• orcrist@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    Oh my God oh my God if the landlords have to sell, that would be… Check notes… That would be really good for people who want to buy houses.

  • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    They’d flood the market with properties shifting us along the supply curve to allow younger people to afford properties?

    Darn, that’d be so… awful? No, I was looking for awesome.

  • banana_lama@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 months ago

    If someone buys a home that was rented. Would the cap apply to them? Because this might result in a loophole

    • JonEFive@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      That’s a good question. But keep in mind that there are significant taxes associated with selling a home in most places that would dissuade landlords from trying to game the system that way. Then again, they’re just one more loophole from making that plan work.

  • OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 months ago

    The push to change the county’s rent stabilization rules yet again was met with skepticism by Supervisors Janice Hahn and Kathryn Barger, who voted against the proposal. They said they were worried that the government was overburdening smaller property owners who rely on the rent to pay their bills.

    LOOOOL

    • shrugs@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      “We’ve once again put these struggles on the back of landlords,” Barger said.

      Oh no… anyway…

  • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    Why would that push them to sell?

    Edit: so the interest rates have risen several percent along with the cost or labor and materials eating into the profits of serial buyers who leverage loans to buy more on previously purchased properties. If they don’t jack up the rent, they can’t manage the debt.

    That said, fuck those guys, hope they go bankrupt. This isn’t someone who has an extra property they invested in years ago, these are the clowns buying everything up and squeezing the market.

    • whoisearth@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      Because they’re over leveraged. They’ve purchased assets when rates were low and now that rates have gone up they haven’t factored this into their profit margins and would either go under or not make enough.

      It’s disgusting. If you have enough money to play the game you should have enough money to live with the consequences and a tenant isn’t your get out of jail free card for your shitty planning.

      • crystalmerchant@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        I don’t understand. If they get a fixed rate at the time of purchase what difference does it make that rates have gone up?

        • WoahWoah@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          Very often these aren’t traditional fixed-rate mortgages. That’s what they probably have on their “primary” home, but when you’re buying homes with the explicit purpose of using them as income generators, the landscape of available loans changes.