Satire is indistinguishable from stupidity

Yes landlords will just take their houses overseas.

Even if you just talk about building new homes, freezing rent just caps the profits that can be pulled out of a project. If it's profitable right now, why shouldn't it be with same income tomorrow?

Yes landlords will just take their houses overseas.
You think landlords are going to move overseas so they can landlord somewhere else?
Honestly, if there actually are people like that, then good riddance. They sound like slum lords. Parasites.
Because costs only go up, that's why. It may not be profitable tomorrow at all.
- Then sell your property.
  
  to whom? unless the rent can change (which it realistically shouldn't if the law is written well) it still won't be profitable
  
  People make bad investments all the time.
  
  and they have every right to complain about the government making a half decent one into a horrible one
  
  And normal people have a right to not care about people leeching off of actual workers.
  And if you're talking about homeowners, I still don't care. You don't deserve imaginary free money for owning land. Its for living in, not an investment.
  Go buy some stocks and stop being selfish.
- Then lift the freeze once there's no profit left anymore, or just keep the freeze for existing buildings. Limit the rent increase etc.
  
  The issue here is, and this has happened before, investors will either sell the property, meaning those not in a position to buy are screwed, or they will do the bare minimum to keep the building functioning, as there is no incentive to improve the building.
  
  investors will either sell the property
  Good. Investors rather than inhabitants owning homes is a huge part of why rent and property prices have skyrocketed.
  they will do the bare minimum to keep the building functioning
  They already do that in order to maximize profits.
  there is no incentive to improve the building.
  Ever heard of this new thing called laws and regulations? It's the only "incentive" that actually DOES work to correct the behavior of greedy slumlords.
  Letting them keep increasing the already obscenely high rents just means more profits for them in return for no benefit for anyone else.
  
  Sell to whom?
  
  Owner-occupiers typically.
  
  That sounds like it's solving the problem, then.
  
  If you can afford to buy a property, sure.
  
  How would somebody buy it if nobody could afford it?
  
  The banks, of course. They'll buy anything.
  
  And what do they do with that investment?
  
  Sell to Aquaman.
  
  Oh, that's very simple. Warehousing! They need storage space for their gold, and their typical warehouses aren't big enough to hold it all.
  
  Problem easily solved. Is a building not being utilized? Seize it and pay the owner fair market value, then have the city administrate it and charge just enough rent to cover expenses of maintenance and improvement and administration.
  
  So why not skip the rent control and go straight to this?
  
  To give the current owners the chance to do the right thing, and make a small but reasonable gain from their property.
  And to make it more palatable to the general public. It's a lot easier to convince people to go along with it if you're seizing empty unused properties that are only empty and unused because the owner refuses to rent them if they're not making excessive profit.
  
  Fair market value is much, much lower 9n rent controlled property
  
  Yeah, a government deliberately lowering property values so they can buy them cheap isn't a great precedent.
  
  Won't somebody think of Blackrock?
  
  It's not great, It's fantastic. Let the scumbags who own property they don't use lose money!
  
  thale same strategy will be used to build more freeways through low income neighborhoods
  
  They already only do the bare minimum. You practically have to take your landlord to court to get any meaningful fixes in your apartment. All new developments are built like shit, developers cut corners anywhere they can. After the building is built the developer "vanishes" so there isn't anyone to sue when there is something seriously wrong with the building. They just open a new throw away LLC later and put up another shit building. You must not live in NYC
- Cost of what?

Lol keep going, keep going! What happens when there are fewer landlords?

You either buy an apartment, or live somewhere else.
- Demand shrinks, dont forget to mention that. What happens when demand shrinks?
  
  How is demand going to shrink?
  
  If rent is frozen and it becomes unprofitable those units won't stay empty. You'd need more than just a rent freeze but housing could become affordable again if it wasn't treated like an investment or profit venture. Get all the corporations to hate it and prices will fly down.
  
  As I said elsewhere, they will be sold to owner occupiers most likely.
  Which is a massive problem for those not in a position to buy.
  
  Lol yeah, no. The prices would come down rather than be held indefinitely with no hope of occupants. I admit this will effect the people with 2 properties before the massive corporations. But its better than just allowing this irrational market.
  
  the large real estate corps can just sit on the houses for a long time. 1-2 properties owners are even well off,
  
  Not even, regulations are written in blood and theres plenty of ink for this one. That is, of course, if the government is willing to do their jobs and regulate corporations out of home ownership. They dont belong in it.
  
  Probably by people buying apartments or moving away
- Or just do what Finland did successfully, and build some actually good public housing.
  Housing is a basic human right. Perhaps the most basic. And it should afforded to everyone living in a modern society. Inserting a profit motive into that just makes everything unimaginably worse.

Less people wanting to provide the "service" of rent seeking? Could you elaborate on why that wouldnt be a good idea?

Because you're kinda boned if you're not in a position to just buy a property, that's why.
- Seems like that would lead to a lot more affordable houses becoming available to people who couldnt previously own them.
  Youd end up getting more landlords anyway because the barrier of entry would be lowered for that as well.
  All rent freeze does is caps profits for existing landlords, and they make enough profit as it is.
  
  How would the barrier of entry be lowered? Are you suggesting new investors are going to buy properties they can't turn a profit on?
  Why do you think it would work like that?
  
  Why wouldn't they be able to make a profit? The demand for housing wouldnt be any lower, they just can't increase rent above what it was.
  The barrier of entry would be lowered by greedier land lords deciding to sell rather than not being able to raise rent, so people who are slightly less greedy and willing to make only maybe a 300% profit instead of a 1000% profit would take over. Corporate landlords get flushed out to make room for smaller mom & pop owners.
  
  If the existing investors have to sell at a loss because there's no profit to be made, someone gets to buy them for cheaper, making it profitable again.
  
  They're not going to sell for less than what they can make off the property though, are they?
  
  Then they'll continue renting these properties at the new rates? Works too.
  
  Until those properties slowly disappear from the rental market as they're bought by owner occupiers.
  Which is a problem if you can't afford to buy a property.
  
  So the entire city will only be owner-occupiers? Sounds like almost everyone living in the city has their problems solved. The city can build more rent-controlled units.
- I'd say that depends on the degree of boned. Maximum boned means you're free to take a property by force.

good, less landlords. Not only would freezing rent show us which people suck, but it will force the people who suck to sell their extra properties, since if they won't use them then the property is just losing them money.

And what, leave the apartments empty? Have them earn zero money, rather than some money?

public ownership with rents based on the costs of maintaining the properties properly
- That is actually a far better idea than rent control, yes.
As per my other replies, typically sell the property to an owner-occupier, which is a big problem if you can't afford to buy a property.
- A run of market sales would drive down the price.
  And if you can't afford to rent, then got being able to buy is not a significant difference.

My city already tried this and kinda failed(5% raise limit). It only pumped up the price in the end.

It only pumped up the price in the end.
How?
- because if you can't increase rent with inflation you need to start it higher to begin with.

it will actually make them charge more, or find ways of making you stay temporary. they said rent freeze is coming, they can demand payment upfront