Why is there a working assumption that people only rent because they can't afford to own? Because that's wrong.
That. Renting, fiscally, can make much more sense as property owners are generally required by law to service the property with upkeep, keep it livable, pay taxes, ect. I don't see renting / landlording as inheritly unethical, unless were going to say any economic transaction is.
This argument seems to be gaining steam because rents, and housing in general are currently high. But the same things are happening to healthcare, education, really anything that isn't a cheap consumer good.
Concentration of wealth, and regulatory capture are the reasons across the board. From Housing to Healthcare; supply is being controlled because of government policy to limit it to as feewindividuals as possible, thus driving up rents. (See the billionaire tax cuts)
Most major cities for example have very poor zoning, where even the most mundane housing expansions need to weave and wave through zoning variances, board sign offs, and community approval. Thus, only the well connected get their stuff built, costs to build skyrocket, and demand is never met.
Hell, down the street from me is a proposal to build 1500 new units of housing on prime land for a eat/work/play neighborhood, and at the neighborhood meeting a bunch of old coots just want more office space and parking spaces, next to a neighborhood thats been crushed with traffic problems since the recovery.
The people that would live there, will move in here instead. They're coming, but the long time residents equate condos with gentrification and have this absurd belief that less housing will save them.
Instead, old stock will be bought up, renovated, consolodated and flipped.
