4 ms·

> Why would anyone put in the time and capital to own and maintain housing, if they knew they were limited to charging only their costs? What's in it for the ow

> Why would anyone put in the time and capital to own and maintain housing, if they knew they were limited to charging only their costs? What's in it for the owners? Who would build or finance a dense, multiunit housing if it was impossible to profit? The intention is indeed to make it less favorable to rent out housing. That should not come as a shock. If such legislation was put in effect, we would likely see more people owning their own units and lower housing prices. And it is not a foreign idea. The Anglo world (Australia and the US in particular) are really good at making legislation that makes it favorable for foreign entities to by up REITs and earn some buck of the fact that Australians and Americans can hardly pay their rent. But try looking at the Austrian housing market and compare it. > My understanding is that public housing gets budget from government and not solely from rents. I think the governments pay for land - which again is highly inflated because of the current legislation. This is what I talked about re. opportunity cost.

toast0 2y ago
> If such legislation was put in effect, we would likely see more people owning their own units and lower housing prices. I get that that sounds nice, but won't it also make it much harder to move? Rental housing is valuable for owners because there's potential profit, but it's valuable for renters because there's flexibility. If you've got to sell your house and buy another everytime you move, that makes it harder to move to get a better job. If you've got to wait for a public housing opening, that makes it nearly impossible. If peole can't move for a better job, employers have a narrower scope of competition, which adds to downward pressure on wages and benefits.
- tossandthrow 2y ago
  If your position is that mobility is the general problem, then by all means, hold on to this stance. I think the the dominant sentiment is that it is currently too hard to get long term shelter. Also, these thing are not binary. It is not whether it is possible to rent or not. it is what fraction of the housing stock are under what regime - something we should adjust with needs.

toast0 2y ago

> If such legislation was put in effect, we would likely see more people owning their own units and lower housing prices. I get that that sounds nice, but won't it also make it much harder to move? Rental housing is valuable for owners because there's potential profit, but it's valuable for renters because there's flexibility. If you've got to sell your house and buy another everytime you move, that makes it harder to move to get a better job. If you've got to wait for a public housing opening, that makes it nearly impossible. If peole can't move for a better job, employers have a narrower scope of competition, which adds to downward pressure on wages and benefits.

tossandthrow 2y ago
If your position is that mobility is the general problem, then by all means, hold on to this stance. I think the the dominant sentiment is that it is currently too hard to get long term shelter. Also, these thing are not binary. It is not whether it is possible to rent or not. it is what fraction of the housing stock are under what regime - something we should adjust with needs.