Quote:
Originally Posted by Swede
IMO a reasonable approach would be for that law not to apply to new units.
|
For what it's worth, that's how rent stabilization (ie, rent control) works in New York. New construction is not subject to rent stabilization (unless the developer got some sort of tax break, and then the stabilization only usually lasts 20 years). Rents over a certain amount also "destabilize" the apartment (I love that term), so when an apartment's legal rent reaches $2,000, the apartment converts to market rate. I think the barely concealed ultimate goal is to gradually eliminate rent stabilization.
I'm not sure how I feel about the issue. I don't think rent stabilization achieves its goal of providing affordable housing to people since it only really benefits people who don't move often (which conversely punishes those who do move making the rental market less liquid and making it difficult for people to move for rational reasons, like getting a new job, graduating from college, marrying, divorcing, etc.). However, I think the larger problem is that too much of the housing market in older cities like New York is rental which means there are too many landlords who are only interested in extracting as much rent from tenants as possible. If more units were available to buy (not possible because many cities, like NY, have limited condo conversions for dubious social reasons) then those who've lived in a place for a while will be rewarded with equity and those who need a place to live will be able to buy the apartment they need, but only if external forces don't artificially jack up prices (like low-downpayment mortgages, excessive capital concentration in certain market sectors like financial services, etc).
Is there any discussion of rent control reform in Sweden?