6 ms·

Given the house for rent is an investment, it’s obvious who should be taking the loss: the investor.

• carom 5y 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 5y 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 5y 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...
      • UncleMeat 5y ago
        Landlords are losing money in regions with strong tenant rights. That's good. Some landlords should lose money.
        • carom 5y ago
          You're putting landlords should lose money before there should be abundant and affordable housing. Landlords still lose money, these policies remove housing from the market, cause distortions, and lead to the luxury / affordable split.
• jjav 5y ago
  > Given the house for rent is an investment, it’s obvious who should be taking the loss: the investor. That seems like a statement that feels good, but what should be the desired outcome for the benefit of society? If you make taking a loss being the norm for a landlord, the outcome won't be having landlords grin and bear it and a city full of happy renters. No, the outcome will be landlords will stop renting out since it doesn't make sense to take a loss. So the availability of rental units will dry up.
  • trasz 5y ago
    They will keep their properties empty - and thus only making loss - instead of renting and thus having some (low) risk of making a loss?
• mrep 5y ago
  Which makes investing riskier and therefore it receives less investment (supply) causing rental prices to increase.
  • trasz 5y ago
    Except we don’t have problems with not not enough investment, quite the opposite.