No they won’t. Rental rates may flatten out or even fall slightly, but it will not be some sort of benefit for renters. The vacancy rates are still far too low for that in most cities.
Yeah, with vacancy rates being so low the rates flattening seems to be an indication that landlords have squeezed almost as much rent as tenants can bear.
If milk shot up to $15/g before flatlining I wouldn’t think that the cost would soon decrease, but rather that nobody would buy $16 milk.
Typical WSJ. Rents stopped skyrocketing, so renters have the upper hand. Like it’s a surprise that there is a limit to what people can afford to pay?
Classic gaslighting.
Remember that article about how “millenials aren’t drinking as much and killing beer sales at festivals”? How about you look at alcohol prices and average wages?
I just want to say I appreciate that you have posted the archive link instead of the original link. Cut out the paywall, thanks.
Would like to buy, but many properties are over priced, interest rates aren’t favorable, and don’t have the money for the required down payment, so stuck renting, and landlords/leasing agents are taking advantage. We need rent control.
We need more housing.
Unfortunately, rent control does have issues in the long run. Less profit for landlords does mean less money invested in new construction by people looking to make a profit. Less new construction eventually leads to shortages. It’s great for those who already have housing, but those searching for a place to live have it more difficult under strict rent control. Though with how long construction projects take from planning to opening, this effect takes decades for any change to be noticeable.
Hypothetically, could a city or other regional government, or even larger scale one, create a state run development company, under mandate to build up the housing supply in a given area even if investors won’t do it?
