blondiebell OP t1_j5uh9tz wrote on January 25, 2023 at 5:33 PM

Reply to comment by ktxhopem3276 in New tenants are getting screwed by blondiebell

Nothing you've said is inherently wrong, but that doesn't mean it should just be acceptable. Why is it even a joke that the responsibility falls to me if I dont like the way another person/renter is being treated.

We completely agree that changing the system as it exists would be very difficult, but it shouldn't be considered impossible just because its always been this way.

The point of this post was to call out the drastic increase that I'm seeing first hand and call attention to the need for solutions, not to argue over why it's a problem.

ktxhopem3276 t1_j5uiuf8 wrote on January 25, 2023 at 5:42 PM

Yeah I know I’m too sarcastic and you are not the first person to point that out ;) Sometimes a little humor makes people pay attention to what I say next and that is my main point was building more housing would be more effective than a rent cap. There is wide consensus among experts that have studied the issue of how to lower rents.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent_control_in_the_United_States#Impact

There are several projects in Oakland, Shadyside and the east end that have been blocked for being two stories too high or not having a gazillion parking spaces and it’s gotten so bad there is a local YIMBY group to help get more housing built in these neighborhoods

https://www.reddit.com/r/pittsburgh/comments/yj9d9x/were_prohousing_pittsburgh_advocating_for/

ktxhopem3276 t1_j5uv5i8 wrote on January 25, 2023 at 6:57 PM

Many smart people are trying to fix the problem but solutions have been elusive. Why haven’t we gotten stronger tenants laws? near everyone hates landlords so shouldn’t that be a popular law to pass? We need stronger measures to police bad landlords. That might help offset the negative affects of rent controls. If you want to get involved this is something good to advocate for. It is an issue that is constantly discussed here in pittsburgh. Oakland student slums and Larimar absentee landlords and abandoned housing in the hill are some topics I’ve heard of.

you addressed that rent controls disincentivize construction of new housing and you mentioned government funded housing to fill the void. One issue with that is government built housing has been some of the worst maintained housing in the city of Pittsburgh and most projects older than that from 70s are simply being torn down and being replaced with smaller amounts of housing like the terraces in the hill district. The federal housing agency is known as one of the most corrupt and poorly run government agencies for handing out sweetheart contracts to political buddys. the housing they build tends to end up more expensive than the housing private developers build on their own.

So after all that is said and done, the simplest solution is to build more housing in neighborhoods where people want to live and that have good transit to jobs. I’m very much in favor of cracking down on bad landlords and the government filling the void with new housing but I’ve lost most faith in the government properly policing landlords and construction contractors so I’d rather focus on supporting more housing in the right places. That’s just my opinion on the issue lately

blondiebell OP t1_j5uyabu wrote on January 25, 2023 at 7:16 PM

Thank you for the well thought out response. It's nice to have these conversations and find other like minded people. I can see and agree with all of your points, the issues are deep and complex and there is no single solution, let alone an easy one.

I hold out hope that a lot of it can be tackled methodically with time and concentrated effort, but I worry we wont even start down that road before there is some catastrophic catalyst first.

blondiebell OP t1_j5unggs wrote on January 25, 2023 at 6:10 PM

Thank you for including the link, after giving it a read here are my thoughts. The researchers seemed to have analyzed their data on the rent control methods alone. While this made for good take aways on the effects in some areas and the differences in the method, I feel it didn't do enough to highlight how the landlords themselves let it fail. No measure to reform exists in a vacuum and when they put the rent control measures into effect I dont feel enough was done to punish landlords that let rent controlled units fall into decay. Or where the forprotfits moved nothing came to fill the void, non-profit or government funded.

With that said I don't think building more housing is a problem, but I dont think it is the only answer and it bothers me that the idea of holding landlords responsible for price gouging isnt heavily considered.

Housing should have never been made for profit, but since it is and that is nearly impossible to change, it should be regulated to a degree that means it is a safe, but NOT exponential investment.

PGHENGR t1_j5uu7f3 wrote on January 25, 2023 at 6:51 PM

Think about the consequences of what you think should happen. The housing supply would pretty much be obliterated. No one would have any incentive to have a rental property if it wasn’t for profit. The housing that would be left would be subsidized, but the amount required for this government funded program would be astronomical. It would basically mean that any rental for anybody would go through the government.

blondiebell OP t1_j5v66b7 wrote on January 25, 2023 at 8:04 PM

What if, hypothetically, you turn 85% of these rentals in to condos at a mortgage equal to their rent.... the housing wouldn't freaking disappear it would just mean that your rent now becomes equity and when you are ready to leave that unit for a home or another condo you get that equity back. This idea that the housing would just disappear is bonkers, it would just mean that how people own/rent/use property would need to change and that's to our benefit.

PGHENGR t1_j5v7kkq wrote on January 25, 2023 at 8:12 PM

Sorry it appears you’re a very literal person. You are correct, the buildings would not just physically poof and vanish. Without any profit, why would a landlord be a landlord? So the property would effectively be taken out of the rental market.

Please, explain how this would happen. The current landlords would just….donate….their property to a program for people to buy them at this rate? No landlord is going to be a part of this. The government would then have to greatly subsidize the purchase of 85% of all of the rentals in the US?? To then sell at a low price back to the public?

I understand there is an issue here, but it’s not a simple solution. You have the think about the economic impact of these “solutions” you’re proposing.

blondiebell OP t1_j5vc3yq wrote on January 25, 2023 at 8:40 PM

We are so close to agreement.

The point of the government to do exactly that, facilitate necessary exchanges for the greater good.

When most rentals were just single family homes owned by small landlords or other single families I would have agreed that the number of units available on the market would go down to a devastating degree if landlords left the game completely, but that is no longer the case. One of the biggest issues is the consolidation of available housing under single entities like companies and investment firms. If rentals were no longer profitable, those companies would sell off the units and if apartment buildings and broken up homes were sold as condos to the existing renters the companies wouldn't be donating anything. The risk/cost would fall on the creditor that funded the renters new mortgage. If that lender was the government then it would certainly be it's own issue to manage and collect of those mortgages, but that ask isnt impossible or even unreasonable given the current crisis.