[chii]

> increasing prices because they could, in spite of supply and demand.

you mean _because of_ supply and demand, rather than in spite of?

So to fix the problem isn't to regulate landlords (aka, attempting to legislate price controls), but to produce more supply.

[reactordev]

In some markets, there’s plenty of supply - for rent - that no one can afford. Half my building is empty. Yet they charge “luxury” prices for a very much “unluxury” place. I’m one of a small handful of owners that bought before the “management company” came in. They had no choice but to accept us into their system. I’ve seen rent go from $700/1bdr to $2100/1bdr in 4 years.

[richbell]

> So to fix the problem isn't to regulate landlords (aka, attempting to legislate price controls), but to produce more supply.

It's both. Producing more supply works best when it isn't being sabotaged by landlords intentionally keeping units vacant.

[chii]

> intentionally keeping units vacant.

they should be free to do so. They have a holding cost, which they're going to have to pay.

I mean, why don't wheat farmers intentionally hold sales of wheat to force the price higher?

[richbell]

So you don't think that landlords should be regulated because the solution is more supply, but also think that landlords should be allowed to intentionally restrict supply?

[mym1990]

Just off the top of my head: 1) there could be legal issues with it 2) the logistics of organizing such an operation at a scale that would impact price enough to offset the risk would be…extraordinary 3) wheat isn’t an inelastic good, people will find substitutes. There is a reason that when things become commodities, there is downward pressure on price…the thing that becomes a commodity just isn’t that novel anymore. The wheat farmers would essentially need to corner the market.

[callmeal]

>you mean _because of_ supply and demand, rather than in spite of?

GP means _in spite of_. It's the only way to explain the number of apartments kept vacant to artificially reduce supply.

See below for instance.

https://www.thecity.nyc/2024/02/14/rent-stabilized-apartment...

  The latest New York City Housing and Vacancy survey estimates that last year 26,310 rent-stabilized apartments were “vacant but unavailable for rent,” down from about 43,000 in the same survey two years ago.

[crooked-v]

26,000 out of 1,000,000 [1] is a vacancy rate of 2.6%, which is way below the expected vacancy rate of 6–8%.

[1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/20/nyregion/rent-stabilized-...

[rahimnathwani]

Why are you picking out 'rent-stabilized apartments'?

These are exactly the apartments where landlords have exactly zero ability to set price, let along to collude to fix prices.

[Findeton]

In my experience there are too many people that don't want to understand that.