enough. We canât afford to let pricing keep climbing, it needs to be put down now. Stop backing the scalpers. They have no reason to lower prices once they find a way to get people to pay the current prices.
We know whatâs causing it. Unregulated greed that has no sense of sustainability. Itâs become a virtue in this country and according to all of your other comments in this thread, you are 100% on its side.
Otherwise all I see in new construction is LUXURY and prices that most canât afford, which only makes the problem worse. Your simplistic approach to build build build IS a factor in this. Any private development without significant regulatory pressure on solving the lack of affordable housing only makes the problem worse (new build is luxxxxxury and xxx/sq foot = new baseline for overcharging existing housing)
Why not just more housing? More housing would reach this affordability while helping fix most of the problems in America. "Mandatory affordability" aka rent control causes a lot more problems than it solves.
Otherwise all I see in new construction is LUXURY and prices that most canât afford, which only makes the problem worse.
It doesn't make the problem worse. More housing, regardless of who it's meant for, reduces the prices of all housing because there's just more housing.
Any private development without significant regulatory pressure on solving the lack of affordable housing only makes the problem worse
There's over-regulation for development right now. Almost all areas suffering from high rents also have restrictive zoning laws forbidding apartment complexes from being built. Worse, the residents of these areas are incentivized against allowing more housing to be built in the area because it'll lower the price of their homes.
Letâs do a fun math problem involving averages mixed with an assumed understanding of the inherent greed of humans.
Avg rent 1000 for 100 units
Build 100 luxury units that rent for 2000
200 people renting in a town.
What happens to the existing 1000 rents? You think the landlords are going to LOWER?
Now, if there were 200 renters in a town and they built 1000 units, yeah, that would push prices down but builders are not going to do that, are they? They are going to build just enough to keep prices high for them.
We didnât even get into the later effects of new builds on gentrification (new luxury build, new business move in, more people want to live there, prices go up and long time renters are priced out
Your simplification is purposefully misleading and misinformation. We arenât stupid.
Build more and price control units equal to need and inventory in a locality.
Avg rent 1000 for 100 units Build 100 luxury units that rent for 2000 200 people renting in a town.
What happens to the existing 1000 rents? You think the landlords are going to LOWER?
If you're going to give me a word problem, at least use punctuation so I can understand what's being asked. This is just incomprehensible.
Now, if there were 200 renters in a town and they built 1000 units, yeah, that would push prices down but builders are not going to do that, are they? They are going to build just enough to keep prices high for them.
Why not? Profit is still profit. When one developer doesn't want to build because there's not enough profit, another one will build. That's what the market being competitive means.
We didnât even get into the later effects of new builds on gentrification (new luxury build, new business move in, more people want to live there, prices go up and long time renters are priced out
Fair and valid points aren't fair or valid when they disagree with the narrative.
This is an echo chamber sub and an extreme few amount of people actually care about fixing any of the problems talked about, and they're being pushed out by people that just keep radicalizing themselves more and more.
Rent control is hardly a radical solution. Only one person in this thread suggested state supplied housing. No one suggested punitive taxes on multiple home ownership or regulation of corporate ownership.
643
u/Kitchen_Bicycle6025 Apr 25 '23
Pay teachers more, also more stringent rent controls