4 ms·

What we need is to consider the incentives that laws create. If you're a landlord with rent-controlled units, there is no benefit in doing anything beyond the l

What we need is to consider the incentives that laws create. If you're a landlord with rent-controlled units, there is no benefit in doing anything beyond the legally required minimum, and a large benefit in getting the tenants to leave. You can say they shouldn't do that, and you'd even be right, but that's about as useful as saying "people shouldn't sell drugs".

vkou 8y ago
The problem isn't that the landlord is doing the legally required minimum. The problem is that the landlord isn't even meeting the legally required minimum. When we catch people selling drugs, we take their drugs, and their money, and throw them into prison. When we catch landlords doing this, we should take their properties. They aren't operating some secret underground criminal enterprise here - many of these abuses are well-documented. I assure you, if you make an example out of a few landlords, the rest will stop with the frivolous evictions. The reason they are playing these games is that they have a lot less to lose then their tenants.
- RhysU 8y ago
  > I assure you, if you make an example out of a few landlords, the rest will stop with the frivolous evictions. I suspect the landlords would up their aggressiveness to collect a higher risk premium on account of having a higher rate of getting busted. In expectation, it would likely be a wash.
- taysic 8y ago
  Lawsuits or stricter laws have a cost too - even good landlords need to calculate that into their cost of doing business (of getting sued). Once the cost becomes too high, if landlords cannot sell their buildings, they simply abandon them.
closeparen 8y ago
The incentive to evict is created by vacancy decontrol, a concession made to free-marketers. I’d guess most rent control proponents want rents set by fiat at all parts of the lifecycle (allocating apartments by chance instead of income) which has some problems, but not this one.

vkou 8y ago

The problem isn't that the landlord is doing the legally required minimum. The problem is that the landlord isn't even meeting the legally required minimum. When we catch people selling drugs, we take their drugs, and their money, and throw them into prison. When we catch landlords doing this, we should take their properties. They aren't operating some secret underground criminal enterprise here - many of these abuses are well-documented. I assure you, if you make an example out of a few landlords, the rest will stop with the frivolous evictions. The reason they are playing these games is that they have a lot less to lose then their tenants.

RhysU 8y ago
> I assure you, if you make an example out of a few landlords, the rest will stop with the frivolous evictions. I suspect the landlords would up their aggressiveness to collect a higher risk premium on account of having a higher rate of getting busted. In expectation, it would likely be a wash.
taysic 8y ago
Lawsuits or stricter laws have a cost too - even good landlords need to calculate that into their cost of doing business (of getting sued). Once the cost becomes too high, if landlords cannot sell their buildings, they simply abandon them.

closeparen 8y ago

The incentive to evict is created by vacancy decontrol, a concession made to free-marketers. I’d guess most rent control proponents want rents set by fiat at all parts of the lifecycle (allocating apartments by chance instead of income) which has some problems, but not this one.