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

Stanford paper says rent control is driving up cost of housing in San Francisco

sf.curbed.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 326 posts

Re: Stanford paper says rent control is driving up cost of housing in San Francisco

#231

Post by nradov »

oldsklgdfth wrote: post #34
dmix wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sometimes the cost of intervention outweigh benefits, sometimes they don't. + Sometimes it works for a short period, as the policy reflected the economy at the time of creation, then becomes irrelevant via technology/market reaction to policy/general progress... but yet stays a policy for decades. The important point is that we rarely ever measures whether it does work or not, and policy tends to have an extremely…

Personally I think that 1) is not attainable in a practical sense. It would require resources that are not available and would just add to the ridiculous overhead of running a government. I used to believe in an ideal state as the one you describe. More recently, I think about what a system - i.e economic, political, social - that is stable (in some sense) looks like. For example, liberatarians believe that markets s…

Small societies also mean small markets. That's one of the reasons why so few of the largest and most successful companies were founded in small countries; you need a certain critical mass to allow for growth and economies of scale.

Re: Stanford paper says rent control is driving up cost of housing in San Francisco

#232

Post by waqf »

BearGoesChirp wrote: post #147
waqf wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, GP did address that point: the current renters of a city have votes [in local government], and the future renters do not.

I feel this response is confusing right with might. Just because some group has the political might to make laws that benefit them does not make those laws right, does it?

It doesn't, I was being ironic.

Re: Stanford paper says rent control is driving up cost of housing in San Francisco

#233

Post by seanmcdirmid »

klipt wrote: post #227
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s more comparable to the movement controls of apartheid.

Arguably, immigration controls are also similar to the movement controls of Apartheid. They're just more socially acceptable because pretty much every country does it.

Sure. But discriminating on your own citizens based on where they were born (or where their parents were born in china’s case) is extra douchey.

Re: Stanford paper says rent control is driving up cost of housing in San Francisco

#234

Post by glitch003 »

horsecaptin wrote: post #205

What are the chances that the number of rent controlled homes will go down in the next five to ten years?

This number will always go down, because in SF only houses built before 1980 are subject to rent control.

Therefore, no houses are being added to rent control. And the number can only stay constant or go down.

Re: Stanford paper says rent control is driving up cost of housing in San Francisco

#235

Post by jostmey »

seandougall wrote: post #87
8ytecoder wrote: post #39

Another point which is usually not well-discussed, the houses/apts in SF are really bad in terms of quality, amenities and features. With new housing, this is starting to change a little bit. But, overall, rent control results in really bad maintenance. Landlords do the absolute bare minimum to not get sued/fined. For the rent people in SF pay, the value they derive is almost a joke.

> Landlords do the absolute bare minimum to not get sued/fined. IME, this is a pretty universal statement. Hop across the bridge to cities without rent control and you'll see the same thing. The problem isn't any specific policy, it's the power balance between landlord and tenant created by a market with limited supply and ever-growing demand.

I've never lived in SF, but the apartments here in Dallas are luxurious and much cheaper. It was the exact opposite in Chicago, where every place I stayed at was a dump

Re: Stanford paper says rent control is driving up cost of housing in San Francisco

#236

Post by house9-2 »

spike021 wrote: post #220
joejerryronnie wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Real question, why not look for a different job closer to San Jose?

I'm relatively fresh out of school (just over a year full-time at my current job) so I don't know that it'd be as easy to just switch now without looking like I hop job to job.

maybe you could swing 3 remote days a week at some point?

Re: Stanford paper says rent control is driving up cost of housing in San Francisco

#237

Post by classwarsteve »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #209
classwarsteve wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My point is that Jules is wrong that capitalists will permit you to set up a communist society. Perhaps you should revisit the cold war. In addition, a commune within a capitalist society would still be reliant on the labor of an external, exploited proletarian class. Communism is internationalist. Ultimately this is the failure of first world social democratic programs that provide decent gains for their working cla…

> My point is that Jules is wrong that capitalists will permit you to set up a communist society. The non-communist countries tried to sabotage the communist ones, true. (And vice versa - a cold war is like that.) That is not at all the same as saying that, within a capitalist countries, the capitalists will not permit you to set up a commune. Your argument (and link) therefore do not actually address jules' point at…

1. Then perhaps you'd be happier if I were to point you in the direction of The Black Panthers or MOVE or any of the leftist victims of the COINTELPRO operations.

2 & 3. What I'm trying to help you understand is that a commune within a capitalist state that doesn't challenge the structures of capitalist society is not a communist project.

Please calm down, it's clear you're getting upset. I'm trying to help you understand.

Re: Stanford paper says rent control is driving up cost of housing in San Francisco

#238

Post by zghst »

closeparen wrote: post #225
spike021 wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe this is exactly my current dilemma: I live in San Jose, I commute to SF 3 days a week (super thankful for the chance to work remote 2x a week). My current apartment (a 1BR I live in by myself) costs a bit less than 1k a month and is rent-controlled. The equivalent in SJ is probably worth 2-2.5x as much per month, and in SF (or somewhere in-between) it can be worth anywhere from 2.5-4x as much. I've been hun…

Sure, but in the counterfactual non-rent-control world, staying in SJ at $1000 isn’t even an option. Maybe efficiencies bring down prevailing rents a little bit, but enough to matter? The more interesting question is, why are the 50 miles between SF and SJ reserved for sparsely packed single family homes and one story strip malls?

That’s changing. They’re building higher up in Redwood City, South SF, and the surrounding areas. It’s costly to replace the older model of American development from the 50’s. They waited until the last minute to start working on the issue.

Re: Stanford paper says rent control is driving up cost of housing in San Francisco

#239

Post by zghst »

spike021 wrote: post #140
ThrustVectoring wrote: post #43

Another second-order effect of rent control is increased traffic. Suppose you have two residents with significantly below-market-rate housing at the same quality level, one in downtown SF and another in Mountain View. The former starts a new job at Google in Mountain View, the latter starts a new job at a trendy start-up in downtown SF. Since they're paying significantly below market rate, they're unable to trade apa…

I believe this is exactly my current dilemma: I live in San Jose, I commute to SF 3 days a week (super thankful for the chance to work remote 2x a week). My current apartment (a 1BR I live in by myself) costs a bit less than 1k a month and is rent-controlled. The equivalent in SJ is probably worth 2-2.5x as much per month, and in SF (or somewhere in-between) it can be worth anywhere from 2.5-4x as much. I've been hun…

I have a friend in Oakland paying $1200 for his own place (rent controlled). Might be near impossible to find, but it’s out there!

Re: Stanford paper says rent control is driving up cost of housing in San Francisco

#240

Post by learc83 »

tooltalk wrote: post #134
tomohawk wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Heinlen in "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" introduces the idea of a legislature with 2 chambers. One for creating laws and the other for getting rid of them. The threshold for creating them being higher. The way it is now, everything is geared towards "doing" things, and credit is received for "accomplishments". Its usually much harder to undo things. It would be refreshing to have specialists in undoing things.

IMO, there should be automatic sunset provision in every law passed in this country, like the one existed for the Patriotic Act, and reviewed, renewed or expired every 5 or 10 years.

I used to think this was a great idea, but now I'm pretty convinced it would never work.

Imagine the equivalent of constant miniature government shutdowns every time a law expired and congress couldn't come to a consensus.

Post reply on HN