Rent Control Explained: Debunking Your Landlord's Myths
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 21 มิ.ย. 2022
- Rent across the country is reaching record highs-11% nationwide and over 40% in some cities. Tenant organizers in St. Paul, Minnesota think they have a solution. In November 2021, they passed a bill with a 3% cap on annual rent increases. The movement was led by renters like Cynthia Brown, a local resident who became homeless for two years after her husband passed away and she couldn’t afford her rent.
St. Paul’s bill is the kind of rent control that landlords fear and economists hate.
Landlords want you to think that rent regulation will make housing prices go up. But that’s not true. We found that rent control can help keep tenants in their homes and doesn’t hurt most landlords - it just cuts into the profits of the most predatory ones. And a bill like this would help tenants like Cynthia Brown stay in their homes. We debunked the common myths about rent control and what the bill will mean for St. Paul.
To understand more about how rent stabilization impacts communities, read the entire report from the University of Southern California:
dornsife.usc.edu/assets/sites...
And the study on rent stabilization in Minneapolis from the University of Minnesota Center for Urban and Regional Affairs:
www.cura.umn.edu/research/min...
To understand more about patterns of gentrification in cities, read:
Samuel Stein’s Capital City: Gentrification and the Real Estate State: www.versobooks.com/books/2870...
P.E. Moskowitz’s How to Kill a City: Gentrification, Inequality, and the Fight for the Neighborhood
www.boldtypebooks.com/titles/....
As of July 2022, neighboring city Minneapolis is also considering rent regulations modeled on St. Paul’s bill. St. Paul mayor Melvin Carter is currently seeking an exemption for new construction on the St. Paul ordinance, in spite of resistance from the activists that helped pass the bill.
www.governing.com/now/can-the...
-----
More Perfect Union is a new nonprofit media org with a mission to empower working people. Learn more here: perfectunion.us/
Follow us on Twitter: / moreperfectus
Instagram: / perfectunion
Facebook: / moreperfunion
The fact that 3% rent increase is too low but a 3% raise for a wage is considered a good raise explains so much.
Also they keep saying rent control is going to cause landlords to always raise 3% as if they dont do 3% or more a lot of times already.
because the gap is grossly large and off kilter. if it were 30 yrs ago I'd say you have a point, not in 2022.
@@jaad9848 Yeah, and property tax, insurance, maintenance, etc. don't cost a cent. Profound thinking!
Ok. I could get behind a 3% increase cap if taxes are capped at 3% and insurance is capped at 3% as well
A 3 %wage increase on just $20 per hr is $24 per week or around $100/ month. Sometimes rents may not increase for multiple years, or a decade or more depending.
Crazy how we live in a country where your landlord can decide to raise your rent by a couple hundred dollars while you barely get a raise from your employer, which is just a couple of dollars.
You mean a couple of cents.
@@ericspwncer1274 yeah you’re right.
It's a feature not a bug.
Every time I think about the last Federal minimum wage increase happened when my son was born. He's about to start high school and is old enough to get his first job. Like, there has got to be a massive minimum wage hike at the federal level and that needs to be louder in the conversation from whoever is running for 2024 seats. Wage hikes, rent caps, food caps... If the owners of all those buildings and the supply chains are worried about being able to cover cost, time for them to use their own billions to cover those costs rather than hiking up prices.
Crazy a minimum wage earner can earn more than a ceo if they buy a property at the right time
If the city can cap rents, then the county should cap property tax.
Yes
Nobody is asking for a rent cap, they are asking to not be fucked over by greedy soulless entities like blackstone. I am sorry that you as a home owner do not have people who can screw you over, like blackstone can.
In Copenhagen Blackstone bought up 2% of all private housing in 2019, and their units doubled or tripled in rent. How did they do it? They offered people around 37 thousand dollars to move out of their apartments. Imagine being able to profit after renovation and throwing 37000$ at people to make them move. Why do they need to move? Because they can't increase the rent as much as they want as long as people live in the apartment, and they need to renovate the place before they can increase the rent at all. So why 37000$? Because it is a "low amount". If people actually took the money then they would not be able to find a new apartment in Copenhagen somewhere else, because the market is crazy.
Let me ask you, when were your monthly costs for housing increased by 100-200% ow never. Lucky you!
Dream on!!! (I agree with you but here in central Florida it's a fantasy)
But they won’t because Federalist Society appointees will ensure that giant corporations continue to receive windfall tax breaks instead, which is the reason why federal tax revenues remain so low. Not the only reason, but this is a big contributor.
We need to get rid of property taxes and supplement them with lvt's
Abolish renting for big corporations. Incentivize individual ownership. Cap individual landlords to own and rent so many properties.
In 10 years, my rent has increased from $700 per month to $1700 for the same apartment, same appliances, and same everything. That's about 10% per year in rent increases with no value added.
@Orange Green thanks for the terrible advise. My apartment is the cheapest in a two hour radius.
I wouldn't doubt that the largest chunk of the raised rent happened over the past 3 years?
@@lucassteinruck6986 Correct. I had a year of no increases, and the two others had a significantly larger increases. I got my only break in 2020 cause the pandemic meant the landlord wasnt getting money from all their tenents, but I had a pandemic proof job which so my LL wanted to ensure I would not leave as they needed the consistent cash.
@@user-hu3nt3ls4rit's increasing everywhere though
So what?
As a St. Paul resident, my landlord was only able to raise my rent by $30 June 1st thanks to the new legislation. Them being able to raise rent by whatever price they want would be impossible for people to afford staying due to wages being stagnant..
I hope you didn't like having maintenance done on your apartment because if they cannot increase revenue they cut costs
@@scottmolnar4132 9:20
Rent control results in landlords selling their rental properties resulting in lower inventory. New development will shrink considerably further worsening supply. For those who are renters now, it's happy days temporarily. For future renters, it will be hell trying to find a rental property. Enacting laws to discourage availability of affordable homes verges on mindlessness.
@@AS-rx3yk landlords probably won’t sell because people won’t buy, so they let the property fall into disrepair until eventually the property burns down and the landlord gets insurance money to build somewhere else
@@AS-rx3yk Umm if they sell the house didn't go away. Selling doesn't affect inventory.
The real problem is us living in a broken culture of greed that convinces us charging as much as possible is always right.
This is the on the ground reporting the mainstream absolutely neglects. What a valuable channel, thank you for all you do.
No, rent control is a fucking stupid idea
There are so many things wrong in this video and it also doesn't prove anything. It just suppose to get you on their side and sympathize, which I do. However the narrator acknowledges that this bill is the first of it's kind and that there is not enough research to know what this will do to new development, at the same time complaining that divestment and fleeing business played a negative role in the cities economy. This video is well directed but it doesn't have a leg to stand on and the people being interviewed are not qualified to make definitive statements in regard to the implications of price ceilings
I get it you, and these people are good people and want the best for humanity but they don't understand basic economics, and the road to hell is paved with good intentions
@@programking655 yeah stopping people from being priced out and becoming homeless is so awful
@@jacobnapkins1155 It is when it creates a shortage of rental units and the rent controlled units deteriorate because landlords don’t do repairs. It is when landlords start discriminating based on factors other than money when they can’t raise their prices.
@@programking655 no they won't the landlord will just sell rather than losing money great for people who actually work for a living who want to own homes and great for working people who don't want to be put out onto the streets due to rent increases
This video uses terms interchangeably that don't mean the same thing.
"Rent Control" and "Rent Stabilization" are not the same thing. The bill passed, the first of its kind as the video states, is "rent stabilization" -- it limits the rate of rent increase. Landlords are STILL allowed to raise rents, just not by a certain amount.
"Rent Control" is when a hard limit is placed on the price of rent, above which landlords are not allowed to raise rent. The broad consensus among economists is that rent control stifles supply within rent-controlled localities. You could make the argument "actually, there's nothing about rent control that prevents landlords and developers from building new housing!" and you'd be technically correct. It's true, developers won't stop building housing... they'll just build the housing somewhere outside the rent-controlled city, i.e., the suburbs and exurbs. This means housing is pushed further and further away from places of work and existing neighborhoods. This means housing sprawls and sprawls and more families are forced into car dependency in order to get to work.
This video lumps both "rent control" and "rent stabilization" together under the umbrella term "rent regulation", then proceeds to say that everything bad said about "rent control" is false because "rent regulations" are shown to keep people in their homes. You see the verbal gymnastics going on here? Watch the video again and note how the narrator hops between these three terms without defining each separately.
The video also uses "St. Paul", "Minneapolis", and "The Twin Cities" interchangeably, even though the rent stabilization in question only applies to St. Paul, not to Minneapolis. They're two adjacent but separate cities. While hopping back-and-forth between talking about St. Paul and Minneapolis, the video glosses over the fact that the rent stabilization was next to useless at 9:20 because the raise cap was 3% but without rent control rent would not have gone up by that much anyway.
The most egregious omission in this video is the fact that Minneapolis (remember, the city opposite of rent-stabilized St. Paul) has seen RENT GO DOWN by hundreds of dollars this year. There's no mention about how five years ago Minneapolis (not St. Paul) abolished single-family zoning. and have been building thousands and thousands of units each of the last 5 years, making Minneapolis the only city in the country where market rate rent is going down WITHOUT RENT CONTROL. In a video about preventing displacement from gentrification, why was there no mention of this?????
I wanted to like this video -- all the families and activists seem like genuine people who worked really hard for their city. Even though I don't like rent control, I do like rent stabilization, so I can appreciate the work the activists were doing. And the production quality of the video was great. But sadly, I'm giving it a dislike because of the terrible writing. I dislike this video because people are probably going to watch it and come away more ignorant and misinformed than they were before watching this video.
well written, good comment dude.
Spot on commentary. I’m with you on rent stabilization and abolishing single family zones. I also feel there needs to be better public housing that could help increase supply and lower prices.
Hey Hexel I wanted to respond to your comments as the producer of this video. I agree with you that we should have differentiated between different types of rent regulation: rent control and stabilization...the bill in St. Paul was about stabilization and the study done by UMN and the University of California were both studying rent stabilization NOT rent control. I do think it's important to say that rent controlled buildings are almost universally a thing of the past. True rent control only existed briefly after WWII and then on a more limited basis in the 1970s in some cities when inflation was high and then was almost entirely decontrolled in the next decade. New York, for instance, has fewer than 40,000 rent controlled units out of millions of units. Second, we say Twin Cities when specifically looking at studies that included both cities, like the study on the racial home ownership gap in both Minneapolis and St. Paul. The UMN study of rent stabilization looked at Minneapolis but the activists applied the same suggested rate of stabilization for St. Paul --CPI + 3%. As we say in the video, this bill is truly meant to prevent predatory behavior and GOUGING which is why they based the stabilization on what would allow for reasonable return for landlords and based it on the amount most landlords were already raising the rent annually. So it isn't accurate to say that rent stabilization is "useless" because it would protect poorer residents who are more likely to see egregious rent hikes and predatory behavior from landlords. The bill ALSO has carve-outs for landlords when they do renovations and other improvements which we should have mentioned. Third, the study we include about SF looks at a city that both has very strict zoning that prevents new building AND has had laws that gradually decontrolled units. New York has the same problem--NYC has lost many stabilized units (and as I mentioned, rent controlled units) because of laws that allow decontrol. The St. Paul bill is universal in order to prevent decontrol. I also agree with you we would have liked to have looked closer at the impacts of the repeal of single family zoning in Minneapolis, which are inconclusive, but the ability to build more housing, with a certain percentage of affordable units or ideally building public housing is very important for reducing housing costs which is what the Minneapolis laws allowed. There's been a lot written about that, I included one from politico below! Rent stabilization is meant to prevent displacement. Other policies, as we say in the video, are needed to reduce housing costs. Stay tuned for that video! Thanks for your comments. Here's a littl more about the laws in Minneapolis specifically: minneapolis2040.com/policies/access-to-housing/ and here's the study on rent stabilization in Minneapolis that activists in St. Paul (and current activists in Minneapolis pushing for a similar bill) used www.cura.umn.edu/research/minneapolis-rent-stabilization-study www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/07/11/housing-crisis-single-family-homes-policy-227265/
@@brookedarrah informative response. thanks
@@kevinstfort that’s insane! You only say that because it isn’t your property being affected. What if you purchased a single family home and You lived there for five years creating equity and all the sudden conglomerates have decided to start buying up the neighborhood and dumping in AUD’s and flipping houses to building them into condominiums?
They’ve in essence screwed you and you can’t even get out of the neighborhood.
I believe the underline reason in Minneapolis that this worked is because it became a dump. In San Diego this is not working and it’s destroying single-family home neighborhoods. Rent has NOT gone down.
I think the real lesson here is Don’t use “one” case study and assume it applies to everywhere.
Where’s the debunk? St Paul’s development has indeed decreased. Stopping ‘gentrification’ means these places fall into disrepair.
i know I'm waiting the whole video for them to do the debunking instead I'm hearing about families in the 60s
Gotta pay attention
Landlord: If I can't raise your rent by it more than 3% of a year then I won't be able to reinvest in fixing up the place and making it better
The place: hasn't had the landlord do any of the things that they were supposed to, person pays out of pocket to fix it themselves
Our landlord poured rocks over the dying grass and called it an "upgrade."
Now all those rocks are in the parking lot and we roll over them with our cars and it's just annoying.
They also painted all the buildings white (horrible idea it'll just get dirty and gross looking) when they used to be a beautiful natural brick. idiots.
And since this all took place, our rent has gone up by about $150 in 2 years.
Greedy people never cease to amaze me.
You must have forgot about the tear you lefties didn't pay rent.
Noticed how they focused in on bigger property management companies. They say nothing about families in the next tier that own a single property. Inflation goes up, but there's nothing they can do to finance repairs, upgrades or quality of life for their tenants.
The very short clip in this video is very true about burning down rent controlled apartment buildings. I am from NY and saw this with my own eyes. The landlord's would burn the buildings and collect the insurance money because they could not raise the rent. This was an epidemic back in the 1970s and the 1980s. The buildings are all old decrepit falling apart and in dire need of repair and the landlords did not have the money to fix them.
'The buildings are all old decrepit falling apart and in dire need of repair and the landlords did not have the money to fix them.' As a result of years of neglect. Slum landlords are happy to take the rent money in exchange for poor quality accommodation. Maintain your property on a regular basis and it won't become a problem down the line.
Arson is illegal. There are laws in the books against that.
Also low income housing also means higher crime and more undesirables, which leads to home value to decrease...so nobody would want to invest in those places or buy those houses. This video hasnt debunked any of the important questions and instead bids for emotional impact instead. There are real rational reasons behind this that are not being discussed
@@sew_gal7340 You really think the causality works in that direction :facepalm:
@@eattherich9215 The buildings are old and decrepit because tenants are usually behind in their rent and the taxes and insurance charges keep rising. And with low rent, landlords could not afford to fix them. Parasite tenants should be deprived of housing. Better to burn the house down than be sucked out of your blood life by greedy, parasitic tenants.
My rent just increased by $348-- per month due to market value. What do I receive?????? NOTHING.
Market value increased because more people are looking for fewer apartments. NO ONE will put up a building and all the costs associated with that if they can't charge rents to make up their costs. So they don't build, and those who have apartments watch their units rise in value.
And you hear excuses from free market apologists
@@Boris80b it's not a free market. Local government tightly restricts what type of housing (if any) can be built where....and that's just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the regulations that apply to housing.
I love these excuses like "local government"
@@Boris80b Reality is not an excuse. Supply and demand is simple fact. So if you restrict making profit on rentals, fewer people build new units OR improve units. If you artificially lower the amount you can charge on some units, the other units will rise in value. In any business, new businesses under cut the prices of existing businesses or offer a better product. That doesn't happen when gov't changes the playing field. So for instance, in Oakland where they allow (some might say encourage) shoplifting, NO ONE will open up a retail store. You can't turn a profit you don't open a business
This video relied heavily on the study conducted by the college of Minneapolis & St. Paul.
1. It is a weak argument to say that because you observed on average about 2-5% yearly rent increase from 2000- now that rent control set at 3% is not likely to reduce Landlord's profits by much. Why a sample size of only 20 years? Does that factor in the increased cost of development, or the crazy amount of inflation since 2020?
2. The claim that rent stabilization will not affect rhe rate of new development. The study looked at cities that exempted new construction from rent stabilization, and said this bill by Minneapolis is the first of its kind.
3. The idea that landlords want profit = evil, or Landlords price their units higher than the local population can afford= evil. Literally the community activists all chararcterize landlords wanting to raise prices higher than 3%, or that are against this measure as "predatory". Any warnings of actions landlords and property developers may take is are framed as "threats".
4. Gentrification. Saying that the city reinvesting in newer construction, and trying to attract higher income residents is racist, or clasist. This video specifically cites construction of the US highway system and how that displaced a lot of black people. The city needs net tax payers, and can not function of of dreams and socialism. Richer residents moving to Suburbs kind of left a vaccuum.
Overall, this is a policy doomed to fail. This is like trying to hold onto a handful of dry sand: the harder you clench your fist, the faster sand escapes until your hand is empty. New York commercial, and residential is an absolute dumpster fire of inflated prices and poor quality. The community organizers in this video may have won the battle temporarily, but in less than 15 years, most of the poorer residents in the city will have to move away anyways because of the economic reality of trying to live by yourself in the city nowadays. Want to avoid being priced out of a home? Form strong bonds with your friends and family, and don't become overly attached to living in the same area code for the rest of your life. Notice how often the anecdotal examples of beneficiaries of rent control are single mothers/ single-income individuals? Notice how this think piece completely ignores what happens after higher-income residents move into the gentrified city? ( the gentrified portion is better to live in than the surrounding non-gentrified portion) No matter your politics, or religious beliefs, strong, in-person human connections are needed now more than ever.
A lot of young adults want to move out of their parent's house at 18, and make it on their own in the big city. A lot of people in poorer communities are afraid to explore what life has to offer outside of city living. 4 or 5 generations may have rented in the same place forever. Maybe it's time for a lot of lower-income city dwellers to seriously consider a new lifestyle, and try to build a community where they could actually own their property eventually? Ever heard of homesteading, or living out of a trailer?
Displacement does not equal death. Landlords losing profit does not equal death either, but eroding the limitations slowly, over time of how the government can influence the economy will have widereaching, unpredictable consequences. In the case of an individual being displaced, individual community members could easily help them out. In the case ofthe government gambling in the economy, once the city's money runs out if the State government does not bail them out, then everyone gets displaced anyways. When those "greedy, rich people" are no longer able to provide the services, noone wins.
Fight for rent control. Get mad at how corporations manipulate housing prices. Do whatever you want. All I know is it is not saving those Black communities, and you are foolish if you are a single-income person who insists on living in a city where you are a few, bad economic decisions away from being homeless. If you need everyone else to fund your economic decisions and cushion the economic consequences for you to maintain your situation, then are you not forcing your decisions on everyone else in a way? Is it not in everyone else's self interest to look out for themselves and ignore your needs at that point? Since this conversation already devolved into "fuck those landlords; they're greedy, and we need the government to hold them accountable" why should landlords care if poorer residents don't have homes? that goodwill will not erase the economic conditions leading to the price increases. Their concerns are ignored anyways because there will always be more poor people than rich people in any population.They will be outvoted, and have to take individual action because "Minority Rights" are no longer prioritized in the US government.
"Ever heard of homesteading, or living out of a trailer?" Please eludicate the public on how poor people who live paycheck-to-paycheck in the city are supposed to afford a trailer and/or homestead, afford the fiscal burden of moving across the country without subsidization, etc.. Also tf you mean "build a community where they could actually own their own property"? To own property, one must buy property--which is horrifically expensive and unaffordable for 'city dwellers'. Something tells me you're either financially-set or you don't live in a city.
There is rent control, then there should be price control for at least hydro, water, gas, property tax and interest rates.
💯💯👍👍💯💯👍👍
yes! yes! yes! more control! more control! more control!
Never happen
2:58 Rent Control is a Price Ceiling, not a Price Floor.
@Lind Morn it's sad that so many people look at such videos to confirm what they already want to believe, and end up promoting policies that will lead to more poverty and poorer lives.
It’s also a miss-allocation of finite resources where it encourages people to take up extra bedrooms and space even after their life circumstances change which prevents new people from being able to move in and afford the housing stock because any new stock is raised due to the shortage. I.E New York.
Problem with America is they don’t know how to get their government to build housing directly for the lower classes
@@ausboy2281 I agree with the first para of your reply. Your second para took me by surprise. I don't believe government should be involved in housing at all, just as it shouldn't be involved with any other goods/service. Eliminating rent control and other zoning/housing regulations is enough to create affordable housing. Rest of the indirect improvements would come from more economic freedom in other interconnected areas of the economy.
@@YashArya01 eliminating rent control and zoning would solve the artificial crisis for the vast majority of people (looking at Japan as a great example) however there will always be a portion of society where the market can’t service their needs due to their low income not being sufficient enough for them to find somewhere to live. (The jobless, elderly, disabled etc etc)
Everyone should have a place to stay
@@ausboy2281 well, I too would like to see everyone have a home. Even so, I'd say:
1. Morally, misfortune is not a claim to slave labor. Those unfortunate enough to need help do not have the right to coerce those whose help they depend on.
2. Practically, we would first need to know how many people fall under that category once we have higher economic freedom and therefore higher prosperity. I'd say the number would be quite small, and the productive people would be much wealthier to be able to look out for those genuinely in need for no fault of their own through voluntary generosity.
3. I suspect public housing will come with its own moral hazards and other unintended consequences.
The rent is out control. I feel bad for low income people. I rent out a house for 30% less than I could get. But my tenants are great and take care of my house, which is why I charge less rent.
They can share space, or move to a cheap midwest city
@@seventhcompactor1505 or just explain how they are a victim, and it is not their fault
The problem with this comes when taxes and insurance cost start rising faster then the landlord can increase rent due to the 3% cap.
My insurance jumped 12% this year and county taxes 8%
due to "inflation" but if i was capped at 3% i would be forced to sell the house vs keep renting it. I simply wouldnt pay the mortgage.
There are 2 sides to the story. We have to look at the insurance companies and regulate their cost also. Property taxes are also ridiculous. Not all landlords are rich and have the same situations.
Wow, almost like it's a bad idea to get a mortgage to play landlord. Other people should not be responsible for your poor financial decisions.
Then your place gets repoed
@mericanmodi8479 "I can't afford my second absentee mortgage unless I force someone else to pay for it, but also it's still other people's fault if they can't afford to buy it for me."
@mericanmodi8479 Lmao are you even literate? I said "someone." If I leave, then someone else is forced to pay. If they leave, someone other than them is forced to pay, and so on. That is how rent-seeking works by definition, because if the landlord were paying for it themselves, it *categorically* wouldn't be rent. You're in denial of reality.
You even implicitly admit this when you say, "go rent elsewhere." Like, that's still being forced to rent from *someone*, dipshit. Landlords have the entire backing of the state and police behind them; whether or not you think it's justified, THAT IS FORCEFUL. Obviously. What, are you 12?
Love that excuse. If you put a cap on rent then landlords can't afford to renovate. Anyone who's lived in a cheap apt. knows that they don't renovate in cities where there are no caps anyways!
I sense someone that does not save money, isn’t buying property and has great excuses.
lmao I love that she's showing how high rents are a problem meanwhile Rent Control is causing the high rents.
I was looking for something that was a strong argument FOR rent control / stabilization. However this WAS NOT it. While the personal stories are important, they do not address the economic arguments around RC/RS. If someone has a life event that causes financial hardship, there should be social programs that steps in, but that should NOT be addressed by RC/RS.
RC/RS does cause a shrinking of the rental pool, and a lowering of rental property quality. There are several proven economic factors for that, and too many examples in the US to support this. There is nothing in this video to viably support a counter argument. The reason that RC/RS tends to get interest and bills are passed is because of these kinds of social stories, but not economic reality. More people understand the former rather than the later, and people = votes.
So far I have only heard of ONE example where RC/RS worked. That is in Austria, but technically this wasn't RC/RS that worked. RC/RS was used as a vehicle for the city of Vienna to buy up properties from former landlords after poisoning the rental market. Once they crashed the rental market with RC/RS, they were able to step in. The city effectively became a socially motivated monopoly landlord, and sets rents based on a balance of overall need, and induvial circumstance. It is the only example where property quality did not decline, because the city itself guaranteed it's maintenance in a zero-profit model. I would be interested if anyone has another positive example.
The "Vienna" model is unlikely to get any traction in the US since it requires both a very strong socialist mentality, and a city with a lot of money to buy the properties. As far as I know neither of those exist here.
I believe the closest we could hope to get in the US would be a significant expansion of well-targeted Section8 vouchers, or a local property tax increase that was then directed to building city-owned housing for those with low means, and/or high needs. Since these really do target the REAL problem which is the supply of housing. RC/RS has shown many times that is does the exact opposite and reduces that supply.
There is one big thing many forget and that is that a shrinkage of the rental pool is not a bad thing because most of those buildings are just sold off instead. Rather people are renting homes or buying them is irrelevant.
The Vienna model also happened for a different reason which is WW1 as the Habsburg empire fell apart and Germans from all over the empire fled the now independent regions and flooded Vienna. Also when the social housing project began Austria had next to no money at all having been crushed in the war. If anything though it shows how it's political will rather than finance that determines projects like that.
Berlin recently implimented a rent control system to great success. They tied the maximum rent to the value of the building to encourage maintanance and they cleverly exempted new buildings from the rental controls. This let to a mass construction of new rental homes and a sell-off of the old ones. However even though the new rental homes were not tied to the rental controls the existing rental homes being tied down still meant they were cheaper than the original rents before the policy. On top of that the massive sell-off of houses and the increase in amount of total houses meant house prices itself also dropped.
@@MrMarinus18 A lot of building pulled from rental market actually sit vacant and dilapidated. Not those owned by individuals, mind you, individuals can't afford the write off. But lots of LLC do it, especially if it was leveraged purcahse so they can actuallly just write it off and declare bankruptcy eventually. Sometimes the building sits so long that it become unsuitable/unsafe for habitation so they should, by right, be redeveloped. But no one wants to put in the money to do that and a lot of time the zoning code etc are too difficult to work with.
What you say, that is to say being sold off, do happen. But there is actually a shrinkage of active housing as well.
@@justanoman6497 Okay, what's the best way to solve that?
Maybe a squatting right could work? Or the maybe a project where the local government buys up vacant housing to use as social housing. You could also put in fines for having empty housing.
@@justanoman6497 One way you can solve it also is via property taxes. That you have to pay property taxes even on empty buildings which would provide a strong incentive to make use of it.
The problem you are mentioning is real but it's not an argument not to do it. It's just a problem that has to be solved. I think maybe a combination would be best of a higher property tax for empty buildings and maybe a government program that you can sell houses to that you no longer want. That you can sell it to the government with no questions asked other than if it's structurally sound and for like 80% the market price. That 20% loss is cause the government will handle all the paperwork, regulations, zoning and so on for you.
Then it can use those houses for a public housing project.
@@MrMarinus18 First and foremost, you can't assume there is a way to solve it. For most real world problem, there aren't--there are only ever ways to mitigate it(in some cases, not even that, but I do believe there are here).
Squatting right is a horrible thing to suggest. I think what you are thinking of is adverse possession which is not the same thing. The two are often confused. AP is already present in all states I believe, as it was inherited from common law.
Buying up the housing by the goverment for social housing would be a way to mitigate it. But this is really hard to get off the ground due to budget and NIBY issues. Further, you have signifcantly underestimated the government's ability to waste money. 20% won't be enough. That said, ultimately having an out of pocket exceeding 100% is potentially better than the alternative.
The "property tax" solution is already in effect and haven't solved it. The issue here is that the property is to be written off after squeezing out equity via leverages by the LLC. So they don't care if the property end up being upsidedown one way or another.
A fine for empty housing would be in a simlar vein, a small encouragement to utilize to be sure, but marginal due to the intented end result. It would also face applicational problems. Some people have vacation or ancestral home etc that sits empty most if not all the time, would they be hit with the fine too? What about housing that is almost but not quite ready to be lived in held up by some governmental process? Determining when to leverage the fine could be quite tricky.
Another long term, albeit slow, mitigation measure is make it so that non-person entities can't buy residential housing. As noted, most "people" can't afford to just write property off like that, it's only the LLC that have ways to dodge the consequence that do it. Those entites should still be allowed to build-to-own, because extra housing created in any way and form is good, but no longer buy so there won't be a potential drain as a consequence of whatever. But even this have problems. Regardless of your opinion of them, there are companies that act as brokage/middle man--buy up housing to then sell to others. This allows those who need to make a quick and easy sale for whatever reason to do so. So such preventative law would either kill this or have to open a loophole that might be abused. There might be other use cases that I'm not thinking of off the top of my head.
So yes, there are mitigation measures. But each of them tend to either have their own problems or face opposition one way or another. "Just a problem that has to be solved" is a rather dismissive attuide toward it. It's a lot harder than you might think. Ultimately, whether to do something will likely come down to a balancing act between the pro and the con(the con being how many and frequent problems arise and the cost of mitigation).
I know properties all over the city I live in that will ask for 2000+ USD per month for a one bedroom, one kitchen flat that haven't had a tenant in a decade or more. I know folks that were willing to pay these extortion prices for a flat, where the landlord mysteriously went silent or suddenly found another tenant when they mentioned the partner that will be living with them is either of the same gender, is transgender, or goes by a non-binary pronoun.
Landlords are parasites on society that will lie through their teeth if it means they can raise their profits or keeping a minority group from their properties.
This. If landlords were genuinely struggling for money they'd have their units full. It's like the wage issue - They decry "Nobody wants to work," and leave out the "for what we want to pay" bit at the end.
I am not happy with some of the Trans stuff(in schools) but a person should be able to live with whoever they want to,and to live WHERE they want to.What you do in your private life and how you dress is nobody's business.
building more apartments wont reduce rent..wanna know why, cause building nothing but luxury apartments priced more than the average mortgage is just gonna make people not want move into those apartments..then all you get is a bunch of expensively built half empty complexes/buildings
wrong. todays new housing is tomorrows older and cheaper housing. Every brand new building entices somebody to move from an older unit. This is trickle down that does actually work and has been proven so.
I think a decent amount of people think landlords are individuals. In florida, lot of complexes are ran by property management who prioritize shareholder dividends. Many are like renting from a buy here pay here, slap a pretty bandaid on it until someone signs a contract.
True.
Those that are RUN by big companies will increase because they can afford the increased taxes, insurance, building regulations.
When government passes laws to protect poor, it hurts the middle class and will eventually profit the elite.
If there was a price control on food, the only shops that would stay in business would be big supermarkets. Because supermarkets run on vastly smaller margins, the local shops.
Yep. Too many justifications for greed.
@@Boris80b I am sure a lot of these companies are over leveraged. When the interest rates go up, it gets ugly.
"Over leveraged" often isn't the whole story.
Lol, ok then, feel free to advocate an idiotic policy that the entire economics profession has agreed is horrible since the late 1800s.
“rent control appears to be the most efficient technique presently known to destroy a city-except for bombing” - Assar Lindek, a Swedish socialist economist
Not even 5 months after it passed - the law was overhauled. Why? Well- new construction was halted and nobody could get financing to build housing. Unintended consequences when you put in price controls. St. Paul will have housing permits-just in the form of luxury housing.
Great point!
uhmm, I don't think this is the place to be stating actual facts. You are to just say landlord evil ... 🤷♀because.
Sure the title has "...Debunking Your Landlord's Myths", how many facts were in this video to debunk anything? It's a bunch of feel sad and we are sticking it to the greedy landlords.
So, pack up your documented facts and get da steppin' on this side of the interwebs, we echo our feelz and not facts.
Where's the sarcasm button? 🤔
Wrong they still have rent control they just added an 8% amendment Oregon has rent control to and it's much cheaper there than it's neighbor to the north where rent control is illegal
@@jacobnapkins1155 Oh, so they made the limit irrelevant thus invalidating the law? You do understand that an 8% growth rate means that the rent would _double_ about every 9 years, right? Has rent doubled in this city over the preceding 9 years? No.
I live in a city that has been rent controlled since the 70s. Building in the city has basically stopped. Rent is at $3-4k for a 500 ft "one-bedroom" apartment. A ton of the old housing stock has been either literally sitting empty or been cut up for condos.
Rent control is a blunt axe. If you want to do surgery on your rent prices you either need much much more precise tools or you need to just address the core problem. Now tell me, would your landlord be able to raise your rent if the brand new building across the street had a larger unit with hardwood floors, a pool, a fitness center, and a rooftop with grills and a hotub?
Rent control is a typical do-gooder idea that sounds good on paper but is a disaster in practice. Anyone who actually lives in a rent controlled city will tell you this.
@@jacobnapkins1155 yep
The landlord has to pay mortgage, insurance, maintenance, real estate taxes & other expenses. When expenses rise at 10%, a 3% rental increase will result in no more rental housing built, no improvements--just look at San Francisco.
Excuses
@@Boris80bvictim alert at Boris o’clock
Our rent in 2020 was 761.00 now it is 1255.00. No updates, same early 2004 he appliances, can’t paint, can’t have a business in apt, no change in income, and we live upstairs
If it’s not worth it, please move.
Threatening future profits for housing suppliers WILL cause them to shy away from supplying more housing. I am correct?
Rent control always results in lower supply in housing and lower supply of housing always results in higher rent
sources please
Maybe housing shouldn't be a commodity...
@@hunnybadger442 so we should enslave people to build and produce housing they have no stake in? Or should people just be homeless cause those are your only two options
@@hunnybadger442 who is going to bust their balls, buy all the materials and spend their time to build the house you want to live in when there is nothing in it for them?
@@Luiiciano how do we have roads?
The 3% cap is still too much of a yearly increase for many. For example 3% of $1800 monthly rent is $54, so in two years your already paying about $110 a month more. Income is not keeping up with these increases and with the inflation in general. More has to be done. We have to challenge the idea of housing as a commodity and think of housing as a basic human right.
right or not, somebody has to produce it, maintain it, and for rentals, manage it. Costs of doing that go up along with everything else. Recent inflation has been more than 3%. Capping rent increases at 3% then means forcing housing providers to accept less every year for doing the same work at greater expense. That is not sustainable and we all know it. Keep it up too long without any way out and eventually you get the bronx in the 1970's. If your wage isn't increasing enough to keep up with a 3% rent increase, (which BTW could be entirely paid for with a 1% raise if you work full time) then upskill or take another job, or move, or get a roommate. There are options.
.....how does running a highway through a black neighborhood in the 60s have anything to do with debunking rent control?
9:10 Not so fun fact, basically no cities or states in the US keep track of which houses are currently occupied, who owns them, or requires real names for owners. Simply asking the local water+electric utility to find out which houses are drawing water+electricity to attempt to find this out is considered a massive overreach into corporate private knowledge. The US census also doesn't publish a list of which addresses they've knocked on, and the 2010 census had a 22% self reported non response rate, and the 2020 census is largely considered terrible and borderline nonusable because the Trump admin ended it a month early, explicitly went after immigrant groups with harassment and generally completed the already poor process worse than normal.
Actually in most areas it is really easy to find out who the owner of a property is, just go to the county appraisers page and do a property search. Most counties have one, but I am too lazy to look at all the counties in the US to verify it for all of them. You can also find if the taxes are being paid or not, ones that are behind are often vacant.
Landlords wants rent to pay their mortgage if no rent coming up no mortgage is paid … Meaning the bank will take over the apartment complex and the landlord will be homeless too .
Tell the landlord not to leverage enverone else's money to the hilt...
If you're relying on tenants to pay you in rent to pay off the mortgage, is it not them who paid the mortgage off? Why should you be entitled to keep the property if you paid for it with money given to you by other people who got nothing in return?
@@sonic8005
Nothing in return !!!!
The landlord is giving people apartments to live in lol
@@Solidsnake999 how much do they have to pay you to keep it? How much in rent?
If you can evict them at any time and they have nothing to show for it then everything I said was correct
@@sonic8005Bank will evict you 😂
Rent control goes against the principal of a free economy. Income property owners are the only industry where there is price controls. Rent control limits the desire to build apartment units. Less units creates more demand, which thereby escalates rents. Every economist will cite this principal. Study after study shows that where there are jurisdictions with rent control create higher rents. The market should determine the rental value.
price controls have never worked and always raise prices and lower quality. price controls is literally rent control.
nah
What happens when inflation exceeds 3%? What happens when property taxes go up over 3%? This is effectively the same as income control...what if the government said you could never go up more than 3% in your income even if they raised your taxes by 5%. Even if you got a promotion your stuck at 3% and with higher taxes now your making less overall. Rent is someone's income and when the expenses aren't regulated then who will buy or build there? What should be going on is passing laws that prevent the government from spending too much and laws that prevent them from raising taxes.
Maybe landlords should just be transparent with Tenants. If they are losing money on a property, show them the justification for the rent increase. A reasonable tenant should be able to understand that you are providing a place to live, but if it costs you money to have a person live there and to own the property with not profitable income, then you cannot keep the property. However, I can guarantee that if you don't feel comfortable showing them that you are making a massive profit on their rent, they are not going to be ok with a rent increase just because you are greedy. Rightly so. If you are making a significant profit, you should have not reason to raise rent or you are just being a greedy asshole.
@@finalfant111 I’m in your camp but can you make an argument without the name calling?
@@finalfant111 You dont get to control what someone chooses to charge FOR THEIR PROPERTY...that is the mindset that is wrong with this culture. That house belongs to someone much like a car or a jacket. You are borrowing it to use, you dont get to dictate the rules...otherwise go buy one yourself.
@@finalfant111 Yep! Gotta love it when someone comes up with a brilliant response that says that we "don't get to control what someone else charges for their property", as if that's some kind of "gotcha" argument. Others also don't get to tell us how we should feel about unnecessary greed.
posts like yours you never quantify how much profit is greed. is a 10% profit on rent after ALL expenses, taxes, and maintenance (long and short term) budget greedy? 1% profit? 10% profit on a $1000 rent means landlord earns $1200 a year for everything they are obligated to do and all risks they assume so which tenants don't have to worry about.@@finalfant111 So to earn US median wage equivalent with 10% profit margin with $1000 units would need to manage more than 40 apartments. I can tell you right now thats way more work than a 40 hour job.
Good vid! Keep it up!
No, this is a stupid video
so so glad i found your channel
Here in NYC they built a bunch of luxury apartments and many of them sit empty because most people can afford it. The problem is mismanagement and greed.
These things happen because of government interference. Nobody makes a house not to live in. No animal would not do that. It cost 1%4% cost of the home in maintenance costs.
@@reverendbluejeans1748 it literally is the reality. These homes sit empty as they are much less like a place to live and more like an investment.
@@sonic8005 Sure it is. A worse example is china which has ghost cities. The CCP created this issue.
They are an investment. My neighborhood has changed from Norwegians to chinese. China didn't have a recession in 2009 so because they don't trust their own government they need somewhere to park their money. If they can they get tenants but if they don't letting the building set is still gaining them profit because it's going up in every year
In value
This was really great.
Thank you again for putting such effort in simply explaining such things.
Except that they're wrong. Rent control does end up making fewer rental units available. The problem is that tenants want maintenance and updates made to properties while making landlords pay for it all, even though the rents can't cover the costs.
@@kimmieb2u maybe if it's so hard to make money as a landlord they should do a different business.
@@kimmieb2u it encourages some landlords to sell which is good for first time buyers it also caps rent and let's people keep more of their money nothing wrong with that we need rent control
@@politicallynonbinary Exactly why they're selling.
@@marietta1335 good nothing wrong with owner occupied homes used to be the norm before landlords scalped all the houses
This is absurd. So no matter how high the inflation, no matter what the demand, the owner is supposed to... Subsidize you?
Yes. Hand them all the money so they don't have to work any harder. If you don't hand over money for nothing, YOU are the greedy one.
@@nonenone769 you don't get it. I'm not letting someone live with me for free. It's an annoyance and a literal loss of money because it costs to house people. Nobody will let you live in their house at their cost. Would you pay for someone to live in your house, use your stuff and so on? You're literally asking people to pay to house you.
If the owner dosnt think they can make money then they can invest in something else...the corporate landlords are the biggest offenders and there will be pleanty of people willing to make bank instead of hand over fist to replace them.
Finally, nice to see someone with common sense in this comment section.
Firstly, the moral issue is that there should be no rent control cause it infringes upon the property rights of the owner.
Secondly, they ignore the fact that their rent control amount is less than inflation. A better system would be X percentage + inflation, though that system would still be wrong because the core idea of rent control is fundamentally wrong. There is no right way to do rent control because rent control is wrong.
@@WitchMedusa rent is wrong. Housing is a human right. We have the resources to prevent anyone from being homeless and dying of hunger, and I will never let the greed of the few get in the way of that.
Y’all know rent control fucks over renters that don’t benefit from rent control. Landlords jack up the price to new tenants to price in future rent increase caps.
Logic has no place in a discussion about rent control. Landlord bad, tenant victim.
If tenants were that rich to pay high rents then they would just get a house already instead of being tenants.
Being a tenants is mostly for poor people. It's gross how some people exploit poor people.
Rent control would get these hedgefund owners out of the realestate biz and enable more individuals to buy houses at a reasonable rate. People used to buy a house or two and rent it out for retirement income. Now hedgefunds throw money at housing like they printed it themselves. Soon no city will be affordable for anyone making less than a tenured doctor or successful lawyer.
It's private equity firms not hedge funds...
No, get the govt out of the real estate biz. Look at the Milton Friedman video referenced and you will learn how RC has never worked. Competition is the solution to high prices no matter what the product is- make land lords compete for your business as a renter.
How can you stabilize rent but don't stabilize property taxes, insurance rates, maintenance costs, and all the other expenses? Everyone only looks at one side of the coin.
by doing it anyway and making the rest a burden for the landlord and not the tenant
If you really think about it, rent control is just an asymmetric tax that only landlord pays to try to solve the affordable housing problem. It is a lot less sexier if we have to increase tax for everyone and use that to build affordable housing.
@@k.w.8496 absolutely! Government failed miserably at providing affordable housing. So they tore down 90% of the projects and pushed the burden onto the landlords. This isn't sustainable. Rent control will eventually fail also.
@@yeeksouphand5843 you won't have any rental houses
@@k.w.8496 funny you mention that because the city of Vienna did exactly that and taxed landlords, and as a result they’ve created a century of stable and affordable housing.
Rents are out of step with wages.
It's a money for nothing scam.
Curb it or end it.
Cities don't need more housing they need better transportation that doesn't really on cars.
they need both, actually
And the Bank came to the landlord and said with no sympathy "If you don't pay the mortgage, we're going to foreclose on the property. And the government came to the landlord and said with no sympathy " If you don't pay the property tax, we're going to take your property.
Exactly
And the landlord came to the renter and said pay the 5% rent increase or I kick you out and throw away your stuff…
@@holaimlopez shit rolls down hill
Mankato MN- on the surface it seems like MN nice but underneath is a regime of middle class homeowner clienteleism and unaffordable housing. Not very hospitable to low wage workers. The metro area only has ~100k people.
It helps the tenants that are lucky enough to get the apt. Everyone else is hurt. This is so simple. Build more is the solution.
landlords are NOT government!!! are you going to ask grocery stores to give free groceries????
They would. correction THEY WILL. The quiet part they dont say is once everything is free everyones time will also be free, to be dictated on what they will be doing with that free time that is. IE you will now work in a factory 55 to 60 hrs a week COMRADE! ahh the proletariat life!
I sold off my rental houses to New home owners due to recent rent control laws in my area.😊
Good. Least someone is not been exploited. Why would we object to that ?
Good, we don’t need leech middle men.
I don't think rent control is the answer. I think corporations buying up starter homes needs to be stopped. That will naturally bring down home prices and that will affect rental prices.
You know we are allowed more than one thing, correct?
@@youtubeuniversity3638 My point is I don't think you need rent control if a law stops corporations from buying starter homes. It is easier to get one law passed than two. My point is to put more effort into the policy/law that would create the most positive change.
Two points to make:
The real problem is that more affordable housing is needed with builders incentivized to build the units. The economics have to work. The only way to reduce the cost of building affordable housing is through changing zoning laws to permit more dense housing. However, people who own property in the neighborhoods with proposals to increase the density are adamantly opposed as it might reduce the value of their property.
They mentioned in the news story that the jury is still out on the impact of rent control in St. Paul, however, every indication is that new construction permits are down significantly. This could have a negative impact on the future of the city and the quality of the housing stock.
Currently live in a part of Saint Paul which is receiving major investment in public transportation. Definitely would be rent hiked out of my apartment without this ordinance in place
Putting a cap on rent at the same time that property taxes, insurance, repairs, etc are going up will result in landlords selling the houses. This means less available rentals which increases the cost of rent due to supply and demand.
What justifies the increase? Cause if it’s greed, then that’s the problem.
I hear you got promotion at job, yes? Congratulations. I raise your rent now.
You make more money, you can afford more, yes?
Okay. I raise your rent.
Ma’am. Sorry for your loss, but what was that landlord supposed to do? His bank that loaned him money, won’t listen to his excuses for not paying. You’ll need unfortunately, to get govt help
Or a roommate
The reason why rents are so high today is because of the housing shortage, the rent moratorium during Covid, and beyond, and all of the free money people were given.
There is too much money in circulation now and inflation has done its thing. Welcome to the new paradigm.
Where are all these men who need to take care of their children? This is not the job of the taxpayer.
No one invests in cities with rent control, limiting the number of available homes to rent.
Most landlords don't own the property. We have mortgages and taxes, no to mention insurance.
One of my property's rent isn't enough to pay taxes. It takes two months plus rent, to pay taxes. Then I have to pay insurance and repairs, which I mostly do myself but have to buy supplies.
Blame your government, not landlords.
how many properties do you own? ur only being screwed over by the big man who buys far more houses than u and hikes prices.
In the long term the data shows rent controls hurt housing affordability. A bill that isn't even two years old is not a factual representation of the data.
If you get anything out of this learn 2 things. Don't rent, buy and if you do rent pay it before you eat otherwise you're going to be homeless regardless of what your reason is.
Correct, shelter comes before any of your other needs.
Which is perfectly fair.
Just use the natural poverty test. If their not underweight, then their not in poverty. Fat is simply your body storing energy for when you don't have food. If someone is fat & says they cant pay rent cause they need food, it means their lying.
When they actually need food or else they'll enter an unhealthily low weight, then I'll believe them.
I concur.
Make sure you have a decent place for yourself and your children. Find a way to cut out things you can't afford/get from charities,etc(food). Eat home made , cheaper but nutritious foods (beams, rice fresh fruit and veggies. No sodas, processed food). It may be very difficult, however, I'd rather see more of us REMAIN INDOORS and live very frugal, than HOMELESS..
There's a channel where the lady shows you how to make a whole week's worth of meals using like $10 at the Dollar Tree
Rent control should only apply to units with ALL of the following features:
1. Built before 2000
2. Experienced no rehabilitation (substantial or otherwise) at any point since 2000
3. The landlord owns the unit mortgage-free
So, when do us landlords get to impose limits on your daily life? I dont like how expensive hiring tradesman is. Does that mean i get to dictate how much they charge me? What about taxes I SURE WOULD LOVE to dictate the amount of that and where it goes! How about the value of TIME ITSELF. I mean you never get it back but hey nothing stopping people from devaluating that RIGHT? You know what? IM IN lets get to dictate WAGE CONTROL while were at it! Things will be GREAT!
I love excuses for greed
Any property not owned by a local resident, business or entity, or that is not inhabited by the owner more than half the year and the owner resides locally in a separate location or attached unit. These properties should all pay a special tax that is then redistributed to local residents, who own not more than one property and do not collect so called passive income. The ones that work real jobs. Owning things is not a job. These payments would be distributed in a way similar as the Alaskan oil checks for their residents. If non local people want to drive up the cost of living and use up available resources, let them pay for it or get back where they came from.
We pay enough Taxes already. And taxes won't stop anything. Landlords will just pass the cost down to tenants
@@georgewagner7787 would you prefer we ban ownership of more than three residential properties by any one person or entity at a time. Or any list of things. Being a landlord is not a job, they need a real job.
@@aryeh155its a free country you can own as many things as you want as long as you work hard and pay for it if you can’t ban ppl from owning things whether you like it or not. Ownership isnt a job thats why its called financial freedom, people work there asses off to get there so they dnt have to or they csn retire and be old comfortably without depending on the government. Now if you want to work what u call a “real job” than thats on you but no need to be envious and try to limit people from attaining things or penalize them for it
@@aryeh155also Its obvious you don’t understand how the price system works landlords are not jacking up prices willy nilly its called *inflation* EVERYBODY is jacking up prices from your electricity provider to your grocery stores thats just how the ball roll and landlords are getting hit too and that passes down to the renters it doesn’t matter if a single individual owns that property or the government however much it cost to maintain that property or to repay whatever is invested its going to go back to the renter no matter what so those reasonings you got is just plain stupid and im not trying to be rude im just being completely honest. And FYI corporations, businesses, people almost always pass down taxes to the consumers/ renters it happens everytimes and its not going to stop today, poor people always end up paying the taxes for the rich cause they have no idea what the hell is going on
Why can’t we control the price of everything? How has that worked throughout history? What makes housing different?
Don't underestimate the ways nefarious profit driven pigs will go to to undermine it 😂😂😂
An unfortunate situation but landlords have bills to pay too. I didn't buy rental property to so I could start a charity. I didn't it so I could make a profit. Not the kind of profit YOU think I should make but the kind of profit that I want to make. 😎👌
I think its so good that you show these stories. They are so fucking tragic. At least now these people get heard.
By whom? No one that's going to build
She lied. When her husband died.( :35) All income ceased. And she ask people where she work AKA her source of income, where she could live. And now she is a home owner….. “all income didn’t cease!
Well she did say she asked people at work if she could live with them.
Development DECREASED more than 60% in St Paul and INCREASED in Minneapolis over 60% since St Paul's rent control went into effect.
New York has had the longest running rent control in the country San Francisco has had the second longest run. New York and San Francisco also have the highest rents in the country.
This quote in 2018 from a Brooking Institute analysis says much: "While rent control appears to help current tenants in the short run, in the long run it decreases affordability, fuels gentrification, and creates negative spillovers on the surrounding neighborhood."
There is a reason that literally more than l90% of economists from both left and right agree rent control is detrimental overall.
I hope our grandkids learn in the future about the failed 20th century dual philosophy of communism and capitalism and the damage and suffering it did to humanity
Prices of good and services
rise 10%. Cola 3% rent 3%.
Yet income maybe 3% if
you are still employed.
Cynthia says when her best friend (her husband) passed away, all income ceased. She then blamed her landlord for having no sympathy at all at her not being able to pay rent. Trouble is, landlord also needs sympathy if rent is not paid.
I was thinking the exact same thing. Why did she have no income?
Listening to her other comments in the video also shows a poor mindset. Thinking that her only option is for the government to give her something. Tragically this seems to be the mindset of a lot of people.
This is what capitalists wanted and vote for. This is what corporate Dems and conservatives fight for. They want capitalism.
help me with the math please, I went to public school, landlord cost for upkeep is $1000/month, but landlord is forced to collects $700/month, how much does landlord need to continue providing rentals to his other tenants?
In what world does upkeep costs you a 1000 / month? Housing should not be an invesmtemt but it's used as such
@@billie7745 clearly you never owned a apartment before, mortgage itself is already at least 1k.
@@joncuz718 it's not a renters job to pay your mortgage. I don't care. Landlords are parasites. Equal to ticket sculpers for concerts. Absolutely unnecessary
Rent control can work it just depends on how it works, for Berlin and San Francisco they made it so that old and unimproved homes rents were frozen preventing gentrification and making it so that to make more money you'll have to build or improve the homes.
So let me get this straight. They punitively punished the owner so they CANNOT make significant improvements by limiting their ability to get the funding over time to make said improvements. Wild logic. Definitely a (D) that came up with that. Bet the taxes and utilities were not capped tho. Govt gotta make that caddy payment.
@@yaboiii64 they froze old and decrepit apartments so they had to make a improvement, they were not stopped in improving the building they had to do it or make below market prices. Also whats the point of mentioning taxes and utilities? Majority of rent payment go towards mortgages that conveniently do not go down when the mortgage is paid off.
I love this channel, and I’m not even American! ☺️
When your plumbing needs repair we can let the rent control advocates pay for it...
Considering how many slumlords gouge their tenants yet refuse to make repairs, someone needs to pay, and it's not us renters.
3% is more than enough corporate landlords is trying to make their clients rich at the expense of poor ppl it's unethical imo
Lots of Landlords already ignore serious issues like that.
@@kitirena_koneko no, of course not. Deadbeat renters want everything for free.
@@purplenights1 Wasn't there a Rolling Stones song about that? "You Can't Always Get What You Want"? Yes, I would love to be able to live rent-free, but I'm realistic enough to know it's not going to happen as long as I'm renting an apartment because I'm too poor to buy a house because I'm disabled. What I demand, however, is for the slumlord management where I'm renting to get off their lazy asses and fix the place I'm in BEFORE it gets condemned, not that they're going to because I'm going to move to a better apartment complex as soon as I can scrape together enough funds to go live somewhere where assholes don't see me as just a burden on society.
Before talking about rent control talk and APROVE CONTROL ON PROPERTY TAXES, CONTROL ON INSURANCE, CONTROL ON UTILITIES , CONTROL ON MORTGAGES, CONTROL ON REPAIRS. THEN WE CAN AGREE ON RENT CONTROL
lol
Who have 3 month of rent? i did, pretty fast too once I started working too. I make quite a bit of money, yet I rented a room in a house(which cost half of a studio apartment) for years until I can finally buy my own. There are lots of external cost of poverty, i.e. problem with society. But boy is it rare for me to see someone who didn't also have some significant personal problem. I'd say about one in ten at most in all these "documentaries".
Can we stop all the b.s. and just build more housing? This will make a huge dent in this problem. Govt is the root cause. This can all be fixed if red tape and regulations were eased on builders. This "problem" has been around for many decades, and few viable options have come to fruition when govt is involved. It's all by design, by our govts.
Id love to agree with you, but the problem is not red tape and the government. Building construction companies and landlords, all make MORE money by restricting the amount of houses. The private market does not WANT to build more houses. To get more houses we actually need the government to build them (social housing) and we could solve housing in a few years. Don't believe me? USSR did it!!
@@theomen131 Actually we need low-cost housing and affordable housing. We (maybe not you) do not want to be like the former USSR in any way. Bottom line, the government rules everything. Builders can only do what the government allows. This is all fixable - if our governments do what is needed, yet they play game, make excuses and kick the can down the road.
@@theomen131 What is in the interest of one developer is not in the interest of another. Why can't leftists understand this simple concept?
Most neighborhoods dont want affordable housing near their homes...it means higher crime and riff raff
Nope housings inelastic people don't build to the point it loses them money which is why we need rent control
Here is an Econ 101 lesson.
When the current 15% inflation reduces any profit, logical Landlords will sell and move their business to another location where there is no rent control, or just get out of the business.
When those rental homes sell at today's high prices, that means that only owner-occupants can afford to buy.
Investors will buy only if the cash flow works, and with loan rates at twice what they were before 2021, the numbers do not work.
So the unintended consequence is that now St Paul has fewer rental homes available.
No one forces anyone to pay any rent.
The renters actually control what rent they pay, and Landlords who lose a responsible renter will often have a vacancy unless they offer below-market rents
It is not complicated.
Econ 101 is not how real economies work lmao. That's why it's called Econ 101.
Thank you. I lean liberal but rent control *never works. There will be serious unintended consequences
And the landlords will not repair the property because the tenant can't find another artificially low rental and are thus stuck in a deterating neighborhood.
Housing wasn’t always a commodity in the market, that only happened in recent history, nothing wrong with investing in a community, doesn’t mean you have to be greedy about it
Rent control nationwide would maybe make a lot of boomer/gen X landlords sell, and then youngsters could buy a house and maybe even have a couple kids, so positive for the country.
Like food, housing is not a right. We live in a capitalistic country. If you can't afford the rent, move to a cheaper location or downsize.
Landlords believe it or not have family members that die too. Everybody has a sob story.
excuses
Wages have gone up a lot. Rent control doesn’t solve anything it makes cities worse. Crime worse in areas with rent control too because they can’t evict gang members.
San Francisco is now the model city for rental regulations 🤣 Good luck with that. Lady in beginning said her husband passed away and her landlord had no compassion. I'm very sorry for her loss but when does compassion equates to free rent? Would we then say supermarkets have no compassion if they still make you pay for food? Should town show compassion by not collecting taxes? A loss of a loved one is absolutely terrible but it does not absolve one's responsibilities.
And it never occurred to you that with the loss of her husband, the lady in the beginning of the video also lost a major part of her household income and couldn't afford the jacked-up rent, and couldn't find an affordable place to live because greedy developers flipped them all into condos?
@@kitirena_koneko There are numerous rental assistance programs including section 8. Regarding 2nd income any social security benefits or pension gets transfered to surviving spouse. I bet instead of reaching out to property manager to find solutions she avoided paying and ignored their notices until she was evicted. There are plenty of people who have spouses pass away yet are still able to meet their obligations. It's no one else's fault she can't pay
@@dmitryg6353 Section 8 has a waiting list and many landlords refuse to take tenants with this voucher because people with Section 8 tend to destroy their properties. A family friend of mine had to wait months to finally find a place to take the voucher. People always act like they have an answer for everything and don't realize assistance is always this instantaneous, they never lost anything in their lives.
@@dmitryg6353 Section 8 takes months or years to get on, and other rental assistance sources can run out of money rapidly, especially in times of recession when few people have money to give to charities. We don't know the whole story, so I can't really judge her except by what I've gone through, having low-income property managers go out of business or decide to stop renting to low income people and raise the rent through the roof, which I suspect happened to her.
@@kitirena_koneko So you're not willing to make any assumptions regarding her situation but yet are very quick to make assumptions regarding her landlord and rent situation? No landlord wants to go through an eviction and it's always last resort leaving landlord with thousands of dollars of lost rent and thousands more of required repairs to get it rent ready again. Yet you believe it's the landlord's doing? In this case I don't see it. Judging by the garbage she lived in her finances are probably just as bad. Even if you don't have money you can still clean your house right?
Maybe we should question a housing model that relies on "investors" to make adequate and affordable housing for working people. We need more public housing and better regulation of the market. It's almost like the US hates the idea of doing anything for citizens without a profit motive.
They tried that in the 1960's and the housing projects turned into slums and hotbeds for crime. History.
Would you work and volunteer your time out of your life that you wont get back for free? Basic econ 101. Most TENNANTS wouldn't know fiscal responsibility if it fell out their rear. Why cant they go to a bank and get a loan for a house of their own? Couldnt be that they have a poor work history could it? Perhaps they might not have paid some bills and stiffed the company or people that provided the service? I wonder if that might affect their CREDIT SCORE? Naw, gotta be that landlords are greedy. Yeah gotta be for taking such a risk. Totally.
Public housing is garbage. No one except those that have no choice want to live there.
This is a sign 🤘 people get your insurance agent to do a family planning death benefits smh very sad
The report says rent control just cuts into the profits of the most predatory landlords. Unfortunately, rent control does not filter out only the predatories - it applies to every landlord. Why not price control groceries, medicine, gas, transportation, education, cable, electricity, water, sewage, and garbage collection as well? Why only rent?
It's unfair. What seems obvious is decidedly ignored by news people.
I don't normally reply to comments but I will say that housing or to make it more basic shelter is one of those things that's essential for human survival. However the issue under a capitalist system is that it's all greed. Landlords (whether corporate or private from experience renting myself) can and will price gouge if they know that tentants will have no option to pay or get evicted with the already stagnant wages that have no gone up year over year. So in essence it is divorced from reality.
If a fix cannot be found to impose some control on at least non luxury apartments then might as well get rid of rent as a concept as a whole. However we are two backwards as a society to that for now. What's the point of it if you cannot properly house your population.
Also for the other basic needs it's a whole deal with the system of governance and the one party plutocracy that America has.
That's the point it curbs speculation and causes more landlords to sell we need less landlords it's a good thing to have owner occupied homes
@@madl1uck824 food is essential too.
Some truly sad stories but when you factor in the cost of building materials, taxes, insurance and any kind of services. Many of those doubled or quadrupled since covid and unfortunately it gets passed on.
Obviously if she can't pay she's got to go. Why would he pay her rent for her?
This follows the pattern of practically every argument by activists who push for rent control. Start with a hard luck story from somebody who got sick, lost their income, or otherwise experienced housing instability, and use that to make their landlord, and by extension all of them look like bad guys. How much empathy, e.g. free rent was the landlord supposed to offer this person? They did't go into that, But if you look at the recent pandemic eviction moratoriums, the answer in many cases seems to have been years, if not forever, as I don't know any jursidiction where activists didn't keep pushing to make eviction moratoriums for rent nonpayment permanent, or contine to extend them indefinitely. In any case, the hard luck story is used to pivot to rent control, even though nonpayment - not a rent increase - was the problem with the hard luck story, and rent control would not help with that.
In arguing for rent control they highlight a few positives - mainly allowing established tenants stay in place longer if they choose to. But they ignore MANY well known, and seen in places like NY, SF, and others with longstanding rent control - a huge bifurcation between controlled and market units - a massive shortage of housing controlled or otherwise, extremely adversarial relations between housing providers, government, and tenants, misallocation of housing as people cling to too large - or too small- units as long as possible since they are grandfathered in with low rent they can never replace elsewhere, and problems with deteriorating housing.
The article tries to downplay negative effects like claiming we don't really know if rent control will limit housing construction or reduce maintenance. This is a joke. If nothing else, it is basic human behavior. If as a developer or a landlord I can make the choice to invest in an asset which holds is value or appreciates and provides a steady X% return, and which I have control over sufficient to maintain and protect it, or I have a choice of investing the same money in an asset whose returns are capped regardless of its increases in expenses or inflation, to the point that its real income is likely to drop annually, making it a depreciating asset, which one am I going to invest in? If I build or create these assets, where would I want to build to find the most buyers?
Put another way, would you, given a choice between two jobs in the same industry, both with the same starting pay and benefits, where you have to buy your own tools or equipment to do the job. For one of the jobs you are told you will NEVER receive a raise greater than 3%, regardless of inflation, the economy, your performance at your job, or how long you work, or any promotions you might get, or how much you contribute to the employer or organization, and you will be punished for quitting by having to sell your equipment even if in perfect condition at a substantial loss. OR, in the next town over you could take the same job and while not guaranteed (nothing ever is) on average over time you will receive raises commensurate with your advancement, promotions, performance, and inflation, and you could easily sell your tools at a fair price and switch jobs if a better opportunity arose. Human nature says its makes much more sense to take the latter.
Why do activists pushing rent control think housing providers won't act this way? The main problem is they try so hard to dehumanize developers and housing providers that they can't or won't acknowledge that as people they have the same needs as everybody else - with stories like the evil landlord kicking out sick residents with little warning, or using the usual trigger words like "corporate" and "profit maximizing" anywhere they can. Housing is actually one of the most grassroots industries there is. It is possible to function successfully as a landlord, and compete with ALL your peers in a given market regardless of your scale, whether you rent a single house, half a duplex, or have a portfolio of hundreds of units. In many cities in the US it is possible to buy a run down home pretty inexpensively and with a lot of elbow grease get it habitable and offer it for rent (or re-sell it). A heck of a lot of people have built themselves up from little or nothing this way, while recycling uninhabitable or end-of-life housing and providing an essential service. Compare that to for example auto manufacturing, where it is near impossible to start a new car company without billions of dollars in investment.
Excellent post. God bless you and thank you; I'm bookmarking it.
Problem is, as Sowell says, if you keep what you earn, it's called greed. But if government or self-declared poor people steal it away from you, it's justice.
Sorry. As the meme says, "All our bases are belonged to them."
So eloquently put!
Well said
The landlord is nothing more than a parasite. I'm sorry if you feel the truth makes you feel like the bad guy but if your profit margins are more important than the lives of the tenants who are literally your source of income what else can you be?
Landlords don't "provide" a service. They hoard housing for the sake of a profit.
@@sonic8005 sorry but your frequently repeated, dehumanizing propeganda (see my original post) is wrong on several levels. First of all truth is relative. you are welcome to believe what you are saying but that doesn't make it everybody's truthe and it is easily disproveable and thus not fact. Second, everybody lives off of somebody else. You pay for services and products you need, the profits from that are somebody elses income. Much as some people love to fetishize otherwise housing is no different, plain and simple. Third this hoarding claim is nonsense. If we 'hoarded' housing we would not rent it out. If you want to be angry at people who 'hoard' homes you should attack (the relatively small percentage of) people who maintain 2nd homes, lake houses, cabins, and pied-a-terres who do NOT rent them. We make money by maintaining and operating housing as a service. Nobody living in it equals no income. Many landlords especially smaller operators are as I stated in my OP recyclers - buying uninhabitable or obsolete buildings and bringing them back up to habitable and respectable standards. We are also responsible for - and many of us do our own - maintenance, landscaping, etc. We often resolve disputes between tenants, and there are a dozen other things we end up on the hook for. All of this for what is probably a couple hundred bucks a month in rent profit in many cases. Even minimum wage around here pays $3K/month. I fail to see how any of that is parasitic behavior. Expecting housing or services for free or for less cost that what it takes to operate is parasitic.
Hot take, I guess: Everyone should have access to free housing. Like, if you want to save up and buy a home, thats great. But an option free at the point of service should always exist for housing (etc.)
Sorry, not sorry. Fight me.
I like how Singapore does it.
That’s a way better idea that rent control
You're free to give a free house to whoever you want. Knock yourself out.
@@briant1319 No, like everyone. No one should ever be on the street bc of money. The government should have housing available for anyone who wants/needs a place to live.
@@godonlyknows13 that's not the government, that's us paying your way. Just to destroy the place.
I lived in a rent controlled apartment in Brookline MA for nearly 14 years during the late 1970s - 1980s. During that time I had a level of housing security that I wish I had now. I was active with the local tenant union and worked for the statewide tenant organization, which mobilized tenants to defend their interests. I can testify that rent control does not lead to rental housing deteriorating or drive landlords out of business. But it does give working people more control over their housing. Bring tenant organizing and rent control back!
If my property tax is going up two and a half percent every year in Massachusetts your rent should be going up at least two and a half percent. As a landlord I'm responsible for maintenance water bill condo fees etc. Not to mention The possibility of special assessments for things like new roofs new driveway or other landscaping outside of the building. The idea that tenants can force the government to force private property owner to only charge a certain amount for a product is insane.
Your story is exactly why we have to end social housing.
They were giving you subsidized rent, yet you still turned into a whining complainer ? No gratefulness for the welfare ??
It's not 'your' housing.
It belongs to the property owner. You're just a renter....one that good landlords should probably avoid
The solution is not rent control it's to take advantage of programs that help you buy your own home. In many cases with no money down! Totally take the landlord out of the equation, you get the equity, and in 10 years no more rent, it's yours free and clear!
Abolish the property tax. Only THEN you might be able to say you actually "own" your home. If you have to still make feudulistic payments to the state in the property tax then you don't actually own the land or the property that sits on it.
@@celaeno919 so true, it's like renting from the government. It's also a way to take property from the low income.
"First bill of it's kind, and not enough research to know what it will do to new development" 10:44 okay so they don't have a leg to stand on with this video
Plenty of research shows it will stifle development
The young gal in the video, says, developers threaten to disinvest if rent control happens. Rent control passed, and building permits for multifamily homes in St. Paul have dropped 80%. Bottom line is, if landlords can't make money, they cease being landlords. A 3% cap on rents, with inflation over 8% do the math.
If we did rent control everywhere then they'd have no alternative :') it would raise once again
@@ZentaBon if we did rent control everywhere, there will be no such thing as rent. What landlord will put out there property to lose money? There will be 2 options: 1. Buy a home. 2. If you can't afford that, sleep out in the streets. The whole problem with rent control is this assumption that landlords will continue to rent out a property while taking a loss. This is a false assumption.
@Hypergamous Wife sure, let's cap the strength of gravity while we're at it. 9.8 m/s/s is simply too much. Causes all sorts of friction waste, etc. Let's cap it at 5m/s/s
@Hypergamous Wife Do understand inflation isn't just an American thing. China shut down, most of our stuff is Made in China. Supply and Demand suggests, less product and same amount of demand means products go up. Other parts of the world was affect and is affect no matter: workers not working, war, their own internal struggles. America isn't the world. Inflation can't be capped therefore, what comes out of it should not be capped. If the bakery eggs are up 50%, capping cakes to 3% is going to not make sense. If faucets, workers and misc are up over 8%, capping housing cost to 3% makes no sense. Who would bake cakes, who would fix houses?
@@AS-rx3yk True, investors would sale SFH and families would be buying and for multifamily/commercial buildings, they would turn over to condos. This vid even stated that ppl would burn down their place than lose all that money.
Side notes: Someone complaining about needing 3.5K to rent can not buy. The same person complaining asking about roommating (which is a VERY good thing since it cuts cost) is going to be mad when she has to stay longer with her parents to save for a 10K+ down payment.
Rent stabilization it helps the renters stay within budget and actually stay in the city where they actually actively work and actually play don’t forget further a person has to go the less likely they are wanting to spend in the place actually working because one stuff would be actually expensive to the further out you go you’re not gonna want to spend a whole bunch of stuff because you gotta think of how you’re going to get it there. How are you gonna take it away all the while also being in, you know a safe condition because a lot of places might not have safe conditions. Where they are located and plus it keeps the residence in the city where there actually are working at the further out you go they might find other places to work that is actually closer and they might not have to spend a lot to actually go back-and-forth to work place and also don’t forget the further out you are There’s a good chance that you might end up getting fired because there’s also a higher chance of you being late, and a lot of Employers might not always understand that.
And if they have to commute farther, sometimes that's part of life. They have to wake up earlier in the morning so they won't be late because you're right that's not the boss's problem either
lmao, rent control will keep landlords from improving their properties? Fuck, I didn't realize my $12,000/mo shitbox was rent controlled 'cause my landlord doesn't do shit.
Yep
"Rent Control" benefits the existing tenant and penalizes everyone else. It is a great way to make sure there is a dearth of rental units available, raising the costs of those remaining. Suffice to say, it has failed in its stated goal in every place it has been introduced.'
But don't let historical fact inform your "opinions" far better to hope that THIS TIME it will work, right?.
Have some examples other than "Trust me bro?"
@@CordialHStockholm, Berlin, even some American cities have tried rent stabilization. Same result: no new supply of housing, housing availability plummets, waitlists grow.
@@bakerhitch5856 so incentivize construction. There's a solution for this beyond half-ass it or let everybody be homeless. As a country we're happy to subsidize farming, beef production, corn, oil production, our war machine, and cost from all of our billionaire tax cuts, but it's unthinkable to incentivize construction of living space?