|
therobit posted:I'm against rent control in general because it does little to keep rents down overall and it like winning the lottery for the people who get a controlled unit. Additionally it its usually paired with laws that make it really hard to get a tenant out, and I kind of think that a property owner should be able to charge what the market will bear and get a different tenant if they so choose, as long as the process is not abusive and there is no discrimination based on protected status. And I don't even like rent control; I think you may as well give out lottery tickets, and give out more tickets to people who've lived in a place longer. Rent control isn't means-tested, and in now way targets people who need it more, it mostly just helps people who get lucky, or have lived in a place longer. I think we should have stricter rules on when you can increase rent (landlords should have to give a minimum of 60 days' notice on a rent increase of up to 10%, and 90 days' notice if going above that, and tenants should only have to give 15 days' notice if they're vacating following an increase), but I think the key to lowering rents is a combination of several things. As far as people who have trouble affording housing, we should make it way more expensive to buy a waiver of the affordable housing allotment, and it should probably be at around 15% of new construction. Aside from just having affordable housing for people to live in, there are substantial societal benefits to having low-income housing mixed with regular housing, and the waiver fees should reflect that. In order to compensate for that, we should be raising height requirements, and waiving parking requirements.
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 18:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 23:40 |
|
|
Even better, limit rent increases to 5% annually, only higher if the landlord can prove a need for the increase such as a rebuild or massive upgrade. No landlord is barely scraping by.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 18:55
|
|
|
The city does these fuckers a favor letting them build their Greg Nickels bullshit here, we might as well attach some strings.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 19:05
|
|
|
Peachfart posted:Even better, limit rent increases to 5% annually, only higher if the landlord can prove a need for the increase such as a rebuild or massive upgrade. I do not sympathize with landlords, but this winds up hard-screwing tenants as well.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 19:09
|
|
|
Thanatosian posted:This is rent control, and pretty much just rewards people who already live here, with no concern for means-testing. It makes moving next to impossible (including moving to be closer to work), because the rent on vacant units gets driven up by the fact that the landlord knows they won't be able to raise the rent down the line. It's a really bad way to try to reduce rents. 5% annually is far above inflation, and in most cities wouldn't be sustainable. And to combat housing costs we should also increase property taxes(esp on single family homes) and use the money to build dense low-income housing. And I say this owning a SFH.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 19:25
|
|
|
Thanatosian posted:This is rent control, and pretty much just rewards people who already live here, with no concern for means-testing. It makes moving next to impossible (including moving to be closer to work), because the rent on vacant units gets driven up by the fact that the landlord knows they won't be able to raise the rent down the line. It's a really bad way to try to reduce rents. The best option I've seen is to force developers to dedicate some percentage of the housing to low income housing. It not only ensures the people who need it most have housing, but it also integrates neighborhoods in ways that we've systemically prevented for decades.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 19:49
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:The best option I've seen is to force developers to dedicate some percentage of the housing to low income housing. It not only ensures the people who need it most have housing, but it also integrates neighborhoods in ways that we've systemically prevented for decades. Yes please, build the first bunch in Magnolia. I want to see some NIMBY tears.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 20:02
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:The best option I've seen is to force developers to dedicate some percentage of the housing to low income housing. It not only ensures the people who need it most have housing, but it also integrates neighborhoods in ways that we've systemically prevented for decades.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 20:05
|
|
|
Peachfart posted:5% annually is far above inflation, and in most cities wouldn't be sustainable. And to combat housing costs we should also increase property taxes(esp on single family homes) and use the money to build dense low-income housing. There are forces on housing prices other than inflation. If it were possible to limit year-over-year increases to 5% and not have a negative impact on prices over the long-term, yeah, sure, I'd be in favor of it. But like I said, all that does is cause landlords to frontload rent prices, since they know they won't be able to raise prices down the line, and make it harder for people to move. Philosophically, I'd really love to limit rent increases, but there's no real way to force that through straight regulation. Reducing rent prices just isn't that easy. Peachfart posted:Yes please, build the first bunch in Magnolia. I want to see some NIMBY tears. gently caress yeah. anthonypants posted:How do you force a developer to do this? Ham Equity fucked around with this message at 20:11 on Oct 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 20:08
|
|
|
Thanatosian posted:In Seattle, we already do, we just allow developers to purchase waivers for the requirement, so they can get around it. All they need to do is increase the price of the waivers, and it could drive a lot more affordable housing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 20:23
|
|
|
Peachfart posted:Even better, limit rent increases to 5% annually, only higher if the landlord can prove a need for the increase such as a rebuild or massive upgrade. I'm as much in favor as affordable housing as the next guy but rhetoric like this does more harm then good. I know at least 3 'landlords' who are barely scraping even or running slightly negative when factoring maintenence and taxes. The law should distinguish between large-scale property owners and the fixed income grandma who has a rental property.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 23:37
|
|
|
Xand_Man posted:I'm as much in favor as affordable housing as the next guy but rhetoric like this does more harm then good. I know at least 3 'landlords' who are barely scraping even or running slightly negative when factoring maintenence and taxes. The law should distinguish between large-scale property owners and the fixed income grandma who has a rental property. There is a growing concern of people in Seattle who own rental properties and they're decidedly NOT old ladies on a fixed income. Hell, my brother in law rents a house he owns but doesn't live in and he's just some regular rear end in a top hat.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 23:43
|
|
|
Xand_Man posted:I'm as much in favor as affordable housing as the next guy but rhetoric like this does more harm then good. I know at least 3 'landlords' who are barely scraping even or running slightly negative when factoring maintenence and taxes. The law should distinguish between large-scale property owners and the fixed income grandma who has a rental property. Like, seriously, fixed income grandma going broke renting property needs an examination for dementia/Alzheimers ASAP.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 00:10
|
|
|
Xand_Man posted:I'm as much in favor as affordable housing as the next guy but rhetoric like this does more harm then good. I know at least 3 'landlords' who are barely scraping even or running slightly negative when factoring maintenence and taxes. The law should distinguish between large-scale property owners and the fixed income grandma who has a rental property. Sounds like maybe those people should sell their property and use the money that they have to provide for themselves.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 00:34
|
|
|
[quote="“Xand_Man”" post="“477156873”"] I’m as much in favor as affordable housing as the next guy but rhetoric like this does more harm then good. I know at least 3 ‘landlords’ who are barely scraping even or running slightly negative when factoring maintenence and taxes. The law should distinguish between large-scale property owners and the fixed income grandma who has a rental property. [/quote] Commodity speculation is tough
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 00:55
|
|
|
I'm a dummy
Bar Ran Dun fucked around with this message at 01:06 on Oct 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 01:03
|
|
|
I mean it sounds like the weak link here is that we let private individuals and companies own rental properties.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 02:04
|
|
|
Xand_Man posted:I'm as much in favor as affordable housing as the next guy but rhetoric like this does more harm then good. I know at least 3 'landlords' who are barely scraping even or running slightly negative when factoring maintenence and taxes. The law should distinguish between large-scale property owners and the fixed income grandma who has a rental property. In the Seattle area? These people are either incompetent or lying, or they paid WAY too much for their property they turned into a rental. Which falls under incompetent I guess.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 03:02
|
|
|
Peachfart posted:In the Seattle area? These people are either incompetent or lying, or they paid WAY too much for their property they turned into a rental. Which falls under incompetent I guess. A major repair or a bad tenant can wipe out years of profits for someone that is not operating dozens of units. Javid posted:I mean it sounds like the weak link here is that we let private individuals and companies own rental properties. Yes I guess the real problem is allowing private property and contracts. The state should own everything and determine where you live and work.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 03:22
|
|
|
therobit posted:A major repair or a bad tenant can wipe out years of profits for someone that is not operating dozens of units. Man, you mean investment has unforseen risks? Dang, sorry for your lots.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 03:36
|
|
|
therobit posted:A major repair or a bad tenant can wipe out years of profits for someone that is not operating dozens of units.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 03:45
|
|
|
therobit posted:Yes I guess the real problem is allowing private property and contracts. The state should own everything and determine where you live and work. This but unironically Cactrot posted:Man, you mean investment has unforseen risks? Dang, sorry for your lots. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 03:45
|
|
|
Thanatosian posted:I have real difficulty imagining a major repair or bad tenant wiping out years of profits from rent + equity value increase in the house. Like, real difficulty. Like, "there is no loving way" difficulty. At least, no loving way that isn't going to involve an insurance claim that will protect them from that, anyhow. I look at about 100 tax returns with rentals per month. You can absolutely loose your rear end.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 03:47
|
|
|
therobit posted:I look at about 100 tax returns with rentals per month. You can absolutely loose your rear end. Yeah, I'm sure. "I had to buy this new computer... to run Quicken for my rental property." "I had to buy this car to drive to my rental property." "I had to buy this boat to keep an eye on my beachside rental property." "Look at all this money I'm spending on my rental property!"
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 03:54
|
|
|
therobit posted:I look at about 100 tax returns with rentals per month. You can absolutely loose your rear end. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 04:00
|
|
|
I was on board, up until the corgi. That's a step too far.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 04:18
|
|
|
therobit posted:I look at about 100 tax returns with rentals per month. You can absolutely loose your rear end. are we talking 'lose my rear end' like as if i had a minor to moderate injury or sickness with no health care or 'lose my rear end' like as if i had a really nice car that I covered with the bare minimum insurance and then wrecked while drunk driving
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 05:09
|
|
|
people 'lose their rear end' every single day from starting impractical small businesses or through making poor investments, remind me why I should feel more sympathy for those who own property and choose to put it on the market for rent
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 05:10
|
|
|
IM DAY DAY IRL posted:people 'lose their rear end' every single day from starting impractical small businesses or through making poor investments, remind me why I should feel more sympathy for those who own property and choose to put it on the market for rent I have in laws who rented property for a while. They got the gently caress out when someone used their rental to tan hides and they had to clean it up. Landlording is awful.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 05:48
|
|
|
IM DAY DAY IRL posted:are we talking 'lose my rear end' like as if i had a minor to moderate injury or sickness with no health care or 'lose my rear end' like as if i had a really nice car that I covered with the bare minimum insurance and then wrecked while drunk driving
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 05:50
|
|
|
IM DAY DAY IRL posted:are we talking 'lose my rear end' like as if i had a minor to moderate injury or sickness with no health care or 'lose my rear end' like as if i had a really nice car that I covered with the bare minimum insurance and then wrecked while drunk driving Mid to high five figures loss on a single property in a single year.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 06:17
|
|
|
Cactrot posted:Dang, sorry for your lots.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 06:21
|
|
|
Cactrot posted:Man, you mean investment has unforseen risks? Dang, sorry for your lots.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 06:33
|
|
|
therobit posted:Mid to high five figures loss on a single property in a single year. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbSn6o3ZMtw
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 07:28
|
|
|
Doing taxes last year only one client was really legitimately losing money on their rentals, everyone else was at the very least breaking even.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 08:52
|
|
|
Xand_Man posted:I'm as much in favor as affordable housing as the next guy but rhetoric like this does more harm then good. I know at least 3 'landlords' who are barely scraping even or running slightly negative when factoring maintenence and taxes. The law should distinguish between large-scale property owners and the fixed income grandma who has a rental property.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 10:29
|
|
|
therobit posted:A major repair or a bad tenant can wipe out years of profits for someone that is not operating dozens of units. If you mean in the model of "I bought a 5th house and its not making me money above the mortgage when those dirty TENANTS wanted a roof that didnt leak and plumbing that worked!" then gently caress them. If you mean "I have a paid-off house in Seattle I am slum-lording out to 6 room-tenants but somehow my taxes are higher than the 5000/month I make on a single house" then they are loving lying.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 10:35
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:Maybe "owning property" shouldnt be a full-time income. We dont need land-aristocrats. At all.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 11:25
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:Maybe "owning property" shouldnt be a full-time income. We dont need land-aristocrats. At all. That's my point actually. The political rhetoric (some of which is in this very thread) that conflates small-scale property holders with large scale developers/property managers is pointlessly divisive. A single mother working in a warehouse doesn't become a class traitor because she makes some income off her old condo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 14:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 23:40 |
|
|
The idea that having an extra home you don't need so you profit off people who can't is even slightly normal is incommensurable with "full communism".
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 17:07
|
|