[anamax]

I appreciate that you're honest about wanting to ban renting residences.

That said, I see renting as a good option for many people.

For example, I didn't have the money to buy after college so I rented.

Even if I could have bought, I probably wouldn't have because I was reasonably sure that I wanted to move in a year or two.

If there weren't rentals, what should I have done?

[totony]

>For example, I didn't have the money to buy after college so I rented.

I think that's the main issue. One of the reasons housing is so expensive is because it's an avenue for investment/infinite growth. Maybe if you didn't have to outbid people that think houses are invesment you could have bought a house/afforded a mortage.

Land scarcity/livable land is the thing that makes housing expensive. Allowing people to use that to make profit is unethical.

[Arainach]

Apartments are perfectly fine and should be encouraged, as they're dense and serve an important purpose.

That's not what's happening with AirBnB. That's turning the limiter supply of ownable property (condos and houses) into short term rentals for the owner's profit at the community's expense.

Also, I never said that outright banning is the proper option. Heavy taxation on strictly limited rental options (liter to a level where the community is still able to thrive) is also reasonable.

[stouset]

Yes, we understand that AirBNB is having negative effects on communities. Perhaps something should be done. But banning “investment properties” in a way that de facto bans rental units is not only a nonstarter but also a terrible idea in general.

[Arainach]

Why?

I'm not saying rich people can't have their second place on the lake or that companies aren't free to build apartment complexes. What benefit to society does allowing businesses and landlords to own portfolios of single family homes and rent them out offer?

[disgruntledphd2]

Who will rent houses to people who can't afford homes?

[matt74827289]

People can't afford homes because investors are buying them all at high price to turn around and rent them out.

[anamax]

And they either rent them at a high price or they lose money.

Like I wrote above, a friend of mine owns two houses. Under the proposed "no investment residences" rule, he can't, unless he leaves one of them vacant almost all of the year.

For some people, renting is the right thing. It's unclear how banning rental properties makes their life better.

[stouset]

Some people can't afford homes because investors are buying them. There is zero reason to believe that prohibiting investment properties would allow everyone to afford a home.

[anamax]

The only legal rentals under the proposed rule is as room mates.

[anamax]

As I pointed out, your "residences can't be investment properties" rule bans apartment houses.

If you intended to talk only about very short-term rentals, you should have made that clear a couple of messages ago.