The Washington times., 1919-12-13
FAIRFAX BELIEVES new
RENT LAW INEFFECTIVE
Says Government Should Guarantee
Owner Against Loss on
Rentals.
BY CHARLES w. FAIRFAX
president Real Estate Brokers' Az
a0rfaf10m

NTresauent ReaI Estate Brokers As
sociation.
Get the rent profiteer."
The rent profteer ought to be
jailed"
These are two expressions fire.
quently heard these days But when
1t comes to defining what is "profiteer-
ing and who is a "profiteer," it is diff.
ncuit to find any two opinions which
| agree.
Manifestly. every increase in house
or apartment rentals is not profiteer-
ing. What. then, is the basis for fig
uring? Where is the line beyond
which rent charged becomes profitecr-
ing?
Real estate men and apartment
mousse operators have figures showing
mat prices of land and rentals in
Washington before the war were 90
per cent lower than in any city of like
size. Land prices, incidently, still are
much below those of other cities.
Hence home ownership does not mean
J so much of a burden.
Rise Bound To Come.
But to return to rents. A rise was
| bound to come, every fair minded per
son VIII admit. To begin with. when
the mere law of supply and demand
got into operation, it was to be ex-
pected that jump of about 90 per
, cent would be made to take up the
slack between Washington and other
cities. Anyone who knows anything
about repair bills, cost of heat, janitor
service, papering. etc. knows how
much greater they are now than ever
before. 1t was hardly to be expected
that the property owner would stand
| these, so they should be passed on to
the consumer, the renter.
Take the case of the owner OF an
apartment which before the war
| brought in 500 month net income.
Just for example. Let us say to make
the worst case possible, that the
owner makes no repairs until driven
to it; that he furnished no heat, no
Janitor service, did not papering or
painting. and even Obliged tenants to
pay their own water rent. He cannot.
perhaps, claim additional rent on the
ground that these things, excepting
water, have risen in price. No, but he
is entitled to have his income from
that building purchase the same num-
Der of things as before the war. If
the dollar has decreased in purchasing
power to 65 cents. then he certainly is
not unfair in asking 35 cents more on
every dollar of rent.
How Control Works.
Much is contemplated in tn. way
of Federal control of local rents
| through a rent commission to be
| named by the President and confirm
| ed by the Senate.
What does this mean? Simply this:
The immediate suspension of all build
| ing of houses or apartments for rem
tai purposes, thus increasing the suf-
fering from the housing shortage
which already is acute; no new build
| ings of the kind to produce additional
| tax income and the necessity of more
| taxes to be raised by existing proper
ties. Does anyone want that condi-
1 tion? On the other hand, suppose
rents are left uncontrolled, except by
| public opinion, which is the best
| regulator after all. Extensive build
| ing would Immediately begin. AMI
eventually the number of houses and
apartments constructed would equal
the demand, and our. old friend, the
| law of supply and demand, might
| eventually lower rentals.
If the Government is to control
rents. will IL also guarantee the owner
against losses? Will it make up to
him the lack in his purse if ever
there is a return to the old condition
where tenants were given "a month :
rent free?"
Beneficial Eject.
Any really excessive rentals in
Va ashington are not chargeable to the
! bona fide real estate men. The linn
! tied cases have had a beneficial ef-
feet by compelling families, who
found it cheaper to rent, to purchase
their own homes. Real estate values
have advanced, it is true, but SO have
purchase prices of everything else,
with no sign of a decrease.