[rizoma_dev]

If you own the building and live in one of the units the, in my opinion, most ethical course of action that still benefitted you would be to sell the remaining units to the current tenants or even better, if they've been living there long enough, treat their total rent paid as payment for the unit

[carom]

The lot is zoned for 14 units, has 4 currently. If we give the 2 other families that live here a few hundred thousand dollar entitlement it will never be developed.

Your proposal is insane. They've paid 600 dollars (rent control) a month for (let's say) 10 years. 60k buy in for a quarter of a 1.2m dollar property? I'd take that deal as a renter.

[rizoma_dev]

That's why I said if the tenant has been there for a sufficient time. If they have covered the unit's cost, plus maintenance, they have effectively paid for all the owner's expenses. Shouldn't it be enough to effectively own the property they actually live in?

[carom]

No, they took on zero risk to be in that position.

If my tenants lose their jobs they get six months free rent while I go through the eviction process. If I lose my job and can't get another I have to sell my property for a six figure loss.

I can make this property a single family home or I can make it available to other people as housing that they can't afford to buy outright. I don't understand the landlord hate. They can pool money, form an LLC, and buy a property if they want a tennant in commons situation. They can take on the risk and do the work.

[rizoma_dev]

There's no sense in arguing about it if you're a landlord, you have a monetary interest in the housing market staying this way and your relationship with your tenants is inherently adversarial

[carom]

I have an interest in relaxing zoning so I can build. You can't even listen to someone deeply involved in a system telling you how it is broken, or what the incentives you are suggesting will lead to.

* Rent control privatizes the cost of a social problem (poor housing policy)

* Restrictive zoning and other barriers to building are why housing is expensive, this includes historic preservation and permitting too

* Parking minimums are a scourge

If your entire policy is some nimby reach around for single family home owners, I'm not sure anything I say will help you. I literally want to use my money to build more housing. I would also love to unwind all the distortions that currently exist (rent control).

If TiC collectives were a good solution we would see them more in the market. Your solution is just to ruin a market to make it work the way you want, but honestly, people are broke and cannot afford to buy. That also creates so many weird externalities that you seem to be unwilling to discuss.

Goodluck creating a single family home parking lot filled hellscape. I'll be adding units to the market (reducing rents) while you are complaining in la la land.