Oh my God oh my God if the landlords have to sell, that would be... Check notes... That would be really good for people who want to buy houses.
this is what is known as "a feature, not a bug"
SIKE! sold houses are only bought by corporate holding companies, now you've lost even more rights!
In France there is a law that forces you to sell to your tenant if he has the highest bid
Why would you need a law to make someone sell to the highest bidder?
Because sometimes there's a tie
Or the landlord might just want to spite the tenant, or he might want to sell to a "new" buyer who turns out to be business partner/cohort/shell LLC/etc.
It's even better than that because it is illegal to make bids on a property you sell so the seller name a price and if someone want to buy it at that price it's sold. Most of the time buyers tries to bargain on markets where the demand is low
This happened a lot during the Great Depression. But then I believe the owners found a way to withdraw the auctioned property if the minimum bid didn't suit them. The French law might bring back the Penny Auction by saying, "You put it up for bid - a sale has to go through."
They can still do that through proxy buyers. If you go to enough auctions, it's easy enough to pick them out.
Wouldn't you sell to the highest bidder anyway?
I mean, my wife and I didn't sell to the two highest bidders on our first house because the fuckers were obviously going to rent it out.
One was a bid entered by a piece of software often used by flippers and rental companies (had branding at the bottom of the pages etc) and the other was a cash in hand bid with an overt offer of more under the table, which is fairly illegal where we live.
We selected third place, someone who had messy handwriting, obviously has been written by two different people, and ended the bid with "777" which was cute and showed us not only were they human, they really wanted the place. And no wonder, with offers like the first two likely happening on nearly every sale in the area.
I did that myself with a home. I ignored the high bid in favor of selling at a steep discount to a young family.
Wouldn’t most people sell to the highest bid anyway?
Never any history of racial segregation in the housing market, nope. No Sir. Never.
Are people really accepting less money so they don’t sell to brown people? Like why would you care? You’re selling the property. You don’t have to deal with the new owners if you happen to be racist.
Granted, this article was from all the way back in… last week.
“An African-American woman’s quest to buy a pricey condo near the Virginia Beach Oceanfront – impeded by the white homeowner’s refusal because of her race – is just the latest example.”
“…landlords frequently use subtle methods or mask the real reasons why they don’t want people to move in.”
I'll add, as a minority there are neighborhoods that are off limits because I know I would not be accepted, and, I have an "ethnic" name, so I assume some bias may be held towards people selling in neighborhoods like that.
The neighbors care. So unless you don't live in that town it could make for some interesting neighborly interactions. Wouldn't be surprised to find court cases of neighbors suing for loss of property value.
Yes but we had our fair share of assholes
There have been auctions in the past, mostly farm, that the community got together to drive off outsiders and then proceed to lowball every item on the auction. They would then return everything to the owner after the auction.
It was a fine 'fuck you' to the bank, until the bank closed or sold out because they no longer had the assets and cash reserves needed to stay open themselves. Which then screwed the rest of the community over.
More precisely, when you sell the tenant has the right to buy it first.
If the landlord is thinking of accepting an external offer under the initial price then he has to ask again to the tenant if he would buy it at this lower price.
Umm, you can legally sell it to someone else and not the highest bidder?
Not in France. If the tenant wants it, the tenant gets it
They'd flood the market with properties shifting us along the supply curve to allow younger people to afford properties?
Darn, that'd be so... awful? No, I was looking for awesome.
First person I've seen who didn't say it increases supply.
Nice.
Is it really functionally any different? "increases supply" is a decent shorthand
Isn’t that exactly what they just said?
Hey, I remember my macroeconomics!
Supply/demand is usually micro....
It probably won’t flood the market as property/land is sort of like gold. Renting it is just extra money on top of land value rise. It only gets rarer. (In desirable locations)
The problem is basic. Everyone wants to live at A but A has finite amount of space. This is the core theme of property gold. Renting is just double dipping
The solution is complex. It isn’t to expand A but to make B equally attractive. If the small area in city was not the ultimate goal of whole country the price boom would rapidly crash overnight.
What is priced isn’t property but dreams and aspirations, prestige, bright future in the city of opportunity. Even love in a way because good luck finding someone in some rural mud hut.
Hence the inaction of government to invest in the rural areas adds to the housing bubble. And of course capitalism itself prays on individuality at the cost of community. Me get rich in the city vs Build community and improve what is around me for me and others. The second is not advisable to anyone to even attempt.
Everything is fuelled into those few acres of asphalt and concrete. The impossibly hot focus point of the nation.
So incredibly fierce that you can die out of heat even during winter.
The speed limits on the arteries are rather minimums than maximum as the circulation of wealth cannot tolerate stopping for even the 20 seconds of red light. Every crossing is a race starting line but there is no end. Furious engines roar jolting towards the success.
The night is day and the day is madness.
Don’t threaten me with a good time.
Is there a downside further in the article or is it just all positive news?
The downside is they’ll just be bought up by corporations who will be even shittier landlords.
If the market is adequately regulated they wont be shittier landlords. There somehow is this romantic idea of smaller scale landlords to be like the good old guy that want to help a family find a good place and accept a modest profit. They exist, but the majority are just equally cutthroat like large corpos. Difference is that large corps have more means to be strategic about it and accept risks like 5% of tenants suing successfully while the rest just accepts the illegal treatment.
If the market is adequately regulated
Well there's your first mistake lol
It is not an argument against regulation though. Regulation of markets like housing and healthcare, is reasonable and necessary. These cannot work as free markets because the one side has their life depending on it, wheras the other just can have another customer.
My current landlord has broken half a dozen laws, so yeah... At least corpos don't do that.
Let me tell you how it works in the real world right here right now in the UK. Large corpos set targets on how many rentals they want to acquire. For example, Lloyds announced a few years ago that they're building a portfolio of 50k properties. Yes, fifty fucking thousand homes!
And so small landlords are forced to sell due to changes in the law. Corporate investors buy them in an instant at full asking price or even higher to ensure that property value doesn't go down and so you, a mere mortal, can't buy shit.
Next, they freeze the properties and don't release anything on the market. That creates an insane housing shortage and rental prices go through the roof. A few years later they will start introducing their portfolio to the market slowly to avoid crashes at 2-5x price compared to just last year. People are desperate and pay through the nose.
Boom! Mega profits! What is your 3% yearly cap when they just jacked up the price five times? It will take many years to make a dent.
You know what would help against that? regulating how much property a company can acquire in an area. within a certain timeframe. Or regulating that the land tax and similiar things go up after having say more than a hundred or a thousand properties.
Introduce additional legislation that limit property sales to corporations and I’ll donate to yer campaign
3% was the top annual pay increase at the Fortune 500 company I used to work at. 3% max increase for those that "exceeded all expectations". Probably less than 1/3 of employees.
So if it's good enough for a Fortune 500 company, it's good enough for every landlord. 3% max, and only to max 1/3 of their locations/rooms.
My old company's "top" level required the VP to sign off on. So maybe 1-2 people in a department of 150 got it.
Good. Fuck landlords. There should be a law they can only own multi family units.
Good riddance
SELL UP MOTHERFUCKERS
You know that they will just sell to large corporations that will fuck you over even harder. This is not to be celebrated
Yeah, big corporate landlords are a problem. Stopping all landlords from jacking up prices is a good thing. This can build momentum for more effective legislation for corporate landlords.
Bill Oswald, whose family owns eight apartments around Long Beach, said a corporate landlord recently contacted him about buying properties in the area. He said both his brothers urged him to sell, because of rising costs.
The large corps will buy everything. With this 3-5% rule (certain circumstances, in article) you can guarantee that is what they’ll raise it EVERY SINGLE YEAR moving forward. They’ll point at this committee saying “they set the rules, we just abide by them”.
So, when we get there, let's also fix THAT problem. Im not a lawyer but I will bet my left hand it's possible to write a law that can block large companies from investing in houses.
If you see people trying to fix a problem and your first instinct is to look for a reason to preserve the status quo, ... Well don't be like that.
There should be a logarithmic scaling on taxes for a home depending on how many you own. A normal person should be able to own a home. A rich person might be able to afford 3, a billionaire should be able to afford 10.
"But if I sold it, I'd lose money!!!"
They will. And you'll end up homeless.
I fail to see the downside.
Those new tenants (if the new buyer is a landlord) will have to pay a higher rate
Sure, the landlords are going to sell each otger the houses every year to be able to raise the rents. Lol!
There's an average renter turnover. If the market would usually see a 5% increase yoy, and average stay us 5 years, this 3% policy means you'd have tenents "underpaying" by about 13%. So, to compensate, instead of new leases being 27% more expensive, they'll be 40% more expensive after 5 years.
The root cause of all the raising home prices and rents is always the same: nimbys and lack of housing supply. Rent control works for people who are already in a home, but makes the problem worse for everyone else (who move, or become adults, etc)
Homelessness is a downside.
This would driving down the cost of housing because of an increase in inventory. Sell them to whom? Other landlords? Or would it be workers?
I think I just found my latest political campaign
I'm guessing landlords would just property swap.
Buy, evict, rent at a higher price
Yes, other landlords that can get new tenants for more money. If the houses just change hands every year, there is no cap since everyone plays musical chairs
That's-the-point.gif
The push to change the county’s rent stabilization rules yet again was met with skepticism by Supervisors Janice Hahn and Kathryn Barger, who voted against the proposal. They said they were worried that the government was overburdening smaller property owners who rely on the rent to pay their bills.
LOOOOL
If landlords have trouble to pay their bills, may I suggest them to consider some austerity? Perhaps spend less on coffee? They give up their avocado toast? Or maybe pass up on their weekend escapades in humble leisure trips to Singapore?
Landlords just need to pull themselves up by the bootstraps.
“We’ve once again put these struggles on the back of landlords,” Barger said.
Oh no... anyway...
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.
And 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.
Cheaper homes in L.A.? We can't have that!
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.
Maybe everything should be capped at 3% since that's the standard BS bonus we all get each year.
Oh man, I wish...
You get a bonus?
Aww.... Yeah, if you don't, move to a different job 😉. Easier said than done, I know. My dad and mom never got bonuses of significant value but when they did get extra money as bonus they were so happy. I get a bonus but I'm not really money driven. It makes my wife happy.
4.2% increase in hourly compensation since 12 months ago
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.
0%. Rent when established is the rent for the unit in perpetuity.
Decide to rent? You get to rent it out until it's no longer worth it, then it becomes owner occupied forever or torn down for high density housing. Sounds great to me!
"This would never work!1111oneoneone" - my last apartment was $1425 when I moved in and $1500 after I moved out 10 years later. If they rent it out again as-is it would be all of $1800 at most.... but they could still make money at $1425/mo, or even less, after water/insurance/property taxes and income tax.
Why would that push them to sell?
Edit: so the interest rates have risen several percent along with the cost or labor and materials eating into the profits of serial buyers who leverage loans to buy more on previously purchased properties. If they don’t jack up the rent, they can’t manage the debt.
That said, fuck those guys, hope they go bankrupt. This isn’t someone who has an extra property they invested in years ago, these are the clowns buying everything up and squeezing the market.
Because they're over leveraged. They've purchased assets when rates were low and now that rates have gone up they haven't factored this into their profit margins and would either go under or not make enough.
It's disgusting. If you have enough money to play the game you should have enough money to live with the consequences and a tenant isn't your get out of jail free card for your shitty planning.
Ok. So they’re playing the old game of leveraging assets (properties) to buy more and painting themselves in a corner because of rates. Well, fuck these serial buyers squeezing the market. Hope they do get forced to sell.
What is this? Making risky business decisions and getting both private profit and taking private risk? Get out of here you damn socialist! America is when the profits are privatized and the losses are socialised!
Because they're over leveraged. They've purchased assets when rates were low and now that rates have gone up they haven't factored this into their profit margins
Nobody forced them to make risky business decisions.
This is the consequences of their actions and shouldn't be anyone else's problem.
Nobody forced them to make risky business decisions.
Exactly... you want to make a nearly risk free investment? Try a long term bank deposit or invest in government bonds.
I agree 100%
I don't understand. If they get a fixed rate at the time of purchase what difference does it make that rates have gone up?
Very often these aren't traditional fixed-rate mortgages. That's what they probably have on their "primary" home, but when you're buying homes with the explicit purpose of using them as income generators, the landscape of available loans changes.
Thank you for a very well explained response. Also in countries like Canada mortgage terms are redone every 5 years on average making us much more susceptible to rate changes than in America.
That’s pretty disgusting. Would do nothing but make you move every five years, and banks are going to screw you over every five years.
Costs rising more than 3% a year. Since it's California I'd imagine the insurance is going up much faster than 3% of total ownership costs. If small landlords cannot stay in the black because they can't afford the insurance with capped rent increases they will sell to the entities that can afford to self-insure. Corporations like BlackRock
After reading a comment by another poster I don’t think these are “small” landlords, at least not mega-corporate buyers, but the kind that serial buy properties leveraging the assets to buy more. So not someone that bought an investment or two but someone buying as many as they can get away with. Maybe the bigger fish are doing it too… but anyway, they don’t have the profit margin on the rates they took the loans that are now rising. They probably didn’t do fixed rates, as you wouldn’t as a non-homeowner. So rates went from 3% to what…8%? Margin is eaten up along with inflation, labor costs, materials, etc.
Screw ‘em. They just want to make the renter eat it so they can profit, I have zero sympathy and I hope they go bankrupt.
Blackrock and other REIT's should be abolished. Using single family homes as an investment vehicle is what got us into this, we need to regulate the bad actors out of the marketplace.
everything is an investment if you're stupid enough or the supply is pathetic enough.
The running costs are not only insurance costs. The insurance "crisis" e.g. entirely predictable results of climate change affects everyone and why would the tenants have to foot the increased risk of damage to their landlords property?
Finally i doubt that it will just be swept up by actors like Blackrock. If the profit is limited due to the law, then the value of the property will reduce until equilibrium at which point each solvent market actor has equal opportunities. Because of the 10 Million property values now at 6 Million, the insurance rate will react accordingly.
Because they're whiny little babies
Won't someone think of the landlords?!?
Oh nooooo ...
Hi, that's what I wanted to say!
Landlords say that would push them to see
Good. Do it.
DO IT.
k
Oh no?
The poor little landlords! They have to find something else to do with their lives besides sitting on their rear ends most of the month and laughing all the way to the bank once a month.
The problem is raising rents are always due to lack of supply. I used to be very supportive of rent control but realized it's just a shitty band-aid on the real problem - lack of housing.
It will keep rents low for a bit, but won't fix the fundamental problem that allows high rents in the first place: and people will still struggle to find housing.
And you can bet your ass that any new will have massively increased rent or prices to compensate.
The real fix, like everywhere else, is to kick out the nimbys and allow building again
It will force them to sell, which will perhaps make buying a home more affordable, so less people have to pay rent and more people pay a mortgage on a home they bought.
It generally doesn't though. People who rent aren't suddenly going to be able to afford to buy. If you look at cities that do these policies, homeownership rates do go up, but the entire lower income community is basically evicted from the city. It's basically accelerated gentrification.
I get the concern that small landlords will sell to big corpos who can handle the thinner margin, but for those smaller landlords that have paid off their property, or bought 10+ years ago, the margins are already super high, so the 3% cap isn’t going to cause them to sell when they have a $1200 mortgage and are collecting $2800 in rent, or no mortgage at all in many cases so pure profit more or less
I think I feel the world’s tiniest tear forming!..no, I just had to fart.
Actually yes! I recently had a parasitic worm from salmon. It was super painful and scary but I was dewormed at that point. Not recommended 0/10…
Oof, rough. Was it the worm or the treatment that was painful? I'd be tempted to stick with this
It was the worm. They attach to your intestinal lining and then die (in humans). The problem is that then in bad cases your body can build a sore around the attachment and eventually cause a blockage. At that point surgery is the solution. A few rounds of a typical wormer cleared me up though.
So, win-win. Got it.
"what do you mean a vampire shouldn't suck so much blood? might as well put a stake through my unbeating heart!"
"Landlords say that would push them to sell."
So, you're saying it would increase available housing supply? Sounds great.
Oh, and for the record, they will not, in fact, sell. Most housing in Ontario is still under a 2% annual rent increase limit. Landlords are doing just fine (and by "Just fine" I of course mean "We have a national housing crisis because landlords are hoarding all the available supply")
This idiots are too high on their own farts to realize this propaganda ain't working lol
So it's a win-win then?
Oh no.... they'd have to sell >.>
Sell to whom, though?
The people enjoying the suddenly over-supplied market that used to pay way over mortgage to rent from these fucks.
Foreign investors (in part)
I want to see a crack down on that too
After the whole graffiti towers thing, the city is also a bit annoyed by them, too.
Depends if they're on the coast or not.
Fucking Aquaman?
Why would they care?
sounds like a win-win
I need the class of landlords removed from society.
Where do you get housing from if you just want to rent?
You wouldn’t, u less it’s something like barracks housing. You would end up getting equity in your investment that you could sell otherwise, rather than throw away money.
Then who would be the owner?
It sounds like they're saying the tenants would be, like a housing co op.
How would they get ownership of the real estate they live in?
That depends on if it's an ownership cooperative or a non-equity cooperative.
Thats fine and is already available. Most people just dont want to live like this if they have the option.
"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
Please do this, we need more houses on the market
Oh yes I think selling a great idea!
Oh know! Won’t someone think of the landlords! They might sell their excess homes to people who might want to actually own the place they live! It’s clear those people wouldn’t be responsible enough to handle that or they would already be homeowners! Landlording properties to renters is protecting them!
It's Oh no btw
Good. Then do it!
If someone buys a home that was rented. Would the cap apply to them? Because this might result in a loophole
If they're then renting it out to others, sure. I don't see the problem, though.
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
Just as long as they also cap property tax and insurance increases at 3%, I'd be fine with that. I had both more than double in price in 3 years.
Nah. Property tax is good. It pays for better community spaces and services. Better roads, local infrastructure, public transit, schools. It probably didn't go up very much if at all as a percentage of your property value. They likely just reassessed your property value and they've doubled since before COVID. It's completely normal for taxes to go up with property value.
Insurance etc.... yeah, a call would be nice
Property tax is alreadly locked in California.
Prop 13 is one of the main reasons i moved out of CA
I think there is quite an easy solution to the housing issue we're facing: exponential tax increase per property.
There is no reason for someone to own more than one property in a city. No reason at all. But even if you could find one - let's say the first 2-3 properties (defined as houses/apartments of less than X area each) have regular taxes. But then? Then it gets retarded. 500k more per year for the fourth one. 4 mil extra a year for the fifth. 50 mil extra for the sixth. One billion for the seventh. You're a property developer? You have until 2 years after the property was finisbed to make sure someone has bought every little bit of it, otherwise that 40 apartment building will end up costing you twice the foreign debt.
Can't pay the taxes? You can always sell the place, at a fair market value. Let's say your two uncles died in a short timespan and they both left you their houses, but you had some property already and now you're up to 5 residential properties but you're not prepared to pay the extra few million. You can always list their houses. Every month they are listed and don't get bought, you reduce the price by 5%. Overvaluing the property gets it confiscated - you surrender your property to the state, which then distributes it to those in need in a lottery. You can also opt to just give away some of your less desirable properties directly instead of trying to sell them.
But no, that'd be sudden death for all the retards who keep building, all the fuck heads who keep buying and holding, and all the politicians whose pockets get padded for listening to whichever lobby.
Pushpush
↑ supply or ↓ demand. As much as it frustrates politicians, these are the only true levers.
Of course, economists have successfully predicted 5 out of the last 3 recessions so who knows. Why don't you go ask Chat GPT.
So we should keep going after land with its perfectly inelastic supply, then.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Oh my God oh my God if the landlords have to sell, that would be... Check notes... That would be really good for people who want to buy houses.
this is what is known as "a feature, not a bug"
SIKE! sold houses are only bought by corporate holding companies, now you've lost even more rights!
In France there is a law that forces you to sell to your tenant if he has the highest bid
Why would you need a law to make someone sell to the highest bidder?
Because sometimes there's a tie
Or the landlord might just want to spite the tenant, or he might want to sell to a "new" buyer who turns out to be business partner/cohort/shell LLC/etc.
It's even better than that because it is illegal to make bids on a property you sell so the seller name a price and if someone want to buy it at that price it's sold. Most of the time buyers tries to bargain on markets where the demand is low
This happened a lot during the Great Depression. But then I believe the owners found a way to withdraw the auctioned property if the minimum bid didn't suit them. The French law might bring back the Penny Auction by saying, "You put it up for bid - a sale has to go through."
They can still do that through proxy buyers. If you go to enough auctions, it's easy enough to pick them out.
Wouldn't you sell to the highest bidder anyway?
I mean, my wife and I didn't sell to the two highest bidders on our first house because the fuckers were obviously going to rent it out.
One was a bid entered by a piece of software often used by flippers and rental companies (had branding at the bottom of the pages etc) and the other was a cash in hand bid with an overt offer of more under the table, which is fairly illegal where we live.
We selected third place, someone who had messy handwriting, obviously has been written by two different people, and ended the bid with "777" which was cute and showed us not only were they human, they really wanted the place. And no wonder, with offers like the first two likely happening on nearly every sale in the area.
I did that myself with a home. I ignored the high bid in favor of selling at a steep discount to a young family.
Wouldn’t most people sell to the highest bid anyway?
Never any history of racial segregation in the housing market, nope. No Sir. Never.
Are people really accepting less money so they don’t sell to brown people? Like why would you care? You’re selling the property. You don’t have to deal with the new owners if you happen to be racist.
Granted, this article was from all the way back in… last week.
“An African-American woman’s quest to buy a pricey condo near the Virginia Beach Oceanfront – impeded by the white homeowner’s refusal because of her race – is just the latest example.”
“…landlords frequently use subtle methods or mask the real reasons why they don’t want people to move in.”
Virginia Mercury News
Gotta keep the community pure.
I'll add, as a minority there are neighborhoods that are off limits because I know I would not be accepted, and, I have an "ethnic" name, so I assume some bias may be held towards people selling in neighborhoods like that.
The neighbors care. So unless you don't live in that town it could make for some interesting neighborly interactions. Wouldn't be surprised to find court cases of neighbors suing for loss of property value.
Yes but we had our fair share of assholes
There have been auctions in the past, mostly farm, that the community got together to drive off outsiders and then proceed to lowball every item on the auction. They would then return everything to the owner after the auction.
It was a fine 'fuck you' to the bank, until the bank closed or sold out because they no longer had the assets and cash reserves needed to stay open themselves. Which then screwed the rest of the community over.
More precisely, when you sell the tenant has the right to buy it first.
If the landlord is thinking of accepting an external offer under the initial price then he has to ask again to the tenant if he would buy it at this lower price.
Umm, you can legally sell it to someone else and not the highest bidder?
Not in France. If the tenant wants it, the tenant gets it
Good. Bye bitch.
They'd flood the market with properties shifting us along the supply curve to allow younger people to afford properties?
Darn, that'd be so... awful? No, I was looking for awesome.
First person I've seen who didn't say it increases supply.
Nice.
Is it really functionally any different? "increases supply" is a decent shorthand
Isn’t that exactly what they just said?
Hey, I remember my macroeconomics!
Supply/demand is usually micro....
It probably won’t flood the market as property/land is sort of like gold. Renting it is just extra money on top of land value rise. It only gets rarer. (In desirable locations)
The problem is basic. Everyone wants to live at A but A has finite amount of space. This is the core theme of property gold. Renting is just double dipping
The solution is complex. It isn’t to expand A but to make B equally attractive. If the small area in city was not the ultimate goal of whole country the price boom would rapidly crash overnight.
What is priced isn’t property but dreams and aspirations, prestige, bright future in the city of opportunity. Even love in a way because good luck finding someone in some rural mud hut.
Hence the inaction of government to invest in the rural areas adds to the housing bubble. And of course capitalism itself prays on individuality at the cost of community. Me get rich in the city vs Build community and improve what is around me for me and others. The second is not advisable to anyone to even attempt.
Everything is fuelled into those few acres of asphalt and concrete. The impossibly hot focus point of the nation.
So incredibly fierce that you can die out of heat even during winter. The speed limits on the arteries are rather minimums than maximum as the circulation of wealth cannot tolerate stopping for even the 20 seconds of red light. Every crossing is a race starting line but there is no end. Furious engines roar jolting towards the success.
The night is day and the day is madness.
Don’t threaten me with a good time.
Is there a downside further in the article or is it just all positive news?
The downside is they’ll just be bought up by corporations who will be even shittier landlords.
If the market is adequately regulated they wont be shittier landlords. There somehow is this romantic idea of smaller scale landlords to be like the good old guy that want to help a family find a good place and accept a modest profit. They exist, but the majority are just equally cutthroat like large corpos. Difference is that large corps have more means to be strategic about it and accept risks like 5% of tenants suing successfully while the rest just accepts the illegal treatment.
Well there's your first mistake lol
It is not an argument against regulation though. Regulation of markets like housing and healthcare, is reasonable and necessary. These cannot work as free markets because the one side has their life depending on it, wheras the other just can have another customer.
My current landlord has broken half a dozen laws, so yeah... At least corpos don't do that.
Let me tell you how it works in the real world right here right now in the UK. Large corpos set targets on how many rentals they want to acquire. For example, Lloyds announced a few years ago that they're building a portfolio of 50k properties. Yes, fifty fucking thousand homes!
And so small landlords are forced to sell due to changes in the law. Corporate investors buy them in an instant at full asking price or even higher to ensure that property value doesn't go down and so you, a mere mortal, can't buy shit.
Next, they freeze the properties and don't release anything on the market. That creates an insane housing shortage and rental prices go through the roof. A few years later they will start introducing their portfolio to the market slowly to avoid crashes at 2-5x price compared to just last year. People are desperate and pay through the nose.
Boom! Mega profits! What is your 3% yearly cap when they just jacked up the price five times? It will take many years to make a dent.
You know what would help against that? regulating how much property a company can acquire in an area. within a certain timeframe. Or regulating that the land tax and similiar things go up after having say more than a hundred or a thousand properties.
This is arguments for regulation not against it.
Land tax would be grand!
Idk about that. Almost all renting horror stories are with small private landlords.
good, get a real job
Good?
Good.
Excellent!
Hurray!
Huzza!
Introduce additional legislation that limit property sales to corporations and I’ll donate to yer campaign
3% was the top annual pay increase at the Fortune 500 company I used to work at. 3% max increase for those that "exceeded all expectations". Probably less than 1/3 of employees.
So if it's good enough for a Fortune 500 company, it's good enough for every landlord. 3% max, and only to max 1/3 of their locations/rooms.
My old company's "top" level required the VP to sign off on. So maybe 1-2 people in a department of 150 got it.
Good. Fuck landlords. There should be a law they can only own multi family units.
Good riddance
SELL UP MOTHERFUCKERS
You know that they will just sell to large corporations that will fuck you over even harder. This is not to be celebrated
Yeah, big corporate landlords are a problem. Stopping all landlords from jacking up prices is a good thing. This can build momentum for more effective legislation for corporate landlords.
The large corps will buy everything. With this 3-5% rule (certain circumstances, in article) you can guarantee that is what they’ll raise it EVERY SINGLE YEAR moving forward. They’ll point at this committee saying “they set the rules, we just abide by them”.
So, when we get there, let's also fix THAT problem. Im not a lawyer but I will bet my left hand it's possible to write a law that can block large companies from investing in houses.
If you see people trying to fix a problem and your first instinct is to look for a reason to preserve the status quo, ... Well don't be like that.
There should be a logarithmic scaling on taxes for a home depending on how many you own. A normal person should be able to own a home. A rich person might be able to afford 3, a billionaire should be able to afford 10.
"But if I sold it, I'd lose money!!!"
They will. And you'll end up homeless.
I fail to see the downside.
Those new tenants (if the new buyer is a landlord) will have to pay a higher rate
Sure, the landlords are going to sell each otger the houses every year to be able to raise the rents. Lol!
There's an average renter turnover. If the market would usually see a 5% increase yoy, and average stay us 5 years, this 3% policy means you'd have tenents "underpaying" by about 13%. So, to compensate, instead of new leases being 27% more expensive, they'll be 40% more expensive after 5 years.
The root cause of all the raising home prices and rents is always the same: nimbys and lack of housing supply. Rent control works for people who are already in a home, but makes the problem worse for everyone else (who move, or become adults, etc)
Homelessness is a downside.
This would driving down the cost of housing because of an increase in inventory. Sell them to whom? Other landlords? Or would it be workers?
I think I just found my latest political campaign
I'm guessing landlords would just property swap.
Buy, evict, rent at a higher price
Yes, other landlords that can get new tenants for more money. If the houses just change hands every year, there is no cap since everyone plays musical chairs
That's-the-point.gif
LOOOOL
If landlords have trouble to pay their bills, may I suggest them to consider some austerity? Perhaps spend less on coffee? They give up their avocado toast? Or maybe pass up on their weekend escapades in humble leisure trips to Singapore?
Landlords just need to pull themselves up by the bootstraps.
Oh no... anyway...
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.
And 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.
Cheaper homes in L.A.? We can't have that!
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.
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.
Maybe everything should be capped at 3% since that's the standard BS bonus we all get each year.
Oh man, I wish...
You get a bonus?
Aww.... Yeah, if you don't, move to a different job 😉. Easier said than done, I know. My dad and mom never got bonuses of significant value but when they did get extra money as bonus they were so happy. I get a bonus but I'm not really money driven. It makes my wife happy.
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/prod2.nr0.htm
4.2% increase in hourly compensation since 12 months ago
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.
0%. Rent when established is the rent for the unit in perpetuity.
Decide to rent? You get to rent it out until it's no longer worth it, then it becomes owner occupied forever or torn down for high density housing. Sounds great to me!
"This would never work!1111oneoneone" - my last apartment was $1425 when I moved in and $1500 after I moved out 10 years later. If they rent it out again as-is it would be all of $1800 at most.... but they could still make money at $1425/mo, or even less, after water/insurance/property taxes and income tax.
Why would that push them to sell?
Edit: so the interest rates have risen several percent along with the cost or labor and materials eating into the profits of serial buyers who leverage loans to buy more on previously purchased properties. If they don’t jack up the rent, they can’t manage the debt.
That said, fuck those guys, hope they go bankrupt. This isn’t someone who has an extra property they invested in years ago, these are the clowns buying everything up and squeezing the market.
Because they're over leveraged. They've purchased assets when rates were low and now that rates have gone up they haven't factored this into their profit margins and would either go under or not make enough.
It's disgusting. If you have enough money to play the game you should have enough money to live with the consequences and a tenant isn't your get out of jail free card for your shitty planning.
Ok. So they’re playing the old game of leveraging assets (properties) to buy more and painting themselves in a corner because of rates. Well, fuck these serial buyers squeezing the market. Hope they do get forced to sell.
What is this? Making risky business decisions and getting both private profit and taking private risk? Get out of here you damn socialist! America is when the profits are privatized and the losses are socialised!
Nobody forced them to make risky business decisions.
This is the consequences of their actions and shouldn't be anyone else's problem.
Exactly... you want to make a nearly risk free investment? Try a long term bank deposit or invest in government bonds.
I agree 100%
I don't understand. If they get a fixed rate at the time of purchase what difference does it make that rates have gone up?
Very often these aren't traditional fixed-rate mortgages. That's what they probably have on their "primary" home, but when you're buying homes with the explicit purpose of using them as income generators, the landscape of available loans changes.
Thank you for a very well explained response. Also in countries like Canada mortgage terms are redone every 5 years on average making us much more susceptible to rate changes than in America.
That’s pretty disgusting. Would do nothing but make you move every five years, and banks are going to screw you over every five years.
Costs rising more than 3% a year. Since it's California I'd imagine the insurance is going up much faster than 3% of total ownership costs. If small landlords cannot stay in the black because they can't afford the insurance with capped rent increases they will sell to the entities that can afford to self-insure. Corporations like BlackRock
After reading a comment by another poster I don’t think these are “small” landlords, at least not mega-corporate buyers, but the kind that serial buy properties leveraging the assets to buy more. So not someone that bought an investment or two but someone buying as many as they can get away with. Maybe the bigger fish are doing it too… but anyway, they don’t have the profit margin on the rates they took the loans that are now rising. They probably didn’t do fixed rates, as you wouldn’t as a non-homeowner. So rates went from 3% to what…8%? Margin is eaten up along with inflation, labor costs, materials, etc.
Screw ‘em. They just want to make the renter eat it so they can profit, I have zero sympathy and I hope they go bankrupt.
Blackrock and other REIT's should be abolished. Using single family homes as an investment vehicle is what got us into this, we need to regulate the bad actors out of the marketplace.
everything is an investment if you're stupid enough or the supply is pathetic enough.
The running costs are not only insurance costs. The insurance "crisis" e.g. entirely predictable results of climate change affects everyone and why would the tenants have to foot the increased risk of damage to their landlords property?
Finally i doubt that it will just be swept up by actors like Blackrock. If the profit is limited due to the law, then the value of the property will reduce until equilibrium at which point each solvent market actor has equal opportunities. Because of the 10 Million property values now at 6 Million, the insurance rate will react accordingly.
Because they're whiny little babies
Won't someone think of the landlords?!?
Oh nooooo ...
Hi, that's what I wanted to say!
Good. Do it. DO IT.
k
Oh no?
The poor little landlords! They have to find something else to do with their lives besides sitting on their rear ends most of the month and laughing all the way to the bank once a month.
The problem is raising rents are always due to lack of supply. I used to be very supportive of rent control but realized it's just a shitty band-aid on the real problem - lack of housing.
It will keep rents low for a bit, but won't fix the fundamental problem that allows high rents in the first place: and people will still struggle to find housing.
And you can bet your ass that any new will have massively increased rent or prices to compensate.
The real fix, like everywhere else, is to kick out the nimbys and allow building again
It will force them to sell, which will perhaps make buying a home more affordable, so less people have to pay rent and more people pay a mortgage on a home they bought.
It generally doesn't though. People who rent aren't suddenly going to be able to afford to buy. If you look at cities that do these policies, homeownership rates do go up, but the entire lower income community is basically evicted from the city. It's basically accelerated gentrification.
I get the concern that small landlords will sell to big corpos who can handle the thinner margin, but for those smaller landlords that have paid off their property, or bought 10+ years ago, the margins are already super high, so the 3% cap isn’t going to cause them to sell when they have a $1200 mortgage and are collecting $2800 in rent, or no mortgage at all in many cases so pure profit more or less
I think I feel the world’s tiniest tear forming!..no, I just had to fart.
Smaller.
Have you been checked for worms lately?
Actually yes! I recently had a parasitic worm from salmon. It was super painful and scary but I was dewormed at that point. Not recommended 0/10…
Oof, rough. Was it the worm or the treatment that was painful? I'd be tempted to stick with this
It was the worm. They attach to your intestinal lining and then die (in humans). The problem is that then in bad cases your body can build a sore around the attachment and eventually cause a blockage. At that point surgery is the solution. A few rounds of a typical wormer cleared me up though.
So, win-win. Got it.
"what do you mean a vampire shouldn't suck so much blood? might as well put a stake through my unbeating heart!"
"Landlords say that would push them to sell."
So, you're saying it would increase available housing supply? Sounds great.
Oh, and for the record, they will not, in fact, sell. Most housing in Ontario is still under a 2% annual rent increase limit. Landlords are doing just fine (and by "Just fine" I of course mean "We have a national housing crisis because landlords are hoarding all the available supply")
This idiots are too high on their own farts to realize this propaganda ain't working lol
So it's a win-win then?
Oh no.... they'd have to sell >.>
Sell to whom, though?
The people enjoying the suddenly over-supplied market that used to pay way over mortgage to rent from these fucks.
Foreign investors (in part)
I want to see a crack down on that too
After the whole graffiti towers thing, the city is also a bit annoyed by them, too.
Depends if they're on the coast or not.
Fucking Aquaman?
Why would they care?
sounds like a win-win
I need the class of landlords removed from society.
Where do you get housing from if you just want to rent?
You wouldn’t, u less it’s something like barracks housing. You would end up getting equity in your investment that you could sell otherwise, rather than throw away money.
Then who would be the owner?
It sounds like they're saying the tenants would be, like a housing co op.
How would they get ownership of the real estate they live in?
That depends on if it's an ownership cooperative or a non-equity cooperative.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_cooperative#Ownership
Thats fine and is already available. Most people just dont want to live like this if they have the option.
"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
Please do this, we need more houses on the market
Oh yes I think selling a great idea!
Oh know! Won’t someone think of the landlords! They might sell their excess homes to people who might want to actually own the place they live! It’s clear those people wouldn’t be responsible enough to handle that or they would already be homeowners! Landlording properties to renters is protecting them!
It's Oh no btw
Good. Then do it!
If someone buys a home that was rented. Would the cap apply to them? Because this might result in a loophole
If they're then renting it out to others, sure. I don't see the problem, though.
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
Just as long as they also cap property tax and insurance increases at 3%, I'd be fine with that. I had both more than double in price in 3 years.
Nah. Property tax is good. It pays for better community spaces and services. Better roads, local infrastructure, public transit, schools. It probably didn't go up very much if at all as a percentage of your property value. They likely just reassessed your property value and they've doubled since before COVID. It's completely normal for taxes to go up with property value.
Insurance etc.... yeah, a call would be nice
Property tax is alreadly locked in California.
Prop 13 is one of the main reasons i moved out of CA
Good.
I think there is quite an easy solution to the housing issue we're facing: exponential tax increase per property.
There is no reason for someone to own more than one property in a city. No reason at all. But even if you could find one - let's say the first 2-3 properties (defined as houses/apartments of less than X area each) have regular taxes. But then? Then it gets retarded. 500k more per year for the fourth one. 4 mil extra a year for the fifth. 50 mil extra for the sixth. One billion for the seventh. You're a property developer? You have until 2 years after the property was finisbed to make sure someone has bought every little bit of it, otherwise that 40 apartment building will end up costing you twice the foreign debt.
Can't pay the taxes? You can always sell the place, at a fair market value. Let's say your two uncles died in a short timespan and they both left you their houses, but you had some property already and now you're up to 5 residential properties but you're not prepared to pay the extra few million. You can always list their houses. Every month they are listed and don't get bought, you reduce the price by 5%. Overvaluing the property gets it confiscated - you surrender your property to the state, which then distributes it to those in need in a lottery. You can also opt to just give away some of your less desirable properties directly instead of trying to sell them.
But no, that'd be sudden death for all the retards who keep building, all the fuck heads who keep buying and holding, and all the politicians whose pockets get padded for listening to whichever lobby.
Pushpush
↑ supply or ↓ demand. As much as it frustrates politicians, these are the only true levers.
Of course, economists have successfully predicted 5 out of the last 3 recessions so who knows. Why don't you go ask Chat GPT.
So we should keep going after land with its perfectly inelastic supply, then.
This is a buff
Reminds me of: https://youtu.be/fS9PvVCyazY
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.
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.
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.
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.