Five things to know about WA proposal to limit rent hikes | The Seattle Times
Isn’t rent control one of the most studied economic experiments? And hasn’t it been shown to be, over the long term, a disaster for everyone involved?
- What does economic evidence tell us about the effects of rent control? | Brookings
- Rent Control’s Winners and Losers | Stanford Graduate School of Business (they suggest government subsidies is the better solution… what a joke!)
- Rent Control Doesn’t Solve Housing Shortages (forbes.com)
This is the deliberate destruction of Washington state.
I want my underground bunker in Idaho.
You do NOT want to be left holding habitation rental units when that crap goes into effect. If you can legally plan on tearing it down for another use, go for it. If not, you end up paying for maintenance on a building that looses money. Turn it into a parking lot, maybe.
If all you hold is in WA, you will end up with nothing but crushing debt. Time to bail.
I wonder how quickly this will spread to OR and CA?
I believe Portland has proposed it several times. The only thing keeping it from passing are a couple city council members who either: a. own rental property, or b. have lived in rent-controlled areas. Either option knows how rent control ends.
But I wouldn’t put it past the Oregon Legislature to propose it statewide — and pass it with strong “bipartisan” support.
Doesn’t CA already have this, at least in the far-left cities? NY ditto — NYC is a notorious example and rapidly getting worse.
Well, that’s one fast way of end up with a ghetto state. Are they going to limit the taxes they charge at the same time?
Commie rent controls is a desperate way of keeping the toilet scrubbers in the area.
Who’s going to make the lattes? If you can’t afford the rent for a 100 miles?
The immigrant invasion is going to put an end to all this nonsense anyway. As civilization as we know it is about to change drastically.
And they are going to blame it on us.
Even if not, the Chinese are predatory capitalist like nobody’s business. They just stuff 40 workers in hot-bed houses and make them pay half of their below minimum wages to live there.
They couldn’t care less what the state says.
No tax breaks; “slumdog” landlords must “pay their fair share”.
What will happen is the landlord will end up living for low cost in the building — after their income is slashed so they can neither afford a mortgage anywhere else nor afford to pay an on-site manager; they’ll decide to try and manage it themselves. If they care, they’ll do their best to maintain the building, but they’ll need a second, full-time income just to make ends meet, and maintenance will be part-time, after-hours, weekend-only … or hired out to a third party at triple the cost.
If they don’t care, well….