> Honestly, there's nothing immoral about charging market rates. I think the debate is far more nuanced than that. Dislodging families, eliminating the ability

> Honestly, there's nothing immoral about charging market rates. I think the debate is far more nuanced than that. Dislodging families, eliminating the ability to save for retirement, sucking up capital that could otherwise be put to economic use, etc. are all worthy of discussion without flushing it away via the term "market rates". It's not like landlords are doing remodels and making their property more valuable. Every landlord I've ever had does just about the bare minimum. There's simply no competition. I don't know how we can have a "market rate" without anything that really looks like a market. They've lucked (or manipulated) themselves into a situation where their property value goes up while their costs stay fixed and they're using their good fortune to squeeze others. There's a reason we use the term "rent-seeking" for businesses that want to get guaranteed income without having to improve their product. I'd certainly consider it immoral. > What's immoral is preventing construction of housing to allow supply and demand to meet. What's immoral is zoning rules that allow prices to rise well above the level of what would historically have been considered affordable. I don't see these as separate issues. Rising rents influence property values and vice versa. Many of these landlords are the exact people opposing new construction or rezoning.