978
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 19 Jul 2025
978 points (98.8% liked)
People Twitter
7889 readers
1757 users here now
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
- No bullying or international politcs
- Be excellent to each other.
- Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Yes landlords will just take their houses overseas.
Even if you just talk about building new homes, freezing rent just caps the profits that can be pulled out of a project. If it's profitable right now, why shouldn't it be with same income tomorrow?
You think landlords are going to move overseas so they can landlord somewhere else?
Honestly, if there actually are people like that, then good riddance. They sound like slum lords. Parasites.
Because costs only go up, that's why. It may not be profitable tomorrow at all.
Then sell your property.
to whom? unless the rent can change (which it realistically shouldn't if the law is written well) it still won't be profitable
People make bad investments all the time.
and they have every right to complain about the government making a half decent one into a horrible one
And normal people have a right to not care about people leeching off of actual workers.
And if you're talking about homeowners, I still don't care. You don't deserve imaginary free money for owning land. Its for living in, not an investment.
Go buy some stocks and stop being selfish.
Then lift the freeze once there's no profit left anymore, or just keep the freeze for existing buildings. Limit the rent increase etc.
The issue here is, and this has happened before, investors will either sell the property, meaning those not in a position to buy are screwed, or they will do the bare minimum to keep the building functioning, as there is no incentive to improve the building.
Good. Investors rather than inhabitants owning homes is a huge part of why rent and property prices have skyrocketed.
They already do that in order to maximize profits.
Ever heard of this new thing called laws and regulations? It's the only "incentive" that actually DOES work to correct the behavior of greedy slumlords.
Letting them keep increasing the already obscenely high rents just means more profits for them in return for no benefit for anyone else.
Sell to whom?
Owner-occupiers typically.
That sounds like it's solving the problem, then.
If you can afford to buy a property, sure.
How would somebody buy it if nobody could afford it?
The banks, of course. They'll buy anything.
And what do they do with that investment?
Sell to Aquaman.
Oh, that's very simple. Warehousing! They need storage space for their gold, and their typical warehouses aren't big enough to hold it all.
They already only do the bare minimum. You practically have to take your landlord to court to get any meaningful fixes in your apartment. All new developments are built like shit, developers cut corners anywhere they can. After the building is built the developer "vanishes" so there isn't anyone to sue when there is something seriously wrong with the building. They just open a new throw away LLC later and put up another shit building. You must not live in NYC
Problem easily solved. Is a building not being utilized? Seize it and pay the owner fair market value, then have the city administrate it and charge just enough rent to cover expenses of maintenance and improvement and administration.
So why not skip the rent control and go straight to this?
Fair market value is much, much lower 9n rent controlled property
Yeah, a government deliberately lowering property values so they can buy them cheap isn't a great precedent.
Won't somebody think of Blackrock?
It's not great, It's fantastic. Let the scumbags who own property they don't use lose money!
thale same strategy will be used to build more freeways through low income neighborhoods
To give the current owners the chance to do the right thing, and make a small but reasonable gain from their property.
And to make it more palatable to the general public. It's a lot easier to convince people to go along with it if you're seizing empty unused properties that are only empty and unused because the owner refuses to rent them if they're not making excessive profit.
Cost of what?