5 ms·

Your comment has exactly the same information, that owners are not prevented but are disincentivized from maintaining their properties in a rent control environ

Your comment has exactly the same information, that owners are not prevented but are disincentivized from maintaining their properties in a rent control environment, as the snippet of text you quoted from me. How did you manage to be a sarcastic prick about restating exactly what I said? Anyways, from the POV of the tenant who is faced with eviction or a gradually deteriorating building, which do you think is the preferable option?

sokoloff 18y ago
Clearly living in a deteroriating building is better than being evicted. However, eviction is not the alternative to rent control. Being evicted is different from having your rent raised to market rates, and is different from having your lease not renewed. It may be a legal consequence of tenants deciding not to leave and/or not to pay a higher rent, but it's not like the choice we're debating is eviction vs rent control. As to my restatement, you claimed that argument X is "pure bullshit" in a short paragraph that shows you clearly understand that argument X is much more accurate than inaccurate. If quoting that paragraph and asking you to observe that contradiction makes me a prick, so be it. (I'll admit to being sarcastic; if you want to call me a prick on the internet over it, I'll still sleep OK.)
- calambrac 18y ago
  I intended 'prevent' to mean, you know, prevent, which is pure bullshit, given that all rent control laws explicitly allow maintenance increases. I'm obviously aware that it still creates the disincentive, seeing as how I pointed it out the very next sentence. Eviction is the alternative to rent control in the cases where rent control matters - if the tenant can't afford market rates, then they get evicted.
  - sokoloff 18y ago
    Or, in hopefully more common cases, they do the responsible thing and move out themselves at the end of the lease term, without going through the legal process of eviction.
    - calambrac 18y ago
      Okay, fine. They still get displaced.
  - DabAsteroid 18y ago
    Eviction is the alternative to rent control in the cases where rent control matters - if the tenant can't afford market rates, then they get evicted. If you "can't afford" a $1,000 computer, do you go without a computer?

sokoloff 18y ago

Clearly living in a deteroriating building is better than being evicted. However, eviction is not the alternative to rent control. Being evicted is different from having your rent raised to market rates, and is different from having your lease not renewed. It may be a legal consequence of tenants deciding not to leave and/or not to pay a higher rent, but it's not like the choice we're debating is eviction vs rent control. As to my restatement, you claimed that argument X is "pure bullshit" in a short paragraph that shows you clearly understand that argument X is much more accurate than inaccurate. If quoting that paragraph and asking you to observe that contradiction makes me a prick, so be it. (I'll admit to being sarcastic; if you want to call me a prick on the internet over it, I'll still sleep OK.)

calambrac 18y ago
I intended 'prevent' to mean, you know, prevent, which is pure bullshit, given that all rent control laws explicitly allow maintenance increases. I'm obviously aware that it still creates the disincentive, seeing as how I pointed it out the very next sentence. Eviction is the alternative to rent control in the cases where rent control matters - if the tenant can't afford market rates, then they get evicted.
- sokoloff 18y ago
  Or, in hopefully more common cases, they do the responsible thing and move out themselves at the end of the lease term, without going through the legal process of eviction.
  - calambrac 18y ago
    Okay, fine. They still get displaced.
- DabAsteroid 18y ago
  Eviction is the alternative to rent control in the cases where rent control matters - if the tenant can't afford market rates, then they get evicted. If you "can't afford" a $1,000 computer, do you go without a computer?