Introduction
On September 27, Berlin residents voted 56% in favor of the expropriation of over 200,000 rental units in the city. This non-binding referendum, meant simply to demonstrate the will of the people, comes just ahead of Germany’s general election and has implications for tenant-landlord relations around the world. In this week’s installment of The Conversation, we will explore the relevance of such a radical response to gentrification, as America continues to experience its own heightened drama around pandemic-related evictions.
In the following sections, controversy around these issues will be explored by Peter White, Campus Liberal, and Jackson Hudgins, Campus Conservative. First, Peter will share his opinion, followed by Jackson’s, and a final synthesis from the two sides.
Campus Liberal, Peter White
In my view, this response to gentrification by the people of Berlin is an absolute victory for tenant rights, as well as for the concept of democracy. Activists have been demonstrating for well over a year now on this specific issue, as rent prices and real estate speculation continue to harm the 85% of Berlin’s renters. The referendum, which inspired this piece, called for the socialization of some assets of those landlords who own more than 3,000 units, and saw the support of over 25,000 residents at a demonstration last May. Of course, as mentioned in the introduction, this referendum has already passed, but it is important to understand just what those 56% of residents are in favor of. They have spoken, unequivocally, against an increasingly unfair cost of living, and, more specifically, those individuals who profit on that system.
Of course, there will be those who argue that such a policy would invade too closely on the concepts of the free market. How I see it, this is exactly the problem. Business and profit have no place infringing upon our basic human rights. The free market should not dictate who is able to have a roof above their head, or who has access to good food and drink. This potential policy is entangled in a debate of an unquestionably moral action (providing affordable housing), versus the ability of “super landlords” to continue to make an obscene amount of money. Further, if we can agree that politics is the manifestation of a nation’s moral code, the choice is incredibly obvious.
Those who will scream “Socialism!” may believe that it is not fair to take away income from people whose business has been legitimate, but I believe the example being set by Berliners shows that we ought to prioritize a community’s wellbeing over a few people’s profit. As students who are likely renting for our time here, it is important to see the success that tenants can have if they work together. It is important to remember that your human rights are more important than someone else’s bottom line.
Campus Conservative, Jackson Hudgins
While it may be true that this referendum is a big victory for tenant rights groups and others, the reality is that it only tells one side of the story, and ignores basic ideas about the economy. Ideas about the evil landlords and the evil rich people have unfairly tainted the conversation surrounding housing in urban areas; the truth is that this outcome was not destined to happen. Several policies and attitude changes over the years have produced the current urban housing crisis, and trying to fix the problem using the same solutions we have used for years will only make the problem worse rather than better. In particular, rent control and eviction regulations have distorted the price and demand of housing, and has incentivized expensive housing rather than affordable housing.
Rent control in particular has been a scourge on urban areas for years; forcing a price ceiling on certain housing types forces everybody in the property chain, from developers to subtenants, to lower the quality of their product or reduce supply in order to remain profitable. This has forced developers in particular to change the supply of housing, since affordable housing can only be made at a loss. Thus, luxury units have become the norm in growing cities like Austin, and have become a new development in formerly affordable areas in cities like New York. By removing rent control as a rule, landlords can properly fund their investment and developers can produce affordable housing to solve several housing crises in the world.
While some may say that this shouldn’t be a question of profit, the reality is that private, profit-based housing has been the most successful at providing a quality product; public housing has overwhelmingly been a failure in major urban areas for years, and has cost the government billions of dollars and lowered quality of life. Large housing developments, such as Pruitt-Igoe, have shown that government institutions do not have the necessary incentives and efficiency to create both quality and affordable housing. This has led to huge declines in quality of life around these developments, often leading to urban decay, economic stagnation, and rising crime. This is not the solution to housing we should seek.
Conclusion
Though there has been less consensus on this subject than some of our previous pieces, there is no debate that there is a housing crisis. Berlin’s action demonstrates one path of action that will potentially unfold in the near future, just as America faces its own eviction crises in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. As current students, we may be affected by tenants’ rights issues now, but there is also a high chance many of us will continue to be affected after school. This is one of those issues that has an impact on everyone, even if you don’t claim to be politically active. The issues surrounding housing affect all of us and our communities. Please let this small sample of views be your jumping-off point to finding a solution.
The Conversation is an Opinion column written by two students of opposing political
viewpoints, used to discuss current events from different perspectives.
Be First to Comment