844
L.A. County wants to cap rent hikes at 3%. Landlords say that would push them to sell
(www.latimes.com)
this post was submitted on 09 Jun 2024
844 points (98.4% liked)
News
23287 readers
3732 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
SIKE! sold houses are only bought by corporate holding companies, now you've lost even more rights!
In France there is a law that forces you to sell to your tenant if he has the highest bid
Why would you need a law to make someone sell to the highest bidder?
Because sometimes there's a tie
Or the landlord might just want to spite the tenant, or he might want to sell to a "new" buyer who turns out to be business partner/cohort/shell LLC/etc.
It's even better than that because it is illegal to make bids on a property you sell so the seller name a price and if someone want to buy it at that price it's sold. Most of the time buyers tries to bargain on markets where the demand is low
This happened a lot during the Great Depression. But then I believe the owners found a way to withdraw the auctioned property if the minimum bid didn't suit them. The French law might bring back the Penny Auction by saying, "You put it up for bid - a sale has to go through."
They can still do that through proxy buyers. If you go to enough auctions, it's easy enough to pick them out.
Wouldn't you sell to the highest bidder anyway?
I mean, my wife and I didn't sell to the two highest bidders on our first house because the fuckers were obviously going to rent it out.
One was a bid entered by a piece of software often used by flippers and rental companies (had branding at the bottom of the pages etc) and the other was a cash in hand bid with an overt offer of more under the table, which is fairly illegal where we live.
We selected third place, someone who had messy handwriting, obviously has been written by two different people, and ended the bid with "777" which was cute and showed us not only were they human, they really wanted the place. And no wonder, with offers like the first two likely happening on nearly every sale in the area.
I did that myself with a home. I ignored the high bid in favor of selling at a steep discount to a young family.
Wouldn’t most people sell to the highest bid anyway?
Never any history of racial segregation in the housing market, nope. No Sir. Never.
Are people really accepting less money so they don’t sell to brown people? Like why would you care? You’re selling the property. You don’t have to deal with the new owners if you happen to be racist.
Granted, this article was from all the way back in… last week.
“An African-American woman’s quest to buy a pricey condo near the Virginia Beach Oceanfront – impeded by the white homeowner’s refusal because of her race – is just the latest example.”
“…landlords frequently use subtle methods or mask the real reasons why they don’t want people to move in.”
Virginia Mercury News
Gotta keep the community pure.
I'll add, as a minority there are neighborhoods that are off limits because I know I would not be accepted, and, I have an "ethnic" name, so I assume some bias may be held towards people selling in neighborhoods like that.
The neighbors care. So unless you don't live in that town it could make for some interesting neighborly interactions. Wouldn't be surprised to find court cases of neighbors suing for loss of property value.
Yes but we had our fair share of assholes
There have been auctions in the past, mostly farm, that the community got together to drive off outsiders and then proceed to lowball every item on the auction. They would then return everything to the owner after the auction.
It was a fine 'fuck you' to the bank, until the bank closed or sold out because they no longer had the assets and cash reserves needed to stay open themselves. Which then screwed the rest of the community over.
More precisely, when you sell the tenant has the right to buy it first.
If the landlord is thinking of accepting an external offer under the initial price then he has to ask again to the tenant if he would buy it at this lower price.
Umm, you can legally sell it to someone else and not the highest bidder?
Not in France. If the tenant wants it, the tenant gets it
Idk, something like 12% of all metro Atlanta area homes are leased out by about 3 rental property companies. That's a huge amount.
Comparing across the nation doesn't really matter in things like real estate where prices, inflow vs outflow of people etc vary wildly, particularly when talking about the actual impact on the average person within the locality.
"Cherry picked by source to increase clicks" what sort of landlord boot licking is this lmao. Amherst Holdings (owns almost 40,000 homes nationally), Pretium Partners (owns around 80,000 homes nationally), and Invitation Homes (also around 80,000 nationally) own through subsidiaries 11% of all single family homes across metro Atlanta for rental purposes.
This isn't opinion or spin, it is fact.
Most of their ownership (9.2% of that 11%) is from houses in the lower half of median home value, effectively ripping those inventories out of the market for first time home buyers and inflating the price of those tiers of homes for first time home buyers.
Maybe you're confused about what "Metro Atlanta" means. It's not just the City of Atlanta. Metro Atlanta is spread across 5 counties, from the heart of downtown to some real yeehaw rural areas of the outer counties.
0.2% nationally != 0.2% locally.
https://news.gsu.edu/2024/02/26/researchers-find-three-companies-own-more-than-19000-rental-houses-in-metro-atlanta/
Link to the research: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/24694452.2023.2278690
Read it for yourself.
That's a bad-faith comparison and shows you are unserious about the very real issue some localities face with investment firms holding "cheap" single family homes as indefinite rental income, or just butthurt my data disproved your application of a BROAD GENERALIZATION to a specific region. Likely the latter.
The actual statistic NATIONALLY is lower because it is an aggregation of MULTIPLE MARKETS. If you want to find out what is happening in a local market you look at the local statistics if available which is what I provided you.
You have not proven me wrong lol. I gave you the research laid out proving three entities, through almost 200 shell companies and LLCs, own 1 out of every 9 single family homes in the metro Atlanta area. That is the ONLY argument I was making - that in the ATL market the percentage is much higher than 0.2%.
You can say "no u rong me rite durrrrr" all you want but you are undeniably incorrect about what I said.
Your condescending tone is noted so I'll just be insulting now: you are a fucking idiot who is so butthurt I provided evidence against your non-factual claim that locally the percentage is the same that you've elected to stick your dumb cunt fingers in your digital ears and go LALAALALALALALALALALAA like a jackass. Fuck off.
ETA: FROM YOUR OWN FUCKING LINK YOU ABSOLUTE BRAINLET: "The analysis found that the investors were heavily concentrated in some fast-growing areas, such as Atlanta and Jacksonville, Fla. Institutional investors own 10 percent of all single-family rental properties in Atlanta and 8.5 percent in Jacksonville, the study said."
GEE who was right? Certainly not you ya fuckin troglodyte
"Wow you sound angry" yeah dealing with braindead morons does make me angry, particularly when they argue a point their own fucking article disproves..
I gave you data for the market I was talking about. Your own article gave you data for the market I was talking about. Who did it align with? Yours or mine? I'll give you a hint, not yours. "Stay in school" your dumb ass can't read.
The "thinking for yourself" quip is a mask slipping moment for you. Denying reality must be fun.
It did prove my point which is to say it is a problem in certain locations e.g. Atlanta. I never argued against the overall national average. I understand your brain cells are working overdrive here but holy shit.
I've been making the same point since my first reply to you. My position has never changed, which is a correction to your insinuation that the corporate ownership of single family homes as rental properties isn't ultimately a big deal because it's a small amount overall
Here's what you said:
It's only a miniscule fraction NATIONALLY. That's why I said what I originally said about Atlanta in my initial reply, where there IS a very real problem of available inventory because 1/9 homes are owned by national corporations. It's not a myth for everyone.
Then you said my data was wrong (for which your own WP article said I was right,) which I already said was explicitly about the metro Atlanta area, not the nation. Then you double and triple downed with a pinch of condescension and dickishness. Then I called you a dumb cunt.
You could've just said "oops my bad, I misread your comment" which you either did or have just been trolling this whole time.
For what it's worth I do agree with you that landlords selling would be good, regardless of the local, regional, or national quantity of single family homes owned by national corporations. That was never in question for me. Just the first part.
"That sounds like an Atlanta problem" one can only reasonably address this issue locally/regionally. To paint broad strokes with the national average is CRAZY disingenuous given addressing inventory deficiencies isn't like shipping a widget from Omaha to Los Angeles.
Most people need to not worry about the national average because it is skewed (speaking of - what is the actual distribution?) - they need to worry about wherever they actually are.
ETA addressing the last paragraph of your comment: agreed! That is something to be celebrated. Wallowing in doomerism certainly doesn't help anyone but let's also not pretend this isn't a very real problem people face (home unavailability).