• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    42 days ago

    And what, exactly, are the long-term problems? The most common one I’ve seen sited is that they don’t maintain properties, but there are solutions to that. Economists just don’t seem to be willing to discuss anything that isn’t some kind of private market solution.

    “We can’t do anything that reduces landlord or developer profits” is trying to solve the problem with both hands tied behind your back and a ball gag firmly in place.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      4
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      Nobody builds new rental properties that aren’t profitable. I dunno, would you, if you had that kind of money?

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        02 days ago

        If I were a government? Yes. Because housing people will have far reaching benefits that go beyond short term profits.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          22 days ago

          No, if you were a potential landlord.

          Rent control implies private landlords, so you can’t just say you wouldn’t become a landlord.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      12 days ago

      First, it’s Cited, not Sited.

      Second, I think you misunderstood me. I’m advocating for removing their profits almost entirely, or at least the portion of profits attributed to the increase in land value that they had no part in improving.

      I just think that rent controls are a stupid way to attempt to do it because they don’t apply to new units and they often have loopholes. Rent controls can also exacerbate the problem where new units get rented for much higher prices, to try to compensate for the fact that they won’t be able to increase them over time. There definitely isn’t enough supply to stop that issue happening.