Pros And Cons Of Rent Control

The problems that arise from housing are numerous. Housing takes up more than half of all real property tax. Not only that, it’s also the largest issue in a family’s budget. The federal government spent $38 billion in preferential subsidies and $2 trillion on housing in total in the year 2006. Rigid zoning codes prohibit certain types of housing from being built. This prevents some citizens from being provided with homes that fit their budget and ads to the chronic problem of homelessness our communities face. Too many houses can crowd neighborhoods and make transit difficult. They can also obstruct view and, when foreclosed upon, lead to plummeting property values.

In short, lack of motivation in exchange for more red tape causes investors and landlords to move towards more profitable options. This movement of money and resources tends to negatively impact people trying to find a place to live, most notably the poor. The National Multi Housing Council (NMHC) states that prospective customers must pay finder fees to find a rental property due to a presumably growing scarcity of available housing. As if this were not bad enough, in some communities rental properties are handed down to friends and family, so they never quite leave the market. In order to obtain housing, new consumers are forced to pay “key money” and other fees. These costs tend to impact young, single, and poor families the most.

In 2011, the Los Angeles Human Right to Housing Collective joined together with citywide residents to protest unfair housing practices, and increasing rents at Los Angeles City Hall. Over the past four years, Los Angeles residents have seen rapid increases in rent, which is leading to more and more people moving out of L.A. in the hopes of finding more affordable living arrangements. The three percent rental increases that Los Angeles residents are accustomed to have been climbing this past year, and in 2016 many Angelenos could be seeing a four or maybe even five percent cost of living increase. Studies from the U.S. Census will show that Los Angeles renters occupy not even 50 percent of Los Angeles county housing units. In comparison to the percentage LA renters are taking home per paycheck, it is now becoming more affordable to buy property in Los Angeles, rather than rent.

The problem is there is inevitably a lack of housing, due to homelessness and influx of people. Without enough housing, the prices of the homes will be very expensive; however, if there is not a balanced mix of luxury and affordable housing, those already living there will be forced to leave because they will not be able to maintain taxes and other increases that will be tacked on to housing expenses. In order to make this process a bit more feasible, New York created the “Inclusionary Zoning program.” This program required “that developers set aside a certain percentage of units in a new development as affordable units.” The issue with this zoning ordinance is that although it was stated as a “requirement” the city kept it as a voluntary process.” With the ordinance being voluntary and developers with a capitalist mentality, many developers opted out of adhering to the ordinance. Although the residents of New York may not be in the power broker or decision-making classification, many of its inhabitants have been there for many years. Unless there are efforts to make this ordinance mandatory, there will be much opposition to keep new development out.

Those who cannot afford the high prices of housing are often forced out into the streets where they face a very uncertain future due to the number of abuses they encounter daily from all walks of life, with the most damning being the vagrancy laws that come into vogue in areas that are getting gentrified, which many cities have passed to “protect” their newfound assets and tax base from the “lowering” of property values. Furthermore, when cities such as Los Angeles demand that property developers set aside affordable housing for lower income people, they get sued in court, such as in 2009, when real estate developer Geoffrey Palmer successfully sued in order to overturned an ordnance which required that. This was also the same man who also proposed building a footbridge connecting two of his buildings to minimize contact with people he deemed undesirable (Davis).

Affordable housing: Rental housing or property that costs no more than 30% of one’s income. This is the long-established criterion for housing affordability (Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University, 2013).

It is often easy to castigate large cities or third world countries as failures in the field of affordable housing, yet the crisis, like an invisible cancer, manifests itself in many forms, plaguing both urban and suburban areas. Reformers have wrestled passionately with the issue for centuries, revealing the severity of the situation in an attempt for change, while politicians have only responded with band aid solutions. Unfortunately, the housing crisis easily fades from our memory, replaced by visions of homeless vets, or starving children. Metropolis magazine explains that “…though billions of dollars are spent each year on housing and development programs worldwide, ? At least 1 billion people

What is known about the dearth of inexpensive living spaces in high-cost, heavy populated areas is its scarcity is a function of supply. Demand remains a non-issue for policy makers as demand has

One of the causes of homelessness in Baltimore City is lack of affordable housing, this includes subsidized housing from the state. Lack of affordable housing in Baltimore City is due to an increase luxury housing and Baltimore’s decrease desire for rental housing (Mayor’s Office of Human Services, 2013). Available housing is not proportional to the wages of people living in Baltimore City. Nearly half of renters in Baltimore spend 35% of their income or more on their rent. The waiting list for Baltimore City opened in 2014 and 74,000 households applied for 25,000 available slots for up to six years to own a voucher (“Homelessness in Baltimore,” 2017). For the extremely poor population there are only 42 available homes for over 100 people who identify with the population (Public Justice Center, 2015). Therefore, Baltimore needs to make affordable housing for their population or there should be an increase in jobs and wages. However, the private sector is not interested in developing houses for the low-income population because it is not profitable compared to selling a building to a company to make luxury housing (Richman, 2015).

“I took a trip to Oakland, California and fell in love with the area. We stayed at an Air B&B for the three days of our stay and the house was absolutely beautiful, it looked like my dream home. Despite all the glitz and glamour around us we noticed a large amount of homelessness compared to Columbus. We found out that this property is not someone’s home but a house used strictly as an Air B&B. When you hear something like that and see the amount of homelessness it makes you wonder how many of these homes are strictly for show? So after researching I found out, the reason for the rampant homelessness can be attributed to large increases in rent. Even worse, the cause for the increase is due to Silicon Valley” (Kasongo, 2017). Unfortunately, rent increasing virtually overnight is the reality of many low-income families. This situation is called gentrification and is felt throughout the world, from the Midwest, East coast or even Western Europe, no region is immune to this process. Gentrification in the Midwest is extensive and wide causing the displacement of many low-income minority residents which can lead to even bigger issues.

For all of these reasons, I believe that rent control should be abandoned in New

Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights asserts that housing is a fundamental component to a decent standard of living, yet few city governments--even in the most developed economies--have proven themselves capable of ensuring such a basic right to their constituents (United Nations, General Assembly). Ranked 49th among the 50 U.S. states for its number of housing units per capita, California has notoriously struggled with chronic shortages in its urban housing market. With 118,142 homeless people recorded in 2016, California holds almost 22% of the nation’s homeless population (Fact Sheet: Homelessness in California 1).

Yet another effect of gentrification is its effect on senior citizens. Seniors often live in the same unit for many years. As a result, rent control has kept their rents well below market rate, and landlords stand to gain the most from evicting them. For example, in the Mission District of San Francisco, many seniors live on a fixed income, and cannot afford market rate rents once they are evicted. "They lack mobility, and have difficulty

Now in early 2015 the policy was about to expire in June and led to a protest of citizens looking to get this protective policy extended. This protest was aimed at governor Cuomo to fix this issue because when he ran for office this was one of his campaign promises. He was setting out to fix this troubling issue to make apartments

People who have low income are all willing to pay their house rent at a reasonable and affordable price, in order to accommodate public’s wishes, the New York City regulated the Rent Control law in 1947. The rent control is originally designed to against the potential increase of house rent, and also protect citizens’ personal property. This is an empirical example of the implement of the price ceiling, which is the maximum price set by the government, any price beyond this price would be considered illegal. (Microeconomics) But after the rent control was enforced, does it really help the public as it was supposed to do? The answer can be either yes or no.