Yes, I'm a Conservative, But SOME Rent Control IS Necesary

[protectionist]

If government forcibly limits the amount of rent a landlord can charge, there are going to be a LOT of empty buildings around, failing into disrepair. The number of units available to rent will be greatly reduced, so people would have a difficult time finding a place to live if they are looking to rent. This happens when government puts artificial price controls on things. Look what happened to the availability of gasoline when the government controlled pricing. The Supply DISAPPEARED.

So, again the unintended consequences of Liberal/Progressive policies comes back to bite you in the @ss.

NO, you're changing the subject. This is about just limiting rents to not be outlandishly high, with 60% increases. Calm down.

 

[WinterBorn]

Valid points. And in the long run, you pay more for those conveniences.

The OP wants the conveniences AND low prices. He wants the gov't to force someone to accept less money for the use of their property because he did not plan for his own retirement.

Less money than an exhorbitant amount, extreme increase, inconsistent with neighboring properties. And this is HUNDREDS of resident moving out, not just me.

Then move to a neighboring property.

 

[depotoo]

And not for an apartment complex owner?

Apartments and rental units are a commodity today. Nobody wants to own, especially the Millennial generation. They rent everything from their apartment to television set.

So it's really a supply and demand issue. If everybody demands rental units instead of houses, the price goes up, and I don't see it going down anytime soon as more people line up to get apartments.

But prices go up only as far as people can pay them, and landlords can rent units. Hopefully, maybe these prices where I am, will start falling, as this place is emptying out a lot faster than it's filling up.

One other thing about renting vs owning. Maintenance is done by the landlord in rentals. In home ownership, maintainance can be expensive.

 

[ph3iron]

I live in an apartment complex, that recently was bought by a new landlord. That landlord has been increasing expired lease rents by as much as 60%. Imagine that your rent is $600/month and suddenly it's damn near $1,000/month.

Whoa! For low income seniors on Social Security and small pensions, this aint gonna fly. Actually, younger people still in the workforce with higher incomes, aren't taking to well to it either. Practically everybody in this complex is moving out. Some people are moving in and paying the higher rents, but not as many as are moving out. I've never seen so many moving vans in my life.

Next May, I will be moving out too, and still haven't figured out where to move to. I have limitations because of a low credit score and income, but I'll find someplace, even if it's not as good as where I am now.

All this is because Florida has no limit of what landlords can raise rents to. The only thing limiting them is new residents' capability to pay, and what they are able to rent apartments for.

But there is another side to this, This isn't oil or minerals mined from the ground. It's not furniture being made and sold. This is about PEOPLE. And it's about people who have been living in this complex for years, and these apartments are their HOMES. One woman who just moved out, had been living here for 25 years. Longtime neighbor-friendships are being obliterated.

If landlords NEED to raise rents, (say 10% or less) for some reason, that's understandable, but to raise them by HUNDREDS of dollars, just for GREED, is not what we ought to be OK with in this country. When hundreds of people are forced out of their homes, this is unacceptable. As is the case with most conservatives, I also favor deregulation of business, but this is one case that is screaming for MORE regulation, to a reasonable degree.

I thought that is the good old republican way.
I have mine screw the rest
It's called capitalism

 

[protectionist]

Then move to a neighboring property.

Of course, but it shouldn't have to be that way. We could also say let the new owner raise the rents only 10% instead of 60%. Or not at all.

 

[protectionist]

You are certainly a bad "conservative". Nobody here questions that. Now...try to post some facts.

I just posted 3 of them. Nobody questions what ?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Then move to a neighboring property.

Of course, but it shouldn't have to be that way. We could also say let the new owner raise the rents only 10% instead of 60%. Or not at all.

So let's say there was such a law. Now the new owner would have never bought the place; nobody would because income from the investment is limited. In fact, the seller would have to decrease their price on the units because nobody would buy the place with such a limited income.

 

[protectionist]

The person who is raped has no choice. The victim of the theft has no choice. The victims of arson and murder have no choice. You have a choice to rent somewhere else.

The examples you gave are active attacks on another person. Charging rent is providing shelter for a price. The person who wants to live in someone else's property does not get to set the price.

I was just responding to the poster's claim about govt telling him what to do, Don't get a rash.
The person who wants to live in someone else's property most certainly DOES get to set the price, or al least have something to say about it, if/whenever the community decides there should be SOME limitations on what these prices might be. This is a fair scenario, in that we are talking about people having a place to LIVE, a basic need, not just what computer they might own.

Smart communities balance business owners' needs, with those of everyone else.

As for renting somewhere else, that is easier said then done. It is expensive, troublesome, breaks up friendships, and isn't easy to do. As for "somewhere else", the landlord has a choice to buy "somewhere else."[/QUOTE]

 

[protectionist]

So let's say there was such a law. Now the new owner would have never bought the place; nobody would because income from the investment is limited. In fact, the seller would have to decrease their price on the units because nobody would buy the place with such a limited income.

Fine, then everything would remain as it is. and we don't know the details of why the rents went so high. Since no other complexes are charging that much, my guess is the exhorbitant increases were not necessary. No reason to think they are.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

As for renting somewhere else, that is easier said then done. It is expensive, troublesome, breaks up friendships, and isn't easy to do. As for "somewhere else", the landlord has a choice to buy "somewhere else."

And you think if he bought somewhere else, the tenants there wouldn't be saying the same thing?

 

[protectionist]

Then move into one of the other apartment complexes on that street.

Or let the new landlord buy another complex.

 

[protectionist]

And you think if he bought somewhere else, the tenants there wouldn't be saying the same thing?

No they wouldn't, if it was one that had rents that high already.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So let's say there was such a law. Now the new owner would have never bought the place; nobody would because income from the investment is limited. In fact, the seller would have to decrease their price on the units because nobody would buy the place with such a limited income.

Fine, then everything would remain as it is. and we don't know the details of why the rents went so high. Since no other complexes are charging that much, my guess is the exhorbitant increases were not necessary. No reason to think they are.

Depends on how much he paid for it. Like I said, rentals is the way of the future as far as I can tell. I've never seen rentals in such demand. As such, the owner was able to increase his price to the point the buyer figured he could realize a profit if he did raise rents.

So what you are suggesting is that government interfere so that a persons investment could only realize X profit. What if we limited profit on everything using government?

 

[protectionist]

Then move to one of the complexes.

I'm sorry you are not comfortable with people believing that your poor financial planning does not override the right of a property owner to do what he wants with HIS property.

I don't have poor financial planning. I've paid housing rents for 50 years, and never missed, or even been late on, any one of them. It is this new landlord that is out of the ordinary, not us renters.

As for HIS property, no property is entirely under the control of anybody. There are dozens of laws restricting "HIS property" (discrimination, height of buildings, use of barbeques, smoke alarms, etc)

 

[protectionist]

Yeah. Sort of feels like "shoot them on sight!"

I've lost interest in trying to ascertain what some looney laugher liberal has to say.

 

[bripat9643]

Saying we need rent control is like saying you need to put a gun in your mouth and pull the trigger. If you don't want your rent to go up, then buy a place. In places where they do have rent control people sign a lease and then live in that place for 30 - 40 years. The owners go bankrupt because after 30 years the rent no longer covers the upkeep on the property.

I didn't say we need rent control. I said we need SOME degree of rent control, ie. not unrestricted rent increases, that cause hundreds of families lives to be disrupted. Let's stay on topic.

A "degree of rent control" is rent control.

 

[Pilot1]

You are limiting someone else's ability to earn. How would you like government forcibly limiting YOUR ability to earn, or receive whatever fixed income you receive? Why is it OK to limit others, but not for you to be susceptible to the same limitation?

 

[protectionist]

Landlords are PEOPLE also, and have lives. Many are just small time owners trying to scrape by, and build a future nest egg for retirement. The big corps that own some of the larger apartment complexes are owned by individual stock holders. Some are wealthy, some aren't. They are people with lives also.

Sure, but the previous rents have been keeping this complex going for years. Nobody here thinks the landlord or stockholder need a 60% increase in rent, when no other complex in the neighborhood is doing that. We would laugh at the idea of this landlord " trying to scrape by"

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Landlords are PEOPLE also, and have lives. Many are just small time owners trying to scrape by, and build a future nest egg for retirement. The big corps that own some of the larger apartment complexes are owned by individual stock holders. Some are wealthy, some aren't. They are people with lives also.

Sure, but the previous rents have been keeping this complex going for years. Nobody here thinks the landlord or stockholder need a 60% increase in rent, when no other complex in the neighborhood is doing that. We would laugh at the idea of this landlord " trying to scrape by"

I don't think it's a question of survival for the new owner. Let's say he bought the place for 10 million dollars. 10 million dollars could be better invested somewhere else if he was not able to carry forth his plans with the place. But he calculated that his investment was going to pay a reasonable return if he used whatever plans he has.

 

[protectionist]

Because you're only looking at things from your own perspective. You have to put yourself in somebody else's shoes and look at the entire picture.

I can only speak for myself of course, but I don't rent apartments to help anybody out. It's a business deal like any other. The market dictates what my price range is. Don't get me wrong, if one of my tenants is having a hard time because they missed work due to illness, their only vehicle broke down and it cost them a lot of money, a sick child or something, I could work with them, but I wouldn't offer somebody an apartment who came with such problems.

I have to keep the water running. I have to pay the mortgages so I don't get foreclosed on. I have to pay the insurance so the banks don't rescind the loan and demand full payment. Property taxes are an arm and a leg here because they built new schools several years ago (which I voted down). I have bills to pay. When those costs go up, I have to find the money to keep up with those bills.

Just one instance: I bought this place 25 years ago. Since that time, property taxes went up 120%. How do you keep up with that without increasing rents?

I never said don't raise rents. I just said don't raise them 60%, (which no other complex is doing) I owned my own business for 13 years. I know all about expenses. I didn't own real estate, but I paid a fortune in advertising.

Let's not change the subject. These guys are just GREED sharks.