Re:If You Can’t Afford the Rent, It’s My Problem, Too
by throwawaysea on Wednesday March 27, 2019 @01:45PM
(#19503642)
OK here's a better alternative. Instead of rent control on a per-unit basis, cities could provide subsidies to long-term low-income residents that reduce their personal expenditure on rent. The subsidies would be paid for through taxes, thus amortizing the subsidy across the local tax base instead of impacting an individual landlord or unit.
But let me note that this must be done only for long-term residents (that is, those who have been there for years). For example, if someone moved to SF within the last 5 years, they should have known what the price of living there is. This is one of the most desirable cities, and it makes sense that it would be expensive and that not everyone would get to live there. Those moving there in recent years therefore, simply made an irresponsible personal choice and must yield to the consequences, rather than being subsidized at others' expense.
Re:If You Can’t Afford the Rent, It’s My Problem, Too
by bduerst on Wednesday March 27, 2019 @03:56PM
(#19505288)
This already happens with income-subsidized housing. The added long-term requirement is absurd for the same reasons that locking people into long-term rentals is bad for rent control. You don't want to inhibit movement in the market.
It's not just people moving into an area, it's moving within an area.
Rent control creates an market where existing renters are inhibited from moving even into the building next to their current residence. It prevents free movement in/out and within the market.
This also makes it so landlords want to evict/churn renters as much as possible, so they are incentivized to become slum lords. Landords invest as little as possible into the property because as soon as a renter moves in, that renter is never going to leave and the landlord sees diminishing returns over time.