Fishers' rental cap is another way to keep out people with low incomes
In an odd way to promote public access, the city charged non-Fishers residents $50 to park their car there. Fadness claimed the parking fee was necessary to limit summer crowds, ensure safety and prioritize the limited parking for Fishers taxpayers. But this was not the truth.
Attendance at the new park was a fraction of what the city estimated that first summer season. There was never a capacity issue in the parking lot. Clearly, the real purpose of the inflated parking fee was to discourage the people who can't afford it.
Today, Fishers is trying to discourage the people who can't afford it from living in Fishers. Fadness is proposing a rental cap that would limit the number of rental properties in Fishers. This policy would be the first of its kind in the country. By limiting rental supply, this policy could inflate the cost of tenants' rent.
Why would a growing Indiana suburb with a high demand for housing want to restrict rental supply? In an odd way to address a housing shortage, the rental restriction would apply to townhome and condo neighborhoods in addition to single-family homes.
Why would a community lock a highly desired type of housing out of the most conducive neighborhoods?
Fadness' rental cap proposal has been quietly presented to citizens as a benign 'rental registration program' – his solution to encourage homeownership, protect the character of residential neighborhoods, eliminate blight and address institutional investors who purchase single-family homes. But this is not the truth.
Briggs: Fishers' attack on investor-owned homes will lock out families
The last time a Fishers single-family home was purchased by an out-of-state institutional investor was over two years ago. Home ownership in Fishers is already 'exceptionally high' and exceeds national and state averages, according to the city's own housing study. Of course, exterior maintenance issues are not exclusive to rental homes. There are city code enforcement procedures and a fine system in place to ensure that all Fishers homes are maintained, owner-occupied and rentals alike.
Fishers is branded as a 'smart, vibrant and entrepreneurial' community and is a desirable place to live. When I was a Fishers City Council member in 2023, I stated my opposition to the $50 parking fee. I said, "My strong concern is that it sends a message to people outside of Fishers that they are unwelcome here.'
Today, I state the same opposition to a new proposed Fishers rental cap policy, which would have a much greater negative impact if approved. Fishers residents can choose to oppose this rental cap or not. They can attend the Monday council meeting and let the decision-makers hear their opinions. But they deserve to know the truth.
Fishers is trying to discourage the people who can't afford it from living in Fishers.
Jocelyn Vare is a renter and a Fishers resident for over 25 years. She is a former at-large member of the Fishers City Council and former member of the City of Fishers Housing Task Force.
This article originally appeared on Indianapolis Star: Fadness' rental cap idea follows Geist Waterfront Park fees | Opinion
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Wall Street Journal
4 hours ago
- Wall Street Journal
Measuring Generative AI's Economic Impacts
I am often asked about the potential impact of generative AI on the economy. The reality is that investment in generative AI is already having an impact on economic activity, but not necessarily on productivity which affects longer-term growth. In the first half of 2025, real (inflation-adjusted) investment in information technology equipment accounted for 59% of real GDP growth.1 This category largely involves building out the infrastructure of generative AI, suggesting that investment in this technology drove the economy in the first half of this year. Moreover, in the first half of 2025, there was a sharp decline in real non-residential investment in structures,2 including factories, warehouses, office buildings, and shopping centers. Yet it is likely that there was a significant increase in investment in data warehouses, which would be included in the larger category of structures. If so, it implies that other investments in structures amounted to even less, making investment in generative AI even more impactful. The weakness of investment in structures may be attributed to businesses postponing decisions about the location of facilities due to tariff uncertainty. If investment in generative AI is so massive, this might explain the frothiness of equity prices3 at a time when there is reason to expect a weakening of the overall economy. In fact, the so-called 'Magnificent Seven' tech-related companies accounted for about half of the increase in the S&P 500 index of U.S. shares in 2024. Some believe this is a bubble that will inevitably unwind. A quarter of a century ago, there was the so-called 'dotcom bubble,' in which shares of tech-related companies surged dramatically, ultimately leading to a market correction as the profitability of investments in dotcoms came into question. Moreover, that correction contributed to a mild recession. In today's case, a market correction is a potential scenario worth considering. Tariffs and immigration policy may slow the U.S. economy, and when that slowdown becomes apparent, it will likely result in lower prices of non-tech equities. Tech prices could also come down if investors liquidate positions to cover other losses. Another major area of concern related to generative AI is electricity consumption.4 The International Energy Agency (IEA) predicts that in the U.S. 'power consumption by data centers is on course to account for almost half of the growth in electricity demand between now and 2030. Driven by AI use, the U.S. economy is set to consume more electricity in 2030 for processing data than for manufacturing all energy-intensive goods combined, including aluminum, steel, cement and chemicals.' In addition, the IEA said that 'global electricity demand from data centers is set to more than double over the next five years, consuming as much electricity by 2030 as the whole of Japan does today.' Moreover, about half of planned increases in electricity capacity in the U.S. involve renewable energy sources. With cuts to subsidies for such investments, this capacity will involve higher energy costs for consumers. In fact, the Deloitte Center for Energy & Industrials predicts that these trends will result in a significant increase in electricity costs for U.S. households. That, in turn, could have a negative impact on consumer demand. While investment in generative AI is playing a big role in driving economic growth and asset valuations in the U.S., there remains uncertainty as to when this investment will pay off in terms of productivity gains, which affects longer-term growth. Theoretically, generative AI should eventually have a big positive impact on labor productivity, thereby generating faster economic growth and improvements in living standards. On the other hand, it will significantly disrupt labor markets. Yet what we know from history is that there is a lag between the introduction of new technologies and their impact on productivity. It takes time for new technologies to become fully embedded in an economy. In part this is because it takes time to figure out the best ways to utilize new technologies. Although generative AI is already having an impact in some industries and some processes, it is not yet fully integrated into the economy in a way that drives overall productivity. Influences on U.S. Government Debt Following passage of the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill by the U.S. Congress in July, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) published its baseline forecasts for US government deficits and debt.5 The baseline makes reasonable assumptions about future trends in economic growth and other factors. Under that baseline scenario, the deficit remains high and the level of debt continues to grow sharply. However, the CBO also published alternative scenarios based on different assumptions. One assumption that is very important is the predicted rate of growth of total factor productivity (TFP), a measure of the increase in output growth that comes after taking account of increased supplies of labor and capital. It reflects the impact of technological innovation and process improvements. If the introduction of generative AI is successful in the years ahead, it will likely boost the growth of TFP. Although the CBO does not explicitly discuss the impact of generative AI on productivity, it does offer an alternative scenario in which TFP grows 0.5 percentage points faster than the baseline scenario for the foreseeable future. Under this scenario, federal debt held by the public would be 113% of GDP by 2055 versus a baseline scenario of 156%. That is because a stronger economy would generate faster growth of revenue. In fact, under the faster productivity growth scenario, real GDP per person would be 17% higher than under the baseline scenario by 2055. If government borrowing turns out to be less than currently anticipated that could mean lower bond yields. On the other hand, if the economy grows faster (all other things being equal), that implies higher bond yields. Meanwhile, faster productivity growth would likely mean lower inflation than otherwise. Should productivity grows even faster than the CBO's alternative scenario suggests, then theoretically the budget deficit could go away. We simply don't know. We know that, historically, productivity growth has been uneven and unpredictable.6 We also know that there has generally been a large lag between the introduction of radically new technologies and their impact on productivity. This was true of computers which were widely introduced in the 1980s but where productivity acceleration did not take place until the late 1990s. Of course, no one knows how much faster productivity will grow due to the introduction of generative AI, or even if it will grow faster at all. ——by Ira Kalish, chief global economist, Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Yahoo
Global Investors Cut Back Dollar Hedging, State Street Says
(Bloomberg) -- Global investors have reduced protection against a weaker dollar, countering expectations from earlier this year that an increase in hedging would drag the currency down. Data compiled by State Street Markets, a division of one of the world's biggest money custodians, shows that non-US investors in American equities have cut their hedge ratio to 21.6%, down 2 percentage points from May. It's roughly back to levels in early April, before tariff shocks roiled stock markets and the greenback. A Photographer's Pipe Dream: Capturing New York's Vast Water System Festivals and Parades Are Canceled Amid US Immigration Anxiety A London Apartment Tower With Echoes of Victorian Rail and Ancient Rome Princeton Plans New Budget Cuts as Pressure From Trump Builds That shows the shift in insurance against foreign-exchange losses has turned out to be less of a challenge to the dollar than feared. Analysts had warned that equity investors outside the US would continue to pile into hedges — typically by selling the currency in the forward market — to protect against further downside. 'This is nothing like past moves in the hedge ratio that we've seen before, where it's moved by as much as 10%,' said Michael Metcalfe, head of macro strategy at State Street Markets. 'It remains the dollar threat that has yet to trigger.' The tariff turmoil hurt the commonly held view that the dollar was good insurance against US equity losses, since in previous bouts of risk-off sentiment the greenback traditionally rallied. Despite the change in correlation in April's selloff, foreign investor behavior doesn't seem to have shifted that much, Metcalfe said. 'Everyone's very focused on it because everyone knows the hedge ratio is low and it could be higher, but the reality is that here we are in middle of August and it hasn't really gone up,' Metcalfe said. That may reflect the fact that investors typically look back over a longer period, such as three to five years, when assessing the best level of currency protection. On that basis, the dollar still looks like a decent hedge for periods where stocks have dropped. On top of that, the dollar won some respite in July as the worst-case scenarios for trade tariffs appeared to have been averted. Meanwhile, a recovery in US stocks has seen the S&P 500 surge back to all-time highs. Holding Back Given hedging comes at a cost, fund managers may simply be taking longer to decide on the best path from here. Three-month dollar hedging costs for euro-based investors, for example, climbed from a low of 1.31% last September to more than 2.40% in June and July, and are still holding above 2.20%. 'Investors seem to be holding back to see how much of what we've seen in the first eight months of 2025 will be repeated going forward,' Metcalfe said. Earlier this month, Deutsche Bank AG suggested that July's dollar bounce — when it posted its first monthly gain this year — may have been linked to a lack of new information around hedging decisions and portfolio re-allocations by long-term investors. Still, strategist Tim Baker said such changes are likely to take longer to play out. 'Our work has shown a raft of lightly-hedged dollar exposures around the world as of earlier this year, and we're not sure that's been addressed in a few short months,' he wrote in a note. 'Our take — give this story time.' (Adds additional context, Deutsche Bank comment.) Foreigners Are Buying US Homes Again While Americans Get Sidelined What Declining Cardboard Box Sales Tell Us About the US Economy Americans Are Getting Priced Out of Homeownership at Record Rates Living With 12 Strangers to Ease a Housing Crunch Bessent on Tariffs, Deficits and Embracing Trump's Economic Plan ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
9 hours ago
- Yahoo
How Much Is the Required Minimum Distribution (RMD) if You Have $100,000 in Your Retirement Accounts?
Key Points Once you reach the age of 73, the IRS requires you to make minimum annual distributions from non-Roth retirement accounts. You must calculate your own RMD based on the value of your ordinary IRAs as of the end of the previous calendar year. There is some flexibility as to how and when you complete your required minimum distribution, but you'll still want to be smart about utilizing particular options. The $23,760 Social Security bonus most retirees completely overlook › Will you be 73 years old (or older) at any point in 2025? And, do you have any non-Roth IRAs? If your answer to both questions was "yes," then -- if you haven't yet -- you'll soon be making a taxable withdrawal. The IRS requires it. It's called a required minimum distribution, or RMD, in fact. But what's the minimum $100,000? It depends on your age. The older you are, the more you're required to withdraw every year. For perspective, here's the RMD on this amount of money for a range of ages. 73: $3,773.58 75: $4,065.04 80: $4,950.50 85: $6,250.00 90: $8,196.72 And the number continues rising all the way until you turn 120, at which point your RMD is always 50% of your IRA's value as of the end of the prior calendar year. Housekeeping Your broker or IRA's custodian can provide you with the information you need to determine your yearly RMD. Just know that it's your responsibility to initiate the distribution. There's also some flexibility in how you take your RMD. For instance, you might be able to combine the value of multiple retirement accounts yet take your entire required distribution from just one; 401(k) accounts are an exception to this option, though. You're also allowed to take an in-kind distribution of investments already in your IRA, if you like, rather than taking your RMD in cash. Just be aware that doing so won't change the taxability of your distribution, which the IRS sees and treats as income. As for timing, RMDs should be completed by Dec. 31. The one exception is your first one, which doesn't need to be done until April 1 of the year after you turn 73. You might not want to wait that long, though. Your tax bill comes due for the year the RMD is completed. By waiting, you'll be making two required taxable distributions in the same tax year, potentially pushing you into a higher tax bracket. The $23,760 Social Security bonus most retirees completely overlook If you're like most Americans, you're a few years (or more) behind on your retirement savings. But a handful of little-known could help ensure a boost in your retirement income. One easy trick could pay you as much as $23,760 more... each year! Once you learn how to maximize your Social Security benefits, we think you could retire confidently with the peace of mind we're all after. Join Stock Advisor to learn more about these Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. How Much Is the Required Minimum Distribution (RMD) if You Have $100,000 in Your Retirement Accounts? was originally published by The Motley Fool Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
