Been a lot of talk about rent control as the cost of living spirals out of control, and it got me wondering: why isn't rent control tied to the assessment value of the house? Rather than a quasi-arbitrary percentage chosen by a tribunal.
For instance, a property with an assessment value of $500K (which I've seen sell on the market lately for $800K+) would have a maximum allowed rent of 0.004 x $500,000 = $2,000/month. That's the total from all tenants, so it it's rented out to four tenants, we're talking $500 each max. not saying 0.4% is the proper multiplier, but I think it's in the ballpark.
That way, a landlord could only ever increase rent if they pay for a new assessment. Which comes with its own disincentive of having to pay more property taxes. On the flip side, the landlord isn't prone to getting screwed either as expenses shoot up 10% but they're only able to raise rent 1.2%.
Seems a more elegant and self-sustaining system than what we currently have.
For instance, a property with an assessment value of $500K (which I've seen sell on the market lately for $800K+) would have a maximum allowed rent of 0.004 x $500,000 = $2,000/month. That's the total from all tenants, so it it's rented out to four tenants, we're talking $500 each max. not saying 0.4% is the proper multiplier, but I think it's in the ballpark.
That way, a landlord could only ever increase rent if they pay for a new assessment. Which comes with its own disincentive of having to pay more property taxes. On the flip side, the landlord isn't prone to getting screwed either as expenses shoot up 10% but they're only able to raise rent 1.2%.
Seems a more elegant and self-sustaining system than what we currently have.
. Why? If you know anything about property assessments you would know why.
