Sounds like pulling up the ladder after all the people who bought the houses already climbed it.
What about all the people who have already purchased and are just holding onto an empty house for speculative reasons?
What about all the people who have already purchased and are just holding onto an empty house for speculative reasons?
Feel free to come up with constructive solutions though.
The rent is set by the market — if I charged a million bucks a month (it’s a one bed flat) it would be empty.
No matter what my costs are, the number chosen by my agent has to be both “as high as possible” and “no higher”.
I do know the government can mess up and if you Google “rent controls” the standard downsides there are real problems if the government goes too far — but there is room to improve the current unreasonable (in my favour) mess.
The market dictates what I can charge.
And if I have good tenants I’d rather keep them than immediately try to recover costs.
Where people may get confused is in ignoring the land appreciation assumptions built into a speculative investment. They don't always recognize that a capital-rich investor might be perfectly happy to buy a property and sit on it for decades without thinking of it as a revenue source. They can only imagine a more leveraged landlord where the property is purchased with a minimal down payment, the rents have to cover all mortgage, tax, and other operating bills, and the landlord may only have a limited amount of emergency capital.
If he thinks a property will appreciate and make money, he will absolutely buy it and let it just sit on his books for a decade while the RE value increases and he waits for an opportune time to develop or rehab it.