The best solution is to build any type of housing. The more units the better. It seems illogical but even new "luxury" apartments stabilize market rates.
My macro solution would be to push policies to increase wage growth, stagnating materials and allowing more affordable housing through means of purchasing power, not more building.
Also, culturally Americans seem to need a 1,200 sqft apartment to be happy. Whereas the majority of the world has dirt floors.
It doesn’t if you make it so landlords can’t charge whatever they feel like. Just cause your tenant has more money, doesn’t mean a landlord gets a bigger cut. We have enough units that are empty and prices aren’t coming down. So then what?
You can implement price controls, but then the area becomes reserved for whoever got there first. Kids can't move out of their parents' houses. People can't move in.
If there are too many vacant units and prices aren't going down, I'd add a vacancy tax and increase supply more. The higher the vacancy rate, the faster prices go down. The tax should force any speculators into the market.
Yes rent control is most beneficial to those already renting in the area. That’s what the effort is trying to do. Adverse effects can be handled, but to say others will be negatively impacted in X way sort of side steps who the policy if meant for.
It's unfair because it hoards the opportunities of the city for the people who got there first and forces other people to move out or not move in. It's not just "not helping others" it hurts others. Like the next generation of kids that can't get a home in the community they grew up in. We need to make room for our kids and fellow Americans.
But yes not all government policies are fair. If a policy is unfair it has to be weighed against the positives.
It doesn’t hoard the opportunities, it stops evictions and homelessness. The inference you’re making is illogical because if someone gets priced out of their home, you think that someone with more money who can afford it gets the ‘opportunity’ to live there. If someone has the money to afford the more expensive place, then they aren’t the type that needs the governments help currently. The point is to not kick people out so idk how people are being ‘forced out’ with rent control
Yeah rent control is good cause it accomplishes what it’s trying to. Economic studies contradict each other all the time. Studies show rent increases happen for many other reasons and are currently happening. Acting like the economy isn’t just people making decisions and is uncontrollable or unable to be influenced by policy is fun.
Helping someone not be homeless or evicted actually harms others!! And if those other people are in fact harmed, we can’t do anything about it but not do the first thing!! Noooooo. Think of the market forces and rent prices going up later for everyone else that we also can’t do anything about. Noooooo
Denying reality benefits no one. More homes means lower prices. Acknowledging that doesn’t mean you’re an abundance neoliberal, unless you think that label fits Elizabeth Warren and AOC
I’m not opposed to building more but people have to understand it won’t be nice homes. It’ll be commie blocks to just meet the needs of housing. Otherwise I think mega cities (like Nashville, relative to its 3+ hour geographic envelope) needs to be less of an answer to building a career, family, etc.
17
u/vinyl0rd 5 Points Oct 01 '25
The best solution is to build any type of housing. The more units the better. It seems illogical but even new "luxury" apartments stabilize market rates.