No one has a "right" to rent control. If you can't afford to pay the rent, then live somewhere else. I can't afford to eat lobster. I don't go into a restaurant and demand price control on lobster. I choose a lower priced item.
This country has such an entitlement mentality.
You are only entitled to Life, Liberty, and the PURSUIT of Happiness. Notice that it doesn't say the ACQUISITION of happiness. Only the PURSUIT of it.
No one is calling for the poor to be put on the streets. But we also don't have the right to demand of a single person (a Landlord) to subsidise what other people want.
If New York voters want artificially low rent, then let the voters pay a tax and send that tax to the Landlord to make up the difference between what he would get in rent on the open market and what he currently gets under rent control laws.
That would be fair.
Ah, but we're not talking fair. We're talking about voters who want to do "good" for the poor, but want SOMEONE ELSE to make the sacrifice.
No one has a "right" to rent control. If you can't afford to pay the rent, then live somewhere else. I can't afford to eat lobster. I don't go into a restaurant and demand price control on lobster. I choose a lower priced item.
This country has such an entitlement mentality.
You are only entitled to Life, Liberty, and the PURSUIT of Happiness. Notice that it doesn't say the ACQUISITION of happiness. Only the PURSUIT of it.
No one is calling for the poor to be put on the streets. But we also don't have the right to demand of a single person (a Landlord) to subsidise what other people want.
If New York voters want artificially low rent, then let the voters pay a tax and send that tax to the Landlord to make up the difference between what he would get in rent on the open market and what he currently gets under rent control laws.
That would be fair.
Ah, but we're not talking fair. We're talking about voters who want to do "good" for the poor, but want SOMEONE ELSE to make the sacrifice.
There's an awful lot of that going around lately.