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.. ? 

[Russell Brazil]

Quote from @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.. ? 

 Part Pandering, part poor explanation.

HUD capped rent raises on units financed through the Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program to 10%. I believe he meant to reference this particular program, to have the limit changed to 5%.

HUD doesn't have the ability to implement rent control anywhere other than government owned or specific government financed housing.

[Jay Hinrichs]

Quote from @Russell Brazil:

Quote from @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.. ? 

 Part Pandering, part poor explanation.

HUD capped rent raises on units financed through the Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program to 10%. I believe he meant to reference this particular program, to have the limit changed to 5%.

HUD doesn't have the ability to implement rent control anywhere other than government owned or specific government financed housing.

Ok that makes sense..  I can see how the renter community though wont know those details and will just glom on to this as nationwide and for everyone.. but devils in the details.

[Theresa Harris]

Most politicians leading up to elections will say whatever they think the people want to hear to get re-elected.  I think our prime minister mentioned something about a national rental lease that people have to use and having to disclose previous rental prices...problem is things like that are under provincial control, not federal. Rents have gone up because demand has. Housing in Canada is in shorter supply because our PM massively increased immigration rates (over 5 million people in the last ~7 years for a country that prior to that had $35M people).  Immigration is good, but it is not sustainable at that level.  In AB we now have 4.8M people, 220K of those moved here last year.  To put it in context, if we combined the populations of our third and fourth largest cities, 220K is more than double that.

[Bruce Woodruff]

Pandering, plus a low intellect guy who doesn't understan the policies he's pushing. I don't see it ever taking hold on a national level, but his base (like any base) will just hear what they want to hear....

[Adam Bartomeo]

I just took it as gibberish... Anyone catch the other 10 - 15 mistakes that he said. It was pretty rough.

[Don Konipol]

During election campaign Biden veers Left to attract the radical votes that may go Kennedy……

[Eric Bilderback]

Quote from @Russell Brazil:

Quote from @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.. ? 

 Part Pandering, part poor explanation.

HUD capped rent raises on units financed through the Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program to 10%. I believe he meant to reference this particular program, to have the limit changed to 5%.

HUD doesn't have the ability to implement rent control anywhere other than government owned or specific government financed housing.

I don't believe that is accurate. If he capped the HUD properties the tenants don't care because they are hardly paying any rent as it is. And the owners will not like it because their gravy train is being threatened. Am I missing something?

Who is he pandering too?  Unless he is proposing to pass nationwide rent control (which I highly doubt he could do) he is not pandering to any of his groups.

[Andrew Lax]

Pandering to renters thats who - and you think they listen to the details or just simply read the headline / click bait ?
never going to happen... 

[John Morgan]

How is rent control working in CA? lol. Interesting how he brings it up just months before the election. Why wasn’t this idea floated out the last few years when housing costs took off?

[Bill B.]

LISTEN TO THE EXPERTS!! We were told over and over. “But 100% of the ‘experts’ say rent control doesn’t work”. SHUT UP! They say.    

Why wouldn’t you start with food control?

[Jay Hinrichs]

Quote from @Bill B.:

LISTEN TO THE EXPERTS!! We were told over and over. “But 100% of the ‘experts’ say rent control doesn’t work”. SHUT UP! They say.    

Why wouldn’t you start with food control?

or ban full sugar soft drinks from EBT cards they cause our medical system billions.. 

[Theresa Harris]

Quote from @Jay Hinrichs:

Quote from @Bill B.:

LISTEN TO THE EXPERTS!! We were told over and over. “But 100% of the ‘experts’ say rent control doesn’t work”. SHUT UP! They say.    

Why wouldn’t you start with food control?

or ban full sugar soft drinks from EBT cards they cause our medical system billions.. 

 What is an EBT card?  I tried google and my best guess was pre-loaded cards for people on welfare.

[Eric Bilderback]

Quote from @Theresa Harris:

Quote from @Jay Hinrichs:

Quote from @Bill B.:

LISTEN TO THE EXPERTS!! We were told over and over. “But 100% of the ‘experts’ say rent control doesn’t work”. SHUT UP! They say.    

Why wouldn’t you start with food control?

or ban full sugar soft drinks from EBT cards they cause our medical system billions.. 

 What is an EBT card?  I tried google and my best guess was pre-loaded cards for people on welfare.

 Food stamps, which poor people don't get ahead from the food companies do, and gives the US a population that is to fat to produce an Army.  If we are dreaming let us go ahead and stop outsourcing manufacturing, and stop bringing in unskilled labor by the millions to destroy middle class and working class communities. #nevergoing to happen.  Might as well by real estate and get rich off the scam!  LOL

[Bill B.]

@Theresa Harris

Good “guess”. 

The “experts” told us it’s embarrassing to use food stamps. So we had to make it look like a regular payment with their money instead of ours. Even if the embarrassment might encourage people to get off welfare. 

[Kevin Sobilo]

Basically a nothing-burger because the federal government doesn't have authority to implement nation wide rent control.

About all they could do is assert control through its control over money in the system. So, the clearest would be government rental programs like section 8, but that wouldn't work well since in an appreciating market landlords will just abandon the program if they can't get equivalent rent. They could in theory try to squeeze this into government guaranteed loan products, but it would be nearly impossible to enforce through that kind of mechanism.

About the only thing they could do to make a nation wide rent control program is to force states to implement their own laws by threatening to withhold money like they did to get states to change DUI laws to .08 or lose transportation funding. 

[Marcus Auerbach]

Pandering. State policy is a lot more dangerous to us landlords than federal. 

And it is often misguided. We have an initiative called Eviction Free Milwaukee - sounds like a great idea, because evictions are a lose-lose for investors and renters nobody wants evictions.

Most evictions are because of non-payment, but instead of helping with rent payments the majority of the funds goes to free attorneys (rookies usually) trying to stop eviction cases on formalities. So now the case gets dismissed, the landlord needs to lawyer up, come back a month later with more cost and more lost rent and ultimately the tenant still gets kicked out, but the cost for everyone went up. 

Now the landlord has to eat the cost of the attorney, it took a month or two longer, probably will raise rents, screen harder and ultimately the vast majority of good tenants get to pay the price.

That's why I donate my time to the RPA Rental Property Association of Wisconsin, which is a local non-profit REIA and we lobby in Madison for sustainable landlord tenant laws - if you are a Wisconsin investor, please consider joining.

[James Wise]

Quote from @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.. ? 

 Will a democratic administration eventually try to pass a national rent control? Most likely. However, after this situation, it's pretty clear there won't be anything other than a Republican administration in 2024, so the can on rent control gets kicked down the road for at least another 4 years. 

[Don Konipol]

Quote from @Marcus Auerbach:

Pandering. State policy is a lot more dangerous to us landlords than federal. 

And it is often misguided. We have an initiative called Eviction Free Milwaukee - sounds like a great idea, because evictions are a lose-lose for investors and renters nobody wants evictions.

Most evictions are because of non-payment, but instead of helping with rent payments the majority of the funds goes to free attorneys (rookies usually) trying to stop eviction cases on formalities. So now the case gets dismissed, the landlord needs to lawyer up, come back a month later with more cost and more lost rent and ultimately the tenant still gets kicked out, but the cost for everyone went up. 

Now the landlord has to eat the cost of the attorney, it took a month or two longer, probably will raise rents, screen harder and ultimately the vast majority of good tenants get to pay the price.

That's why I donate my time to the RPA Rental Property Association of Wisconsin, which is a local non-profit REIA and we lobby in Madison for sustainable landlord tenant laws - if you are a Wisconsin investor, please consider joining.

Excellent analysis! When landlords are targeted like this EVERYONE loses their property rights.  It’s PRIVATE PROPERTY that’s under attack by people who put their faith in socialism.  Plain and simple. Other examples of Private Property rights under attack are when countries impose exchange controls to keep people from taking action to negate the confiscation of their accumulated wealth through rapid inflation; when government imposes ridiculous limits on individuals right to improve their real property; when restrictions are placed on assets individuals can own (it was illegal in the US to own gold bullion until our currency was no longer backed by gold); and when taxes are imposed on wealth for the purpose of redistributing that wealth.   In other words reward failure and punish success.  

[Don Konipol]

Quote from @James Wise:

Quote from @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.. ? 

 Will a democratic administration eventually try to pass a national rent control? Most likely. However, after this situation, it's pretty clear there won't be anything other than a Republican administration in 2024, so the can on rent control gets kicked down the road for at least another 4 years. 

Yeah, you’re probably right.  If it’s like socialized medicine, it just a matter of when the leftist control both the executive and legislative branches.  However; IF Republicans are elected AND a couple of Democratic seats on the Supreme come vacant, well that could be a game changer.  

[Jay Hinrichs]

Quote from @Kevin Sobilo:

Basically a nothing-burger because the federal government doesn't have authority to implement nation wide rent control.

About all they could do is assert control through its control over money in the system. So, the clearest would be government rental programs like section 8, but that wouldn't work well since in an appreciating market landlords will just abandon the program if they can't get equivalent rent. They could in theory try to squeeze this into government guaranteed loan products, but it would be nearly impossible to enforce through that kind of mechanism.

About the only thing they could do to make a nation wide rent control program is to force states to implement their own laws by threatening to withhold money like they did to get states to change DUI laws to .08 or lose transportation funding. 

why could it not be added to the fair housing act.  Like there is a federal law that allows owners of 1 to 4 units that live in the property to not have to adhere to the rules of tenant selection.. Now of course there are state laws and city laws that over ride the federal law.
Federal law is there but the law that rules between state and federal is the more restrictive of the two.. So I dont see it being a super big stretch personally.. but I am not  a big SFR landlord so I dont follow it a ton..

[Kevin Sobilo]

Quote from @Jay Hinrichs:

Quote from @Kevin Sobilo:

Basically a nothing-burger because the federal government doesn't have authority to implement nation wide rent control.

About all they could do is assert control through its control over money in the system. So, the clearest would be government rental programs like section 8, but that wouldn't work well since in an appreciating market landlords will just abandon the program if they can't get equivalent rent. They could in theory try to squeeze this into government guaranteed loan products, but it would be nearly impossible to enforce through that kind of mechanism.

About the only thing they could do to make a nation wide rent control program is to force states to implement their own laws by threatening to withhold money like they did to get states to change DUI laws to .08 or lose transportation funding. 

why could it not be added to the fair housing act.  Like there is a federal law that allows owners of 1 to 4 units that live in the property to not have to adhere to the rules of tenant selection.. Now of course there are state laws and city laws that over ride the federal law.
Federal law is there but the law that rules between state and federal is the more restrictive of the two.. So I dont see it being a super big stretch personally.. but I am not  a big SFR landlord so I dont follow it a ton..

I would have to research under what powers the Fair Housing Act was written, but the federal government has LIMITED powers to create laws that are spelled out in our Constitution. People think the federal government can make any law they wish, but that isn't actually true. However states can make laws which EXCEED the protections offered by a federal law because by exceeding those protections the state and federal law are not in conflict.

If I was to venture a guess (just a guess), the Fair Housing Act might fall under the federal governments power to regulate "interstate commerce" because the buyer or tenant may be coming from another state. Therefore the federal government can regulate the transaction. Whether those laws should they apply in instances when the buyer/tenant does not come from another state could be a legitimate point of contention for a court I suppose. However with rent increases the tenant is absolutely NOT coming from another state as they are already in place. So, they could not use that authority to create a law.

That is why I gave the example of the .08 alcohol limit for DUIs. The federal government could not make a law about that. So, instead they used a financial stick to beat state's over the head and force each of them to make a law doing it.

[Jay Hinrichs]

Quote from @Kevin Sobilo:

Quote from @Jay Hinrichs:

Quote from @Kevin Sobilo:

Basically a nothing-burger because the federal government doesn't have authority to implement nation wide rent control.

About all they could do is assert control through its control over money in the system. So, the clearest would be government rental programs like section 8, but that wouldn't work well since in an appreciating market landlords will just abandon the program if they can't get equivalent rent. They could in theory try to squeeze this into government guaranteed loan products, but it would be nearly impossible to enforce through that kind of mechanism.

About the only thing they could do to make a nation wide rent control program is to force states to implement their own laws by threatening to withhold money like they did to get states to change DUI laws to .08 or lose transportation funding. 

why could it not be added to the fair housing act.  Like there is a federal law that allows owners of 1 to 4 units that live in the property to not have to adhere to the rules of tenant selection.. Now of course there are state laws and city laws that over ride the federal law.
Federal law is there but the law that rules between state and federal is the more restrictive of the two.. So I dont see it being a super big stretch personally.. but I am not  a big SFR landlord so I dont follow it a ton..

I would have to research under what powers the Fair Housing Act was written, but the federal government has LIMITED powers to create laws that are spelled out in our Constitution. People think the federal government can make any law they wish, but that isn't actually true. However states can make laws which EXCEED the protections offered by a federal law because by exceeding those protections the state and federal law are not in conflict.

If I was to venture a guess (just a guess), the Fair Housing Act might fall under the federal governments power to regulate "interstate commerce" because the buyer or tenant may be coming from another state. Therefore the federal government can regulate the transaction. Whether those laws should they apply in instances when the buyer/tenant does not come from another state could be a legitimate point of contention for a court I suppose. However with rent increases the tenant is absolutely NOT coming from another state as they are already in place. So, they could not use that authority to create a law.

That is why I gave the example of the .08 alcohol limit for DUIs. The federal government could not make a law about that. So, instead they used a financial stick to beat state's over the head and force each of them to make a law doing it.

ya maybe being able to choose your own tenant and disregard discrimination laws for race religion sex disability because you owner occ one of the units.. falls under something different but it is federal law.. unless prohibited by state county or city.. the owner of a 1 to 4 unit who lives in one of the units does not have to follow the selection rules.. And that is federal law.

[Kevin Sobilo]

Quote from @Jay Hinrichs:

Quote from @Kevin Sobilo:

Quote from @Jay Hinrichs:

Quote from @Kevin Sobilo:

Basically a nothing-burger because the federal government doesn't have authority to implement nation wide rent control.

About all they could do is assert control through its control over money in the system. So, the clearest would be government rental programs like section 8, but that wouldn't work well since in an appreciating market landlords will just abandon the program if they can't get equivalent rent. They could in theory try to squeeze this into government guaranteed loan products, but it would be nearly impossible to enforce through that kind of mechanism.

About the only thing they could do to make a nation wide rent control program is to force states to implement their own laws by threatening to withhold money like they did to get states to change DUI laws to .08 or lose transportation funding. 

why could it not be added to the fair housing act.  Like there is a federal law that allows owners of 1 to 4 units that live in the property to not have to adhere to the rules of tenant selection.. Now of course there are state laws and city laws that over ride the federal law.
Federal law is there but the law that rules between state and federal is the more restrictive of the two.. So I dont see it being a super big stretch personally.. but I am not  a big SFR landlord so I dont follow it a ton..

I would have to research under what powers the Fair Housing Act was written, but the federal government has LIMITED powers to create laws that are spelled out in our Constitution. People think the federal government can make any law they wish, but that isn't actually true. However states can make laws which EXCEED the protections offered by a federal law because by exceeding those protections the state and federal law are not in conflict.

If I was to venture a guess (just a guess), the Fair Housing Act might fall under the federal governments power to regulate "interstate commerce" because the buyer or tenant may be coming from another state. Therefore the federal government can regulate the transaction. Whether those laws should they apply in instances when the buyer/tenant does not come from another state could be a legitimate point of contention for a court I suppose. However with rent increases the tenant is absolutely NOT coming from another state as they are already in place. So, they could not use that authority to create a law.

That is why I gave the example of the .08 alcohol limit for DUIs. The federal government could not make a law about that. So, instead they used a financial stick to beat state's over the head and force each of them to make a law doing it.

ya maybe being able to choose your own tenant and disregard discrimination laws for race religion sex disability because you owner occ one of the units.. falls under something different but it is federal law.. unless prohibited by state county or city.. the owner of a 1 to 4 unit who lives in one of the units does not have to follow the selection rules.. And that is federal law.

I wasn't suggesting the exceptions to the fair housing laws were not part of the federal law. I was saying that the states could go further with protections but not roll back protections.

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. 

[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.

[Jay Hinrichs]

Quote from @Kevin Sobilo:

Quote from @Jay Hinrichs:

Quote from @Kevin Sobilo:

Quote from @Jay Hinrichs:

Quote from @Kevin Sobilo:

Basically a nothing-burger because the federal government doesn't have authority to implement nation wide rent control.

About all they could do is assert control through its control over money in the system. So, the clearest would be government rental programs like section 8, but that wouldn't work well since in an appreciating market landlords will just abandon the program if they can't get equivalent rent. They could in theory try to squeeze this into government guaranteed loan products, but it would be nearly impossible to enforce through that kind of mechanism.

About the only thing they could do to make a nation wide rent control program is to force states to implement their own laws by threatening to withhold money like they did to get states to change DUI laws to .08 or lose transportation funding. 

why could it not be added to the fair housing act.  Like there is a federal law that allows owners of 1 to 4 units that live in the property to not have to adhere to the rules of tenant selection.. Now of course there are state laws and city laws that over ride the federal law.
Federal law is there but the law that rules between state and federal is the more restrictive of the two.. So I dont see it being a super big stretch personally.. but I am not  a big SFR landlord so I dont follow it a ton..

I would have to research under what powers the Fair Housing Act was written, but the federal government has LIMITED powers to create laws that are spelled out in our Constitution. People think the federal government can make any law they wish, but that isn't actually true. However states can make laws which EXCEED the protections offered by a federal law because by exceeding those protections the state and federal law are not in conflict.

If I was to venture a guess (just a guess), the Fair Housing Act might fall under the federal governments power to regulate "interstate commerce" because the buyer or tenant may be coming from another state. Therefore the federal government can regulate the transaction. Whether those laws should they apply in instances when the buyer/tenant does not come from another state could be a legitimate point of contention for a court I suppose. However with rent increases the tenant is absolutely NOT coming from another state as they are already in place. So, they could not use that authority to create a law.

That is why I gave the example of the .08 alcohol limit for DUIs. The federal government could not make a law about that. So, instead they used a financial stick to beat state's over the head and force each of them to make a law doing it.

ya maybe being able to choose your own tenant and disregard discrimination laws for race religion sex disability because you owner occ one of the units.. falls under something different but it is federal law.. unless prohibited by state county or city.. the owner of a 1 to 4 unit who lives in one of the units does not have to follow the selection rules.. And that is federal law.

I wasn't suggesting the exceptions to the fair housing laws were not part of the federal law. I was saying that the states could go further with protections but not roll back protections.

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. 

we are saying the same thing I agree.. I just not sure if they cannot enact a federal rent control or not..