To argue this question, in fact, is to answer: after the property is banned, who will do the property business?
First of all, the community is equivalent to a miniature city, and public affairs such as greening roads, cleaning and sewage, water, electricity, fire protection, and engineering maintenance must be done, especially now that the modern community is completely different from the previous unit housing reform.
Secondly, either the community does it itself, or it is managed by the first class, obviously, the latter is impossible, after all, it was canceled because of the first management, high cost, low efficiency, and bloated institutions.
It seems that the community can only do it by itself, so there are only two ways, one is to outsource to the property, and the other is to hire someone to do it themselves. If you do it yourself, the next step is to pay a lot of time and energy, to recruit project managers and hire people in other positions;It is necessary to deal with many outsourced project companies.
So, the trade-off comes, who is responsible for the opportunity cost of all this time and effort?
If it is a community with more leisure people, such as a community with more elderly retirees, or a resettlement housing community, some people may be willing to bear this opportunity cost;In addition, some old communities can also manage their own properties without complex equipment and facilities, and the opportunity cost is not large.
But if it is a relatively high-end real estate and is busy making money and starting a business, they would rather pay money to pay for the opportunity cost than manage the property themselves;In other words, communities with a large number of young people and long commutes do not have the energy and willingness to pay these opportunity costsIn addition, those poorly managed communities, such as the inability to hold owners' meetings and the low quality of the owners' committees, may be more costly than hiring a property management company even if they are willing to do it themselves.
Therefore, different communities have different needs, and we can't use a one-size-fits-all model to look at this problem, the existence of the property is because there is such a demand, although there will be no nanny hired at home, but there will be domestic employment.
However, the market is a game, and if the property company service is poor, the opportunity cost is relatively small, and more communities will ban the property;The market is still developing dynamically, if there are many high-quality first-class businesses in the market, such as talent services, engineering construction, facility maintenance, etc., then more and more communities will manage their own properties, because it is fairer and more convenient to purchase from the market.
It can be seen that whether to ban property is essentially a market behavior, and it is necessary to respect the invisible hand of the market, and various grassroots departments should not force the community to adopt property or not out of their own needs, although the property usually habitually does a lot of things for the community or the street.
Give back the power of this choice to the community itself, trust the owners, and believe in the market.