Mortgage rates are currently at an all time high since 2000(23 years) and based on statistics on inflation, we might see that number skyrocket further, a 30-year fixed rate was only 5% this time last year, so do I just keep waiting for a housing crash before buying or redirect my focus to the equity market

The fact that 3% rent increase is too low but a 3% raise for a wage is considered a good raise explains so much.

If the city can cap rents, then the county should cap property tax.

In 10 years, my rent has increased from $700 per month to $1700 for the same apartment, same appliances, and same everything. That's about 10% per year in rent increases with no value added.

Crazy how we live in a country where your landlord can decide to raise your rent by a couple hundred dollars while you barely get a raise from your employer, which is just a couple of dollars.

Landlord: If I can't raise your rent by it more than 3% of a year then I won't be able to reinvest in fixing up the place and making it better The place: hasn't had the landlord do any of the things that they were supposed to, person pays out of pocket to fix it themselves

This video uses terms interchangeably that don't mean the same thing. "Rent Control" and "Rent Stabilization" are not the same thing. The bill passed, the first of its kind as the video states, is "rent stabilization" -- it limits the rate of rent increase. Landlords are STILL allowed to raise rents, just not by a certain amount. "Rent Control" is when a hard limit is placed on the price of rent, above which landlords are not allowed to raise rent. The broad consensus among economists is that rent control stifles supply within rent-controlled localities. You could make the argument "actually, there's nothing about rent control that prevents landlords and developers from building new housing!" and you'd be technically correct. It's true, developers won't stop building housing... they'll just build the housing somewhere outside the rent-controlled city, i.e., the suburbs and exurbs. This means housing is pushed further and further away from places of work and existing neighborhoods. This means housing sprawls and sprawls and more families are forced into car dependency in order to get to work. This video lumps both "rent control" and "rent stabilization" together under the umbrella term "rent regulation", then proceeds to say that everything bad said about "rent control" is false because "rent regulations" are shown to keep people in their homes. You see the verbal gymnastics going on here? Watch the video again and note how the narrator hops between these three terms without defining each separately. The video also uses "St. Paul", "Minneapolis", and "The Twin Cities" interchangeably, even though the rent stabilization in question only applies to St. Paul, not to Minneapolis. They're two adjacent but separate cities. While hopping back-and-forth between talking about St. Paul and Minneapolis, the video glosses over the fact that the rent stabilization was next to useless at 9:20 because the raise cap was 3% but without rent control rent would not have gone up by that much anyway. The most egregious omission in this video is the fact that Minneapolis (remember, the city opposite of rent-stabilized St. Paul) has seen RENT GO DOWN by hundreds of dollars this year. There's no mention about how five years ago Minneapolis (not St. Paul) abolished single-family zoning. and have been building thousands and thousands of units each of the last 5 years, making Minneapolis the only city in the country where market rate rent is going down WITHOUT RENT CONTROL. In a video about preventing displacement from gentrification, why was there no mention of this????? I wanted to like this video -- all the families and activists seem like genuine people who worked really hard for their city. Even though I don't like rent control, I do like rent stabilization, so I can appreciate the work the activists were doing. And the production quality of the video was great. But sadly, I'm giving it a dislike because of the terrible writing. I dislike this video because people are probably going to watch it and come away more ignorant and misinformed than they were before watching this video.

Abolish renting for big corporations. Incentivize individual ownership. Cap individual landlords to own and rent so many properties.

As a St. Paul resident, my landlord was only able to raise my rent by $30 June 1st thanks to the new legislation. Them being able to raise rent by whatever price they want would be impossible for people to afford staying due to wages being stagnant..

I was looking for something that was a strong argument FOR rent control / stabilization. However this WAS NOT it. While the personal stories are important, they do not address the economic arguments around RC/RS. If someone has a life event that causes financial hardship, there should be social programs that steps in, but that should NOT be addressed by RC/RS. RC/RS does cause a shrinking of the rental pool, and a lowering of rental property quality. There are several proven economic factors for that, and too many examples in the US to support this. There is nothing in this video to viably support a counter argument. The reason that RC/RS tends to get interest and bills are passed is because of these kinds of social stories, but not economic reality. More people understand the former rather than the later, and people = votes. So far I have only heard of ONE example where RC/RS worked. That is in Austria, but technically this wasn't RC/RS that worked. RC/RS was used as a vehicle for the city of Vienna to buy up properties from former landlords after poisoning the rental market. Once they crashed the rental market with RC/RS, they were able to step in. The city effectively became a socially motivated monopoly landlord, and sets rents based on a balance of overall need, and induvial circumstance. It is the only example where property quality did not decline, because the city itself guaranteed it's maintenance in a zero-profit model. I would be interested if anyone has another positive example. The "Vienna" model is unlikely to get any traction in the US since it requires both a very strong socialist mentality, and a city with a lot of money to buy the properties. As far as I know neither of those exist here. I believe the closest we could hope to get in the US would be a significant expansion of well-targeted Section8 vouchers, or a local property tax increase that was then directed to building city-owned housing for those with low means, and/or high needs. Since these really do target the REAL problem which is the supply of housing. RC/RS has shown many times that is does the exact opposite and reduces that supply.

Where’s the debunk? St Paul’s development has indeed decreased. Stopping ‘gentrification’ means these places fall into disrepair.

This is the on the ground reporting the mainstream absolutely neglects. What a valuable channel, thank you for all you do.

This video relied heavily on the study conducted by the college of Minneapolis & St. Paul. 1. It is a weak argument to say that because you observed on average about 2-5% yearly rent increase from 2000- now that rent control set at 3% is not likely to reduce Landlord's profits by much. Why a sample size of only 20 years? Does that factor in the increased cost of development, or the crazy amount of inflation since 2020? 2. The claim that rent stabilization will not affect rhe rate of new development. The study looked at cities that exempted new construction from rent stabilization, and said this bill by Minneapolis is the first of its kind. 3. The idea that landlords want profit = evil, or Landlords price their units higher than the local population can afford= evil. Literally the community activists all chararcterize landlords wanting to raise prices higher than 3%, or that are against this measure as "predatory". Any warnings of actions landlords and property developers may take is are framed as "threats". 4. Gentrification. Saying that the city reinvesting in newer construction, and trying to attract higher income residents is racist, or clasist. This video specifically cites construction of the US highway system and how that displaced a lot of black people. The city needs net tax payers, and can not function of of dreams and socialism. Richer residents moving to Suburbs kind of left a vaccuum. Overall, this is a policy doomed to fail. This is like trying to hold onto a handful of dry sand: the harder you clench your fist, the faster sand escapes until your hand is empty. New York commercial, and residential is an absolute dumpster fire of inflated prices and poor quality. The community organizers in this video may have won the battle temporarily, but in less than 15 years, most of the poorer residents in the city will have to move away anyways because of the economic reality of trying to live by yourself in the city nowadays. Want to avoid being priced out of a home? Form strong bonds with your friends and family, and don't become overly attached to living in the same area code for the rest of your life. Notice how often the anecdotal examples of beneficiaries of rent control are single mothers/ single-income individuals? Notice how this think piece completely ignores what happens after higher-income residents move into the gentrified city? ( the gentrified portion is better to live in than the surrounding non-gentrified portion) No matter your politics, or religious beliefs, strong, in-person human connections are needed now more than ever. A lot of young adults want to move out of their parent's house at 18, and make it on their own in the big city. A lot of people in poorer communities are afraid to explore what life has to offer outside of city living. 4 or 5 generations may have rented in the same place forever. Maybe it's time for a lot of lower-income city dwellers to seriously consider a new lifestyle, and try to build a community where they could actually own their property eventually? Ever heard of homesteading, or living out of a trailer? Displacement does not equal death. Landlords losing profit does not equal death either, but eroding the limitations slowly, over time of how the government can influence the economy will have widereaching, unpredictable consequences. In the case of an individual being displaced, individual community members could easily help them out. In the case ofthe government gambling in the economy, once the city's money runs out if the State government does not bail them out, then everyone gets displaced anyways. When those "greedy, rich people" are no longer able to provide the services, noone wins. Fight for rent control. Get mad at how corporations manipulate housing prices. Do whatever you want. All I know is it is not saving those Black communities, and you are foolish if you are a single-income person who insists on living in a city where you are a few, bad economic decisions away from being homeless. If you need everyone else to fund your economic decisions and cushion the economic consequences for you to maintain your situation, then are you not forcing your decisions on everyone else in a way? Is it not in everyone else's self interest to look out for themselves and ignore your needs at that point? Since this conversation already devolved into "fuck those landlords; they're greedy, and we need the government to hold them accountable" why should landlords care if poorer residents don't have homes? that goodwill will not erase the economic conditions leading to the price increases. Their concerns are ignored anyways because there will always be more poor people than rich people in any population.They will be outvoted, and have to take individual action because "Minority Rights" are no longer prioritized in the US government.

I know properties all over the city I live in that will ask for 2000+ USD per month for a one bedroom, one kitchen flat that haven't had a tenant in a decade or more. I know folks that were willing to pay these extortion prices for a flat, where the landlord mysteriously went silent or suddenly found another tenant when they mentioned the partner that will be living with them is either of the same gender, is transgender, or goes by a non-binary pronoun. Landlords are parasites on society that will lie through their teeth if it means they can raise their profits or keeping a minority group from their properties.

This is what capitalists wanted and vote for. This is what corporate Dems and conservatives fight for. They want capitalism.

Gross cherry-picking at 8:02. Read the full text on the screen, not just the highlighted portion. The video highlights that beneficiaries were "10 to 20 percent more likely to stay in their homes long-term." Narrator ignores: ❗"these welfare benefits were offset by 𝐝𝐞𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐞𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐚𝐯𝐚𝐢𝐥𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐬" ❗"rent regulations also likely fueled the 𝐠𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐒𝐚𝐧 𝐅𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐢𝐬𝐜𝐨." ❗"landlords utilized loopholes allowing them to 𝐫𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐯𝐞 𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐰𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐛𝐞 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐳𝐞𝐝 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐚𝐫𝐤𝐞𝐭." ❗"subsequent 𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐞𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐝𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐝 𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐬." Guys, this is IN THE VIDEO ITSELF. The video is titled "Debunking Your Landlord's Myths", but even the studies picked by the video creators prove landlords correct on this matter. This is basically what's happening: Landlords: "If you implement rent control, we'll stop building housing." NIMBYs: "That's a myth. Landlords won't stop building housing because of rent control." Landlords: *stops building housing* NIMBYs: "OMG, who could have seen this coming? There's no way rent control had anything to do with it."

2:58 Rent Control is a Price Ceiling, not a Price Floor.

My rent just increased by $348-- per month due to market value. What do I receive?????? NOTHING.

Lol, ok then, feel free to advocate an idiotic policy that the entire economics profession has agreed is horrible since the late 1800s. “rent control appears to be the most efficient technique presently known to destroy a city-except for bombing” - Assar Lindek, a Swedish socialist economist

The very short clip in this video is very true about burning down rent controlled apartment buildings. I am from NY and saw this with my own eyes. The landlord's would burn the buildings and collect the insurance money because they could not raise the rent. This was an epidemic back in the 1970s and the 1980s. The buildings are all old decrepit falling apart and in dire need of repair and the landlords did not have the money to fix them.

9:10 Not so fun fact, basically no cities or states in the US keep track of which houses are currently occupied, who owns them, or requires real names for owners. Simply asking the local water+electric utility to find out which houses are drawing water+electricity to attempt to find this out is considered a massive overreach into corporate private knowledge. The US census also doesn't publish a list of which addresses they've knocked on, and the 2010 census had a 22% self reported non response rate, and the 2020 census is largely considered terrible and borderline nonusable because the Trump admin ended it a month early, explicitly went after immigrant groups with harassment and generally completed the already poor process worse than normal.

Rent control always results in lower supply in housing and lower supply of housing always results in higher rent

When your plumbing needs repair we can let the rent control advocates pay for it...

There is rent control, then there should be price control for at least hydro, water, gas, property tax and interest rates.

Landlords wants rent to pay their mortgage if no rent coming up no mortgage is paid … Meaning the bank will take over the apartment complex and the landlord will be homeless too .

Love that excuse. If you put a cap on rent then landlords can't afford to renovate. Anyone who's lived in a cheap apt. knows that they don't renovate in cities where there are no caps anyways!

The rent is out control. I feel bad for low income people. I rent out a house for 30% less than I could get. But my tenants are great and take care of my house, which is why I charge less rent.

Rent control advocates are DISHONEST in their conversation. The solution to more affordable rents isn't rent control, but rather building a wide variety of single to family sized units. Look at TOKYO--the world's largest megacity with 40+ million people and more affordable rents than NYC, SF, LA, Miami. Does Tokyo have rent control--NO! Instead Tokyo has a huge supply of different sized apartments which makes rent prices affordable for EVERYONE, from young students to elderly seniors. Rent Control ALWAYS results in not enough units being built, which causes scarcity of housing, which raises prices on small levels of available housing to rent--just look at the destructive effects of rent control on construction of new units in NYC, SF, LA--there's never enough new low priced units and the few that are built have expensive rents because of the high cost of construction. 40 years ago, rents were much more affordable across the US, before numerous cities started implementing the FAILED economic/political policy of rent control. If the goal is to have more affordable rents, you have to dramatically increase the supply of units available for rent--this is solid economic theory which is visible in numerous big city examples like NYC, LA, SF and Tokyo.

I sold off my rental houses to New home owners due to recent rent control laws in my area.😊

Our rent in 2020 was 761.00 now it is 1255.00. No updates, same early 2004 he appliances, can’t paint, can’t have a business in apt, no change in income, and we live upstairs

Rent control would get these hedgefund owners out of the realestate biz and enable more individuals to buy houses at a reasonable rate. People used to buy a house or two and rent it out for retirement income. Now hedgefunds throw money at housing like they printed it themselves. Soon no city will be affordable for anyone making less than a tenured doctor or successful lawyer.

Y’all know rent control fucks over renters that don’t benefit from rent control. Landlords jack up the price to new tenants to price in future rent increase caps.

How can you stabilize rent but don't stabilize property taxes, insurance rates, maintenance costs, and all the other expenses? Everyone only looks at one side of the coin.

I think a decent amount of people think landlords are individuals. In florida, lot of complexes are ran by property management who prioritize shareholder dividends. Many are like renting from a buy here pay here, slap a pretty bandaid on it until someone signs a contract.

I don't think rent control is the answer. I think corporations buying up starter homes needs to be stopped. That will naturally bring down home prices and that will affect rental prices.

What happens when inflation exceeds 3%? What happens when property taxes go up over 3%? This is effectively the same as income control...what if the government said you could never go up more than 3% in your income even if they raised your taxes by 5%. Even if you got a promotion your stuck at 3% and with higher taxes now your making less overall. Rent is someone's income and when the expenses aren't regulated then who will buy or build there? What should be going on is passing laws that prevent the government from spending too much and laws that prevent them from raising taxes.

The problem with this comes when taxes and insurance cost start rising faster then the landlord can increase rent due to the 3% cap. My insurance jumped 12% this year and county taxes 8% due to "inflation" but if i was capped at 3% i would be forced to sell the house vs keep renting it. I simply wouldnt pay the mortgage.

The landlord has to pay mortgage, insurance, maintenance, real estate taxes & other expenses. When expenses rise at 10%, a 3% rental increase will result in no more rental housing built, no improvements--just look at San Francisco.

Not even 5 months after it passed - the law was overhauled. Why? Well- new construction was halted and nobody could get financing to build housing. Unintended consequences when you put in price controls. St. Paul will have housing permits-just in the form of luxury housing.

This chick is talking socialism communism. We the People is about the government not about private Enterprise. What if they were told on their job that the maximum raise they can get ever is 3%? No matter how much better she did her job. That's why landlords need the extra money too because their cost-of-living goes up. And the 3% doesn't cover the costs now extra to maintain the property? Now they're making less money.

Threatening future profits for housing suppliers WILL cause them to shy away from supplying more housing. I am correct?

landlords are NOT government!!! are you going to ask grocery stores to give free groceries????

Ma’am. Sorry for your loss, but what was that landlord supposed to do? His bank that loaned him money, won’t listen to his excuses for not paying. You’ll need unfortunately, to get govt help

The 3% cap is still too much of a yearly increase for many. For example 3% of $1800 monthly rent is $54, so in two years your already paying about $110 a month more. Income is not keeping up with these increases and with the inflation in general. More has to be done. We have to challenge the idea of housing as a commodity and think of housing as a basic human right.

Good vid! Keep it up!

price controls have never worked and always raise prices and lower quality. price controls is literally rent control.

I wanted to like this video, but it mostly tries to appeal to emotion without showing real data to support the effectiveness of their approach, and actually debunk the claims of their opponents. They also made no mention of single family residential zoning laws that essentially make high density housing illegal in many cities in the US, constricting housing supply in areas with growing populations.

Noticed how they focused in on bigger property management companies. They say nothing about families in the next tier that own a single property. Inflation goes up, but there's nothing they can do to finance repairs, upgrades or quality of life for their tenants.

And the Bank came to the landlord and said with no sympathy "If you don't pay the mortgage, we're going to foreclose on the property. And the government came to the landlord and said with no sympathy " If you don't pay the property tax, we're going to take your property.

help me with the math please, I went to public school, landlord cost for upkeep is $1000/month, but landlord is forced to collects $700/month, how much does landlord need to continue providing rentals to his other tenants?

Cynthia says when her best friend (her husband) passed away, all income ceased. She then blamed her landlord for having no sympathy at all at her not being able to pay rent. Trouble is, landlord also needs sympathy if rent is not paid.

Here in NYC they built a bunch of luxury apartments and many of them sit empty because most people can afford it. The problem is mismanagement and greed.

The report says rent control just cuts into the profits of the most predatory landlords. Unfortunately, rent control does not filter out only the predatories - it applies to every landlord. Why not price control groceries, medicine, gas, transportation, education, cable, electricity, water, sewage, and garbage collection as well? Why only rent? It's unfair. What seems obvious is decidedly ignored by news people.

Development DECREASED more than 60% in St Paul and INCREASED in Minneapolis over 60% since St Paul's rent control went into effect. New York has had the longest running rent control in the country San Francisco has had the second longest run. New York and San Francisco also have the highest rents in the country. This quote in 2018 from a Brooking Institute analysis says much: "While rent control appears to help current tenants in the short run, in the long run it decreases affordability, fuels gentrification, and creates negative spillovers on the surrounding neighborhood." There is a reason that literally more than l90% of economists from both left and right agree rent control is detrimental overall.

She lied. When her husband died.( :35) All income ceased. And she ask people where she work AKA her source of income, where she could live. And now she is a home owner….. “all income didn’t cease!

Before talking about rent control talk and APROVE CONTROL ON PROPERTY TAXES, CONTROL ON INSURANCE, CONTROL ON UTILITIES , CONTROL ON MORTGAGES, CONTROL ON REPAIRS. THEN WE CAN AGREE ON RENT CONTROL

This follows the pattern of practically every argument by activists who push for rent control. Start with a hard luck story from somebody who got sick, lost their income, or otherwise experienced housing instability, and use that to make their landlord, and by extension all of them look like bad guys. How much empathy, e.g. free rent was the landlord supposed to offer this person? They did't go into that, But if you look at the recent pandemic eviction moratoriums, the answer in many cases seems to have been years, if not forever, as I don't know any jursidiction where activists didn't keep pushing to make eviction moratoriums for rent nonpayment permanent, or contine to extend them indefinitely. In any case, the hard luck story is used to pivot to rent control, even though nonpayment - not a rent increase - was the problem with the hard luck story, and rent control would not help with that. In arguing for rent control they highlight a few positives - mainly allowing established tenants stay in place longer if they choose to. But they ignore MANY well known, and seen in places like NY, SF, and others with longstanding rent control - a huge bifurcation between controlled and market units - a massive shortage of housing controlled or otherwise, extremely adversarial relations between housing providers, government, and tenants, misallocation of housing as people cling to too large - or too small- units as long as possible since they are grandfathered in with low rent they can never replace elsewhere, and problems with deteriorating housing. The article tries to downplay negative effects like claiming we don't really know if rent control will limit housing construction or reduce maintenance. This is a joke. If nothing else, it is basic human behavior. If as a developer or a landlord I can make the choice to invest in an asset which holds is value or appreciates and provides a steady X% return, and which I have control over sufficient to maintain and protect it, or I have a choice of investing the same money in an asset whose returns are capped regardless of its increases in expenses or inflation, to the point that its real income is likely to drop annually, making it a depreciating asset, which one am I going to invest in? If I build or create these assets, where would I want to build to find the most buyers? Put another way, would you, given a choice between two jobs in the same industry, both with the same starting pay and benefits, where you have to buy your own tools or equipment to do the job. For one of the jobs you are told you will NEVER receive a raise greater than 3%, regardless of inflation, the economy, your performance at your job, or how long you work, or any promotions you might get, or how much you contribute to the employer or organization, and you will be punished for quitting by having to sell your equipment even if in perfect condition at a substantial loss. OR, in the next town over you could take the same job and while not guaranteed (nothing ever is) on average over time you will receive raises commensurate with your advancement, promotions, performance, and inflation, and you could easily sell your tools at a fair price and switch jobs if a better opportunity arose. Human nature says its makes much more sense to take the latter. Why do activists pushing rent control think housing providers won't act this way? The main problem is they try so hard to dehumanize developers and housing providers that they can't or won't acknowledge that as people they have the same needs as everybody else - with stories like the evil landlord kicking out sick residents with little warning, or using the usual trigger words like "corporate" and "profit maximizing" anywhere they can. Housing is actually one of the most grassroots industries there is. It is possible to function successfully as a landlord, and compete with ALL your peers in a given market regardless of your scale, whether you rent a single house, half a duplex, or have a portfolio of hundreds of units. In many cities in the US it is possible to buy a run down home pretty inexpensively and with a lot of elbow grease get it habitable and offer it for rent (or re-sell it). A heck of a lot of people have built themselves up from little or nothing this way, while recycling uninhabitable or end-of-life housing and providing an essential service. Compare that to for example auto manufacturing, where it is near impossible to start a new car company without billions of dollars in investment.

Rent control stops all new development

Wages have gone up a lot. Rent control doesn’t solve anything it makes cities worse. Crime worse in areas with rent control too because they can’t evict gang members.

If tenants were that rich to pay high rents then they would just get a house already instead of being tenants. Being a tenants is mostly for poor people. It's gross how some people exploit poor people.

San Francisco is now the model city for rental regulations 🤣 Good luck with that. Lady in beginning said her husband passed away and her landlord had no compassion. I'm very sorry for her loss but when does compassion equates to free rent? Would we then say supermarkets have no compassion if they still make you pay for food? Should town show compassion by not collecting taxes? A loss of a loved one is absolutely terrible but it does not absolve one's responsibilities.

The reason why rents are so high today is because of the housing shortage, the rent moratorium during Covid, and beyond, and all of the free money people were given. There is too much money in circulation now and inflation has done its thing. Welcome to the new paradigm.

This was really great. Thank you again for putting such effort in simply explaining such things.

Rent control goes against the principal of a free economy. Income property owners are the only industry where there is price controls. Rent control limits the desire to build apartment units. Less units creates more demand, which thereby escalates rents. Every economist will cite this principal. Study after study shows that where there are jurisdictions with rent control create higher rents. The market should determine the rental value.

"First bill of it's kind, and not enough research to know what it will do to new development" 10:44 okay so they don't have a leg to stand on with this video

Yes on Rent control! It protects tenants and neighborhoods against gentrification!

I love this channel, and I’m not even American! ☺️

Cities don't need more housing they need better transportation that doesn't really on cars.

In the long term the data shows rent controls hurt housing affordability. A bill that isn't even two years old is not a factual representation of the data.

I hope our grandkids learn in the future about the failed 20th century dual philosophy of communism and capitalism and the damage and suffering it did to humanity

Hot take, I guess: Everyone should have access to free housing. Like, if you want to save up and buy a home, thats great. But an option free at the point of service should always exist for housing (etc.) Sorry, not sorry. Fight me.

Rent control should only apply to units with ALL of the following features: 1. Built before 2000 2. Experienced no rehabilitation (substantial or otherwise) at any point since 2000 3. The landlord owns the unit mortgage-free

No one invests in cities with rent control, limiting the number of available homes to rent. Most landlords don't own the property. We have mortgages and taxes, no to mention insurance. One of my property's rent isn't enough to pay taxes. It takes two months plus rent, to pay taxes. Then I have to pay insurance and repairs, which I mostly do myself but have to buy supplies. Blame your government, not landlords.

Now what about GAS control. What ,about FOOD control. What about credit card control. What about cell phone bill control. What about cable TV and internet control. What about Auto Insurance charge control. ??? Everybody manages to have all of this stuff regardless of the cost and even if the cost goes off they will still have it but they will whine complain and b**** about the rent. Go figure?? We sold our rental properties in New York over 30 years ago. The best move we ever made. We invested that money in the stock market and made a lot more money than we would have collecting rent. All landlord should sell their property put their money in the stock market let the government house the people

The young gal in the video, says, developers threaten to disinvest if rent control happens. Rent control passed, and building permits for multifamily homes in St. Paul have dropped 80%. Bottom line is, if landlords can't make money, they cease being landlords. A 3% cap on rents, with inflation over 8% do the math.

.....how does running a highway through a black neighborhood in the 60s have anything to do with debunking rent control?

Mankato MN- on the surface it seems like MN nice but underneath is a regime of middle class homeowner clienteleism and unaffordable housing. Not very hospitable to low wage workers. The metro area only has ~100k people.

Rents are out of step with wages. It's a money for nothing scam. Curb it or end it.

Why can’t we control the price of everything? How has that worked throughout history? What makes housing different?

It's not the landlords job to show sympathy. You failed to save a emergency fund. It's unfortunate but it's on you! Not the landlord.

It's sad honey....maybe you could tell this story to Bank of America....they been so helpful collecting that mortgage each month

Where are all these men who need to take care of their children? This is not the job of the taxpayer.

If inflation is 7% and rent hikes can only go up 3%, the landlord will lose money. What will happen is that landlords will no longer fix things. Also all market-driven construction will cease if the builder cannot make a profit. Folks, it works like this: either the builder and landlords make money or no new housing stock is made available. The only building that will take place is public housing, but the benevolence of taxpayers is not limitless.

lmao, rent control will keep landlords from improving their properties? Fuck, I didn't realize my $12,000/mo shitbox was rent controlled 'cause my landlord doesn't do shit.

This is absurd. So no matter how high the inflation, no matter what the demand, the owner is supposed to... Subsidize you?

If you get anything out of this learn 2 things. Don't rent, buy and if you do rent pay it before you eat otherwise you're going to be homeless regardless of what your reason is.

building more apartments wont reduce rent..wanna know why, cause building nothing but luxury apartments priced more than the average mortgage is just gonna make people not want move into those apartments..then all you get is a bunch of expensively built half empty complexes/buildings

Rent control is theft from landlords. Landlords are not a charity.

Ya gotta have a law that protects landlords too.

An unfortunate situation but landlords have bills to pay too. I didn't buy rental property to so I could start a charity. I didn't it so I could make a profit. Not the kind of profit YOU think I should make but the kind of profit that I want to make. 😎👌

Rent control stops run away speculation which is a good thing

Rent control will hurt minority landlords and cause them to lose there property. Black ownership will definitely decline.

As a Landlord, I'm out. Evicting everyone and selling. Good luck tenants

Wake up people we are headed forward socialist country !!

Putting a cap on rent at the same time that property taxes, insurance, repairs, etc are going up will result in landlords selling the houses. This means less available rentals which increases the cost of rent due to supply and demand.

How about lowering property taxes and repealing taxes that are no longer necessary.

The government wants to save the HUD projects, so they want to cap the rent. I live in low-income housing because I am a childcare worker and an older woman.

Lol, now we know the affect this has had with new building permits having dropped 61% in St. Paul whereas in neighbouring Minneapolis who voted against rent control saw new build permits increase 65%. These people have it in their head that they're being extorted, that these increases are a product of corporate greed when 75% of landlords are just individuals like you who have mortgages to pay that are rising, inflation is also impacting the cost of labour and materials for repair of those housing units.

Why is everything about race?

Can we stop all the b.s. and just build more housing? This will make a huge dent in this problem. Govt is the root cause. This can all be fixed if red tape and regulations were eased on builders. This "problem" has been around for many decades, and few viable options have come to fruition when govt is involved. It's all by design, by our govts.