“Build more luxury flats” isn’t actually a bad answer either, since any increase in supply (even luxury) applies downward pressure on the price of the existing stock. They should do both.
This only makes sense if the large landlord conglomerate that likely owns them isn’t happy to just leave them empty to keep the upward pressure on rents.
This is also why we’ll continue to have problems unless we get state-owned construction companies - the landlord conglomerates that have the money to get new apartments built will never commission enough apartment blocks to actually drive down prices, instead trickling in supply to keep prices where they are, or higher (regardless of the incentives). These are the problems we face in Amsterdam, anyway.
This only makes sense if the large landlord conglomerate that likely owns them isn’t happy to just leave them empty to keep the upward pressure on rents.
Introduce pro squatter rules, if a housing unit hasn’t had a person living their for X amount of time - Anyone can live there for free, everything will be rented out asap.
I live in a city where they buy existing flats and houses and rent the to citizens. City is also buying building ground to tie the sale to investors to conditions like the amount of social housing in the new building area.
Works like a charm. The rents are okay (even from other landlords since they have to compete) and we don’t have “problem areas” in the newer parts of the city since people live in mixed areas.
Fingers crossed Berlin works out. It would be a welcome change for a lot of friends of mine to finally have an affordable flat that doesn’t rot away.
Doubling down, when being wrong, doesn’t make it better…
I live in Germany. A lot of investors like to keep their flats empty to reduce supply in lower income brackets. They use this to force people into flats they can’t afford so the investors can get more money.
They love building luxury flats, people still have problems finding affordable housing. The way things currently are proofs you wrong. No matter if you like it or not.
A lot of investors like to keep their flats empty to reduce supply in lower income brackets. They use this to force people into flats they can’t afford so the investors can get more money.
Uh-huh. So by foregoing rent they make more money?
Let’s actually think this through: let’s say that there are a bunch of landlords who each own multiple properties, and they all rent only half of them in order to, say, triple the rent on the rest (fake round numbers because it’s a thought experiment). Now, what’s the incentive for each individual landlord? If he’s smart/greedy, he’ll realize that he could rent out the rest of his units and get the 3X rent from them, too, because just his action doesn’t move the market that much. So why the fuck wouldn’t he do that?! And why wouldn’t every landlord, acting insolation, come to the same conclusion?
The only reason that wouldn’t happen would be if there were some sort of vast conspiracy between landlords to collude on the strategy, and if they were doing that they could just collude on the prices themselves and make even more profit!
The “they’re intentionally leaving units empty to make more profit because reasons” argument just flat-out doesn’t make sense. It’s magical thinking to find a scapegoat.
And oh by the way, even if it were somehow true, that means your actual problem is a cartel and the solution is antitrust law. Even if you were right, it’s still not a reason not to build more housing!!!
So, what, you think they have infinite money to keep doing that indefinitely? That tactic only works in an environment of artificially restricted supply.
So, what, you think they have infinite money to keep doing that indefinitely?
Correct. Compared to you and I they do.
That tactic only works in an environment of artificially restricted supply.
Also correct. If you mass check ground titles in Germany you might be surprised how few players own most of the land. Even before you add holdings to the calculation. It’s amazingly obvious.
“Build more luxury flats” isn’t actually a bad answer either, since any increase in supply (even luxury) applies downward pressure on the price of the existing stock. They should do both.
This only makes sense if the large landlord conglomerate that likely owns them isn’t happy to just leave them empty to keep the upward pressure on rents.
This is also why we’ll continue to have problems unless we get state-owned construction companies - the landlord conglomerates that have the money to get new apartments built will never commission enough apartment blocks to actually drive down prices, instead trickling in supply to keep prices where they are, or higher (regardless of the incentives). These are the problems we face in Amsterdam, anyway.
Introduce pro squatter rules, if a housing unit hasn’t had a person living their for X amount of time - Anyone can live there for free, everything will be rented out asap.
or homeowners will actually winterize their unused properties instead of keeping them connected to gas/electricity/water
I live in a city where they buy existing flats and houses and rent the to citizens. City is also buying building ground to tie the sale to investors to conditions like the amount of social housing in the new building area.
Works like a charm. The rents are okay (even from other landlords since they have to compete) and we don’t have “problem areas” in the newer parts of the city since people live in mixed areas.
Fingers crossed Berlin works out. It would be a welcome change for a lot of friends of mine to finally have an affordable flat that doesn’t rot away.
you can check out initiative page
right-to-housing.eu want to introduce EU fund to do social housing as well, if you are from EU you can sign the initiative
Just signed it!
That’s not how reality and greedy investors work.
“The law of supply and demand isn’t how reality works”
Sure, buddy.
Doubling down, when being wrong, doesn’t make it better…
I live in Germany. A lot of investors like to keep their flats empty to reduce supply in lower income brackets. They use this to force people into flats they can’t afford so the investors can get more money.
They love building luxury flats, people still have problems finding affordable housing. The way things currently are proofs you wrong. No matter if you like it or not.
look at the initiative right-to-housing.eu they are collecting signatures to change that in the whole EU
Uh-huh. So by foregoing rent they make more money?
Let’s actually think this through: let’s say that there are a bunch of landlords who each own multiple properties, and they all rent only half of them in order to, say, triple the rent on the rest (fake round numbers because it’s a thought experiment). Now, what’s the incentive for each individual landlord? If he’s smart/greedy, he’ll realize that he could rent out the rest of his units and get the 3X rent from them, too, because just his action doesn’t move the market that much. So why the fuck wouldn’t he do that?! And why wouldn’t every landlord, acting insolation, come to the same conclusion?
The only reason that wouldn’t happen would be if there were some sort of vast conspiracy between landlords to collude on the strategy, and if they were doing that they could just collude on the prices themselves and make even more profit!
The “they’re intentionally leaving units empty to make more profit because reasons” argument just flat-out doesn’t make sense. It’s magical thinking to find a scapegoat.
And oh by the way, even if it were somehow true, that means your actual problem is a cartel and the solution is antitrust law. Even if you were right, it’s still not a reason not to build more housing!!!
As long as the luxury flats get hoarded like gold ingots* there is no (significant) increase in supply.
* ingots with massive value increase because of they’re low supply.
So, what, you think they have infinite money to keep doing that indefinitely? That tactic only works in an environment of artificially restricted supply.
Correct. Compared to you and I they do.
Also correct. If you mass check ground titles in Germany you might be surprised how few players own most of the land. Even before you add holdings to the calculation. It’s amazingly obvious.
Get out of lemmy with your common sense.