4 ms·

So they should be paid better, and the burden spread among the constituents of those services. Not pinned on landlords.

• _delirium 14y ago
  As long as the rules are reasonably stable, it's not "pinned on landlords", because they presumably already took those considerations into account when purchasing their property, so everything is priced in already, and it's a wash from their perspective. The only people really injured would be those who purchased property under one regulatory regime, and then unexpectedly had it changed out from under them to a different regulatory regime.
  • planetguy 14y ago
    Well that's even worse, as the whole cost is pinned not just on landlords but on a single generation of landlords. Bam, I just took away hundreds of thousands of dollars of your money with a stroke of a pen, how do you feel about that? Much better overall if the increased cost merely gets reflected in a rise in wages for unskilled labour in the city. If indeed it ever is an actual problem which I don't believe it is.
  • kemiller 14y ago
    But it does matter, because it tends to be a disincentive to get into the landlording business, which tends to further decrease inventory, which tends to make the problem worse, which tends to necessitate more onerous regulation, etc. I mean, hell. It would even be an improvement to just levy a tax on all landlords to pay for a housing stipend for public workers. That way it's evenly spread among landlords instead of just the ones unlucky enough to have ultra-tenacious tenants.