Rent control and buy to let.

[Fartsniffage]

Not if you replace them with the municipality as the landlord.

Something the taxpayers are unwilling to tolerate. The government can more easily constrain the activity of buy to let investors than they can raise the massive sums needed to re-enter the rental system in any real way to mitigate the removal of buy to let properties.

Simply slightly extend the policy currently in place, at least in my area, where any new building project is required to dedicate a small % of the new properties to social housing. Government get their new properties built for free and we avoid the problems seen with council estates in the past.

[Laerod]

Then they're clearly not a sustainable solution to the problem.

This is why more building work is required as I said in my first post.

And I shot that down in my first post in this thread.

Reeducation might work as well. Look, if people aren't willing to accept a solution then there is no solution, simple as that.

Or more accurate interpretation of your posts would be :

"Look, if people aren't willing to accept my solution then there are no solutions at all, simple as that"

That's really only a negative statement if I happen to be wrong.

[Frazers]

This is why more building work is required as I said in my first post.

And I shot that down in my first post in this thread.

No, you didn't, as I addressed it in my reply

[Laerod]

And I shot that down in my first post in this thread.

No, you didn't, as I addressed it in my reply

You asked for clarification. The point stands.

[Frazers]

No, you didn't, as I addressed it in my reply

You asked for clarification. The point stands.

It's a point common to both a buy to let and government owned system. Increasing population requires increased housing.

[Laerod]

You asked for clarification. The point stands.

It's a point common to both a buy to let and government owned system. Increasing population requires increased housing.

Since that's apparently not working, perhaps it's time to rethink the current balance of that, no? I posited that Vienna owns considerable amounts of property and has rents considerably lower than other cities of a similar size.

[Frazers]

It's a point common to both a buy to let and government owned system. Increasing population requires increased housing.

Since that's apparently not working, perhaps it's time to rethink the current balance of that, no? I posited that Vienna owns considerable amounts of property and has rents considerably lower than other cities of a similar size.

I've already said it's time to rethink the current system. As we're already struggling to maintain the current institutions asking for a massive increase in government own housing isn't an option. Opting to relax planning restrictions and increase new builds is the way to redress the supply and demand balance.

[Imperializt Russia]

I know Heseltine said that at the time, but I think it's a bit telling that they had to sell off the properties at massive discounts.

It tells us that the capital wasn't there amongst the target market. It's often the case that we, as human beings, want a lot more than we can afford.

If 1.2 million private lets exist, is it any wonder that affordable homes to buy don't exist?

[Frazers]

It tells us that the capital wasn't there amongst the target market. It's often the case that we, as human beings, want a lot more than we can afford.

If 1.2 million private lets exist, is it any wonder that affordable homes to buy don't exist?

You're missing the context of that post.

[Imperializt Russia]

I almost certainly am.

I'm ill and I'm unable to make sense of even the OP.

[Ethel mermania]

Rent control as a way to reduce costs for tenants is quite frankly a terrible idea. The evidence from last time round (Rent Act 1977) is that rent controls coupled with high security of tenture tend not to work. They reduce supply. The way to solve the problem of skyrocketing rents is to build more - which means planning relaxation and potentially some form of restrictions on foreign ownership. Increase supply of all types of tenures.

Any thoughts NSG?

The solution you present is going to be unfeasible in a number of places, particularly those with high population densities or protected areas. A different solution would be for the municipalities being the largest provider of rentable apartments.

Public housing in the states is fairy awful. Private Rent controlled apts, run the gamut from excellent to awful, depending on many factors.

[WestRedMaple]

"Civitas suggests that "once freely agreed between the tenant and the landlord, rents should not normally be allowed to rise above inflation." This cap would be coupled with tenants having the right to remain in the property as long as they wish."

No thanks. Rent, as well as how long someone stays there, should be covered by some sort of voluntary contract between the owner and renter. We could give it some sort of name, maybe 'lease' or 'rental agreement'

[SaintB]

I think there is a man out there named Jimmy McMillan who might have something to say about this.

[Imperializt Russia]

"Civitas suggests that "once freely agreed between the tenant and the landlord, rents should not normally be allowed to rise above inflation." This cap would be coupled with tenants having the right to remain in the property as long as they wish."

No thanks. Rent, as well as how long someone stays there, should be covered by some sort of voluntary contract between the owner and renter. We could give it some sort of name, maybe 'lease' or 'rental agreement'

That's what happens anyway. Why should the rent increase above inflation? That's just dickbaggery profiteering, especially with the housing market shrinking... because of private renters in the first place.

[WestRedMaple]

"Civitas suggests that "once freely agreed between the tenant and the landlord, rents should not normally be allowed to rise above inflation." This cap would be coupled with tenants having the right to remain in the property as long as they wish."

No thanks. Rent, as well as how long someone stays there, should be covered by some sort of voluntary contract between the owner and renter. We could give it some sort of name, maybe 'lease' or 'rental agreement'

That's what happens anyway. Why should the rent increase above inflation? That's just dickbaggery profiteering, especially with the housing market shrinking... because of private renters in the first place.

There are plenty of reasons to increase rent above inflation that do not involve profiteering. Maybe there were few renters before, and the property was being operated at a lose. Maybe the area has become more desireable due to recent renovations, more shopping, decrease in crime, etc.

People should be free to make their own contracts.

[Imperializt Russia]

Because the private sector has a four century history of being unreasonable, this is entirely why we have protections like this.
It's not like we're complaining about Apple's inexplicable prices, or Starbucks and their questionable tax returns, these are people's fucking homes.

Or they would be, if the private sector as a whole wasn't the personification of cuntishness on a leash.

[Ad Nihilo]

Every historical instance of an unregulated "housing market" from the Victorian era in Britain to anywhere in the developing world today reliably produces the same results: a huge proportion of the population living in slums.

The experiment with the free market for housing is collapsing around our ears again, so it's about time the government got involved in the market again. Rent controls are a piss poor attempt at doing so but it is something of a start. The obvious solution is to start a massive programme of public housing again. So long as the rents that would be charged to social tenants are above the interest rates incurred by the state by borrowing to build these homes, there is exactly no reason why we shouldn't be doing this. (I mean, of course doing this will prick the housing bubble and send the banking system to hell in a handbasket all over again, but maybe this time we could get round to actually restructuring it as we should have done the last time).

[WestRedMaple]

Because the private sector has a four century history of being unreasonable, this is entirely why we have protections like this.
It's not like we're complaining about Apple's inexplicable prices, or Starbucks and their questionable tax returns, these are people's fucking homes.

Or they would be, if the private sector as a whole wasn't the personification of cuntishness on a leash.

The government sector has a history of unreasonableness spanning millennia.

How much do you charge at all of your rental properties?

[Imperializt Russia]

Only if you're so self-centred to consider taxes and social burdens "unreasonability".

Where's your rental catalogue?

[Saiwania]

Rent control is a huge mistake, because it doesn't enable the owners of property to raise rents high enough to cover regular maintenance and the housing deteriorates over time. Most of the people who own rent controlled properties want to get rid of them by any means they can, including the commitment of arson to enable insurance fraud.

[WestRedMaple]

Only if you're so self-centred to consider taxes and social burdens "unreasonability".

Where's your rental catalogue?

So you don't consider genocide, torture, theft, murder, etc to be unreasonable, huh? Frankly, that's pretty twisted.

Why are you not comfortable with admitting how much rent you charge?

[Fartsniffage]

Only if you're so self-centred to consider taxes and social burdens "unreasonability".

Where's your rental catalogue?

So you don't consider genocide, torture, theft, murder, etc to be unreasonable, huh? Frankly, that's pretty twisted.

Why are you not comfortable with admitting how much rent you charge?

What makes you think IR owns any rental properties?

[Imperializt Russia]

Only if you're so self-centred to consider taxes and social burdens "unreasonability".

Where's your rental catalogue?

So you don't consider genocide, torture, theft, murder, etc to be unreasonable, huh? Frankly, that's pretty twisted.

Why are you not comfortable with admitting how much rent you charge?

"Sometimes bad people get into a position of power where they can enact their badness with military force OH NO"

Meanwhile the private sector has consistently proven its own self-servingness for centuries. Well I guess there are bad people in society, thanks for helping me realise this!

Why don't you admit what you charge? You brought it up.

[Greed and Death]

The solution you present is going to be unfeasible in a number of places, particularly those with high population densities or protected areas. A different solution would be for the municipalities being the largest provider of rentable apartments.

They were, in the UK, but then Thatcher happened.

If LAbour had not have stopped people from building outward.

[Greed and Death]

Rent control is a huge mistake, because it doesn't enable the owners of property to raise rents high enough to cover regular maintenance and the housing deteriorates over time. Most of the people who own rent controlled properties want to get rid of them by any means they can, including the commitment of arson to enable insurance fraud.

Most refurbish the apartments to be luxury apartments which are typically exempt from rent control.

Manhattan has a large number of empty luxury apartments that the landlord would rather have as empty than to have affordable housing that they can actually rent because of the risk of rent control.