But it doesn't work on the houses on top of the land. Because we can build more or less of them. Or higher.
Your flippant argument can be flipped around too. If there is a housing shortage, by what mechanism does rent control conjure new housing units?
my point is, vanishing landlord or no, the units remain
Still wrong:
1) Apartments get converted to condos, or re-purposed because the property has value, but renting doesn't.
2) The population keeps growing meaning that your same number of units don't meet the needs.
3) Rental supply also drops as people opt not to move and sit on their rent-controlled apartments, limiting the supply for those looking.
This is why rent-control has the effect of making housing worse, even if the rental supply is maintained.
Perhaps the people can again seize the means of production (part of that being stable housing).
I’d far rather know another 100,000 units are owned by the people that live in them than 100 landlords owning and profiteering from those units.
If this “disrupts” the entire rental industry, that’s fine with me. Didn’t bring much value anyway
I'd rather have that too! But it's not the result of these patchwork rules. Fix it properly instead.
[0] https://www.sfchronicle.com/realestate/article/An-estimated-...
