Urban activists set out to sue San Francisco’s suburbs

I mean no disrespect but this is bizarre to me that people believe developers should have more access or protection than incumbent property owners. Seems like exactly what government should be doing. This is why we have borders, immigration laws, zoning, licensing, etc. isn't it?

I'm not trying to be confrontational. Please keep that in mind.

I see you're from Brooklyn. Have familiarized yourself with the issues surrounding the anti-development sentiment and roadblocks to new development in San Francisco? There's a lot more to it than "[Some] voters don't want to increase the quantity of housing ... near them."

To speak directly to the Krugman quote: San Francisco's rent control is more correctly termed rent stabilization. Rent increases are slaved to the CPI for as long as a unit is occupied. When a unit is vacated, that unit's rent may be set to any rate the landlord desires. More importantly: unless special arrangements are negotiated, [0] rent stabilization does not apply to housing built or first occupied after mid-June 1979.

AIUI, at the time, existing landholders decided that they would make much more money by raising their rents to ludicrous levels than by increasing the density of the housing on their property. They could do this by taking advantage of high demand and limited supply. When most landholders won't allow a developer to build on their property because they make more money by restricting the supply of housing, Krugman's argument goes out the window.

Rent control and rent stabilization has no place in districts with healthy responses to increased demand for housing. It is a tool of last resort. San Francisco worked hard to balance the potential damage done by rent stabilization with the real damage done by astronomical rents. I would say that they largely succeeded. [1]

[0] As far as I know this has happened only once, with with Sangiacomo's Trinity Place on Market street. A special arrangement was reached to destroy existing rent-controlled units at the site, but have a 1:1 replacement in the new construction. All other units in the building are "market rate" units.

[1] But, -in retrospect- they erred too far in the landlord's favor. The "Vacated units reset to market rate" provision in the ordinance gives landlords ample incentive to harass and subtly force out long-term tenants, and -in times of radical rent inflation- behave as slumlords and neglect maintenance and upkeep. (Because, if they have a captive revenue source, why on earth would they spend more than the bare minimum that they can (legally or illegally) get away with to retain it?) [2]

[2] Naturally, if rent control was the situation in SF, there would need to be some flexibility in the law to encourage new development.

> ...nor humour a "tu quoque" contest.

Awful sly of you to indirectly make the claim that I was calling you a hypocrite. I'm not. I'm declaring that everyone who lives in a governed district is a beneficiary of the state's ability to restrict supply of one thing or another. This includes landlords who might have the "value" of their "investment" inflated due to restricted supply.

> They made an investment in buying [the land]...

Yes. Agreed.

> ...and improving the land.

No. No, they did not.

They paid someone else to get access to the revenue stream that comes from the people living in the building that was constructed roughly one hundred years before they made the purchase. Additionally, the building was constructed more than fifty years before $CURRENT_LANDLORD-2 made his purchase. Neither of them fronted the money and took on the risk to build the only improvement on the land.

What's more, $CURRENT_LANDLORD's negligence is lowering the value of the property they purchased. Vermin infestation throughout the building and trash accumulation in public areas [0] are now not-uncommon sights. Essential building services are unreliable and not-infrequently unavailable due to failure to perform regular preventative maintenance.

Are you using some definition of "$CURRENT_LANDLORD is improving the land." that remains true when the actions that the landowner takes both damage the pre-existing building on the property and lower its value, actual or otherwise?

> Not necessary for my point.

It really seems like your point is not valid, for the situation that a renter not-infrequently finds himself in in San Francisco. [1] Because the demand for rental housing is so high, landlords can often get away with failing to perform even the legally required maintenance and upkeep and still have people breaking down their doors to rent their vacant apartments.

I don't see how one can -with a straight face- make the claim that a property owner is adding value to a property when they aren't even performing the maintenance required to adequately counteract the natural forces of entropy.

Do you now understand what I mean when I say "$CURRENT_LANDLORD has done nothing to improve the value of their property."?

[0] Due to not-infrequent failure of building management to swap out the full garbage, recycling, and composting bins with empty ones.

[1] Your argument may be (and probably is) totally valid in other situations. San Francisco's housing market (rental or otherwise) is a special bucket of suck.

Lafayette is where they found a good case. They are suing on the basis that the City of Lafayette is approving a project on the condition of an decrease in density, while the original project density was conform to the zoning. This is what is illegal in California. But no developer will sue a city for that, because they still want to build the project and don't want to burn bridges.

"If it is, then you must understand that the credit for that on-paper increase in value is to be completely given to the local government"

No. The value assessments are made by potential customers and suppliers in the area. Sure governmental actions have been one part of the causal chain, but only one of many. The fact that the building stands ready, not decrepit enough to bring down the general attractiveness of the area, is partial credit to the landlord and her choice of tenant.

"because of its zoning laws which have resulted in a dramatic undersupply of housing in the area."

Might the rent-control laws have had something to do with it too? (After all, zoning laws aren't easily effectively changed on an area that's already filled in.)