Quote:
Originally Posted by jaxg8r1
Having said that, I think you could make a credible argument that this is more of a "message to the market". The message being "reign in these abuses or we will through tightening this", which I'm ok with.
|
How is charging what you feel is fit for a product, in the setting of ample competition and plenty of comparable inventory, an abuse? And how do you even know it’s an abuse to begin with? How do you know that the owner’s property tax, water bills, and cost of maintaining the building didn’t go up as well?
If I am leasing a 1 bedroom to you at $1000 per month, and I raise the rent to $1200 per month, you can simply move out because there are probably hundreds of other one bedroom apartments on the market for the price you are looking for. I in no way have a corner on that market.
Compare that to the pharmaceutical that has a patent on the ONLY drug that can treat a condition, while price-gouging the consumer for it. Now that is something Government should reign in long before they reign in an industry that already is well regulated by virtue of an abundance of supply.
Oregon is at fault for constraining housing supply, and now they want to punish property owners for the consequences of their own policies? Why are you guys voting these buffoons into office?