Progressives can easily find themselves facing a conflict of values. On the one hand, they support efforts to build affordable housing for low-income families. On the other hand, they don’t want that housing near their own home. It’s a classic example of NIMBYism (Not in My Back Yard). This conflict results from altruism. Altruism holds that we must place the interests of others before our own interests. This creed cannot be practiced consistently. To do so would require one to forsake all personal values in self-sacrificial service to others. When the interests of others conflict with one’s own interests, the Progressive faces the choice of practicing the moral code he accepts or doing what he believes is best for himself.
In late June, the New York City Rent Guidelines Board (the agency that oversees rent control in the city) voted to allow landlords to increase rents. For one-year leases, rent cannot be increased for six months, but can go up 1.5 percent for the final six months. Tenants groups weren’t happy with the decision, for they had been advocating a reduction in rents. With property taxes, insurance, and maintenance costs soaring, this modest increase will do little to help struggling property owners.
Earlier this year both Cincinnati and Atlanta passed “renter’s choice” legislation. North Carolina, along with numerous other cities, is considering a similar law. The details vary, but “renter’s choice” laws require landlords to accept rental security insurance instead of a security deposit. And if the tenant opts to pay a security deposit, both Cincinnati and Atlanta require that property owners offer an installment plan for paying the deposit. Advocates of “renter’s choice ” claim that it “is a shining example of a win-win solution that benefits renters and property owners alike.” If rental security insurance is really in the best interest of a landlord, he will voluntarily accept it. But the fact that legislators think it necessary to force property owners to give renters other options is an implicit admission that “renter’s choice” legislation really isn’t in the property owner’s best interest.