4 ms·

> To me, it’s insane to even consider banning rent increases altogether. I am surprised this was seriously discussed. * For one: People who vote for this may

by nosianu 11mo ago

> To me, it’s insane to even consider banning rent increases altogether. I am surprised this was seriously discussed. * For one: People who vote for this may very well agree with you, but as always, even when you see that something would be good overall you yourself may be forced into contradicting behavior. Examples for this are all over. You may know that lining up on an exit is best overall, but with everybody charging you will be forced to join the herd. You may know and agree that ricing prices (rents) should lead to more construction, but if you decide only based on your own situation, your choice is volunteering to pay more when you could vote the opposite and have an advantage. I think it is unwise to blame people, our entire system is based on, and forces people into selfish behavior even when they know it. * But also: The idea that higher prices (rents) should lead to more construction is based on the premise that there is a functioning market based mostly on price alone. But for housing that is usually far from the truth, and rising prices may not lead to significantly more construction at all. Instead, higher prices may just be absorbed by various parties (not necessarily the house owners alone). Land ownership has rarely been much of a free market, especially not in places that are popular (can make a land owner lots of money). In this case, letting the prices fluctuate just means more pain for renters without the gain (of more construction and then lower rents).

mrguyorama 11mo ago
>The idea that higher prices (rents) should lead to more construction is based on the premise that there is a functioning market based mostly on price alone. It's also just very very wrong in most places. The "development" companies in my area already own all the housing stock. Why would they spend any money on new builds when they can reliably keep ticking the rent cost up 7% YoY forever? It doesn't matter how high demand gets, nobody else can build because if you try to invest in a new development, they can just temporarily drop rents and wipe out any ROI you might have hoped for and ensure you fail and then buy up your property. Like, this stuff is literally how city real estate has always worked. Instead, rent stabilization ensures that they can't dump the market like that to kill new entrants, so it encourages people to invest in building. Meanwhile, people like my dad who are also technically "builders" are busy serving the far far far more profitable "We moved here with a billion dollars from SV and have no idea how money works so we don't notice your 100% profit margin" market, and no average people can ever compete with that. Builders want to make the highest profit they can, and that does not come from commodity housing in the city. It comes from catering and pandering to rich 2nd gen assholes who think they are gods gift to the world and can't tell the difference between quality and expensive. These people will continue to insist the free market would fix this and blame city regulations and zoning that they don't even know, because at no point have they even pretended or thought about building housing for the city. There's not enough profit in it.

by nosianu 11mo ago

mrguyorama 11mo ago

>The idea that higher prices (rents) should lead to more construction is based on the premise that there is a functioning market based mostly on price alone. It's also just very very wrong in most places. The "development" companies in my area already own all the housing stock. Why would they spend any money on new builds when they can reliably keep ticking the rent cost up 7% YoY forever? It doesn't matter how high demand gets, nobody else can build because if you try to invest in a new development, they can just temporarily drop rents and wipe out any ROI you might have hoped for and ensure you fail and then buy up your property. Like, this stuff is literally how city real estate has always worked. Instead, rent stabilization ensures that they can't dump the market like that to kill new entrants, so it encourages people to invest in building. Meanwhile, people like my dad who are also technically "builders" are busy serving the far far far more profitable "We moved here with a billion dollars from SV and have no idea how money works so we don't notice your 100% profit margin" market, and no average people can ever compete with that. Builders want to make the highest profit they can, and that does not come from commodity housing in the city. It comes from catering and pandering to rich 2nd gen assholes who think they are gods gift to the world and can't tell the difference between quality and expensive. These people will continue to insist the free market would fix this and blame city regulations and zoning that they don't even know, because at no point have they even pretended or thought about building housing for the city. There's not enough profit in it.