4 ms·

Expecting your rent to stay constant for decades sounds predatory too.

Broken_Hippo 3y ago
If the mortgage price doesn't go up, I'd not expect large increases in rent even if the cost of fixing it goes up. Most fixes are minor things.
- HDThoreaun 3y ago
  You're competing with other renters for the unit though. If someone offers the landlord more you think they should say no?
  - Broken_Hippo 3y ago
    Yes, I do - I do not think landlords should have a no-fault eviction. I don't think they should be able to refuse to renew your lease in a lot of situations. Once you are living there, you should have rights to stay so long as you pay and so on. This keeps people stable. If the unit is free, I don't think there should be bidding. The price listed is the price it goes for. It is on the landlord to make sure they are asking a fair price that is enough. If competition is fierce, obviously there isn't enough housing.
    - HDThoreaun 3y ago
      > If competition is fierce, obviously there isn't enough housing. Well we agree on that. The problem with taking away people's property rights is that it fucks incentives to actually fix the problem by creating new things. The solution here is building new housing, that won't happen if you take away landlords rights. Your policy means that it's impossible to move to in demand areas unless you're willing to buy.
CogitoCogito 3y ago
If the government is willing to back a long term fixed rate mortgage, it’s hard for me to understand why those with that mortgage shouldn’t be highly restricted in the rent they can charge.
- conductr 3y ago
  Why not just cut to the chase and ban loans for investment properties? Who would own the properties that renters need to live in if it's made un-investable? Some level of renting is probably healthy (more mobility, requires less capital upfront, etc). I wouldn't argue we are in a healthily balanced environment in the US currently. But rent is a spot price that also has downside potential and if you want the market for rentable properties to exist, it has to be attractive to investors. I think this regulation would eventually end up with a lot of assets concentrated with a few owners, the ones rich enough to pay cash and side-step the loan regulation you propose. At that point, it's going to be worse than our current system.
  - CogitoCogito 3y ago
    I don't understand your reasoning here. Are you saying that if we don't give money to property owners through subsidization of their mortgages, then there won't be rentals? Why wouldn't there be? They could still get loans they just wouldn't be government-backed. Why is it worth interfering with the market here? If we want renters to be able to rent and support such interference why not just give renters money directly?
Ekaros 3y ago
And after first 5 or 10 years, why don't the renters have substantial savings? Surely they have allocated same relative cut to living costs, meaning that with raises they should have saved good amount of money.
- wil421 3y ago
  I saved money buying a house. We needed a bigger house for a baby and the smaller duplex wasn’t enough. Rent was about $2500-3500 and the house was $2500 and now $2100 after the refi. Sure I put in about $25k in repairs but I’ve also gained over $200k. If I was still in the duplex I’d be broker than I am now.

If the mortgage price doesn't go up, I'd not expect large increases in rent even if the cost of fixing it goes up. Most fixes are minor things.

HDThoreaun 3y ago
You're competing with other renters for the unit though. If someone offers the landlord more you think they should say no?
- Broken_Hippo 3y ago
  Yes, I do - I do not think landlords should have a no-fault eviction. I don't think they should be able to refuse to renew your lease in a lot of situations. Once you are living there, you should have rights to stay so long as you pay and so on. This keeps people stable. If the unit is free, I don't think there should be bidding. The price listed is the price it goes for. It is on the landlord to make sure they are asking a fair price that is enough. If competition is fierce, obviously there isn't enough housing.
  - HDThoreaun 3y ago
    > If competition is fierce, obviously there isn't enough housing. Well we agree on that. The problem with taking away people's property rights is that it fucks incentives to actually fix the problem by creating new things. The solution here is building new housing, that won't happen if you take away landlords rights. Your policy means that it's impossible to move to in demand areas unless you're willing to buy.

CogitoCogito 3y ago

If the government is willing to back a long term fixed rate mortgage, it’s hard for me to understand why those with that mortgage shouldn’t be highly restricted in the rent they can charge.

conductr 3y ago
Why not just cut to the chase and ban loans for investment properties? Who would own the properties that renters need to live in if it's made un-investable? Some level of renting is probably healthy (more mobility, requires less capital upfront, etc). I wouldn't argue we are in a healthily balanced environment in the US currently. But rent is a spot price that also has downside potential and if you want the market for rentable properties to exist, it has to be attractive to investors. I think this regulation would eventually end up with a lot of assets concentrated with a few owners, the ones rich enough to pay cash and side-step the loan regulation you propose. At that point, it's going to be worse than our current system.
- CogitoCogito 3y ago
  I don't understand your reasoning here. Are you saying that if we don't give money to property owners through subsidization of their mortgages, then there won't be rentals? Why wouldn't there be? They could still get loans they just wouldn't be government-backed. Why is it worth interfering with the market here? If we want renters to be able to rent and support such interference why not just give renters money directly?

Ekaros 3y ago

And after first 5 or 10 years, why don't the renters have substantial savings? Surely they have allocated same relative cut to living costs, meaning that with raises they should have saved good amount of money.

wil421 3y ago
I saved money buying a house. We needed a bigger house for a baby and the smaller duplex wasn’t enough. Rent was about $2500-3500 and the house was $2500 and now $2100 after the refi. Sure I put in about $25k in repairs but I’ve also gained over $200k. If I was still in the duplex I’d be broker than I am now.