Thread

1. soonnow · 1789971698 · focus · HN ↗

   To add a b it of context. They do not want to confiscate housing. They do want to pay landlords, though below current (very high) rates. Also this would only apply to private real-estate companies not individual owners.

   And they can't govern alone, so I think it's unlikely that this plan is actually implemented as originally planned. The likely coalition would contain 3 parties.

   1. aurareturn · 1789974034 · focus · HN ↗

        They do want to pay landlords, though below current (very high) rates.
      

      In San Francisco, NIMBYs secretly support laws like this. This basically guarantees that many builders will do the math and conclude that it doesn't make sense to build housing in San Francisco.

      New large condo buildings have to sell 30% of the units at below market rate. This causes many viable projects to never get built.

      So laws like this are sold to renter voters as a way to lower housing costs, but NIMBYs secretly love it. Over time, renters pay more in rent because there is less supply due to builders not building. However, a lucky few renters who were here early will get below market rents.

      Perfect examples of voters voting for a short term fix but pay more in long term. And voting for themselves while screwing future renters.

      1. nextaccountic · 1789992711 · focus · HN ↗

         There's a way to get yourself out of that gridlock: just subsidize housing. The builder gets money from both the buyer and the government, so he will be happy. The buyer will have low income and wouldn't be able to buy a house otherwise, so he will be happy too. And the government will actually have fulfilled its role for a change.

         1. em-bee · 1790032113 · focus · HN ↗

            that's what vienna has been doing for a century, and it works. current status is that 2/3rd of any new built housing must be subsidized.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.