Is rent control a good or bad thing?

...

Other urls found in this thread:

theglobeandmail.com/real-estate/toronto/new-ontario-rent-control-rules-exact-opposite-of-what-is-needed-analyst-warns/article34569276/
theglobeandmail.com/news/toronto/rent-control-isnt-the-solution-to-ontarios-housing-problem/article34753102/
twitter.com/AnonBabble

its a bad thing

just let it run its course and then people will burn it all to the ground

Bad thing.

Honestly think that it's a shitty thing to control

Every Econ teacher I have had that has mentioned or been asked about rent controls thinks they are bad.

I'm a lefty and I see it as a bad thing

One of the most retarded concepts the left has ever come up with. It's just brutal economics and destroys real estate for poor people and the middle class

The best part is that it usually helps out fairly wealthy people (Trump mentions a couple examples in his book)

I don't know how many times it needs to be proved as a bad thing before you stop questioning it.

It's bad, because I've never been able to secure a rent-controlled apartment. IE, I only think it's bad because I'm envious.

Rent controlled apartments turn to slums very quickly.

>Is rent control a good or bad thing?
bad, it really fucked Toronto up.
theglobeandmail.com/real-estate/toronto/new-ontario-rent-control-rules-exact-opposite-of-what-is-needed-analyst-warns/article34569276/

Alls I know is that I have a number of friends who are artists and musicians, and because of rent control are able to still afford to live in San Francisco, where the market rate of their apartments would be about $3k/months. And, personally, I'd rather have a city of artists and musicians than fucking yuppie scum.

Bad. It creates massive artificial distortion in the real estate market, at least in NYC. Usually benefits people who inhereit them, not people who need them. Oftentimes people making six figures will be in RC/RS units in Manhattan or Brooklyn. Also fucks small landlords, as costs continue to rise faster than the rents. Could go on forever about this. Also the affordable housing lottery system is a load of bullshit and only serves to further distort the market. Generally most of these sorts of policies are neutral to the top, beneficial to the bottom and screw everyone in the middle.

>apartment complex requires x amount of money to upkeep
>government forces you to make less than you need to upkeep
Yeah, thats not going any other way kek

Ham fisted regulations often end up hurting the very people they were meant to protect. It's usually a bad idea.

But how fast rent goes up should probably be regulated, greedy landlords squeezing as much as people can pay are leeches on society.

Bad

It supposedly:
>Protects low-income families from "predatory practices"

It actually:
>Creates a legal loophole where landlords are incentivized to stop building because they can't charge market-appropriate rates on brand new development
>Thus housing supply stagnates while population grows and development comes to a screeching halt, existing housing falls into disrepair, property values drop accordingly

Looking at Amsterdam it's an awesome thing.
But they do need to ensure enough rental homes are being build to meet demand.

Why would anyone want to spend 70%+ of their income on rent?

Rent control is not government owned.

The way Rent control is supposed to work is to prevent sudden inflation of the price of housing in a given area. Rent prices are still supposed to increase. Cities have a huge vested interest in maintaining some level of stability in the housing market because if Rent followed boom/bust cycles like other commodities you would have wild swings in population growth and collapse. This has major knock on effects for the city writ large.

The other issue is that Developers are building plenty of Luxury housing but very little low end housing. In order for cities to grow, they need to be able to attract new households, and Luxury housing is not very good for this. It attracts existing households looking to upgrade, but new people, particularly recent college grads, are shut out of the market.

Like all Government programs, it is open to abuse. But there is an underlining reason for it.

It's the only way to protect certain neighbors without declaring them Unesco protected buildings, wich they should be doing anyway.

>they can't charge market-appropriate rates on brand new development

Construction costs of new buildings are pretty cheap.
It's the land that's valuable.
And said land belongs to the municipality until it's sold to a developer, so they just sell the land for less.

I live in a rent controlled 5 bedroom Victorian and our landlord keeps good care of the property and is quick to respond to repairs. The entire rent for the house is less than a 2 bedroom apartment in the area without rent control.

I save tons of money, its better economically than even purchasing my own property.

Distorting the market is always a bad thing.

Market rent in San Francisco is also that high BECAUSE artists live there.

Yupplies hate living in areas with just other yuppies.
As it becomes boring very fast.

Amsterdam is also way more popular than most other Dutch cities because more interesting people live here.

No its not. Macro Economics is not about what altering the price of one given good does for that goods market. Its about how distorting that specific thing effects the entire basket of Goods.

Rent control is shitty for the landlord in the micro sense, but its good for the local businesses because the people living in the neighborhood have more money to spend on them. This has a turn around effect of making the neighborhood more prosperous and thus more desirous to live in. Which in turn is actually good for the Land Lord.

At least when done properly. Rent control is good for White Households. Niggers tend to ruin every government distortion program.

No it isn't.

Markets are far from perfect.

Bad thing. Price ceilings cause demand to exceed supply, which is likely caused by there being less of an incentive to increase housing supply. The deterrent could be a smaller profit incentive.

If your housing market already has high rent, placing a cap on rent would just make things worst, in regards to housing supply. If prices are allowed to fluctuate how needed, it is possible that prices may increase higher than the current rate, but this will eventually be high enough to spur more development (larger profit incentive), which can cause demand to drop due to a sudden increase in supply.

An equilibrium would technically stop residential development from growing, which is supposedly another reason why it isn't preferred that the market should decide the prices for rent. If you want your economy to grow exponentially, having a stable housing market isn't what you want.

This. My neighborhood in Richmond, Virginia has a huge range of rent levels and housing prices. Going from the low 600's all the way to Million Dollar homes. The place has a highly vibrant bar, dining, and small business scene as well. Which would not exist without this range that brings in everyone from College kids to wealthy retired bankers.

Rent control made Italy a nuclear wasteland and recovery took really a long time.
People just avoid making contracts and arrange the rents on their own.

Basically:
Buildings deteriorated because of no interest in renting at such low prices.
People who rented absorbed very high costs.
Some people didn't register contracts and created black market.
Fewer apartments were allocated and entire blocks ended up unrented.

It's a fucked up policy

Works in my country

Maybe, just maybe, it's your politicians who fucked it up?

Doesn't Amsterdam have a huge strain on housing supply? I am pretty sure part of your country are undergoing a housing crisis.

parts*

Have a look at how fucked the rental market is in London and try and make a case against rent control

Bad. Causes bad living conditions and Jewish Lightning

So bad that basically no notable economist anywhere supports it, not even libtard Paul Krugman.

So build more, Corbyn.

all your landlords are foreigners so you deserve this for letting them in in the first place, not that you are wrong but still

In the US maybe. In germany there are strict environmental regulations that constantly raise the technological standard required

both

There's tons of government regulation preventing a housing free market, look it up you fucking labour spiv.

Not true at all. Plenty of rent controlled apartments are leased to very wealthy people

>diversity is our strength
fuck you. if i had to live around poors i'd kill them

>rent control
Who gets to control the rent?

t. Yuropoor living in free market u[dys]topia.

rent control is bad

rent caps, however, are good

also anything that keeps the (((speculators))) out

Too Much fraud, damages estate's worth, raises rental price,anti-business.

How CAN this be good? "It help poor ppl who cant pay rent before buyeing new iphoone"

There isn't. Keep sucking on Maymays clit though lad

They do need to build more houses in the rest of the country.

But Amsterdam is effectively full.
And the only thing stopping rich Russians from buying all the houses in the center and converting them to airbnb's for shitty touristst is government intervention.

Of course you're leftist, you Podemos commie fuck.

usually bad

also, there seems to be a building problem, especially in London, developers only build apartments and tiny houses and they cost a bomb!

Your country is basically niggerland now

>lowering rental prices raises rental prices

- American logic.

I wish the government took its paws out of the housing market. That's the reason why Tokyo's housing prices haven't increased much, but Western cities have,

It's bad, reduces incentives for construction, which reduces the supply, allowing shitholes to become more expensive.

Basically, if you have a cockroach pit and you want to rent it for 900€/month, you should push for rent control.

All I know is the rent is FUCKING INSANE.

Because they have a homogeneous society that cares, looks after, and feels a sense of social and moral duty for one another?

Umm nope. They're building like mad but their population stopped growing a long time ago. And they haven't started importing trash to keep the real estate speculators in business.

The left wants to try it here in Ontario, again.

How well did it work out last time?

Rent control=less rich investors investing in properties=lower supply=higher prices... dumb idea... if you don't like high rent move the fuck out of the cities.

that makes no sense.

>Be forced to rent out incredibly value property to jobless bohemians who smoke pot in your apartments
>Have to jack up the prices of all your other properties to make up for the loss
Your dipshit artist friends are a huge part of why the rent is so astronomically high in SF.

theglobeandmail.com/news/toronto/rent-control-isnt-the-solution-to-ontarios-housing-problem/article34753102/
>globeandmail
Yeah, I know, and for them to oppose this shit it must be a bad idea.
The ones that already are rent controlled a poorly maintained. And of course renter built less like everyone else said to you in this thread.
Now that they want to reexpand this to even more properties it's going to make things even worse.

Maybe if you're economically illiterate.

>Yuppie scum

Oh you mean engineers, programmers, and people of business and enterprise? You know, contribute to society?

>Artists and musicians
You mean pot smoking do-nothings who have an opinion on everything despite knowing fuck-all and haven't done anything?

I bet you call farmers racists and nuclear families cringey.

Disgunsting.

#WhiteTears

This. Also, look at the economic history of population decline. It means the standard of living increases. The only people hurt by population declines are the elite at the very end of an economy's gravy train.

don't care because I don't rent

Actually Asian, I always knew people like you were bigots.

No, explain.

Let's say that rent control sets the maximum rent at $600 per month.

How does it end up getting more expensive than $600 per month?

Some user was telling a story a few weeks ago about how he lives in some super expensive apartment but is virtually paying pennies because his balcony occupies the air space of a rent controlled building.

"price ceiling"
its not the price that fucks up, its the quality. just like minimum wage workers, if landlords dont make enough they will absolutely stop caring. neighborhood pool is green? just close it. toilet leaking? well what do you want me to do about it? upset about neighbors dog shitting in your lawn? man im busy with real problems

Places like New York shouldn't exist in a relatively sparsely populated country like USA. Anything over a ~40 minute commute to work shouldn't be a thing.

forgot to mention the only people who will build apartments are those who will only make cheap commie blocks. absolutely 0 incentive to build beautiful town homes

Because people stop perceiving construction as a good investment, which leads to less construction.

You then end with shitholes costing 600€ because they're the only apartments left in the market and thousands waiting in queue to get a house like in Sweden cities.

In Venezuela they're applying price controls and it ends up with a shortage of pretty much everything, the moment it's not economically viable to make bread, you stop making bread, and the little bread left goes for 10 times the price in the black market.

Rent control makes places like NYC and SF among the most expensive places to live. Lack of land is another factor, but NIMBYs who refuse to change zoning laws prevent most hirise housing to be built unless its luxury housing. The only shit that can go up that's subsidized is in city owned plots

No don't change the subject.

HOW do PRICE CEILING cause HIGHER PRICES.
Because that was the claim.

Again: HIGHER PRICES?????

You said it would be more expensive - explain......

Prevention of high rise is what's killing this country's economy too.

And fucking leftards in faceberg posing against any attempt to build anything. This country is doomed.

Shitholes become more expensive because the demand is higher than the supply. That's where you get the higher prices.

In a market without price caps, you get some apartments at 800 and others at 300, in a market with price caps of 600, every apartment left will go at 600.

New York and its population is a wrong thing. Half of it is unemployed niggers. They might as well be put in the same type of housing in rural Mississippi.

the value of the home skyrockets because more and more people demand it since the govt forced it to be cheap. more demand = more value. no, people do not pay more when there is a price ceiling, but they should. price ceilings butt frustrate landlords because they are not making as much money as they should be. the value is higher than your example 600, but they are not allowed to charge that much. which will lead to this

Bad.

what works? the entire market is fucked up, retard.

he's an idiot and talking out of his ass.

No. The only solution to high rent is to nuke zoning law and build some fucking apartments Tokyo style. supply and demand... Just lowering the price means a lot of people don't get housing at all.

MIXED USE ZONING. NO LIMIT ON STORY NUMBER.

Also, if we had no-frills small-size apartments they would naturally be cheaper. Like tokyo, korea, etc size. Instead we get kikes building only luxury shit with 20 bedrooms because that gets them the most shekels. If there is no other option, goys have to buy or else move out back to the midwest.

A requirement of different kinds of housing and a tax on foreign investors to discourage them from buying homes and leaving them vacant or jacking the rent up would be better than a general price control

fuck that. i dont want to be surrounded by ugly commie blocks. STOP IMMIGRATION AND DEPORT

Just think for a second. You have an old corolla, your neighbor has a porsche, you both want to sell. (supply)

There are 2 hungry buyers who really really really need a car. (demand)

Government pushes a law that says selling cars needs a cap, at 20,000$. (kills supply, demand remains the same)

People stop building cars because who the fuck wants to invest millions to earn 20k$/car anyway, and are also afraid that in the future the government will claim they can only sell at 10k, there's no stability, it's much better to build boats now, so people build boats instead.

There are now only 2 cars left in the market, yours and your neighbor's.

Buyer 1 is faster and gets the porsche for 20k, now buyer 2 is left without options, he needs to get your corolla.

You know perfectly well that he needs your car, so you ask for 20k$.

Other companies realize they can sell corolla-like cars at 20k and start building those shits.

People are now forced to drive overpriced Corollas.

Price controls made it so a car that was supossed to sell for 30k and a car that was supossed to sell for 7k are now sold for 40k, producing, in average, a growth in prices.

Let me know if I lost you at any of the paragraphs.

Bad. crowding more people into degenerate and dirty cities is a net negative

My state assembly district is #2 nationally in citizens-per-representative at just over 425k, and they're buying up promoted tweets to advertise how desperately we need to approve more housing development in the district

Fuck that, we need fewer people, not a tighter sardine can -- there is a reasonable limit on how many humans can inhabit a few square miles

We have rent control in France and it's an absolute disaster.