Ask your chat bot if rents are set based on a cost plus reasonable profit model or if rents are set based on what the market will bear. Oh wait. I already have. It offered the following finding: Apartment rents are based almost entirely on what the market will bear, not on a cost-plus-profit model. |
Lol this is AI making people dumber in action |
lol unless you’re a major landlord or work for AOBA the joke’s on you because your misunderstanding how your rent is priced is causing you to advocate for their interests instead of your own. Even more so when it comes to policies that have a more direct effect on your rent like rent stabilization. |
Ok we'll just take you and your "chat bot" at your word over that of published studies with named authors |
Hey champ. You won’t see this one in your YIMBY echo chamber but here’s a study with named authors. It even has their pictures. https://www.frbsf.org/research-and-insights/publications/economic-letter/2026/02/housing-affordability-and-housing-demand/ The chat bot guy was the one who who put property taxes and rent into google and then pasted long excerpts that he didn’t understand along with chat bot text summarizing this study. |
I already saw this when you first posted it. Talks about a relationship between income and housing prices. It does not examine the relationship between rents and property taxes. |
It doesn’t need to establish a relationship between rents and property taxes because it has identified a more important variable that drives prices at a macro level. The property tax theory doesn’t work based on what we’ve seen at a local level and it can’t overcome the income theory on a theoretical level. If tenants and prospective tenants don’t have the ability to pay more, the landlord can’t raise the rent without accepting more vacancy, which would result in greater losses in all but the most extreme cases. The failure of the other studies to explain why landlords didn’t pass on the full cost of property tax increases boosts the viability of the income theory. If the market could have supported higher rent increases, the landlord would have raised rents to recover the full cost. I get that the cost plus profit model is importantly to YIMBY advocacy but you need to do better than this. If you spent any time in development or finance, you’d know that developers and banks don’t think the way you’re suggesting. They start with what they can charge in rent and then use that number to price the land. But back to the matter at hand: No we shouldn’t pass a regressive tax package to prevent landlords from raising rents. Property tax rates won’t determine the rent. |
Sounds like you are seeing what you want to see |
Sounds like you can’t explain how a landlord can raise rents to a level that the market won’t bear without having too many vacant units. |
|
This is not hard.
CUT JOB CUT BENEFITS FREEZE SALARIES INCREASE CONTRIBUTIONS TO HEALTHCARE Eveyone else has to do it, so should county employees. Maybe the goddamn county should tighten its belt before robbing you out of more of evryone's salary? It is completely tone deaf county employees whine about staffing and salaries when so many people are losing jobs in both the federal govt and private sector. How about no more? They'll just have to learn survive with less, like everyone else. |
It doesn’t even have to be that drastic. Cut the raises to 2 percent (still double what feds got) and they save $45 million. But they seem incapable of cutting anything. Even the self styled budget hawk Andrew Friedson has proposed adding more spending than he’s proposed cutting. Yesterday he was asking for more money for the kid museum. It’s totally hopeless. The developers used to put pressure on the council to keep spending in check but now the council just gives the commercial property owners special deals so they don’t have to pay for this. |
Just fyi these decisions are made by elected officials. Obviously union leaders fight for raises, but many employees (including many that aren't union members but still get raises) do not think they should be getting these raises. |
DP. Property tax is not the sole expense in renting a property. While a relationship might exist, the landlord can choose to reduce spending in property improvements and repairs. And the landlord might just need to eat the loss in terms of less profit. |
A relationship does exist. See up thread for studies showing this relationship. Yes, markets are complicated and landlords cannot just get whatever price they want for a unit, but property taxes absolutely factor into the equation. |
|
Rental properties are a huge net negative on the tax base. The actual owners not only deduct property taxes, but also repairs, upgrades, depreciation, operating expenses, qualified business income, etc. On top of that many, many rental properties in Montgomery County are, shall we say, “multi family” and further dilute the tax base.
It makes renters feel good to think they are contributing to the tax base, but that’s not reality. Local governments need to make sure their housing stock is appropriately balanced between owners and renters or else they find themselves in the predicament that MC is in. From a fiscal perspective rental populations only makes sense in vacation areas where tenants are short term, do not require government services, and are subject to an occupancy tax. |