3 ms·
> It doesn't accomplish anything except paying the land lord more money. well yes this is the idea, and then more people want to be land lords to get the sweet
by cwmma 8y ago
> It doesn't accomplish anything except paying the land lord more money.
well yes this is the idea, and then more people want to be land lords to get the sweet sweet rent subsidy money, which ideally would then cause more homes to be built because of all the money coming in as rent, and which would then cause rents to fall.
Compare to absolute rent control (i.e. there is a global cap on rents), now landlords get less money, they don't have any incentive to invest in their property because they can't get any money out of it, nobody wants to get into the landlord business because its hard to make any money in it so there isn't any incentive to build new apartments.
Or compare this to the rent control where you aren't allowed to raise rents on specific tenants. If you have an apartment now, congrats you have a deal, as long as you never have to move in which case you are screwed. Also woe to anyone new to the market because you're rent is going to be higher in order to subsidize the people that the people that have been there forever.
- jayd16 8y agoYou're describing a fantasy world as far as I can tell. The situation you're describing requires several facets. - Enough demand to warrant rent control having an effect. - Not enough demand to make new units profitable. - There is room for new development and the only roadblock is profitability. In California at least, a subsidy would just be a payout to land lords without addressing the major issue of zoning.