Market rents do not lead to increased mobility or a greater range of apartments with low rent.
In a debate article In Göteborgs-Posten, the property owners still claim that rent regulation reduces mobility on the housing market.
Apart from that the fact that rent regulation was replaced by the use value system already in the 1970s only leads to one thing. Usury rents. It was also why politicians realized the importance of not letting rents skyrocket completely freely.
Incidentally, it was introduced already under the Alliance an increased opportunity to increase rents more in private tenancies than in public ones. In addition, legislation was passed on requirements for a profit interest in the public housing companies.
The property owners type:
"Rent regulation is usually defended by saying that it is needed to counteract segregation and to protect the tenants. But no such effects exist. Instead, it protects well-established insiders, i.e. those who already have a home.”
In the last the post at redjustice we wrote about the harmful effects of market rents. According to the management consulting company Ramböll, market rents will lead to drastically increased social economic costs:
"Abolition of today's rental system results in a societal economic cost of at least 2,1 billion per year or 10,1 billion over a five-year period."
According to a survey which Hem & Hyra carried out in 2014 is every fourth rental kroner profit. The equity ratio in the companies is "good to extremely good".
The property owners want higher profits. They claim that the housing companies otherwise do not want to build more:
"Better conditions are needed for building, owning and managing rental properties."
Our proposal is that the property owners are satisfied with their already very high profits. Otherwise, they risk the public's image of them going from goodwill to bad will.