Hacker News Reader

Comment by giantg2 | Hacker News Reader

That won't fix anything. Many rentals are apartment buildings and are built/owned by large companies. You would effectively make the situation worse because individuals wouldn't be able to build high density housing if they're only allowed one unit.

Edit: why disagree?

View on HN

Controversial opinion, but corporate landlords tend to be better than individual landlords because it's impersonal and it's harder to hide. They also have different tax treatment.

> individuals wouldn't be able to build high density housing

Who exactly has (a) enough money to build an apartment block and (b) not enough to put it in a corporate wrapper? (Admittedly the wrapper problem is a serious issue for any kind of rationing!)

The problem with the large companies is they are more likely to price fix and leave units empty. But I do agree they tend to be easier to deal with.

Some cities place an empty unit tax.

I’m not sure why that’s more popular in the US.

Not rented out a property for 3 months straight? Ok, pay 25% of the rent to the govt then.

Property prices will quickly find their market value (and we will know if the problem is genuinely a shortage of space then).

> Controversial opinion, but corporate landlords tend to be better than individual landlords because it's impersonal and it's harder to hide

Best of both worlds: cooperative rental companies. Renters control everything collectively as a non-profit. They employ the custodian(s) and vote on what to invest any excess capital into. With this it means you're only paying as much as needed to maintain the buildings, your utilities, and saving up for larger renovations.

I've lived in multiple apartments organized like that, and frankly it beats every corporate/individual landlord I've been attached to.

corporations can also be made to accept stronger rent-protection laws.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com