Rent Controls

daenku32 said:
I've been a bit of an advocate for high-rise residential building in both Indy and now in Ft Wayne, here in Indiana. But the problem is that the high-rises appear to need those luxury apartments to make them feasible in the free-market. Of course the people who need them the most are the working poor, just like you said. So for those areas (unlike Chicago), the social demand is there but money is not. The only way I see around that is through a public investment, where the subsidy is merely a transfer from road or similar infrastructure funds that would otherwise be used to maintain corridors for longer commutes, or utility expansion in the suburbs.
Click to expand...
But when you have sufficient housing downtown, even if it is upscale, affordable housing can move much closer. Especially in a city like Indy, which has no natural barriers around it.
 
daenku32 said:
I've been a bit of an advocate for high-rise residential building in both Indy and now in Ft Wayne, here in Indiana. But the problem is that the high-rises appear to need those luxury apartments to make them feasible in the free-market. Of course the people who need them the most are the working poor, just like you said. So for those areas (unlike Chicago), the social demand is there but money is not. The only way I see around that is through a public investment, where the subsidy is merely a transfer from road or similar infrastructure funds that would otherwise be used to maintain corridors for longer commutes, or utility expansion in the suburbs.
Click to expand...

I'm all for public housing but to me that looks like the government (i.e. all of us) providing a subsidy to cheapskate employers who don't pay their employees enough to afford housing.

IMHO another case of the corporations squealing about paying taxes while taking every subsidy, direct or indirect, going.
 
The Don said:
I'm all for public housing but to me that looks like the government (i.e. all of us) providing a subsidy to cheapskate employers who don't pay their employees enough to afford housing.

IMHO another case of the corporations squealing about paying taxes while taking every subsidy, direct or indirect, going.
Click to expand...

Dealing with that is part of what I call 'stage 2'. Just saying I've though about that too, like requiring all those hotels downtown Indy (that are preparing for Superbowl) to have to ensure proper housing for their staff within a reasonable distance from the place of their employment.
 
daenku32 said:
Just saying I've though about that too, like requiring all those hotels downtown Indy (that are preparing for Superbowl) to have to ensure proper housing for their staff within a reasonable distance from the place of their employment.
Click to expand...
You really want to bring back the company town? Those didn't work so well in the past.
 
I've got a half share on a property in Edinburgh, Scotland ( The place I grew up in with my brother ) It's got features that appeal to Brits, but in no way is it modern. As the landlord, I put my effort into finding the 'right' people for the place, which is along the lines of: I'll give you a good deal if you look after the place. It's of no interest to me where the rent comes from and it's not my business to know. All I'm interested in is that the rent gets paid. I could easily charge a few hundred quid more each month, but I don't. Every tenant gets a Short Term Assured Tenancy ( lasting 6 months ) which protects both of us. If we're all cool, then it's good. For the last 5 years it's been good.

At the moment I've two tenants. They are each paying an amount which is below the threshold of the local council's 'fair rent' scheme. Yet my mortgage is covered, along with insurance, home repair policy and a few quid goes into a pot for essential work on the roof, etc.

My point is: Not all landlords are greedy *********. Sure, I've got an emotional connection to the place and will one day cash-in. In the meantime, people that stay in 'the hoose' get to live their lives. Nice of me, huh? ( and, yeah, I felt totally smug when a pal of mine in the Buy-To-Let market was getting goosed by the bank as a tenant of mine was bishing out home-grown veg, for free, around the neighbours )

The irony is that I now live on an island ( Jersey ) that continually throws together 'luxury' residences that stand empty most of the year, while there is a bona fide housing 'crisis' on the books. It's an artificial situation, IMO.

To sum up: a safe, secure place to stay with basic amenities ( eg power and sewerage ) is the very least the 'we' in the West should expect. Rent controls are neither here nor there. Some landlords are idiots, some are naive, others are just nice and then there's those that are greedy beyond their own good.
 
commandlinegamer said:
If I understand correctly, the buy-to-let market thrived in the UK in recent years prior to the recession. I can see the potential for owners not being too keen to reduce/freeze rent if they themselves have difficulty paying the mortgage.
Click to expand...
The buy-to-let boom was the worst thing that could have happened to the London housing market, as it severely depleted the availability and pushed up the prices of exactly the sort of properties that previously appealed - or rather were affordable - to first time buyers.
 
Information Analyst said:
No, it tapped into the desire of a lot of long-term council house tenants to buy their homes at a fraction of their worth, and then sell them for a huge profit as quickly as possible.
Click to expand...

I'm not 100% sure about that. Certainly that may be the case for some people in some parts of the country but I don't know how uniform it is.

[anecdote]In the case of my dear departed Gran, she bought her council house because she'd lived in it since it was built in 1952 and wanted to continue to live in it. She bought it in the 80's and owned until she died a few years ago. A lot of her neighbours have also owned their houses for many years.[/anecdote]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom