4 ms·

> here's very little chance that it actually benefits the people who live in the neighborhood today. If we make the assumption that everyone who lives in the n

> here's very little chance that it actually benefits the people who live in the neighborhood today. If we make the assumption that everyone who lives in the neighbourhood rents instead of owns, then yeah, probably. But why are we attaching any value to the needs of renters? Economically, if your only concern is the benefit of renters then it never makes sense to enrich property values in an area because rent will rise. I understand it's not compassionate as renters are typically much poorer, but this line of thinking that we should coddle renters leads to a lot of completely regressive policy decisions like rent control that leads landlords to poorly maintain property and public housing projects that tend to cluster crime altogether.

timr 8y ago
But why are we attaching any value to the needs of renters? Right. Screw those losers. If you don't own property, you don't matter.
- CoolGuySteve 8y ago
  Exactly my fucking point, you're not being rational.
yholio 8y ago
I disagree with your own line of thinking. Coddling the renters as should mean creating oversupply of building and housing so that renting prices go down. There is no contradiction in doing that at the same time as improving public service to make the areas desirable.
- CoolGuySteve 8y ago
  You're right. The other side of the coin is when owners in places like San Francisco or Brooklyn declare their neighbourhood "historic" and severely restrict building denser housing so they can inflate their property values. In both cases, the arguments are either disingenuous or misguided.
goldfeld 8y ago
Because the needs of renters are pretty much the needs of young working people and the needs of landlords are the needs of the entrenched? 70's line of thinking doesn't work anymore, the world's vastly changed.
- CoolGuySteve 8y ago
  What a backhanded dismissal. The cost to buy is not much more than the cost to rent in NYC for most property. NYC's regulations around coop and condo ownership are also fairly progressive. The only real barrier is the traditional down payment size, which is typically 20% here. We should be encouraging more young people to buy and build their wealth.
  - goldfeld 8y ago
    We should be encouraging more people to be born into wealth because then everyone would be happier! Since you think I'm flippant, let me elaborate. The real barrier is financial security and knowing you'll keep making those payments. Renting is not the same (you can always, maybe, go live somewhere much cheaper than the current, even it's way across the country.) The way you think shows a lack of familiarity with actual hardship, or just, you know, normal life for most people nowadays.
  - tropdrop 8y ago
    There's nothing wrong with encouraging young people to build wealth. However, as we saw in '08, the housing market is a less sure bet of wealth than was previously thought - not to mention changing climates make the value of some properties highly questionable (rising coastlines - maybe? How fast?) Further, young working people frequently move from city to city to even a new country every couple of years, and quite casually (the kind who could, in theory, afford to purchase a property in New York, who are a very small percentage indeed). So OK, I purchase a property in New York. But my job now calls me to San Francisco. I have to manage that condo (Maybe I'll Airbnb?) in addition to paying a new equally pricey payment of rent in SF. And because of my demanding work schedule at a tech company, I won't be able to physically check on my property very often. I might have to hire someone to do it for me. Oh no - I now also have to have both home owner's AND renter's insurance. And next year I have to work for 6 months in Berlin, so I'm going to have to find someone to sublet from my 1-year lease in San Francisco... I'm now spending all my free time just trying to manage 3 properties instead of trying to build my own company/find a mate/obtain a higher degree.
ummonk 8y ago
>But why are we attaching any value to the needs of renters? Economically, if your only concern is the benefit of renters then it never makes sense to enrich property values in an area because rent will rise. Whether you're a capitalist who believes in the value of entrepneurship or a communist who focuses on honest labor, the one thing you should agree on is that socioeconomic policy should do everything it can to limit the growth in property values. The last thing we want to do is to enrich the landed gentry. (Note that rent control is not really pro-renter; it merely helps early renters at the expense of new renters. This is similar to how propping up growth in property values by restricting housing development enriches early property owners at the expense of prospective new property owners)
hcg 8y ago
Because they are the people who live there, because they make their lives there, because having large percentages of their wealth stripped away by some leech doesn't make them worse or lesser people. Why do we care about the needs of landlords? We should be catering to the people who actually live in an area. It's not just not compassionate, it's a disgusting hatred of the lower class.
- dang 8y ago
  We've banned this account for using HN primarily for ideological battle, as explained in the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html HN is a site for intellectual curiosity, not smiting enemies. Many stories inevitably have political angles, like this one, but it's an abuse of HN to use it just for prosecuting a political agenda (any political agenda). It's strident, boring, and tends to set entire threads on fire. Since that prevents the site from achieving its purpose, we ban accounts that do it.
cmrdporcupine 8y ago
Please. Renters and lower income earners are the _workforce_. The people doing, you know, real work.

timr 8y ago

But why are we attaching any value to the needs of renters? Right. Screw those losers. If you don't own property, you don't matter.

CoolGuySteve 8y ago
Exactly my fucking point, you're not being rational.

yholio 8y ago

I disagree with your own line of thinking. Coddling the renters as should mean creating oversupply of building and housing so that renting prices go down. There is no contradiction in doing that at the same time as improving public service to make the areas desirable.

CoolGuySteve 8y ago
You're right. The other side of the coin is when owners in places like San Francisco or Brooklyn declare their neighbourhood "historic" and severely restrict building denser housing so they can inflate their property values. In both cases, the arguments are either disingenuous or misguided.

goldfeld 8y ago

Because the needs of renters are pretty much the needs of young working people and the needs of landlords are the needs of the entrenched? 70's line of thinking doesn't work anymore, the world's vastly changed.

CoolGuySteve 8y ago
What a backhanded dismissal. The cost to buy is not much more than the cost to rent in NYC for most property. NYC's regulations around coop and condo ownership are also fairly progressive. The only real barrier is the traditional down payment size, which is typically 20% here. We should be encouraging more young people to buy and build their wealth.
- goldfeld 8y ago
  We should be encouraging more people to be born into wealth because then everyone would be happier! Since you think I'm flippant, let me elaborate. The real barrier is financial security and knowing you'll keep making those payments. Renting is not the same (you can always, maybe, go live somewhere much cheaper than the current, even it's way across the country.) The way you think shows a lack of familiarity with actual hardship, or just, you know, normal life for most people nowadays.
- tropdrop 8y ago
  There's nothing wrong with encouraging young people to build wealth. However, as we saw in '08, the housing market is a less sure bet of wealth than was previously thought - not to mention changing climates make the value of some properties highly questionable (rising coastlines - maybe? How fast?) Further, young working people frequently move from city to city to even a new country every couple of years, and quite casually (the kind who could, in theory, afford to purchase a property in New York, who are a very small percentage indeed). So OK, I purchase a property in New York. But my job now calls me to San Francisco. I have to manage that condo (Maybe I'll Airbnb?) in addition to paying a new equally pricey payment of rent in SF. And because of my demanding work schedule at a tech company, I won't be able to physically check on my property very often. I might have to hire someone to do it for me. Oh no - I now also have to have both home owner's AND renter's insurance. And next year I have to work for 6 months in Berlin, so I'm going to have to find someone to sublet from my 1-year lease in San Francisco... I'm now spending all my free time just trying to manage 3 properties instead of trying to build my own company/find a mate/obtain a higher degree.

ummonk 8y ago

>But why are we attaching any value to the needs of renters? Economically, if your only concern is the benefit of renters then it never makes sense to enrich property values in an area because rent will rise. Whether you're a capitalist who believes in the value of entrepneurship or a communist who focuses on honest labor, the one thing you should agree on is that socioeconomic policy should do everything it can to limit the growth in property values. The last thing we want to do is to enrich the landed gentry. (Note that rent control is not really pro-renter; it merely helps early renters at the expense of new renters. This is similar to how propping up growth in property values by restricting housing development enriches early property owners at the expense of prospective new property owners)

hcg 8y ago

Because they are the people who live there, because they make their lives there, because having large percentages of their wealth stripped away by some leech doesn't make them worse or lesser people. Why do we care about the needs of landlords? We should be catering to the people who actually live in an area. It's not just not compassionate, it's a disgusting hatred of the lower class.

dang 8y ago
We've banned this account for using HN primarily for ideological battle, as explained in the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html HN is a site for intellectual curiosity, not smiting enemies. Many stories inevitably have political angles, like this one, but it's an abuse of HN to use it just for prosecuting a political agenda (any political agenda). It's strident, boring, and tends to set entire threads on fire. Since that prevents the site from achieving its purpose, we ban accounts that do it.

cmrdporcupine 8y ago

Please. Renters and lower income earners are the _workforce_. The people doing, you know, real work.