Good?
Good.
Excellent!
Hurray!
Huzza!
“what do you mean a vampire shouldn’t suck so much blood? might as well put a stake through my unbeating heart!”
deleted by creator
If someone buys a home that was rented. Would the cap apply to them? Because this might result in a loophole
That’s a good question. But keep in mind that they’re are significant taxes associated with selling a home in most places that would dissuade landlords from trying to game the system that way. Then again, they’re just one more loophole from making that plan work.
I’m giving it to my brother. Or just sell it for $100 to yourself
“Push them to sell” … “to larger corporations that have bigger financial reserves and plans to keep swaths of housing off the market in a monopolistic practice to keep supply low and rent always growing at 3%”
Ok, so let’s also prevent that from happening. Unless you don’t think good things are possible, in which case let’s all just go outside and lay down to wait for the inevitable
Good riddance
Won’t someone think of the landlords?!?
I do, but I can’t decide if I should bbq or braise them :-(
Gross. You really shouldn’t eat garbage…
That’s-the-point.gif
Cheaper homes in L.A.? We can’t have that!
Sounds like that’s by design. If they all wanna sell prices come down on that front as well. Sounds like it should be capped at 2 percent to me.
Oh nooooo …
Hi, that’s what I wanted to say!
A 3% cap is absurdly low. While people are saying “don’t threaten me with a good time,” this also means there are going to be fewer new units. Although considering how few units many CA cities have been adding (some have even removed units), it might not have too much of an effect on that regard. I would could see maintenance on existing units dropping and many more unofficial units popping up.
Fewer units, but more home ownership.
We don’t want to be a nation of renters. It’s not good for society; it’s only good for a minority of individuals.
And fewer new units? Where are you pulling that from? It just means developers will be building for home owners, not renters. Like they did back in the Good Old Days, when young people could actually realistically consider buying a home someday. You know, re-creating the conditions that the younger generations are always bitching about that boomers had which aren’t available anymore. Back when not all the land was owned by a few giant corporations.
Fuck renters. Fuck them right in the ear. They can all go eat a dick.
Disclaimer: I’ve owned every house I’ve lived in since 1998, and even with that collateral, every purchase has gotten harder to find and more expensive. So much of America is owned by property developers, it’s disgusting.
Fuck. Renters.
Fuck renters. Fuck them right in the ear. They can all go eat a dick.
So you hate people who cannot afford to plunk down thousands of dollars to get a place. Cool. /s
I hate that “renters” mean both people who rent, and rent out. It’s a stupid word.
There is a place for rentals, but it’s gone far beyond reasonable. Property developers are responsible for the housing crisis and the inability for younger generations to even contemplate owning a home.
In English we use the term landlord. Renter is generally understood to mean someone who rents.
You…blame the people who can’t afford to own for renting and also blame that same situation for making it harder for you to buy? You seem to be missing the point here.
Noun: renter |ren-tur|
-
Someone who pays rent to use land or a building or a car that is owned by someone else • the landlord can evict a renter who doesn’t pay the rent = tenant
-
An owner of property who receives payment for its use by another person
It’s not my fault the stupid word means both people renting, and the owners who rent the place out. I’d hoped the context would have made it clear to which I was referring, in each use.
-
Not sure how their unhinged comment is being upvoted.
3% is about average inflation, why is “making constant money including adjusting for inflation” low?
Well if you recall, there was a year where general inflation was far above 3%. Inflation is also not uniform and can be higher in some cities than others. And this is not inflation + 3%, it is 3%. Many people also have to borrow to build which means they are not simply paying the rate of inflation but what the banks are charging to borrow. Currently that is around 7%. So anyone looking to build units is looking at a negative return if they borrow to do it which means they simply will not.
Make no mistake, I do agree with caps but something that is not static makes more sense. Having it a static rate will lead to large unintended consequences.
sounds like a win-win
Landlords will complain every time any government, local, regional or national, attempts to regulate their bullshit, and plenty of people will rush in to take their side because they see themselves as temporarily embarrassed ghouls. Tax them to hell and back.
they see themselves as temporarily embarrassed ghouls
Even beyond that, there’s little understanding of landlordism as a patronage system. “Oh, that person just saved up a bunch of money to buy a second property and then spends a lot of time and energy maintaining it, so they deserve a profit!” is just people regurgitating real estate propaganda.
You’re not describing the lion’s share of properties owned by hedge funds, wherein cheap access to low interest debt gives a handful of mega-banks and billionaires the ability to gobble up 40%+ of outstanding real estate. You’re not describing the process of slumming a neighborhood through deliberate public-sector disinvestment, before forcing people out through petty fines and over-policing until you can snatch up the real estate on the cheap at public auction or estate sale. You’re not discussing how red-lining and eminent domain can be used to shrink housing supplies by limiting who has access to which schools or public utilities. Or how tax incentives can be used to drain off public funds for profit-chasing private sector enterprises.
Even before you get into the delusional would-be landlord, you’ve got this enormous network of socio-economic back slapping and dick jerking that is fundamental to the creation of a landlord class that we simply don’t talk about.
Landlords say this would push them to sell.
Yay? Maybe then it could be sold to people who are desperate to get off of the rental merry-go-round.
As in, these homes will be owned by people who actually live in them; non-parasites who aren’t going to be sucking the lifeblood out of hard-working, working-class Americans.
Maybe instead of being landlords, these parasites could actually go out and get a job?
Sounds like we don’t only need to cap increases at 3%. We also need to give loan assistance programs so the people currently living there can capitalize on the sudden availability. Otherwise, you get into the situation of “I’m spending $2000 on rent now, the mortgage + escrow payment on the same property would be $1500, but the bank says I don’t qualify”.
If you can’t buy it while renting today, you won’t be able to buy it tomorrow when your landlord sells it. The house will be bought by a corporate investor and you’ll get fucked. Just like it’s happening in the UK right now. Prepare for mass homelessness.
