5 ms·

If you want something long term, you must own. I'm not suggesting it's easy to own, but emphasizing that the rental market is a market, and rents change whenev

If you want something long term, you must own. I'm not suggesting it's easy to own, but emphasizing that the rental market is a market, and rents change whenever a new contract comes due. If you want to smooth the rates over a long time horizon, buy something or sign a long-term lease.

niek_pas 7y ago
Not everybody has the luxury to own. Limiting long-term stability to the those with stable, well-paying jobs will only further marginalise and destabilise those who are already struggling. Rent control is one possible solution to this problem.
- robbiemitchell 7y ago
  I know that. Owning a home isn’t supposed to be a luxury. But in that part of the country, it is, and it doesn’t change the fact that rents are subject to change every time the term renews. Unfortunately, rent control fails consistently. It doesn’t change the fact that too many people need too few homes, not to mention the margin squeeze for property owners. The Bay Area needs way more home, especially multi-family units near transportation.
urthen 7y ago
Well I'm golly sure glad you were around to alert people of this! Renters being priced out just need to buy the multi-million dollar properties they could barely afford to rent in the first place! Who would have thought of this one weird trick if not for you?
- robbiemitchell 7y ago
  It should be easier to (a) buy a home and (b) rent somewhere else but still commute to a job. We probably agree on that. But that doesn’t change the fact that renting is fundamentally unstable, and a short-term contract comes with risks. You seem focused on shooting the messenger.
  - davidgay 7y ago
    I'm reminded of this thread from yesterday: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21021709 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21021709 The relevant issue: Switzerland has rent control (and has had it for a long time). So if it's tenable position for the 2nd richest nation (and has been for a long time), it does suggest that renting being "fundamentally unstable" is not a requirement.

niek_pas 7y ago

Not everybody has the luxury to own. Limiting long-term stability to the those with stable, well-paying jobs will only further marginalise and destabilise those who are already struggling. Rent control is one possible solution to this problem.

robbiemitchell 7y ago
I know that. Owning a home isn’t supposed to be a luxury. But in that part of the country, it is, and it doesn’t change the fact that rents are subject to change every time the term renews. Unfortunately, rent control fails consistently. It doesn’t change the fact that too many people need too few homes, not to mention the margin squeeze for property owners. The Bay Area needs way more home, especially multi-family units near transportation.

urthen 7y ago

Well I'm golly sure glad you were around to alert people of this! Renters being priced out just need to buy the multi-million dollar properties they could barely afford to rent in the first place! Who would have thought of this one weird trick if not for you?

robbiemitchell 7y ago
It should be easier to (a) buy a home and (b) rent somewhere else but still commute to a job. We probably agree on that. But that doesn’t change the fact that renting is fundamentally unstable, and a short-term contract comes with risks. You seem focused on shooting the messenger.
- davidgay 7y ago
  I'm reminded of this thread from yesterday: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21021709 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21021709 The relevant issue: Switzerland has rent control (and has had it for a long time). So if it's tenable position for the 2nd richest nation (and has been for a long time), it does suggest that renting being "fundamentally unstable" is not a requirement.