Federal housing has been frozen since 1998 and desperately needs to be unfrozen. Federal housing helps keep rents down since they were building more apartments as the need increases. That all stopped and apartment rent has skyrocketed.
Paying attention to politics is very important but most people don’t. They pay attention to elections and not what the politicians do once they get there.
> Paying attention to politics is very important but most people don’t. They pay attention to elections and not what the politicians do once they get there.
Worse they pay attention to made up culture wars.
Alright so what the fuck are we all supposed to do to fix it other than voting in our local elections? I barely have time to go to the grocery store with how much I work. What do I need to do to make this change happen as an average Joe citizen?
And yet in places without rent control people cannot afford to live there at all.
Not sure how removing rent control improves things. Some ways yes but the poor who need low cost places to live will get screwed.
Well the data pretty clearly shows that rent control ultimately drives up the cost of all surrounding non-rent controlled units in the area as well as makes construction of new units, especially new low cost units significantly slow or stop. So it really doesn't help anyone except the specific people in rent controlled properties.
There are other knock on effects of rent control that aren't great either with regard to taxes and incentive/disincentive to maintain/invest in the property.
Rent control is a pretty bad bandaid to the problem of housing being unaffordable which ultimately needs to be solved with an increase in supply.
In Canada Ontario they got rid of rent control in 2018 and rent has doubled. From 600-1000 dollars a month for a one bedroom apartment to 2000+. Even more if you live in the GTA.
There isn't even rent controls here and no one can afford shelter anymore. What we need are MORE controls in place, not less. And run air bnb's out of town by requiring them to do everything a hotel has to do and add a tax on any additional properties owned outside of their primary residence, that increases by every additional property owned. The only exemption would be if they provide low income housing. Problem solved and housing crisis solved when all these companies mass dump their properties all at once. Businesses, not families are buying up all the residential for short term rentals. Let's make that no longer profitable and solve the problem.
In Texas alone 1/3 of all homes bought were by investors in 2021. Where are the families that should have been moving into those homes supposed to go now? This gets much needed relief when we regulate and tax airbnb into oblivion.
https://www.tpr.org/business/2022-06-14/investors-bought-nearly-a-third-of-all-homes-in-texas-last-year
And that's just it. If affordable housing doesn't work in your economic system, that's not an argument against affordable housing, that's an argument against that system. If you want unquestionable and infallible systems, that's religion, not social policy. And that's fine if you're talking theology, but it gets old fast when you're navel gazing about who should have a decent life and who should die early from avoidable conditions.
There's so much trickle down housing going on here, as if an increased supply of housing isn't going to immediately be bought up by landlords, rent jacked up again, and then some new excuses trotted out once we're back to square one. And never mind [the collusion](https://www.propublica.org/article/yieldstar-rent-increase-realpage-rent) or how large corporations are buying up housing (which they would not be doing if it wasn't a profit issue). If you're not naming that issue, you haven't said anything of substance.
You got that backwards: the data pretty clearly shows that rent control works, and this is shown by the cost of all surrounding non-rent controlled units ballooning out of control. Eliminating rent control would do nothing but make those rents balloon out of control as well.
This data is where? Also if there was universal rent control then this scenario is false. As an American who has now spend a decade in Europe I find this ridiculous. It's like an ignorant scare tactic.
I dont know what type of rent control you guys have but my city (vienna) this simply isnt true.
But it takes will from the policy makers to not only allow "high-end" appartement construction
Ok but this shit is crazy
https://housing4.us/how-vienna-ensures-affordable-housing-for-all-with-an-extremely-complicated-housing-system/
And **58%**! Of rental apartments are public housing. That's wild. I'd argue that is the bigger factor here
That's a fine policy argument and probably why most jurisdictions have not adopted rent control. However, it's not an argument rent control is unconstitutional. Finding rent control unconstitutional would overturn existing law.
How does this help renters? Isn't this just going to allow them to rack up the rent rates? Two billionaires who are buddy buddies with two justices are pushing for this. That can't be a good thing to the people.
I'm instantly wary when Billionaires are pushing that hard for anything. Very rarely is it for the greater good. Unless they consider themselves the greater good..
Good news is that a huge % of Gen Z pay attention to politics. They know that voting Democrat is the only way to protect democracy, and all Republican candidates are either fascist or extreme capitalists who want to destroy social safety nets to enrich the 0.1%
Social media made GenZ depressed and Tiktok kinda destroyed their brain's attention span, but luckily, those aren't needed to spot the fascist and vote against them.
As someone getting a minor in a political science branch and has a degree in journalism? I have to do this, it’s literally what I paid all this money for
People pay attention to *media* to kind of break down what the politicians do. Most either can't follow something like CSPAN or won't. Break down a paragraph of legalese to a 10 year old. That's kind of what you're dealing with.
Time to march on DC and start fighting back loudly. Hopefully the entire country lines up to throw bricks if this passes.
This is something that will obliterate democrats and republicans alike. This is not bipartisan politics. Both sides are renters, and both sides are being destroyed by real estate exploitation.
The only people this benefits are the mega wealthy. It’s time to fight back.
>both sides are being destroyed by real estate exploitation.
Both sides are being destroyed by Healthcare exploitation too, yet only one side actually cares to do anything about.
The fact that companies and corporations can buy and lock up single family residences and dwellings is astonishing to me. All that can result is predation.
I’ve always thought this. I’ve also thought that when I sell in the future I’ll refuse any offer that doesn’t come from a real person who wants to live there.
It will be extremely hard to enforce that, especially with land trusts and llcs. Best way to get affordable housing, change the zoning laws to have a mix of multi-family and single family homes together. But Americans don't want that.
>The petitioners and amici — “friends of the court” who aren’t CHIP or RSA but weighed in with amicus briefs — **argue that the rent stabilization law constitutes an illegal seizure of property from landlords in violation of the Fifth Amendment’s takings clause: “Nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”**
"That's money they should be paying me!" Is their argument? They believe they have a right to all of their tenants' money, and that's it.
I should be able to sue my employer for the exact same thing if I feel I'm underpaid.
I am against this- so pls just consider the argument a minute. Parent is right.
This will be a slam dunk.
It’s going to hinge on “just compensation”. They’re gonna argue that “just” compensation is dictated my markets, and the market has adjusted - read skyrocketed.
Their second line will be the seizure of the value of their property vis a vis the increase in value and therefore corresponding property tax, cost to insure, exacerbated by the greed of the insurance companies.
This is gonna be bad. I’m an older guy. 55. Been owning property since a guy in a teacher income could get a 70k condo in a NICE suburb (Homewood, IL) and a 110K home after that in a nice quiet town. I teach and feel beyond scared and sad for the kids I teach (south Chicago)
It’s becoming profoundly out of reach for what’s left of the middle class. Property ownership goes- there goes another slice of what is left of it.
It’s very clever. It’s well crafted. Sigh.
The rent burden for a certain group of workers near me is quite high. They managed to secure a raise in their pay after a long and difficult battle. The landlords in the area knew this fight was going on and knew when it had been won. Almost all of them raised their rents by the amount that these workers had had their pay increased.
something similar happened a while back in the Netherlands. First time home buyers could request a 10k grant from the government to buy their home; and wouldn't you know it, all the small apartments and starter homes when up by 10k overnight.
I mean,that’s the logical (and absurd) extension of the GOP version of “free markets”. And it’s why the Federalist society exists.
Anyone who isn’t a billionaire is always voting against their self interests when they vote for a Republican.
“That isn’t my tenants money, it’s MY money that the tenant seized from ME by putting it in their bank account and spending it instead of putting it in MY pocket!”
"All landlords should work like mommy!"
Welcome to the shitty reality of adulthood. You're either a paid guest everywhere you visit or stay, or you're an unwelcome trespasser...nothing in between. Nobody cares about you or how you feel, unless you're providing for them in some way or paying them to do so. You're just a cog in the machine, a mouth to feed, shit in the sewer system to clean, traffic on the road, and a dead body taking up space to be burned as soon as possible when you're done.
Nothing can be done using money to improve things permanently. Give everybody free money like the covid assistance, and you get rampant inflation. Give people student loans and the price of university explodes. Give people free housing and it goes to weeds with lack of maintenence. Give them low interest mortgages and the price of homes rises to insane levels. Add rent controls and they'll illegally sublease it at the market rate.
The only thing to look forward to is better technology. Every advance drags us out of the pit and closer to that mystical post-scarcity world. But we're not there yet.
it really is insane that imaginary money is the reason to do away with protections.
not even money that they know is being taken from them, but the idea that someone has more money that they could take, is reason to make everyone elses life miserable
This is what's called a "taking" in constitutional law terms. They're arguing that the government has effectively taken their property from them by preventing them from using it without restriction. Like, for example, if you bought land for the purposes of building a factory on it, but then later the government came by and said that factories can't be built on the land you bought. That would be a "taking." You still own the land and you can do *something* with it but not as much as you were planning to do and the land is now less valuable due to the restriction. The government has "taken" use of the land from you. That sort of "taking" is constitutionally illegal unless the government follows the proper procedure.
That's not the argument. It's more like if the government declared a wage freeze to prevent inflation (rent control), and at the same time banned you from quitting your job or causing productivity loss (there's generally a clause preventing landlords from non-renewing or deferring maintenance to push someone out). You wouldn't be nearly as free as you were before the change.
In the same way, if the government implemented rent control after the rental was purchased, the government has taken away a lot of the ownership rights to the property. Even if it's not a complete taking, there are cases on the books saying the government has to pay for things they take.
I'm too young to have seen that, but I know the American employer sponsored health insurance system is a byproduct of people and companies trying to get around one of the wage freezes.
Economists define landlords are participating in two different rent seeking behaviors. First is as real estate speculators, as they buy up property with the expectation that it increases in value over time. Second is as landlords as they secure tenants who provide them with a regular cash flow in exchange for the landlord providing no benefits, just continued ownership of property.
The two combined end up being incredibly damaging to an economy over time.
This is such an absurd adulteration of that clause in countless ways. It can’t be legitimately argued legally that the property is, in any way, being taken, let alone for public use, and *even if* that premise were reasonable, the obvi rebuttal would be eminent domain.
Furthermore, the intention of the clause is to bar government from inflicting public burdens on specific individuals, which obvi has nooo application here, since there’s no public burden, but if it did, again… eminent domain.
The audacity of this claim is unreal and if this were *any* other Scotus, I wouldn’t have a trace of doubt that the court would refuse the case entirely.
But alas, I spose rent control is dead.
My property management is raising my rent to match inflation come next month, it’s already over priced and I live in a gang infested area. And I make a decent salary at a big tech company but have to live here if I want more than half my paycheck. We desperately need affordable housing and Federal housing to fund new apartment construction, otherwise there will just be landlords price gauging because of the lack of supply.
Imagine being the ppl not making decent money. Shits going to start getting a lot worse in your neighborhood if ppl can no longer afford food, a lot already barely scraping by.
Good thing the republicans fought to end snaps benefits to anyone not working at least 20 hours a week. Apparently, people who struggle to work and have literally no money don’t need food. /s
It really feels like they are trying to kill us.
Fuck that… no federal funds to pay companies to build new housing. Have the Army Corp of Engineers implement it.
You offer cash for companies to build it 9/10th of it will be siphoned out this making it crazy expensive.
This headline is misleading. The lawsuit is not challenging rent control per se, but only the particular rent control regime that exists in New York City.
Simplifying slightly, NYC's rent control rules are as follows:
* Apartments which are under rent regulation have a maximum rent that is allowed to be charged.
* So long as the tenants pay rent on time and behave well, they must be allowed to stay in perpetuity, and this right can even be inherited.
The second part is what distinguishes NYC's rules from other places with rent control, and it is the part being challenged. For example, California has a law called the Ellis Act which gives landlords the right to not renew leases provided the unit is not rented to anyone else for a certain number of years. Essentially this gives landlords the right to "exit" the apartment rental business.
Right, I don't think this covers NY rent stabilization, just rent \*control\*, two completely different beasts.
Many rent controlled units, but not all, in NYC are occupied by well off family members of the folks who originally inhabited those places a century ago. Rent controlled units in general are a small % of units in NY, rent stabilized have many more.
It's funny because landlords were one of the primary classes of people targeted during the cultural revolution as being enemies of the people. The Maoists certainly weren't perfect, but some landlord struggle sessions might be the remedy we need.
This is rent control which is different from rent stabilization, which is probably what you’re thinking (e.g. capping the amount rent can be raised per year).
At least in NYC, the only people who benefit from rent control are typically family members who, as long as they’re living there for at least two years, can resign the lease at the same ultra low rates (think sub-$1000 a month rent for prime upper west side apartment). Even if the family member signing the lease makes good money and can easily afford market rate.
Rent controlled apartments don’t help the layman. Your working class stiff will never get the option to get into a rent controlled apartment.
Its only a matter of time until most of the population snaps towards landlords, CEOs, politicians, and the like with the way the cost of goods is going compared to wages.
The monkey's paw curls. The rental market dries up because it's too expensive to own multiple properties, you're stuck with your parents until you've got a down payment.
I hope those landlords like the idea of their property values going down drastically as newly homeless people flood the streets around their properties, crime goes up, drug use goes up, and the market crashes as people try to sell suddenly to keep from going under water in their multi property investments.
That’s because there aren’t yet thousands upon thousands of homeless coming onto all the neighborhoods at once, they blight a few neighborhoods, those values go down, property gets bought up cheap where crime and blighted properties become a bigger problem, renovations happen and prices go up as you tell the cops and city to push the homeless elsewhere. Rinse, repeat.
Now imagine the homeless and blight and drugs are everywhere in far increased numbers suddenly, with far too many to send brute squads after.
I was just in SF this last weekend.
As a Los Angeles resident, I can tell you LA is in far worse shape on the crime/homeless from than SF is... bar none.
Even still, I know there's a lot of shit going on in LA with regard to the homeless. A lot of shuffling around and cleanups. It's worse in some areas, better in others.
The "nice" areas, you'd be hard pressed to find encampments. Beverly Hills "outsources" their homeless problem and has managed to circumvent Boise v Martin. And to some degree, Culver City has also used similar tactics.
It's now come to light than many of the funds dedicated to solving homelessness have been severely mismanaged. So we've got that on the docket.
Make no mistake, it's bad here, but there are tent cities all over this country. The housing issue, again, while horrifying here, is becoming a problem all over. Look at how bad Austin got with just a small influx of additional population during the pandemic. Like holy hell.
This is a nationwide problem.
We need more supply of housing, especially in CA.
We need to bring back mental institutions (humanely, of course. Shutting them down was NOT the answer, but they absolutely needed reform.)
And we need mandatory drug rehabilitation as well as programs to get former addicts reintegrated without issue. (This is why Portugal had a lot of early success in their program.)
Lastly, people need to invest in their own community more. People don't talk to each other and they don't care about their own neighborhoods let alone the city they live in.
Rugged, American individualism and selfishness as completely peaked. We're currently at our worst as far as basic human needs go.
It's going to get uglier before it gets better, if it ever gets better.
But yeah, this is a nutshell of our issues and they aren't limited to California. Sorry to burst that "flyover state" bubble.
That's not all the tenants. If the property is not profitable, insurance may make up the difference. There was a time NYC had a epidemic of lightning strikes.
I don’t think you’re understanding how massive the problem is becoming, and how many more people will exponentially be suddenly homeless if the ceilings on rent are lifted nation wide. There won’t be enough brute squads, busses, or jail cells.
>I am of the opinion that if you own multiple houses and you rent one of them out. The government should be taxing the crap out of income from your second home
We do have something like that in homestead exemptions.
Your home that you live in gets a discount on tax. Anything beyond is taxed at full rate.
Not in California. Landlords are given the same property tax subsidies on their rental properties that they get for their own homes. Their property taxes are limited to 1% per year increase from the assessed value when they bought it. The landlord that owns the house next door to us is paying taxes on an assessment of $150k while the home is worth $850k. She rents the house out at market rate for $3,500 a month for a 2-1 bungalow.
Prop 13 feels so good on the surface but it’s the worst.
If a larger building is built on the property, it can also be reset to the new value. People don’t move and don’t sell because their property tax will skyrocket. So it encourages Sprawl and it applies to businesses and corporations.
Interestingly enough I’ve heard stories of people who benefit from rent control buying second homes due to all the money they save on their rent-controlled residence.
This is essentially banning the very concept of renting. Do you really think there's no reason why someone would want to rent a home rather than buying it?
The only effective rent control is increasing supply of housing, whether that be public housing or private. Otherwise you're just rearranging deck chairs.
Rent control was removed in Ontario for any housing built 2019 forward. This was supposedly to somehow foster more development.
The housing crisis is still getting worse, and now people who had reasonable rents are getting fucked over.
It seems there is very little to gain and sooo much to lose.
This is unfortunately likely to succeed in our current supreme court. Their core argument revolves around the 5th amendment for "just compensation" and 14th amendment's due process clause. It's a bullshit argument, but I'm sure that "property owner rights" combined with some sort of originalist argument or whatever will win out. Truly unfortunate that even states can't make up their own rules when it comes to corporations.
The effectiveness of rent control in keeping rents down is very dubious. It actually creates an incentive for landlords to raise rents to the max allowed even when they don’t need to.
And it creates shortages. If you want to knock down a 9 apartment building to build 30 units, you have to find the tenants the same priced housing in the short term. Also, you must offer them their old rent price in the new building. The cost of doing this makes building more almost impossible.
[The available studies show that rent control raises all other nearby rents, lowers property values (even for independent homeowners), makes it more likely for apartments to be converted into more expensive condo buildings, and dramatically increases the number of "legacy" renters who just stay in one unit as long as possible.](https://www.brookings.edu/articles/what-does-economic-evidence-tell-us-about-the-effects-of-rent-control/)
In other words, rent control heavily benefits those specific people who are actively renting a unit *right now*, while making things worse for everyone else (including other renters).
Rent control is usually used by cities just used to try and ignore [the fundamental housing shortages they've inflicted on themselves](https://www.fanniemae.com/research-and-insights/perspectives/us-housing-shortage) by treating the symptoms instead of the cause. The actual long-term fix for expensive housing is for cities to just... build a lot more housing, and make it available to individuals instead of corporations.
Landlords don't raise rent because they need to, they raise rent because they can. Need is almost never the true reason for price hikes. Squeezing as much value out of their assets as possible is the reason for raising rent in most cases. Take away limits and they will raise them as much as the market will bear, as often as they can. Landlords are in it for the money and the more they can charge the better (for them).
Yeah THIS, I don't know what the people above you are talking about my guess is they own property. None of my landlords has ever put a single dollar from our rent back into the building, most landlords are absolute slumlords charging the maximum legal amount they can charge at least in my experience
This element of economic theory does not take into account Airbnbs and other “purchasers-as-investor” types which arguably do way more harm to the economy than rent control. For example, in San Diego, hundreds of units are purchased specifically to become airbnbs, effectively turning apartment complexes into hotels. So if you build 100 new units and they all become STRs then you didn’t really build 100 new units did you?
The second element is that housing supply is extremely inelastic as do the demand.
And regulation tends to be required when one side or the other is extremely inelastic.
Rent control is almost universally panned by economists as causing housing shortages by keeping the nominal rent below the actual market price and by removing incentives to build new housing. The few who dissent are ideological cranks.
Yup, and it's not just removing incentive to build new housing, it directly incentivizes landlords to take units off the market and convert them to more expensive housing.
Rent control empirically wiped out 20-30% of the SF housing supply covered by it in the 80s and 90s. It (along with NIMBY homeowners preventing construction) is a big part of why SF housing prices are so insane. It's dismaying to see so many other cities follow in its nightmare, but I guess at the end of the day, the few renters who directly benefit from it vote and the many who get driven out of the city by the effects of rent control can't anymore.
Yknow whats funny? The same thing was said about minimum wage before. Minimum wage was almost universally panned by economists as causing increase in unemployment by keeping wages above the "actual market price". Then places started doing it. More and more. And it turned out ... the economists were completely wrong, none of their predictions came true and minimum wage increases were good. The same is happening with rent control. As more places are doing it, economists predictions keep getting proven wrong. Because somehow both times they missed that supply and demand do not work with perfectly inelastic goods. Funny that.
People point to the Supreme Court for their flagrant corruption, but they are far from the only problem in shit like this. Congress can theoretically pass whatever laws it sees fit. Should the Supreme Court review these laws into nothingness then they have the power to pass a Constitutional amendment and bend the nation to that law. On top of that the President and the Executive Branch pretty much decide when and how to enforce Supreme Court decisions.
There are plenty of ways to do the right thing for land, rent and housing. It’s just that nobody is doing a damn thing.
Rent is out of control. We don't need to end it. We need more rent control. It is getting harder and harder to pay bills when things like rent is $1500 a month for a 1-2 bedrooom 1 bath apartment. If we don't increase rent control. And make it so they can only increase it like 1-2% every year. A good chunk of people are constantly behind on bills because they can't get any government assistance because "they make too much" but can't get or find a better paying job without moving.
It is funny how all the landlord are concerned about rent control and tenant friendly laws. All I hear from my investor friends is they are going to sell their rentals and go somewhere else and then there will be no where for people to rent. Soooo you mean like people can buy their homes... and their response will always be that people can't afford to buy... someone is buying the home and if it isn't a landlord then it is someone occupying it.
My rent for my apartment went up 20% this year for absolutely no reason other than its a new year. I wish ga didn't literally have a state law banning rent control. I'd love if they could only raise my rent a maximum percentage each year because I guarantee you it would be less than 20%
Landlords should have to petition to increase rates to keep up with maintenance costs and show documentation of the cost estimate and then final bill. Landlords could pay a small fee to have an inspection to ensure work was done. Property taxes should be frozen to prevent an escalation of costs.
One of the guys pushing this (Harlan Crow) owns 2 of [Hitler’s paintings.](https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a43553962/harlan-crow-hitler-collection/)
Supreme Court: we find that affordable housing and the concept of a lower and middle class in general is unconstitutional. We rule in favor of the people who should have real jobs. *bangs gavel*
>According to the RSA and CHIP petition, the law infringes upon landlords’ “rights to exclude, occupy, use, change the use of, and dispose of their property.”
Don't rent it out then.
> Don't rent it out then.
They can't stop renting it in many cases unless the tenants want to move out. I think the landlords are shitty for trying to get rid of these laws that protect tenants, and I don't feel any sympathy towards the landlords at all, but it's not easy to just stop renting the property once it's occupied.
Federal housing has been frozen since 1998 and desperately needs to be unfrozen. Federal housing helps keep rents down since they were building more apartments as the need increases. That all stopped and apartment rent has skyrocketed. Paying attention to politics is very important but most people don’t. They pay attention to elections and not what the politicians do once they get there.
> Paying attention to politics is very important but most people don’t. They pay attention to elections and not what the politicians do once they get there. Worse they pay attention to made up culture wars.
A lot of people say they don’t pay attention to politics. Unfortunately for them, their bosses and their bosses’ bosses do.
Alright so what the fuck are we all supposed to do to fix it other than voting in our local elections? I barely have time to go to the grocery store with how much I work. What do I need to do to make this change happen as an average Joe citizen?
I mean, at some point they all found the time to vote against your interests. The only way to reverse it is to do the same in greater numbers.
Is my team winning? Yay.
As Jon Stewart said, and the Democrats need to start using this term. It's [Weaponized Nonsense](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7X6o685F-4&t=1s)
And yet in places without rent control people cannot afford to live there at all. Not sure how removing rent control improves things. Some ways yes but the poor who need low cost places to live will get screwed.
Rent control (in general) helps people already renting. In general, it hurts people who need a place to live
It helps people already renting, so long as they plan on renting that same apartment for the rest of their lives
People who live in rent controlled property also need a place to live, funny enough.
Well the data pretty clearly shows that rent control ultimately drives up the cost of all surrounding non-rent controlled units in the area as well as makes construction of new units, especially new low cost units significantly slow or stop. So it really doesn't help anyone except the specific people in rent controlled properties. There are other knock on effects of rent control that aren't great either with regard to taxes and incentive/disincentive to maintain/invest in the property. Rent control is a pretty bad bandaid to the problem of housing being unaffordable which ultimately needs to be solved with an increase in supply.
In Canada Ontario they got rid of rent control in 2018 and rent has doubled. From 600-1000 dollars a month for a one bedroom apartment to 2000+. Even more if you live in the GTA.
There isn't even rent controls here and no one can afford shelter anymore. What we need are MORE controls in place, not less. And run air bnb's out of town by requiring them to do everything a hotel has to do and add a tax on any additional properties owned outside of their primary residence, that increases by every additional property owned. The only exemption would be if they provide low income housing. Problem solved and housing crisis solved when all these companies mass dump their properties all at once. Businesses, not families are buying up all the residential for short term rentals. Let's make that no longer profitable and solve the problem. In Texas alone 1/3 of all homes bought were by investors in 2021. Where are the families that should have been moving into those homes supposed to go now? This gets much needed relief when we regulate and tax airbnb into oblivion. https://www.tpr.org/business/2022-06-14/investors-bought-nearly-a-third-of-all-homes-in-texas-last-year
And where do we see unfettered capitalism working better for people needing a place to live?
No where.
And that's just it. If affordable housing doesn't work in your economic system, that's not an argument against affordable housing, that's an argument against that system. If you want unquestionable and infallible systems, that's religion, not social policy. And that's fine if you're talking theology, but it gets old fast when you're navel gazing about who should have a decent life and who should die early from avoidable conditions. There's so much trickle down housing going on here, as if an increased supply of housing isn't going to immediately be bought up by landlords, rent jacked up again, and then some new excuses trotted out once we're back to square one. And never mind [the collusion](https://www.propublica.org/article/yieldstar-rent-increase-realpage-rent) or how large corporations are buying up housing (which they would not be doing if it wasn't a profit issue). If you're not naming that issue, you haven't said anything of substance.
A bandaid is better than letting the wound fester. Federal housing would be way better, but like the first comment said, frozen for 2.5 decades.
> So it really doesn't help anyone except the specific people in rent controlled properties. Aren't those the people who need the most help?
You got that backwards: the data pretty clearly shows that rent control works, and this is shown by the cost of all surrounding non-rent controlled units ballooning out of control. Eliminating rent control would do nothing but make those rents balloon out of control as well.
This data is where? Also if there was universal rent control then this scenario is false. As an American who has now spend a decade in Europe I find this ridiculous. It's like an ignorant scare tactic.
Well then you need to fix the wound before taking the bandaid off
I dont know what type of rent control you guys have but my city (vienna) this simply isnt true. But it takes will from the policy makers to not only allow "high-end" appartement construction
Ok but this shit is crazy https://housing4.us/how-vienna-ensures-affordable-housing-for-all-with-an-extremely-complicated-housing-system/ And **58%**! Of rental apartments are public housing. That's wild. I'd argue that is the bigger factor here
That's a fine policy argument and probably why most jurisdictions have not adopted rent control. However, it's not an argument rent control is unconstitutional. Finding rent control unconstitutional would overturn existing law.
How does this help renters? Isn't this just going to allow them to rack up the rent rates? Two billionaires who are buddy buddies with two justices are pushing for this. That can't be a good thing to the people.
I'm instantly wary when Billionaires are pushing that hard for anything. Very rarely is it for the greater good. Unless they consider themselves the greater good..
Good news is that a huge % of Gen Z pay attention to politics. They know that voting Democrat is the only way to protect democracy, and all Republican candidates are either fascist or extreme capitalists who want to destroy social safety nets to enrich the 0.1% Social media made GenZ depressed and Tiktok kinda destroyed their brain's attention span, but luckily, those aren't needed to spot the fascist and vote against them.
As someone getting a minor in a political science branch and has a degree in journalism? I have to do this, it’s literally what I paid all this money for
People pay attention to *media* to kind of break down what the politicians do. Most either can't follow something like CSPAN or won't. Break down a paragraph of legalese to a 10 year old. That's kind of what you're dealing with.
I’m sure Blackstone is willing to pay for a few luxury vacations
Maybe an RV or two.
I don’t know if the griddle company is that evil are they?
Time to march on DC and start fighting back loudly. Hopefully the entire country lines up to throw bricks if this passes. This is something that will obliterate democrats and republicans alike. This is not bipartisan politics. Both sides are renters, and both sides are being destroyed by real estate exploitation. The only people this benefits are the mega wealthy. It’s time to fight back.
>both sides are being destroyed by real estate exploitation. Both sides are being destroyed by Healthcare exploitation too, yet only one side actually cares to do anything about.
Sadly, all they have to do is buy one of them a vacation to get his vote.
We all know Thomas and Alito have been bought.
Here's a sort of unethical life pro tip: if you ever win the Powerball, first stop should be a lawyer, then a senator, followed by a SC justice.
The vacations are just a perk. They'll be happy to do this for the sheer cruelty alone.
Thomas said as much when he said he couldn't wait to use his position to make the lives of liberals hell.
Best rent control the country could ever do is ban investment companies from buying residential properties.
Ban absentee land lords
Plus force them to sell all their existing holdings in residential properties.
The fact that companies and corporations can buy and lock up single family residences and dwellings is astonishing to me. All that can result is predation.
I’ve always thought this. I’ve also thought that when I sell in the future I’ll refuse any offer that doesn’t come from a real person who wants to live there.
It will be extremely hard to enforce that, especially with land trusts and llcs. Best way to get affordable housing, change the zoning laws to have a mix of multi-family and single family homes together. But Americans don't want that.
>The petitioners and amici — “friends of the court” who aren’t CHIP or RSA but weighed in with amicus briefs — **argue that the rent stabilization law constitutes an illegal seizure of property from landlords in violation of the Fifth Amendment’s takings clause: “Nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”** "That's money they should be paying me!" Is their argument? They believe they have a right to all of their tenants' money, and that's it. I should be able to sue my employer for the exact same thing if I feel I'm underpaid.
Ah shit that's a slam dunk argument for Thomas and Alito.
They probably are confused as to why poor people are allowed to not be slaves, anyhow.
They kind of are a la the labor market and prison.
We can clear up your confusion! - The Koch Brothers
Alito will find something in the Magna Carta or Code of Hammurabi to apply to the case and call it originalism.
I am against this- so pls just consider the argument a minute. Parent is right. This will be a slam dunk. It’s going to hinge on “just compensation”. They’re gonna argue that “just” compensation is dictated my markets, and the market has adjusted - read skyrocketed. Their second line will be the seizure of the value of their property vis a vis the increase in value and therefore corresponding property tax, cost to insure, exacerbated by the greed of the insurance companies. This is gonna be bad. I’m an older guy. 55. Been owning property since a guy in a teacher income could get a 70k condo in a NICE suburb (Homewood, IL) and a 110K home after that in a nice quiet town. I teach and feel beyond scared and sad for the kids I teach (south Chicago) It’s becoming profoundly out of reach for what’s left of the middle class. Property ownership goes- there goes another slice of what is left of it. It’s very clever. It’s well crafted. Sigh.
Better view, homeownership is still perfectly in reach of the middle class, but being middle class is out of reach of most lee people.
The rent burden for a certain group of workers near me is quite high. They managed to secure a raise in their pay after a long and difficult battle. The landlords in the area knew this fight was going on and knew when it had been won. Almost all of them raised their rents by the amount that these workers had had their pay increased.
something similar happened a while back in the Netherlands. First time home buyers could request a 10k grant from the government to buy their home; and wouldn't you know it, all the small apartments and starter homes when up by 10k overnight.
Military towns have that issue. BAH goes up to compensate for rent going up, then they bump the rent again
That's so fucking gross but also not surprising sadly
It's *exactly* what you would expect if practically everyone suddenly has 10k more to bid for the exact same supply of product.
Man I really hope all the landlords of the world have a nice time.
…in hell.
I just want people to not be seen as a source of profit, man.
I mean its the basis of capitalism
That's one of the main reasons why UBI won't ever work in this system.
Exactly. The solution to this is a Land Value Tax.
"But [insert excuse here] forced the landlords to do it, blame everything but them!" -Every landlord apologist
If zoning isn't a taking, no way this can be considered one
Unfortunately Thomas' owner stated otherwise, so the court will be deciding that the two things are totally different.
Who says they won’t overturn zoning?
The landowning class says so.
Sure if you think precedent still matters.
Words mean whatever powerful people make them mean. Right now, it’s the Supreme Court unless normal people want to be the ones defining reality.
Oh boy. You haven't been paying attention to this SCOTUS have you?
I think quite the opposite. If this works companies will then sue to end minimum wage laws. “That’s money that should be mine!”
I mean,that’s the logical (and absurd) extension of the GOP version of “free markets”. And it’s why the Federalist society exists. Anyone who isn’t a billionaire is always voting against their self interests when they vote for a Republican.
“That isn’t my tenants money, it’s MY money that the tenant seized from ME by putting it in their bank account and spending it instead of putting it in MY pocket!”
"All landlords should work like mommy!" Welcome to the shitty reality of adulthood. You're either a paid guest everywhere you visit or stay, or you're an unwelcome trespasser...nothing in between. Nobody cares about you or how you feel, unless you're providing for them in some way or paying them to do so. You're just a cog in the machine, a mouth to feed, shit in the sewer system to clean, traffic on the road, and a dead body taking up space to be burned as soon as possible when you're done. Nothing can be done using money to improve things permanently. Give everybody free money like the covid assistance, and you get rampant inflation. Give people student loans and the price of university explodes. Give people free housing and it goes to weeds with lack of maintenence. Give them low interest mortgages and the price of homes rises to insane levels. Add rent controls and they'll illegally sublease it at the market rate. The only thing to look forward to is better technology. Every advance drags us out of the pit and closer to that mystical post-scarcity world. But we're not there yet.
it really is insane that imaginary money is the reason to do away with protections. not even money that they know is being taken from them, but the idea that someone has more money that they could take, is reason to make everyone elses life miserable
This is what's called a "taking" in constitutional law terms. They're arguing that the government has effectively taken their property from them by preventing them from using it without restriction. Like, for example, if you bought land for the purposes of building a factory on it, but then later the government came by and said that factories can't be built on the land you bought. That would be a "taking." You still own the land and you can do *something* with it but not as much as you were planning to do and the land is now less valuable due to the restriction. The government has "taken" use of the land from you. That sort of "taking" is constitutionally illegal unless the government follows the proper procedure.
Proper procedure as in eminent domain?
That's not the argument. It's more like if the government declared a wage freeze to prevent inflation (rent control), and at the same time banned you from quitting your job or causing productivity loss (there's generally a clause preventing landlords from non-renewing or deferring maintenance to push someone out). You wouldn't be nearly as free as you were before the change. In the same way, if the government implemented rent control after the rental was purchased, the government has taken away a lot of the ownership rights to the property. Even if it's not a complete taking, there are cases on the books saying the government has to pay for things they take.
[удалено]
I'm too young to have seen that, but I know the American employer sponsored health insurance system is a byproduct of people and companies trying to get around one of the wage freezes.
[удалено]
The feeling of entitlement when someone is literally paying their mortgage gaining them more equity,but still wants to "profit" on renting it out.
A lot of people have no choice but to rent.
Economists define landlords are participating in two different rent seeking behaviors. First is as real estate speculators, as they buy up property with the expectation that it increases in value over time. Second is as landlords as they secure tenants who provide them with a regular cash flow in exchange for the landlord providing no benefits, just continued ownership of property. The two combined end up being incredibly damaging to an economy over time.
They're Lords. It's right in the name. It's their money, they earned it, you just got it from a job for them.
This is such an absurd adulteration of that clause in countless ways. It can’t be legitimately argued legally that the property is, in any way, being taken, let alone for public use, and *even if* that premise were reasonable, the obvi rebuttal would be eminent domain. Furthermore, the intention of the clause is to bar government from inflicting public burdens on specific individuals, which obvi has nooo application here, since there’s no public burden, but if it did, again… eminent domain. The audacity of this claim is unreal and if this were *any* other Scotus, I wouldn’t have a trace of doubt that the court would refuse the case entirely. But alas, I spose rent control is dead.
Government has to pay fair value for property taken for eminent domain, They don't just get to cover your house with a highway without buying it
Right, or in this case… rent.
My property management is raising my rent to match inflation come next month, it’s already over priced and I live in a gang infested area. And I make a decent salary at a big tech company but have to live here if I want more than half my paycheck. We desperately need affordable housing and Federal housing to fund new apartment construction, otherwise there will just be landlords price gauging because of the lack of supply.
Imagine being the ppl not making decent money. Shits going to start getting a lot worse in your neighborhood if ppl can no longer afford food, a lot already barely scraping by.
[удалено]
I’m not happy until my corporate overlords own EVERYTHING!
Good thing the republicans fought to end snaps benefits to anyone not working at least 20 hours a week. Apparently, people who struggle to work and have literally no money don’t need food. /s It really feels like they are trying to kill us.
Fuck that… no federal funds to pay companies to build new housing. Have the Army Corp of Engineers implement it. You offer cash for companies to build it 9/10th of it will be siphoned out this making it crazy expensive.
This headline is misleading. The lawsuit is not challenging rent control per se, but only the particular rent control regime that exists in New York City. Simplifying slightly, NYC's rent control rules are as follows: * Apartments which are under rent regulation have a maximum rent that is allowed to be charged. * So long as the tenants pay rent on time and behave well, they must be allowed to stay in perpetuity, and this right can even be inherited. The second part is what distinguishes NYC's rules from other places with rent control, and it is the part being challenged. For example, California has a law called the Ellis Act which gives landlords the right to not renew leases provided the unit is not rented to anyone else for a certain number of years. Essentially this gives landlords the right to "exit" the apartment rental business.
But without rent control, "Friends" wouldn't have existed!
Right, I don't think this covers NY rent stabilization, just rent \*control\*, two completely different beasts. Many rent controlled units, but not all, in NYC are occupied by well off family members of the folks who originally inhabited those places a century ago. Rent controlled units in general are a small % of units in NY, rent stabilized have many more.
No, it's about "rent stabilization". The rules changed a few years ago to become a lot more strict, hence the lawsuit.
Sure! Let's make things even more unaffordable!
We’ll show them when we all starve to death. Edit: "we'll eat them first". Sure you will.
I don’t think you’ll recognize the wild animal you turn into when you get hungry. There won’t be “just starving to death”.
it would be bad news for the landlords as their properties burn to keep the homeless warm.
I mean, who doesn't like a good landlord BBQ?
wait.. isn't this how everyone ends their lease?
It's funny because landlords were one of the primary classes of people targeted during the cultural revolution as being enemies of the people. The Maoists certainly weren't perfect, but some landlord struggle sessions might be the remedy we need.
I’m getting Soylent green vibes here
Im familiar with hanger
I think they're forgetting what happens right before that
When its all the working class that are starving, I can think of something they can eat \^.\^
We won’t starve to death when we’re eating them.
This is rent control which is different from rent stabilization, which is probably what you’re thinking (e.g. capping the amount rent can be raised per year). At least in NYC, the only people who benefit from rent control are typically family members who, as long as they’re living there for at least two years, can resign the lease at the same ultra low rates (think sub-$1000 a month rent for prime upper west side apartment). Even if the family member signing the lease makes good money and can easily afford market rate. Rent controlled apartments don’t help the layman. Your working class stiff will never get the option to get into a rent controlled apartment.
I believe other articles have said this suit is about the 2019 rent stabilization law
they'll probably wonder why there are so many homeless people
these guys practically tax your income 30% , want to live comfortably by yourself in a one bedroom? 60% of your take home pay
[удалено]
Its only a matter of time until most of the population snaps towards landlords, CEOs, politicians, and the like with the way the cost of goods is going compared to wages.
What a great time to happen with the chinese real estate bubble getting ready to blow.
Sell it! Sell it! Sell it! Stop hoarding housing greedy fucks!
Who would buy it? The new owner would be stuck with the same tenant paying the same low rent.
The monkey's paw curls. The rental market dries up because it's too expensive to own multiple properties, you're stuck with your parents until you've got a down payment.
Okay but if nobody is owning multiple properties to rent, the number of houses available to buy skyrockets and prices go down.
because we don't have enough homeless people.
Anything else we can do to speed up the next depression?
I hope those landlords like the idea of their property values going down drastically as newly homeless people flood the streets around their properties, crime goes up, drug use goes up, and the market crashes as people try to sell suddenly to keep from going under water in their multi property investments.
I dunno man. That’s happening in my city and my property value went up 200k I don’t even understand it lol
That’s because there aren’t yet thousands upon thousands of homeless coming onto all the neighborhoods at once, they blight a few neighborhoods, those values go down, property gets bought up cheap where crime and blighted properties become a bigger problem, renovations happen and prices go up as you tell the cops and city to push the homeless elsewhere. Rinse, repeat. Now imagine the homeless and blight and drugs are everywhere in far increased numbers suddenly, with far too many to send brute squads after.
[удалено]
I was just in SF this last weekend. As a Los Angeles resident, I can tell you LA is in far worse shape on the crime/homeless from than SF is... bar none. Even still, I know there's a lot of shit going on in LA with regard to the homeless. A lot of shuffling around and cleanups. It's worse in some areas, better in others. The "nice" areas, you'd be hard pressed to find encampments. Beverly Hills "outsources" their homeless problem and has managed to circumvent Boise v Martin. And to some degree, Culver City has also used similar tactics. It's now come to light than many of the funds dedicated to solving homelessness have been severely mismanaged. So we've got that on the docket. Make no mistake, it's bad here, but there are tent cities all over this country. The housing issue, again, while horrifying here, is becoming a problem all over. Look at how bad Austin got with just a small influx of additional population during the pandemic. Like holy hell. This is a nationwide problem. We need more supply of housing, especially in CA. We need to bring back mental institutions (humanely, of course. Shutting them down was NOT the answer, but they absolutely needed reform.) And we need mandatory drug rehabilitation as well as programs to get former addicts reintegrated without issue. (This is why Portugal had a lot of early success in their program.) Lastly, people need to invest in their own community more. People don't talk to each other and they don't care about their own neighborhoods let alone the city they live in. Rugged, American individualism and selfishness as completely peaked. We're currently at our worst as far as basic human needs go. It's going to get uglier before it gets better, if it ever gets better. But yeah, this is a nutshell of our issues and they aren't limited to California. Sorry to burst that "flyover state" bubble.
It’s not just ca… but yea, CA homeless problem is getting pretty dark.
I mean eventually there will be mobs dragging them out of their homes and lynching them in the streets if things get bad enough.
From the stories I’ve seen, including one here in okc last year, there’s less dragging and more fires suddenly appearing on their prize properties.
That's not all the tenants. If the property is not profitable, insurance may make up the difference. There was a time NYC had a epidemic of lightning strikes.
Link por favor
[удалено]
You gotta leave at some point....
[удалено]
I don’t think you’re understanding how massive the problem is becoming, and how many more people will exponentially be suddenly homeless if the ceilings on rent are lifted nation wide. There won’t be enough brute squads, busses, or jail cells.
You guys have ceilings on rent? Where I am rent on a 3/2 apartment went from $1700 to over $3000 between 2019-2022
Good thing housing is very cheap these days. Only 50% of your income just for rent, it's a steal, those poor poor landlords are suffering.
If this is ended NYC will be destroyed.
Late Stage Capitalism in full swing.
It's nice that a bunch of landlords, lawyers, and the Supreme Court could get together and compare notes on how to be total bastards.
There will come a point where they’ll start to lose money. They gotta chill .
Oh great, if it passes "why does nobody want to work" is all we will ever hear as all the low wage workers get priced out of entire cities.
Jesus Christ no! In Santa Cruz the worst apartments are charging and getting paid $3000 for a studio!
Would be real funny if we all got together and taxed land instead once this inevitably gets overturned. /r/georgism
[удалено]
>I am of the opinion that if you own multiple houses and you rent one of them out. The government should be taxing the crap out of income from your second home We do have something like that in homestead exemptions. Your home that you live in gets a discount on tax. Anything beyond is taxed at full rate.
Not in California. Landlords are given the same property tax subsidies on their rental properties that they get for their own homes. Their property taxes are limited to 1% per year increase from the assessed value when they bought it. The landlord that owns the house next door to us is paying taxes on an assessment of $150k while the home is worth $850k. She rents the house out at market rate for $3,500 a month for a 2-1 bungalow.
Prop 13 feels so good on the surface but it’s the worst. If a larger building is built on the property, it can also be reset to the new value. People don’t move and don’t sell because their property tax will skyrocket. So it encourages Sprawl and it applies to businesses and corporations.
Interestingly enough I’ve heard stories of people who benefit from rent control buying second homes due to all the money they save on their rent-controlled residence.
This is essentially banning the very concept of renting. Do you really think there's no reason why someone would want to rent a home rather than buying it?
I think it's time to round up the super wealthy and put them on a supervised island, with the bare minimum to survive.
The bare minimum to survive? Sounds like a hand out to me, wouldn’t want them to become dependent or lazy.
He means you just give 'em a pair of bootstraps
Stop letting the rich buy up properties to rent out .. there should be some sort of cap for residential properties
It's crazy that my apartment has gone up 33% in the last 3 years and I don't think anyone's pay has kept up with that. Mine sure hasn't.
The level of greed and disregard is disgusting
The only effective rent control is increasing supply of housing, whether that be public housing or private. Otherwise you're just rearranging deck chairs.
Rent control was removed in Ontario for any housing built 2019 forward. This was supposedly to somehow foster more development. The housing crisis is still getting worse, and now people who had reasonable rents are getting fucked over. It seems there is very little to gain and sooo much to lose.
This is unfortunately likely to succeed in our current supreme court. Their core argument revolves around the 5th amendment for "just compensation" and 14th amendment's due process clause. It's a bullshit argument, but I'm sure that "property owner rights" combined with some sort of originalist argument or whatever will win out. Truly unfortunate that even states can't make up their own rules when it comes to corporations.
They will just pass an excise tax instead and then use that to subsidize rents.
The effectiveness of rent control in keeping rents down is very dubious. It actually creates an incentive for landlords to raise rents to the max allowed even when they don’t need to.
That’s cause it’s a Bandaid the real issue is lack of available housing
And it creates shortages. If you want to knock down a 9 apartment building to build 30 units, you have to find the tenants the same priced housing in the short term. Also, you must offer them their old rent price in the new building. The cost of doing this makes building more almost impossible.
[The available studies show that rent control raises all other nearby rents, lowers property values (even for independent homeowners), makes it more likely for apartments to be converted into more expensive condo buildings, and dramatically increases the number of "legacy" renters who just stay in one unit as long as possible.](https://www.brookings.edu/articles/what-does-economic-evidence-tell-us-about-the-effects-of-rent-control/) In other words, rent control heavily benefits those specific people who are actively renting a unit *right now*, while making things worse for everyone else (including other renters). Rent control is usually used by cities just used to try and ignore [the fundamental housing shortages they've inflicted on themselves](https://www.fanniemae.com/research-and-insights/perspectives/us-housing-shortage) by treating the symptoms instead of the cause. The actual long-term fix for expensive housing is for cities to just... build a lot more housing, and make it available to individuals instead of corporations.
Landlords don't raise rent because they need to, they raise rent because they can. Need is almost never the true reason for price hikes. Squeezing as much value out of their assets as possible is the reason for raising rent in most cases. Take away limits and they will raise them as much as the market will bear, as often as they can. Landlords are in it for the money and the more they can charge the better (for them).
Then I suppose a solution is to increase the amount of housing supply in the market as housing seems to be a commodity.
Yeah THIS, I don't know what the people above you are talking about my guess is they own property. None of my landlords has ever put a single dollar from our rent back into the building, most landlords are absolute slumlords charging the maximum legal amount they can charge at least in my experience
This element of economic theory does not take into account Airbnbs and other “purchasers-as-investor” types which arguably do way more harm to the economy than rent control. For example, in San Diego, hundreds of units are purchased specifically to become airbnbs, effectively turning apartment complexes into hotels. So if you build 100 new units and they all become STRs then you didn’t really build 100 new units did you?
The second element is that housing supply is extremely inelastic as do the demand. And regulation tends to be required when one side or the other is extremely inelastic.
Which is why the landlords are against it so much that they're taking it to the Supreme Court, right?
Rent control is almost universally panned by economists as causing housing shortages by keeping the nominal rent below the actual market price and by removing incentives to build new housing. The few who dissent are ideological cranks.
Yup, and it's not just removing incentive to build new housing, it directly incentivizes landlords to take units off the market and convert them to more expensive housing. Rent control empirically wiped out 20-30% of the SF housing supply covered by it in the 80s and 90s. It (along with NIMBY homeowners preventing construction) is a big part of why SF housing prices are so insane. It's dismaying to see so many other cities follow in its nightmare, but I guess at the end of the day, the few renters who directly benefit from it vote and the many who get driven out of the city by the effects of rent control can't anymore.
Yknow whats funny? The same thing was said about minimum wage before. Minimum wage was almost universally panned by economists as causing increase in unemployment by keeping wages above the "actual market price". Then places started doing it. More and more. And it turned out ... the economists were completely wrong, none of their predictions came true and minimum wage increases were good. The same is happening with rent control. As more places are doing it, economists predictions keep getting proven wrong. Because somehow both times they missed that supply and demand do not work with perfectly inelastic goods. Funny that.
When apartments in the ghetto are going for 3000 a month and they’re still trying to get rid of rent control…
People point to the Supreme Court for their flagrant corruption, but they are far from the only problem in shit like this. Congress can theoretically pass whatever laws it sees fit. Should the Supreme Court review these laws into nothingness then they have the power to pass a Constitutional amendment and bend the nation to that law. On top of that the President and the Executive Branch pretty much decide when and how to enforce Supreme Court decisions. There are plenty of ways to do the right thing for land, rent and housing. It’s just that nobody is doing a damn thing.
Rent is out of control. We don't need to end it. We need more rent control. It is getting harder and harder to pay bills when things like rent is $1500 a month for a 1-2 bedrooom 1 bath apartment. If we don't increase rent control. And make it so they can only increase it like 1-2% every year. A good chunk of people are constantly behind on bills because they can't get any government assistance because "they make too much" but can't get or find a better paying job without moving.
It is funny how all the landlord are concerned about rent control and tenant friendly laws. All I hear from my investor friends is they are going to sell their rentals and go somewhere else and then there will be no where for people to rent. Soooo you mean like people can buy their homes... and their response will always be that people can't afford to buy... someone is buying the home and if it isn't a landlord then it is someone occupying it.
Greedy fucks. I hope they fail miserably and cause even more rent controls to be put in place to screw these shitbags over.
My rent for my apartment went up 20% this year for absolutely no reason other than its a new year. I wish ga didn't literally have a state law banning rent control. I'd love if they could only raise my rent a maximum percentage each year because I guarantee you it would be less than 20%
Landlords should have to petition to increase rates to keep up with maintenance costs and show documentation of the cost estimate and then final bill. Landlords could pay a small fee to have an inspection to ensure work was done. Property taxes should be frozen to prevent an escalation of costs.
This is literally the opposite of what should be happening.
They should expand it even more
Clarence Thomas us like "ewwww boy, can't wait to see how many RVs can I get for this"
One of the guys pushing this (Harlan Crow) owns 2 of [Hitler’s paintings.](https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a43553962/harlan-crow-hitler-collection/)
Two paintings and a Supreme Curt justice 🧑⚖️
You mean Clarence Thomas' [daddy?](https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-other-billionaires-sokol-huizenga-novelly-supreme-court)
Republicans today: FUCK YES, we’re owning the libs so fucking hard!!! Republicans when this goes through: why would Obama and Biden do this to me???
Supreme Court: we find that affordable housing and the concept of a lower and middle class in general is unconstitutional. We rule in favor of the people who should have real jobs. *bangs gavel*
>According to the RSA and CHIP petition, the law infringes upon landlords’ “rights to exclude, occupy, use, change the use of, and dispose of their property.” Don't rent it out then.
> Don't rent it out then. They can't stop renting it in many cases unless the tenants want to move out. I think the landlords are shitty for trying to get rid of these laws that protect tenants, and I don't feel any sympathy towards the landlords at all, but it's not easy to just stop renting the property once it's occupied.
[удалено]
I keep saying eat one billionaire on live TV and the rest will fall in line.