This is first order thinking. What this would cause is much much less building of units that people would rent, so the total supply would slow way down and housing would get worse.
New units can still charge whatever they want.
Happy cake day. :)
Thank you! What a year it's been.
But they still would not be able to keep up with inflation, and this would just be one more stone on a heap of other regulations that make it not worth building housing.
Wouldn't they just calculate the net present value of the average rental? Most people don't rent at one place for long, and everybody dies eventually.
Might be depend on your area but around me we've had a cap for a few yesrs and units are still going up (not necessarily affordable ones).
Sure there will be some building, but it will be greatly decreased to what it would. If anything the builders will just do spec homes or move out of the market. I actually moved from a state with a cap (Oregon), and most of the landlords (including myself) just sold off any residential real estate.
As a landlord, you might be a little biased?
I am no longer a owner of residential real estate, I do only commercial at this point. I am just telling you the impacts of the laws they make.
Maybe the landlords would be willing to rent all the unused housing then.
Get rid of renting entirely and watch the quality of communities improve overnight.
Who would own the housing?
The people living in it?
Who would have built it for them and how would they have been paid?
I think they're referring to already-existing communities.
It still the same problem, where would they get the resources to get ownership of that real estate?
Depending on how exactly we're "getting rid of renting", I don't think they would be purchasing the building at today's prices. The landlord is SoL... at best. ;-)
If that is how it is then the tenents would be doing good because the have stolen goods, but in the long run the problem would pop right back up and housing would be much more scarse.
Unfortunately, I think you're right. What is the solution to outrageous rent that doesn't involve the government providing more rent subsidies that simply funnel public money into the hands of property owners? That solution encourages property owners to raise rent because the government will increase subsidies to cover the difference.
The problem is the government makes it too hard and expensive to build anything. People dont realize this but on average the government adds over $100k per single family house that is built. As a person that is in housing, my number one issue is with the government, and they only make it worse. So the solution is to greatly reduce the amount the government is involved in the creation of new housing.
You mean like safety regulations? I hear this same shit from sales all the time complaining about factory of safety in design. “I told the customer it would only be $X, and now it’s so much more!”
No
No, and...?
I'm genuinely interested in how government involvement increases the cost. I honestly don't know. Like, is it dealing with zoning and permitting? I hope my good-faith intent is coming through here, I'm not just trying to bait an argument.
Sure, if you are actually interested I can give you some basic examples. Lets take a look at some of the site details for a new build. Need to remove X yards of dirt - may require an engineer report. Ever see 100 yards of sidewalk/curb/gutter in the middle of no where - city requriement that will add $15k just for the concrete, let alone what you would need for retaining walls if there is a slope. If there is a mild slope to the lot - may need a different engineering report. Big developement - they will require land set aside that cant be developed for a wide varieties of things.
This is first order thinking. What this would cause is much much less building of units that people would rent, so the total supply would slow way down and housing would get worse.
New units can still charge whatever they want.
Happy cake day. :)
Thank you! What a year it's been.
But they still would not be able to keep up with inflation, and this would just be one more stone on a heap of other regulations that make it not worth building housing.
Wouldn't they just calculate the net present value of the average rental? Most people don't rent at one place for long, and everybody dies eventually.
Might be depend on your area but around me we've had a cap for a few yesrs and units are still going up (not necessarily affordable ones).
Sure there will be some building, but it will be greatly decreased to what it would. If anything the builders will just do spec homes or move out of the market. I actually moved from a state with a cap (Oregon), and most of the landlords (including myself) just sold off any residential real estate.
As a landlord, you might be a little biased?
I am no longer a owner of residential real estate, I do only commercial at this point. I am just telling you the impacts of the laws they make.
Maybe the landlords would be willing to rent all the unused housing then.
Get rid of renting entirely and watch the quality of communities improve overnight.
Who would own the housing?
The people living in it?
Who would have built it for them and how would they have been paid?
I think they're referring to already-existing communities.
It still the same problem, where would they get the resources to get ownership of that real estate?
Depending on how exactly we're "getting rid of renting", I don't think they would be purchasing the building at today's prices. The landlord is SoL... at best. ;-)
If that is how it is then the tenents would be doing good because the have stolen goods, but in the long run the problem would pop right back up and housing would be much more scarse.
Unfortunately, I think you're right. What is the solution to outrageous rent that doesn't involve the government providing more rent subsidies that simply funnel public money into the hands of property owners? That solution encourages property owners to raise rent because the government will increase subsidies to cover the difference.
The problem is the government makes it too hard and expensive to build anything. People dont realize this but on average the government adds over $100k per single family house that is built. As a person that is in housing, my number one issue is with the government, and they only make it worse. So the solution is to greatly reduce the amount the government is involved in the creation of new housing.
You mean like safety regulations? I hear this same shit from sales all the time complaining about factory of safety in design. “I told the customer it would only be $X, and now it’s so much more!”
No
No, and...?
I'm genuinely interested in how government involvement increases the cost. I honestly don't know. Like, is it dealing with zoning and permitting? I hope my good-faith intent is coming through here, I'm not just trying to bait an argument.
Sure, if you are actually interested I can give you some basic examples. Lets take a look at some of the site details for a new build. Need to remove X yards of dirt - may require an engineer report. Ever see 100 yards of sidewalk/curb/gutter in the middle of no where - city requriement that will add $15k just for the concrete, let alone what you would need for retaining walls if there is a slope. If there is a mild slope to the lot - may need a different engineering report. Big developement - they will require land set aside that cant be developed for a wide varieties of things.