|
Top-level
 @woozle I like the idea, but it needs to account for variance in quality. The problem is that it'd lead to a cheapest viable housing situation. They can't charge more for higher quality materials so they'd attempt to maintain profit margins by simply making things as cheap and unsafe as possible. Also, anyone with an "above average" income wouldn't have the option to spend it on "better" housing (however they define it) because no-one would build anything with "above average" construction. 9 comments
re building codes: in theory yes. In practice no. Folks who've been paying attention to the housing problem in US cities are universally going "yeah, it's because of the building codes". It's just not possible to build the housing we need. City / state govt's are VERY reluctant to change anything (I'm unsure why) despite how it would solve problems, but also it's actually HARD because they're an intertwined mass. 🧵 1/?  @masukomi (Yes, this is definitely a problem. Will wait for the rest of your thread before responding in detail.) regulating rents is inherently tied to new housing, because there aren't enough units. The problem of only luxury apts being built wouldn't be solved because the housing regs make it unprofitable to build anything else & capitalism rules the day (ugh). regarding EXISTING stuff, a capped rent will result in lower quality maintenance, lower quality replacement parts, and less of both. 2/? @woozle in NYC we've seen landlords simply refuse to rent apartments that are rent controlled and take it as a tax loss (oversimplified). There are some immoral but very logical financial reasons they do this. Tiny Apts WOULD be a great option, but that brings us back to housing codes. Ex. NYC requires every bedroom to have a window so that you can escape in a fire. This prevents empty office buildings from being converted because every floor's center ends up filled with empty space 3/? @woozle Honestly there are a TON of really great ideas for fixing housing and making it affordable, & lots of proof that many will work from other countries. BUT they require a complete overhaul of housing regulations (incredibly hard) AND legislators who actually care about making life better for people instead of lining their pockets and gaining power (incredibly rare). :( It's a 💩 situation. @masukomi It's true, this would be a bandaid solution, and the rentiers are overequipped with bandaid-removal tools. It's going to take a revolution in government, ultimately. Housing shouldn't even be a market. Basic needs of any kind shouldn't be a market. @woozle Hard Agree. I'm not actually against there being _A_ market for housing, but i think it should be _A_ market for folks that can, and want to spend more, AFTER we've made sure everyone has a safe roof over their heads that won't be taken away because they dare to be "too poor" or get injured or sick or whatever. I think the US is rapidly going to swap to full on fascism, but after that we can hopefully overthrow that + the BS we're currently simmering in. If we survive. ;) Follow-up thought: someone in another thread-branch pointed out that greedlords could just make the apartments super-tiny. I suggested that maybe the maximum rent should therefore be per square foot, to prevent this kind of thing -- in which case people with more to spare could get larger places. ...so there would be some choice opened up by having more money... assuming that's even a good thing. |
Gregory's Server
@masukomi
¶1: I think this is more or less addressed by building codes. If that doesn't work, then the codes or enforcement thereof need to be better.
¶2: I don't see how that would happen under this proposal. All it suggests is to regulate rents and minimum wage; it says nothing about what people do with their own property. (Maybe it should, but that's a different discussion...)
...or are you talking about people who make above-average income but are still renting? I guess I don't see why people with higher income should have nicer houses, really. We should all be in the same harbor, so that the people with the influence and resources will lift all boats instead of just theirs.
@masukomi
¶1: I think this is more or less addressed by building codes. If that doesn't work, then the codes or enforcement thereof need to be better.
¶2: I don't see how that would happen under this proposal. All it suggests is to regulate rents and minimum wage; it says nothing about what people do with their own property. (Maybe it should, but that's a different discussion...)