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. aurareturn · 1789996036 · focus · HN ↗

            Subsidizing housing... money will have to come from somewhere - usually the middle class.

            I shouldn't have to subsidize my neighbor's rental just because they chose to live in my city.

            1. em-bee · 1790032423 · focus · HN ↗

               you are not going to find a city where no such people want to live. or, if you do then forget anyone there wanting to do any minimum wage jobs. because they can't afford to live there. that includes waiters and teachers among many others.

               you could of course pay them more, and everything would become more expensive. might work. but i bet you don't want that either.

               1. aurareturn · 1790042750 · focus · HN ↗

                  If they can't afford to live there, then the rich people living there won't be happy and they'll pay a higher wage to those people.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.