4 ms·

People are against the idea because in their minds they won't be able to buy 2-3 homes and rent one or two out. No, this is about companies owning 150,000 apar

by bserge 5y ago

People are against the idea because in their minds they won't be able to buy 2-3 homes and rent one or two out. No, this is about companies owning 150,000 apartments in a city that they simply charge ever-increasing rent for. It's lunacy.

andrepd 5y ago
Well to be fair buying 2-3 homes to rent is also undesirable rent-seeking, albeit on a smaller scale.
- fragmede 5y ago
  It matters where the money goes afterwards. If it goes to a local landlord that spends it in that same neighborhood, improving it, vs going into an REIT that will make their investors, and their board, several states away happy. This is an important distinction that between trickle down theory and practice. Getting one person to $100mm vs making 10 people $10mm-airs vs 100 people to be single digit millionaires? Matters a lot in the long run, for a lot of reasons. We can't abolish rent-seeking entirely without overthrowing the whole system, so we have to realize that there are different shades of damage done by rent-seeking.
  - andrepd 5y ago
    Trickle-down doesn't work at any scale. If you want money to "trickle" down to a group of people, simply give cash to that group of people. This means lowering taxes on labour, for instance. > We can't abolish rent-seeking entirely without overthrowing the whole system Well we can certainly ameliorate it. Implementing a proper Georgist LVT would be a nice first step.
danlugo92 5y ago
I can either own 2 apartments worth $50k each, or have $100k stock in a company that owns $15k aparments. Can't outlaw one without outlawing the other one. If you ban one entity from owning more than n apartments, they'll just create apartments/n shell companies.
- nicoburns 5y ago
  Yes you can. You tie companies back to a specific person who has control over that company. And limit ownership of residential property by those people.
anovikov 5y ago
Extending that idea, we arrive from lunacy to a good thing: a city that is completely owned by one company. Where police is the company's private guards, the city council is its board of directors, and municipal taxes are just fees the company charges. And that is a good thing. I'd live in such a city if there was one. For example: no homeless. This is all a private territory, and if you don't pay your rent, a guard escorts you off the premises. Very little if any crime because crime prevention is all in one hands and these hands are protecting by and large, their own private property and their profits (because if the crime rate goes up, rent goes down and rent is how they make money). A wall keeping undesirables out. Guards/police that can check your papers anytime just simply as they can say in a hotel - "what's your room number"? So no "undocumented" aliens. There can't be any constitutional etc. bullshit that could prevent them from having an actual 24/7 guarded wall and checkpoints with papers check around their PRIVATE property. It can be a functional society where everyone who's there, belongs there.
- nicoburns 5y ago
  What would you do when the city decides to double prices overnight because it’s a private company focussed on profit maximisation and has a complete monopoly over absolutely everything
  - anovikov 5y ago
    What's the problem? Just move elsewhere. You don't own a place there - you can only rent - so you don't lose anything - it will be about as stupid/unworkable as one hotel in a city raking up room prices 2x just because they "try to maximise profit".
  - fragmede 5y ago
    Not to mention, what happens when you get laid off or fired? Ejected from your company town?
    - anovikov 5y ago
      Why? A company where one works, rents office space there. You rent an apartment. You can work for another company there, or move elsewhere.
luckylion 5y ago
Meh. I have friends who lived in a Vonovia apartment in a prefab in East Berlin. It's not for me, but the rent was pretty cheap (~10 Euros/sqm, heating + warm water included) and didn't get raised during the years they lived there. Berlin just came from a place of super low rent and is slowly catching up to other large German cities. Understandably, Berliners are in shock, but it's more "things are returning to normal" than "Berlin is so expensive, nobody can live there".
- baybal2 5y ago
  It's a dreadful irony that communist plattenbau now cost more than homes further West.
- notanzaiiswear 5y ago
  The simple fact is that the people who complain about their homes they rent from those companies are unable to find other accommodation for a comparable rent. Which in turn implies that it is not really the fault of those companies, otherwise somebody else would be able to provide better housing for the same price.
notanzaiiswear 5y ago
You can not simply charge "ever-increasing rent". You can only charge what people are willing to pay. More people are pouring into the city every day who are prepared to pay more. Simple as that. Those companies owning 150K apartments are also shareholder companies, so "small people" and their pension plans will still be affected.
- dpatterbee 5y ago
  People have to live somewhere, if someone's forced to choose between picking up an extra job to afford rent or living on the streets, they're gunna choose the first. I'd argue this is a bad thing and people deserve places to live.
  - notanzaiiswear 5y ago
    Yes, they have to live somewhere. Not necessarily in central Berlin, or central San Francisco. There are plenty of places with cheap housing in Germany. Also just because people need something, doesn't imply they have to be given those things for free. That's not usually how it works.

by bserge 5y ago

andrepd 5y ago

Well to be fair buying 2-3 homes to rent is also undesirable rent-seeking, albeit on a smaller scale.

fragmede 5y ago
It matters where the money goes afterwards. If it goes to a local landlord that spends it in that same neighborhood, improving it, vs going into an REIT that will make their investors, and their board, several states away happy. This is an important distinction that between trickle down theory and practice. Getting one person to $100mm vs making 10 people $10mm-airs vs 100 people to be single digit millionaires? Matters a lot in the long run, for a lot of reasons. We can't abolish rent-seeking entirely without overthrowing the whole system, so we have to realize that there are different shades of damage done by rent-seeking.
- andrepd 5y ago
  Trickle-down doesn't work at any scale. If you want money to "trickle" down to a group of people, simply give cash to that group of people. This means lowering taxes on labour, for instance. > We can't abolish rent-seeking entirely without overthrowing the whole system Well we can certainly ameliorate it. Implementing a proper Georgist LVT would be a nice first step.

danlugo92 5y ago

I can either own 2 apartments worth $50k each, or have $100k stock in a company that owns $15k aparments. Can't outlaw one without outlawing the other one. If you ban one entity from owning more than n apartments, they'll just create apartments/n shell companies.

nicoburns 5y ago
Yes you can. You tie companies back to a specific person who has control over that company. And limit ownership of residential property by those people.

anovikov 5y ago

Extending that idea, we arrive from lunacy to a good thing: a city that is completely owned by one company. Where police is the company's private guards, the city council is its board of directors, and municipal taxes are just fees the company charges. And that is a good thing. I'd live in such a city if there was one. For example: no homeless. This is all a private territory, and if you don't pay your rent, a guard escorts you off the premises. Very little if any crime because crime prevention is all in one hands and these hands are protecting by and large, their own private property and their profits (because if the crime rate goes up, rent goes down and rent is how they make money). A wall keeping undesirables out. Guards/police that can check your papers anytime just simply as they can say in a hotel - "what's your room number"? So no "undocumented" aliens. There can't be any constitutional etc. bullshit that could prevent them from having an actual 24/7 guarded wall and checkpoints with papers check around their PRIVATE property. It can be a functional society where everyone who's there, belongs there.

nicoburns 5y ago
What would you do when the city decides to double prices overnight because it’s a private company focussed on profit maximisation and has a complete monopoly over absolutely everything
- anovikov 5y ago
  What's the problem? Just move elsewhere. You don't own a place there - you can only rent - so you don't lose anything - it will be about as stupid/unworkable as one hotel in a city raking up room prices 2x just because they "try to maximise profit".
- fragmede 5y ago
  Not to mention, what happens when you get laid off or fired? Ejected from your company town?
  - anovikov 5y ago
    Why? A company where one works, rents office space there. You rent an apartment. You can work for another company there, or move elsewhere.

luckylion 5y ago

Meh. I have friends who lived in a Vonovia apartment in a prefab in East Berlin. It's not for me, but the rent was pretty cheap (~10 Euros/sqm, heating + warm water included) and didn't get raised during the years they lived there. Berlin just came from a place of super low rent and is slowly catching up to other large German cities. Understandably, Berliners are in shock, but it's more "things are returning to normal" than "Berlin is so expensive, nobody can live there".

baybal2 5y ago
It's a dreadful irony that communist plattenbau now cost more than homes further West.
notanzaiiswear 5y ago
The simple fact is that the people who complain about their homes they rent from those companies are unable to find other accommodation for a comparable rent. Which in turn implies that it is not really the fault of those companies, otherwise somebody else would be able to provide better housing for the same price.

notanzaiiswear 5y ago

You can not simply charge "ever-increasing rent". You can only charge what people are willing to pay. More people are pouring into the city every day who are prepared to pay more. Simple as that. Those companies owning 150K apartments are also shareholder companies, so "small people" and their pension plans will still be affected.

dpatterbee 5y ago
People have to live somewhere, if someone's forced to choose between picking up an extra job to afford rent or living on the streets, they're gunna choose the first. I'd argue this is a bad thing and people deserve places to live.
- notanzaiiswear 5y ago
  Yes, they have to live somewhere. Not necessarily in central Berlin, or central San Francisco. There are plenty of places with cheap housing in Germany. Also just because people need something, doesn't imply they have to be given those things for free. That's not usually how it works.