[tremon]

Rental income should not be the primary reason for housing to be built in the first place, so I don't buy that argument. The primary reason to build housing should be demand for home ownership. The volume of housing that ends up on the rental market should only be a small fraction of the total volume.

Instead of rent control, I propose a forced buy-out model: if the current tenant can manage to buy the home they're currently living in, the landlord is not allowed to refuse the sale. And banks are not allowed to deny such a mortgage if the monthly installments amount to less than the current rent.

[bpt3]

Again, you are just discouraging people from building more homes. People like to create financial Rube Goldberg machines to address high housing prices, but the solution is simple: Add supply.

Now adding more supply is not trivial in many cases, but at least people can work on the correct problem to solve once it's identified.

[archagon]

Idealistic solutions will not gain traction when they fail to address the pain that people are feeling today.

[bpt3]

Then people who are unable or unwilling to have foresight will continue to suffer the consequences.

[archagon]

Existing residents will be fine. Newcomers may have problems. Ultimately, not a terribly unjust situation.

[senordevnyc]

Tell that to your kids.

[dzhiurgis]

> should only be a small fraction of the total volume

Which is? Lot's of people are happy to rent, want to rent, will never want to own a home, want mobility, etc. I rented for nearly 20 years and only past few years went into situation where I want to buy a house. Should I be denied renting?

There's obviously premium to be paid while renting too. There should never be a situation where rent is cheaper than mortgage.