Hacker News
points by SoftTalker 16 hours ago | 0 comments
The "mom and pop" landlord who owns a few houses is much less likely to keep a property vacant to support higher rents. They have taxes, insurance, and probably debt to pay off. They need cash flow; they'll be more likely to cut their rent a bit to get a tenant.
[–] epistasis 6 hours ago
Show me the math where a large landlord can make money by keeping apartments intentionally vacant. Corporate landlords have no less need for cash flow than mom and pop landlords.

The cost of holding apartments intentionally vacant is large, and has a very tiny effect on pricing unless there's a single player with more market share than exists anywhere I have seen in the US.

In a different arena, parking, it's widely accepted that the best possible way to establish adequate parking is to set prices high enough that there's always a spot available. Anything less results in people not being able to park. Setting apartment prices similarly is beneficial to the public, in that there's always a place to move into.

We need apartment vacancies, they are beneficial to renters, because people need to find housing at all times. Ideally we have a surplus of apartments so that not only do renters have choices but so that prices fall to the cost of providing housing.

Hacker News