I was just watching the news and our illustrious governor just signed the Rent Control Bill today. While signing she said how proud she was of this new statewide law and hundreds of idiots all around her were cheering and clapping.

The news crew interviewed a man who was deliriously happy that we just passed this new law. He also said that this is only the beginning. The entire country will be going to rent control soon according to him and he's so happy we're leading the way.

Yeah. I can't wait. Boy, we're going in the crapper in this country. Socialism popping up all around us and spewed daily by the politicians while the people just accept it. I think it's time for a revolution!

The largest owner of residential rentals in my City is the City, Los Angeles.They exempt themselves from rent control, inspections, taxes and fee's. They also charge their tenant higher than market rents to make extra funds to help cover their:

Free cars

Gas credit cards paid by the city

Paid vacations

Bonus for themselves

Real estate prices and rent in Oregon dropped in half during the real estate crash. Rents have barely gotten back up to where they were before the crash. So, yes, there were a few years when rent in the most crowded cities went up 10%. But rents are still much lower than any other large city on the west coast.

Rents have now leveled off and only landlords who haven't kept up are doing those big rent raises now.

The control on prices is bad enough but now it is going to be almost impossible to get a bad tenant out. There will be no more no-cause notice to vacate. Relocation money must be paid when tenants are removed for lease violations.

I heard on the news this morning that Florida is trying to follow suit on rent control. Local legislators (Orlando) are all for it.

Not only do they want relocation fees, but 90 day notices.

OREGAN (ID) we don't have rent control in GA. Let me explain about my rentals if you don't mind? I don't really care what the market is. I don't want to come off bragging but just submit rental facts.

We are in sales-- these properties don't sell themselves. We market them and their condition. I get a big laugh when I see the Class of property statements. For us, we don't care what class prop it is, -- it's always an A in that class. I don't wait on Mr. and Mrs. Perfect to come in the door. We don't avoid meeting prospects and will group them so it's convenient for us. We make out property desirable and market the thought-- you don't act now I have 4 more waiting. I was born for rental sales work and like tenants. Especially collectable ones.

My recent rent increases are 100 to 150.00 on 950 rentals--. I also don't allow long term tenants.

As I read it, this isn't a terrible deal. First off, there's no law in the country that's formed without big money to lobby and shape the outcome and that's clear here. Properties built within the past 15 years are exempt from the caps on rent increases. The caps on increase themselves aren't bad; a 10% increase a year should be more than sufficient for most LL's and is probably more than most would have raised anyway. Practically, this law probably makes it likely that the tenants will incur increases they wouldn't have otherwise had as every LL will automatically increase rent by 10% annually.

Evictions for cause can still be done. I'd be more concerned about the no cause eviction and having to pay a month for them to leave. But we talk here all of the time about cash for keys. I suppose this just formalizes the arrangement however, the tenant has no incentive to behave given they're going to get paid no matter what. That part is potentially problematic.

Myob,

A local town is considering going back to rent control now that the Council has gone all D.

In NJ the rent raise is capped at CPI and then rounded DOWN. Current CPU is 1.9 and then rounded down..to 1% !

"New Yorkers busy turning Florida into another New York with rent control and high taxes for welfare."

I recognize that landlords obviously don't want rent control.

But as I read the above posts, I am struck by the ignorance of so many landlords.

The problem is not OR, or socialism, or liberal politicians, or Floridians. the problem is that landlords' good fortune in recent years has caused rents to become unaffordable without sufficient increase in the rest of society's prosperity. Thus, something has to give.

Does anyone here really believe that it is false that rents are too darn high? Consider what it costs to rent a home commensurate with one's status in life, and then consider how much income someone with that status earns.

The obvious solution is to build more housing, but thats too hard for politicians, liberal or conservative.

Universal rent control will someday become a reality, unless landlords become conscious of the effect of their greed on the environment they live and work in. Of course we all want to continue raising rents as much as we can and take pleasure in the income, but the inevitable result is going to be that society will control what we won't control ourselves.

Oh ok, so for profit landlords are now automatically greedy? That's cute.

I'm sure the profit margin's for landlords are much slimmer then many other products that are purchased. Whatever happened to supply and demand?

Over the decades, I've often seen many people from states east of California who move to the SF Bay Area for work or school. After a few years or after they graduate, some move to Oregon because of a job transfer or other work; the state is also just such an awesome place to live. It's a cycle;lather, rinse, repeat.

As has been mentioned before, some sort of legislation similar to California's Costa-Hawkings Rental Act may arise in Oregon. It will take work to draft something, but it's worth the effort if the quality of life goes down.

Roy, when its on year 3 I want them out. So year 2 is a whopper increase in rent.

The houses can be flipped in 8 hours if people don't stay long. Long timers/termers need days just to get their stuff out.

My rent calendar has 9 months of SFH's so each of those segments have 6 to 7 prospects whose leases are up. 2 of the 7 may be new ones 3 of the 5 may be 2 year and 2 may be on their 3rd lease. So beside staggering through a 9 month rental calendar the property's are cycled inside of the individual month.

For evictions and skip outs I use plug and play-- since my lease says 12 month minimum lease I may add a few months on to it to fill a short month. (short being only 4 lease up that month. I also like to keep neighborhoods together for lease expirations so I can rent 2 or 4 while I'm working on one house and AVAILABLE.

NE, I am disappointed in your lack of insight into the problem. I apologize that you are obviously wounded by the "greedy" label, but it seems that you are unable to grasp what I am talking about.

Actions have consequences. If you walk across the street against the traffic light, don't be surprised if you get hit by a car.

That has nothing to do with the fact that everyone else may be walking against the light, or that other people do foolish things or that cars are too expensive. It has only to do with the fact that walking across the street against the light can get you killed. Action brings consequence.

If landlords raise their rents too high so that people can't afford them, then they will get rent control. Action brings consequence.

It has nothing to do with where you live, or your social attitude or your right to raise rent when supply is low compared to demand. Its simply that, if you raise rents too high, you will get rent control. And thus, raising rents too high constitutes greed.

If people are paying those high rents, wouldn't that be market? If those rents are so high and people don't pay them, wouldn't that cause places to sit empty and need to come down in price?

Myob,

I still don't understand 'why' you don't want good rent paying tenants in the 3rd year or longer. Do you enjoy having turnovers?

Roy I may be the most unusual not sure?

I love to hear "gee I need to break the lease", "gee I can't pay", "gee I have to move in with mommy and daddy". For sure Roy there isn't a long term renter I like.

I love this working America-- why because tenants can't just skip over to BK court lie they use to -- so they don't have to pay you. When I see burger flippers making 16.00 and hour I have no reservation what so ever increasing rent.

I LOVE turn overs. tHERE'S NO MONEY in people who do what they say and frankly my bigger profits are in turnovers.

myob: what happened in San Francisco? Los Angeles? New York;

Prices got too high, politicians voted in rent control.

Who should get the blame? Liberal thinkers? CA posters? or too high rents.

Actions bring consequences. When rents get too high, rent control isn't far behind.

If you walk across the street against the traffic light you are impatient.

If you raise rent TOO high, you are greedy.

If you look carefully both ways before crossing the street and very deliberately decide that it is safe to cross, then you are less impatient and you are a responsible crosser and you may avoid the consequence of getting killed.

If you carefully consider how much to raise rent being mindful of the economic environment then you are a less greedy landlord and a responsible rent-raiser and you may avoid the consequence of rent control.

Is it collective greed that raises rents too high or a market imbalance? LL's don't have monopoly control over rental markets. The forces of supply and demand are what drives rents. I suppose one can argue that policies that limit supply would affect rents but that doesn't explain it totally either. Some of these rent spikes are spillover effects of folks fleeing areas where rents are much higher. That's something I see in my area as people flock here from higher cost areas in Jersey and NYC. As I understand it, Oregon and Arizona have experienced the same thing as folks flee California.

I don't see this move as socialism or rampant liberalism. I think the liberal vs. conservative debate generally is a red herring and doesn't represent the true underlying issue here or on most things.

I agree that it is supply and demand. Especially in places that are islands or otherwise limited geographically and can't build up much more, like Hong Kong.

There are more tenants than there are landlords. I have a feeling that this is gonna spread. They are talking about doing this in Colorado. If they do, I will always raise rents by the maximum allowed - which would be higher than my current rate. I would cut back on maintenance, also.

Why is it we never learn from our past? Do some research and you will see this isn't the first time rent control has been used in the US. As Moshe points out action brings reaction, what he leaves out is there is nothing new under the sun. Rent control caused a certain reaction in the past and I have no doubt that it will fail again for the exact same reasons. Based on history it will take 15-20 years for the circle to repeat itself.

" there is nothing new under the sun. "

There certainly isn't.

In my research for my seminar on rent control week after next in our local university, I find 3 relevant crises in housing controls:

the 1906 San Francisco earthquake, where the city of 400,000 lost about one-half of its housing. Many people left the city and others had to be absorbed into the existing housing, by government order;

the housing shortage of 1946, immediately after the war. Again, using San Francisco as example. The CA legislature imposed ceilings on rent BUT WORKED HARD TO ENCOURAGE NEW CONSTRUCTION and successfully;

the preset situation is different in that attention is focused on the social redistribution of wealth to benefit underprivileged at the expense of those that can afford it, and it thus carries with it the possibility of permanent policy depending on political development.

Most interesting is a monograph from 1946 by two powerhouse professors of economics, both practicing (when they were alive) at the most powerful economics faculty in the US (world). The monograph is titled "Roofs or Ceilings? The Current Housing Problem" and was written by Milton Friedman and George Stigler, both of whom won Nobel Prizes in economics.

MikeA wrote, "Hopefully, the early adopter States will be in decline soon enough to serve as a warning for the rest." Unfortunately, those fools would just take that to mean that they need to double down on their horrible decisions.

Moshe wrote, "

"If you raise rent TOO high, you are greedy." Really? What exactly is "too high?" Please enlighten us who have struck you as "ignorant landlords."

Jeff, Moshe: please explain how greedy landlords gouge, and also explain who defines "too high" rents?

I find the worst LL offenders are those that offer the extra-cheap, way below market housing. They collect the rent, pocket it all and let their houses go to ruin. They are often old-school, collecting rents in cash, spend half their time evicting their scumbag tenants, do NO upkeep, then eventually retire and leave the houses to rot - or sell to someone like us who buys it, fixes it up and RAISES THE RENT to market rate.

The people who can't afford my places probably think I'm greedy and my rents are too high, but they stay rented by people who CAN afford them. These people who help me do things like upgrades and repairs...

Like WMH, I would also like to know how greedy and gouging landlord's operate. For the past 2 years or so, when I have set my rents at comparable prices for market, they have sat empty.

I end up dropping prices. I couldn't imagine how long a greedy landlord sits empty around here with a place overpriced.

Or maybe that's counterintuitive? Maybe the super high priced rentals get rented super quickly?

I would think the super greedy landlords sit empty longer and may lose money. Maybe they are the victims here and need legislation to force tenants to PAY higher rent?

They cited 106% rent increases. That might be a good example.

There is good greed and there is bad greed. Good greed: I want to make a lot of money, so I will maintain my buildings to the nth degree, I will do everything I can to ensure that my tenants are satisfied, and I commit to great customer service.

I don't have the details. I am totally against government idiots telling business people how to run their business. Most of the folks in government couldn't hold a job in the real world if their lives depended on it.

That was my question too, NE! 106% of what, and when, and over how long?

Well Jeff, we all know that it certainly isn't just landlords that are stirring this pot. Usually at the root of every movement like this you find some sort of hell-bent psycho with an agenda.

NE, this wasn't started by some wacko. This is from legislators being pressured by tenants who think the rent is too da*n high. Greed? In 2015 Portland rents increased by 15%. I assure you that the cost of doing business didn't go up by that much.

Right, but the lawmakers didn't conjure it up on their own. Hell-bent tenants with an agenda. If rents raised by 15% and the market supported it, where's the greed in that?

I hear you. And yes, those tenants have an agenda - that big rent increase of 15% balanced against their getting a 2% raise. I don't pretend to be an expert in economics. I know that if I jacked up my rents by a big amount my units would be empty, so I don't know exactly how this works.

You pretty much have a captive audience in a city like Portland. I guess a lot of people want to live there, have jobs there, etc. And if everyone's rent goes up, your only choices are to pay it or move to another market. Doing either is not always easy.

There is also the capitalistic, free market approach that I like. Liberal voters keep pushing for, and voting for, stuff that makes it more expensive to live where they are. Then they whine when rents go up.

I can see the reason that this happened, and it will probably happen more.

I can't post the URL for this great article.

You might want to look for it:

The interviewee was a middle aged man. He claimed that he had his rent raised by over 100%. Of course I new there was a catch. Someone doesn't just get their rent raised by 100% for no reason.

Then the story unfolded. He has been living in the same place with his husband for 31 years. That's right. 31 years. So I am willing to bet anyone $1000 right now that his rent has been under market for decades.

What is a greedy landlord? One that raises his rents too high.

What is too high raise in rent? One that will bring rent control.

Whats the matter with you people that you cannot understand that? Supply & demand brings opportunity to take advantage. The marketplace detgermines prices SO LONG AS THE MARKETPLACE OPERATES FREELY!!! When tenants get too oppressed the politicians will vote for rent control, which DOES NOT ALLOW THE MARKET TO OPERATE FREELY.

So take your choice. Too high rents will bring rent control. Rent control is not temporary. Simple calculation will show that high-but-not-too-high rents with moderate increases every year over 100 years brings a bankable sum. Too-high-rents for a few years, followed by permanently limited rents with limited increases for a hundred years also brings a bankable sum. Unless you are mathematically challenged, you can easily do this calculation and take your choice. Don't forget that rent control is generally not limited to prices, but usually includes restrictions on when a tenant can be removed, compensation for having to move, closer control of habitability requirements, inspections, penalties and more.

A word to the wise doesn't go very far around here.

Landlords taking advantage? Oppressed tenants?

What about charging market rents when the market pays it?

I agree with Moshe 100%. Do I like it? Of course not. I hate the prospect of rent control.

But I also know that I can avoid reality, but I cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality.

Alas, after decades of education, research and teaching, I am still convulsed by people who cannot think.

"Landlords taking advantage?" Yes, NE, if there is a shortage and you can get a higher price, don't you take advantage? Isn't that what the word "advantage" means?

"Oppressed tenants"? If the rent is too darn high, then aren't tenant oppressed? And what do they do then? They go to the politicians and demand relief, which the politicians give in the form of rent control.

Charging market rents when the market will pay it? Because the market won't pay it forever. It won't simply stop paying it. It will be constrained by society to do society's bidding, once the politicians get hold of it.

Ok, enough. Enjoy your rent control when it comes. When it does, if you are perspicacious enough to think about it, consider if there is something you could have done to prevent it.

Prices are determined by the market WHEN THE MARKET IS FREE TO OPERATE ON ITS OWN TERMS. Rent control takes the freedom to operate away from the market and puts it into the hands of the politicians. Laws trump market activity.

Only Jeff seems to understand that.

"Why is that [the notion that a rent-controlled market is not a free market] so hard to comprehend? Because it takes thinking instead of read-and-memorize.

Actions bring consequences. Too high rent prices brings rent control. Rent control rules the market. Ignoring the cause-and-effect even after warning in advance brings remorse.

"If the rent is too darn high, then aren't tenant oppressed?"

Merriam-Webster defines Oppression as:

unjust or cruel exercise of authority or power,

something that oppresses especially in being an unjust or excessive exercise of power

Evil landlord generated oppression is a social bias that is growing and being spread further. In a free market the demand for housing is the "authority or power" not the landlord so the oppression is caused by excessive demand. By placing restrictions on the landlord through rent-control you do not address the source of the oppression and in fact as proven over and over again in history actually cause the demand to increase (creating more oppression) as landlords get fed-up and pull the rentals from the market. The simple answer is that adding oppression to landlords does not remove tenant oppression, 1+1=2. The ONLY viable and logical answer is to address the over demand by providing a larger supply, 1-1=0. How do you do this? Re-look at zoning restrictions, reduce city placed restrictions on builders, pull back the expansion of building codes that have added thousands to the cost of new construction, incentivise builders to address the shortage of affordable housing through tax credits.

WMH, do you mean double digits in dollars or in percentage?

Keep in mind that I acquired my apartments back in early 1980s, they are long since paid for, and I am very comfortable without adding to my complex life. I live on my two pensions, and I have more gain from my stock market investments than I do from both rental income and RE appreciation. So I have no real financial concerns about raising rents, I can afford to be philosophical and worry about startegic concerns.

In my area, over last 3-5 years, rents have risen 6-12% per year, due to housing shortage, particularly but not exclusively, in my exact sub-market. A large development was built on the old Donald Douglas Aircraft property, including luxury apartments and also commercial office space designed to attract technology, media and entertainment clients in the growing Silicon Beach area (Frank Gehry, architect; Facebook; Microsoft; Youtube; IMAX; Sony Entertainment, etc). Apartment clients are executives, software engineers, electronic game developers, etc

So what have I done about raising rents? I have good tenants, carefully chosen, and I don't need extra money. In the beginning, I limited my increases to $100/month, thinking that more than that would scare off clients. But it didn't, they know what goes on outside, and they were happy to have the low increases. But that put me more and more substantially behind the market. So I got rid of a few tenants, and offered attractive market-level prices. For the rest of the tenants, I will be raising large amounts, more than double-digit percentages starting this year and playing favorites.

So you don't need the money you receive from your rental properties and they are already paid off...but you are still doing double digit percentage increases in your rent?

If I could ever come closer to a better definition of greed from someone who claims that other landlords are greedy and too stupid to know it then I don't know what it is.

Lets see, an apartment for which I got $2600 this last year;

Prevailing rental rates, already higher than I charge, rose additional 6.1% since last year. Normally, I would raise rent by $100.

$100/$2600 = 3.85%, not exactly double digit percentage, although according to statistical report, I could have raised rent which is already several hundred dollars behind the market, by 6.1% which would be $158.60/month.

This apartment should go for about $3200 and I suppose I will kick out a few tenants this year to raise up to be closer to the market, in case of imminent rent control.

Am I rational or not? It works for me, I know that other landlords will bring on rent control without consulting me, but that will be just in the noise. Life in America has been very good for me. I made my fortune by honest hard work and I am content to remain that way.

I live in a non-rent-control part of the SF area. Rents have been rising very fast here in the last couple of years. The problem here is that someone whose rent is raised 100% and can't afford it also can't find more affordable rentals elsewhere in the same area. People are commuting 50 and 75 miles from less expensive housing in the Central Valley to jobs in the bay area. The underlying problem is NIMBYism on the part of existing property owners, who don't want to see more and denser development in their towns, and the restrictive zoning and land use regulations they get local governments to enact.

JB, you're right.

CDM, I understand your point, but San Francisco, Berkeley, Oakland, San Jose, and Emeryville are rather YIMBY and letting builders such as Mill Creek build monolithic apartment complexes where one-story small businesses or open space existed. Local government usually rolls right over the NIMBY or architectural-sensitive locals who don't usually win. Moshe rightfully pointed out that the Calif Costa Hawkings Law is a huge incentive for new buildings.

JB, I feel the same, but it comes back to fight or flight. The people who don't want to move will fight. Also, as CDM noted, some landlords have raised the rent event over 400% in one year like the one for SF's Golden Gate Fortune Cookie Factory. I actually agree with Moshe about greedy landlords and with you in what you noted in your post on Feb 24 for the topic, Significant Rent Increase.

Since rent control is about controlling affordability of housing, can we apply this same concept to the cost of trucks, legal fees, construction development cost, cable TV, gas, food........this list could go on and on

Perhaps we should make real estate in specific states more affordable by slashing the max value of the real estate there.