Anonymous wrote:So, to make sure I understand-

Cap rent at 3% increase.

But increase the property tax by ten %. Got it.

Investmen or non owner occupied are the only properties paying the full rate after the $692 credit. Part of my post on moco prop tax thread actual rates paid :
>assessed at 1m the county effective rate for owner occupied was 92.23 and 99.15 for an investment property or any non owner occupied.
>assessed at 100k the county effective rate for owner occupied was 29.95 and 99.15 for an investment property or any non owner occupied

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This sounds wonderful

Why can’t Northern VA do this? NOVA offers very little help or financial assistance to renters compared to MD and DC

Rent control doesn’t incentivize future construction of apartments.

In Sweden it incentivized condo and coop conversions.

Moron alert. Have you ever lived in Stockholm? Do you realize what a compete sh*tshow their apartment and housing market is. Like, people writing letters pleading for housing with sob stories like "I'm a medical doctor and my wife is teacher, we have two children and one has incurable cancer, can we please rent this one bedroom apartment?" They then get put on a waitlist for three years while they live in a slum. Seriously anyone who argues in favor of any kind of housing policy based on Sweden is a complete ignorant fool

Holy smokes. "Moron alert."

The pp was arguing *against* rent control, because of what happened in Sweden, you "complete ignorant fool." .

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This sounds wonderful

Why can’t Northern VA do this? NOVA offers very little help or financial assistance to renters compared to MD and DC

Rent control doesn’t incentivize future construction of apartments.

In Sweden it incentivized condo and coop conversions.

Moron alert. Have you ever lived in Stockholm? Do you realize what a compete sh*tshow their apartment and housing market is. Like, people writing letters pleading for housing with sob stories like "I'm a medical doctor and my wife is teacher, we have two children and one has incurable cancer, can we please rent this one bedroom apartment?" They then get put on a waitlist for three years while they live in a slum. Seriously anyone who argues in favor of any kind of housing policy based on Sweden is a complete ignorant fool

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, to make sure I understand-

Cap rent at 3% increase.

But increase the property tax by ten %. Got it.

Apples and oranges. Your property tax did not increase your monthly payment by 10%.

Republican outrage usually stems from a lack of math education.

I'm not a Republican, and I fully understand the math. Thank you though.

Then what is your point? The two percentages are unrelated and are wildly different in total amount. 3% of $2500 is very different than 10% of $800k.

Its not that the figures are the same.

Its that inflation is supposedly requiring a 10% increase in the property tax rate.

But at the same time we expect landlords to hold to a 3% increase in their rents, as if their costs have not also gone up in similar amounts.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, to make sure I understand-

Cap rent at 3% increase.

But increase the property tax by ten %. Got it.

Apples and oranges. Your property tax did not increase your monthly payment by 10%.

Republican outrage usually stems from a lack of math education.

I'm not a Republican, and I fully understand the math. Thank you though.

Then what is your point? The two percentages are unrelated and are wildly different in total amount. 3% of $2500 is very different than 10% of $800k.

That should read: 10% increase of 0.99% of $800k. Like I said apples and oranges.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, to make sure I understand-

Cap rent at 3% increase.

But increase the property tax by ten %. Got it.

Apples and oranges. Your property tax did not increase your monthly payment by 10%.

Republican outrage usually stems from a lack of math education.

I'm not a Republican, and I fully understand the math. Thank you though.

Then what is your point? The two percentages are unrelated and are wildly different in total amount. 3% of $2500 is very different than 10% of $800k.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, to make sure I understand-

Cap rent at 3% increase.

But increase the property tax by ten %. Got it.

Apples and oranges. Your property tax did not increase your monthly payment by 10%.

Republican outrage usually stems from a lack of math education.

I'm not a Republican, and I fully understand the math. Thank you though.

Anonymous wrote:So, to make sure I understand-

Cap rent at 3% increase.

But increase the property tax by ten %. Got it.

Apples and oranges. Your property tax did not increase your monthly payment by 10%.

Republican outrage usually stems from a lack of math education.

Anonymous wrote:So, to make sure I understand-

Cap rent at 3% increase.

But increase the property tax by ten %. Got it.

Would you support capping rent increases at 10% in years when there is a 10% property tax increase, but otherwise capping rent increases at 3%?

Anonymous wrote:So, to make sure I understand-

Cap rent at 3% increase.

But increase the property tax by ten %. Got it.

More proof we’ve elected the wrong people. The property tax increase is bad policy. The rent cap is good policy.

So, to make sure I understand-

Cap rent at 3% increase.

But increase the property tax by ten %. Got it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This sounds wonderful

Why can’t Northern VA do this? NOVA offers very little help or financial assistance to renters compared to MD and DC

Rent control doesn’t incentivize future construction of apartments.

In Sweden it incentivized condo and coop conversions.

Not just Sweden. Pretty much everywhere.

Rent control makes landowners want to sell, and it discourages developers from building more rentals. Then the tenants who benefit from the rent control never move out, including empty nesters who hang onto units designed for families.

You end up with less housing on the market, and people can't move in.

Beyond that, landowners do not bother to upkeep and renovate their units. The revenue isn't there, and the tenants won't move out anyway. This causes the area to decay, both from depreciating land values and a stagnating/shrinking tax base.

What you describe would cause filtering to happen.

I don’t know why condo conversions are so bad. Give landlords a grace period to increase rent and then let them continue to rent with rent controls or convert to condos. If they sell, they can build another rental building. It seems like that would only be a problem if you don’t actually want to increase supply and lower prices. I get that landlords prefer just to increase rents but the way we’ve been doing things hasn’t produced a good housing market.

Tenants get evicted when apartments get converted to condos. Some of those residential units will also get converted to commercial space. That leads to a loss in housing.

I don't get what you mean by "filtering." Are you pro evictions? Most rent control advocates are trying to protect tenants.

The bigger problem with your plan is that rent control has a chilling affect on new development. Rent controlled areas have historically depreciated, and no one wants to build their assets in or near a depreciating area. In addition, the administration has shown they are unfriendly to landlords, and rent control is drastic. if they've done it once they can do something like it again. Developers would rather build elsewhere.

And some tenants become owners and have an opportunity to build wealth that they wouldn't otherwise have. And some tenants in other buildings become owners and have an opportunity to build wealth that they wouldn't otherwise have. There are ways to structure this so that projects still pencil out. Developers will just have to work for their money instead of squatting on aging inventory and choosing to collect rents instead of increasing production. Opponents of rent control want developers and big investors to control all the wealth. The one problem with that is that as renters increase as a share of the electorate rent controls probably become more likely.

What makes you think anyone is converting commercial to residential in this market? Nice scare tactic but totally not realistic.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This sounds wonderful

Why can’t Northern VA do this? NOVA offers very little help or financial assistance to renters compared to MD and DC

Rent control doesn’t incentivize future construction of apartments.

In Sweden it incentivized condo and coop conversions.

Not just Sweden. Pretty much everywhere.

Rent control makes landowners want to sell, and it discourages developers from building more rentals. Then the tenants who benefit from the rent control never move out, including empty nesters who hang onto units designed for families.

You end up with less housing on the market, and people can't move in.

Beyond that, landowners do not bother to upkeep and renovate their units. The revenue isn't there, and the tenants won't move out anyway. This causes the area to decay, both from depreciating land values and a stagnating/shrinking tax base.

What you describe would cause filtering to happen.

I don’t know why condo conversions are so bad. Give landlords a grace period to increase rent and then let them continue to rent with rent controls or convert to condos. If they sell, they can build another rental building. It seems like that would only be a problem if you don’t actually want to increase supply and lower prices. I get that landlords prefer just to increase rents but the way we’ve been doing things hasn’t produced a good housing market.

Tenants get evicted when apartments get converted to condos. Some of those residential units will also get converted to commercial space. That leads to a loss in housing.

I don't get what you mean by "filtering." Are you pro evictions? Most rent control advocates are trying to protect tenants.

The bigger problem with your plan is that rent control has a chilling affect on new development. Rent controlled areas have historically depreciated, and no one wants to build their assets in or near a depreciating area. In addition, the administration has shown they are unfriendly to landlords, and rent control is drastic. if they've done it once they can do something like it again. Developers would rather build elsewhere.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This sounds wonderful

Why can’t Northern VA do this? NOVA offers very little help or financial assistance to renters compared to MD and DC

Rent control doesn’t incentivize future construction of apartments.

In Sweden it incentivized condo and coop conversions.

Not just Sweden. Pretty much everywhere.

Rent control makes landowners want to sell, and it discourages developers from building more rentals. Then the tenants who benefit from the rent control never move out, including empty nesters who hang onto units designed for families.

You end up with less housing on the market, and people can't move in.

Beyond that, landowners do not bother to upkeep and renovate their units. The revenue isn't there, and the tenants won't move out anyway. This causes the area to decay, both from depreciating land values and a stagnating/shrinking tax base.

What you describe would cause filtering to happen.

I don’t know why condo conversions are so bad. Give landlords a grace period to increase rent and then let them continue to rent with rent controls or convert to condos. If they sell, they can build another rental building. It seems like that would only be a problem if you don’t actually want to increase supply and lower prices. I get that landlords prefer just to increase rents but the way we’ve been doing things hasn’t produced a good housing market.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This sounds wonderful

Why can’t Northern VA do this? NOVA offers very little help or financial assistance to renters compared to MD and DC

Rent control doesn’t incentivize future construction of apartments.

In Sweden it incentivized condo and coop conversions.

Not just Sweden. Pretty much everywhere.

Rent control makes landowners want to sell, and it discourages developers from building more rentals. Then the tenants who benefit from the rent control never move out, including empty nesters who hang onto units designed for families.

You end up with less housing on the market, and people can't move in.

Beyond that, landowners do not bother to upkeep and renovate their units. The revenue isn't there, and the tenants won't move out anyway. This causes the area to decay, both from depreciating land values and a stagnating/shrinking tax base.