That’s a surprisingly common line of reasoning actually.
That’s a surprisingly common line of reasoning actually.
What prompted you to ask this question? 🤔
Oh wow, I had to scroll quite a way to find a comment that wasn’t in the negative.
I can’t read without pictures!
I’d file for divorce.
Yeah, a government deliberately lowering property values so they can buy them cheap isn’t a great precedent.
Until those properties slowly disappear from the rental market as they’re bought by owner occupiers.
Which is a problem if you can’t afford to buy a property.
They’re not going to sell for less than what they can make off the property though, are they?
If you can afford to buy a property, sure.
As I said elsewhere, they will be sold to owner occupiers most likely.
Which is a massive problem for those not in a position to buy.
So why not skip the rent control and go straight to this?
Owner-occupiers typically.
That is actually a far better idea than rent control, yes.
As per my other replies, typically sell the property to an owner-occupier, which is a big problem if you can’t afford to buy a property.
How is demand going to shrink?
How would the barrier of entry be lowered? Are you suggesting new investors are going to buy properties they can’t turn a profit on?
Why do you think it would work like that?
The issue here is, and this has happened before, investors will either sell the property, meaning those not in a position to buy are screwed, or they will do the bare minimum to keep the building functioning, as there is no incentive to improve the building.
Because you’re kinda boned if you’re not in a position to just buy a property, that’s why.
Lightning fast shitpost creation is one AI use case I’m fully behind.