Seattle can’t simultaneously argue the homeless aren’t drug addicts while also suing Purdue pharma for causing homelessness.
The documentary focused on the homeless on the streets. He wasn’t wrong about that portion of the homeless population. People take what he said so out of context that it’s laughable. The knee jerk emotional reactions are revealing.
To call it a documentary is what is laughable. It was a dramatization of facts based on a self-selected list of 100 individuals who had committed the most crimes (out of 12000+homeless).
A problem that small should be easy to fix.
I would laugh if that were funny.
Do you live in Seattle?
I’m a good person
You can call it a tax, or whatever. It does not change the underlying fact that the government is asking private property owners to use their own resources to service the general public. I hope we don’t need to debate whether this is a fact. I am not arguing whether it’s fair which is another topic.
I’m and you are not. IS it clear enough?
Tax is the same concept. Wealthy is paying more of their personal money for social service. I am not saying it’s a good policy. But why is it different from taxation ?
There is no special requirement to become a section 8 landlord. You need to be willing to rent to section 8 tenants, which means you need to be willing to deal with the government (and the attitude that comes with it sometimes), and you need to be willing to perform the repairs in order to pass section 8 inspection. That’s it.
The most significant part is the willingness to deal with section 8 tenants. Section 8 tenants come in all sizes and shapes just like non-section-8 tenants, but by definition they are low-income (sometimes by choice) and generally speaking they are of lesser education. So you need to have the right personality to be able to handle that.
Seattle facts:
2010:
Rent $1,112
Minimum wage $8.55
2017:
Rent $1,823 64% increase
Minimum wage $15.00 75% increase
Fact is wages have actually out paced the rent increase. Plus, if $1,823 is median rent, then half of rents are below that. Everyone makes at least minimum wage.
If rent control were just a special tax that is tied to the rental activity that landlord has to pay, even though it seems discriminatory for investors in this class of assets, it would’ve been ok. Landlords can work that out into the business P&L and it will eventually be reflected in the asking rents. Asset prices will be adjusted to accommodate that. Market forces will still run its course and capitalism is flexing its muscles.
But rent control is not just about money. The main problem is it’s an invasion of private property rights. The government says you cannot freely kick tenants out, and you cannot charge more rent than what they deem appropriate. It would IMO be relatively more fair to say that landlord can still freely kick tenants out (given enough notice) but must not charge more rent for new tenant either (vacancy control). But then this is going to cause rental housing stock to dwindle and government knows it which is why it’s not happening. So it appears that the government wants its cake and eat it too.
No rights are absolute. What is important, to the courts anyway, is whether rent control constitutes an undue burden on landlords. That’s for the courts to decide. Rent control has been in various shapes and forms in different parts of US for many decades. You’d think someone would have brought a case to the Supreme Court if they think they had a case.
I don’t think rent control is a good policy, because it doesn’t give the intended results. But whether it’s constitutional? I think it is. Government does have the right to restrict property owners’ rights in the form of rent control.
Of course no rights are absolute. Of course the supreme court have the right to restrict property owners’ rights in the form of rent control. Supreme court has the right to interpret the law as it sees fit. So this is not really an argument. It’s not what we are discussing anyway.
What I thought we were discussing was whether rent control is a public policy that asks private citizens to use their private resources to take care of public good. Supreme court says these private citizens have to do that (there have been many cases filed and lost before) as court has the right to make the demand, but the fact remains that it is a policy that asks private citizens to use their private resources to take care of public good. The policy is lawful, but a fact is a fact.
I am not totally against rent control, although I do disagree with its current form implemented bay area cities. The government does implement other forms of price control under special and temporary circumstances so rent control is not completely alone in this.
Anyway, that’s enough discussion on rent control. Back to Seattle.
Just one last thing:
Ok. I guess there will always be some risks when you rent out your property to others. I think mostly because I was a first time landlord I didn’t want to take on additional unknowns (how is rent determined? How is payment handled? Are there often delays? are section 8 tenants more likely to complain about the property?), so I did not open the listing to Section 8. Also, in Berkeley, there is just-cause eviction so I figured the possibility of getting stuck with tenants of protected class, if they turned out to be troublesome, would not be worth it to me.
Exemption from rent control (SFH) and maybe also having the option to decide whether to rent to Section 8 both played a part in deciding to rent out the house at all. What you mentioned earlier wrt rent control and keeping rates stable (no vacancy decontrol) while maintaining ability to evict sounds reasonable. Landlord-owners want to have the final say on whether they want to stay in business within the existing conditions they are presented with. In other words, I should be able to sell my property vacant.
People suddenly become reasonable when they deal with their own property. This is why I am suspicious about socialism and communism.
When talking about taxing you, I would become a nobleman. When it’s about taxing me, I would become a real person 
Is everyone like this or am I just not noble enough?
I’m assuming you were referring to me, so I will respond by saying that I am fine with paying tax that will go to programs like section 8. And, I agree that people generally appear more reasonable to each other when we understand them better in terms of their own situations. That’s why I had asked you, BAGB, about your personal experience with your own properties. I understand the need for some privacy, but I feel your approach has been to troll so I choose to ignore it. I do believe you have something we can learn from.
Since you are a first-time landlord, I just want you to be aware that even though SFHs are not covered by rent control (can increase rents beyond the published percentages), they are still covered by eviction control meaning you need to have a just cause in order to evict. You can increase rent to market value, but if you increase it too high above market with the intention to evict then tenant can sue you with “ulterior motive”.
You are one of those. Some people support rent control but avoid buying rent controlled property themselves. That’s like supporting setting a trap for other people but avoid the trap yourself.
So generally I don’t trust people who seems not real.
The taxes for section 8 is the federal tax. If you are not overpaying, you are not special at all. Saying you support section 8 tax is like saying nothing at all, nothing noble.
I respect people who contribute more than others by voluntary charity work or donation without forcing upon others. I despise people who advocate taxing others but avoid those taxes themselves. Taxing is a general term here. That’s evil. Doing evil is despicable.
People have different level of intelligence and different level of sophistication. To set up traps for other less intelligent and less sophisticated people while avoiding those traps with your better position is really bad, worse than criminals since its impact is 100x worse than a murderer
+1