4 ms·

Maximum rates of increase per year is a type of rent control. It is, where I live, based on inflation, tax increases and investment in the building. And you ma

Maximum rates of increase per year is a type of rent control. It is, where I live, based on inflation, tax increases and investment in the building. And you may have "fixed that for me" by rephrasing what I said but you also did not address what I had brought up before you fixed it up. Do you think people being driven out of their homes and neighbourhoods by rapidly increasing housing costs a problem? If so, we can discuss about the means to mitigate it. If not, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

scoofy 3y ago
> Maximum rates of increase per year is a type of rent control. It is, where I live, based on inflation, tax increases and investment in the building. Where I live, we would call laws that allow rents to return to market-rate eventually "rent-stabilization," and laws that keep below market rates indefinitely "rent controls." I think in most of the examples we are talking about, especially in the case of Sweden, we are talking about the latter. >Do you think people being driven out of their homes and neighbourhoods by rapidly increasing housing costs a problem? They aren't being driven out of "their homes." They hold a lease to temporarily occupy a residence that is the property of someone else. Nobody likes to frame it this way, but it's what's actually happening. I want to keep people in the cities they want to live in, but not just for this generation. If we want to let people live in cities they want to live in (even people who already live there), we need to just supply the amount of housing to bring the cost down... which is doing exactly the opposite of "protecting" people in their current housing by locking it down in perpetuity. Rent-control makes perfect sense for people who receive it. When viewed through Rawls' veil of ignorance, it is obviously, wildly unjust. If we want to deal with inequality in housing, we need to deal with the monetary inequality, and not create a band-aid, like rent-control, that actively makes the problem worse in the long run. I think the main reason why rent-control is used is that people don't want their city to change, but they don't want it to become more expensive. Rent-control allows people to have their cake, and eat it too. It just comes at the price of creating a type of informal aristocracy.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- omnimus 3y ago
  > They hold a lease to temporarily occupy a residence that is the property of someone else. Nobody likes to frame it this way, but it's what's actually happening. > Rent-control allows people to have their cake, and eat it too. It just comes at the price of creating a type of informal aristocracy. So somebody who inherited property which their grandparent bought 40 years ago (for super cheap) and never had to worry about anything because of that is OK. But laws that try to limit speculation and exploitation of people who were not so lucky… that is creating informal aristocracy. Sorry to break it to you but the aristocracies are already in place and rent control is one of ways how societies try to tackle them. I personaly dont think rent control is very effective one but somebody is atleast trying to do something.
  - emmacharp 3y ago
    Well said.
  - scoofy 3y ago
    I'm not here to argue "capitalism good" ... I'm here to argue that indefinite rent-control is not only an ineffective solution at solving the very problem it intends to solve (it makes it worst), but it also morally objectionable from a Rawlsian perspective. As I said before: >If we want to deal with inequality in housing, we need to deal with the monetary inequality So when you say things like: >So somebody who inherited property which their grandparent bought 40 years ago (for super cheap) and never had to worry about anything because of that is OK. I'm confused, because the issue of property ownership and inheritance is it's own issue. Trying to solve the property ownership problem with a make-shift scheme like perpetual rent control, again, makes things worse. This problem is notable, and particularly tricky, because the soviet union (urban russia, afaik), had housing problems very similar to the ones of Stockholm on account of the fact that it was politically unpopular to redevelop city centers to increase housing capacity, and instead you get large undesirable housing blocs on the outer edges of cities, simply because all the incumbents wanted to keep their valuable properties, even though they weren't technically owned. The problem of unaffordable housing is solved by creating and incentivizing oversupply.

scoofy 3y ago

> Maximum rates of increase per year is a type of rent control. It is, where I live, based on inflation, tax increases and investment in the building. Where I live, we would call laws that allow rents to return to market-rate eventually "rent-stabilization," and laws that keep below market rates indefinitely "rent controls." I think in most of the examples we are talking about, especially in the case of Sweden, we are talking about the latter. >Do you think people being driven out of their homes and neighbourhoods by rapidly increasing housing costs a problem? They aren't being driven out of "their homes." They hold a lease to temporarily occupy a residence that is the property of someone else. Nobody likes to frame it this way, but it's what's actually happening. I want to keep people in the cities they want to live in, but not just for this generation. If we want to let people live in cities they want to live in (even people who already live there), we need to just supply the amount of housing to bring the cost down... which is doing exactly the opposite of "protecting" people in their current housing by locking it down in perpetuity. Rent-control makes perfect sense for people who receive it. When viewed through Rawls' veil of ignorance, it is obviously, wildly unjust. If we want to deal with inequality in housing, we need to deal with the monetary inequality, and not create a band-aid, like rent-control, that actively makes the problem worse in the long run. I think the main reason why rent-control is used is that people don't want their city to change, but they don't want it to become more expensive. Rent-control allows people to have their cake, and eat it too. It just comes at the price of creating a type of informal aristocracy.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
omnimus 3y ago
> They hold a lease to temporarily occupy a residence that is the property of someone else. Nobody likes to frame it this way, but it's what's actually happening. > Rent-control allows people to have their cake, and eat it too. It just comes at the price of creating a type of informal aristocracy. So somebody who inherited property which their grandparent bought 40 years ago (for super cheap) and never had to worry about anything because of that is OK. But laws that try to limit speculation and exploitation of people who were not so lucky… that is creating informal aristocracy. Sorry to break it to you but the aristocracies are already in place and rent control is one of ways how societies try to tackle them. I personaly dont think rent control is very effective one but somebody is atleast trying to do something.
- emmacharp 3y ago
  Well said.
- scoofy 3y ago
  I'm not here to argue "capitalism good" ... I'm here to argue that indefinite rent-control is not only an ineffective solution at solving the very problem it intends to solve (it makes it worst), but it also morally objectionable from a Rawlsian perspective. As I said before: >If we want to deal with inequality in housing, we need to deal with the monetary inequality So when you say things like: >So somebody who inherited property which their grandparent bought 40 years ago (for super cheap) and never had to worry about anything because of that is OK. I'm confused, because the issue of property ownership and inheritance is it's own issue. Trying to solve the property ownership problem with a make-shift scheme like perpetual rent control, again, makes things worse. This problem is notable, and particularly tricky, because the soviet union (urban russia, afaik), had housing problems very similar to the ones of Stockholm on account of the fact that it was politically unpopular to redevelop city centers to increase housing capacity, and instead you get large undesirable housing blocs on the outer edges of cities, simply because all the incumbents wanted to keep their valuable properties, even though they weren't technically owned. The problem of unaffordable housing is solved by creating and incentivizing oversupply.