3 ms·

This would encourage tearing down old rental units in order to build new rental units in their place.

by ISL 7y ago

s_Hogg 7y ago
Are you saying that because you think it's a good thing or a bad thing? Seems to me like either (or both) of these could be the case.
- jessaustin 7y ago
  In most situations it would be good for rich renters and bad for poor renters, for an older building with apartment sizes and amenities that are typical of older buildings to be replaced by a new building with apartment sizes and amenities that are typical of new buildings.
  - sampo 7y ago
    It would be bad for those poor renters who already had apartment. But good for those poor renters who are just entering the market and looking for a home.
    - jessaustin 7y ago
      Poor tenants are not renting new apartments. In general, you could say that new apartments are added to the overall stock so that's good for all renters. ITT however we're specifically talking about the kind of apartments that are rented by the poor being replaced on the same site by the kind of apartments that are rented by wealthier tenants. That is actually good for one group and bad for another group. Widely anticipated wonderful new laws are usually chock-full of this kind of crap. Lobbyists don't try to step in front of oncoming political trains. They do successfully redirect those trains to their own purposes.
jdavis703 7y ago
In California there are tough demolition protections in the highest demand cities. Proposed state-wide legislation (SB 50) designed to spur homebuilding will actually make it illegal to demolish any home where a no-fault eviction has occurred. So at least in California I'm not too concerned about this particular side-effect.
stale2002 7y ago
Ok? This sounds like a good thing to me.
throw0101a 7y ago
Perhaps true, but it takes quite a bit of capital to demolish and rebuild? What would the ROI of doing that actually be?

This would encourage tearing down old rental units in order to build new rental units in their place.

by ISL 7y ago

This would encourage tearing down old rental units in order to build new rental units in their place.

Are you saying that because you think it's a good thing or a bad thing? Seems to me like either (or both) of these could be the case.

jessaustin 7y ago
In most situations it would be good for rich renters and bad for poor renters, for an older building with apartment sizes and amenities that are typical of older buildings to be replaced by a new building with apartment sizes and amenities that are typical of new buildings.
- sampo 7y ago
  It would be bad for those poor renters who already had apartment. But good for those poor renters who are just entering the market and looking for a home.
  - jessaustin 7y ago
    Poor tenants are not renting new apartments. In general, you could say that new apartments are added to the overall stock so that's good for all renters. ITT however we're specifically talking about the kind of apartments that are rented by the poor being replaced on the same site by the kind of apartments that are rented by wealthier tenants. That is actually good for one group and bad for another group. Widely anticipated wonderful new laws are usually chock-full of this kind of crap. Lobbyists don't try to step in front of oncoming political trains. They do successfully redirect those trains to their own purposes.

jdavis703 7y ago

In California there are tough demolition protections in the highest demand cities. Proposed state-wide legislation (SB 50) designed to spur homebuilding will actually make it illegal to demolish any home where a no-fault eviction has occurred. So at least in California I'm not too concerned about this particular side-effect.

stale2002 7y ago

Ok? This sounds like a good thing to me.

throw0101a 7y ago

Perhaps true, but it takes quite a bit of capital to demolish and rebuild? What would the ROI of doing that actually be?