Subtitled "Bye Bye Private Property Rights" Hochul's started her housing plan for January 2023 will be "bold and audacious."

Here are a couple of items resurfacing again:

SFH zoning will be "adjusted" to facilitate building more Cabrini Greenesque highrises.

"Good Cause" Eviction and other "tenant protections"

I tried previously to warn about a white house conference promoting these issues as a national policy.

The subject needs more that a website comment like "Oh goody! Another layer of unelected bureaucrats.", and not even a check.

There is a BASIC problem here that is impossible to disregard: Rents have become too high for a large segment of the population. Various solution are suggested, usually involving curtailment of convenient rights that landlords have long cherished. And Mom-and-Pop landlords have, for the most part, done nothing about the problem. much less suggesting possible more-palatable solutions. In short, they have done nothing but complain. They don't organize, they don't raise money, they just complain that "they can't afford, they don't want to pay for "lobbying", they want "big Real Estate companies " to save them from their own inaction.

The potential for a NATIONAL POLICY is clearly there, and being organized as-we-speak. The standard political way of dealing with such problems is for those who are affected to offer their own solutions.

This kind of lunacy will and is spreading. If it is not stopped the business of being a landlord will likely become a thing of the past for the small landlords.

If that should happen, I for one, will simply find something else to do. Flip houses, build houses, become a home repairman, whatever. Invest in houses in other countries that don't do this stuff. Invest in other companies.

I got into being a landlord because I owned a construction company and did a lot of work for other landlords. I was young and saw the opportunity and took it.

If being a landlord goes away, I will find something else.

Oh, come now, Richard.

Times change, but do you really think that a) the name "lunacy" is really appropriate and b) that being a landlord will go away?

We have had rent control, eviction moratoriums, and tenant protections in CA for 3 years now, and no one is barking at the moon and no one is quitting being a landlord. We have adapted.

The landlord community needs to be better educated to learn how to deal in the modern political world. Problems come and go, they get solved for better or for worse, and the American political system (before and after DJT, but not during) continues to function to solve the country's problems as they can, with sacrifices from everyone and an eye toward the future. And those that don't want to be part of the solution always lose out.

Moshe, Broad brush statement "no one is barking at the moon and no one is quitting being a landlord." In fact they are. At the very least they are voting with their feet. Population in blue states (not including the massive illegal influx) has been dropping like a stone.

When you buy a rental, you are buying a basket of goods.

That foundation was laid 20 years earlier.

That furnace is already paid for

That power panel is already installed.

The cost of these goods do not typically go down. So the value of a piece of real estate typically goes up. Take a place like California - not only are less people moving into the state, but the birth rate is less than the death rate. So both gross and net migration are negative.

People tend to move away from BS ideas and policies.

It is nice to think that mom and pops operations can set the rental rate or impact housing policy. Last time I checked our industry was fractured into small operators.

So unless you have a master idea to coordinate and organize things, then the trend will continue. Truly is this that big of deal? It only means the quality of renal housing will go down, that the number of people using each unit will go up and the political stumping will continue.

I warned my local landlord group, back when I was first on the local landlord tenant Commission, years and years ago that they were working on changes. We needed to organize and have a voice.

Instead the current County executive was elected by 75 votes this last go round and 140? the previous election. IF WE Hd organized we could have easily prevented his election/relection. We are a county of close to a million folks. He is pushing for rent control like in his town. He claims it has been a huge success there, not true, but he is controlling the narrative with little opposition. We do need an organized voice and it needs to be sane. Really addressing the problem and collaborating on solutions that work best for everyone. Not my way or the highway attitude.

So the threats begin:

Business of being a landlord will likely become a thing of the past for the small landlords.

Yes we need to find a way around this as usual, why should this and why should that happen to landlords? But no plan for action.

Discussion of costs, the the threat: jump to people are leaving California. But if they are leaving CA , then why has housing become so dear? And leave the master plan for others.

Very importantly misinformation needs to be challenged; but how does that solve the problem that rents are too high?

This will fall under its own weight. Well, lets wait and see.

So, lead the charge, Moshe.

And, here are some points to add to your charge:

We already have a national rent control of sorts, and it is UPWARD pricing of rentals. IRS apparently threatens landlords whom might not be charging 'enough' in rents with declaring the landlord is not profit motivated and therefore is running a charity, and can lose all of their deductions. Every year, when I run my taxes through Turbo tax, I get the message that my rents might not be at market rates, and TT does a comparison for me. I'm not worried, as I audit rental sites, print out copies of the few rentals I can find in my price range. This year, it was harder, I admit, to find much in my price range. BUT, I have found quite a few For Sale properties that mention in their listings, currently tenant occupied at $XXX per month. And that figure greatly satisfies the requirement that I have my properties at ' market rates'. That I also show a profit some years, also helps.

So, any discussion of rent-control should address that our taxing authority is the largest single pusher to increase rents. And it all goes to minimum mark-up laws, aimed at 'helping' mom and pops compete with larger chains, especially in the gas station business.

So Turbo Tax calculates rental comparisons. I failed to see what that had to do with the IRS.

If you WANT national rent control, then sit still and don't organize. It seems that you are getting what you want.

But if you DON'T want rent control, tenant protections and eviction moratoriums, you are going to get it, sooner or later, and your bucolic state boundary won't protect you.

Those who organize and support fair legislation will have SOME opportunity to help to solve problems facing the renter community and their own problems as well, and those who merely complain about socialism and liberalism won't get anything to say about THEIR problems at all..

Moshe, TT is income tax preparation software, everything the program does is ONLY to follow rules, guidelines, regulations of the IRS. Its not Turbo Tax saying landlords have to charge ' market rates' its the IRS that mandates this. Thus, the IRS imposes a national rental price floor. It is the IRS that has made it known they have the authority to decline a landlord's deductions IF the landlord fails to charge sufficient rents.

It is probably the HUD rate that is used. Unfortunately, the HUD rate lumps large, disparate areas together, just due to physical proximity. My HUD area encompasses two counties, with vastly different economic status. Thus, I find supporting evidence for my rates, which are on the lower end of market. Works for me, as I am rather busy, don't want to deal with frequent turnovers or heaps of tenant drama. AND, I firmly believe it is good for families and neighborhoods to have a more stable population. Not that I am trying to do social engineering, I just prefer to operate in an increasingly safer neighborhood, rather than an increasingly turbulent one. ( one little landlord doesn't change much quickly, I'll tell ya!)

Problem with 'organizing' is, it just adds another control group, telling ya what to do. And, yeah, a landlord can still have a say, even if it means selling, doing other things. Yes, somebody else would buy those properties, but would no longer be the former landlord's problem. A relative of mine has put all of his 'rentals' into rent-to-own status ( I might be using the wrong term, kindly correct me if I am.) Anyway, the formerlandlordnowinvestor no longer deals with repairs, not at all concerned if occupants smoke, have pittbulls, or extra occupants. Instead, just verifies that the monthly payment has been deposited, and life goes on. If payments are missed, foreclosure ensues, the property is refreshed, and back on the market. I believe the relative has an option for homebuyers to get an outside mortgage, then the investor is simply done with that property. Though that doesn't happen too often.

Organizing landlords/ housing providers may be just another way of saying, ' Do it MY way.'

~I prefer the road less travelled. It has made all the difference. ~

Does anyone have an example of where the IRS took action against a landlord for not having his rates high enough where it wasn't pretty clearly trying to cheat the system by not properly listing income?

Is there even one example where the IRS took action where the landlord was actually charging normal/market rates?

I guess I've never even HEARD of this idea that Busy is complaining about before. I even tried to search for it and couldn't find a single instance of it actually happening.

I think TurboTax just added a nice tool for landlords. I don't think it has anything to do with the IRS coming after anyone for not charging enough. (Again, except in the cases where landlords are lying about incoming by listing fake rates below what they are actually charging.)

John, you certainly aren't trying to imply I am cheating on my taxes? Sheesh, so that's how its justified. Oh, they must have been cheating... uh-huh...

I've seen it discussed in two major tax books. But, what do they know? ( snort)

So, back to my question to Moshe. Why aren't you leading the charge, when you seem to be challenging others to do so? Maybe its your calling....

I wasn't suggesting that of you at all.

You just implied that it was happening. I can't find any example of it actually happening. Was just curious if you had a real-life example of it. Anywhere.

Phil (OR) , I hear ya! My son and daughterinlaw are out your way, and after I got comfortable with being a LL, we considered getting properties out by them. They both have good building skills, good people management skills ( they can both be tough, loving drill-sergeant types,) and my husband and I could provide the capital investment, and we could set up trips to work on properties and see our family. Add to that they have come out and helped me on my rehabs in Wisconsin, and found we work well together. So, with all of that good going for us, just those ' laws protecting tenants' have brought us to full-stop on this idea.

Other laws in your area have also put 'full-stop' on other plans they had for adding economically to their society. For instance, they have acreage, and do quite a bit of gardening. Looked into expanding into growing marketable plants to sell at farmer's market. But the onerous fee, in the thousands of dollars, just to be able to sell fresh produce at the local farmer's market put the kabosh on that.

So, by trying to 'protect' the consumer, OR and WA have reduced the offerings available to the consumer. Now, if those fees came with rigid inspections, training classes, to verify/ ensures that market gardeners weren't importing invasive species, or using outlawed chemicals, or other health and safety measures, maybe it wouldn't be so annoying. But, apparently not so. Just a fee, just because.