In a city or country with housing shortages or a very tight market, that’s asking a lot.
People need homes, and there is a balance to be struck for the public good.
In a city or country with housing shortages or a very tight market, that’s asking a lot.
People need homes, and there is a balance to be struck for the public good.
Housing shortages are a result of local policies, and rent control makes housing shortages worse (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S105113772...).
Just as well I’m not arguing for rent control or any particular policy then isn’t it?
I’m pointing out that the “it’s my property I can do what I want” attitude needs to be balanced with public needs for housing, because society isn’t purely about optimising the content of your wallet, and extreme deregulation results in slums.
(Your linked paper there also says that rent control results in more properties having affordable rent at the low end of the market, but less overall rental property supply, indicating a reduction at the higher end. I’m good with that as a consequence, those who are better off can usually afford to get into purchasing a property. In some markets, like much of Australia, having fewer landlords and wannabe landlords competing to purchase properties would be a bonus. This actually looks like a win all round TBH.
tl;dr - congrats, you’ve used science to sell me on rent control)
The people imposing the rent control are the same people responsible for the shortage, so I just can't get behind that.