Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Swedish economist Assar Lindbeck, a housing expert, said that "rent control appears to be the most efficient technique presently known to destroy a city – except for bombing".

And yet Sweden has rent control and 90 percent of urbanism is being envious of Sweden.

I read an article last week about 2-300 people all lined up to tour a unit. It is definitely not working there.

And whatever we're doing isn't working here, so...

...so lets try something that we have objective evidence is not working in other parts of the world?

We literally have decades and decades of evidence saying rent control does not work. Its not something to "try and hope it works" We know that it will not.

We also have decades of experience demonstrating that when we de-regulate land use developers build high-density housing where land is cheapest, not where there’s already transit and other infrastructure. But proclaimed urbanists are more than happy to support that even though we literally know it will cause sprawl.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Swedish economist Assar Lindbeck, a housing expert, said that "rent control appears to be the most efficient technique presently known to destroy a city – except for bombing".

And yet Sweden has rent control and 90 percent of urbanism is being envious of Sweden.

I read an article last week about 2-300 people all lined up to tour a unit. It is definitely not working there.

And whatever we're doing isn't working here, so...

...so lets try something that we have objective evidence is not working in other parts of the world?

We literally have decades and decades of evidence saying rent control does not work. Its not something to "try and hope it works" We know that it will not.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Swedish economist Assar Lindbeck, a housing expert, said that "rent control appears to be the most efficient technique presently known to destroy a city – except for bombing".

And yet Sweden has rent control and 90 percent of urbanism is being envious of Sweden.

I read an article last week about 2-300 people all lined up to tour a unit. It is definitely not working there.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Swedish economist Assar Lindbeck, a housing expert, said that "rent control appears to be the most efficient technique presently known to destroy a city – except for bombing".

And yet Sweden has rent control and 90 percent of urbanism is being envious of Sweden.

I read an article last week about 2-300 people all lined up to tour a unit. It is definitely not working there.

And whatever we're doing isn't working here, so...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Swedish economist Assar Lindbeck, a housing expert, said that "rent control appears to be the most efficient technique presently known to destroy a city – except for bombing".

And yet Sweden has rent control and 90 percent of urbanism is being envious of Sweden.

I read an article last week about 2-300 people all lined up to tour a unit. It is definitely not working there.

And whatever we're doing isn't working here, so...

Anonymous wrote:I'm totally fine with duplexes (or tri or quad plexes) right in my East County neighborhood. Go right ahead. I doubt people will given the location, but its totally OK by me.

Just make sure you do Takoma Park first- which is right next to the metro.

And hard, hard no on rent control. We literally no it doesnt work.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From the "evil landlord" side...

I work in property management.

For the better part of two years there has been an eviction moratorium due to covid. That means even if a tenant (some of whom never lost employment) paid 0.00 dollars in rent, you could not evict them and replace them with a paying tenant.

At the same time, all maintenance on that unit and others still has to be done, with very diminished revenue coming in.

Now that the moratorium is over (and even now it is not in a landlord's best interest to evict people unless someone is truly not willing to work with them), you are seeing rent increases to make up for the 2+ years of getting 60-80 cents on the dollar of expected rent.

Putting in a 3% cap, will just make maintenance all the harder to keep up with. As the cost of goods has gone up dramatically, people's salary and benefits have gone up dramatically, etc.

Not saying some people have not put in some unreasonable increases as well- but it will be impossible to perform good maintenance with these hard caps- compared to the cost increases we have occurred on many fronts.

People's salaries and benefits have gone up dramatically? Have yours?

I'm totally fine if people want to build duplexes (or tri, or quad plexes) in my neighborhood, in East County. I doubt they will given the proximity to public transportation, but go right ahead if you want to.

Just make sure you upzone the crap out of Takoma Park first- which is freakign right next to the metro. And a hard, hard no on rent control.

I think my annual raises have been 5 and 6 percent the last two years, as is most of our staff.

Not sure if thats dramiatically- but yes- wage growth in the entire country has been high the two years. Thanks.

How nice for you.

And thank YOU for ignoring my post that costs for MRO materials, salaries, wages, benefits- have all gone up.

We spent 12% more last year just on product alone for maintenance. And that is not for capital improvements, or upgrades, or rehab work. Just the usual maintenance, repair, operations stuff needed to keep units running.

But we should jsut eat that right? Or operate in the red?

If you can't pay for it without passing 100% of the costs on to the tenants, that seems like a problem with your business.

Let's play this out on a macro level.

A property owner (whether they manage 5 units, or 50,000), has a double digit increase in the cost of the products they need to maintain the units. Their employee costs have gone up. Inflation and supply chain are hitting them all over.

So in your mind they just operate at a loss in perpetuity for... reasons?

Are you expecting double digit cost increases in perpetuity?

No, I certainly hope not.

And if we allowed more density, the free market could run itself here. If a property pushed the rent too much, people would literally vote with their feet.

But we dont make the grocery store only charge 3% more than they did last yr if the cost of eggs goes up.

No, the market would not run itself. We know that because the market has not so far successfully run itself even though there’s a lot of unused density. There’s surplus density. That’s not to say we shouldn’t increase allowable density all over but adding more density won’t fix the housing market because there’s already a surplus.

It’s funny how these anti-SFH people are all of a sudden so libertarian when it comes to building additional housing.

Agreed, build out density where there is capacity before even thinking about forcing square pegs into round holes. It’s very silly, and is being supported as some sadistic wish to stick it to people that are living in SFH neighborhoods.

Nobody is trying to stick it to you, except insofar as you believe your neighborhood will be destroyed by the presence of duplexes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From the "evil landlord" side...

I work in property management.

For the better part of two years there has been an eviction moratorium due to covid. That means even if a tenant (some of whom never lost employment) paid 0.00 dollars in rent, you could not evict them and replace them with a paying tenant.

At the same time, all maintenance on that unit and others still has to be done, with very diminished revenue coming in.

Now that the moratorium is over (and even now it is not in a landlord's best interest to evict people unless someone is truly not willing to work with them), you are seeing rent increases to make up for the 2+ years of getting 60-80 cents on the dollar of expected rent.

Putting in a 3% cap, will just make maintenance all the harder to keep up with. As the cost of goods has gone up dramatically, people's salary and benefits have gone up dramatically, etc.

Not saying some people have not put in some unreasonable increases as well- but it will be impossible to perform good maintenance with these hard caps- compared to the cost increases we have occurred on many fronts.

People's salaries and benefits have gone up dramatically? Have yours?

I think my annual raises have been 5 and 6 percent the last two years, as is most of our staff.

Not sure if thats dramiatically- but yes- wage growth in the entire country has been high the two years. Thanks.

How nice for you.

And thank YOU for ignoring my post that costs for MRO materials, salaries, wages, benefits- have all gone up.

We spent 12% more last year just on product alone for maintenance. And that is not for capital improvements, or upgrades, or rehab work. Just the usual maintenance, repair, operations stuff needed to keep units running.

But we should jsut eat that right? Or operate in the red?

If you can't pay for it without passing 100% of the costs on to the tenants, that seems like a problem with your business.

Let's play this out on a macro level.

A property owner (whether they manage 5 units, or 50,000), has a double digit increase in the cost of the products they need to maintain the units. Their employee costs have gone up. Inflation and supply chain are hitting them all over.

So in your mind they just operate at a loss in perpetuity for... reasons?

Are you expecting double digit cost increases in perpetuity?

No, I certainly hope not.

And if we allowed more density, the free market could run itself here. If a property pushed the rent too much, people would literally vote with their feet.

But we dont make the grocery store only charge 3% more than they did last yr if the cost of eggs goes up.

No, the market would not run itself. We know that because the market has not so far successfully run itself even though there’s a lot of unused density. There’s surplus density. That’s not to say we shouldn’t increase allowable density all over but adding more density won’t fix the housing market because there’s already a surplus.

It’s funny how these anti-SFH people are all of a sudden so libertarian when it comes to building additional housing.

Agreed, build out density where there is capacity before even thinking about forcing square pegs into round holes. It’s very silly, and is being supported as some sadistic wish to stick it to people that are living in SFH neighborhoods.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From the "evil landlord" side...

I work in property management.

For the better part of two years there has been an eviction moratorium due to covid. That means even if a tenant (some of whom never lost employment) paid 0.00 dollars in rent, you could not evict them and replace them with a paying tenant.

At the same time, all maintenance on that unit and others still has to be done, with very diminished revenue coming in.

Now that the moratorium is over (and even now it is not in a landlord's best interest to evict people unless someone is truly not willing to work with them), you are seeing rent increases to make up for the 2+ years of getting 60-80 cents on the dollar of expected rent.

Putting in a 3% cap, will just make maintenance all the harder to keep up with. As the cost of goods has gone up dramatically, people's salary and benefits have gone up dramatically, etc.

Not saying some people have not put in some unreasonable increases as well- but it will be impossible to perform good maintenance with these hard caps- compared to the cost increases we have occurred on many fronts.

People's salaries and benefits have gone up dramatically? Have yours?

I think my annual raises have been 5 and 6 percent the last two years, as is most of our staff.

Not sure if thats dramiatically- but yes- wage growth in the entire country has been high the two years. Thanks.

How nice for you.

And thank YOU for ignoring my post that costs for MRO materials, salaries, wages, benefits- have all gone up.

We spent 12% more last year just on product alone for maintenance. And that is not for capital improvements, or upgrades, or rehab work. Just the usual maintenance, repair, operations stuff needed to keep units running.

But we should jsut eat that right? Or operate in the red?

If you can't pay for it without passing 100% of the costs on to the tenants, that seems like a problem with your business.

Let's play this out on a macro level.

A property owner (whether they manage 5 units, or 50,000), has a double digit increase in the cost of the products they need to maintain the units. Their employee costs have gone up. Inflation and supply chain are hitting them all over.

So in your mind they just operate at a loss in perpetuity for... reasons?

Are you expecting double digit cost increases in perpetuity?

No, I certainly hope not.

And if we allowed more density, the free market could run itself here. If a property pushed the rent too much, people would literally vote with their feet.

But we dont make the grocery store only charge 3% more than they did last yr if the cost of eggs goes up.

No, the market would not run itself. We know that because the market has not so far successfully run itself even though there’s a lot of unused density. There’s surplus density. That’s not to say we shouldn’t increase allowable density all over but adding more density won’t fix the housing market because there’s already a surplus.

Anonymous wrote:By capping the rent at either 3%, or 8%. Does that mean landlords can terminate a lease at the end of the year to rent out to another family at a higher rental rate?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Swedish economist Assar Lindbeck, a housing expert, said that "rent control appears to be the most efficient technique presently known to destroy a city – except for bombing".

And yet Sweden has rent control and 90 percent of urbanism is being envious of Sweden.

I read an article last week about 2-300 people all lined up to tour a unit. It is definitely not working there.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Swedish economist Assar Lindbeck, a housing expert, said that "rent control appears to be the most efficient technique presently known to destroy a city – except for bombing".

And yet Sweden has rent control and 90 percent of urbanism is being envious of Sweden.