Advocates say resident ownership could eliminate the profit motive and keep rents in check. A local lawmaker adds Wyoming needs protections for those who speak out.
It seems the root problem ROC and ICAN have is there is no incentive for Impact to sell. Between the money to be made exploiting people and the value of the land in general to our limited market, there is money to be made through multiple mechanisms. So long as our supply is exceedingly short of the demand, the problem will continue. Even if Impact sells, the average property value in Laramie (or house sale) seems to go beyond +10% asking lately. Impact can sell to another REIT with the same practices.
If money and market value is the incentive to take advantage of these folks, remove the incentive. Cap earnings.
Not an easy task and not something to be taken lightly, but we are not the first community to experience this. Rent control and stabilization has a long history in America. Talking about this in Wyoming's political climate is akin to self-immolation, but Laramie is not the only community in Wyoming facing predatory landlords and mobile home parks, and limited housing stock, limited land development, and demands that well exceed supply.
We need to have real conversations about alternatives and options that involve political action but are taken in context outside of politics. Taking care of people, shelter, mental health, and basic human needs are not political issues - but our regressive conversations about right and left do not allow space for human issues.
Yep, you're advocating rent control. Sorry, but that doesn't work. Want to see entire parks shut down and sold for other kinds of development, leaving residents homeless? Go ahead, then; cap rents. It'll happen.
Co-op buyouts (which I have recommended to residents of certain communities) are possible but have many problems and pitfalls. Not only must the owner be a willing seller; financing must be secured, interest rates must come down from recent highs, and residents must be willing and able to buy shares in the co-op. Nowhere NEAR a sure thing.
The best answer, the only one which will work for cash-strapped residents who can't buy into a co-op, and the one which must be a component of ANY solution, is competition. If there are more spaces than trailers, owners will compete for renters, and rents will automatically seek a fair level, with park owners making a fair profit and residents getting the best possible deal. Simple economics. And no micromanagement or overregulation is required. Let supply and demand function as they should.
City Council and city bureaucrats (Mr. Teini and his predecessor are far from blameless) brought this on by creating a shortage of trailer park spaces - through the overregulatory and increasingly Draconian UDC and also because specific Council members (some no longer on Council) simply wanted all trailer parks within the city to go away. Members of Council, and candidates for it, claim to favor affordable housing. If they really do, they'll rethink past decisions and put market forces to work on the problem.
It cost one person in Mountainview $7000 to move their home out and into Friends of Laramie River Park less than 1 mile away. So build a park with a bunch of empty spaces and NO ONE would have the $$$ to move their homes anyway. Short sided thinking again. "Market Forces" are what got us all into this crap but sure keep on pushing your narrative would be a failure.
$7K? Sounds way high to me. Perhaps this is a business opportunity.
OTOH, even if it really does wind up costing that much, it's still $350 x 20. Which means that if your landlord jacked up your rent by $350, you'd save that amount (and start saving more) in less than two years by moving. Perhaps the owner of the new park, seeking to fill spaces, could arrange a low interest loan to cover that. And/or subsidize it. And/or get you in on a quantity discount. Free markets work wonders.
And there are plenty of other possibilities. It's YOU who are engaging in "short sighted thinking" [sic] by failing to consider them.
Primarily, what I have said is that we need to have real conversations about options and alternatives. Oversimplified arguments and knee-jerk reactions to proposed ideas prevent these. Conversations that are immediately shut down with "can't," 'won't," "don't" and "no" are unproductive as is hurling blame around to those with whom we disagree.
The problem has been decades in the making. Impact is symptom of a much larger issue. It can be address in multiple ways, each with pros and cons. Rent limiting policies have severe drawbacks, likewise so does Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations" version of free market capitalism. There is no magic bullet.
Issues with Impact or others will continue as long as we face a housing issue. The housing issue is one so complex no single agency, government, developer, or otherwise can "fix" it. There are no easy answers, but continuing to paddle the river on course and hope there is no waterfall ahead is folly. At this point, all options and all conversations should be held. No one has the complete answer. In the meantime, our neighbors continue to suffer.
In 2017 the Cheyenne Housing Authority chose to end its support of the "Lot Rent" Housing program. This wouldn't be the only possible solution, but it could help the poorest of the lot renters. This is a program that they could bring back as the US Dept of Housing still supports it however it is up to each States Dept as to whether they do it or not. I think a multi-faceted approach to building new housing and some controls could help. The key is to as you say work together to improve things rather than throwing around words like "can't," 'won't," "don't" and "no".
It seems the root problem ROC and ICAN have is there is no incentive for Impact to sell. Between the money to be made exploiting people and the value of the land in general to our limited market, there is money to be made through multiple mechanisms. So long as our supply is exceedingly short of the demand, the problem will continue. Even if Impact sells, the average property value in Laramie (or house sale) seems to go beyond +10% asking lately. Impact can sell to another REIT with the same practices.
If money and market value is the incentive to take advantage of these folks, remove the incentive. Cap earnings.
Not an easy task and not something to be taken lightly, but we are not the first community to experience this. Rent control and stabilization has a long history in America. Talking about this in Wyoming's political climate is akin to self-immolation, but Laramie is not the only community in Wyoming facing predatory landlords and mobile home parks, and limited housing stock, limited land development, and demands that well exceed supply.
We need to have real conversations about alternatives and options that involve political action but are taken in context outside of politics. Taking care of people, shelter, mental health, and basic human needs are not political issues - but our regressive conversations about right and left do not allow space for human issues.
Yep, you're advocating rent control. Sorry, but that doesn't work. Want to see entire parks shut down and sold for other kinds of development, leaving residents homeless? Go ahead, then; cap rents. It'll happen.
Co-op buyouts (which I have recommended to residents of certain communities) are possible but have many problems and pitfalls. Not only must the owner be a willing seller; financing must be secured, interest rates must come down from recent highs, and residents must be willing and able to buy shares in the co-op. Nowhere NEAR a sure thing.
The best answer, the only one which will work for cash-strapped residents who can't buy into a co-op, and the one which must be a component of ANY solution, is competition. If there are more spaces than trailers, owners will compete for renters, and rents will automatically seek a fair level, with park owners making a fair profit and residents getting the best possible deal. Simple economics. And no micromanagement or overregulation is required. Let supply and demand function as they should.
City Council and city bureaucrats (Mr. Teini and his predecessor are far from blameless) brought this on by creating a shortage of trailer park spaces - through the overregulatory and increasingly Draconian UDC and also because specific Council members (some no longer on Council) simply wanted all trailer parks within the city to go away. Members of Council, and candidates for it, claim to favor affordable housing. If they really do, they'll rethink past decisions and put market forces to work on the problem.
It cost one person in Mountainview $7000 to move their home out and into Friends of Laramie River Park less than 1 mile away. So build a park with a bunch of empty spaces and NO ONE would have the $$$ to move their homes anyway. Short sided thinking again. "Market Forces" are what got us all into this crap but sure keep on pushing your narrative would be a failure.
$7K? Sounds way high to me. Perhaps this is a business opportunity.
OTOH, even if it really does wind up costing that much, it's still $350 x 20. Which means that if your landlord jacked up your rent by $350, you'd save that amount (and start saving more) in less than two years by moving. Perhaps the owner of the new park, seeking to fill spaces, could arrange a low interest loan to cover that. And/or subsidize it. And/or get you in on a quantity discount. Free markets work wonders.
And there are plenty of other possibilities. It's YOU who are engaging in "short sighted thinking" [sic] by failing to consider them.
Primarily, what I have said is that we need to have real conversations about options and alternatives. Oversimplified arguments and knee-jerk reactions to proposed ideas prevent these. Conversations that are immediately shut down with "can't," 'won't," "don't" and "no" are unproductive as is hurling blame around to those with whom we disagree.
The problem has been decades in the making. Impact is symptom of a much larger issue. It can be address in multiple ways, each with pros and cons. Rent limiting policies have severe drawbacks, likewise so does Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations" version of free market capitalism. There is no magic bullet.
Issues with Impact or others will continue as long as we face a housing issue. The housing issue is one so complex no single agency, government, developer, or otherwise can "fix" it. There are no easy answers, but continuing to paddle the river on course and hope there is no waterfall ahead is folly. At this point, all options and all conversations should be held. No one has the complete answer. In the meantime, our neighbors continue to suffer.
In 2017 the Cheyenne Housing Authority chose to end its support of the "Lot Rent" Housing program. This wouldn't be the only possible solution, but it could help the poorest of the lot renters. This is a program that they could bring back as the US Dept of Housing still supports it however it is up to each States Dept as to whether they do it or not. I think a multi-faceted approach to building new housing and some controls could help. The key is to as you say work together to improve things rather than throwing around words like "can't," 'won't," "don't" and "no".