Isn’t this just going to pass costs from existing tenants to future tenants who will be given much higher up-front rents?
> Additionally, the study showed that landlord expenses were increasing, in large part because of rising insurance costs and the need to make repairs and upgrades. With few exceptions, the most recent rent stabilized properties are nearly 50 years old and half of them were constructed before 1950.
> Citing a need for landlords to invest in their buildings, the city housing department recommended to the council that it change the limits on rent increases to a maximum 5% annual jump with a floor of 2%, depending on inflation.
There is going to be a lot of deferred repair work. I wonder how many of these will turn into safety issues. What happens if a landlord cannot economically repair some issue they’re required to fix? If they’re caught between rent increase caps and regulations requiring fixes, do they just risk having their property seized?
> But councilmembers whittled down those numbers last week in its Housing and Homelessness Committee, which Raman chairs. Her committee pushed forward a more aggressive plan that would have banned increases altogether if inflation was low enough and capped the hikes at no more than 3%.
To me, it’s insane to even consider banning rent increases altogether. I am surprised this was seriously discussed.