3 ms·

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 p

by 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...
  - UncleMeat 4y ago
    Landlords are losing money in regions with strong tenant rights. That's good. Some landlords should lose money.
    - carom 4y 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.

by carom 4y ago

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...
- UncleMeat 4y ago
  Landlords are losing money in regions with strong tenant rights. That's good. Some landlords should lose money.
  - carom 4y 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.