3 ms·
Why should Frank have primacy over Joe? Joe was there first. Should it simply be because Frank has more money? That's a pretty terrible way to decide these thin
by s73v3r 12y ago
Why should Frank have primacy over Joe? Joe was there first. Should it simply be because Frank has more money? That's a pretty terrible way to decide these things. I mean, at what point do we say that Frank deserves Joe's other things simply because he has more money?
Basically, you're just making a "Might makes right" argument, but substituting wealth for physical might.
- sokoloff 12y agoWhy should the owner of the building have to lease the unit to Joe at a lower cost than he could rent it to Frank? (Joe and Frank are otherwise equivalent as stipulated by GP.) Do I have to sell my labor to my current employer cheaper than a prospective new employer? Do I have to sell my used car cheaper to someone who once rode in it than I could to another buyer? Why then should landlords be subject to those restrictions?
- eszed 12y agoBecause housing instability creates social harm. Tech salaries would (probably!) keep pace with the demand for non-rent controlled San Francisco housing, but teachers, cops, firefighters -- let alone retirees -- incomes won't likewise scale. Folks like that will be rapidly priced out of living anywhere for longer than the length of a minimal-term lease. A stable community is a thing not much valued by (young and transient) tech workers, though I would argue that even they derive some benefit from living near folks who make less money than they do. Rent control doesn't create utopia -- and this article describes some of its acknowledged problems -- but neither would abolishing it be free of consequence. Like most things in life, it's a trade-off. Don't overlook one side of the exchange.