[fsckboy]

> but especially for less mobile or [less] financially-secure tenants

the burden of taking care of people who are less able to take care of themselves is not a burden that the government should place on certain individual people or individual companies, so rest of us can go on about our days happy that we don't have to think about it any more. If you want us to redistribute money to people so they don't need to move, the bite should equally come out of your and my income and bank accounts, not just landlords'. If you think that the govt should buy all this property so it can do a great job of being a landlord and tenants will be happier that way, get those laws passed. Till then, the fallback is not to simply punish rental property owners. (disclosure, I own property but I don't rent it out because I don't want the hassle, the money is not worth it)

[Avshalom]

>punish rental property owners

Y'all see this rhetorical jump right? arciini made no mention of any action against landlords but to get out ahead of any possibility even as small as social-pressure against raising rents fsckboy has both escalated the framing language to "punishing" them and also shifted the frame from the plight of renters to the plight of rentiers.

[rootusrootus]

It's not that big a rhetorical jump, though, is it? There's already a lot of anti-landlord rhetoric in this discussion, and historically it heads that way every time.

[anonymouskimmer]

It's not about punishing, it's about constraining power, and aligning power with particular responsibilities. Is allocating certain powers to certain branches of government "punishing" the other branches? Is requiring certain duties from certain industries "punishing" those industries? I guess we're punishing Norfolk Southern by requiring them to pay for the cleanup in East Palestine, OH.

"If you want us to redistribute money to people in East Palestine so they don't need to move, the bite should equally come out of your and my income and bank accounts, not just Norfolk Southern's."

[anonymouskimmer]

> If you want us to redistribute money to people so they don't need to move, the bite should equally come out of your and my income and bank accounts, not just landlords'.

So you're saying everyone should pay for an externality of a particular industry? Socialize the costs?

[giraffe_lady]

This conclusion hinges on viewing landlord as a range of human identity, like mother or craftsman. Landlords aren't a type of people, it's an activity, an economic relationship.

Deciding that the correct place for that burden is on landlords is a valid and consistent view. That this is part of the risk and responsibility incurred by the action of landlording. No one is forced to be a landlord and so in this view if you don't like that responsibility you simply don't landlord.

It's not "punishment" to reevaluate where we let burdens fall, and require that some roles now carry burdens that they were once free of. And if it is, shit, we punish lots of people for all kinds of things, why are landlords exempt.

[ROTMetro]

Car companies shouldn't be required to add safety features. If the market wants it car companies will add them. Seatbelts should be an add on expense like they were in the 1960s. Get the government out of the business of looking after citizens!

[anonymouskimmer]

I think you're getting downvoted because the analogy doesn't quite parallel, as car purchasers are indeed paying for those seatbelts in the car price.

A better car analogy would be the mandate of safety features such as back-up cameras that the purchaser pays for, but ultimately benefit others.