Attention

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not represent our advertisers

Sunday, September 27, 2015

Rent Stabilization in Salisbury: By City Council Candidate Muir Boda

Publishers Notes: Mayor Jim Ireton recently proposed a rent stabilization package claiming Salisbury landlords are making too much money. This is Muir's response to that proposal.


After careful thought and consideration, along with an extraordinary amount of research, I have come to the conclusion that rent control in Salisbury would put us on a path of devastative decline. Therefore, I unequivocally oppose any type of legislation that would implement these types of failed policies.

In 1992 The American Economic Review published a poll of 464 economists where 93% of them opposed Rent Control laws. (1)  From Milton Friedman and F.A. Hayek to Gunnar Myrdal and Assar Lindbeck, economists from across the political spectrum have consistently opposed Rent Control.
Myrdal, a Swedish Economist who was the architect of the Swedish Labor Party's Welfare State once said,  “Rent control has in certain Western countries constituted, maybe, the worst example of poor planning by governments lacking courage and vision.” (2)
Lindbeck, another Swedish economist, stated, “In many cases rent control appears to be the most efficient technique presently known to destroy a city—except for bombing.” (3)
This issue is not about right or left politics. It is not about greed or the ensuing accusations that those opposed to Rent Control are in the pockets of the landlords. This is about understanding basic economics and the fact that property values will decline, tax revenues will decline and an imbalance will be created in the housing market by effectively removing the availability of single family housing. Blight and crime will increase and the resources of the City of Salisbury will be severely strained. In addition, those who have historically received the benefits of rent stabilization, rarely and at a much lower percentage, move into home ownership.
My last point on this subject is that the Rent Stabilization legislation put forward that is modeled from the one implemented in College Park, MD is no longer in effect as of 2014. College Park began seeing the negative effects of  Rent Stabilization and had the courage to end it.
Walter Block, a renowned American economist, has two detailed and convincing arguments against rent control here and here. I encourage the reading of both articles.
All of our energy and resources should be focused on attracting good paying jobs, moving people into home ownership, reducing juvenile crime and finding ways to create better opportunities for this and future generations.

  1. Richard M. Alson, J. R. Kearl, and Michael B. Vaughan, “Is There a Consensus Among Economists in the 1990’s?” American Economic Review 82, no. 2 (1992): 203–209.
  2. Gunnar Myrdal, “Opening Address to the Council of International Building Research in Copenhagen,” Dagens Nyheter (Swedish newspaper), August 25, 1965, p. 12; cited in Sven Rydenfelt, “The Rise, Fall and Revival of Swedish Rent Control,” in Rent Control: Myths and Realities, Walter Block and Edgar Olsen, eds. (Vancouver: The Fraser Institute, 1981), p. 224.
  3. Assar Lindbeck, The Political Economy of the New Left (New York: Harper and Row, 1972); cited in Sven Rydenfelt, “The Rise, Fall and Revival of Swedish Rent Control,” in Rent Control: Myths and Realities, Walter Block and Edgar Olsen, eds. (Vancouver: The Fraser Institute, 1981), pp. 213, 230.

57 comments:

Anonymous said...

The outbound mayor has a bad idea that should be rejected and thrown in the trash can. Rent control is a loser.

Anonymous said...

When does the government have control of how much money you can make ?
This guy Ireton is a complete nut job. WTF school did he go to, fags anonymous? This guy Ireton has put his foot in his mouth again .

Anonymous said...

This is a terrible idea. Ireton needs to be dragged into the street on this one. He is a simpleton elected by idiots. He is so far out of his element he is grasping at whatever sounds good on the surface. Get this clown out of decision making position. Send him back to school were he will fit right in with the other mouth breathing liberals.

Anonymous said...

We don't need communist ideas like rent control. Ireton--get out get out and leave Salisbury alone

Anonymous said...

Salisbury is becoming NY. How much will this cost taxpayers? Isn't Salisbury already in debt?

MrBarberman21801 said...

Thank God common sense prevails with some. Who is the government to tell us how much money we can make? When would it end of this goes through? Will they try to tell me how much I can charge for a haircut, because I'm discriminating against people who don't want to pay $15 for a cut? Socialism at its finest...

Anonymous said...

Oh no, he's running for council.

Anonymous said...

The problem is rent has skyrocketed due to the influx of college kids. In my neighborhood, there are 8 college rentals, all renting foe 500 a room. The owner is renting these houses for 2000 a month. When one landlord charges that, the rest will. Families can't afford that. So I'm guessing that those that oppose this, believe families should all go live on Westside because that's affordable. Where I'm living now, our monthly bills leave us no money for saving, so before someone suggest buying, I'm going to ask how? In three months rent, the owner has property taxes paid. I pay the water bill. My husband has done repairs to the house. families aren't getting house loans, and even if they were, it would take 15 to 20 years to pay off the mortgage payment, where some of these landlords are getting houses for 40000 and having them paid off in less than three years. Don't b#tch about upkeep cost, when you rent to college kids who tear them up while they're there.

Anonymous said...

First, the problem is not with the rent amounts, it is the people who choose to rent a place that can't afford. If you have a limited amount of money than choose a place that fits your budget. It is not the responsibility of the owners of properties to subsidize your rent to accomodate you! That is what Section 8 and vouchers are used for; to help with rent. Typical democrat solution to tell businesses to adjust their rents for people who obviously don't make sound financial decisions. Bottom line if you can't afford the rent don't live there!!!

Anonymous said...

They (Council&Liarton) told the towing industry in Salisbury how much we could make/charge. The battle lasted 2+ years and the towing companies lost.
So, why wouldnt LIARTON go for rent control as well? He is such a douchbag loser that he will do/say/try anything to control the masses. Its time for him to leave Wicomico County for good.
Jimbo....take your sorry ass to Rehobeth and impose your communist and socialist ways on all you butt-buddies. I hate you. The majority of the people living here hate you. Cant you take a hint?

Anonymous said...

@8:50 - you do realize that the problem with the college students stems from government interference with the market place, right? By heavily subsidizing or making free or "free for now" through loans, government has totally skewed the college situation.
One intervention creates numerous problems, which we are then told need more interventions to solve.
Not going to work.

Anonymous said...

9:19 AM, well how about you just tell us where, in Salisbury, is affordable if you don't make $100,000 a year. Jeez, most people cannot afford $1,500 or $2,000 a month plus come up with first and last months rent before you can even move in. Where, tell all of us where, can you live in Salisbury, in a decent neighborhood, if you are on a fixed income and not pay an arm and a leg for rent.

Anonymous said...

That Ireton would bring this up a month before elections is just about par for his course. He's a winner at bringing up no-fix-possible contentious issues on the eve of an election. It's a well-used ploy from the Obama playbook.

Anonymous said...

nonymous said...
First, the problem is not with the rent amounts, it is the people who choose to rent a place that can't afford. If you have a limited amount of money than choose a place that fits your budget. It is not the responsibility of the owners of properties to subsidize your rent to accomodate you! That is what Section 8 and vouchers are used for; to help with rent. Typical democrat solution to tell businesses to adjust their rents for people who obviously don't make sound financial decisions. Bottom line if you can't afford the rent don't live there!!!

September 25, 2015 at 9:19 AM

The solution is to do away with Section 8 housing and rental vouchers. Make these lazy ass people get a second or 3 job or like some have said live within your means.

Anonymous said...

Now think about it. If you would have stayed in school and gotten a better education so you could get a better paying job then we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Anonymous said...

10:00 AM you are a idiot! If you do your research there are places to rent, there are Mobile Homes, and other rental properties in Salisbury. Also how about in Delmar, Fruitland, Hebron, Mardela, Pittsville, Parsonsburg, Willards, etc. don't have to live in Salisbury! Again do your research and rent something you can afford, don't expect people to subsidize your lack of income.

Anonymous said...

Let me guess! Muir Boda is again being funded by the slum lords so he has to tow their line for this election. I guess he is going to turn on his friend Jimbeau now in order to get elected.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
The problem is rent has skyrocketed due to the influx of college kids. In my neighborhood, there are 8 college rentals, all renting foe 500 a room. The owner is renting these houses for 2000 a month. When one landlord charges that, the rest will. Families can't afford that. So I'm guessing that those that oppose this, believe families should all go live on Westside because that's affordable. Where I'm living now, our monthly bills leave us no money for saving, so before someone suggest buying, I'm going to ask how? In three months rent, the owner has property taxes paid. I pay the water bill. My husband has done repairs to the house. families aren't getting house loans, and even if they were, it would take 15 to 20 years to pay off the mortgage payment, where some of these landlords are getting houses for 40000 and having them paid off in less than three years. Don't b#tch about upkeep cost, when you rent to college kids who tear them up while they're there.

September 25, 2015 at 8:50 AM

The problem has nothing to do with the college. The population of Salisbury is over 30,000 and there are about 6,000 SU students. About 95% of that population lives in rental housing. Over half of the college students will be living on campus in the dorms. The ones living off campus will be living 4 to 5 in a house. Do the math and tell me again how it is a problem created by college students. They are a small part of the problem, but the major problem is with the slum lords and the lack of home ownership in Salisbury. This is where the gay mayor should be focusing is on home ownership and not telling someone how much to charge. If you don't want to pay that rent then don't move in that house or better yet buy your own home.

Anonymous said...

Students living near me pay $700 per month per bedroom in 4 bedroom houses, not including utilities. It's what the market bears for kids who come with parents' money and want their kids to live in decent neighborhoods. Some of the big complexes charge about the same per bed.

Anonymous said...

Has Ireton made that river clean enough where we can swim in it yet?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous Anonymous said...
Students living near me pay $700 per month per bedroom in 4 bedroom houses, not including utilities. It's what the market bears for kids who come with parents' money and want their kids to live in decent neighborhoods. Some of the big complexes charge about the same per bed.

September 25, 2015 at 10:56 AM

You got me at decent neighborhoods. Where are there decent neighborhoods in Salisbury?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous Anonymous said...
@8:50 - you do realize that the problem with the college students stems from government interference with the market place, right? By heavily subsidizing or making free or "free for now" through loans, government has totally skewed the college situation.
One intervention creates numerous problems, which we are then told need more interventions to solve.
Not going to work.

September 25, 2015 at 9:30 AM

The government had nothing to do with the rental housing situation of government housing. If the government had anything to do with it they would make all students live on campus in the dorms. Give me a break you moron!

Anonymous said...

11:02 AM
Pinehurst area, closer to Riverside.

Anonymous said...

Ireton already made a public statement this year that the river will probably never be safe to swim.

Anonymous said...

Ireton is tossing this out there now and will be elected to council in November to vote it through. It's coming.

Anonymous said...

Dominos:
Rent Control says a homeowner has a mortgage of 100.000.00 and their payment is 1000.00 per month. The house is now appraised at 80,000.00 so you can only charge 800.00 per month for rent. so now the homeowner who is renting out their home, is losing 200.00 per month. this is a simple illustration and you can see where this would lead. now multiply this by hundreds of landlords. they would have to declare bankruptcy at some point. the banks who hold the mortgages would have to "go under" or close because they would be left holding the bag...

look at the number of jobs that would be lost. the rental businesses and all their employees, the banks and all their employees and on and on. do you see the damage this ill planned law would do to ANY community. and all because there are a few bad slum lords in the city.

do the WISE thing here, and just make harsher laws against the slum lords. increase the fines and make it so if this continues the city can take their properties for good and do with them what they want.

NOT ALL landlords are bad. The rental companies and private landlords are supposed to make a profit. Their properties must be maintained and many times the tenants destroy the homes they are renting. Who pays for the upkeep and maintenance of the homes? Of course the owners or landlords.

Mr. Ireton has NEVER owned a business or made a payroll, so he has NO clue what he is doing. This is dangerous to allow a clueless leader to present and make laws. The city council has some of these same issues. Clueless at best.

Anonymous said...

No one blames students. But they have to realize that the rental boom and west-of-the-bridge prices of housing started when the landlords saw what they could charge after the university stopped building student housing in the late 1970s, but nearly tripled the enrollment over the next 30 years. Where to put those additional people was in the neighborhoods. It created an huge industry that was previously a relatively small one, and rents steadily rose, out of synch with cost-of-living for the area.
The average family income in Salisbury is about $36,000 per year, far below that of the counties where the kids grew up. The average individual income is below even that. If you graduate with a decent degree that's marketable, you'll probably make that your first year out. And you'll see how hard it is to make that money stretch to cover a $1500 a month rent, food, utilities, transportation,student loans, etc. Look forward to having roommates for a while, unless Mom & Dad will have you back.

Anonymous said...

There are over 7800 SU students, not 6000.

Anonymous said...

These kind of ideas show how much of an anti free market socialist Ireton is. He is horrible.

Anonymous said...

That's called capitalism. The only form of social order that doesn't involve a gun. You have lots of options. Move. Get a second job.

Anonymous said...

Exactly!! He's a gay version of O'Malley..tax, spend, and regulate..socialist.

Anonymous said...

Rent what you can afford. Not depend on big daddy gvmt to control rents, gas or food costs. Ireton is going out.

Anonymous said...

There aren't enough beds in dorms to house all the students, so of course the community has to supply extras beds to house those students. Since the cost for a year in a dorm is over $6,000 at 2 to a room then $500 per person per month in a rental house is not an outrageous price. It would appear that part of the market price of a rental is determined by the University with what it charges a student for a room. If it cost less to live at the school than more students would do it assuming there were actually rooms available. A lot of the comments on here show a lack of understanding of basic economics. If I was a student and I had 3 friends and could rent a 4 bedroom house for $2,000 a month I would do that in a heart beat. Think about it a bedroom to myself instead of sharing a room, not having to worry about the dorm rules, being able to live there year round instead of vacating the room over the summer.

Anonymous said...

Salisbury is in the same situation as College Park and should consider this proposal, which has been used there to control the rental issue raised by a large transient student population. Maybe Day will begin to enforce the occupancy law when he becomes mayor, but I'm not betting on that.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous Anonymous said...
Students living near me pay $700 per month per bedroom in 4 bedroom houses, not including utilities. It's what the market bears for kids who come with parents' money and want their kids to live in decent neighborhoods. Some of the big complexes charge about the same per bed.

September 25, 2015 at 10:56 AM

You can live in Nithsdale for $2,800 per month!

Anonymous said...

Anonymous Anonymous said...
Students living near me pay $700 per month per bedroom in 4 bedroom houses, not including utilities. It's what the market bears for kids who come with parents' money and want their kids to live in decent neighborhoods. Some of the big complexes charge about the same per bed.

September 25, 2015 at 10:56 AM

First of all it should be against the law to charge per room for rental housing in neighborhoods.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Let me guess! Muir Boda is again being funded by the slum lords so he has to tow their line for this election. I guess he is going to turn on his friend Jimbeau now in order to get elected.

September 25, 2015 at 10:45 AM

You better believe Muir Boda is being funded by the Slum Lords. Why do you think his signs are at the ERA Martin and Associates building at the corner of East Main Street and Rt. 50. Bill Martin has slum rental properties and he is funding Muir Boda again just like he is funding Jake Day.

Why do you think that Muir Boda's signs are on Michael Weisner's properties. Look at the old B. Greene Wholesale property across from Pep Boys. It is not a little shopping center with a Dollar Store. Muir just didn't stop by and plant his signs, those Slum Lords are supporting him.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
11:02 AM
Pinehurst area, closer to Riverside.

September 25, 2015 at 11:21 AM

That old crime ridden, run down neighborhood!! Bullsh!t!!

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Ireton already made a public statement this year that the river will probably never be safe to swim.

September 25, 2015 at 11:23 AM

So he is admitting that he lied? He promised us he would clean the Wicomico River up in 10 years.

Anonymous said...

Anon Said...

Mr. Ireton has NEVER owned a business or made a payroll, so he has NO clue what he is doing. This is dangerous to allow a clueless leader to present and make laws. The city council has some of these same issues. Clueless at best.

September 25, 2015 at 11:35 AM

Aha!! There you have it. Ireton is not a leader!

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Exactly!! He's a gay version of O'Malley..tax, spend, and regulate..socialist.

September 27, 2015 at 9:19 AM

Owemalley is also Gay!! Duh!!

Anonymous said...

Anonymous Anonymous said...
There are over 7800 SU students, not 6000.

September 25, 2015 at 2:48 PM

It was a rough estimate moron and those 7800 are not full time students.

Anonymous said...

The Presidents Neighborhood area is approximately i'd say 75-80% rentals. Their are 2 major problems which have existed for years and years. The landlords don't care about the homes until they are vacant, they do not care about the neighborhoods or the citizens of Salisbury. They do not take care of those homes, and if infractions were taken care of and not just written up but persued by the city for the maintenance, that would be a lot of $ for the city. The other end of the equation is a lot of the rentals are drug people, distruptive, fugitives from justice, and immigration people with records of crime. The landlords with these renters and slum lords also should be served papers by law inforcement.

Anonymous said...

Government imposed policies from the local level on up, have indeed put the system into a state of artificial imbalance. And what do they do, to try to create instant balance again? They impose reactionary policies, which are often contrary to the best interest of the consumer, and he tends to act accordingly. In other words, the opposite of the government's intention. Such is human nature.

It isn't necessarily a direct interference, but unintended consequences of outside influences on what would otherwise be a relatively stable system, if left alone.

Take a few courses in Econmics, specifically Microeconomics, before calling someone else a moron.

Anonymous said...

Any time you artificially insert more money into a system, inflation results. If there is more money available to spend on rents, of course the price of rents will increase to absorb it.

End section 8 and housing vouchers, and only the amount that "income earners" can afford, will be available to landlords. With the average household income reportedly about $36k in Wicomico county, this isn't going to result in a whole of rental money up for grabs, so I wouldn't expect many "upscale" rental properties to be offered by investment landlords. But I believe it would help keep the rents more stable, and reduce extortionary rents while providing a larger base of more stable rental clientele.

Narrowing the range of rents, should allow potential renters to "compete" on basis of past references of payment history, stability and previous care of rented properties, in addition to price they can pay.

When you have bad Section 8 renters who can "pay" more because of the artificial boost of a chunk of taxpayer money, it forces working families to pay more of their income to keep a roof over their heads, which keeps the working poor from getting ahead.

Anonymous said...

O'Malley's wife is a judge

Anonymous said...

One has to laugh at all the commenters who believe government policies haven't had an effect on rents in Salisbury. Start with the easy ability to get a student loan. Next add in the fact that Salisbury University has more students than beds. Finally SU sets the board rate for the on campus beds they have. The University has created a demand for rental housing as well as set a baseline price for that housing. Since the University is government run than it is the government that has created the rental housing problems in Salisbury. If the school had more housing and charged less for those beds then there would be a lot more empty houses in Salisbury and rents would be lower. Law of Supply and Demand.

Anonymous said...

Section 8 housing must go away first.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous Anonymous said...
Section 8 housing must go away first.

September 27, 2015 at 11:04 PM

Great idea just what we need more homeless people.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Government imposed policies from the local level on up, have indeed put the system into a state of artificial imbalance. And what do they do, to try to create instant balance again? They impose reactionary policies, which are often contrary to the best interest of the consumer, and he tends to act accordingly. In other words, the opposite of the government's intention. Such is human nature.

It isn't necessarily a direct interference, but unintended consequences of outside influences on what would otherwise be a relatively stable system, if left alone.

Take a few courses in Econmics, specifically Microeconomics, before calling someone else a moron.

September 27, 2015 at 3:44 PM

WTF are you talking about? Who are you talking about?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Section 8 housing must go away first.

September 27, 2015 at 11:04 PM

Great idea just what we need more homeless people.

September 27, 2015 at 11:53 PM

You liberal Douche Bag! Is that you again Laura Mitchell! Are you afraid to loose your free cash cow! LMAO.

By the way the Section 8 housing is typically for you lazy slobs that refuse to work. Right Laura... Wink, Wink.

Anonymous said...

You'd be surprised how many of the "homeless" you see hanging out, actually live in Section 8 housing. They carry a pitiful cardboard "please help" sign begging for free money, when they are already being fully supported by taxpayers.

Anonymous said...

Total Headcount (Fall 2015) 8,671
Undergraduate Headcount 7,849
Graduate Headcount 822

Percent that are undergraduate: 90.5%
Percent full-time: 87%

On-Campus Residents (Fall 2014):
2,266 (30.8% of full-time undergraduates)

91.5% of all undergraduates are age 24 and younger

14.0% of the total student body is age 25 and older


Total Headcount (2014) 8,770
increase from Fall 2013 (+127) 1.5%
increase from Fall 2009 (+566) 6.9%
increase from Fall 2004 (+1,828) 26.3%


Anonymous said...

Jim Ireton walked out on the City Council and BOE on his commitments before. He left prior to his term being over. Who's to say he won't do this again?

If anyone thinks that by reducing rent the tenants will spend more in the local economy you must have stock in Walmart. The people renting the houses in question don't shop at the downtown stores or eat at the local restaurants. They eat at chains and shop at Walmart.

I don't think the government should be telling anyone how much to charge for their product. We don't tell a restaurant how much to charge for a meal or a plumber how much to charge nor should we tell anyone else including landlords.

Thinking that not renting by the room is going to change the value of the lease is absurd. The lease would merely be for all tenants on one lease as opposed to individual leases.

Rent control has ruined other cities. Keep up the destruction Ireton.

Anonymous said...

3:28 Need to rethink your psychic ability. Not a liberal, not a douche bag, not Laura Mitchell. I am a conservative, retired at 55, own my home, no mortgage. Just stating facts which you obviously can't handle. But you keep on with your fuzzy thinking. By the way I don't have any sympathy for most of the homeless or poor people for that matter but the problem does exist and would be worse without S8 housing.

4:05 No I wouldn't be surprised.

3:24 They were replying to Sep 25 at 11:05 AM. If you access this site through a mobile app you can directly reply to a comment.

Anonymous said...

Run Forrest Run. You keep running Muir you have drive I will give you that. Maybe Matt will help you out this time.

Anonymous said...

7800 students with 2200 living on campus. Looks like 5600 living in the greater Salisbury community, give or take. 2 to 4 (let's call it 3 on average to make it simpler) living per apartment or property would put an estimate of about 1850 housing units occupied. At $600 per month per student (a conservative average estimate) x 9 months (the school year) this is a gross income of about $30,240,000 annually.

The numbers can be reduced by figuring how many still live at home, plus some other factors. The point is that this is a very lucrative business for some, and that the rents charged lead the way for rents to others who don't have the resources to come through with the cash. It's market price, yes, but not at all linked to local incomes and cost of living dollars.