Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

In Silicon Valley Suburbs, Calls to Limit the Soaring Rents

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 86 posts

Re: In Silicon Valley Suburbs, Calls to Limit the Soaring Rents

#11

Post by eropple »

kqr2 wrote: post #6
simonsarris wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, Cambridge MA comes to mind, ending rent control in 1994.

Did the housing situation improve after rent control was ended?

If by "improve" you mean "allow for skyrocketing rents and push the poor and most of the middle class further away from the city," yes, it did. I'm currently moving from Somerville, which adjoins Cambridge and is often called "where everybody moved when the rich people pushed them out of Cambridge" to Malden (some distance away by bus or car) because the rental situation has continued to deteriorate for everyone except the landlords.

Re: In Silicon Valley Suburbs, Calls to Limit the Soaring Rents

#14

Post by johan_larson »

johnwatson11218 wrote: post #9

Every 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…

Wouldn't that be nice? If SF is unreasonable, we'll just take our ball and play elsewhere. :)

But how to make it happen?

There is an awful lot of resistance to hiring remote staff. I checked the latest "Who's Hiring?" post here at HN and of the top 10 postings, only 2 were open to hiring remotely.

Re: In Silicon Valley Suburbs, Calls to Limit the Soaring Rents

#15

Post by cageface »

johnwatson11218 wrote: post #9

Every 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…

Because despite all the talk about "disruption" tech is still surprisingly conservative. Things are changing though. I've seen a huge increase in the number of companies willing to consider remote work in the last couple of years.

Re: In Silicon Valley Suburbs, Calls to Limit the Soaring Rents

#16

Post by sroussey »

timr wrote: post #10
raldi wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 reg…

Trinity demolished buildings by civic center, but were required to move the people there into the new buildings at the same rent controlled rates. So it isn't true in a strict sense, but effectively it's true.

Re: In Silicon Valley Suburbs, Calls to Limit the Soaring Rents

#17

Post by sroussey »

johan_larson wrote: post #2

Has 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?

Los Angeles. Santa Monica and West Hollywood kept theirs. Guess which neighborhoods have the highest rents?

Re: In Silicon Valley Suburbs, Calls to Limit the Soaring Rents

#18

Post by flamedoge »

MichaelBurge wrote: post #8
raldi wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 viola…

State can take from citizen with just compensation via eminent domain, so people really do not have rights to real estate. They have rights to market value of property.

Re: In Silicon Valley Suburbs, Calls to Limit the Soaring Rents

#19

Post by raldi »

timr wrote: post #10
raldi wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 reg…

It happens very rarely, and when it does, it's a scandal and a total "man bites dog" story: http://48hills.org/2014/09/08/sf-planners-decide-just-fine-d...

Gabriel Ng & Architechs Inc. wants to build two new structures on the large corner lot at 26th and Clement. Each building would have three units, with three-bedrooms each. The project sponsor argued that there’s a need for family housing in the city, and that six new units, which most likely would be sold as condos, would help the crisis.

But to make room for one of the buildings, the project calls for the demolition of an existing apartment building with two smaller rent-controlled units. And that’s something the city isn’t supposed to allow. In fact, when the mayor with great fanfare issued his housing directive in 2013, he made it clear that demolishing existing rental housing should only be allowed in unusual circumstances.

[T]he 4-3 vote in favor was directly in defiance of city policy and the mayor’s directive regarding the preservation of existing rent-controlled housing.

In the past year, the Planning Department has repeatedly refused to approve projects that involve a loss of rental units [...] The mayor has directed the Department to adopt policies which encourage the preservation of existing housing stock [as] the city’s highest priority.

Re: In Silicon Valley Suburbs, Calls to Limit the Soaring Rents

#20

Post by johnwatson11218 »

johan_larson wrote: post #14
johnwatson11218 wrote: post #9

Every 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…

Wouldn't that be nice? If SF is unreasonable, we'll just take our ball and play elsewhere. :) But how to make it happen? There is an awful lot of resistance to hiring remote staff. I checked the latest "Who's Hiring?" post here at HN and of the top 10 postings, only 2 were open to hiring remotely.

yea I agree that remote is a big part of the solution. Despite all the talk about how easy it is to "work from anywhere" remote still has a lot of pain points. Where I work we can do it one day a week but it sucks when people are dialing in to a meeting. Remote Desktop and ssh aren't really that great. I'm thinking we need fiber to the curb and VR fueled telepresence that is able to convey nuance and emotion when interacting with co-workers.
Post reply on HN