> . Critically, the eviction ban over the past 18 months has absolutely killed many small time landlords. Any prospective small-time landlord would certainly think twice about getting into the business now, and many existing small-time landlords are doing everything they can get out. It doesn't help that landlords are basically demonized by a large section of the political class.
The end result does not have to be what you mention. We can enact policy to ensure that housing is available to the masses. I don't personally spill many tears over the landlords who lost money. For years, every time people have asked "why can the landlords extract rent", they respond with "the landlords take on the risk". Okay. So this is the risk coming back around. There was never a guarantee that landlords would always make money, nor should there have been.
It's not about "spilling tears" for anyone, it's about creating the right economic incentives to ensure there is plentiful housing supply, and having an eviction ban for 18 months absolutely kills that incentive.
And when it come to "the landlords take on the risk", well, in the past, this was always true. There's the risk of bad tenants, the risk of unplanned environmental damage (just ask anyone in Texas who had to go through major floods or ice storms with no power), etc. But the extended eviction ban basically was changing the rules in the middle of the game, to what amounted to government appropriation of property without just compensation, and that is exactly the type of risk any decent functioning government is supposed to prevent.
You're right, a sudden eviction ban is a gross market intervention that helped tenants and harmed landlords, and on the net caused market failure. My only point is that the status quo of privatized claims to unearned land value increments is a gross market failure in the other direction.
This is true for the majority of asset classes now. Stocks can't go down, the Fed will press buttons. Housing can't go down, the Fed will press buttons. The dollar can't go up, etc...
Yes, the government is so terrified of investors actually being affected by the risk they are supposed to be taking on that they are interfering massively in the process.
This is in no small part due to the fact that social safety nets are weak and collapsing prices mean terrible outcomes for retirees.
But it also, to me, demonstrates the unethical state of investment and wealth in this country, where the rich get richer without providing any risk-bearing service to the rest of the country.
The end result does not have to be what you mention. We can enact policy to ensure that housing is available to the masses. I don't personally spill many tears over the landlords who lost money. For years, every time people have asked "why can the landlords extract rent", they respond with "the landlords take on the risk". Okay. So this is the risk coming back around. There was never a guarantee that landlords would always make money, nor should there have been.