- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/19212604
Paywall removed: https://archive.is/DIorS
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/19212604
Paywall removed: https://archive.is/DIorS
What a bunch of BS. Kamala Harris is pushing rent control – the complete opposite of Yimby.
If your defining yimby as a synonym for pro-developer then yeah I guess. If your defining yimby as just opposed to Nimbys and their exclusionary zoning policies like single family housing, parking minimums, etc. to keep there property values up then rent control is fine as it’s not Nimbys but working class people pushing for it, not to restrict supply but to just stay in there homes.
Yimbyism can be an effective political strategy if you keep it contained to attacking rich property owners on behalf of the working/renting class. If you start opposing things like rent control that helps large portions of renters who stay in a place long term then the movement falls apart in infighting.
Yimby is about removing the red-tape that prevents development. There is no bigger red-tape than rent-control. Even if all other restrictions, such as SFH zoning, were removed it wouldn’t matter because nobody will build in areas with rent control.
Except in all the countries with rent control where people still build houses?
If you own more than 10 properties or for corporate ownership is when this applies.
Is a better way to manage collusion and a few corporations cornering rental markets.
Has nothing to do with the number of properties. The rule would apply to any owner having at least 50 units under management. A single mid-sized apartment building might qualify.
Well, I’m not really sorry for “small landlords owning small buildings” of 50 or more units under management.
That’s not small by any measure and totally against YIMBY.