> For existing buildings, landlords who lose money on them will stop doing maintenance and repairs, and they'll eventually become slums or will be abandoned. A

> For existing buildings, landlords who lose money on them will stop doing maintenance and repairs, and they'll eventually become slums or will be abandoned. Ah, so because expenses temporarily exceed revenue on your million-dollar investment, you'll just let it rot down to zero? What happened in Detroit was a collapse in demand of housing, caused by a collapse in employment. That collapse and reduction in the tax base lead to a death spiral, as a city's infrastructure costs are fixed - which pushed further marginal demand out. You know what didn't happen in Detroit? A housing collapse because of a 20-cent-per-thousand-dollar property tax levy. No town can survive a collapse in employment. The coastal cities with 11 job openings for 10 people who are fighting over 9 apartments aren't suffering from that problem, and it's ridiculous to point at Detroit as a comparison. And if you think a 3% tax increase for landlords is 'massive', how would you describe the 20-40% increase in rents? If the poor landlords shouldn't be subjected to such a horrific thing, shouldn't the tenants be protected from ballooning rents?