Maybe the landlords should eat less avocado toast or something like that. Bootstraps…. idfk

  • sewer_rat_420 [he/him, any]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    5 months ago

    My landlord bought this now 2 unit property in the 70s when this was a “blighted” neighborhood. Now its a trendy neighborhood (thanks to it becoming the gayborhood and now being awash in rainbow capitalism) and he is making $6k a month from property he outright owns. And doesn’t even attempt to maintain, because it will just get sold to a developer for 7figures USD on that old fucks demise.

    Fuck landlords

        • knfrmity
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          5 months ago

          Blackrock has $10T of assets managed vs. Blackstone’s $1T, so definitely not smaller. They just have different focuses (real estate and private equity for Blackstone, and traditional stocks for Blackrock), and have been separate companies for a while.

          • USSR Enjoyer
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            5 months ago

            You’re right. Thank you for the correction, I worded that poorly. I meant to indicate that they own a much smaller amount of commercial properties.

  • Pastaguini [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    5 months ago

    A 3% rent increase on a $2600/month one bed one bath is $78/month, which over a 12 month lease is still an additional $936 for doing literally nothing. But all of this is irrelevant because $2600/month for an apartment was already way overpriced to begin with. L.A. county could force them to lower rents 3% and they’d still be making an obscene profit. And if these landlords sell, what are they going to do after that? Get real jobs? Not likely. It’s a total bluff. People choose to become landlords because they don’t want to work. Capping rent hikes at 3% would still allow them to not work, so they’re not going to suddenly sell of their assets and do something else. Also landlords (especially the big ones - companies such as Greystar/Cortland/Lincoln) invest with the ultimate goal of selling the buildings. That’s where the real money comes in. So they’re going to sell no matter what lukewarm rent regulations are put in place.

    • USSR Enjoyer
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      5 months ago

      Yep. This has signature California faux-populist policy written all over it. Capital still gets its firehose of rent for doing nothing with slightly improved market stability, and the people get good vibes while the machine grinds them into slurry.

      • Kaffe
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        5 months ago

        Also selling a house doesn’t change its value, the new mortgage is going to be virtually the same as rent (banks issue mortgages in relation to expected rents), and will likely be turned around to rent anyway.

    • 小莱卡
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      5 months ago

      they’re threatening to sell their houses to… blackrock?

  • pinguinu [any]
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    5 months ago

    Rent hikes max over here is 3% per year and owners aren’t selling, in fact rent is the highest it’s ever been. So full of bullshit