[socialismisok]

Honestly, if you are renting out a unit as a landlord, you should be required to keep the property in compliance with code.

[zizee]

Sounds good, but just don't be surprised if this results in more expensive rents, and less affordable housing being built.

[eyelidlessness]

That’s exactly what the article author expected to do, they said they wanted to make their rental properties more expensive. No one’s installing anything in a rental unit out of the goodness of their heart. They’re literally seeking rent. At least they should be expected to keep up their end of the bargain.

[smileysteve]

the "the house is burning down and firemen will die" discount,

along with

the "oops I dropped the hair dryer in the sink and died without ground faults" discount

Or the "the microwave blew a fuse that killed my work computer, so I lost my job" discount

the "the pilot light doesn't work well, so carbon monoxide" discount.

The "stairwell is only loose here" discount, "the deck is fine for 2 people to stand in that corner" discount

We should have higher standards for "investment" operations than 30 years out of safety standards

[Gigachad]

New built housing already has to comply with the latest codes. Having slightly higher rent is worth it for safety.

[zizee]

Perhaps. But this stuff does raise the minimum amount it takes to build, which in turn makes developers less likely to invest in building affordable housing.

[benj111]

Assuming 'code' is equivalent to UK building regs. This is very onerous.

Eg if the door lintel is made from wood. Does it pass certification to say it can take that weight. To find out if the lintel is even wood requires removing plaster.

What happens if you wanted to tighten the specs on concrete? Are you going to tear down every pre existing concrete building because they can't demonstrate it was made to the new specs.