From the article: "They say that rent control acts as a disincentive to new residential development and that only more market-rate construction will bring rents down. But rent control doesn’t stop new development. "
Read the first line, and focus on the word "disincentive" That's what rent control does, resulting in fewer homes being built than what would have been built without rent control. Rent control does not totally eliminate new development. Rent control would benefit those facing rent increases now, but over time it will hurt everyone else. As rent control applies to apartments, condos and houses will see a disproportionate rise in rents over the next few years as apartment construction will fall.
**Cities and counties could apply rent control to houses as well.
"Under Costa Hawkins:
Landlords have the right to raise rent on a rent-controlled unit to “fair market value” every time a tenant moves out. Cities are not allowed to apply rent control to units built after February 1995. For cities that already had rent control on the books when Costa Hawkins was passed, the cutoff is backdated. In the LA area, the dates are even earlier: October 1, 1978 for the city of Los Angeles; April 10, 1979 for Santa Monica; July 1, 1979 for West Hollywood; and February 1, 1995 for Beverly Hills. Single-family homes and condos are exempt from rent control restrictions. These provisions would be overturned if Costa Hawkins were repealed, giving cities more freedom to decide how to implement rent control."
County Tax the shit out of single family home(double) investors with more than two. PLUS! Place a 5% Federal Tax on every single family home not your primary residence.
Build 20 new Metro Areas with sprawling suburbs in Middle America that will create a huge sucking vacuum in the hardest stressed areas now. And would pretty much bring the national median price of a 1700sqft Ranch house to about $95K to $120K.
patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,189,738 comments by 13,848 users - Ceffer, ElYorsh, indc online now