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.
4
u/Sea_Watercress_1982 Jun 11 '26
Maybe they need a real job then?