• CableMonster
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    5 months ago

    This is first order thinking. What this would cause is much much less building of units that people would rent, so the total supply would slow way down and housing would get worse.

      • CableMonster
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        But they still would not be able to keep up with inflation, and this would just be one more stone on a heap of other regulations that make it not worth building housing.

        • explodicle@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          5 months ago

          Wouldn’t they just calculate the net present value of the average rental? Most people don’t rent at one place for long, and everybody dies eventually.

        • can@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          5 months ago

          Might be depend on your area but around me we’ve had a cap for a few yesrs and units are still going up (not necessarily affordable ones).

          • CableMonster
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            Sure there will be some building, but it will be greatly decreased to what it would. If anything the builders will just do spec homes or move out of the market. I actually moved from a state with a cap (Oregon), and most of the landlords (including myself) just sold off any residential real estate.

              • CableMonster
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                5 months ago

                I am no longer a owner of residential real estate, I do only commercial at this point. I am just telling you the impacts of the laws they make.

          • CableMonster
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            Who would have built it for them and how would they have been paid?

              • CableMonster
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                5 months ago

                It still the same problem, where would they get the resources to get ownership of that real estate?

                • explodicle@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  Depending on how exactly we’re “getting rid of renting”, I don’t think they would be purchasing the building at today’s prices. The landlord is SoL… at best. ;-)

                  • CableMonster
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    5 months ago

                    If that is how it is then the tenents would be doing good because the have stolen goods, but in the long run the problem would pop right back up and housing would be much more scarse.

    • Burninator05@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      Unfortunately, I think you’re right. What is the solution to outrageous rent that doesn’t involve the government providing more rent subsidies that simply funnel public money into the hands of property owners? That solution encourages property owners to raise rent because the government will increase subsidies to cover the difference.

      • CableMonster
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        5 months ago

        The problem is the government makes it too hard and expensive to build anything. People dont realize this but on average the government adds over $100k per single family house that is built. As a person that is in housing, my number one issue is with the government, and they only make it worse. So the solution is to greatly reduce the amount the government is involved in the creation of new housing.

        • Ragnarok314159@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          5 months ago

          You mean like safety regulations? I hear this same shit from sales all the time complaining about factory of safety in design. “I told the customer it would only be $X, and now it’s so much more!”

            • Badabinski@kbin.earth
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              5 months ago

              I’m genuinely interested in how government involvement increases the cost. I honestly don’t know. Like, is it dealing with zoning and permitting? I hope my good-faith intent is coming through here, I’m not just trying to bait an argument.

              • CableMonster
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                5 months ago

                Sure, if you are actually interested I can give you some basic examples. Lets take a look at some of the site details for a new build. Need to remove X yards of dirt - may require an engineer report. Ever see 100 yards of sidewalk/curb/gutter in the middle of no where - city requriement that will add $15k just for the concrete, let alone what you would need for retaining walls if there is a slope. If there is a mild slope to the lot - may need a different engineering report. Big developement - they will require land set aside that cant be developed for a wide varieties of things.