The person whose comment you are replying to doesn't understand that. So then when the rental market gets too hot for working people, his next demand will be that the government force landlords to rent at a particular price.
So then landlords don't want to rent at that price, because they would take a loss, so they choose not to rent at all. So then the market for rental properties contracts.
Then the person asks that the state appropriate the properties and rent it out directly. So then people lose their property and have no incentive to invest in property in the jurisdiction, and future workers, not interested in living in government dormitories, choose another jurisdiction to go build their companies and careers.
Then this person, aged 60 at that time, will be sitting in their rundown neighborhood where all the young people have left to go to another jurisdiction, and will be muttering ... things used to be soooo good. What ever happened?
And did you learn all that from me saying why laws protecting renters exist?
As though if you think housing is important, all a policy maker should have to think about is the first order effect of protecting the renter's rights.
You did a lot more than say they exist. You said housing is important, that's why they exist. As though rental protection somehow advances the important goal of providing housing. One doesn't need more than that to identify who you are when it comes to reasoning about housing.
It’s not perfect but being blacklisted as an evicted deadbeat (or being someone who won’t provide verifiable rental history / references) is a pretty big disincentive to go nuclear on your rental. Sure some people are just leeches like the subject of this story but I wouldn’t imagine that’s anything but an edge case.
> "Giving people housing is important"
I agree! So let's make the government financially liable for any missed rent payments, while the eviction process is pending. After all, if providing its citizens with housing is so important, it should be the state's financial responsibility, not that of a random landlord whose contract was violated. I'm all for universal basic income, but not income-appropriated-from-a-few-random-landlords.
> "Price it into your rent"
Ah, now we get to the real rub. Everyone already does this. If you're a rich, successful individual, you have the luxury of living anywhere you want, at market prices. If you're down on your luck, but want to turn things around, you'll find that many places will refuse to accept you anyway, because the risk is too great. Or they will offer you housing at significantly higher rents, because of the additional risks involved. Either way, you're getting screwed, just because some other deadbeat thinks he's entitled to free housing at the landlord's expense.