That's the classic argument against rent control: It encourages landlords to keep their properties crappy in order to avoid long-term rentals.
Weird incentive in a housing market like the Bay’s: if you own an older property (rent controlled), your ideal tenant doesn’t much like it & will leave as soon as it’s feasible. Upgrading your property such that anyone might *want* to live there will lose you big $$$
-
-
-
I think most people assume this happens as a process of crappy maintenance to push out tenants after >10 years, but in markets like the Bay you want to know your tenant is planning to move on before the ink on their lease is dry
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Reminds me of London high Street fashion shopping: You go into Topshop etc. and the music in there literally blasts off your face. They want you to make quick bad decisions and then LEAVE. If you stay, you will be able to *think* and leave the bad stuff there.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Truth is nobody is happy with housing in the Bay Area. Not tenants, nor landlords
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Is that because the owner wants rapid turnover b/c they can raise the rent a small % *each* time a new lease starts? And I suppose that even at the fastest turnover rate, the rent ceiling isn't increasing as fast as Market-Rate rents?
-
AFAIK: Each turnover resets to market rate. It’s only the increases during your tenancy that are capped.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.