Well, as some I think because the rent control laws are getting stricter and stricter, people are going to give you that $2,000 price base rent, but there's going to be all these stacked on fees on top of it so they get to market rent or perceived market rent that they're trying to achieve, right? Because they can't increase the rents. It's not going to make sense from a growth per projection perspective over their investment timeline if they're not going to be able they can raise the rent 3% or vacancy control…
if everything stayed the same with that, what is it? 5% plus CPI? If you're raising rents 5% a year consistently on a unit, you that's a fantastic business model. So, I I don't I don't think it's just one or the other. And I also don't think there's a solution to a solve affordable housing that just relies on all rent control or no rent control. There's I Somewhere in the middle is probably the answer maybe, you know, like like like in most cases. Yeah, right? This person has a story, that person has a story, and…
No, that's but but you know what? And I think what has been, especially in Los Angeles what makes sense is because other income is not rent controlled. For the most part, right? There's certain skip pass through fees and stuff like that, but parking income parking income is not rent controlled. You can raise it as much as you want every year.
Somewhere in the middle, and I think there there can be a way to to protect the consumer from just crazy rent increases. But, if you if you start to regulate vacant units to me I I think that's a disaster. Yeah. Cuz then another thing, you kind of brought up the getting around that with charging an exorbitant amount for for parking, for example. What if I'm renting a unit and you're and you need a unit, I'm like, "Hey, there's vacancy control, and I can only raise it's just like some fantastic deal all to live in…