NAR CEO Bob Goldberg & 2019 President John Smaby
Across the country, various state and local governments are currently considering – or debating – legislative rent control measures.
However, these efforts are misguided. They do nothing to address residential construction deterrents like imprudent local zoning measures and high land costs. What rent control policies really do is help create political battles between landlords and tenants without addressing the root of – and possible solutions to – America’s housing affordability problems.
In response, NAR is working to fight rent control and rent stabilization laws on both residential and commercial properties.
Last year, California voters rejected a statewide measure that would have overturned the Costa Hawkins Act, which establishes limits on local rent control laws. Costa Hawkins ensures that buildings first occupied after 1995 are not subject to rent control regulations. Further, the law provides an avenue for vacancy decontrol, which gives building owners an opportunity to rehab facilities and establish new, fair market rates with new tenants.
From Portland, Maine to Portland, Oregon, several jurisdictions have recently considered rent control regulations. Most states preempt local governments from adopting rent control measures in any form. In the states where rent control is permitted (California, Maryland, New Jersey, New York and the District of Columbia), local jurisdictions are able to regulate rental rates based off specific parameters written within the state law. The aforementioned Costa Hawkins Act in California is an example of this.
Over recent years, Hawaii, Michigan, Minnesota and Washington, among other states, have considered legislation repealing prohibitions of rent control, although, thus far, no prohibitions have been successfully repealed. The most significant concerns are in states whose legislatures revisit rent control laws year after year. California and New York, for example, see regular efforts to expand the reach of rent control to include just cause eviction requirements and/or landlord-tenant relocation fees.
Illinois and Oregon have also revisited legislation to repeal existing bans on rent control and have the political support to pass legislation this year. Oregon will be the first state to enact a statewide rent control law that requires local governments to incorporate rent control regardless of whether or not a housing shortage exists. This is unique, however, as most states allow local governments to decide if rent control is necessary. In Illinois, lawmakers are considering repealing existing rent control prohibitions as well as creating a state regulatory body to oversee rent control regardless of housing supply.
If states are successful in easing rent control restrictions, NAR is concerned that residential rentals in those areas will lose value, while both property tax assessments and bases will decrease, forcing other property owners to eventually pay more in taxes or fees as a result. Ultimately, rent control discourages the production of new rental dwellings in the private sector, and NAR is committed to fighting against these laws across the country.
Comments(67)-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Joe Lightman says
atWe appreciate your efforts! People just need education to make the better choice. And understand that respect greases movement.
31 years a Realtor
Manuel says
atGoverment needs to control out of control Taxes and insurance on properties. Supply and Demand has always done a good job on rent control. Why would anyone invest in real estate if you can not be expected to make a profit.
Kevin says
atAgree, supply and demand is the best way to control rent prices, let the markets decide what is affordable or not. The less Government involvement on this the better.
Daryl Loewen says
atWhy would you allow the state to tell you as a private owner what to charge for rent?? Supply and demand has done a very good job of that forever. We are taking all freedom away from the private parties and letting the government control all that we do. Sounds like socialism to me.
Cynthia J. Starks says
atI suspect NARs real interest is in protecting the income landlords can receive for their rentals – in other words, helping landlords make as much as they can from rentals, and not truly concerned about helping low-and-middle income individuals and families be able to afford places in which to live.
SP says
atI agree
Bill Barton REALTOR says
atIt’s called the free market. Supply and demand will determine how much rent people are willing to pay…kind of the same when it comes to buying and selling property. NAR is always fighting for the rights of property owners which our livelihood depends.
Karen Spitzner says
atIt is not NAR’s purpose to be concerned about affordable rentals. Governments can subsidize rental costs, not private landlords.
Wendy3 says
atDoes the government dictate what your return will be on your stock investments or any other investment for that matter? We live in a free society. It is a big investment & decision to become a landlord in the first place. The rental market fluctuates with the real estate market, it’s not always good to be a landlord. The rental market goes down naturally during bad times. Why are landlords forced to lower rents in times when they can get higher rents. Making up for loses suffered during bad times? Do stock investors suffer the same fate in good and bad markets, of course not… It’s not up to Landlords to carry the burdens of society, they have the right to a free investment market just as anyone else.
Melanie says
atWell said! I have been a Realtor for 17 years.
I agree. Landlords can only afford to be landlord and maintain the properties they rent out if it makes financial sense. If they maintain & make improvements to the properties, they need to be able to recuperate it financially in the rent they charge. Limiting what they can charge will decrease the quality of rentals available. Towns & governments will never limit the income they can make in taxes they charge on the property if it appreciates, why should they be allowed to limit what the landlords who pay them increasing taxes can collect to pay for those taxes?
I live in Massachusetts where there is already no landlord protection in the law. It’s already all about protecting the tenants only. You see so many people abusing the system and stopping payments and the landlords cannot evict them because of all the protection they have.
I have seen many landlords be foreclosed on as a results of the law protecting the tenants too much and the tenants not paying their rent.
So much that it created a huge shortage in affordable housing, because it discouraged too many people from risquing to rent their property to year round renters.
Landlords cannot be limited in what they can charge for rent on top of that or it will only deplete the affordable rental inventory and penalize all the potentially good tenants who will have no place to rent.
Ralph Gildehaus says
atWhile I agree there is a need for affordable housing, rent controls would have an adverse effect. As a Realtor and past investor of rental property, I understand the investor. Investment property are purchased for a return on investment. Limiting a landlord to make a profit will only drive that investor to other investments that do have a desirable return on investment. When the market discourage new rental or existing rental investments, what do you think that will do to the availability of rentable spaces? Creating incentives for an investor for lower rents that can off set the landlord’s cost and generate a fair return on investment may be a positive approach.
Manuel Gonzales says
atLets control out of control Property taxes and insurance. Property owners should be able to rent thier properties and make a profit after insurance and taxes. Rental control is handled by supply and demand and goverment needs to stay out.
Mark Peapenburg says
atOnly part of the story, every investor seeks to maximize return on an investment. But rent controls generally reduce the return on investment over time for property owners. The downside is that when rent control is in place, fewer investors will be interested in owning rental properties. Alternatives like tearing down modest housing and building newer homes or commercial property that can be sold becomes more profitable and desirable for investors. The end game is that we then get less affordable housing. The exact opposite of what most proponents of rent control want. There are no easy solutions to this issue.
Jeanne Machrowicz says
atHow would you feel about controls on your commissions?
Eileen Murphy says
atlandords often have tenants in rent controlled apartments paying less than half the actual market value – to add to this disparity often a younger family member (child, grand child) is added to a lease and the rent control continues beyond the original tenants tenancy. Property taxes, fuel costs (heat usually included in rent), and sky rocketing insurance costs far outstrip the rental income in buildings with a high number of below market controlled rents. If the rents do not increase to help cover these expenses how are landlords supposed to afford maintenance and repairs. There are two sides to this debate. Not all landlords are greedy and uncaring, many strive to provide a clean, safe environment for the families living in their properties and increasing expenses and controlled rents are making this extremely difficult.
Coni Patrick says
atLandlords invest their money in real estate in order to make a profit. No profit=no investment=no rental housing.
Coni Patrick says
atNo profit=no investment=no rental housing.
Bill Brown says
atCynthia NAR supports private property rights, period. A landlord’s ability to make a living is based on the free market. If they charge to much, no one will rent the unit. It’s called free market. An investor is rewarded for the risk they take after they purchase the property. Profit is never guaranteed. This is business not a social experiment.
Dawn McCarthy says
atPlease fight the rent control. Nevadas laws leave it to the individual owner, as it should be.
barry levy says
atMassachusetts repealed rent control with the predicted salutary effects occurring very quickly. We sell multifamily properties in Md and DC with the highest national returns in non rent controlled areas.
Bobby Shofne says
atNo government authority has the right to tell me as a property owner what amount or who I can rent to. I believe these laws are unconstitutional and should be challenged.
LLOYD C BINEN says
atI don’t understand how rent control is not a violation of the 5th amendment which prohibits government taking property without just compensation.
Bill Gill says
atIn a free society there should never be rent controls by the government. Owners of the real estate should be able to ask any rent that the free market can bear. Get back to Capitalism where supply & demand determine the value. Don’t rely on Socialism because it is inefficient and screws up the economy every time.
Joan Bradley says
atI’m an investor. I own several rental properties. When my taxes increase and HOA dues increase, I have no control over that. If I cannot pass those increases along to my tenants, I will lose money. I carefully consider the price I pay for a property to determine the rental amount and a reasonable return on my investment. As an investor, I want to MAKE money on my propeties, not lose money. Rentals are my major source of income. and I should be the one to make the decision on the amount of rent each property should bring. No one knows where this amount of rent should be, except me.
George Gribus says
atI personally think their should be rent control laws since wages aren’t in line with rents for the majority.
Julie says
atIf there are rent controls in effect, shouldn’t there be property tax control? Taxes in Illinois have gone up so much in it is hard
to stay in our homes, especially as we get older. Unfortunately just as in owning a home with all the escalating costs, how can a landlord afford to even keep the buildings to rent out……The return on most rentals is not that high to begin with and many people have there life savings in the investment of rental
property for their livelihood. If they can’t make as much as they would in an investment, what is the reason to have them at all? It is not a charity.
Nathan Hayes says
atI am in residential property management. My main concern is the amount of investment properties purchased in my market the last few years by Wall Street and big bank spin off funds. If you took these purchases out of the equation, the market would stabilized and values not be falsely inflated and buyers/renters would have a chance. It also makes our market very vulnerable to collapsing if just a couple of these funds decide to unload their rentals. Use to, small investors probably made up 3-5% (my guess) of home purchases in our market. Now with these guys in the game, I would venture to say that number is now above 30% (home values sky rotting due to low inventory) of the under 160,000 market. Now without the old balance (for every home bought there was one sold) this is a very scary time for us.
Sonja Grafe Seals says
atThank you NAR for all your work. This is a big concern.
Sue says
atI have looked at this issue from many sides, tenant, landlord, investor. This is a multifaceted issue with many possible alternatives rather than rent control which will not solve the problem in the long term. I understand tenants not being able to afford rentals in some areas of the country but I do believe there are other solutions than rent control. One of the issues is that builders buy the lower priced homes and then build higher end properties, this removes affordable housing (lower end homes and rentals) from the market and makes the purchase or the rental unaffordable to prospective home buyer and tenants. Another issue is that of the Airbnb, which is basically an uncontrolled hotel/motel industry has taken away some of the affordable homes that previously were purchased by lower end buyers or owners as rental properties. The other shift I have seen is in the mindset of society. There are 2 factors here. First, many previous homeowners have chosen to sell their homes and become renters so that they can free up their time from the maintenance responsibilities of homeownership. Second, we have a more mobile society that wants the freedom to move and live in different places for a variety of reasons be it work, lifestyle, or family. If rent control becomes law, property values could decrease, there would be less incentive to own a house since it could end up cheaper to rent than own, investors which have become a large part of the housing industry would be more likely to sell their properties and find another investment that is more profitable. There are many other reasons rent control is a bad idea but I am trying to keep it short. In summary, rent control is only one piece of a very large puzzle and would probably do more harm than good.
Nancy Leonard says
atI totally support NAR’s position
George Torres says
atI do support some kind of rent control. I think renters are being scammed by properties owners. Why would a renter have to pay 900 to 1100 a month for a 1 bedroom one bath apartment or home. It makes no sense to me. They should not be allowed to do that. My Daughter was a good example of that until I was able to help her out. I also think we should have some kind of control and home prices. Right now because of the high cost a lot people just don’t qualify to buy. Especially here in Florida where people just don’t make enough money. Lets make America great again and bring back manufacturing.
M says
atThe rents are high because the taxes and town fees are so high and keep going up. I have a couple of rental properties. The expenses to operate are very high. This gets passed on to the renters. There will be no rentals if I can’t make any money at all on them. The issue is very complicated.
Darlene Self-Mann says
atStates are already putting landlords out of business with rising property taxes. If you have credit worthy tenants happy and in agreement to pay the listed rental price it should be left to these two parties. Also, we the landlords are the ones risking our investment when we lease. What happens if they pass this and landlord ends up with an unworthy tenant who damages your property – is the state going to pick-up the bill for repairs?
The government needs to be working on problems we already have and STOP making up things they should stay out of when they’re not a problem!
Jasmine says
atAbsolutely no rent control
john d says
atsounds like a great idea !! and lets not forget property tax control too !!!!!!!!!
Bobbie Franklin says
atI, for one, do not agree with NAR’s stance on this issue. Displacement is a real issue. Rent control measures of some kind are necessary! I do not agree that it adversely affects the value of new rental dwellings. I think this all boils down to greed, at some level. Rents continue to rise and we’re all going to discover the ceiling to how high they can get sooner rather than later. Look at Denver, Austin, and San Francisco as examples. It’s just unsustainable.
Richard Ryon says
atRent controls HURT TENANTS! You limit rents and you limit new building. It is that simple! Investors invest in new supply only WHEN THEY CAN MAKE MONEY! Bobbie, do you invest your money for no or a negative return? Are you greedy because you don’t? Fewer new dwellings results in FEWER, and in more desirable neighborhoods, NO choices for tenants. I work in Austin. We are having trouble finding people places to rent now! With massive new building going on! Limiting new housing being built by reducing or eliminating investor returns with your rent controls would be a disaster for tenants here!
Constantly increasing property taxes, development fees, and regulations are primary drivers of increasing rents in Austin. I know, I work here! Limit them for lower rents!
Gilberto Nieves says
atI agree 100%
Eduardo Brandt says
atI agree that rent control is the wrong solution, it should be fought, but let’s first recognize that rent affordability has become a much bigger problem for a large and increasing segment of the population. Intended or not, the Fed/government created bubble and bust cycle of the 2000s set the clock backward 30 years on the homeownership rate. The same forces have reinflated home prices, so existing homeowners (like me) have again been subsidized, but this keeps making it hard for the young, and lower and middle-class buyers who comprise the first-time buyers. They just can’t catch a breather and become homeowners sooner, like previous generations. As the home prices increase, landlords need to push higher rents prices. While our president just sent to Congress the biggest budget in the history of this country, it’s full of reductions for affordable housing measures. This population segment keeps playing housing on a tilted field. Let’s fight rent control, but even harder, let’s fight the increasing unfairness that has invaded housing since the beginning of this century.
ANN says
atEduardo, our President has also pushed and implemented the largest tax cut in history. Increasing State taxes and other fees have increased the cost of owning these homes, thereby impacting the monthly rental costs. No one subsidizes a Landlord when the home remains vacant, or when a Tenant does not make payment… that’s why you heard so much about the SALT exemptions – the higher the exemption, the less likely states are to control taxes. The money has to come from somewhere, as Landlords are not working as humanitarians. It’s a business.
Bobbie Fallon says
atI am with you on this one. Owners of their own property should have the right to manage their property.
Bobbie
Rick DeLuca says
atI don’t think NAR’s stance of opposing rent control is a matter of protecting landlords and not protecting renters, but protecting anyone involved in owning, renting, managing and selling rental properties from being told how to run their businesses by the government and by an agency that has no financial risk involved.
Jared Wolladton says
atAs a Real Estate Broker & Professional for over 45 plus Years and having various rental properties in Boston back to the 1970s-80’s when rent control was in effect there were so many abuses by tenants of the system and the city at that time did not have the professional staff to monitor the rent control regulations which were poorly written and administered…we also knew of so many abuses with the entire rent control system in Cambridge Ma. …. My experience as a Zoning Commissioner in Boston for 5 years is that Rent Control just does not work and that affordable housing programs coordinated with developers of housing & mixed developments is the solution …. rent control regulations and impositions on property owners does not provide fair, equitable and well maintained rental properties….
Laura Wyscaver says
atNAR needs to do a better job of educating our members and the public of the devastating effect of rent control. No one is entitled to live somewhere they can’t afford. People move for economic reasons all the time. Lower cost places get better developed and create opportunities when people are willing to go there. Businesses do this and those communities get stronger. All boats lift in a rising tide and a depressed market is unsustainable.
Dean W Petty says
atIt is clear from some of the comments that are pro-rent control that even realtors do not all understand how markets work; no wonder so many folks believe socialism is a good solution to social problems…. just having the government telling you what you can sell a product for does not make a product cheaper. Telling someone to charge less for rent without figuring out a way to cover the cost of maintaining a building (taxes, upkeep, protecting the investment) has all kinds of unintended consequences. It would seem that the Realtor Party needs to help realtors understand the basics of economics, free enterprise and why we even have houses to sell in this country and why someone is willing to buy them…. it certainly isn’t because the government set the prices or told us to do it.
Jeff Sherman says
atI do not have personal experience with properties in the rent control states listed here but I cannot see how it could possibly be a good thing. It has to distort the market completely. In the few projects I worked on where there were income restrictions for tenants and/or owners, (affordable housing) it always felt like the developers were jumping through hoops to get the various credits and then the ultimate occupants had to as well. Not one of them felt like it was making a dent in the real need in the market. It seemed more of a feel good exercise as opposed to a broad based solution to the affordability problem.
There are many governmental intrusions into the residential rental market specifically and the property markets in general and there should be. Zoning, hurricane, life safety codes, building codes, etc. It seems to me that the more reasonable way to encourage more affordable residential rental development is in the development process. Lower impact fees for smaller apartments, higher densities in lower income or working class neighborhoods, property tax abatements for a few years, much lower parking requirements for properties near public transportation, etc. are just a few possibilities that could make residential properties more affordable without huge direct subsidies or new overreaching regulations.
John gurney says
atWhile I fully appreciate the desire of a property owner to set the rental rates as they choose , this system is by design constructed to maximize the returns of the owner with no regard for the effects this activity has on communities.
If you own a home , consider yourself blessed.
Fully half of our neighbors are living below the poverty line.
There is virtually no where in the country where someone can rent a two bedroom apartment based on minimum wage.
I enjoy profits as much as anyone else but I also enjoy living in a community where my neighbors aren’t driven into homelessness by rapidly escalating rents.
Who wants to live in a community filled with homeless people- not me.
Dréa Smith says
atIn areas where rents/list prices are skyrocketing, it is driving up the homeless populations, and straining lower/middle class incomes… I am disappointed to see Realtors so against rent control as an affordability measure, which could be incorporated with other measures. Zoning changes etc (specifically Austin TX) keep getting bogged down in litigation and bs. Very little is changing to help affordability in these areas… :/
Jane says
atAs Realtors® I believed that our groups main objective was to prompt and support Private Property Rights. Supply and demand have always driven our market prices and will most likely continue to do so. I am against our association lobbying for any issue that diminishes private property rights. Why are we to assume the property owners are the only factor as to a person’s inability to afford market rent prices? We all know that rents include taxes, insurance, HOA fees, maintenance, in most cases mortgage payments on the property along with countless risk factors such as vacancy periods, etc. that are out of the landowner control. Property owners have all the risk. Leave property rights with property owners.
Lynne Tardiff says
atI hope NAR can see that owners of property should be allowed to ask what they feel their property is worth in terms of rental costs. If tenants cannot afford it, then perhaps the issue is with the lack of income they collect, education they have to increase their income or a combination of both. Bigger cities may differ quite a bit from smaller towns and I live in a small town and am a landlord of a small scale. If rents are control, I will seek a different investment altogether as it would not be worth my time and effort to provide clean, nice and comfortable housing while the government tells me how much I can charge. Airbnb and vacation rentals are now also being taxed in some states so, if there is no profit there, only the bigger hotels and rental complexes will be able to operate.
Marian Marrone says
atNo one should tell an owner what to charge for rent. They have an investment and usually a mortgage to pay on the property..This is total nonsense and against our rights as owners!!!!
Retta Ripperger says
atNo rent control. I believe the high rents began when the government began subsidizing rents thus driving up the prices. I have heard of some landlords who take the government payment and then charge the tenants additional. Not much else in our lives hasn’t risen (except maybe real estate commissions:). We Realtors need to remember that our commissions have risen as home prices have gone up. If a landlord wants to be generous to the poor family or elderly person struggling, that’s their business.
Dominic C Corson says
atI took a Econ 101 class in 1979 and the first case study analyzed the effects of rent control on the Bronx. It was an eye-opening lesson in the law of unintended consequences. By artificially freezing rents with the intention of helping poor and working class people, landlords could not make enough money to adequately maintain their properties which eventually lead to urban blight and destruction of whole neighborhoods.
Robert Seidenberg says
atIn New York City Rent Control keeps rents down to a degree that people who live on fixed incomes can afford a place to live. There are very few affordable apartments being built. Yes, landlord should have the right of eviction, if the circumstances are there. Failure to pay rent, property maintained poorly, etc.. Once a rent controlled property is vacated it normally goes back on the normal market.
Amy Webster says
atNo rent control laws! Landlord/owners invest their money & time in these properties, expecting to earn a profit! It’s a business! Let the landlords decide what rent to charge. The free market will lead to an adjustment of their rents if they are too high.
Robert Seidenberg says
atIn New York City Rent Control keeps rents down to a degree that people who live on fixed incomes can afford a place to live. There are very few affordable apartments being built. Yes, landlord should have the right of eviction, if the circumstances are there. Failure to pay rent, property maintained poorly, etc.. Once a rent controlled property is vacated it normally goes back on the normal market.
michele@rootsrealty.com says
atPortland, OR REALTOR & housing provider chiming in. The way this article reads, it’s almost as if NAR doesn’t understand what State of Oregon and City of Portland have recently passed, allowing for state-wide rent control, combined with Portland’s ordinance. Maybe the article could be edited to read more accurately, to read what NAR is specifically working on here in Oregon, if anything.
Adriann says
atGood point Michele! We updated the article to paint a fuller picture of what is going on in OR and IL. Thank you!
Richard Ryon says
atRent controls HURT TENANTS! You limit rents and you limit new building. It is that simple! Investors invest in new supply only WHEN THEY CAN MAKE MONEY! Do you invest your money for no or a negative return? Fewer new dwellings results in FEWER, and in more desirable neighborhoods, NO choices for tenants. I work in Austin. We are having trouble finding people places to rent now! With massive new building going on! Limiting new housing being built by reducing or eliminating investor returns with rent controls would be a disaster for tenants here!
Constantly increasing property taxes, development fees, and regulations are primary drivers of increasing rents in Austin. I know, I work here! Limit them for lower rents!
Jan Smith says
atI grew up in CA in the eighties we had a large family my father was a carpenter, when rents went up where we lived we moved to more affordable locals he never expected landlords or others who worked hard and sacrificed in order to buy their property to subsidize his large family or his decision to have a large family. If you want communism go move to a country where it exist and see just how fun that is…. oh wait its hard to find those countries because they are all failing and in total upheaval. It’s tragic that people are ignorant enough to think that the government controlling everything we do is a good idea. This is what happens when they quit teaching history in schools.
jerry cook says
atIF we had a free market real estate market, I would be totally against rent control. But sadly we don’t. The government manipulates it to circumvent proposition 13. The government crames it’s fee’s down the developers throats and the consumer has to pay, the green party keeps filing lawsuits to stop development, which increases costs. So the fact is ‘rent control’ or even better a tax credit for ALL renters equal to 7% of the rent amount paid every year the renter rents. This would allow renters to get forced saving to be able to try and buy. Then just drop the depreciation deduction for the landlord to pay for it. But the way it is now, isn’t working. Real Estate Industry professional since 1972.
Jane says
atWhat State are you working in? I am curious about the fees and proposition 13 that you are talking about. Thank you, Jane
Steve Hanleigh says
atMany conflicting positions and statements…Can NAR publish which states the various commentators are from, so we can gauge what and where the seriousness of rent control is in different markets, or if its even an issue?
I’m in San Jose, California. The Bay Area is a hot bed of rent control, just cause requirements, relocation benefits to tenants, rent registries, and deed restriction efforts. I believe that there is a lack of full understanding how insidious it all is. California is being run by elected officials who have gone further and further to the left, which means further governmental attempts to please the majority of voters, who are now renters, not property owners….We desperately need help from higher authorities. That means either the federal government, or the courts. If its possible to go proactive in legislation from Congress, it would help. If we can’t, then its the ultimate adversarial stance: LItigation…. Don’t want that, but it needs study and consideration. Rent control is no longer a local or regional issue. Its a multi state issue, and needs our attention if Private Property Rights protection is still a core principle to us.
And it can’t be done by NAR alone….it has to involve property OWNERS….they will ride the bus to correct what’s happening if we are willing to drive it.
Frank Goodale says
atPrice caps create shortages. We need to remember the example set by gasoline price caps in the 70s which created artificial shortages and long waiting lines rather than stimulating production. These were repealed when it was realized that investors were no longer investing in the resources necessary to solve the problem. The next gasoline spike saw the government refrain from gas caps and the problem solved itself in very creative ways. It will be no different for housing.
Kevin says
atWould any of us like the Government to come in and tell us how much money we can make, in essence that’s what rent control does for a landlord. I think anyone with a brain knows that the market is the best way to control pricing. I own rentals in Denver and it’s funny I have never had an issue with finding renters quickly for any of the homes I own or manage. So if you ask me the whole rents aren’t affordable issue is a lot of bunk brought on by politicians and people who want to get rid of the free market and move to a Government controlled society, which anyone who has experienced anything that is truly regulated or controlled by the Government knows it will be a fiasco.
Psmith says
atMaybe the government should build rental property and see how expensive and impossible it is to repair and maintain with rent control.ie in oh yes, and rent only to section 8 etc…
Psmith rental prop owner/realtor
Eduardo Brandt says
atAnn, I AM a long-term homeowner and Landlord, so I understand fully it’s a business. But I also fully understand that the Federal Reserve and the government, through monetary and fiscal policy, including interest rate manipulation and fabricated liquidity, have been fully helping me for decades, more so after 9/11, at the expense of those who don’t own assets, such as renters, and the younger generations. So among other benefits I received, the value of my properties have artificially gone up. It would be nice to think I’m so smart but honestly, I and all other long-term owners were subsidized by the system. The numbers tell the story: The homeownership rate has taken a crisis-level drop, and Wall Street got in the landlord business and owns over 200,000 homes previously owned mostly by first-time buyers from the lower and middle classes. We’re in the housing business, our industry should be outraged by those facts, and work hard to reverse the damage created by government and Fed intervention in the early 2000s. That wasn’t a free market, that was socialism in reverse. We should fight for a fair system and work to open up resources for the young and less affluent, to have access to basic housing and to become homeowners again. In other words, to level the playing field.