A proposal to cap rent increases at 3% for many landlords in unincorporated L.A. County is meant to keep housing affordable for at-risk tenants.
  • Juice
    551·
    5 months ago

    This would driving down the cost of housing because of an increase in inventory. Sell them to whom? Other landlords? Or would it be workers?

    I think I just found my latest political campaign

    • person420@lemmynsfw.com
      234·
      5 months ago

      Private landlords would just sell to large corporate landlords who could profit with smaller margins.

      • Potatos_are_not_friends@lemmy.world
        10·
        5 months ago

        Sounds like that should be blocked too.

        There was a proposal about how there should be heavy fees if you own more than one house, which would solve this problem.

      • kent_eh@lemmy.caEnglish
        112·
        5 months ago

        large corporate landlords who could profit with smaller margins.

        Could, but typically refuse to.

      • Stupidmanager@lemmy.worldEnglish
        51·
        5 months ago

        And these corp landlords can choose to not rent any longer, let the property remain empty for the legal length of time and then start renting again at the new and more profitable higher rate.

        I don’t know the laws in California, but isn’t there just a surplus of houses empty for this very reason? If you look at the numbers, they could be sitting on these houses and get low interest loans on the value, which earns higher invested interest elsewhere. Anyone squatting can get away with it because the company will just do the legal route and get more money from these people (even if it’s debt that just hangs over their heads for a while). The rich just keep getting richer…

    • iopq@lemmy.world
      1·
      5 months ago

      Yes, other landlords that can get new tenants for more money. If the houses just change hands every year, there is no cap since everyone plays musical chairs