4 ms·
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 mu
by 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 agoYep. 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 agoExactly. 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 agoIf 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 agoBut 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 agoI have every incentive to build. Single family home owners are who restrict building.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]