> Stopping bail outs of homeowners/borrowers/lenders seem to me to offer little lthat would actually HELP renters.
Well, as I understand it, a primary goal of any bailout, whether spoken or unspoken, would be to stabilize housing prices at an inflated level. That's certainly bad news for people who aren't currently homeowners, whether they want to continue renting or eventually purchase their homes.
> The better thing for renters would be legislation providing security of tenure (just cause eviction) and limiting the ability of landlords to
> raise rents. Such things are necessarily local or state based. In California, sadly, things seem to be going in the opposite direction with -
> as I understand it - an initiative set for the June ballot limiting the ability of localities to impose rent control. which is part of a decades long
> campaign by landlords to contain, gut and roll back rent control laws.
Right. I'm all in favor of rent control - you can read an article I wrote about the initiative you cite at http://www.citywatchla.com/content/view/1000/75, and I work on the issue professionally in New York - but a massive expansion of these policies is not currently feasible, while allowing the housing bubble to deflate naturally is.
I haven't given the implications enough thought to have an educated opinion at this point, but if anyone else has, I'm interested in hearing about it. Strange bedmates aside, what are the flaws in angryrenter.com's claims?