More anti-landlord action coming?
Bruce WoodruffPro Member
Contractor/Investor/Consultant · San Diego / Phoenix · Member since 2021 · 12k+ posts · 15k+ votesMore anti-landlord action coming?
Most Popular Reply
They're the bleeping problem! Of course rents are going to rise after they print TRILLIONS of dollars! The government can't balance a budget and even worse gave people socialistic helicopter money to sit at home!
It's the fault of these CLOWNS and they want US LANDLORDS to take the hit for their stupidity. Why would anyone trust THEIR solution when THEY created the problem in the first place?
86 Replies
- 3yJay HinrichsBusiness MemberReal Estate Consultant · Summerlin, NV · Member since 2014 · 45k+ posts · 66k+ votes
Quote from @Bruce Woodruff:
Quote from @Albert Hasson:
And for the statement that only D’s are harmful to real estate investors well that’s just plain ignorant. In fact it was the Securities and Exchange Commissioners appointed by the second George Bush who adopted the rule allowing the 5 major investment banks in this country to leverage their capital in an excessive and unsafe manner leading to the great housing collapse/recession of 2007-2010. As we all know this wiped out millions of RE investors.
You're right this is a RE forum and politics shouldn't get too much involved, but it is so entwined in what we all do.
But as we all know, it was really Bill Clinton's admin that forced lenders to give anyone breathing a home loan (remember the 'National Homeownership Strategy' ?)...he signed over 100 Executive Orders forcing banks to loan to those with no provable credit or income. This was actually the root cause of the housing crash that you reference. Nice try though.... :-)
its called the CRA Community Reinvestment Act and forces banks to make loans in their footprint so if a banks foot print is in high risk areas they are forced to satisfy those requirments generally they do this with developers doing gentrification. - Member since 2018 · 8 posts · 1 vote3y
As a upstate NY landlord with just over 100 units I am continuously surveying the political landscape. Especially since NY has passed some restrictive tenants laws since 2019. Although I generally tend to lean to the Right and I generally disagree with most government involvement in the free market I have to admit at least in my state the restrictive laws have actually helped push rents up and thus building/portfolio values.
I and other medium sized landlords benefit tremendously from the politics in NY in terms of forced rent inflation but it does seems like an uphill battle everyday. I also believe those laws do more harm to tenants then good in the long run.
I had posted the first reply to this thread and received over 20 upvotes. But for some reason, someone from BP decided to remove my post after almost a week.
Why would this be? Did someone complain about it? Did I offend someone? If so, what in my post was so offensive? It couldn't have been so bad if 20+ people liked it enough to upvote it.
If I take the time to post something and BP deletes it, why should I continue posting?
Quote from @Cody L.:
No rhyme or reason? Can I give you some reasons?Quote from @Alexa K.:
I'm actually in favor of some "anti-landlord" changes. Especially after having seen how rents have skyrocketed over the last year or so in areas where there's no real rhyme or reason for it, outside of the fact that out of state investors are simply trying to recoup their investments after paying above-market rates for properties in areas they're unfamiliar with.
1) When you helicopter trillions into the economy, the price of EVERTYHING will go up (that includes rent)
2) The costs to run multi are skyrocketing up. And those costs are what trickle down to rent costs
2a) Insurance is up 2x in many cases (with some specialty insurance like windstorm even more)
2b) Property tax has exploded and in some cases doubled (and in some areas, it's the highest non debt expense)
2c) Labor and materials have shot up in price. Which makes repairing and running a property more expensive
3) Governments are doing more to "improve" the living standards, which sounds great, until you realize people pick dumpy places because they're cheaper. So by making that property nicer, you get a rent increases with it. Which might feel like you've helped the person, when you didn't
4) Inflation (the real definition which is the increase of money supply) tends to effect asset prices the most. like stocks and real estate. If real estate goes up in price, all things being equal, the rent charged for that real estate also goes up
tl;dr: Government is the cause of the rent increases. Yet tries to step in and be the solution? If you want to solve the rent increase problem, leave the economy the F alone and let 'us' do what we do.Cody, no offense, but we are in two completely different markets. As I've already stated in one of my responses, property taxes have remained the same and insurance rates have even lowered for my own properties. Besides, I was speaking about rents skyrocketing in areas where there's no real rhyme or reason for it -- clearly, this is not every market, and if it doesn't pertain to you, then it doesn't pertain to you. Insurance rates skyrocketing and property taxes doubling are, in fact, rhymes and reasons. It seems as if you simply responded to my comment as a knee-jerk reaction because you're unhappy with the idea of a fellow landlord being in favor of more tenant-friendly laws.
tl;dr: You can say the government is the cause of rent increases. I can say that investors are the cause of rent increases. It doesn't matter one way or another. Neither of us are economists. We're investors.
Quote from @Bruce Woodruff:
Quote from @Alexa K.:
First of all, is that number based on every property in your area? No. Second, what about the other expenses? Gas to drive to your property, maintenance costs, materials, CapEx must go up dramatically, utilities are way up, Etc.....If you actually owned rentals you would surely be aware of this....
I'm not saying that a 72% increase (if it were true) is a good thing, but it's really none of your business, is it? You really have no idea what individual landlords are using to justify their rents. You're implying that they're just greedy...more likely they could be in financial trouble, or maybe that's their business plan. Again, none of your business.
If the rental rates are too high, no one will rent these properties. Period. And if these properties are being rented, then it os proof that the rents are not too high. RIght?
That exact number is not based on every property in my area, but rent increases have gone up at least 40% across the board. Insurance and property taxes have also seemed to stay more or less the same, save for some particular neighborhoods where taxes have increased, but even so it's been considerably minimal. So, your little "gotcha" question doesn't quite work here. As for everything else you address -- I was planning on actually answering and giving examples, but then I remembered that I have known you for a total of 5 minutes and have enjoyed none of them. I live and invest in my area and know this place better than you do. It cost me $4k to install a brand new 90% furnace and 2ton AC in each of my properties last year, M&L. I paid $5k for a roof tear off and replacement on a 1300sq ft property, M&L. I paid $6k for brand new vinyl siding and installation on a 1000sq ft property, M&L. I get brand new double-hung windows installed for $350/each, M&L. I know my market and I know my market's prices. Whether you believe the fact that I do, in fact, own (and manage) my own rentals is not of my concern. You are quite literally a nobody to me, so I have nothing to prove.
I do not know what every individual investor is doing in every market. However, I know that investors in my market are driving up prices based on my own experiences. Investors from CA, TX, AZ are coming in and paying at least 35% more for properties, overpaying for contract work, and in doing so are forced to increase rents to cover their costs to make a dollar. They're pricing actual residents of the area of their homes, because then other landlords all decide, oh, well I guess if landlord A is charging $950/mo, then that means I can jack up the rent at my own place from $600/mo to $850/mo.
To pretend as if investors don't have any sort of hand in price-fixing whatsoever, especially in midwestern LCOL markets, is ignorance at it's best.
And as for your last statement, no, it's not proof that rents are not too high. I quite literally explained why this isn't so in my previous post, which you responded to. But again, you can't see the forest for the trees because your brain is too clouded in ignorance. You simply listen to speak. Either way, your ignorance and lack of understanding is not my problem. All I came to say in the first place was that I was in favor of some more tenant-friendly laws. And when prompted for answers, I gave my answers -- which you clearly do not like. If you want to pitch a fit because I have different views from your own, then so be it -- but I don't have to be in the audience.
Good luck.
Quote from @Dan Kennerson:
Quote from @Alexa K.:
The free market, in my opinion and experience, is not always the best arbiter. In my particular area, rent for a 3 bedroom SFH in a C or B- neighborhood has gone from ~$550/mo to ~950/mo in the span of a bit over a year. .....
in my area, is the influx of investors -- particularly out of state investors -- who are ....
c) I'm in favor of capped rent increases under certain criteria, and also making federally-backed mortgages unavailable for investment purposes. ... I also do like the idea of giving homeowners first choice over investors when it comes to purchasing opportunities on the market
To point 1- the free market would say allowing the building of more housing will allow competition in rent prices, buying prices, and all other important metrics to stagnating real estate investment in comparison to individual home ownership. but they create so much BS around building (specifically referring to CA, where I'm located) that they have manufactured the crisis these actions would be designed to counter. Judging the free market on what we are witnessing presently is akin, in my opinion, to judging a fish on it's ability to climb a tree.
It's true there's abundant real estate across the US, and to your second point, Geographic arbitrage is a very real thing for both the investor and individual. that wouldn't be such a driving force in Austin, Denver, etc if it weren't for the heavy-handedness of San Francisco, Los angeles, Etc. IMO.
to your third point, I would suggest that's discriminatory. a buyer is a buyer in the free market, and the government creating issues for those that wish to benefit the buyers (builders) should not be the burden of the investor. Regulation only helps stagnate the small businesses of the world, blackrock can still push through whatever they want, and what they want is stagnation in inventory because it benefits them.
If my previous comment came off as harsh, no offense was intended, but just a fun jab. downsides of written mediums, you can't hear me chuckle when I'm typing.
No, it did not come off as harsh. Disagreeing is never rude, and having differing viewpoints is fine. I can understand how you'd think my third point is discriminatory, and it likely is. But in my opinion, I think investors should have a shorter stick. Again, just my opinion. Regardless, I wholeheartedly agree that there is too much BS around building. Something absolutely has to give in this regard. More lax building (zoning?) laws would be helpful. I have quite a bit of land in a residential area where I cannot even build property on because whatever does end up getting built there has to be a minimum of 2500sq ft. Such nonsense. I was planning on simply building a small ranch home for my mother, but I have to toss that idea out the window and build a whole triplex instead. Just sticks out like a sore thumb in an area full of small SFHs.
- Investor · Malakoff, TX · Member since 2017 · 2k+ posts · 2k+ votes3y
First this isn't a done deal. Landlord advocacy groups are working to stave this off. Second, like the federal eviction moratorium, this order would only apply to properties financed with federally guaranteed loans. That's how they try to get around the unconstitutional argument.
- Real Estate Broker · Portland, OR · Member since 2018 · 126 posts · 71 votes3y
Yes, some investors will flee to easier pastures but you are right for those of us who figure it out - we are thriving. So yes I am capitalizing on it being "difficult." There is opportunity when others are running the other way. Oregon has had rent control for several years and yes many sellers left. Those of us who stayed picked up deals, raised rents because there is a shortage of good rentals and we maintain market rents by raising rents every year, when needed, by the amount the state lets us raise. I don't have to raise rent every year, but I certainly evaluate it and decide if I need to, then I give a 90 day written notice to the tenant and I raise the rent. That's running a business.
We all find ways to thrive in our niches.
- Contractor/Investor/Consultant · San Diego / Phoenix · Member since 2021 · 12k+ posts · 15k+ votes3yI'm glad you've figured it out! But doesn't that sentence kinda p*ss you off?
Quote from @Kelly Asmus:
we maintain market rents by raising rents every year, when needed, by the amount the state lets us raise
- Real Estate Broker · Portland, OR · Member since 2018 · 126 posts · 71 votes3y
Sure. Would I love for everything to be easy - of course. If it was easy then everyone would be doing it and then that's more competition playing in the same sandbox. If it's hard, people will go play in someone else's sandbox. So just depends on how you want to look at it. I don't raise rents every year, but I certainly evaluate it every year and adjust as needed - but so should everyone!
Join the conversationCreate a free account to reply, vote on answers and follow this thread.