Perhaps I have misunderstood - is this meant to be criticism of "strong" renter protections? 'Renters' are human beings, for whom housing is a basic need, not 'commerce' as it is for property developers. Protections should perhaps revised for greater effect or efficiency but always remain in place. If we want change then they should be implemented at the sources, not at the end-user level
No, it's not a criticism at all. It makes total sense to first build more housing where there's little or no displacement, and to delay redevelopment where you're going to be displacing a lot of renters.
Perhaps I have misunderstood - is this meant to be criticism of "strong" renter protections? 'Renters' are human beings, for whom housing is a basic need, not 'commerce' as it is for property developers. Protections should perhaps revised for greater effect or efficiency but always remain in place. If we want change then they should be implemented at the sources, not at the end-user level
No, it's not a criticism at all. It makes total sense to first build more housing where there's little or no displacement, and to delay redevelopment where you're going to be displacing a lot of renters.