how about the cost of building the house? It takes a lot of resources to build homes. There is a cost to that which is way higher than utilities and maintenance....
-
-
Replying to @Jackson_Strong_ @380kmh
At least in the area I’m in right now, most of the housing stock is at least 90 years old so that’s not really a consideration in why landlords can charge $1000+ per bedroom in a 4-bedroom apartment
2 replies 0 retweets 10 likes -
Sounds like you chose to live in a very expensive place. If they set rents at just the cost of maintenance and utilities (you're also forgetting insurance & taxes) there would be lines and shortages of housing, and only incumbent renters would benefit. Your area needs supply!
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Jackson_Strong_ @380kmh
I’m very well aware that Boston needs supply; they’ve been underbuilding for decades. I applied to postgrad jobs in cheaper cities (like Minneapolis, Baltimore, and philly) and all of them ignored or rejected my apps, but my first job offer was in Boston so of course I took it.
2 replies 0 retweets 7 likes -
My point being that if you lowered rent to just the cost of the buildings expenses, everybody is going to want to live there, and there isn't even remotely enough supply. Prices set at the equilibrium between supply and demand at the very least ensures some housing is available
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
having price controls on older housing stock to blunt the effects of gentrification isn't necessarily bad policy. But charging the base costs? If you want to only pay the cost of the actual expenses you should buy instead of rent. But that's not always the best financial decision
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Jackson_Strong_ @380kmh
all fair points, but my original point was that landlords shouldn't profit from our basic need for housing at all, and one way 2 partially decommodify housing could be to only charge for upkeep. This would obvs affect supply in a tight market, but the status quo isn’t any better
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Cuba has adopted this policy, and the results on housing have been absolutely disastrous. There is no incentive to restore buildings anywhere near the level that you, a $1,000 rent payer (granted--very, very expensive), would be satisfied with.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
We have adopted land use policies that shifts the high cost of parking onto the cost of housing, made it illegal to building housing in most areas, and restricts its density. This makes housing more scarce & costly. Why not change that? We can put rent stabilization on older hsg
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Jackson_Strong_ @380kmh
I personally support the abolition of parking minimums, upzoning, and increasing density in urban areas, in conjunction with robust tenant protections/rent stabilization. I’m curious as to why you’re talking to me like I don’t know what these things are
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes
people expect to find enemies everywhere (what else could explain how bad things are?) when in fact we all have much more in common--not just in outcome, but even in process!--than we expect
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.