Urban activists set out to sue San Francisco’s suburbs • Hacker News Board

Re: Urban activists set out to sue San Francisco’s suburbs

#101

Post by refurb » Mon, Oct 12, 2015, 3:52 AM UTC

sampo wrote: post #96

refurb wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SF-style widepsread rent control seems like part of the problem to me You raise a good question. What would rent in SF look like without rent control? Thinking through the process, I imagine something like: 1. Rent for everyone would have gone up over time 2. Renters would have been slowly forced out as rent increases exceeded their incomes 3. However, it's likely that there would have been a lot more units opening u…

> I'm certainly not saying that a "no rent control" situation would be ideal Quoting Paul Krugman from 15 years ago: "The analysis of rent control is among the best-understood issues in all of economics, and -- among economists, anyway -- one of the least controversial. In 1992 a poll of the American Economic Association found 93 percent of its members agreeing that ''a ceiling on rents reduces the quality and quanti…

I'm well aware of the current position of economists on rent control.

That said, if there was no rent control in SF, then slowly, over time, all low income folks would be forced to leave the city. That is likely an undesirable outcome for SF voters.

Re: Urban activists set out to sue San Francisco’s suburbs

#102

Post by rubyfan » Mon, Oct 12, 2015, 3:59 AM UTC

CapitalistCartr wrote: post #65

pbreit wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If someone didn't build your house, you'd go find another house! How is that sobering?

You're missing the point. If you "found another house", you would displace someone else. Restricting housing below demand is playing musical chairs with homes.

Why is musical chairs with a finite resource a problem? We do this with most finite things right, oil, gas, water, food, etc? The supply is usually slightly less than needed, pegging prices such that it's available (not free) at a profitable rate. The problem here seems like people feel entitled toward something they cannot afford and will sue in light of their inability to pay.

Re: Urban activists set out to sue San Francisco’s suburbs

#103

Post by akgerber » Mon, Oct 12, 2015, 4:01 AM UTC

sampo wrote: post #96

refurb wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SF-style widepsread rent control seems like part of the problem to me You raise a good question. What would rent in SF look like without rent control? Thinking through the process, I imagine something like: 1. Rent for everyone would have gone up over time 2. Renters would have been slowly forced out as rent increases exceeded their incomes 3. However, it's likely that there would have been a lot more units opening u…

> I'm certainly not saying that a "no rent control" situation would be ideal Quoting Paul Krugman from 15 years ago: "The analysis of rent control is among the best-understood issues in all of economics, and -- among economists, anyway -- one of the least controversial. In 1992 a poll of the American Economic Association found 93 percent of its members agreeing that ''a ceiling on rents reduces the quality and quanti…

The confounding factor here is that many voters don't want to increase the quantity of housing, especially not near them.

Re: Urban activists set out to sue San Francisco’s suburbs

#104

Post by akgerber » Mon, Oct 12, 2015, 4:04 AM UTC

cbd1984 wrote: post #23

fche wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Am lucky to have rent control." You are (party to) using the state to withhold justly earned economic value from your landlord.

> You are (party to) using the state to withhold justly earned economic value from your landlord. The state is what allows a landlord to be a landlord in the first place, by making a society stable enough that property ownership is a matter of laws and contracts as opposed to guns and groups with guns.

Beyond that, the state is who sends a sheriff to evict someone from a house when they don't pay rent to a landlord.

Re: Urban activists set out to sue San Francisco’s suburbs

#105

Post by mikeash » Mon, Oct 12, 2015, 4:07 AM UTC

megablast wrote: post #77

ChuckMcM wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was coming to say the same thing. I think this is a good question to ask of the folks who object to building homes, "What if the people who lived in this town before you moved here had blocked the building of the home you are living in?" You wouldn't have had that wonderful experience you are trying to preserve because you would never have lived here." It is very sobering.

Ok, all good points. The other side is that they moved into a neighborhood that has a certain number of houses in it, and parks. And they of course want it the same as what they paid for.

You pay for the land and the structure. The neighborhood isn't something you pay for. Rather, it's a public good that you take advantage of.

Re: Urban activists set out to sue San Francisco’s suburbs

#106

Post by sampo » Mon, Oct 12, 2015, 4:13 AM UTC

refurb wrote: post #101

sampo wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm certainly not saying that a "no rent control" situation would be ideal Quoting Paul Krugman from 15 years ago: "The analysis of rent control is among the best-understood issues in all of economics, and -- among economists, anyway -- one of the least controversial. In 1992 a poll of the American Economic Association found 93 percent of its members agreeing that ''a ceiling on rents reduces the quality and quanti…

I'm well aware of the current position of economists on rent control. That said, if there was no rent control in SF, then slowly, over time, all low income folks would be forced to leave the city. That is likely an undesirable outcome for SF voters.

As far as the city owns the land that could be used for new expensive apartments, or if the city can at least tax a good part the profits private parties make from building more units, the city would a lot of extra income, and could use part of this income for e.g. providing subsidized housing.

Re: Urban activists set out to sue San Francisco’s suburbs

#107

Post by musesum » Mon, Oct 12, 2015, 4:13 AM UTC

simoncion wrote: post #84

musesum wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow, I didn't realize there was a 1979 cutoff. Glad to know there's a perk to this oven/icebox victorian.

> Wow, I didn't realize there was a 1979 cutoff. Frankly, it seems that that most folks who speak in public forums (landlords and developers included) don't understand this. It drives me batshit . (No offence intended. :) ) > Glad to know there's a perk to this oven/icebox victorian. From what I've seen and heard about those things, I bet it's just about the only perk, eh? :(

Other perks include plunger-assisted-plumbing and laser-guided-kitties.

Re: Urban activists set out to sue San Francisco’s suburbs

#108

Post by apendleton » Mon, Oct 12, 2015, 4:16 AM UTC

rubyfan wrote: post #102

CapitalistCartr wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're missing the point. If you "found another house", you would displace someone else. Restricting housing below demand is playing musical chairs with homes.

Why is musical chairs with a finite resource a problem? We do this with most finite things right, oil, gas, water, food, etc? The supply is usually slightly less than needed, pegging prices such that it's available (not free) at a profitable rate. The problem here seems like people feel entitled toward something they cannot afford and will sue in light of their inability to pay.

You're talking like this is a free-market situation. It's not, because supply is being artificially constrained below what the market could naturally and profitably support, by overregulation of new construction. We don't take too kindly to all of the holders of oil, gas, water, or food conspiring to restrict its availability to drive prices up either.

Re: Urban activists set out to sue San Francisco’s suburbs

#109

Post by johnwatson11218 » Mon, Oct 12, 2015, 4:28 AM UTC

In my opinion this is one of the worst aspects of the bay area and california in general. It is my understanding that it is very easy to get land set aside for environmental reason in california and that is used to stop development. Then I read about minimum lot sizes in places like San Jose and locals getting together to block new construction. I think that San Francisco should look like Tokyo at this point with high density sprawl that takes an hour to cross on a bullet train. Keep in mind they get earthquakes over there as well. I know it is unlikely but this is the kind of thing that I could see causing a "Detroit Type" situation to emerge with US tech. Other countries figure out the software thing and we get hit with global competition that we can not respond to quickly enough. Rather than pointing our fingers at the autoworker unions we will point it at the nimby types that kept San Fran from reaching its full potential.

Re: Urban activists set out to sue San Francisco’s suburbs

#110

Post by eggy » Mon, Oct 12, 2015, 4:38 AM UTC

apendleton wrote: post #108

rubyfan wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is musical chairs with a finite resource a problem? We do this with most finite things right, oil, gas, water, food, etc? The supply is usually slightly less than needed, pegging prices such that it's available (not free) at a profitable rate. The problem here seems like people feel entitled toward something they cannot afford and will sue in light of their inability to pay.

You're talking like this is a free-market situation. It's not, because supply is being artificially constrained below what the market could naturally and profitably support, by overregulation of new construction. We don't take too kindly to all of the holders of oil, gas, water, or food conspiring to restrict its availability to drive prices up either.

I agree, it is hard to talk of free-market solutions when there are so many government restrictions and regulations already in place. You can't make more houses if there is not enough area on a give plot, unless you build up, which is not easy to do safely, and inexpensively in a seismic zone. I was born and raised in Brooklyn, and lived in Manhattan later. I had no problem seeking a life outside of NYC when I couldn't afford it. My father moved out of the apartment he was in for over 40 years, and found a new place for a bit more, that has given him a new life and social circle. It's not always a bad scenario. You find your way or place.