People without much money shouldn't be forced to move out of neighbourhoods they call home just because they don't have money.

Who said money should buy you the right to a life with strong social bonds?

Some things, including the ones mentioned above, should not be on the market.

Why the hell not? This idea seems so alien to me I can't even begin to understand how someone can come up with "social bonds" as a reason to pay less for something.

They should have bought some property instead of renting it out then.

Augmented social bounds with economic ones.

People not being able to pay rent? They should simply buy property instead!

Germany is traditionally a country with low personal wealth, low homeownership rates. On the other hand renting is relatively cheap. Most people simply cannot afford to buy property. Already in Nürnberg, which is the second biggest metropolitan area in Bavaria after Munich where the housing prices are around half of that of Munich people with normal wages struggle to be able to acquire a home.

> Germany is traditionally a country with low personal wealth, low homeownership rates

So basically you are working like an ant, but with grasshopper's security[0]? Maybe it's time to change that?

> On the other hand renting is relatively cheap.

Not anymore now that winter is here!

0. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Fables_(La_Fontaine,_tr._Wrig...

Buying has its own problems, ranging from access to capital to reducing economic flexibility. In this thread the topic is not having to move but mor generally the problem is an inability to move.

On the the US’s historical economic strengths was the ease with which people could move in order to find work. One major influence in the US is economic slowdown of the past decade or so comes from peoples inability to move to find work

So you want to keep your own economic flexibility (rent without buying, leave at will), but you want city/state to forfeit their economic flexibility (subsidy your rent, don't kick you out)?

Can you see a problem here?

That’s a fase dichotomy. Home ownership is not automatic good — goo in some cases, not in others. Some hysteresis can be injeted into the propert markets.

I also see the value in pop 13 in california (for residences, not commercial) at the same time I see its problems.

Few solutions are effective (nor problems soluble) when cast in black and white.

Build more housing. (Or rather, permit it to be built.)

It's outside of my control, as a tax payer, to force some city to build up.

It's well inside of my control to demand that my taxes are not wasted on subsidies going directly to rent-seeking landlords in already economically overheated areas.

I would prefer they go to underdeveloped areas and give more economic effect. This means that people asking for subsidies should be ready to shift away from the core.

You do if you live there. Vote pro housing candidates for city and regional government.