4 ms·
Yes, only people who can afford to enter into a long term lease have access to stable housing. There is no "should" here. It's definitional. That's literally w
by esotericn 8y ago
Yes, only people who can afford to enter into a long term lease have access to stable housing.
There is no "should" here. It's definitional. That's literally what a long lease is, as opposed to a short lease.
> It's only emotional pandering if you don't think politics should be a useful instrument to people without money.
It's emotional pandering because it's devoid of actual logic.
You've injected the 'people without money' bit here as if it's relevant when actually this is a matter that affects everyone.
- pixl97 8y ago>The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread. One should realize that politics can be used to cement long terms societal stability, and not just make one rich as fast as possible.
- esotericn 8y agoSure. It can't make a short term lease a long term lease though. You can, of course, eliminate or curtail short term leases. Whether such a thing is preferable is up for question.
- Retra 8y agoLeases are only a mechanism for achieving housing. People will need homes for the rest of their lives, so the length of the lease is not 'definitional' for establishing anything. The length of the lease is only the length of a commitment to living in some particular place. The overall housing still needs to remain affordable in aggregate, and that doesn't happen if everyone is expecting rent to increase after their lease lapses. Moreover, moving is expensive and can take months of planning. If rent prices rise beyond affordability, you're pushing a heavy burden on your tenants, and landlords should have an obligation to exercise that power responsibly.