this post was submitted on 16 Jul 2024
761 points (97.6% liked)

News

23371 readers
5192 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Steve@communick.news 94 points 4 months ago (10 children)

Treating the symptom.
Okay I guess. I'll get excited when I see a plan to treat the disease.

[–] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 26 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

There’s no reason to get excited at all. Biden can call for it, but Congress has to write and pass the legislation. Republican House majority won’t let that happen.

Vote in November.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] TommySoda@lemmy.world 68 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (8 children)

Cool, my rent is still 70% of what I make in a month. It's almost like it's already too late, but I'm too poor and uneducated to be an expert. Got any other ideas?

[–] Irremarkable@fedia.io 56 points 4 months ago (1 children)

The best time to do it was any point in the last 100 years. The second best time is now.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[–] psycho_driver@lemmy.world 50 points 4 months ago (3 children)

5% is crazy talk when workers wages are going up 2.5% per year. Landlords need at least 20% more every year.

[–] coolteathatisgreen@lemm.ee 19 points 4 months ago

But if it pass, then it is first win. I fear that landlord are not going to let it happen without a fight

[–] OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml 12 points 4 months ago (1 children)

You gotta get something that will pass

[–] dan@upvote.au 17 points 4 months ago

This is what happened in California. The statewide rent control is 5% plus inflation per year, capped at 10% per year. There's a bunch of exclusions too, like the property has to be at least 15 years old, and single-family homes that aren't owned by a corporation are excluded too. I think the builders and landlords had quite a bit of a say in it, hence the limit being so high above inflation (assuming inflation of <=5%).

Still a lot better than it used to be. It applies to month-to-month rentals too, so you can get the flexibility of a month-to-month rental while still having a limit on the rent increase per year. Evictions also need to have just cause and there's a notice period of 60 days if the tenant has lived there for longer than a year.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] njm1314@lemmy.world 49 points 4 months ago (19 children)

Man this entire thread is just a perfect encapsulation of the perfect being the enemy of the good. What a bunch of useless chuds.

load more comments (19 replies)
[–] cheers_queers@lemm.ee 43 points 4 months ago (6 children)

we have several lifetimes worth of policies to change to fix the mess we are in. this is exactly what Biden should be doing, passing policy after policy in the next few months that have obvious positive results for the common voter. he's not gonna run out of stuff to do if he's re-elected, so he needs to stop holding onto this shit like it's his last wild card of all time.

[–] ayyy@sh.itjust.works 23 points 4 months ago

But that might upset his owners, I mean campaign contributors.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] BallsandBayonets@lemmings.world 37 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Woah, an actual campaign promise? Maybe the Dems do want to look like they're trying after all.

[–] SirDerpy@lemmy.world 13 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

If Democrats kept their promises we'd have codified Roe, have free healthcare for all, and literally no one would carry student debt but those that haven't yet had time to graduate.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Cagi@lemmy.ca 35 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

Where I live we've had a 4% cap for a long time. It just means tenants get evicted to increase the price. It's illegal, but the procedure to after landlords cheating the system is so grueling and adversarial, it puts justice beyond the reach of many victims. I can only imagine this being even worse in the US.

[–] phdepressed@sh.itjust.works 20 points 4 months ago (5 children)

If this caps rent even if the tenant changes it'd be something. I don't see how this passes an R house or gets through the "moderate" Dems in the senate.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] HootinNHollerin@lemmy.world 34 points 4 months ago (29 children)

That’s great!!!

Need to stop corporations buying houses next, and tamper foreigners buying up houses too (almost every country I’ve traveled to won’t let me buy so why not do the same?)

load more comments (29 replies)
[–] Kroxx@lemm.ee 27 points 4 months ago (1 children)

3 years of absurd rent prices and we are just now seeing legislation, wonder why......

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] sentientity@lemm.ee 27 points 4 months ago

A sensible, too-little-too-late rule, probably full of carveouts and exceptions, that I nonetheless feel really relieved to see. Delayed and watery regulation is better than none, I suppose.

[–] treadful@lemmy.zip 27 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

As if it would ever last the captured supreme court.

[–] Icalasari@fedia.io 17 points 4 months ago

Would be good if he coupled it with a promise to stack the Supreme Court

[–] robocall@lemmy.world 24 points 4 months ago (4 children)

Let's build a million new homes and sell them to people that don't currently own any homes.

[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 33 points 4 months ago

Let’s ~~build~~ seize a million new homes and sell them to people that don’t currently own any homes.

FTFY

Fuck these ogres hoarding real estate.

[–] boonhet@lemm.ee 20 points 4 months ago (2 children)

There's no shortage of homes in the US. They're just being hoarded for their increasing value.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] TheDemonBuer@lemmy.world 24 points 4 months ago (3 children)

I suppose he has to do something to signal to voters that he's going to try to fix the housing affordability crisis, but this is pretty meaningless. But, what can he say? The truth? That the housing crisis is an extremely complex problem that will take decades to fix? Probably not going to go over very well.

[–] 4am@lemm.ee 19 points 4 months ago

Not allowing landlords to drive people into homeless on speculation and greed is a good first step to solving the very complex problem that will take decades.

[–] twistypencil@lemmy.world 12 points 4 months ago (4 children)
load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] masterofn001@lemmy.ca 24 points 4 months ago (1 children)

In my province the cap for increase was usually around 1.5 - 2% for existing tenants/renewing lease.

The conservative gov went ahead and fucked everything up and said this doesn't apply to anything built after 2005, or new builds - that means any new anything in an existing building.

New basement rooms? No cap. (No cap) But, if the basement had rooms 35 years ago, and you 'build' "new" rooms, it isn't new and falls under the older more tenant friendly laws.

However, between tenants, a landlord can do whatever the fuck they want to prices.

Shitty rooms went from 375 to 700 I'm 5 years.

[–] whoisearth@lemmy.ca 12 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Hello fellow Ontarians. I feel your pain. It may be little solace but know I bought a house with a basement tenant 3 years ago. Their rent was $1100 a month for a 1 bedroom 3 years ago and it's 1100$ a month now. I don't need the money. Fuck landholding pariahs taking advantage of renters.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] catloaf@lemm.ee 19 points 4 months ago (7 children)

Hasn't rent control been shown to be ineffective at making everyone play nice? I feel like it's much more effective to put your finger on the supply/demand balance by subsidizing the supply side.

And not by just giving handouts to corporate landlords, either.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 27 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Hasn’t rent control been shown to be ineffective at making everyone play nice?

It's proven effective at causing landlords to scream and cry and publish 10,000 word Op-Eds about how they're going to do a capital strike if the rules aren't changed.

But, when paired with new investment in public housing, its incredibly effective at keeping rental costs stable long term.

[–] littlecolt@lemm.ee 16 points 4 months ago

Just like with unions, you know it's good for the common people, because the business and property owners speak out against it so strongly. If it's pointless, they could just let it happen. But instead, they rally against it. So you know they're lying when they say it won't matter.

It will matter.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] IzzyScissor@lemmy.world 18 points 4 months ago

I'm sure this comes with a guaranteed 5% increase to minimum wages at the same time right? ... right? Any amount of minimum wage increase from the last increase 15 years ago?

[–] DudeImMacGyver@sh.itjust.works 16 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Prices are already jacked up to an insane level compared to wages, the horse is already out of the barn: This is not going to fix the problem renters face.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] boaratio@lemmy.world 14 points 4 months ago
[–] Sami@lemmy.zip 10 points 4 months ago (4 children)

That translates into rents doubling in less than 15 years

[–] HootinNHollerin@lemmy.world 11 points 4 months ago

Well mine went up 28% in a year so I’ll take 5%

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] JJROKCZ@lemmy.world 10 points 4 months ago (10 children)

That’s still way higher than anyone’s raises each year…

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] dan1101@lemm.ee 9 points 4 months ago (18 children)

Cool, but also cap property tax increases as well. Mine have increased over 10% for the last 3 years.

load more comments (18 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›