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.
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.”
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.
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.”
Gotta keep the community pure.
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
But worse for those looking for a rental.
Rent control is a bandaid on a real problem that makes things worse long term. What California needs is build more, which means end the NIMBY and unfreeze property taxes so those seating on underutilized land are forced to develop it or sell.
LVT, not property tax. You want to tax the value of the land, not the value of the property built on it.
Would property taxes actually do much? They’re so little even in high property-tax states that I think you’d need to do a lot more than that to FORCE rich people to utilize their other properties. High taxes would potentially push more costs on renters. Maybe we should just outlaw having more than 1 or 2 homes… including for real estate companies and banks :)
High taxes would potentially push more costs on renters.
Potentially, but I think here not so much. Competition drives prices down. In a perfectly competitive market, prices are pretty much equal to the cost of production. In that case, any tax would be completely passed on to the customer. But you can’t produce land at a certain location. My guess is that rents are largely determined by willingness to pay.
I keep wondering how to make the law do that. Making a company is like $100, that’s nothing compared to the house price. They would just have shell companies all over each owning a single location. 123 Fake St., LLC; 124 Fake St., LLC; etc.
You’d limit Ultimate Beneficial Ownership of the properties, not direct ownership.
I’d probably do something like: No individual or private entity may have Direct, Indirect or Ultimate Beneficial Ownership exceeding or of multiple of any of X(2-5?) Single Family properties, Y(2-3?) low density Multi-tenant properties, or Z(1-2?) high density Multi-tenant properties. Excluding the first wholely and solely owner occupied property. Excluding Ultimate Beneficial Ownership of less than A(.01-5?)% of a property. Excluding Ownership less than B(30-180?) days. Failure to comply results in forfeiture of newer ownership to REGULATOR-TBD until compliance is met. Multi-tenant properties have C (5-10?) residences
IANAL, probably some other loopholes that need closing. But the intent would be to limit consolidated ownership of many properties. But not impact several of the more reasonable ownership structures, nor impact churn of properties. The regulator would sell whatever extra it gets to fund housing programs.
How will that work for individuals who own .00001% of hundreds of homes (by owning shares of several real estate holding companies)?
Also, mega rich people don’t to legally own anything. It is owned by a trust with undisclosed beneficiaries. It is also routed via multiple offshore dummy corporations. It is set up this way so that tax agencies can never figure out incomes and inheritances.
I don’t think you need to add any taxes. If the area is attractive enough to warrant a higher density redevelopment, just unlock it and it will get done.
I mean, if you are a developer and you know for certain there’s a lot of interest in a certain area and you know for certain that you could buy that big single family lot and make a 3-5 story building instead with 10-20 apartments, you’d be crazy not to offer double the market rate to get it and develop it as fast as possible.
Just need to change the law to allow redevelopment of single family areas into medium density.
Hmm build more. I’d be curious to see the stats on this. California has probably built 10 times more than the rest of the country combined over the last decade or so. People need to GO THE FUCK BACK HOME.
That’s-the-point.gif
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.
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.
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.
Won’t someone think of the landlords?!?
I do, but I can’t decide if I should bbq or braise them :-(
Gross. You really shouldn’t eat garbage…
Oh nooooo …
Hi, that’s what I wanted to say!
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.
Good?
Good.
Excellent!
Hurray!
Huzza!
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
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…
Oh no?
sounds like a win-win
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.
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.First person I’ve seen who didn’t say it increases supply.
Nice.
Isn’t that exactly what they just said?
Is it really functionally any different? “increases supply” is a decent shorthand
Hey, I remember my macroeconomics!
Supply/demand is usually micro…
“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
