I get where it’s coming from. I know a guy who’s been subleasing a rent-controlled studio in Nob Hill for years. It’s not a money grab, I think he’s just passing through his own cost. He’s just holding onto it as a backup.
I know a guy who calls himself an "environmental consultant" subleasing three rooms in his rent-controlled four room Nob Hill apartment. Cycled through a second subtenant in one of the rooms while I was there and raised the rent $400.
Maybe I'm misreading your tone, but you seem to find this distasteful. If this guy was stopped from doing this, and the landlord evicted him, the landlord would just capture that value. The distinction I don't understand is, why is it might be acceptable for the landlord to try to want market rate for the apartment, but not acceptable for the tenant to want market rate for a room when a new subtenant starts?
Perhaps in general, you'd like people to support themselves with work, rather than rent-seeking. I agree. But surely that view should produce at least as strong a criticism of the landlord as of the tenant?
We find it acceptable for people to benefit from their property by default. Economists would also add that having the owner benefit encourages investment in the property.
> why is it might be acceptable for the landlord to try to want market rate for the apartment, but not acceptable for the tenant to want market rate for a room when a new subtenant starts?
Huh?
kaycebasques does not give any opinion on the landlord either way. Unless their comment was substantially edited, you're making a lot of assumptions about kaycebasques' views.
I feel the same way about most of rent-seeking society. The lack of affordable housing and the friction involved with buying and selling housing raises the costs dramatically and promotes both an in-efficient market and a disparity of class between the have (owns housing already) and have nots (rents).
