Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician
On a macroscopic scale these policies preserve economic diversity in our cities, and obviously on paper they look like a good idea.
However, for even our most staunchest of progressives, even you have to acknowledge that it seems a bit unfair for, say, a person who studied hard in school, took on lots of student debt, is making a decent salary ($70-80k per year), yet shares a building with somebody who gets to live in the same premises for a far lower price because he is "poor" without any regard whatsoever as to why this person is "poor".
In other words, if I'm paying $1500 for a product that a person who is "poor" is paying $600 for, then what's the point of trying?
|
Affordable housing and rent control are two very different things. Rent control just limits the amount a landlord can raise rent in a given year. In LA, it only applies to buildings built before 1978, and it caps year over year rent increases at 3%. Once someone moves out, the rent can be raised as much as the landlord wants. With 3% increases every year (like what my landlord does) it takes quite a few years for someone to be paying significantly below market rate rent.
Affordable housing mandates in market rate buildings are a different animal entirely. In LA, the wait for affordable housing units is astronomical, so the chances of getting one of these units in a nice, new building are pretty slim. I do somewhat agree that it would be frustrating to know that someone is paying a fraction of the rent that you bust your ass working to pay, but chances are, you wouldn't even know. I have no clue how much my neighbors pay to be in the building I live in. I know one guy has lived there 20+ years, so I know he's gotta be paying a fraction of what I pay. Such is life
