4 ms·

> rent control ... exacerbates the underlying housing shortage. I don't understand this. Shouldn't there always be incentive to build new houses as long as dem

• brazzy 6y ago
  Only if it's profitable. Not if you have regulation that increases the costs and arbitrarily caps the revenue.
  • Vinnl 6y ago
    Sure. But given that housing prices were a lot lower before and that the prices of a lot of other things, among which labour, haven't risen to the same tune, I'd assume that building a house was profitable before and thus will still be profitable (though to a lesser extent) even if prices fall back to that level? (It would presumably mean that the houses that get build would become cheaper to build, i.e. fewer luxury housing with larger margins, but that's not what people are objecting too, rightfully so.)
• brodock 6y ago
  Many cities artificially block that citing things like "will modify the current architecture/aspects of the city" etc. Basically the argument is that cities shouldn't evolve from what they were in early last century, ignoring the major influx of new residents.
  • Vinnl 6y ago
    Sorry, I don't understand - what does that have to do with rent control?
• ramblerman 6y ago
  Incentive comes from profit, not just there being a 'problem'. If rent was allowed to naturally increase due to an increase in demand, investors would quickly be there to build more appartments. But with rent control, you have little opportunity to offer something unique. It's also harder to compete with appartments that are already close to the center, as they are artifically cheapened. Of course it's made more complex by additional regulation enforcing you can't build up, more than n stories in most european cities.
  • Vinnl 6y ago
    Sure, but with so many potential buyers, even without the people who'd be renting it out, wouldn't it still be perfectly possible to build houses profitably?