zlacker

[return to "Berlin Is Banning Most Vacation Apartment Rentals"]
1. jvm+ih[view] [source] 2016-05-01 22:21:50
>>halduj+(OP)
The dynamic is a little different than in most other cities. What's really happening here is that cheap rent is a kind of entitlement in Berlin: rent controls extend across tenants so getting an apartment is really about persuading a landlord to take you rather than bidding at an appropriate price point. AirBnB gets around this by allowing rentals at arbitrary price points. This is true whether it's an owner or a renter doing the leasing, which is very different from other markets in which it's mostly a concern of renters abusing their leases.

> "The Berlin Senate’s ruling nonetheless reflects a general feeling across a city in which homes are getting harder to find: Berliners have had enough and they want their city back."

Translation: There is no pricing mechanism on rents in the city and it is becoming increasingly impossible to find an apartment.

While it's certainly true that AirBnB essentially allows landlords to flout the law, it's worth noting that the adverse effects of price ceilings on supply are the root cause of Berlin's problems and this will not solve the underlying problem of rents being far from equilibrium.

◧◩
2. doener+fl[view] [source] 2016-05-01 23:43:29
>>jvm+ih
A free market price would not fix anything - every tiny bit of flatland is already used. What you are saying is basically: Only rich people should have the right to live in central districts. I disagree and so do most Berliners.
◧◩◪
3. d_t_w+Jl[view] [source] 2016-05-01 23:51:00
>>doener+fl
What mechanism do you use to choose who can live in a central district, if not the ability to pay market rent?

Right to live where you are born? That adversely affects anyone not born in a central district.

◧◩◪◨
4. alkona+BK[view] [source] 2016-05-02 08:22:57
>>d_t_w+Jl
A queue is the usual solution. That makes it pretty much "right to live where you were born" since that is when you add yourself to the back of the queue.

It's not a very efficient solution (no one can move to the city for a job since you need somewhere to live within months then - not decades). It also needs very draconian rules to avoid a large black market in contracts.

There are no good solutions to this problem. If you are a socialist you argue that the lesser evil is inefficient queueing and if you are an economic liberal you argue that allocating via market prices is better and gentrification/segregation is the lesser evil.

[go to top]