These City Councilmembers represent the mostly out-of-town corporate landlords - not tenants who live here.

Disagree. They represent the majority and they also exhibit a solid understanding of economics. Rent control will not solve the issues, it will only result in issues that have been presented multiple times on these boards.

It's amazing how biased the article is. Doing nothing is bad. Rather than take sides on this debate, the council is staying neutral. Some people feel that the council should redistribute wealth to a few tenants at the expense of screwing up the rental market. I would argue that the hands off approach to the rental market is not doing nothing but is allowing the market place to work. It is allowing the tenant and landlord to make mutually beneficial exchanges. Suggesting that bureaucrats interfere with these sacred exchanges requires more sophisticated reasons and arguments

It is laughable when folks pretend to understand economics and free market theory yet refuse to understand why rent control is necessary.

Even without rent control, we do not have a free market. If I own an acre of land, I cannot unilaterally decide to put a 10 story monster apartment full of micro-studios. The market is unbalanced. Rents are high because we have zoning laws that artificially restrict supply. Since we seem to want to have zoning laws, then to get a free market, we must correct the imbalance through initiatives like rent control.

So, please don't try to lecture is on "supply and demand". You clearly do not understand it.

Obviously you don't understand how a free market works. It doesn't mean you can do anything with your land. It also doesn't mean you are exempt from government regulations. Your argument is silly. Even if we grant you the assumption that zoning restricts supply, how does imposing a price control help the situation. Binding price controls restrict supply even further.

Even in a competitive market, buyers will prefer zoning as an attempt to internalize the externality of the impact of surrounding land.

The rental market is competitive because there are plenty of buyers and sellers competing in the marketplace. No buyer of seller is large enough to impact the price. Prices are set by supply and demand. Rental agreements are mutually beneficial in that both parties have to agree and expect to benefit from the agreement.

"Free Markets" above admits that governments control the supply of housing and might even admit that governments greatly affect demand. But
"Free Markets" appears to contend that persons and entities in the business of renting out apartments should be "free" to choose the renter(s), the rental conditions and the price(s) without any government restrictions or mandates. Is that your contention "Free Markets"?

@ Gary.
your first sentence completely mistates my position . Both landlord and tenant are or should be free to choose. Prices are set in a competitive market where buyers and sellers search for the best prices.

Govnrment plays a role. For one you need enforcement and protection of property rights and contracts.

@Free Markets. What role does government legitimately play? Should there be any restrictions upon the landlord's perogative to choose tenants or evict them after giving any notice required by the rental agreement?

Governments must allow contracts to be enforced. But contracts should be agreed upon by the landlord and the tenant. No lease contract is forever. Both parties have the right to opt out. Allowing government to impose certain conditions like maximum rent increases should not be allowed. How does the council know and have the financial incentives to figure out what is the appropriate rent increase. They are not landlords and do not have any incentive to figure out what is the appropriate cap. The landlord and the tenant have more incentive to figure these things out rather than a bureaucrat who knows little about market conditions.

Free Markets, You have not answered my questions. May the government legitimately restrict residential landlords in choosing tenants and evicting them (consistent with the rental agreement)? The reason I ask is that what I have proposed is this: If the City Council is going to create a right to mediation and include a restriction upon the landlord against evicting a tenant "because" the tenant has exercised a right to mediation, should the ordinance protect a tenant from eviction motivated by the landlord's desire to forestall mediation completely - by evicting tenants instead of raising the rent and permitting a tenant to then exercise a right under the ordinance?

I answered your question about a role of government . I didn't answer your specific question In your last post since I thought it was a hypothetical or an example of a possible role of government.

In terms of your specifics, it's complicated , because council has already stepped into a s--- pile and required mediation for a rent increase, does this provide an incentive for a landlord to evict a tenant and avoid mediation by not increasing the rent. Yes it does. However the solution is not to add additional Regulations. I would prefer getting rid of the requirement for mandatory mediation. What is the benefit of this requirement. Both parties agree to discuss the rent increase w a mediator. What's the point ? The tenant can always negotiate w the landlord and make a counter offer. Both parties can communicate their preferences, but at the end of the day, if they do not agree, there is no future rental contract.

Yes. Landlords that want to raise rents will simply evict existing tenants and get new ones (unless made unlawful by a change such as I proposed). Quite a plan by landlord-endorsed politicians on the City Council.

The agenda for the Tuesday. April 26 City Council meeting was posted Friday afternoon. This year's "mayor" (Pat Showalter) - in consultation with City Manager Dan Rich - could have placed the possible amendment of the landlord-tenant mediation ordinance on the agenda. She did not. Instead, the ordinance is on the agenda for quiet adoption by its four landlord-endorsed City Council proponents (Showalter, Chris Clark, John McAlister and Michael Kasperzak) on what's called the "consent calendar."