🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <DvJox2.Aoq.0.sheppard@torfree.net>,
Bob Levitt <bw201@torfree.net> wrote:
>This will also have secondary effects such as:
>Those who want to move to be a reasonable distance to a job or a new job may
>no longer find it economically feasable since the new landlord will be able
>to charge them whatever they want (and with only a 0.8% vacancy rate, the
>landlords are in control of the market,)

Hmmm.  Rent control is a tough one.  Price ceilings are generally a 
problem.  They are aimed to support a certain group but end up 
supporting all of us.  The 0.8% vacancy rate that 
you mention is largely due to rent control.  However, when controls are 
lifted, vacancies will probably not increase in the short term.  Long term: 
vacancies should rise significantly.   Rents will rise considerably in the 
short term but then fall a bit (although obviously not to the point where 
they were before, all else equal.)
As for landlords being able to charge whatever they want - seems unlikely.  
Increased supply of rental accommodation over the long-term should see to 
that.  Short term - you may be right.
The poor will get screwed unless there's some income support mechanism 
geared toward rental housing.  Seems unlikely, don't you think?
 
> and a person in a bad (even violent and potentially fatal,) relationship 
>may find they can not afford to move.
Good point.  I'm sure the government will largely dismiss the issue.

To sum up:  short term - bad, in some cases desperate, situation for 
tenants.  
	    long term - who knows?  Under a more enlightened government it 
may be worthwhile.