Until then, sub-95% occupancy was a sign of property failure. Now, rents and rental properties have been so thoroughly captured and coordinated that large property management companies are able to profit at occupancy rates below even 80%. It was organized, aggressive, large-scale exploitation of historical "rules of thumb" of property pricing (not just rentals), laundered through software.

The problem is circular. Artificially high rental prices drove many to buy houses, and median home price and availability in a given area generally determine rental prices. By using profits to capture multifamily dwellings and raising their prices to control their occupancy, valuations on surrounding residential properties (many owned by the same large, PE-backed commercial hard asset investors) could be raised beyond the traditional limits that a local market would bear. Like Broadcom, they raised rates to "fire" their least profitable customers.

Property management companies that used rental price-fixing software flourished, and both existing home owners [1], and cities were loathe to complain. For home owners, this has been the closest they've ever gotten to a bailout in their lifetimes. For cities, tax revenues are higher than ever.

Who amongst them would dare call it all a sham?

[1] I originally wrote "who at worst were unaffected", but that's demonstrably untrue. We normally criticize it as "gentrification", but at least as far back as 2012, I noted investors in my area were buying up minority communities, flipping the houses into rentals to raise property values, buying the properties people could no longer afford the taxes on, and then renting them back to them at more than the cost of their original mortgages.

Then, other properties also go on the market much higher as they see this is now 'the market rate'.

The higher quality properties go early. The poor quality ones stay - with the higher pricing.

In the UK, it is an absolute racket without any protection for the tenant. Including ANY annual increase in rent - and people can be kicked out with just 2 months notice (including where I rent, as a family of 3).

>[...] in the hope that you can squeeze an extra 100 every month [...]

Which one is it? Was the increase "substantial" or was it only 100 bucks?

> I'm not a landlord but I don't think there is a rational basis for kicking all of your rent paying tenants out and then having half a dozen units go empty in the hope that you can squeeze an extra 100 every month out of someone, maybe, in the future.

Hindsight is 20/20. My guess is that the landlord thought the market was going to bear the price increase, and went all-in on it rather than only doing it on a portion of his tenants.

If you looked at the rents, put yours at slightly higher than average and then strong armed the owners of the majority of similar units to do the same even if your vacancy rate goes up so that now yours is right at the new average, then it would be similar to real page.