In Silicon Valley Suburbs, Calls to Limit the Soaring Rents
1–10 of 86 posts
Re: In Silicon Valley Suburbs, Calls to Limit the Soaring Rents
#2Has any place every imposed rent controls, but later removed them?
Some of those quoted in the article speak of rent control as a temporary measure, to buy time while other more permanent solutions to be brought to bear. Does that ever happen?
Re: In Silicon Valley Suburbs, Calls to Limit the Soaring Rents
#3Has any place every imposed rent controls, but later removed them? Some of those quoted in the article speak of rent control as a temporary measure, to buy time while other more permanent solutions to be brought to bear. Does that ever happen?
San Francisco did this in a way, rent control exists, but only for buildings constructed before 1970? (Not sure of the date) This effectively meant it was "temporary" because any new buildings wouldn't be covered, which will eventually mean that as buildings are replaced or built new there will be less and less rent control available in the City.
Probably not the temporary you mean...
Re: In Silicon Valley Suburbs, Calls to Limit the Soaring Rents
#4Has any place every imposed rent controls, but later removed them? Some of those quoted in the article speak of rent control as a temporary measure, to buy time while other more permanent solutions to be brought to bear. Does that ever happen?
San Francisco did this in a way, rent control exists, but only for buildings constructed before 1970? (Not sure of the date) This effectively meant it was "temporary" because any new buildings wouldn't be covered, which will eventually mean that as buildings are replaced or built new there will be less and less rent control available in the City. Probably not the temporary you mean...
1979, and that rule comes from a state law called Costa-Hawkins which prohibits any California municipality from requiring rent control on any new unit constructed after then. The intention was to spur construction by offering a carrot to anyone who built a new (and presumably bigger) apartment building.
The unforeseen consequence is that now city planning commissions in places like SF simply don't issue demolition permits anymore for pre-1979 apartment buildings.
Re: In Silicon Valley Suburbs, Calls to Limit the Soaring Rents
#5Has any place every imposed rent controls, but later removed them? Some of those quoted in the article speak of rent control as a temporary measure, to buy time while other more permanent solutions to be brought to bear. Does that ever happen?
Yes, Cambridge MA comes to mind, ending rent control in 1994.
Re: In Silicon Valley Suburbs, Calls to Limit the Soaring Rents
#6Has any place every imposed rent controls, but later removed them? Some of those quoted in the article speak of rent control as a temporary measure, to buy time while other more permanent solutions to be brought to bear. Does that ever happen?
Yes, Cambridge MA comes to mind, ending rent control in 1994.
Did the housing situation improve after rent control was ended?
Re: In Silicon Valley Suburbs, Calls to Limit the Soaring Rents
#7Has any place every imposed rent controls, but later removed them? Some of those quoted in the article speak of rent control as a temporary measure, to buy time while other more permanent solutions to be brought to bear. Does that ever happen?
A big example is the almost-universal rent control in the USA during WWII to help keep wages down and production up. This was an emergency measure designed to be temporary (although there was never a guarantee it would be).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Price_Administration...
Re: In Silicon Valley Suburbs, Calls to Limit the Soaring Rents
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
San Francisco did this in a way, rent control exists, but only for buildings constructed before 1970? (Not sure of the date) This effectively meant it was "temporary" because any new buildings wouldn't be covered, which will eventually mean that as buildings are replaced or built new there will be less and less rent control available in the City. Probably not the temporary you mean...
1979, and that rule comes from a state law called Costa-Hawkins which prohibits any California municipality from requiring rent control on any new unit constructed after then. The intention was to spur construction by offering a carrot to anyone who built a new (and presumably bigger) apartment building. The unforeseen consequence is that now city planning commissions in places like SF simply don't issue demolition p…
> The unforeseen consequence is that now city planning commissions in places like SF simply don't issue demolition permits anymore for pre-1979 apartment buildings.
Is that even legal? It's one thing to use zoning for city planning as a general guideline, or to require permits to ensure work is done safely; but people ultimately have rights to their property.
Has it been taken to court before? It's borderline a violation of the Takings Clause:
"private property [shall not] be taken for public use, without just compensation."
Re: In Silicon Valley Suburbs, Calls to Limit the Soaring Rents
#9Every time one of these articles appears it seems like the comments always mention prop 13, rent control, NIMBY and environmental regulations, and a difficult permitting process as the underlying reasons for the high rents in sf. It seems pretty obvious that if the market had its way the whole area would look like Tokyo.
Why can't we move beyond this and say "OK keep your 100 year old row houses and vineyards", lets continue to decentralize tech and create a world where moving to sf is not required to work in a startup?
Re: In Silicon Valley Suburbs, Calls to Limit the Soaring Rents
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
San Francisco did this in a way, rent control exists, but only for buildings constructed before 1970? (Not sure of the date) This effectively meant it was "temporary" because any new buildings wouldn't be covered, which will eventually mean that as buildings are replaced or built new there will be less and less rent control available in the City. Probably not the temporary you mean...
1979, and that rule comes from a state law called Costa-Hawkins which prohibits any California municipality from requiring rent control on any new unit constructed after then. The intention was to spur construction by offering a carrot to anyone who built a new (and presumably bigger) apartment building. The unforeseen consequence is that now city planning commissions in places like SF simply don't issue demolition p…
"The unforeseen consequence is that now city planning commissions in places like SF simply don't issue demolition permits anymore for pre-1979 apartment buildings."
That isn't true. There's a well-defined process for it -- demolition is one of the few just causes for eviction here, and the planning department only has to take rent control into consideration as one factor when issuing new permits -- and it happens regularly in SF:
http://planning.sanfranciscocode.org/3/317/
Demolition permits are also so routinely issued for rent-controlled buildings in NYC that landlords are using it as a tactic to push out rent-controlled tenants:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/02/realestate/02cover.html?pa...