3 ms·

For some reason people are very reluctant to view renting out a property as a business venture with attendant risks and no guarantee of profit. Either you can a

by foldr 3y ago

For some reason people are very reluctant to view renting out a property as a business venture with attendant risks and no guarantee of profit. Either you can afford to insure yourself against such eventualities, or the cost of the repairs will be paid off in the long term by future tenants - or your business isn’t really profitable except in fair weather.

robertlagrant 3y ago
I keep reading comments like this on HN, as though deliberately introduced legislation that undermines a key industry is somehow a cognitive no-op. Governments can make doing business unreasonably difficult. To mis-name that as "this business has no right to exist" just clouds the issue.
- foldr 3y ago
  Many European countries have far more protections for tenants than the UK and still have rental markets. The idea that these minimal regulations (which really don’t go anywhere near far enough) will somehow make it impossible for people to rent out accommodation is frankly ludicrous.
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    This is another fallacy. We can't compare individual things between countries in such a simple way. If you want to dive into the detail of how the whole of "being a landlord" and "being a tenant" works in those countries, and then figure out the differences and potential improvements holistically, then that's great. But this is so general it's impossible to say why it might or might not work.
    - foldr 3y ago
      You seem more interested in legislating the terms of the conversation than actually having it. If I understand correctly, you believe that England is a special flower and that regulations which would be considered the bare minimum in a great many other countries around the world (including such exotic and remote locales as Scotland) somehow cannot function here. I’d be happy to point out any fallacies in your argument for that conclusion – if it weren’t for the fact that you’ve presented no argument for it whatsoever.
      - robertlagrant 3y ago
        > You seem more interested in legislating the terms of the conversation than actually having it. This is the only conversation-legislating statement in the thread. > If I understand correctly, you believe that England is a special flower and that regulations which would be considered the bare minimum in a great many other countries around the world (including such exotic and remote locales as Scotland) somehow cannot function here. I don't think this, no. I certainly haven't said it. > I’d be happy to point out any fallacies in your argument for that conclusion – if it weren’t for the fact that you’ve presented no argument for it whatsoever. I don't know the purpose of your entire comment, then.
psychlops 3y ago
All the costs will be borne by the tenants. Including the inevitable increase caused by this legislation.
- foldr 3y ago
  If they get passed on to tenants that’s because the UK rental market is still almost entirely unregulated and landlords can charge whatever they want. That’s a symptom of the underlying problem.
  - ChuckNorris89 3y ago
    You can't regulate forcing landlords taking in other people's animals against their will. They'll find other ways to reject tenants with animals if the market is in their flavor from having a high demand from people without animals. You don't fix a broken real estate market with not enough supply, by adding more regulations on top (try moving in Berlin right now, see how regulations "help" you the tenant trying to rent something), you fix it by building enough supply such that the market becomes in their flavor that most people can afford to buy their own home where they can keep as many animals as they want, turn it into a zoo if they want.
    - foldr 3y ago
      I'm all in favour of increasing supply. The issue of pets that you've picked up on seems a minor one, in all honesty. I was thinking more generally about any increased costs for landlords resulting from these reforms. I rent in London, so Berlin doesn't really work for me as a comparison case. I'm sure it has its issues too, but it's not obviously worse. If someone were to ask me rhetorically "would you like the rental market in London to end up like the rental market in Berlin?" then I'd probably respond "err, yeah, probably".
      - ChuckNorris89 3y ago
        London housing issues: there's supply but it's very expensive Berlin housing issues: it's not too expensive but there's zero supply because of rent control So which is best? Or, the least worst.

by foldr 3y ago

robertlagrant 3y ago

I keep reading comments like this on HN, as though deliberately introduced legislation that undermines a key industry is somehow a cognitive no-op. Governments can make doing business unreasonably difficult. To mis-name that as "this business has no right to exist" just clouds the issue.

foldr 3y ago
Many European countries have far more protections for tenants than the UK and still have rental markets. The idea that these minimal regulations (which really don’t go anywhere near far enough) will somehow make it impossible for people to rent out accommodation is frankly ludicrous.
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  This is another fallacy. We can't compare individual things between countries in such a simple way. If you want to dive into the detail of how the whole of "being a landlord" and "being a tenant" works in those countries, and then figure out the differences and potential improvements holistically, then that's great. But this is so general it's impossible to say why it might or might not work.
  - foldr 3y ago
    You seem more interested in legislating the terms of the conversation than actually having it. If I understand correctly, you believe that England is a special flower and that regulations which would be considered the bare minimum in a great many other countries around the world (including such exotic and remote locales as Scotland) somehow cannot function here. I’d be happy to point out any fallacies in your argument for that conclusion – if it weren’t for the fact that you’ve presented no argument for it whatsoever.
    - robertlagrant 3y ago
      > You seem more interested in legislating the terms of the conversation than actually having it. This is the only conversation-legislating statement in the thread. > If I understand correctly, you believe that England is a special flower and that regulations which would be considered the bare minimum in a great many other countries around the world (including such exotic and remote locales as Scotland) somehow cannot function here. I don't think this, no. I certainly haven't said it. > I’d be happy to point out any fallacies in your argument for that conclusion – if it weren’t for the fact that you’ve presented no argument for it whatsoever. I don't know the purpose of your entire comment, then.

psychlops 3y ago

All the costs will be borne by the tenants. Including the inevitable increase caused by this legislation.

foldr 3y ago
If they get passed on to tenants that’s because the UK rental market is still almost entirely unregulated and landlords can charge whatever they want. That’s a symptom of the underlying problem.
- ChuckNorris89 3y ago
  You can't regulate forcing landlords taking in other people's animals against their will. They'll find other ways to reject tenants with animals if the market is in their flavor from having a high demand from people without animals. You don't fix a broken real estate market with not enough supply, by adding more regulations on top (try moving in Berlin right now, see how regulations "help" you the tenant trying to rent something), you fix it by building enough supply such that the market becomes in their flavor that most people can afford to buy their own home where they can keep as many animals as they want, turn it into a zoo if they want.
  - foldr 3y ago
    I'm all in favour of increasing supply. The issue of pets that you've picked up on seems a minor one, in all honesty. I was thinking more generally about any increased costs for landlords resulting from these reforms. I rent in London, so Berlin doesn't really work for me as a comparison case. I'm sure it has its issues too, but it's not obviously worse. If someone were to ask me rhetorically "would you like the rental market in London to end up like the rental market in Berlin?" then I'd probably respond "err, yeah, probably".
    - ChuckNorris89 3y ago
      London housing issues: there's supply but it's very expensive Berlin housing issues: it's not too expensive but there's zero supply because of rent control So which is best? Or, the least worst.