wat0n wrote:Please provide evidence that the homes built by private developers are in a worse state than the NYCHA ones.
I am not going to do all the work for you.
If you want to argue that the NYC example is actually bad, provide evidence. Then show it is typical of rent control systems or social housing, whichever your argument is.
Your incentives argument can easily be turned against by the counterarguments I provided. From governance issues, to the incentives politicians face.
No. I replied to every counterargument you had and explained that they are all based in your lack of knowledge concerning building construction and maintenance.
I showed they caused issues in SF. As the paper says, they benefited those living in the rent-controlled properties in the first few years while harming people who are not living in those properties and who are now finding themselves with trouble finding affordable housing.
As the NYT article I linked above suggests, rent control is far from the only problem. There are also zoning regulations, including the fact that it's easy for incumbent residents to veto new development under NIMBY arguments, and that there are all sorts of fees involved in the process that make the whole thing more expensive. It's a very dysfunctional system all in all.
What do you mean by “they” here?
And again, I quote the actual text that shows that the positives were actually observed and verified, while the drawbacks were only “likely” if we assume certain things.
This is why I actually read, copied and pasted the article. You, on the other hand, provided a link and an article that dishonesty portrayed the findings of said study.
Still waiting for evidence.