politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Building takes $xxxx dollars to maintain. The profits from that building need to exceed that in order for you as an owner to even want to do anything with the building like repair it...
Let's take an obviously fictitious example of a 2 apartment building that needs $1000 to break even for taxes, mortgage/loan, common utilities, etc.
If one apartment is rent controlled and you're only allowed to rent it at $250, then the other must get rented at $750 in order for you to just break even on the property.
This would be their logic. And it's not "bad" logic.
When without rent control you'd see closer to $500 split evenly between both units.
Now obviously you'd see overhead for things like repair and maintenance, but that once again disadvantages the "new" people even more. $1000 might break even, but you need to charge extra for renovations and such. Since $250 unit is capped, that falls all on the "new" owners which may see $950 or even more in rent costs.
Where in an "even" world... maybe $600 each unit.
This is why they ignored you. This is bad faith and disingenuous as fuck it doesn't take all that much to come to the conclusion of how "new" rented would be subsiding the old ones. You didn't have to act like an ass. You are allowed to use your brain.
This simply kicks the can down the road and makes it impossible for the "new" generation to actually get in to begin with which stagnates the whole neighborhood (less new people to come start business, or work jobs that the "older" folks aged out of). In the meantime, units stay vacant, building gets less income overall making it infeasible for the landlord/building owner to actually renovate and fix shit.
Edit:
Which is not competitive to actual paying jobs at current market rates typically. The old person moving out to the suburbs where things are more affordable typically means the space becomes available and can be filled with new blood that can go and work which is a much bigger boon for the economy than someone strictly drawing retirement.
Unfortunately your example is how it should work in an idealized world:
"Let's take an obviously fictitious example of a 2 apartment building that needs $1000 to break even for taxes, mortgage/loan, common utilities, etc.
If one apartment is rent controlled and you're only allowed to rent it at $250, then the other must get rented at $750 in order for you to just break even on the property.
This would be their logic. And it's not "bad" logic.
When without rent control you'd see closer to $500 split evenly between both units."
Without rent control, how it actually works isn't based on what is needed to break even, it's "What the market will bear", i.e. "Whatever I can get away with."
So instead of a $500/$500 split, the landlord now lists both apartments at $2,000. If they successfully rent both, they pocket the difference.
If they rent neither in a reasonable time, they lower the rent until they get the absolute most the market will bear. Maybe it's $2,000/$1,700. Maybe it's $1,000/$1,000. It will never be the break even point, because real estate investors aren't interested in breaking even.
Sure, I will admit very readily that people abuse it...
But when you punish the idealized case... don't be mad when only the abusive people are left. Rent control doesn't fix the abusers and punishes the non-abusive owners as well.