L.A. County wants to cap rent hikes at 3%. Landlords say that would push them to sell
L.A. County wants to cap rent hikes at 3%. Landlords say that would push them to sell
A proposal to cap rent increases at 3% for many landlords in unincorporated L.A. County is meant to keep housing affordable for at-risk tenants.
Paywall removed: https://archive.is/MbQYG
You're viewing a single thread.
-
I'm old enough to remember when the government has tried to cap the cost of one thing while ignoring other factors. It never ends the way the government thinks it will.
-
That's bullshit. Nyc has rent stabilized apartments and it's fucking fantastic. Not perfect of course, but really really good. Those apartments are highly sought after. The biggest problem is that there aren't remotely enough of them
-
Almost like no one wants to build any because they can't be invested in and the only people it works for are those who already got one.
-
How strange. Probably wholly unrelated to rent control in any way.
-
So how much money someone can make from a property has no relationship to the decision to build more property?
Really?
-
Absolutely not. Economics, shmeconomics. Landlords bad. LALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU LANDLORDS BAD ALSO BUILD MORE HOUSING
-
-
-
Maybe housing shouldn't be an investment?
-
It shouldn't be - but ill tell you right now that no one will be a landlord unless they can make money from it, and people who move out of home at 18 won't have the money saved to buy straight away.
Make no mistake, I don't like the housing crisis and its causes either but I know rent caps isn't how we fix it long term.
-
Why do we need people to be landlords?
Housing coops and government-owned housing work out fine.
-
Yes they could - but they aren't being used.
Plus, you know, that's socialism or communism or something else people don't like for some reason.
-
-
-
-
-
-
I'm only enough to remember when corporations were not people, and when the ultra wealthy paid taxes.
-
Corporate personhood was ruled on in 1886.
-
That's not what your link says
-
That’s exactly what that case was. It grated Equal Protection Rights to corporations as well as Natural Persons. That’s then what is referred back to as the case law when “Is a corporation a person?” comes up.
-
A headnote issued by the court reporter in the 1886 Supreme Court case Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Co. claimed to state the sense of the Court regarding the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as it applies to corporations, without the Court having actually made a decision or issued a written opinion on that point
This is why you don't go to Wiki Law School.
-
… It’s then referenced as if it was part of the verdict in Singer Manufacturing Company v. Wright the next session where Justice Newman’s opinion confirmed it explicitly.
“[…] it is now considered settled, I presume, by the language used by Chief Justice Waite, speaking for the supreme court, in the case of Santa Clara Co. v. Railroad, 118 U.S. 396, 6 Sup.Ct.Rep. 1132, that corporations are so included and entitled, as fully as natural persons, to its protection”.
This is why you should read a bit deeper.
-
Oh snap
-
Yea, I get that it likely wasn’t what was decided in the original case, but to claim that case isn’t what the justices use to define corporate personhood is ignorant.
The much more egregious error that is referred to is Qualified Immunity, which seems to have been invented whole cloth by a scribe during the first time US laws were collated when he incorrectly wrote down a law.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-