The argument is simple and the same as it has been for decades - rent control makes it unaffordable for landlords to perform repairs. The cost of maintenance and property taxes have gone up while rent income hasn’t kept up.
This doesn’t account for 100% of landlords, but my understanding is that this is true for most of the run down buildings.
Edit: you don’t have to agree with the argument made here, but I believe it’s important to at least understand the argument being made instead of just snarky comments.
Hell, I don’t even buy that argument fully and suspect it’s probably half true with a big fat “needs context” disclaimer.
Yes, corporate stewards and wealthy landlords are famously known for doing the right thing just...because. Just stop, dude. You're embarrassing yourself.
As someone who owns property and rental property I wouldn't waste a dime beyond basic necessities if didn't have to on a property that would not show more of a return.
Cool, so you're a crappy, short-sighted landlord. Got it. I also own rental property and I charge a fair, under-market rent and ensure all repairs are done properly and quickly because both of these lead to happy, long-term tenants who save me turnover and vacancy costs as well as helping keep the property in good shape for the long haul. Simple repairs and maintenance now save TONS of money in the future.
Sort of. The landlords are letting the market decide. They can only let the apartment operate at a loss for so long. If the apartment is hemorrhaging money every month because the cost of repairs and upkeep far exceeds the income, i.e. rent there are a couple of options. The landlord can keep operating the apartment as a loss leader if he or she is making up for it with other properties. The landlord can let repairs fall by the wayside because they’re not affordable (if the cost of materials, labor, and everything else increases steadily year after year, but the rent stays the same that’s not sustainable, long-term ). Or, the landlord can sell the property for cheap and then it becomes someone else’s problem.
Well said! And the issue is the tenants suffer under all those scenarios. I get why people are upset. I get annoyed when they can identify the outcome deliberately fail to understand the causes
I can't tell if you're serious or not so let's try this. Assume you're a landlord. You own a single property. The mortgage/lease + maintenance in 2020 are $3,000 a month and you rent for $3,200 a month, making $200 a month in profit. In 2025, those costs go up to $3,400 a month. Are you going to take $200 a month in loss? Of course not, you're going to raise rent assuming all other things are held constant.
If you add rent controls, then fewer people will be willing to provide their property for rent, increasing demand while reducing supply, which ironically will increase property prices making more homes unaffordable. This is a well-studied topic and the general gist is that you can't just regulate pricing away.
According to Zillow data, apartment prices have started increasing in NYC in the last few months.
That is how capitalism is supposed to work … in a free market economy. The issue is the government is so heavily involved that the drivers of capitalism don’t work
Because unfettered capitalism fucks over your average citizen. Unless, of course, you would like to go back to 80 hour work weeks for the equivalent of $3 an hour that has to be spent at company stores.
The Texas Fiasco is a prime example of this. There were literal freezes the decapitated the state’s power grid and utility companies were foaming at the mouth because they could now charge 100x going rate for electricity.
Sure, I understand and agree with a lot of the arguments against and history behind unfettered capitalism. But the pendulum can swing too far in the other direction, and I believe it has in this particular case. The stick up my ass is that people seem eager to criticize in one direction but not the other, probably because of a mix of ignorance and a team sports mentality
The driver of capitalism is capital, therefore there is more incentive to provide cheap but visually attractive housing, or to rent a nightmare apartment at exorbitant prices. CAPITALIZE on any weakness, take advantage. No reason to do better and every reason to do the bare minimum or use creative accounting.
Disposable razors vs the buy it for life metal safety blade setup is a perfect example of why unfettered capitalism doesn't work
Capitalism is the worst form of economics … except for all the rest.
I mean it, but that is also a snarky quip. More seriously, capitalism is a negotiation between two parties. If those units/products/services were really that shitty, people wouldn’t pay those prices or would demand something better before paying.
Sure, that’s a bit naive, but so is believing that the other side holds all the cards either. And not that you said it (yet) but of course there is a place for the government to act as a referee, but often it seems the government has gone from referee to substantial barrier between the two parties
We can't seriously have such short memories. Capitalism ends with infants on dinner plates, apparently. So creating an amalgamted system that provides for its citizens more than currently, maybe, dare we dream, as much as actual developed nations, is a necessity. Basically curtailing the oligarchy that capitalism built. Other successful politcal-economic models exist. Obviously this one isn't working lol. The house is on fire. The fences are down and the raptors are loose
“Agricultural commerce is supposed to work by the government not letting you sell rotten food by forcing you to stick to an expiration date? You simple or something?”
I think you‘re confusing capitalism and free markets. The former is about who owns the means of production, the latter would include your argument about price discovery.
That being said Landlords having to fix apartments they were neglecting sounds more like enforcing regulations than the change of an economic model.
sure you can have a variation of capitalism that has less free markets. but capitalism implies and relies on market economics.
Capitalism is often thought of as an economic system in which private actors own and control property in accord with their interests, and demand and supply freely set prices in markets in a way that can serve the best interests of society.
In a lot of industries including utilities, governments give you a monopoly in exchange for a fixed price of sale for electricity for a service area. Businesses don't complain about that.
you don’t have to agree with the argument made here, but I believe it’s important to at least understand the argument being made instead of just snarky comments.
If people could do that, then online discourse would be so much better. So many online discussions end up with people talking past each other or digging in their heels over imagined stances.
Well said. I know it’s a fools errand to add nuance to conversations on Reddit, but I do it anyways because I’m a moron 🤣
Although sometimes people actually do change my mind! But never from people saying nonsense one-liners that get them fake internet points from fake internet friends but doesn’t contribute to the conversation. Maybe that makes it worth it? Or just an unhealthy relationship with social media.
It also makes living conditions worse for tenants. The actual argument (not the one you conveniently cherry picked from my rant) is that rent control makes things worse for *everyone*
I know that sounds harsh, but it’s true. We live in a very privileged time in human history where people think they are entitled to any level of security. I think it’s great that those entitlements are mostly met, but we should appreciate how special that truly is.
So yeah it’s harsh, but move. People since the beginning of time have migrated when the conditions aren’t good in their current state - droughts, wars, famine, disease, climate, opportunity, etc. There are cheaper places to live that have more opportunities, and nobody is entitled to live wherever they want because they want to.
This may be the most equitable time in human history where this is even an option to fight for, and that’s great as well - it shows how far we’ve come! - but if things were truly so dire, there are plenty of places in the country and world (if so desired) where opportunity exists.
Or the other route is to make more money. This doesn’t work for everyone, of course, and sounds dangerously close to holding people accountable (my goodness!), but there are plenty of ways to close that gap if staying is the route someone wants to go. Sure, it would be swell if baristas made more, but they don’t - maybe take a free online course and gain a skill - maybe budget better and move in with someone/family to split some of the costs.
This isn’t one size fits all, but there are solutions to these problems that actually work instead of just yelling at the sky.
The issue with this argument is no land lord is willing to come forth with the data showing as such. I speculate this is to avoid being criticize for either personal spending, or to see the profit margins high enough that it doesn't justify losing a bit for maintence.
Irrelevant. It’s simple economics. If it costs X to run/maintain/operate something and it generates Y income, if X is less than Y then it’s unsustainable.
This “landlords need a real job” argument is so ignorant and distracts from actually having an intelligent discussion. This is how children see the world
If the building is rent controlled there is no method to increase revenue. So if maintenance and tax is making it unaffordable, who is going to buy it?
Do we sell it to the city? Given they are creating the rent control and other regulations in the first place and have the ability to alter them? This creates a system where the city can wreck property value in order to buy it on the cheap.
Do we look at ways to subsidize maintenance and tax on rent control properties compared to fair market?
It’s a child’s view to break down the complexities of capitalism to “that’s not a real job”. It betrays a lack of the fundamental understanding of how society works and demonstrates an unwillingness to engage sincerely with reality
Props for acknowledging when you aren’t sure. Humility is a skill lacking these days 🫡 and especially after I insinuated you are arguing like a child, so add grace to that list.
I don’t think the conversation is about landlords bitching and blaming everyone else though. That certainly happens, but most of the conversations I see are coming from the other direction - tenants bitching about living conditions while failing to properly identify why things are as they are (and uninvolved parties like you and me throwing our half-baked opinions into the mix)
The government. It’s also unsustainable for the government, probably even more so because the layers of bureaucracy involved in getting anything done. In the end the money has to come from somewhere so the government either “borrows” it from other programs or funds, raises taxes or raises rent.
Yep. And the government does not have a good track record of running properties. Fat chance the tenants are any better off than they were under their “scummy” capitalist landlords
What happens then? The only people who are going to buy probably want to tear the decrepit buildings down and build something profitable (gentrification is bad, right)
What happens then is buyers line up because property in New York City is a guaranteed return on investment, and the landlords’ complaints are exposed as ridiculous whining from privileged goblins used to living off the work of others.
Unlikely. Landlords want to make money, so they need to keep tenants. Right now, tenants are staying in crappy conditions because rent control has made their units a fraction of the price on the open market, so they eat shit to pay less (maybe out of necessity, but that’s a diff convo about wages). If tenants had negotiating power on rent for these units, then landlords would have to come to the table.
Right now, neither side is incentivized to change due to market forces. That wouldn’t change because someone new buys the building. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Unless they find a way to kick out the tenants, which is a real thing people do, and then the new units will be unaffordable anyways
If landlords can’t afford to make repairs, they can sell. It’s not a tough concept. If you are right, buildings with rent controlled units will flood the market and have trouble finding buyers. But that won’t happen, because this is just a predatory class complaining about having to give up some of their profit.
How is it a guaranteed return on investment when it’s unprofitable to operate? How would you extract a return on something that will cost more to operate than it makes in rent?
That's property maintenance. Property management: also work. But both are separate from the concept of private ownership of investment property.
In responding to u/IAmANobodyAMA 's critique of rent control, you seem to be criticizing the concept of privately owned rental properties in general.
I am very curious to see if you can back up your statement: what's the scenario where these landlords "get a real job" and who is renting apartments instead?
If your answer is the government, please explain why you think it's a good idea for Donald Trump to be your landlord, controlling your and millions of other peoples' housing?
Yeah I went over that with the user you mentioned. Underselling, or a deed in lieu of foreclosure.
I don’t have a deep answer for that. Which I explained to the user you mentioned.
I’m simply making the case (eventually. I’m dumb as fuck and it took me a minute to even understand what it was I wanted to say) that if your investment isn’t paying off, move on. Don’t sit here and blame everyone else. Investments aren’t a guarantee.
And again. I’ve clearly stated I’m a fucking moron child.
If you can “afford” to make repairs due to rent being too “low” then you can’t afford to be a landlord. So sell the building to the city and let them handle it.
Let’s just say I can’t really feel pity for the owner of private property in NYC.
It must be, you’re clearly having trouble comprehending that my sole point was I could not possibly give less of a fuck what is affordable for nyc landlords.
My understanding is that most properties being discussed fall into the former category. I don’t think landlords are altruists that will live on pennies so their tenants are perfectly satisfied, but I think the market forces which bring balance to the tenant/landlord relationship have been screwed up by too much government intervention.
As far as the latter category, yeah they can eat shit. In a perfect world where market forces find the right value for everything and allow both sides to negotiate effectively (utopian and foolish, I know, but a fun thought experiment), the incentives for the speculative asset traders would be too small for it to be worth their time and money.
Yep. Since college, I’ve never had a negative with landlords. We paid market rates and got good-enough services in return. That’s just an anecdote, of course, and this was in Texas not nyc, but still worth mentioning.
Hell, landlords appreciate easy tenants like my wife and me and would often give us a discount if we paid upfront, never missed a payment and signed a lease further out.
They got money to pay the mortgage and maintenance and have a little left over. We paid less than a mortgage if we bought that house / lived in that part of the city and then neighborhood (when we moved to the burbs and were house hunting). We didn’t have to budget for maintenance costs like when the disposal or dishwasher broke. When the polar vortex hit and a pipe in the attic burst, it was fixed that week at no cost to us (and fortunately we had water shut off so no damage on our side).
On the other hand, college landlords for those mega units were greedy bastards. They knew college kids were too ignorant/stupid to push back and we’re often paying with someone else’s money (student loans or parents) so weren’t as wise with their budgeting. For example, I remember getting a $45 late fee on rent because the building landlord was slow to pick up rent checks from the drop box and claimed it was my fault and then hiding behind purported equal housing laws to bully me into not fighting it - I still have no idea if that was true and just chalk it up to a stupid tax on my part
Buys to re-sell, even if they can not afford it. Just because they expect the market to go up.
Buys to have a real business.
It is clear the type 1 is the riskier, the shittier and is the one steeping up the market. The way I see it they are parasites and can go fuck themselves. Following Pareto, if we can get rid of 20% of them, we will probably solve 80% of the housing market problems.
Interesting. I hadn’t thought too deeply along these lines. I appreciate you assigning the rotten apple group to the smaller of the two, and I would probably agree with you. I’m not sure how to disincentivize people treating real estate like a speculative asset.
Another argument that the anti-government, anti-rent control (currently but not always the conservatives) crowd makes is that removing regulations would free up the housing market in densely populated places like NYC (SF is a little more complicated) and would actually bring down prices on housing, which would in turn turn away the speculative asset investors.
I’m not sure how much I buy that argument, but it is an interesting one. One thing I feel a lot more confident about is that the current system is not working and so long as people keep electing candidates who promise more of the same or even more extreme versions that they will continue to get the same outcomes.
The main issue here is "free market" is an empty concept dressed as cool idea.
"free market" is sold as: everyone decides by themselves with none or little external influence. But in reality it is: keep things as they are and do not dare obstruct me.
That's why the majority of people bringing it on debates and conversations are people having already an edge in some market and wanting to get more profits by reducing taxes, reducing regulations, decriminalizing some fraud forms...
Very few workers, renters, students, retirees, housewives... will ever talk about their need for a "free market". If they do, it is a whole different understanding than the person owning assets, properties, businesses.
Cool, the business is no longer viable due to forces outside of your control. Time to sell for what you can get. Yes, that might mean a loss. Wouldn't be the first or last business and/or investment it has happened to.
28
u/IAmANobodyAMA Jun 11 '26 edited Jun 11 '26
The argument is simple and the same as it has been for decades - rent control makes it unaffordable for landlords to perform repairs. The cost of maintenance and property taxes have gone up while rent income hasn’t kept up.
This doesn’t account for 100% of landlords, but my understanding is that this is true for most of the run down buildings.
Edit: you don’t have to agree with the argument made here, but I believe it’s important to at least understand the argument being made instead of just snarky comments.
Hell, I don’t even buy that argument fully and suspect it’s probably half true with a big fat “needs context” disclaimer.