> Some regulation around the pricing would be nice,
Economists of every school and political affiliation will tell you that rent controls are a terrible idea.
Economists of every school and political affiliation will tell you that rent controls are a terrible idea.
so, you if want to rent, build first.
"The court ruled on Thursday that the Berlin government had overstepped its powers in introducing the law, as federal law governing rents was already in place."
this does not support an argument against rent control in general, but only against outright freezing rents in place which is what this law tried to do.
the stories about landlords getting around the rent limit by charging extra for furniture are also not helping the argument because the law covered that too, so they were effectively breaking the law. the only argument that is valid is the fact that less units were available for rent, showing that this particular law didn't work. but again, this does not prove that rent-control on general is bad.
german rent-control generally means that rent may not be charged higher than about 20% of the average rent in an area. this means that rents are still somewhat flexible and they can rise, but not excessively so.
Like honestly, rent control is just beyond dumb. There are like 1000 ways that actually solve the problem - but unfortunately they require cities and bureaucrats to work instead of just passing a law. Supply and demand. If it takes LONGER to get a building permit that to actually build a housing complex… When cities are not planning ahead creating new space (argh, infrastructure, public transportation, this sounds like work…
actually i disagree that simply allowing to build enough property will work. businesses tend to charge as much as they can, and if we want actual competition in rent prices, then the supply would have to vastly exceed the demand and not just meet it. with all the best intentions, that is not going to happen, and i don't think it is desirable either.
excessive prices need to be prevented either way.
> and if we want actual competition in rent prices, then the supply would have to vastly exceed the demand and not just meet it.
So, having less than 1% of the housing stock go to AirBnB supposedly makes cities unaffordable but increasing the supply of housing will not have the opposite effect until supply greatly exceeds demand? Why?
In Narnia? Go look at the actual vacancy rate.
i highly doubt that these people, when confronted with a more competitive market would choose to lower rent to compete instead of again just sell.
so i highly doubt that more rental units will automatically lead to lower rents.
They will IF landlords can expect positive returns on their investments given a certain price level. You can dig into the public filings of companies like LEG, Vonovia and TAG who publish the average rental prices and the occupancy. In cities with supply exceeding demand, rents are lower (e.g., high vacancy rates). Example: https://irpages2.eqs.com/download/companies/legimmobilien/Qu..., page 5.
There is of course also a big callout with respect to “correlation does not imply causation”, e.g., it is very likely that there is a hidden confounder (economic prosperity) that drives down vacancy rates and drives up rents which ties back to my earlier argument that capping rents doesn’t make sense if the cities, politicians and bureaucrats fail miserably at their jobs.
Maybe get a business degree or learn something about it. Your statements make me cringe very much the same way an MBA explaining LLMs to you may make you very miserable.
Go read the public filings from the big real estate companies in Germany - Vonovia, LEG and TAG: https://irpages2.eqs.com/download/companies/legimmobilien/An...
https://report.vonovia.de/2022/q4/app/uploads/Vonovia-SE_Ges...
https://www.tag-ag.com/fileadmin/content/geschaeftsberichte/...
There is no single company that dominates a city or market enough to “profit from keeping rental units vacant at scale”. Vacancy rates and driving them down is a massive talking point in investor calls. High vacancy is bad because investors mainly care about rental income. The aforementioned companies achieve 3% or so organic rent growth - which is LOWER than inflation.
You have very little understanding of how the business world works and I’d recommend to take a couple of courses or classes in that field. It’s the same suggestion you would give an MBA type posting his opinion about programming or ML on Hacker News I suppose.
There are strategic investors though that buy run down buildings without any intention of renting them out ever but holding them for speculation. This is wrong and harms society. Land zoned for urbanisation is a right that is granted by society and has implicit value only from society granting these rights. Speculations on these artificially (by said society) limited building permissions needs to be eliminated. The space does not have much “inherent value” in itself (e.g., assuming no building for the ease of argument) - but only gains value by being artificially limited in quantity by society.
Rent control has the efect of locking people in and reducing mobility, favoring those already in the market at the expense of those looking to get in to the market.
The obvious solution is to build more.
as far as i can tell, the effect of rent control in germany is mostly that similar properties cost a similar rent which does not prevent people from moving, because they are not risking an increase just because of the move.
Just look at Berlin. Try moving there now and see what options are available to you.
a more desirable area will always be more expensive. rent control allows to keep that in check, no control will mean that even if there is enough supply elsewhere, those more desirable areas will remain expensive. rent control is needed to prevent gentrification too.
That's what all NIMBYs parrot. Berlin population only grew by ~250k people ... since 1990, and back then Berlin was basically depopulated. It's also one of the least dense capitals in Europe today, Berlin is not Amsterdam to not have any space.
Saying "there's no more space" doesn't pass the smell test. There's more than enough space but there's too much real estate speculation going on to jack up the prices because certain interest groups need to make money from it.
>most people do not want to move until the area is sufficiently developed, and there are local jobs too
Once that area is sufficiently developed it's too late to move because you'll already be priced out. If you want to live somewhere you need to move thee before it becomes "cool" and "hip".
ok, fair point. so berlin does have other options. but the rent problem is not only in berlin, and other cities don't have that space. and nevertheless i stand by the claim that even if more rental units are going to be built in that space, rent prices will not go down without any additional effort.
a good example of doing it better is vienna. somewhat similar to berlin, population was shrinking until the turn of the century. down to 1.5 million. then suddenly in the last 20 years it grew back to 2 million. faster than berlin. vienna government itself is building new housing (a program that started 100 years ago). and infrastructure with jobs to go with it. 25% of people in vienna live in government owned and subsidized housing. (apparently berlin has something similar, but it is privately owned with a government mandate)
Once that area is sufficiently developed
ignoring the option to work remote, if an area doesn't have jobs close enough to easily reach by public transport i am not going to move there, no matter how attractive the rent.
Berlin has a population density that's less than 20% of Paris. Tell me more about how there's no space to build.
Just ban AirBnb and other short term rental schemes in residential buildings.
Tourists should stay in buildings designed as such (i.e.: Hotels)