Selling it just provides more access to housing. I’m all for landlords selling property. I mentioned Airbnb/vrbo to cover daily rentals. I could see that happen, but seems like that would flood that market.
You could turn it into an air BnB or if its a big complex not rent all the units and use it as a tax deduction I suppose
The growth is there to inspire new units to be built, the problem is in incentivizing multi-unit affordable housing. I think you can do that with zoning laws.
Is this where we discuss that AirBNB is outlawed in many areas. Most my neighborhood it's illegal for example.
My experience is that a lot of people that rent can't, or don't want to buy. But thats anecdotal, I don't know the dynamics in Oregon. Also if there is such a need for housing, I assume home prices are sky high.
That’s why I said “want” to buy and also referenced landlord selling as increasing the supply. I feel like you’re arguing against something I’m not saying just because you feel bad about rent control
my experience with the oregon housing argument is insane people crying that Craftsman filled neighborhoods might have an apartment complex nearby but that's very limited from my brother buying a house there
Yeah, maybe upzoning would work but from what very little I've been able to read in the last 10 or so minutes seem to suggest that upzoning causes a lot of unforeseen consequences to property values of surrounding buildings and land, thereby still causing displacement. Idk though. I'm glad that Oregon is addressing a problem at the state level in a new way. It will serve as an interesting case study for other areas.
I've seen zero not completely anti empirical nimby nonsense about upzoning single family homes to quads being bad.
But how does that help the low income renters getting displaced because their landlord sells to a higher income buyer since they can’t charge more in rent
That’s a good question, but for the purpose of this discussion they were either being displaced by being priced out due to lack of rent control or displaced by landlords taking it off the market because of rent control. So the hypothetical problem exists either way. My position is that if landlords don’t feel they’re making enough money on rent controlled property and decide to sell it that’s great. I hope they sell it to a non-landlord
There's a house (Wash DC) that I pass when I walk / bike to the metro station that has black lives matter and immigrants are welcome here signs in their yard next to a sign that says something like "more apartment development = more congestion!" Which just makes me fucking 1st off, there's fuckloads of congestion because people have to drive from the outer suburbs to the city for work, because there's not enough affordable housing in the city. So fuck off with that stupid point. 2nd is "yeah, immigrants and black lives matter, but not if there's more of them living next door." Fucking white people.......
yeah the people here want to do something about all of the homeless people around the city but the problem is that homeless people smell and why should we spend any money on them?
when i venture into the burbs that dynamic is everywhere next to health care its probably the single most important political issue, that I'm also insanely pessimistic on because of the above PeterGriffin
How do you feel about a study from Stanford professors saying nearly the same? https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/rent-controls-winners-losers
I’m also struggling to wrap my head around why newer and smaller apartments (if I read the article correctly) would be exempt from this rent control All that does is give an advantage in terms of rent growth to the landlords who already have the capital to be invested in large multi family units rather than the small time landlords who may own a handful or less single family units and are less likely to have aggressive rent growth programs anyways
Only rationalization i can see is to create an incentive for new multi unit projects going forward to help increase housing density. Why it goes so far back though doesn't make sense except for what Lyrtch said.
Some people are saying that one way to address high density areas and increased cost of living is by building up the country’s infrastructure and build high speed railways. But instead of doing this we’ll just pass some more tax cut and then gripe about not having enough money to build up this country’ Infrastructure.
this is how you leverage transit systems to speed up cost stabilization, it's unfortunate rail gets built without this being automatic
Will be interesting now just to compare these to the three year financial filings as well as the filings he made to be President. No way they are consistent.
Should we be at all concerned by the level of cockiness coming from junior, Nunes and other house republicans regarding asking for the full Mueller report release? Do they know something from Barr/Whitaker?
I refuse to ever concern myself with what Nunes, Junior, and Whitaker claim to know. They are morons.
Broadly agree with this. NIMBY fucks need to die and we need to force building code changes and build.more density
Coincidentally my company’s CEO sent out an email saying Richard Neal is a “good friend” to our lobbying arm. Was weird reading that.