I'd like to see some proposals on how much rent can be raised with respect to local rates. Some European cities have attempted this, but not without issues.
And some enforcable time limits on how soon repairs can take - for example a broken boiler.
If it were that simple would not the mass exodus of landlord owners have reduced prices? There are massive amounts of new supply being built.
Single person occupancy growth in the last 20 years has pushed up pressure on stock as has the addition of many millions of persons beyond the national fertility rate. Incredible levels of regulation of which I wager you know nothing make building nearly impossible. I've built many properties, managed many, sold many, bought many. These flippant simplifications don't make sense. Costs to building quality housing to a modern standard are considerable. This the explosion in generic poor quality housing with aesthetics that are vile. If there were real cost pressures we'd see trailer parks everywhere in the UK. But we don't.
And who is going to foot the bill for building more houses without a profit incentive?
Builders of individual homes are building larger houses that are unaffordable to the people who need them the most. The answer is multi unit housing - like those being built by the evil profit seeking capitalists.
His answer will be an all benevolent all generous and arbitrarily infinitely funded government. Infinite housing, for infinite people - the motto of the true altruist - all paid for by persons TBD. The same position held widely in this thread
Exactly. It shouldn't be an investment vehicle, rent on land causes rocketing costs on everything down the chain. Only big monopolies survive. Places that are well governed and cheap to live in are often creative hubs.
You might want to argue that monopoly is efficient, but it's only a temporary thing until they have built their moat.
Tail wagging the dog. Land costs wouldn't be millions if you couldn't turn the thumbscrews on tenants.
To be a little less glib, it's easy to imagine other non-profit funding structures such as co-ops and government help (dirty phrase in the U.S. I know).
I imagine a lot of the costs of actually building would decrease a lot when remove the incentive for NIMBYish building codes.
There would be challenges as you point out, but the overall situation would be much better for all of society.
Increasing inventory occurs by building more housing.
It wouldn't be linked to inflation, as the housing and renting market has historically been above inflation. So limiting to market rate would still be beyond inflation.
It would be balancing between having housing as a necessity vs a comodity.
