>There is no real gain in productivity from allowing rental housing other than some scummy landlord who lives three states away getting a bit richer off of the dime of the actual residents in the city.
Aren't you completely ignoring the customers of AirBNB in this picture? Namely, the people who only visit the city for short periods of time?
Also, it is not very clear from your phrasing, do you mean that nobody should be allowed to rent at all? Like even with leases of 1 year or longer?
> Aren't you completely ignoring the customers of AirBNB in this picture? Namely, the people who only visit the city for short periods of time?
Why should they be considered over the people who actually live in the city and want to build neighborhoods and communities there? Besides, they are taken into account for city planning -- hotels are zoned the way they are and considered in development talks.
If you're a family with 3 kids and a dog, in a city for a 6-12 month job placement or temporarily until you find a house in an area closer to work/family, why shouldn't you be able to rent a house with a yard?
Or if I'm taking a job placement overseas for a year, why shouldn't I be able to rent it out while I'm away and provide an opportunity to a renter in my place?
Transactional costs where I live (stamp duty, agent selling fee, mortgage costs) historically meant that you rent less than five years or buy if staying longer than that. Might've changed since I read that info, but there's a point where the best action changes.
There are people who don't want to buy and don't want an apartment. There are places where there are virtually no apartments.
Housing affordability is absolutely an issue, but I don't think your suggestion is at all reasonable.
Aren't you completely ignoring the customers of AirBNB in this picture? Namely, the people who only visit the city for short periods of time?
Also, it is not very clear from your phrasing, do you mean that nobody should be allowed to rent at all? Like even with leases of 1 year or longer?