3 ms·
"Buildings aren't maintained because the owner sees the opportunity for dramatically increased profits if the current tenant leaves and lets the building fall t
by natrius 18y ago
"Buildings aren't maintained because the owner sees the opportunity for dramatically increased profits if the current tenant leaves and lets the building fall to shit in an effort to drive them out."
You say this as if it's not a side effect of rent control itself.
Helping people avoid being priced out of their neighborhoods is desirable, but rent control has so many side effects that it's not worth it in my opinion. It's basically taxing people when they move to or within a city to pay the rent for people who have stayed in the same place. There are probably better ways to achieve that goal.
- calambrac 18y agoOf course it's a side effect of rent control, but it's not a necessary side-effect of rent control. Rent control laws do allow for increases to cover maintenance, so the money is there. It's not like doing away with rent-control would have a better outcome from the POV of the tenant - instead of living in a gradually deteriorating building, they'd just have been kicked out. BTW, I'm not a necessarily a fan of rent control, I just like its goal. I really don't know enough about the issue to make an informed policy decision either way. My main point originally was just that this article was terrible - stupidly reasoned and completely lacking in meaningful evidence that would let me make an informed policy decision.