5 ms·

"Nearly every case" is very wishy washy, I assume you have some specifics, what about trashing a property, who absorbs that cost? Living where one has historic

"Nearly every case" is very wishy washy, I assume you have some specifics, what about trashing a property, who absorbs that cost? Living where one has historically lived is interesting, take London - you're implying it should be a birth right for natives - what about the immigrant flow into such cities, how would you reconcile the "right of natives" with human capital?

turtledove 4y ago
Not a birthright, I don't think it should move across generations, but I do think that it's needlessly cruel to force someone out of their home because wealthier people want to live there. As for tenants v landlords, I believe it should be difficult to evict tenants except in cases where the tenant is clearly a danger to others or to the home itself. If they are vandalizing the property, that should be an eviction. Likewise if they are cooking meth. But I think tenants should be protected if, eg, their income drops due to a layoff or unforseen medical expense.
- jdhendrickson 4y ago
  Do you not see any obvious flaws in your desired changes?
  - turtledove 4y ago
    Depends. But what you label a flaw, I might label a feature. There is space for both of us to disagree about whether certain outcomes are desirable or not.
- paisawalla 4y ago
  So the landlord what, eats all of the downside in that scenario? But I'm sure you'd also restrict their ability to raise rents on other tenants (if they have multiple units) to compensate, so why would the landlord even do this to begin with? It's potentially 100% downside and restricted upside.
  - turtledove 4y ago
    Yep. You got it in one. Private landlords are a part of the problem. They have every incentive to prevent new housing from being built. It should be challenging to be better at providing housing than the municipality government.
    - fundad 4y ago
      Exactly. Landlords aren’t entitled to a good business. If you diligently maintain the home you rent out AND pay income tax, it’s not a great business now. The profits are in neglect and appreciation.
      - paisawalla 4y ago
        If you agree with this, you're saying they're not entitled to any business, plus are on the hook for all of their tenants. Why would anyone do this?
    - buttercraft 4y ago
      But you're not trying to make it challenging, you're trying to make it impossible. Why would anyone pay rent if they don't have to?
    - carom 4y ago
      I have every incentive to build. Single family home owners are who restrict building.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
- jjav 4y ago
  > But I think tenants should be protected if, eg, their income drops due to a layoff or unforseen medical expense. They should stay if they can't pay? Who takes the loss? It would be sensible to have a government program to help people in such circumstances. But if you'd be asking for the landlord to just take the loss, that's not sensible. The owner is probably barely breaking even on rent vs. costs, so they can't afford it.
  - trasz 4y ago
    Given the house for rent is an investment, it’s obvious who should be taking the loss: the investor.
    - carom 4y ago
      If you are passing laws to dictate what someone does with their property, then society should cover the losses. If they are free to do as they wish with their property then the landlord can cover losses. You're suggesting we privatize the costs of a social problem. This also assumes good faith on behalf of the renters.
      - UncleMeat 4y ago
        Why? If we pass a law dictating that chemical companies have to pay for cancer patients that developed the disease because of their use of those company's products, does the state cover the losses of the people who hold stock in those companies? No. Landlords always say that they should be compensated for the risk of homeownership. If that's true, then some landlords need to lose money.
        carom 4y ago
        We do that for pharma companies. [1] The system you purpose is not a loss some times, it is a system that can be abused all the time. Who says landlords aren't losing money? I am currently taking a loss. Two units are rent control at 600 per month, the third at 2300 hasn't paid in ten months with an eviction trial next week, I am in the last unit. I will be shutting down the property and using it as a single family home due to this loss. If you remove the incentive you remove housing or prices rise to cover the risk. I see rent control as privatizing the cost of a social problem. You create restrictive zoning then say random landlords will subsidize people's rents. The single family home owners should share in the cost, and to a lesser degree, so should the renters who benefit. Now you purpose an expansion on that same idea. Just remove zoning so housing can be built. Don't add more impediments like relocation fees and guaranteed housing in new construction for old residents and price controls. Then you will just have legacy units and luxury housing, an exacerbation of the current system. 1. https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-are-pharmaceutical-companies-immune-covid-19-vaccine-lawsuits-1562793 https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-are-pharmaceutical-compa...

turtledove 4y ago

Not a birthright, I don't think it should move across generations, but I do think that it's needlessly cruel to force someone out of their home because wealthier people want to live there. As for tenants v landlords, I believe it should be difficult to evict tenants except in cases where the tenant is clearly a danger to others or to the home itself. If they are vandalizing the property, that should be an eviction. Likewise if they are cooking meth. But I think tenants should be protected if, eg, their income drops due to a layoff or unforseen medical expense.

jdhendrickson 4y ago
Do you not see any obvious flaws in your desired changes?
- turtledove 4y ago
  Depends. But what you label a flaw, I might label a feature. There is space for both of us to disagree about whether certain outcomes are desirable or not.
paisawalla 4y ago
So the landlord what, eats all of the downside in that scenario? But I'm sure you'd also restrict their ability to raise rents on other tenants (if they have multiple units) to compensate, so why would the landlord even do this to begin with? It's potentially 100% downside and restricted upside.
- turtledove 4y ago
  Yep. You got it in one. Private landlords are a part of the problem. They have every incentive to prevent new housing from being built. It should be challenging to be better at providing housing than the municipality government.
  - fundad 4y ago
    Exactly. Landlords aren’t entitled to a good business. If you diligently maintain the home you rent out AND pay income tax, it’s not a great business now. The profits are in neglect and appreciation.
    - paisawalla 4y ago
      If you agree with this, you're saying they're not entitled to any business, plus are on the hook for all of their tenants. Why would anyone do this?
  - buttercraft 4y ago
    But you're not trying to make it challenging, you're trying to make it impossible. Why would anyone pay rent if they don't have to?
  - carom 4y ago
    I have every incentive to build. Single family home owners are who restrict building.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
jjav 4y ago
> But I think tenants should be protected if, eg, their income drops due to a layoff or unforseen medical expense. They should stay if they can't pay? Who takes the loss? It would be sensible to have a government program to help people in such circumstances. But if you'd be asking for the landlord to just take the loss, that's not sensible. The owner is probably barely breaking even on rent vs. costs, so they can't afford it.
- trasz 4y ago
  Given the house for rent is an investment, it’s obvious who should be taking the loss: the investor.
  - carom 4y ago
    If you are passing laws to dictate what someone does with their property, then society should cover the losses. If they are free to do as they wish with their property then the landlord can cover losses. You're suggesting we privatize the costs of a social problem. This also assumes good faith on behalf of the renters.
    - UncleMeat 4y ago
      Why? If we pass a law dictating that chemical companies have to pay for cancer patients that developed the disease because of their use of those company's products, does the state cover the losses of the people who hold stock in those companies? No. Landlords always say that they should be compensated for the risk of homeownership. If that's true, then some landlords need to lose money.
      - carom 4y ago
        We do that for pharma companies. [1] The system you purpose is not a loss some times, it is a system that can be abused all the time. Who says landlords aren't losing money? I am currently taking a loss. Two units are rent control at 600 per month, the third at 2300 hasn't paid in ten months with an eviction trial next week, I am in the last unit. I will be shutting down the property and using it as a single family home due to this loss. If you remove the incentive you remove housing or prices rise to cover the risk. I see rent control as privatizing the cost of a social problem. You create restrictive zoning then say random landlords will subsidize people's rents. The single family home owners should share in the cost, and to a lesser degree, so should the renters who benefit. Now you purpose an expansion on that same idea. Just remove zoning so housing can be built. Don't add more impediments like relocation fees and guaranteed housing in new construction for old residents and price controls. Then you will just have legacy units and luxury housing, an exacerbation of the current system. 1. https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-are-pharmaceutical-companies-immune-covid-19-vaccine-lawsuits-1562793 https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-are-pharmaceutical-compa...