Berlin Voters Asked The City To Tackle Rising Rents. The Plan Is A Long Shot

[biguc]

Lots of cringey ideological back-and-forth here. None of it's relevant to the DW&Co Einteingnen plan.

Cities are not society at large. They have different limitations and, therefore, benefit from different rules. Space is limited in cities. Vienna and Singapore have already solved this problem by socializing a large portion of their housing--this is housing for middle class people too. Private builders can still build luxury housing (which is mostly what they build anyway) and get stinking rich anyway. Germany has some really big housing companies--these are the only companies affected by this move. They will not suffer. A lot of what they own in Berlin is socialist-built housing in the East, anyway.

This isn't murdering kulaks or paying nurses peanuts. Pull it together, people.

[10023]

Originally Posted by jbermingham123

Because landlords are a specific example of a much broader problem in economics known as rent-seeking, where you have people getting something, rent, for doing nothing. This problem is not solved by doing away with landlords.. because taking the properties away from the landlords without compensation and giving them to some other group leads to, well, the same thing; people getting something for nothing.

The solution, in my view, is to enforce a maximum profit margin, something like 5%. If a landlord makes more than that, they have to either give it back directly or invest it in improving the living space for their tenant(s). The other option obviously would be to lower their rent so that profits stay at 5%.

This way, it still makes economic sense for property owners to provide living space for renters (because theyre still making a profit), but it ensures that most rent money goes to either improving the living space or back into the tenants' pockets.

This would also solve the problem of property owners sitting with vacant housing waiting for more profitable tenants.

To prevent such a system from deterring new development, you could make it so that the profit control doesnt kick in until a building is 20 years old.

How will you measure this profit margin?

And if you think that’s a simple question to answer then you’re already out of your depth.

[10023]

Originally Posted by biguc

Lots of cringey ideological back-and-forth here. None of it's relevant to the DW&Co Einteingnen plan.

Cities are not society at large. They have different limitations and, therefore, benefit from different rules. Space is limited in cities. Vienna and Singapore have already solved this problem by socializing a large portion of their housing--this is housing for middle class people too. Private builders can still build luxury housing (which is mostly what they build anyway) and get stinking rich anyway. Germany has some really big housing companies--these are the only companies affected by this move. They will not suffer. A lot of what they own in Berlin is socialist-built housing in the East, anyway.

This isn't murdering kulaks or paying nurses peanuts. Pull it together, people.

Has Vienna or Singapore “solved” this problem? How difficult (or expensive) is it to secure housing in these cities now if you don’t qualify for government housing? Is there incentive to create new housing supply? Are these government buildings being maintained and updated in the way they would be if a private landlord was competing for tenants/customers (and will they be for the next 10, 20 or 30 years)?

[jtown,man]

Delete

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by ue

Landlords are leeches who exploit people's need for a basic necessity. Others have stated that "real estate" is an "asset" or "commodity". Starting from that point is already bad (I know you weren't one of those individuals) - housing is a basic necessity and vulgarizing it into the exploitative real estate market is extremely egregious.

There's a lot of assumptions that people make in a lot of these discussions, such as "well what about the need for assets?" or "but if we get rid of landlords then something equivalent will pop back up in its place" or whatever. None of these assumptions are challenged, and so most are forced with working within them. But, if you decide, say, assets are a complete fiction that don't need to exist and can actually be a dumb way of relating to things, then you can open up to greater possibilities.

With that in mind, no, landlords don't need to make income from their tenants. They could just get a real job like the rest of us instead of being parasites to society. They don't need to exist. Housing could be held in common (which, despite the Eurocentric lens this discussion has taken, has existed throughout history) or run by the state. Vienna is a great example of the latter in action.

You realize being a landlord is a job, and most landlords have other jobs anyways?

My family is military, so we move a lot. My dad had a rental property because he couldn't sell it in time. He hired a company to manage the property. Why would he need to pay 10% of the rent to a company if there is NO work involved? Also, he basically made 0 from that property. He had two deadbeat renters in a row and his profit margin was tiny to begin with.

So join the real world and stop complaining.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by jd3189

Yeah, housing for profit, like healthcare and other baseline things in our society for profit, is a shitty game to play for everyone involved.

I understand landlords need to pay their bills and make some living, but gradually increasing the rent for tenants who often have incomes that are continuing to be stretched thin just sounds awful.

And, no, telling the tenants ( if they are reliable and pay on time) that they just have to accept the rising rent or get the fuck out, is not the most realistic thing to do. Not every neighborhood is going to attract high paying individuals.


I like that profit cap idea. It may actually help foster a better relationship between tenants and landlords.

Horrible idea.

Profit cap. Which year are we looking at?

If I have a property that sat vacant for 3 months in 2020 but is renting for record rents in 2021, which year will you use to look at profits? 2020 when I lost money or 2021 when I am making money? Normal people would think that great, you can use your profits from 2021 to make up the difference from 2020. Not you little socialist. You guys have zero clue about economics nor care to think into these matters at all. Its all feel-good theory and rhetoric from the non-doers in society.

[biguc]

Originally Posted by 10023

Has Vienna or Singapore “solved” this problem? How difficult (or expensive) is it to secure housing in these cities now if you don’t qualify for government housing? Is there incentive to create new housing supply? Are these government buildings being maintained and updated in the way they would be if a private landlord was competing for tenants/customers (and will they be for the next 10, 20 or 30 years)?

It's pretty easy to find this stuff out. We are, after all, on the internet.

https://www.wienerwohnen.at/wiener-g...in-vienna.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public...g_in_Singapore

[Yuri]

I work and I'm a landlord. I've becoming one precisely by working. People are so excited about those socialist notions and believe they will solve any issue or make society wealthier as a whole.

The market economy has plenty of problems, but it's not like socializing housing will solve all problems. Look at the socialist experiences and the quality of housing there.

China, on the other hand, embraced market economy regarding housing and they have a 96% homownership rate.

[biguc]

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

People are so excited about those socialist notions .

These guys just play the socialist foot soldier thing to impress girls.

In a former life, I worked as a photojournalist, and had to cover their events. It was a goddamn comedy. They all fought to have their photo taken. It's all about them, not "the cause".

[biguc]

Do any of you private property crusaders want to see the streets, parks, sewers, watermains, and sidewalks of your cities privatized? You could work really hard, buy your piece, make sure someone has to pay you every time they walk, drink, shit.

We already accept a significant social component in our cities. There's no good reason we can't have a substantial social component to housing too. Successful models exist.

Enough with the red scare/"people who want affordable rent are lazy" nonsense. Nobody is talking about communism but you.

[chicago river]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

I'll just address health care. I have worked 36 hours straight at times. I have watched people I came to actually love die because they had incurable diseases. More than a few times I actually cried when I got home. And almost every day I wondered if decisions I made or things I did were correct. Feelings of inadequacy go with the territory if you aren't an egotist.

Like most people, I'm no saint. Many people here think I'm a jerk I expect (and few make that clear almost daily). So I have to admit I wouldn't have done any of this and rather would have done something with regular hours and decisions about something like money rather than peoples' lives if it didn't pay well. If you think doing what people in health care do shouldn't involve profit (or relatively high pay), you are dreaming. Saints aside, nobody puts themselves through what doctors and nurses do for peanuts nor do they put the hours and sweat others put into late nights in a lab inventing new drugs or tabulating data for a research project (or the thesis it took to qualify them to do the work). Yeah, the work can certainly be fulfilling but not enough to have to worry about paying your own mortgage or putting your kids through college on top of everything else.

Other countries exist.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by biguc

There's no good reason we can't have a substantial social component to housing too.

Yeah, we already do. Go deliver pizzas and see why they all cut these places off.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by biguc

Do any of you private property crusaders want to see the streets, parks, sewers, watermains, and sidewalks of your cities privatized? You could work really hard, buy your piece, make sure someone has to pay you every time they walk, drink, shit.

We already accept a significant social component in our cities. There's no good reason we can't have a substantial social component to housing too. Successful models exist.

Enough with the red scare/"people who want affordable rent are lazy" nonsense. Nobody is talking about communism but you.

Actually, it's the opposite: people here go as far as saying all landlords are "leeches"...

I'm not even offended as 90% of my income comes from work and financial assets yields, but that shows how outrageous such generalizations are.

And again, common housing proved to be a disaster in the USSR and Eastern Europe. 2021 Berlin or 1989 East Berlin? Which one is better, more liveable and wealthier?

[biguc]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

Actually, it's the opposite: people here go as far as saying all landlords are "leeches"...

I'm not even offended as 90% of my income comes from work and financial assets yields, but that shows how outrageous such generalizations are.

And again, common housing proved to be a disaster in the USSR and Eastern Europe. 2021 Berlin or 1989 East Berlin? Which one is better, more liveable and wealthier?

Yep, some people are mad at landlords. That's exactly why this shouldn't be an all-or-nothing issue. Like you said, these generalizations are outrageous; including the false dilemma you're using to characterize this issue. Nobody is talking about implementing a socialist state. There are many reasons beyond housing why 1989 East Berlin wasn't good or wealthy. There are many reasons beyond housing why 2021 Berlin is good and wealthy. Finally, was socialist housing in Eastern Europe a failure? These countries successfully housed their populations in buildings that overwhelmingly still exist and are still occupied. How is that a disaster?

Here, again, is information on Viennese public housing.
https://www.wienerwohnen.at/wiener-g...in-vienna.html

60% of Viennese live in public housing. It looks like this:


CC0


© Bwag/CC-BY-SA-4.0

We don't need to give up on cities being affordable places to live.

[10023]

Originally Posted by biguc

It's pretty easy to find this stuff out. We are, after all, on the internet.

https://www.wienerwohnen.at/wiener-g...in-vienna.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public...g_in_Singapore

Those will not really answer the question, which was mostly rhetorical. The point is that there are different things to consider and different ways to define “success” of the policy. What represents a successful policy to one person will not to another.

For example, one of the things I disagree with in the UK is the absence of an annual property tax (there is a council tax but this is not at all the same). Old people love this, because they pay no taxes on property that they’ve owned for many years. But the downsides of it are:

- it’s harder to purchase a first home (or upsize after a few years, eg when you start a family) because of the very high up-front tax on purchases;
- there is no incentive to downsize for older empty nesters (or widows/widowers) which constrains supply;
- there is no benefit to the community as a whole from rising property values (which would otherwise translate into higher tax revenue to pay for services);
- there is virtually no holding cost (absent a mortgage), so a large amount of real estate (especially in Central London) is just owned as a financial asset; and
- these properties are passed from people who have done nothing but get lucky as real estate prices rose, to their kids that have done nothing but be lucky enough to be born to them, with no taxation.

On the other hand, little old ladies who bought a house in 1965 that’s now worth millions don’t have to pay higher annual tax assessments because the valuation goes up. My view is this is a non-problem… just borrow against the value of the house. But unfortunately old people control the political system and lottery winners don’t like surrendering their winnings.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by biguc

We don't need to give up on cities being affordable places to live.

Most American cities and towns are cheap as hell. Only about 10 working (non-resort) cities in the United States are expensive. The high cost of these places is keeping the riff-raff like myself out. The market is working.

[10023]

Originally Posted by chicago river

Other countries exist.

And they have inferior healthcare systems. You haven’t lived in any have you?

In the UK you can wait 18 months or more for a procedure because the NHS doesn’t have capacity. It doesn’t have capacity because they can’t recruit junior doctors and nurses, and they can’t recruit because the pay is crap for a job that is demanding and requires a lot of education. If you’re anything but impoverished, even middle class, you end up paying for private treatment (the doctors are often the same but are allowed to do a certain amount of private work to earn a living).

They prioritize the elderly, the “service” and facilities (ie, how nice the hospital room will be) are usually basic compared to the US, and the people who use the public service tend to not have other options. They hobble around with a walking stick for a year while they wait for a hip replacement (which will be a basic, off the shelf model not custom-made for their anatomy) while the people who can afford to “go private”. But as I said, the actual doctors and staff are often the same (unless it’s a purely private hospital in London like HCA), so it’s these private patients who are paying out of pocket that supplement the incomes of doctors and nurses.

Germany, France, Spain and other countries in Europe all have a significant amount of private healthcare alongside the public healthcare systems. Theirs are better funded but it’s still a sort of price discrimination.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by 10023

- there is virtually no holding cost (absent a mortgage), so a large amount of real estate (especially in Central London) is just owned as a financial asset; and

Property tax isn't high enough in most of the United States to keep people from holding unproductive land and vacant homes and apartments for lengthy periods of time. But non-payment of the tax does trigger the process by which counties auction off non-paying properties to new buyers.

One of the ridiculous parts of the U.S. land ownership system (and it varies significantly from state-to-state) is the definition of a working "farm". My dad's land is a working farm because he sells more than $10,000 worth of hay per year. It reduces his property tax from approx $30,000 to approx $2,000. It's maybe 100 hours of work per year, so good work if you can get it.

The other way to establish a "farm" in his state is to have two heads of livestock. So two pigs, two cows, or two horses. Must have two four legged animals (eight legs total on the premises). Two legs bad (no birds).

So there's a whole mini-economy out there of hobby farms avoiding stiff property tax. Some have the animals, some are growing the food. None of it is necessary.

[chicago river]

Originally Posted by 10023

And they have inferior healthcare systems.

Ok rich boy. I know poor people don't count to you but they do WAAAAAAAAY worse in this country than any other country of comparable wealth. I don't care that you Lucille Bluth, and Mr. Burns would have to wait a little longer for care in a civilized country.