this post was submitted on 19 Jul 2025
934 points (98.7% liked)

People Twitter

7843 readers
1450 users here now

People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.

RULES:

  1. Mark NSFW content.
  2. No doxxing people.
  3. Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
  4. No bullying or international politcs
  5. Be excellent to each other.
  6. Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works -1 points 2 weeks ago (27 children)

Because costs only go up, that's why. It may not be profitable tomorrow at all.

[–] knatschus@discuss.tchncs.de 8 points 2 weeks ago (20 children)

Then lift the freeze once there's no profit left anymore, or just keep the freeze for existing buildings. Limit the rent increase etc.

[–] Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works -1 points 2 weeks ago (19 children)

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.

[–] Mnemnosyne@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Problem easily solved. Is a building not being utilized? Seize it and pay the owner fair market value, then have the city administrate it and charge just enough rent to cover expenses of maintenance and improvement and administration.

[–] Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

So why not skip the rent control and go straight to this?

[–] Alcoholicorn@mander.xyz 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Fair market value is much, much lower 9n rent controlled property

[–] Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Yeah, a government deliberately lowering property values so they can buy them cheap isn't a great precedent.

[–] Alcoholicorn@mander.xyz 3 points 2 weeks ago

Won't somebody think of Blackrock?

[–] _AutumnMoon_@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

It's not great, It's fantastic. Let the scumbags who own property they don't use lose money!

thale same strategy will be used to build more freeways through low income neighborhoods

[–] Mnemnosyne@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 weeks ago

To give the current owners the chance to do the right thing, and make a small but reasonable gain from their property.

And to make it more palatable to the general public. It's a lot easier to convince people to go along with it if you're seizing empty unused properties that are only empty and unused because the owner refuses to rent them if they're not making excessive profit.

load more comments (17 replies)
load more comments (17 replies)
load more comments (23 replies)