Kickbacks were paid.
Yep even locally your not represented. Only corporate interests matters. Why you must vote locally not just nationally.
Not like LA doesn’t already have a huge unhoused population, so City Hall decides to add to the problem.
Bunch of dumbfucks.
Rent control leads to fewer places to rent, this driving up rent for places not rent controlled, and adding insane competition to places that are.
Disposing of rent control entirely, in a phased transition, would be ideal.
“Next to bombing, rent control seems in many cases to be the most efficient technique so far known for destroying cities."[4] So noted the socialist economist Assar Lindbeck in 1977. In a 2012 survey of leading economists, a mere 2% thought that price controls on rent improved the availability and quality of affordable housing.[5] Then why hasn’t rent control destroyed the cities where it has been implemented? Because of the easing of these price controls since their adoption in the mid-20th century.[6] That is, until now.
Also, something that makes me sad: extremely rare L from Buttigieg
“Rent control is one of many tools that local jurisdictions can use to promote access to affordable housing.”[2] — Pete Buttigieg
Poor guy.
https://manhattan.institute/article/issues-2020-rent-control-does-not-make-housing-more-affordable
Manhattan Institute is right wing bullshit
Instead of slap fighting, why don’t you go click all the citations in the article and do some learning?
“Instead of criticizing this cake made of 98.8% deadly poison and 1.2% cake ingredients, why don’t you just eat around the poison or eat it and just choose not to ingest it?”
^^ This is what you sound like to a sane person… If you were curious?
Inb4 neoliberal pissdrinking “economists” start claiming a lack of theoretical foundation for opposing the interests of the rent seeking class.
Read Smith, you charlatans.
https://www.adamsmithworks.org/documents/chapter-xi-of-the-rent-of-land
This has real “vaccines cause autism, do your own research” energy lol
Straw man go brrr.
It’s not a straw man if I don’t argue against the point. It’s just me teasing you
What’s the point? Seriously.
This is one of those weird pieces of economic theory that all the neoclassical people act like is settled science despite a long history of good faith studies and publications casting serious doubt.
Most rightwing publications nowdays parrot largely debunked austrian school nonsense as if other countries housing policies don’t exist, or as if the ability of landlords to profit is more important than keeping people in their homes.
As a rent stabilized new yorker, my POV is that if you can settle on a rent increase limit that both pisses off the renter and landlord in equal proportion, it’s the right decision. Rents need to increase from time to time. And if you want improvements to building and units, there needs to be cash from the landlord to do it. When I consider buying, or renting another spot, I think it’d just be cheaper to put 10k per year into my rent stabilized place than rent at market value or buy and take out a mortgage.
That’s a long way of saying, rent control and stabilization increases aren’t always bad, but need to be reasonable. And for 3 years there were no rent increases. Inflation is real over the past 3 years.
deleted by creator
