, ,

Landlords Under Fire: Californians Fight Rent-Gouging from LA Wildfires

As Southern California deals with the wildfires that have destroyed more than 12,000 homes and displaced tens of thousands of residents, reports of rent-seeking and housing price-gouging have surfaced, resulting in legal actions.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta warned landlords on Saturday that state law prohibits rental price increases exceeding 10% during a declared emergency.

“You cannot jack up prices and take advantage of disaster victims, plain and simple,” Bonta stated at a news conference, according to the Associated Press.

Listings across Los Angeles have appeared with rent hikes far beyond the legal maximum.

A modern three-bedroom condo in downtown LA that was listed for $5,500 a month in October recently resurfaced on Zillow for $8,500 before being taken down, per the AP reports. Similar increases have been spotted across the city, with some properties raising rent by thousands overnight.

Tenants’ rights groups and housing advocates have called for enforcement against landlords attempting to exploit the crisis. Social media users have begun compiling reports of excessive rent increases in a shared Google document, highlighting cases such as a four-bedroom house in Encino that jumped from $12,000 a month in December to $14,000 in mid-January.

The Root of the Problem: Rent-Seeking Land Ownership and Rising Rents

The surge in rental prices amid disaster recovery efforts underscores a long-standing economic issue: the tendency of private landlords to charge the highest possible rent the market can bear.

This phenomenon was famously dissected by 19th-century economist Henry George in his book Progress and Poverty, where he argued that land speculation and private ownership of land by the few drive rents higher while preventing access to ownership for the many.

This is particularly evident in high-demand areas like California and Los Angeles, where limited housing supply and speculative investment have contributed to a homelessness and housing affordability crisis.

One proposed solution, championed by Georgist economists, is a shift toward a land value tax (LVT). Unlike traditional property taxes that penalize improvements and construction, an LVT targets the unimproved value of land itself, discouraging speculation and incentivizing the productive use of land.

A properly structured LVT could help mitigate rent gouging by reducing landowners’ ability to passively extract profit from increasing demand without contributing to the new housing stock.

As California struggles to balance emergency relief efforts with long-term economic redevelopment, discussions around alternative tax policies and economic models like land value taxation may gain renewed interest.

In the meantime, state officials continue to urge renters to report violations of price-gouging laws, and they emphasized that those exploiting the crisis for profit will face legal consequences.

Advertisements

9 responses to “Landlords Under Fire: Californians Fight Rent-Gouging from LA Wildfires”

  1. Author doesn’t quite understand Georgism, and holds some contradictory beliefs regarding it.

    Even under Georgism, landlords will always charge the highest rent the market will bear. Even under Georgism, significant shifts in housing markets(such as natural disasters contracting the supply of housing) will result in significant price shifts. Georgism doesn’t target Returns on Capital, even if that ROC spikes unexpectedly or seems unfair.

    It is actually important that prices DO increase to meet the market equilibrium to send the price signals to efficiently allocate resources. For now people should be pressured to share rents, rent out single rooms, and repurpose single-family homes into multi-family homes. For now developers should be strongly motivated by the promise of higher profits to ship building materials all the way to California rather than Texas. For now people should be deterred from relocating to California.

    Georgism, in combination with YIMBYism, would certainly reduce housing costs overall by encouraging development and reducing land speculation, but it wouldn’t counter the important action of prices moving to meet market equilibrium.

    Like

    1. Ah, don’t claim he doesn’t know Georgism over an argument about terms. He knows it quite well.

      While I agree with you that price-gouging wasn’t the best term to describe the supply shock of the wildfires making housing more expensive, that isn’t an excuse to go out and claim he’s got contradictions just because of a term he used.

      Like

      1. He believes LVT would prevent the price increases.

        He believes the price increases are not due to Land Value changes but due to the market upset.

        These are direct contradictions. To be fair, they were established on Reddit discussing this article rather than directly from the article, but the contradictory understanding bears noting to understand how he could misrepresent the matters in the article.

        As for how well he understands Georgism, the matter of him twisting it to target the ROC increase for renting a home post-supply-shock should tell you enough.

        Like

    2. Thanks for reading! Rent seekers price gouge Americans every day and this article is to highlight a particularly egregious incident in an unjust system. The individual LA landlords who see recently displaced people coming are not thinking about your ideas on market equilibrium and they are not raising rents to cover legitimate business costs, they see people with money and little options that they can charge more for providing the same goods and services. They have the ability to do this because of their monopoly control of the finite supply of land.

      We don’t see this kind of thing happening in other non rent seeking businesses. If a restaurant burned down in a small town with just two restaurants and hungry people went to the other one across the street, the surviving restaurant owner would be considered a price-gouging scumbag for raising menu prices when his competitor caught on fire sending hungry customers his way.

      Like

      1. Trying to make profit-seeking look nefarious and liken it to rent-seeking is a red flag.

        A monopoly on land does not grant a monopoly on housing. They are able to raise prices because the market for housing shifted, not because the fires just made them more greedy. You’re deliberately blurring the line between land and property so you can swap one for the other and still believe yourself justified under Georgism.

        You just presented a situation where a non-rent-seeking business would do the exact same … if not for folks like you putting laws in place to prevent it and cause a food shortage. Do you imagine Georgism would address the burger joint increasing prices to better allocate it’s resources?

        Like

      2. I just said that kind of situation doesn’t happen with non-rent seeking businesses. You also made the assumption I support price controls when I don’t. An ethical restaurant owner wouldn’t raise menu prices because their competitor was destroyed, and their customers have less options. I just said landlords and rent seekers are unique for benefiting from the destruction of competitors and the limited options of consumers which are the classic signs of a monopoly. You seem to think rent seeking landlords operate by the same laws as other forms of productive business which is not true. You act like building managers and construction companies are the same as the title deed owners of land/location. The former provides goods and services at competitive prices, the latter raises prices because of monopoly privilege. Starting to get it now?

        Like

  2. Now you don’t believe non-rent-seeking businesses respond to market changes? Or you don’t believe non-rent-seeking businesses have ever “price gouged?” If you’d just listen and learn you wouldn’t have to keep retreating into these absurd claims.

    But you already admitted it’s not the land, and therefore not the landlords, that are driving the price increases, but the housing owners! Because the housing market is upset. And the rent and price of housing is going up due to competition in a market with increased demand. None of that changes with Georgism.

    Even if it were solely an increase in land value due to demand for the land–and not housing–that would still be reflected directly in the price/rent of housing even under Georgism and full LVT.

    It’s OK to be wrong, it’s a step in the process learning, but you can’t just double down. Especially not if you want to platform yourself as some kind of representative of Georgism or as an ‘economist.’

    Like

    1. You just make up claims like I said them. I will not be engaging anymore because no matter what I say you will rephrase it and then argue against the way you rephrased it. I think you’re more interested in appearing smart than actually talking about the people in LA and the high rents they face before and after natural disasters. Georgists need more activists and less yappers.

      Like

      1. I’m not making anything up. You are refusing to stand by the very claims you just made because you know they are absurd. But they did the job of allowing you to avoid addressing the matter honestly and rationally.

        Now you’re just devolving to attempts at ad hominem attacks to continue the avoidance.

        Don’t take it from me; I’m done addressing it here. Ask your fellow contributors. Watch a few videos on Georgism to refresh your compass.

        Are houses land or capital? Is it possible to build more houses? Does the housing market respond to market forces and price signals? What happens when you undermine those price signals? What happens when you tax Capital or cap Capital Returns? If the supply of any other capital good were significantly impacted, would prices rise? Does that make the Capital Returns turn into Rent? Why or why not? If so … at what level of price increases due to market shifts do Returns on Capital become Rent? Where does that fit into Georgism?

        Liked by 1 person

Leave a reply to Jimbo Cancel reply