4 ms·
Not sure why this was downvoted. The reality in SF and many other locations is that supply has been artificially limited and landlords who bought years ago hav
by eagsalazar2 6y ago
Not sure why this was downvoted. The reality in SF and many other locations is that supply has been artificially limited and landlords who bought years ago have been making enormous profits. I don't know that I'd describe it as "giving back" but there is a market recalibration that is justifiable and I won't lose too much sleep worrying about landlords in SF who make 30% less than they do now.
- AmericanChopper 6y agoLandlord aren’t the ones imposing the artificial limitations though. It’s the same group who created the rules that would punish a landlord for temporarily lowering rent.
- thephyber 6y ago> Landlord aren’t the ones imposing the artificial limitations though It's certainly not the people moving in from outside the area who want to rent for affordable rates. Landlords are part of the NIMBY problem, but not the only part.
- AmericanChopper 6y agoBut they aren’t the part of the problem that is accountable for it. In a democracy you should expect that everybody will be appealing to the government to protect their own interests. The NIMBYs quite obviously do this. But it’s the local governments that implement the NIMBY-protecting policies. The local governments are the ones accountable to the people, not the NIMBYs. I imagine the delinquent politicians are quite happy when people point the finger at landlords instead of them.