Is rent control really a form of social control and/or exclusion?

Either as a way for the politicians to have a captive voting block and/or to exclude certain people out of a certain area. Since the politicians know the developers won't build more places for others to live. Not unlike the way gerrymandering works.











new york city,boston,San Francisco,the usual suspectsIs rent control really a form of social control and/or exclusion?
Sure, that's how they keep areas ';Safe'; they raise the rates and renovate all the buildings. Then open a low-income projects three miles away.Is rent control really a form of social control and/or exclusion?
It's just their way of keeping the nice areas nice and ghetto's, ghettos.





People who have enough ambition can move into those areas, they just need to give up their OE, porches and pit bulls for a nice life in the suburbs...





The government isn't excluding anyone, it's the people who chose to live in the less nice parts that are excluding their selves. It's easier to do what's comfortable than break out of that zone and better yourself. Not saying you are better if you live in the nice parts, but for the sake of this question it's what you are basically asking.



very good question. another suspect, Chicago.





in a 1985 Supreme Court decision against political gerrymandering, the over-zealous affirmative action supporters had managed to entrench a tradition of racial gerrymandering which allowed electoral districts to be redrawn into bizarre shapes in order to create districts with a majority of minorities. The theory was that this process gave underrepresented minorities a chance to ';elect their own'; to office.





as long as politicians have their way, it can be expected that no significant legislative remedy to this racist practice will be forthcoming.





http://www.adversity.net/special/gerryma鈥?/a>



Yes it is. But is really necessary in those cities. Otherwise where would the hobo's live?