A BETTER RENT CONTROL -- THROUGH VOUCHERS
by Thomas M. Sipos, managing editor.
[January 31, 2007]
[HollywoodInvestigator.com] Landlords and tenants
may both benefit by replacing rent control with "rent vouchers."
Tenant advocates argue that
because housing is a need, landlords should be forced to provide housing
at an "affordable price." But food is a greater need, yet society
doesn't force grocers or restaurants to subsidize the poor with "food price
control." Instead we have food stamps that the poor may apply to
their food purchases.
We should likewise abolish rent control and
give vouchers to the needy, which they could then apply to their rents. Landlords, needy tenants, and prospective tenants would all benefit, and
the system would be both fairer and freer. |
Buy Regulatory
Takings at Amazon.com!
|
* Mobility
for tenants. Under rent control many tenants are stuck in
apartments they'd like to leave, if only they could find a comparably priced
apartment elsewhere. But rent vouchers (like school vouchers) would
be portable. Tenants could apply them to the building of their choice,
just a food stamps can be spent in any grocery store.
* More
affordable housing. New and prospective tenants are hurt by
rent control. Current tenants in rent controlled apartments
won't vacate. Developers are less likely to build affordable
housing; they prefer to invest in condos and luxury apartments, wary
of building units that might later be "confiscated" in a hostile political
climate. Abolishing rent control would free up old units for new
tenants, and rent vouchers would help them afford it. It would also
encourage developers to build new moderately priced units, and landlords
to maintain their current buildings.
* Less
fraud. Tenants cling to rent controlled units they no longer
use as a primary residence, often illegally subletting them. Landlords
bear the unfair burden of hiring private investigators to prove such
fraud. Innocent tenants see this as harassment. Housing vouchers
would eliminate the incentive for tenant fraud and landlord harassment,
which means...
* Less
court congestion. Courts won't have to hear so much landlord/tenant
litigation. That means quicker court dates for other cases.
* Fair
to landlords. Grocers aren't expected to bear the sole burden
of feeding the poor. Rather than legislating food prices, everyone
pays taxes for food stamps. Likewise, it's only fair that society
share the burden of housing its poor through rent vouchers, rather than
punishing landlords for supplying a need.
* Targets
needy tenants. Rent control is a moral farce partially because
there's no means testing. Some tenants are wealthier than their landlords;
in such cases the poor are subsidizing the rich. A rare instance? Maybe, maybe not. In any event, rent vouchers (like food stamps)
can be means tested, so that only needy tenants receive them.
Although
rent vouchers surpass rent control in promoting economic efficiency, freedom
of movement, and justice, there will be opponents. Many people benefit
from the inefficiencies and injustices of rent control. Lawyers and
private investigators profit from the litigation. Politicians (notably,
Santa Monicans for Renters Rights) benefit from landlord/tenant conflict. There are no political battles between grocers and eaters; both are satisfied
with food stamps. Where's the political opportunity in that?
Wealthy
tenants are another hurdle. Why surrender rent control if you won't
qualify for vouchers? And while prospective tenants would benefit
from rent vouchers, prospective tenants are harder to organize politically
than current tenants. Taxpayers will also balk. Why share the
burden of housing the poor, when you can shift the entire burden to landlords? (Feel good about your "progressive" vote for rent control -- without having
to pay for it!)
Opponents
will also argue (many, ingeniously) that vouchers are an attempt to eliminate
affordable housing; that first we replace rent control with vouchers, then
we eliminate vouchers. Not so. Rent control exists because
tenants outnumber landlords in the voting booth. That won't change. There's no reason to imagine that rent vouchers will be endangered any
more than food stamps.
Needy
tenants will gain mobility through vouchers, prospective tenants will
see an increase in affordable apartments being built, current buildings
will be better maintained, and landlords will be treated more fairly. That last one alone will infuriate class warriors, some of whom would rather
punish needy and prospective tenants than have any benefit accrue
to landlords (despite the irony that some landlords are poorer than
their tenants).
Even so,
rent vouchers make greater economic sense than rent control. And
they promote greater fairness and freedom.
Copyright © 2007 by HollywoodInvestigator.com.
|