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.. ? 

[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....

[Kevin Sobilo]

Quote from @John Clark:

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.

@John Clark

@John Clark, very good point. That was done under the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942 to TEMPORARILY control prices in the interests of national defense. 

So, for example, if we go to war with Russia they could use that as an impetus to implement rent control for a short time to stabilize the economy to support the war effort.

I'm guessing they used the federal governments responsibility to provide for national defense as authority for creating this TEMPORARY law under EMERGENCY circumstances. 

[Kevin Sobilo]

Quote from @John Clark:

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.

[John Clark]

Quote from @Kevin Sobilo:

Wrong. The federal government does have the authority to regulate things that affect interstate commerce (which is just about everything) so long as proportionality and other considerations are observed.

A famous case proving the point is the Heart O' Atlanta Motel (Hotel?) case. It refused to serve blacks after the Civil Rights Act was passed, on the grounds that it was a local business, served one intrastate locality, did not advertise across state lines, etc. etc.

The Supreme Court said that it had to observe the Civil Rights Act and serve blacks, because its customers were in interstate commerce and therefore failing to serve them had a chilling effect on interstate commerce that Congress could regulate.

I'll let people older than me tell us about the Green Book to show that the Supreme Court got that decision right.

The point is that national rent control IS doable. Stupid, but doable.

[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. 

[James Hamling]

Quote from @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.. 

I will give 1 example. There is existing regulation pertaining to capping prices, meant to be used in a time of disaster. 

This existing regulation could be twisted, to apply against an inflationary environment, stating things such as rent's capped at say 4% annual increase. We just experienced a cycle of significant double digit annual increases. 

Yes, it's twisting things, but that is exactly what they do is it not? 

There is a broad range of power that could be enacted that's meant otherwise. For example, all should look back to WWII and the broad powers the government used to allocate various resources. This was a CORRECT use of such, but point being one could twist and contort such into other various uses. For example declaring a monetary war thus necessity, or a cyber war etc etc.. 

[Bruce Woodruff]

Quote from @Kevin Sobilo:

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

They don't. But they don't have the authority to forgive/pay-off people's legal debt either. But that doesn't seem to stop 'them' ......even when the Supreme Court  says it's not right....

[James Hamling]

Quote from @Bruce Woodruff:

Quote from @Kevin Sobilo:

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

They don't. But they don't have the authority to forgive/pay-off people's legal debt either. But that doesn't seem to stop 'them' ......even when the Supreme Court  says it's not right....

[Kevin Sobilo]

Quote from @Bruce Woodruff:

Quote from @Kevin Sobilo:

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

They don't. But they don't have the authority to forgive/pay-off people's legal debt either. But that doesn't seem to stop 'them' ......even when the Supreme Court  says it's not right....

True enough that governments often do illegal things, but the law is always evolving and they can't always get away with doing them.

[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...

[John Clark]

Quote from @Peter W.:

 Of course, what they won't and should try is things which decrease the cost to build new buildings...

 What?!?!! And irritate the construction unions?! Silly boy.

And I thought we were going to have a serious discussion…..

[Henry T.]

Inflation? Are we going to limit property tax increases to 5 percent? Of course not. How about making rentals property tax exempt? Of course not. This will be hugely popular and it will pass if he gets the chance. Then the Supreme court will undo it. Or, once all rentals are completely corporate, congress will be lobbied to undo it, like Airline deregulation.  The popularity of rent control is already proven on the west coast. You can't find a rental anywhere, but renters still love the idea.  I knew it was coming. Don't know if it will make it, but its a certain lure for vote bait.

[Chris Seveney]

I heard it’s for those with 50+ units

My guess is it will also get fought in court as unconstitutional

[Bud Gaffney]

What a thread. Keep politics off this site man. DO BETTER BP.

[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.

[Eric James]

Quote from @Bud Gaffney:

What a thread. Keep politics off this site man. DO BETTER BP.

 How about you stop reading the thread.

[Becca F.]

Quote from @Henry T.:

Inflation? Are we going to limit property tax increases to 5 percent? Of course not. How about making rentals property tax exempt? Of course not. This will be hugely popular and it will pass if he gets the chance. Then the Supreme court will undo it. Or, once all rentals are completely corporate, congress will be lobbied to undo it, like Airline deregulation.  The popularity of rent control is already proven on the west coast. You can't find a rental anywhere, but renters still love the idea.  I knew it was coming. Don't know if it will make it, but its a certain lure for vote bait.

 I wish they would limit property tax increases on my OOS properties lol. With Proposition 13, my property taxes in California increase 2% a year max (unless I do a significant renovation causing it to be re-assessed), so I can't complain about that. 

I can raise my rent 5% + CPI (3.8%) so 8.8%. There are all kinds of exceptions, different rules different cities, when the property was built etc. If I add an ADU my SFH becomes a 2 unit, subject to rent control as a LTR but may not as MTR, need to investigate this.

[James Hamling]

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...

30 days, that's all I need and I guarantee I could LOWER costs coast to coast, put unemployment to 0, raise median wages for skilled labor, make life more affordable for middle/working class. Guaranteed. 

Only issue, not 1 politician has the ballz because it's achieved via CUTTING minimum wage by 50%. 

And after that, want rocket fuel for economic PRODUCTION, not just BS numbers, CUT entitlement programs, except health care, elderly and handicap, by 50%. Yup, people will throw a fit and then.... they'll get a job. 

The biggest issue we have emerging now is worker engagement, or NON engagement. Because reality is entitlements are so nice, working is optional. 

We all know these truths, are scared to even whisper them more or less speak them. And we all know who brought this new reality but yet, we pretend things are well intentioned..... At some point ya gotta get real that the person who keeps shating in your yard isn't trying to help fertilize the lawn, there just an a-hole. 

[James Hamling]

Quote from @Bud Gaffney:

What a thread. Keep politics off this site man. DO BETTER BP.

Policy is made by politicians and politics. 

Policy creates regulation. 

We in real estate live and die by the regulation of the day, it's impact positive or negative. 

To say talk about Real Estate but never political connections is like saying to talk about burger on a food forum but never dare mention the cow.... 

[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. 

[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.

[James Wise]

Quote from @Bud Gaffney:

What a thread. Keep politics off this site man. DO BETTER BP.

 You don't think National Rent Control is a topic that should be discussed on a real estate website? lol, c'mon bro. That makes as much sense as two dolphins playing hockey.

[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.

[Billy Daniel]

Pandering during an election year. The federal government has pretty limited control over such things outside of housing that falls under federal programs (HUD, etc...). The states hold that power.

[James Wise]

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.

 Government controlling rent is ALWAYS a bad thing.

[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.