That is true but the Oregon law allows rent increases of 7% plus the local rate of inflation. Say the local inflation rate is 3% so the allowable rent increase is 10%. An annual increase of 10% would be manna from Heaven for multi-family property owners.
However, the renter is going to increase his rents 10 percent a year, even when he doesn’t have to, to accommodate sudden increases in costs in future years.
The rent increase rate is the sugar coating on the poison pill. As part of rent control is the new redefined non discrimination laws that sat you have to rent to the first person that asks without background checks or they can sue you for discrimination with the help of the state.
Meth labs rejoice!
I for one have had to reverse my plan to rent out a house. I cannot survive the loss financially to be forced to rent to an obvious looser.
These “rent control laws” are the Nationalization of private property. An obvious disaster.
If it was about rent availability like they claim the would not have included such rent increase provisions.
It’s about destroying private property.
This assumes that the overall inflation rate is a good measure of rise in landlord costs. At a deeper level, it assumes that government is better equipped to assess landlord costs than are landlords ... they call that central planning, such as was practiced in the Soviet Union.
Free markets work. They allocate resources, promote investment and require no state bureaucracies. I sure wish someone would do a study of the cost of policing these regulations. I bet it is more than the added cost of free market rent. Rents could even get lower.