This is very interesting. Someone is finally recognizing, in the court case below, the actual economic implication of the "rent" created by rent control!
If I am a long-time resident, my lease is extremely valuable in a rent-controlled city. That's why people sub-let, instead of moving out.
But then that means that the lease is an asset. In a bankruptcy proceeding, that asset can be sold off? Or...can it? To admit this would be to admit that the actual value of the apartment is far more than the rent-controlled lease allows. Can the city face up to its hypocrisy?
If I am a long-time resident, my lease is extremely valuable in a rent-controlled city. That's why people sub-let, instead of moving out.
But then that means that the lease is an asset. In a bankruptcy proceeding, that asset can be sold off? Or...can it? To admit this would be to admit that the actual value of the apartment is far more than the rent-controlled lease allows. Can the city face up to its hypocrisy?
No comments:
Post a Comment
Do you have suggestions on where we could find more examples of this phenomenon?