national rent control

[Jay Hinrichs]

did anyone catch Prez Bidens comments on how he wants to pass a national rent control at 5% max rent raise ??

my worry is there will be other stips in that if it was to pass..

Or do you all think its just pandering to that base.. ? 

[Kevin Hofstee]

Quote from @Kevin Sobilo:

Quote from @Kevin Hofstee:

Quote from @Kevin Sobilo:

Quote from @Jay Hinrichs:

Quote from @Josh C.:

A president talked about rent control. Is a website about real estate not suppose to address that? It’s clear what politics are in favor of rent control and how that’s going for them.

No kidding right  geesh.. Rent control is a huge topic to RE buy and hold investors full stop. 

It sounds like it is as I suggested where they won't create a rent control law but change the tax code to take away some deductions (maybe depreciation) if rents are increased over 5%. This would only apply to landlords with 50+ rentals I believe as well.

So, because the federal government can't make a law about rent control, they coerce compliance with their wishes using money. This is why I believe in a small federal government. By giving them such a large chunk of money we give them more power than they are entitled to have because they can offer to give it to us back but only if we do as they want.

Unpopular opinion, but if rent control is done right it’s not a bad thing.  It’s when there’s a patchwork of laws in a local area that really messes market dynamics and then people don’t move and others are forced to unecessarily.  There needs to be mechanisms to be able update a property and raise its rent to market that isn’t overly harmful to tenants or landlords, and then you’d have a good functioning market.

I agree its not a bad thing, but it isn't a good thing either. It is a WRONG thing and there is a difference.

In your utopian view of things the world works in lockstep and everyone gets what they want from the situation. An investor gets a modest return and the tenant gets decent housing at an affordable price. Sounds like a win-win.

Whether that is possible, and it may be for short periods of time, or not doesn't matter because it’s a WRONG thing. Our country is made for us to make of it what we wish and for that we are entitled to do the best for ourselves that we can. The government limiting our ability to take advantage of opportunities is contrary to the values this country was founded on. So, for our country it is a wrong thing because it runs contrary to our values. 

It’s 100% a subjective thing, it runs contrary to your values not the country’s (I don’t know if you surveyed the country where the opinion would land).  You deem it wrong from your POV - which is fine, and part of what makes the country great that we can have a difference of opinions and debate the merits of various opinions/ideas.

I’ve experienced it both ways - as a landlord I can get more money in my pocket, always welcome - but I’m also not buying something if it’s not cash flowing.  As a prior renter I had a proposed rent raised from $2800 to $3500 (with no upgrades/changes to the unit or building), a 25% increase, which I definitely could not afford at the time, and forced me to spend a bunch of money moving.  That’s not a great experience, and just makes it harder on the little guy trying to get ahead in life.
 
I believe there’s a middle ground where both parties are satisfied.  That’s just my opinion though.

[James Hamling]

At this point in USA Rent Control act's is the definition of insanity, doing same thing over n over expecting a different result. 

For generation rent control has resulted, EVERY TIME, in the 1 same place. Degraded properties and communities. 

Because Rent Controls VIOLATE the very fundamental of the designed US economic machine, free market enterprise. 

In FME when pricing is "too high", by nature it opens a door for new competitors to emerge competing on price, driving market prices DOWN. 

Rent Controls is an ACTIVE act to HIDE the underlying reasons why prices are going up market wide. Because if they could come down, a competitor would. So the very fact of pricing being as it is it states THAT elevated price IS the "fair market price". 

And the #1 excuse used to justify such fkry of economics with rent control is "oh don't worry, government will pay ___ to you". Follow the bouncing ball there, Government is US, you, me, WE. So your going to pay me with my money???? And I am supposed to applaud that.... 

Rent Controls is evil plain n simple, there is no other way to be honest about it. If one did have honest intentions they'd simply address the root cause of the price elevation. And it's honestly VERY simple to honestly address elevated rental rates. 

For example, offer landlords a tax credit for new units brought to inventory in ___ area. Or offer credits for units leasing at no more then 3X median income, or say 2.4X median income etc etc... 

See, it's actually very VERY simple to do WITHOUT the dystopian control measures. 

So since it's SO simple to do WITHOUT the gestapo controls, it's a simple fact of reality that those at efforts of such WANT the gestapo controls, they seek the power and authority NOT the solutions. 

It's wildly infuriating when hear the "oh, it's ok, there the government and there here to help us, let's just give them the reigns guy's, come on guy's just let pappa Sam tell us what to do, pappa Sam know's best"...... 

[Chris Mercer]

Seems smart at first glance. Only applies to those who own 50+ units and it affects their tax write offs. If they don’t want the write off they can raise their rents above 5%. 

Some corporate landlords in my community have raised rents more than 20% off. This action would protect mom and pop, smaller investors, and target those who have the means and frankly, are the ones causing the community harm.

This will reduce pressures on local authorities to create a broad local or statewide rent control schemes, which is something I think most of us can agree is positive. 

[Kevin Sobilo]

Quote from @Kevin Hofstee:

Quote from @Kevin Sobilo:

Quote from @Kevin Hofstee:

Quote from @Kevin Sobilo:

Quote from @Jay Hinrichs:

Quote from @Josh C.:

A president talked about rent control. Is a website about real estate not suppose to address that? It’s clear what politics are in favor of rent control and how that’s going for them.

No kidding right  geesh.. Rent control is a huge topic to RE buy and hold investors full stop. 

It sounds like it is as I suggested where they won't create a rent control law but change the tax code to take away some deductions (maybe depreciation) if rents are increased over 5%. This would only apply to landlords with 50+ rentals I believe as well.

So, because the federal government can't make a law about rent control, they coerce compliance with their wishes using money. This is why I believe in a small federal government. By giving them such a large chunk of money we give them more power than they are entitled to have because they can offer to give it to us back but only if we do as they want.

Unpopular opinion, but if rent control is done right it’s not a bad thing.  It’s when there’s a patchwork of laws in a local area that really messes market dynamics and then people don’t move and others are forced to unecessarily.  There needs to be mechanisms to be able update a property and raise its rent to market that isn’t overly harmful to tenants or landlords, and then you’d have a good functioning market.

I agree its not a bad thing, but it isn't a good thing either. It is a WRONG thing and there is a difference.

In your utopian view of things the world works in lockstep and everyone gets what they want from the situation. An investor gets a modest return and the tenant gets decent housing at an affordable price. Sounds like a win-win.

Whether that is possible, and it may be for short periods of time, or not doesn't matter because it’s a WRONG thing. Our country is made for us to make of it what we wish and for that we are entitled to do the best for ourselves that we can. The government limiting our ability to take advantage of opportunities is contrary to the values this country was founded on. So, for our country it is a wrong thing because it runs contrary to our values. 

It’s 100% a subjective thing, it runs contrary to your values not the country’s (I don’t know if you surveyed the country where the opinion would land).  You deem it wrong from your POV - which is fine, and part of what makes the country great that we can have a difference of opinions and debate the merits of various opinions/ideas.

I’ve experienced it both ways - as a landlord I can get more money in my pocket, always welcome - but I’m also not buying something if it’s not cash flowing.  As a prior renter I had a proposed rent raised from $2800 to $3500 (with no upgrades/changes to the unit or building), a 25% increase, which I definitely could not afford at the time, and forced me to spend a bunch of money moving.  That’s not a great experience, and just makes it harder on the little guy trying to get ahead in life.
 
I believe there’s a middle ground where both parties are satisfied.  That’s just my opinion though.

Not a subjective thing and has nothing to do with MY values. These are the values the country was founded upon.

For example you might have 4 wives and believe that is "good", but in our country that is considered wrong.

In your example, the middle ground was you moving out as opposed to getting evicted. The landlord could have gotten you to pay the new rent or you could have been evicted but you chose the middle ground of leaving on your own. Both sides chose the course of action based on their own best interests. That is a good outcome. You got to find a more affordable place and the landlord got to maximize his investment. 

[Chris Mercer]

Quote from @Kevin Sobilo:

Quote from @Kevin Hofstee:

Quote from @Kevin Sobilo:

Quote from @Jay Hinrichs:

Quote from @Josh C.:

A president talked about rent control. Is a website about real estate not suppose to address that? It’s clear what politics are in favor of rent control and how that’s going for them.

No kidding right  geesh.. Rent control is a huge topic to RE buy and hold investors full stop. 

It sounds like it is as I suggested where they won't create a rent control law but change the tax code to take away some deductions (maybe depreciation) if rents are increased over 5%. This would only apply to landlords with 50+ rentals I believe as well.

So, because the federal government can't make a law about rent control, they coerce compliance with their wishes using money. This is why I believe in a small federal government. By giving them such a large chunk of money we give them more power than they are entitled to have because they can offer to give it to us back but only if we do as they want.

Unpopular opinion, but if rent control is done right it’s not a bad thing.  It’s when there’s a patchwork of laws in a local area that really messes market dynamics and then people don’t move and others are forced to unecessarily.  There needs to be mechanisms to be able update a property and raise its rent to market that isn’t overly harmful to tenants or landlords, and then you’d have a good functioning market.

I agree its not a bad thing, but it isn't a good thing either. It is a WRONG thing and there is a difference.

In your utopian view of things the world works in lockstep and everyone gets what they want from the situation. An investor gets a modest return and the tenant gets decent housing at an affordable price. Sounds like a win-win.

Whether that is possible, and it may be for short periods of time, or not doesn't matter because its a WRONG thing. Our country is made for us to make of it what we wish and for that we are entitled to do the best for ourselves that we can. The government limiting our ability to take advantage of opportunities is contrary to the values this country was founded on. So, for our country it is a wrong thing because it runs contrary to our values. 

Equilibrium/balance and limits are essential. I strongly disagree with your that America and it’s people are there to be exploited by investors. 

[Kevin Sobilo]

Quote from @Chris Mercer:

Quote from @Kevin Sobilo:

Quote from @Kevin Hofstee:

Quote from @Kevin Sobilo:

Quote from @Jay Hinrichs:

Quote from @Josh C.:

A president talked about rent control. Is a website about real estate not suppose to address that? It’s clear what politics are in favor of rent control and how that’s going for them.

No kidding right  geesh.. Rent control is a huge topic to RE buy and hold investors full stop. 

It sounds like it is as I suggested where they won't create a rent control law but change the tax code to take away some deductions (maybe depreciation) if rents are increased over 5%. This would only apply to landlords with 50+ rentals I believe as well.

So, because the federal government can't make a law about rent control, they coerce compliance with their wishes using money. This is why I believe in a small federal government. By giving them such a large chunk of money we give them more power than they are entitled to have because they can offer to give it to us back but only if we do as they want.

Unpopular opinion, but if rent control is done right it’s not a bad thing.  It’s when there’s a patchwork of laws in a local area that really messes market dynamics and then people don’t move and others are forced to unecessarily.  There needs to be mechanisms to be able update a property and raise its rent to market that isn’t overly harmful to tenants or landlords, and then you’d have a good functioning market.

I agree its not a bad thing, but it isn't a good thing either. It is a WRONG thing and there is a difference.

In your utopian view of things the world works in lockstep and everyone gets what they want from the situation. An investor gets a modest return and the tenant gets decent housing at an affordable price. Sounds like a win-win.

Whether that is possible, and it may be for short periods of time, or not doesn't matter because its a WRONG thing. Our country is made for us to make of it what we wish and for that we are entitled to do the best for ourselves that we can. The government limiting our ability to take advantage of opportunities is contrary to the values this country was founded on. So, for our country it is a wrong thing because it runs contrary to our values. 

Equilibrium/balance and limits are essential. I strongly disagree with your that America and it’s people are there to be exploited by investors. 

I didn't create the history and values our country was founded on. They happened long before I was born, but that is what they are. Go read some history about how our country was founded and what the government's attitude was towards property rights and the government interfering in situations like this.

Distress is where much opportunity comes from. 

Those in distress had the same rights and opportunities to make life go as they wish as the rest of us. The government is only supposed to be the referee, not there to control who does well in the game.

[Mae Galang]

“The proposal aims to remove a tax benefit from landlords who raise their tenants' rent by more than 5 percent per year, the Post reported. This would only apply to landlords who own more than 50 units, which accounts for roughly half of all rental properties, according to the news outlet.“

From: https://x.com/unusual_whales/status/1812919262874595461?s=46...https://unusualwhales.com/news/biden-will-announce-plan-to-c...

[Dave Hagen]

Quote from @Kevin Sobilo:

Quote from @John Clark:

Quote from @Kevin Sobilo: 

 Like I said though, the main point is that the federal government has LIMITED authority to create laws. So, that is why I don't think they can create a national rent control law on its own unilaterally.

The federal government imposed nationwide rent control during WW2. The federal government also regulates interstate commerce, so if it were to find that rent increases were having an effect on interstate commerce (not just people moving from state to state, but in general), it could regulate rents. 

Stupid to do so? Sure, but if stupidity was a crime, we’d all be felons.

Also, the federal government has authority to regulate interstate commerce NOT things that affect interstate commerce. This goes back to when the states acted more like individual countries and didn't play well with each other. If you go back far enough states even had their own individual currencies.

Originally the Commerce Clause was created to stop states from passing laws restricting interstate commerce. Such as banning products from other states.But it has changed to allow them to regulate almost everything.

A rancher was threatened with fines because he grew grain to feed his cattle. The government swooped in and told him he couldn't do that because he was bypassing the market and that was affecting commerce.

The recent SCOTUS ruling on Chevron dealt a blow to the out of control regulations that allowed the agency to determine the legality and scope of regulations they create. Before this, the judges just deferred to the opinions of the agencies involved.

And how many investors will be put out of business if they enact rent controls, until the laws are deemed unconstitutional? And there is no guarantee of that.

[Dave Hagen]

Quote from @James Hamling:

@Jay Hinrichs I totally understand those replying that it's just pandering, or some mumble-mouth stumbling through a rambling of thoughts. These people are rooted in common sense. 

Problem is, look around.... we are NOT in a world of sense anymore. There is a long list of CRAZY things that have happened, been said, and being acted upon. Things that not many years ago any of us would have said no-way would that ever happen in our lifetime. 

And Biden and his circle has mentioned this more than the once. And when mentioned it's in context of housing costs are too much, and to make housing costs affordable "for all". So the framing of it makes it crystal clear to me, YES, a form of national control if get a chance. 

Look, wrap your mind around fact this is same group that now that Supreme Court has given rulings they don't like, they are attacking the Supreme Court itself, making statements of how it needs to be changed, reduced in power etc.. That's CRAZY talk but it's happening, now. 

Canceling student loan debt, 0 precedent for it, 0 authority, they did it anyways. And when legally challenged, they didn't step back, they just kept working the angles. 

Yes, i could see manipulations of various price gouging regulations in place, to try and cap what such could ascend. And when start stepping into that, well it's a dam breaking on gov over-reach, it set's it's own precedent to cap new unit price, auto, you name it it's a slippery-slope that opens a flood-gate of governmental control of business and free commerce. 

Remember this is the same group who has called the constitution a problem, an obstacle.... No I didn't hear someone say this was said I heard it with my own ears, it was just ignored at the time just as Bidens statements on rent controls were ignored. 

Consistently "we the people" do nothing when such insanity is said because "oh, that can't be right, they must be mistaken". And then when things get pressed on it we say "oh, that will never happen" until it does.... Over and over this sheeple generation just sits and placidly watches the disintegration. 

I take them at there word because I MUST, I don't feel I have the comfort of playing ostrich and just hoping all comes out better. 

Notice there has been NO correction or clarification by Biden administration has there? Yeah, that silence is a statement in and of itself. 

Common sense is definitely not common.

And the most amazing part is that property tax increases isn't even mentioned as reasons for rent increases. Insurance increases due to regulations. Repairs increasing due to cost of labor and materials.

They also mention taxing assets, including property and stock market. The push-back has noted that stock market gains aren't realized until a stock is sold, and gains can easily and quickly be lost.

But real estate is already taxed on unrealized gains. They adjust based on the perceived increase in value. That value hasn't been realized, unless you refinance, or get secondary loans, and doesn't guarantee future value.

Also burns me up when they pass a bill and say they know it is unconstitutional, but they'll let the courts sort it out. Doesn't sound like they're paying any attention to their oath to uphold the constitution.

[Dave Hagen]

Quote from @James Hamling:

Stole it. :D

[Kevin Sobilo]

Quote from @Dave Hagen:

Quote from @James Hamling:

@Jay Hinrichs I totally understand those replying that it's just pandering, or some mumble-mouth stumbling through a rambling of thoughts. These people are rooted in common sense. 

Problem is, look around.... we are NOT in a world of sense anymore. There is a long list of CRAZY things that have happened, been said, and being acted upon. Things that not many years ago any of us would have said no-way would that ever happen in our lifetime. 

And Biden and his circle has mentioned this more than the once. And when mentioned it's in context of housing costs are too much, and to make housing costs affordable "for all". So the framing of it makes it crystal clear to me, YES, a form of national control if get a chance. 

Look, wrap your mind around fact this is same group that now that Supreme Court has given rulings they don't like, they are attacking the Supreme Court itself, making statements of how it needs to be changed, reduced in power etc.. That's CRAZY talk but it's happening, now. 

Canceling student loan debt, 0 precedent for it, 0 authority, they did it anyways. And when legally challenged, they didn't step back, they just kept working the angles. 

Yes, i could see manipulations of various price gouging regulations in place, to try and cap what such could ascend. And when start stepping into that, well it's a dam breaking on gov over-reach, it set's it's own precedent to cap new unit price, auto, you name it it's a slippery-slope that opens a flood-gate of governmental control of business and free commerce. 

Remember this is the same group who has called the constitution a problem, an obstacle.... No I didn't hear someone say this was said I heard it with my own ears, it was just ignored at the time just as Bidens statements on rent controls were ignored. 

Consistently "we the people" do nothing when such insanity is said because "oh, that can't be right, they must be mistaken". And then when things get pressed on it we say "oh, that will never happen" until it does.... Over and over this sheeple generation just sits and placidly watches the disintegration. 

I take them at there word because I MUST, I don't feel I have the comfort of playing ostrich and just hoping all comes out better. 

Notice there has been NO correction or clarification by Biden administration has there? Yeah, that silence is a statement in and of itself. 

Common sense is definitely not common.

And the most amazing part is that property tax increases isn't even mentioned as reasons for rent increases. Insurance increases due to regulations. Repairs increasing due to cost of labor and materials.

They also mention taxing assets, including property and stock market. The push-back has noted that stock market gains aren't realized until a stock is sold, and gains can easily and quickly be lost.

But real estate is already taxed on unrealized gains. They adjust based on the perceived increase in value. That value hasn't been realized, unless you refinance, or get secondary loans, and doesn't guarantee future value.

Property tax increases, insurance increases etc don't directly on their own cause rent prices to go up. Even if those expenses decreased landlords would still try to raise rents.

In fact those expenses can go UP and at the same time rents go DOWN! A simple example, is where a major employer in a small town closes up. Unemployment goes up and some people move away. The reduced demand causes rents to decline but at the same time the tax base is eroding from the employer closing up shop causing property taxes to spike up.

Also, it isn't property taxes that tax an unrealized gain its INCOME TAXES because they tax the mortgage paydown on the loan which it tied up in the equity of the house. With property taxes the estimated value is just used to apportion taxes "equitably". Not dissimilar to if they were installing sidewalks on your street and billed you back for it based on the frontage you have. 

[Don Konipol]

I don't have to argue the morality of the free market, capitalism vs socialism, or anything else.  Because here is why government interference and leftist politics result in a much POORER world than free market politics

Socialism in all forms REWARDS FAILURE AND PUNISHES SUCCESS

Its about INCENTIVE

Everything else is just noise

[James Hamling]

Quote from @Chris Mercer:

Quote from @Kevin Sobilo:

Quote from @Kevin Hofstee:

Quote from @Kevin Sobilo:

Quote from @Jay Hinrichs:

Quote from @Josh C.:

A president talked about rent control. Is a website about real estate not suppose to address that? It’s clear what politics are in favor of rent control and how that’s going for them.

No kidding right  geesh.. Rent control is a huge topic to RE buy and hold investors full stop. 

It sounds like it is as I suggested where they won't create a rent control law but change the tax code to take away some deductions (maybe depreciation) if rents are increased over 5%. This would only apply to landlords with 50+ rentals I believe as well.

So, because the federal government can't make a law about rent control, they coerce compliance with their wishes using money. This is why I believe in a small federal government. By giving them such a large chunk of money we give them more power than they are entitled to have because they can offer to give it to us back but only if we do as they want.

Unpopular opinion, but if rent control is done right it’s not a bad thing.  It’s when there’s a patchwork of laws in a local area that really messes market dynamics and then people don’t move and others are forced to unecessarily.  There needs to be mechanisms to be able update a property and raise its rent to market that isn’t overly harmful to tenants or landlords, and then you’d have a good functioning market.

I agree its not a bad thing, but it isn't a good thing either. It is a WRONG thing and there is a difference.

In your utopian view of things the world works in lockstep and everyone gets what they want from the situation. An investor gets a modest return and the tenant gets decent housing at an affordable price. Sounds like a win-win.

Whether that is possible, and it may be for short periods of time, or not doesn't matter because its a WRONG thing. Our country is made for us to make of it what we wish and for that we are entitled to do the best for ourselves that we can. The government limiting our ability to take advantage of opportunities is contrary to the values this country was founded on. So, for our country it is a wrong thing because it runs contrary to our values. 

Equilibrium/balance and limits are essential. I strongly disagree with your that America and it’s people are there to be exploited by investors. 

Ok, so what are you doing about McDonalds and there "exploitation" of people being hungry???? 

[Dave Hagen]

Quote from @Peter W.:

I'm with @James Hamling, Democrats will probably attempt it.  There's lots of folks who feel like they've been gouged post Covid with rent increases of 10-20%/year and it will look like the politicians are fighting inflation.  Plus, there are a lot more renters than landlords and their schtick is sticking it to the rich. We just passed something similar in New York capping rent increases to 5%+CPI (although local municipalities have the option to accept or not).  Of course, what they won't and should try is things which decrease the cost to build new buildings...

The same people complaining who didn't pay rent during the Covid eviction bans, most likely. Now they're finding out that it wasn't a free ride.

NYC has tons of empty apartments. So many people have moved out. There are complete floors that can't be accessed. They would rather let them go unrented than to have rents dip. Many buildings in NYC are way below capacity because they were bought by foreign investors as a place to park cash, not as an income source.

[Dave Hagen]

Quote from @Kevin Hofstee:

Quote from @Kevin Sobilo:

Quote from @Jay Hinrichs:

Quote from @Josh C.:

A president talked about rent control. Is a website about real estate not suppose to address that? It’s clear what politics are in favor of rent control and how that’s going for them.

No kidding right  geesh.. Rent control is a huge topic to RE buy and hold investors full stop. 

It sounds like it is as I suggested where they won't create a rent control law but change the tax code to take away some deductions (maybe depreciation) if rents are increased over 5%. This would only apply to landlords with 50+ rentals I believe as well.

So, because the federal government can't make a law about rent control, they coerce compliance with their wishes using money. This is why I believe in a small federal government. By giving them such a large chunk of money we give them more power than they are entitled to have because they can offer to give it to us back but only if we do as they want.

Unpopular opinion, but if rent control is done right it’s not a bad thing.  It’s when there’s a patchwork of laws in a local area that really messes market dynamics and then people don’t move and others are forced to unecessarily.  There needs to be mechanisms to be able update a property and raise its rent to market that isn’t overly harmful to tenants or landlords, and then you’d have a good functioning market.

There IS a mechanism that takes into account population increases and decreases, wage increases and decreases, cost of living, taxes and a whole slew of other factors that no law could come close to factoring in. It's called supply and demand. Rents can't increase if nobody can afford to pay. And if population is increasing, and nobody is building new housing, prices will go up and there will be enough profit to attract builders.

Government is the only place where they enact laws that completely destroy something, and then ask you to vote for them again so they can fix it. Over and over and over, yet never seem able to do something that works.

[Gino Barbaro]

@Jay Hinrichs

At some point, I think we will get there. There are too many uneducated people in this country who have no idea on financial matters. They have been dumbing down the country the past fifty years, and you see the result, even with our elected officials.

It sounds cool to cap rents, but are they going to cap expenses too. Good luck in the coastal markets when insurance and taxes go up 15%.

They' see the writing on the wall, and are trying anything to pander.

[Alan Asriants]

Owning real estate in the future will be less and less lucrative. 

More privileges for the small landlord will continue to be stripped away, while the large corporations benefit from the existing capital. 

The real crime is leading large funds like Black rock, purchase, single-family real estate and take it from the people who deserve it most, our citizens. 

5% max would be crazy. people are locked in at 800/m for 2 beds when market is 1800/m. 

[James Hamling]

Quote from @Kevin Hofstee:

Quote from @Kevin Sobilo:

Quote from @Kevin Hofstee:

Quote from @Kevin Sobilo:

Quote from @Jay Hinrichs:

Quote from @Josh C.:

I believe there’s a middle ground where both parties are satisfied....

Serious question; Exactly where is a "middle ground" between Democratic Republic and Marxist Socialism???? 

I don't see how there can be any middle ground, they are fundamentally opposed. What your saying to me sounds a lot like "kinda pregnant", it's just one of those things where there is no middle ground you either are or are not. 

I don't see how a country can be "kinda Communist".... 

[Kevin Hofstee]

Quote from @James Hamling:

Quote from @Kevin Hofstee:

Quote from @Kevin Sobilo:

Quote from @Kevin Hofstee:

Quote from @Kevin Sobilo:

Quote from @Jay Hinrichs:

Quote from @Josh C.:

I believe there’s a middle ground where both parties are satisfied....

Serious question; Exactly where is a "middle ground" between Democratic Republic and Marxist Socialism???? 

I don't see how there can be any middle ground, they are fundamentally opposed. What your saying to me sounds a lot like "kinda pregnant", it's just one of those things where there is no middle ground you either are or are not. 

I don't see how a country can be "kinda Communist".... 

You’re using a slippery slope argument, a middle ground policy between socialism and capitalism doesn’t lead to Marxism.  Our neighbors to the north aka Canada have rent control in most provinces (I think) and also have successful investors (I’ve got family that are). Almost everything is on a spectrum, it’s not a binary choice.

[John Clark]

Quote from @James Hamling:

At this point in USA Rent Control act's is the definition of insanity, doing same thing over n over expecting a different result. 

For generation rent control has resulted, EVERY TIME, in the 1 same place. Degraded properties and communities. 

Because Rent Controls VIOLATE the very fundamental of the designed US economic machine, free market enterprise. 

In FME when pricing is "too high", by nature it opens a door for new competitors to emerge competing on price, driving market prices DOWN. 

Rent Controls is an ACTIVE act to HIDE the underlying reasons why prices are going up market wide. Because if they could come down, a competitor would. So the very fact of pricing being as it is it states THAT elevated price IS the "fair market price". 

And the #1 excuse used to justify such fkry of economics with rent control is "oh don't worry, government will pay ___ to you". Follow the bouncing ball there, Government is US, you, me, WE. So your going to pay me with my money???? And I am supposed to applaud that.... 

Rent Controls is evil plain n simple, there is no other way to be honest about it. If one did have honest intentions they'd simply address the root cause of the price elevation. And it's honestly VERY simple to honestly address elevated rental rates. 

See, it's actually very VERY simple to do WITHOUT the dystopian control measures. 

So since it's SO simple to do WITHOUT the gestapo controls, it's a simple fact of reality that those at efforts of such WANT the gestapo controls, they seek the power and authority NOT the solutions. 

I’m glad you hated the Shrub’s bail out of Wall Street in 2008 as much as I did. Very much against our free market system, saving those feckless twits from themselves and their “of course we’ll get bailed out, we’re too big to fail” attitude.

[Paul Azad]

Biden just pandering for votes, this is pertinent excerpt from the White house press release

FACT SHEET: President Biden Announces Major New Actions to Lower Housing Costs by Limiting Rent Increases and Building More Homes | The White House


"President Biden is calling on Congress to pass legislation presenting corporate landlords with a basic choice: either cap rent increases on existing units to no more than 5% or lose valuable federal tax breaks. Under President Biden’s plan, corporate landlords, beginning this year and for the next two years, would only be able to take advantage of faster depreciation write-offs available to owners of rental housing if they keep annual rent increases to no more than 5% each year. This would apply to landlords with over 50 units in their portfolio, covering more than 20 million units across the country. It would include an exception for new construction and substantial renovation or rehabilitation. The policy is a bridge to rents stabilizing as President Biden’s plan to build more takes hold."

basically, he is as pretending to ask a Republican Congress to pass a bill that would tell all investors no accelerated depreciation unless you cap rents at 5%/yr, obviously would never be taken up by congress and could never get 67 votes in Senate either, so just a PR stunt for votes Shortly before an election. It is a sign of his political desperation at this point down 10pts in multiple polls. We should likely expect more like this to come. 

I've studied Rent Control, which is just a subtype of Nixonian Price Controls, and they are always a bad idea, they always produce the opposite of the intended outcome, with run down "slums" as they are unprofitable to maintain at submarket rents, If you read the whole letter, Biden actually has a better idea later down, which is a massive govt' push at fed and state level to increase production of new housing stock at all levels, using tax breaks, incentives to developers, thus eventually lowering rents or at least slowing rise to let incomes catch up. When you study this area in economic texts and in academic papers, there is quite a lot of govt intervention on behalf of all sides (tax code isn't 12,000 pages for no reason and it usually isn't helping the renters)

Let The free market act as it normally does, there are more multifamily units coming online this year and next year than ever before in US history, despite rising insurance and property taxes and construction and labor costs, as the potential for profit is too juicy to ignore, but The developers and investors also bear the risk of loss. So they should be justly and appropriately compensated. A free market is a system of gains and losses. Whenever we subsidize either one, we tilt the system out of balance.

[James Hamling]

Quote from @Kevin Hofstee:

Quote from @James Hamling:

Quote from @Kevin Hofstee:

Quote from @Kevin Sobilo:

Quote from @Kevin Hofstee:

Quote from @Kevin Sobilo:

Quote from @Jay Hinrichs:

Quote from @Josh C.:

I believe there’s a middle ground where both parties are satisfied....

Serious question; Exactly where is a "middle ground" between Democratic Republic and Marxist Socialism???? 

I don't see how there can be any middle ground, they are fundamentally opposed. What your saying to me sounds a lot like "kinda pregnant", it's just one of those things where there is no middle ground you either are or are not. 

I don't see how a country can be "kinda Communist".... 

You’re using a slippery slope argument, a middle ground policy between socialism and capitalism doesn’t lead to Marxism.  Our neighbors to the north aka Canada have rent control in most provinces (I think) and also have successful investors (I’ve got family that are). Almost everything is on a spectrum, it’s not a binary choice.

What..... You didn't read what I actually wrote did you? Try reading what I actually said, in full, than try again. 

FYI, Ca-nan-ada ain't doing to well buddy. yeah friend, ya should maybe check with persons who actually know Aaa Guy. 

[Chris Mercer]

Quote from @Kevin Sobilo:

Quote from @Chris Mercer:

Quote from @Kevin Sobilo:

Quote from @Kevin Hofstee:

Quote from @Kevin Sobilo:

Quote from @Jay Hinrichs:

Quote from @Josh C.:

A president talked about rent control. Is a website about real estate not suppose to address that? It’s clear what politics are in favor of rent control and how that’s going for them.

No kidding right  geesh.. Rent control is a huge topic to RE buy and hold investors full stop. 

It sounds like it is as I suggested where they won't create a rent control law but change the tax code to take away some deductions (maybe depreciation) if rents are increased over 5%. This would only apply to landlords with 50+ rentals I believe as well.

So, because the federal government can't make a law about rent control, they coerce compliance with their wishes using money. This is why I believe in a small federal government. By giving them such a large chunk of money we give them more power than they are entitled to have because they can offer to give it to us back but only if we do as they want.

Unpopular opinion, but if rent control is done right it’s not a bad thing.  It’s when there’s a patchwork of laws in a local area that really messes market dynamics and then people don’t move and others are forced to unecessarily.  There needs to be mechanisms to be able update a property and raise its rent to market that isn’t overly harmful to tenants or landlords, and then you’d have a good functioning market.

I agree its not a bad thing, but it isn't a good thing either. It is a WRONG thing and there is a difference.

In your utopian view of things the world works in lockstep and everyone gets what they want from the situation. An investor gets a modest return and the tenant gets decent housing at an affordable price. Sounds like a win-win.

Whether that is possible, and it may be for short periods of time, or not doesn't matter because its a WRONG thing. Our country is made for us to make of it what we wish and for that we are entitled to do the best for ourselves that we can. The government limiting our ability to take advantage of opportunities is contrary to the values this country was founded on. So, for our country it is a wrong thing because it runs contrary to our values. 

Equilibrium/balance and limits are essential. I strongly disagree with your that America and it’s people are there to be exploited by investors. 

I didn't create the history and values our country was founded on. They happened long before I was born, but that is what they are. Go read some history about how our country was founded and what the government's attitude was towards property rights and the government interfering in situations like this.

Distress is where much opportunity comes from. 

Those in distress had the same rights and opportunities to make life go as they wish as the rest of us. The government is only supposed to be the referee, not there to control who does well in the game.

 The government has an interest in ensuring its populace isn’t exploited and consumed. The constitution’s preamble begins with “we the people.” At the time that meant only white landed gentry, but after multiple constitutional amendments such as the 14th, those rights were extended to all humans. Later we defined those as protected classes for discrimination.

The challenge, then and now, is equilibrium and limits.The founding fathers, the federalists and anti federalists had to make many compromises to create and govern a country. Hence Madison’s addition of the bill of rights to protect the individual from government over reach. 

Later, in the early 1900’s, through child labor laws, anti-trust legislation and other regulations they recognized that allowing the richest minority to unfairly and unduly exploit the majority of the people is un-American. 

No one on this forum would even be in this category. Think robber barons and their decedents. This move from the executive branch again serves to support communities but the reason I support it is primarily it will reduce the pressure in HCOL areas to enact their own versions of rent control. 

Housing costs are a national issue and I’m glad the current administration is listening AND taking smart, narrow, action. 

No one is entitled to a tax break. That’s all that is happening here. I appreciate the encouragement to bring a historical perspective to the conversation. 

[Chris Mercer]

Quote from @Alan Asriants:

Owning real estate in the future will be less and less lucrative. 

More privileges for the small landlord will continue to be stripped away, while the large corporations benefit from the existing capital. 

The real crime is leading large funds like Black rock, purchase, single-family real estate and take it from the people who deserve it most, our citizens. 

5% max would be crazy. people are locked in at 800/m for 2 beds when market is 1800/m. 

 The large corporate investors is who this would target. They are creating large build to rent communities in Utah, because they can, I’m ingested to see if this guidance affects only multi family properties or large corporations that own 50+ detached homes/units in a community. Black rock and those types of investors are buying MFH as well as detached housing and gaining the ability to manipulate local markets. 

[Bruce Woodruff]

Quote from @Kevin Hofstee:

Quote from @Kevin Sobilo:

Quote from @Jay Hinrichs:

Quote from @Josh C.:

A president talked about rent control. Is a website about real estate not suppose to address that? It’s clear what politics are in favor of rent control and how that’s going for them.

No kidding right  geesh.. Rent control is a huge topic to RE buy and hold investors full stop. 

It sounds like it is as I suggested where they won't create a rent control law but change the tax code to take away some deductions (maybe depreciation) if rents are increased over 5%. This would only apply to landlords with 50+ rentals I believe as well.

So, because the federal government can't make a law about rent control, they coerce compliance with their wishes using money. This is why I believe in a small federal government. By giving them such a large chunk of money we give them more power than they are entitled to have because they can offer to give it to us back but only if we do as they want.

Unpopular opinion, but if rent control is done right it’s not a bad thing.  It’s when there’s a patchwork of laws in a local area that really messes market dynamics and then people don’t move and others are forced to unecessarily.  There needs to be mechanisms to be able update a property and raise its rent to market that isn’t overly harmful to tenants or landlords, and then you’d have a good functioning market.

 100% wrong. The government, ie other citizens, controlling what you choose to charge others to live in your property is a horrible thing. It has no upside, and nothing remotely positive about it. 

even if there were some situations where it would benefit both parties (and it doesn't) it is still wrong on its face, the whole concept is against what we stand for.