3 ms·

Sure, but the article is specifically about that subject, while the government been working and continues to work on many other fixes too. Limiting rent increas

Sure, but the article is specifically about that subject, while the government been working and continues to work on many other fixes too. Limiting rent increases, among other things, is constantly being talked and enacted right now, so at least it's going in the right direction. Airbnb is one of many problems, and all of them require something done about it. But one does not exclude the other, if you look up the "Spain" tag on your favorite international news source I'm sure you can dig out the other measures being taken currently.

socalgal2 11mo ago
How does limiting rent increases help the issue? all that does is reduce the incentive to build more housing. It’s also a bandaid fix that sounds good today but in the end makes things worse.
- embedding-shape 11mo ago
  Because now people aren't priced out of their current place where they live simply because the landlord wants more money each month, now it's limited to increases by an index. And landlords can also not just kick out a tenant, raise the rent price and find someone else. Again, many small streams make a big river. Not one single action or new law will instantly fix the issue, you patch what you can and incrementally work towards something better.
  - daedrdev 11mo ago
    But it ruins the future market. People with a rent controlled unit will not leave even when they should, because they have it so good. Thus turnover never happens, which is why most programs have a waiting lists easily more than a decade. Like it helps those who have one at a greater expense to renters without one
    - embedding-shape 11mo ago
      Limiting rent increase does not mean "Rent can never change", it just means the rate of change is limited. Owners can still raise the prices each year, it's just limited based on a lot of factors, the main one being a local index. But renovating the property for example lets owners raise the rent higher, as just one exception. > People with a rent controlled unit will not leave even when they should, because they have it so good. ... What do you mean "when they should"? If they don't want to leave because the rent is OK and they like living there, why should they move? I guess one fundamental difference with Spain VS US or probably many other countries, is that here in Spain we have "the right to housing" enshrined in our constitution. This makes it so it's more important for residents and citizens to be able to find housing, than it is for owners to be able to make profits on owning properties/land. The laws in the country should reflect this, and thankfully, they're starting to, albeit slowly.
      - daedrdev 11mo ago
        People with high incomes living alone in multi bedroom units objectively should leave. The “right to housing” is a joke when the US essentially makes it illegal to build new units in most areas. Because of that restriction, rent control causes the small number of limited units to be subsided by everyone else paying more, as basic supply and demand dictates
        Eisenstein 11mo ago
        It is possible to change multiple laws if we want to. We made them up at a certain point, and we we can make them up differently at another. You are applying a viewpoint which is not universally applicable, nor is it static where it does apply. If you accept that housing is not market in which all parties have equal leverage to bargain, then you should also accept that regulating it to be more fair is not bad by definition. We happened to regulate it in ways that were counterproductive previously, but the regulation itself is not guaranteed to always be counterproductive, unless you believe that discrepancies in leverage cannot be mitigated by regulation while the lack of leverage itself is being created partially by other regulation.
        embedding-shape 11mo ago
    - IncreasePosts 11mo ago
      When I first moved to NYC, my neighbor was a 70 year old single man who absolutely hated living in NY at that point in his life, but couldn't leave because his rent was so cheap(I was paying $1500 for a studio and he was paying $300 for a 1BR) - he literally could not afford to move even to a cheap area. It certainly would have been better for him if he could just swap apartments with someone living outside the city who wanted to move in, but that would be illegal. I think rent control advocates focus on people who might be lucky enough to get a rent controlled apartment, but it is much harder to think about what happens to all the people who want to move to a city but can't because no housing stock is available.
      - ryan_lane 11mo ago
        The rest of the market was allowed to maximally increase rent to the point this person can't afford rent anywhere except for where they live, and the problem is rent control (which NYC has relatively little of)? Why not complain about the high-rises full of empty apartments bought by oligarchs for money laundering? Why not complain about the tens of thousands of airbnb units? NYC is actually quite good in terms of building supply, but the demand is also extremely high. Some of that demand is completely artificial due to money laundering and short-term rentals, and without fixing those issues, how can we expect people to live without limiting maximally increasing rents?
        IncreasePosts 11mo ago
        The problem is he has such a sweet deal, he needs to use the apartment even though he would rather someone else have the apartment. I don't think the goal of rent control is to trap people in a city so they can't leave. There aren't really that many high rises full of empty apartments bought by oligarchs for money laundering in NY. And even when there are - how much land does it actually take up? At the Central Park Tower for example, 180 oligarchs can launder their money in a 200'x200' plot of land. You'll walk by it in less than a minute without really clocking it. I do also complain about airbnb units :)
        ryan_lane 11mo ago

socalgal2 11mo ago

How does limiting rent increases help the issue? all that does is reduce the incentive to build more housing. It’s also a bandaid fix that sounds good today but in the end makes things worse.

embedding-shape 11mo ago
Because now people aren't priced out of their current place where they live simply because the landlord wants more money each month, now it's limited to increases by an index. And landlords can also not just kick out a tenant, raise the rent price and find someone else. Again, many small streams make a big river. Not one single action or new law will instantly fix the issue, you patch what you can and incrementally work towards something better.
- daedrdev 11mo ago
  But it ruins the future market. People with a rent controlled unit will not leave even when they should, because they have it so good. Thus turnover never happens, which is why most programs have a waiting lists easily more than a decade. Like it helps those who have one at a greater expense to renters without one
  - embedding-shape 11mo ago
    Limiting rent increase does not mean "Rent can never change", it just means the rate of change is limited. Owners can still raise the prices each year, it's just limited based on a lot of factors, the main one being a local index. But renovating the property for example lets owners raise the rent higher, as just one exception. > People with a rent controlled unit will not leave even when they should, because they have it so good. ... What do you mean "when they should"? If they don't want to leave because the rent is OK and they like living there, why should they move? I guess one fundamental difference with Spain VS US or probably many other countries, is that here in Spain we have "the right to housing" enshrined in our constitution. This makes it so it's more important for residents and citizens to be able to find housing, than it is for owners to be able to make profits on owning properties/land. The laws in the country should reflect this, and thankfully, they're starting to, albeit slowly.
    - daedrdev 11mo ago
      People with high incomes living alone in multi bedroom units objectively should leave. The “right to housing” is a joke when the US essentially makes it illegal to build new units in most areas. Because of that restriction, rent control causes the small number of limited units to be subsided by everyone else paying more, as basic supply and demand dictates
      - Eisenstein 11mo ago
        It is possible to change multiple laws if we want to. We made them up at a certain point, and we we can make them up differently at another. You are applying a viewpoint which is not universally applicable, nor is it static where it does apply. If you accept that housing is not market in which all parties have equal leverage to bargain, then you should also accept that regulating it to be more fair is not bad by definition. We happened to regulate it in ways that were counterproductive previously, but the regulation itself is not guaranteed to always be counterproductive, unless you believe that discrepancies in leverage cannot be mitigated by regulation while the lack of leverage itself is being created partially by other regulation.
      - embedding-shape 11mo ago
  - IncreasePosts 11mo ago
    When I first moved to NYC, my neighbor was a 70 year old single man who absolutely hated living in NY at that point in his life, but couldn't leave because his rent was so cheap(I was paying $1500 for a studio and he was paying $300 for a 1BR) - he literally could not afford to move even to a cheap area. It certainly would have been better for him if he could just swap apartments with someone living outside the city who wanted to move in, but that would be illegal. I think rent control advocates focus on people who might be lucky enough to get a rent controlled apartment, but it is much harder to think about what happens to all the people who want to move to a city but can't because no housing stock is available.
    - ryan_lane 11mo ago
      The rest of the market was allowed to maximally increase rent to the point this person can't afford rent anywhere except for where they live, and the problem is rent control (which NYC has relatively little of)? Why not complain about the high-rises full of empty apartments bought by oligarchs for money laundering? Why not complain about the tens of thousands of airbnb units? NYC is actually quite good in terms of building supply, but the demand is also extremely high. Some of that demand is completely artificial due to money laundering and short-term rentals, and without fixing those issues, how can we expect people to live without limiting maximally increasing rents?
      - IncreasePosts 11mo ago
        The problem is he has such a sweet deal, he needs to use the apartment even though he would rather someone else have the apartment. I don't think the goal of rent control is to trap people in a city so they can't leave. There aren't really that many high rises full of empty apartments bought by oligarchs for money laundering in NY. And even when there are - how much land does it actually take up? At the Central Park Tower for example, 180 oligarchs can launder their money in a 200'x200' plot of land. You'll walk by it in less than a minute without really clocking it. I do also complain about airbnb units :)
        ryan_lane 11mo ago