4 ms·
I don't even see them making sense for tenant rights or home selling. Placing a minimum on the size of apartment someone's allowed to rent to me, or the size of
by mumblemumble 7y ago
I don't even see them making sense for tenant rights or home selling. Placing a minimum on the size of apartment someone's allowed to rent to me, or the size of home I can buy ultimately comes into conflict with my right to decide how much money I'm willing to spend.
Other housing codes - say, requiring the wiring not to be a fire hazard - make a lot of sense as a way to protect me in situations where I can't reasonably be expected to have the expertise necessary to assess the situation for myself. But I am the ultimate authority when it comes to deciding how much space I need for myself and all my crap.
- hellisothers 7y agoI tend to agree with this sentiment but it does sound a lot like the whole “if people want to sign up to be slaves to Uber because they have no other options then that is their right” argument which I have mixed feelings about. I could imagine a situation where new construction in SF is all 100sft units because it maximizes rent ROI which would if anything make larger spaces even more expensive then they are.
- pochamago 7y agoWouldn't that still be better than the current situation? It seems like a lot of these laws, in an attempt to define the acceptable minimum as middle class, just end up pricing lower income people out of the market altogether. I think it should be alright to allow for lower minimums as long as the main priority of fluid class mobility remains high.