In a city or country with housing shortages or a very tight market, that’s asking a lot.

People need homes, and there is a balance to be struck for the public good.

labcomputer 14 hours ago | parent | next [-]

So let them build enough housing!

Why is this so difficult? We will try absolutely anything except to allow enough housing to be built, and then ask why there isn't enough housing. It's madness.

If there isn't enough housing, no amount of shenanigans can overcome that inconvenient fact, except to build more housing. That's it. That is the only thing which can alleviate a housing shortage.

	▲	preg_match 9 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Particularly in NYC you can’t just build housing - there’s nowhere to put it! The city is already incredibly dense and most land is already used for housing. Your best bet is demolishing lower rise buildings and replacing them with high rises. Which, they do all the time, even in places like Brooklyn. It’s been happening for decades. But as you can imagine, it’s a long and arduous process. It’s not like erecting an apartment complex in the middle of a big plain of land in Texas.

▲

crooked-v a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Housing shortages are a result of local policies, and rent control makes housing shortages worse (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S105113772...).

▲

Nursie a day ago | parent [-]

Just as well I’m not arguing for rent control or any particular policy then isn’t it?

I’m pointing out that the “it’s my property I can do what I want” attitude needs to be balanced with public needs for housing, because society isn’t purely about optimising the content of your wallet, and extreme deregulation results in slums.

(Your linked paper there also says that rent control results in more properties having affordable rent at the low end of the market, but less overall rental property supply, indicating a reduction at the higher end. I’m good with that as a consequence, those who are better off can usually afford to get into purchasing a property. In some markets, like much of Australia, having fewer landlords and wannabe landlords competing to purchase properties would be a bonus. This actually looks like a win all round TBH.

tl;dr - congrats, you’ve used science to sell me on rent control)

▲

Aurornis 17 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> (Your linked paper there also says that rent control results in more properties having affordable rent at the low end of the market, but less overall rental property supply, indicating a reduction at the higher end.

Your conclusion is completely wrong.

What happens when you reduce the higher end of the rental property range? Do you think the people who would have been renting those properties simply vanish? Disappear from the rental market?

No, obviously they don't. So what are they doing instead? They're renting those mid-end properties instead. And what happens to the people who would have rented those mid-end properties that are now occupied by the wealthier renters? They get pushed to the low-end properties. What happens to the people who were trying to get into the low-end properties? They're pushed into being roommates or leaving the city.

Any policy that reduces overall housing supply is a loss for the low end. The way you're bending over backwards to try to imagine this as a good thing indicates something very wrong with your assumptions.

This is a case where someone has become so narrowly focused on hurting the people they perceive as wealthy (people who rent the expensive units) that even solutions that hurt the poor (policies which reduce housing supply) look like a good idea. This isn’t a good way to think.

	▲	Nursie 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> Do you think the people who would have been renting those properties simply vanish? Disappear from the rental market? Actually yes, entirely unironically. We even have evidence of this dynamic in Melbourne. When various tax measures were taken that sucked some of the profit out of investment properties, making landlordism less attractive, we saw there was less competition for house purchasing from well-funded investors. This in turn allowed would-be owner-occupiers to buy more houses, as they were no longer forced into rentals they didn't want, no longer outcompeted by those with easier access to larger lines of credit. This reduces the population of people seeking rentals. Result - decline in the absolute numbers of rental properties in the city, but an increase in rental property vacancy and a slight decrease in rents. > Any policy that reduces overall housing supply is a loss for the low end. Except it doesn't reduce the overall housing supply, because overall housing supply includes both rental properties and owner-occupied properties. Those houses don't just disappear. You're making the (false) assumptions that there is no interplay between the two markets and that everyone that lives in a rented house wants to live in a rented house.

▲

crooked-v a day ago | parent | prev [-]

The same paper specifically notes that the increase of units affordable to very low income levels depends on there being any significant number of units affordable to very low income levels in the first place, and that's something that's functionally nonexistent in places like San Francisco and NYC.

▲

consensus1 a day ago | parent | prev [-]

The people imposing the rent control are the same people responsible for the shortage, so I just can't get behind that.

	▲	19 hours ago \| parent [-]
		[deleted]