If you would like more information about what's happening in Oregon, please FReepmail me.
Please send me your name by FReepmail if you want to be on this list.
Posted on 05/02/2017 7:51:11 PM PDT by Olog-hai
Not necessarily. Not a black and white issue, lots of factors involved. Mainly depends on the planning commissions or city planners, and what they allow. City planners always interfere so there is no true market force by itself at work.
For example, with only market forces at work an equilibrium would be reached with all buildable space occupied but liveable. City planners always interfere, some with good results that restrict building to create more quality of life for existing residents; often with bad results due to overbuilding and unfair rent control practices and congestion. There are quite a few towns that preserved open space and prevented congestion while allowing market forces to operate. I don't care which way it goes, I just want a minimal local government that won't interfere too much with the lives of people. If they do, I'll leave.
If you would like more information about what's happening in Oregon, please FReepmail me.
Please send me your name by FReepmail if you want to be on this list.
This will backfire,
As an Oregon landlord, I will do no-cause terminations of tenancy (not evictions) for undesirable tenants. This is a great benefit for the tenant, even though many do not recognize it.
The reason is that a tenant with an eviction has a very difficult time finding a new rental. There is always a reason to evict "for cause" if a tenant is undesirable. If a tenant is desirable there is never a reason to terminate them. A vacancy costs 2 to 3 months rent.
A no-cause termination keeps an eviction off of a tenant's legal record...
Ed
In fairness, Oregon doesn't want California to move north. I agree with them about that. They already have too many refugees from Cali and even the lefties, who would tend to welcome them politically, don't want California style sprawl.
Being in the rental business for many years I have yet to raise rates on occupants. With that being said my cost never stops escalating. Codes are always changing requiring costly additions, insurance is always going up, The country assessor never misses a chance to raise the property taxes even if the property value dips. Many tenants thinks it is perfectly acceptable to knock holes in the walls and doors. They will pitch smoke detectors in the trash because they do want to replace a battery.
Now does any one wonder why rents are always increasing?
I’ve never been to Portland, but as I understand it so much of the land around it can’t be developed so in the finite space they have costs will inevitably rise (the very market forces you mention). Kinda like the island of Manhattan, I guess.
Prosperous Oregon? What the heck does that have to do with anything, even if it’s true?!
Just took a quick look at Oregon’s latest budget.
AP lies like a rug.
Prosperous, my a$$.
Folks should take a good look at Oregon’s budget. It’s a nightmare.
Too few homes are being built in Oregon because of excessive government regulation. The solution? New government regulations. The Ctrl-Left is consistent.
Don't be surprised if Portland's sprawl follows you across the river.
Soon, all rent houses in Portland will resemble the one Dr. Zhivago came back to find occupied.
You buy the house, maintain it, pay the insurance and taxes and the government will tell you who, when, where and what rent you will charge regardless to your expenses and expected profit.
A perfect communist community if ever there was one.
Because of all the SF employers moving to Portland and bringing employees with them.
You are describing impediments to market forces not the market forces themselves. We can say what SHOULD happen but that does not mean it will.
A different framework for analysis is needed to account for government involvement but two things are obvious: 1-the excess demand will not go away and 2- the quantity of housing will not be increased as much as a market without the impediments.
We always complain of the lack of “affordable housing” when what should be understood as the presence of unaffordable tenants.
Ed
It's no Manhattan. I've been to Portland, and to Manhattan. Manhattan is a lot of fun, all parts of it. Portland has a small yuppie downtown, very small. Surrounded by yucky neighborhoods where you feel you need protection if you get out of your car. Not where I would want to live.
The comparison to Manhattan was only in terms of the limitations of buildable land; I’m no fan of NYC, but I’d rather deal with that than Portland (based on what I know about both). Some people love the northwest; I’d hate to live in the coastal cities there (though I’d probably be quite comfortable inland in either Washington or Oregon).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.