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

301–310 of 326 posts

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

#301

Post by aninhumer »

taysic wrote: post #290
taneq wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The price of basic necessities is limited by the cost of production, not some fundamental scarcity. We could produce as much food, clothing etc. as anyone could want without increasing the cost. (In fact, the cost should decrease slightly due to economies of scale.)

If UBI truly is basic income that is livable then labor costs will go up, and thus production costs go up.

It's not that simple though. On the one hand, UBI will make people less willing to accept work, but on the other hand it will also make them able to have a higher quality of life with a lower wage.

If someone is currently on $25k and gets a $10k basic income, their employer can lower their salary to $20k and they'll still be getting $5k more than they were before. (This won't happen immediately because people will be reluctant to take pay cuts, but I think it will in the longer term.)

Exactly how much of this difference the employee and employer capture in the longer term is a concern, but I think giving people the option to quit without starving will go a long way towards empowering them to insist on fair pay. I also think a result would be an increase job quality, because I think a lot of people would take a pay cut to work somewhere less awful if they could afford it.

Of course that money comes from taxes, so there's still a cost somewhere, but I'm not as convinced progressive taxes on the wealthy will have quite as big an impact on the costs to produce basic goods.

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

#302

Post by civilian »

nradov wrote: post #226
BearGoesChirp wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Right and wrong are almost entirely subjective on issues like this. What is the right level of political boundaries for people to have a vote in these decisions? Should residents of San Diego be able to influence housing policy in San Francisco? How about residents of Chicago, or Madrid, or Karachi?

I don't like the idea of residents of far-away cities having a say in housing policy in my city. But I'd also support a federal-level ban on rent control policies, based on the idea that it's a net-good if we encourage people to move to more efficiently allocate housing.

But I totally see how this is kind of hypocritical. I just want things my way, everywhere. :-] idk!

I suppose that the next-best thing is to have local control with freedom of movement. The United States and cities are kind of like this--- it allows for states and cities to try out different policies, and compete based on policy.

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

#304

Post by matt4077 »

refurb wrote: post #242
matt4077 wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's nothing to dispute here–the are obviously factors other than costs that make (some) people prefer to stay put: local family, friends, or even plain old laziness. That doesn't exclude the cost scenario outline further up, and the relative strength of these effects vary from person to person. And no argument will "win" such debates for either side. These are complex issues, and even if everyone can agree on the…

that dabbled in an ideology-driven "free market" approach. The result are the suburban hell-holes that are Atlanta, or parts of Houston: Low-density clone cities totally reliant on cars, with much longer commutes and huge environmental footprints, almost devoid of street life. I assume because that's what people want? HNers seem to think a downtown core existence is the best and apparently aren't aware there is a big…

> I assume because that's what people want?

Yes and no: Given the choice, people will prefer a single-family home with a large garden, to the same home without a garden, or a smaller apartment.

But rephrase it and the answer changes: People prefer to life in (nice) apartments if others do so as well, and the resulting increase in density cuts a 60min car commute into 15min on a bike, or even 30 in public transportation.

In any case, I would consider mixed zoning more important than density. It's not just metropolitan city centres that provide higher quality of life than the suburbs. Another winning model is that of the classic "Small Town USA".

It's perfectly possible to have suburban-style homes with gardens clustered around a city centre providing everything you need in a typical week, plus schools/medical care/sports/you kids' friends all within a radius of about 3 miles, making it easily accessible by bike, and even on foot.

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

#305

Post by Shivetya »

ghouse wrote: post #5

Rent control solves some problems. Creates other problems. Similar to almost any intervention in free markets. Sometimes the cost of intervention outweigh benefits, sometimes they don't. Rent control allows people (wealthy or poor) to remain where they are without purchasing their residence. Unfortunately, to do accomplish this objective, it increases the price for new arrivals (be they wealthy or poor). In Californi…

but Prop 13 wasn't enacted alone. it was part of a comprehensive tax package that limited what the state government could spend. Prop 13 is just the most well known part.

However politicians got around the limitations decades after by just raising taxes in every other area of life. most of those directly impacted the poor.

Prop 13 likely needs to be revised along with a comprehensive land usage policy that prevents local politicians from playing favorites, similar how to many states established boards to monitor elections.

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

#306

Post by noobermin »

icelancer wrote: post #158
noobermin wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's teach our daughters not to wear short skirts, because that increases the chances they'll be raped. Sounds like a similar argument. With less hyperbole, you can use this argument regarding externalities involved in capitalism from the exploitation of workers to pollution of rivers. The way you change incentives is you add regulation. Regardless, this thread is floating away from my point. No one is addressing th…

It's not the same argument in the least; it's just shock value nonsense you're pedaling in hopes of coming up with relevancy. >>which is really discouraging and fits with the trend of discourse on HN for the last year or so. Yeah, the guy who is posting terrible rape analogies is the guy I trust to judge what is or isn't discouraging with regards to the value of discourse on this website.

How is it not the similar? In both instances, people explain away the terrible deeds of a person by saying they are incentivized to do x,y,z instead of talking about whether it is right to do so and focusing on the pain it inflicts on people.

Trying to force anyone out of a home so you can make a buck puts their livelihood and safety at risk. You can't just excuse terrible behavior because people are greedy.

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

#307

Post by briandear »

matt4077 wrote: post #223
noobermin wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can a free-marketeer address this? I thought stuff like this were obvious rebuttals but look at the top posts in this comment section. It's starting to feel like articles and posts like this aren't driven by discussion or curiosity but just political fights.

There's nothing to dispute here–the are obviously factors other than costs that make (some) people prefer to stay put: local family, friends, or even plain old laziness. That doesn't exclude the cost scenario outline further up, and the relative strength of these effects vary from person to person. And no argument will "win" such debates for either side. These are complex issues, and even if everyone can agree on the…

> suburban hell-holes that are Atlanta, or parts of Houston

And yet in those places there are no housing shortages and normal people can actually buy a house without waiting for the equity fairy.

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

#308

Post by crdoconnor »

civilian wrote: post #92
Spooky23 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s a real stretch. End of the day, short term leases make rents float at the cost of making renters second class citizens who cannot stay in any one place or area. Rent control is a way to deal with that. It exists because voters care deeply about it.

But rent control only benefits the renters already in place. It hurts new renters to the area, by driving up costs. You've got to address a moral judgement you've implicitly made: What makes the current renters of a city more deserving than the future renters who might move to the city?

They are already making the city a valuable place to live. I've heard it called the 'schoolteacher paradox'. A brilliant schoolteacher moves to a new area and begins working at a school. Her effect on grades drives the school up through the rankings. This attracts interest in moving into the area, which drives demand for housing and voila, she just drove up her own rent. Her landlord gets to extract more wealth from her.

The high value of property in San Francisco is a lot to do with its proximity to amenities and services provided for by the very people suffering because of continually rising property prices. This is a highly parasitic dynamic.

If moral judgements are really your primary concern why are you advocating for eliminating a policy that allows a tiny bit of clawback from the pre-existing titanic wealth transfer that goes from renter to landlord?

Moreover, it's a policy that by and large keeps people who do necessary work.

There's a fair, economically efficient solution to all of this, of course: the 100% land value tax.

Rent control is merely a hack that offsets some of the gargantuan harm done by leeches extracting value from the communities surrounding them via untaxed land. I'd be fine with seeing it go... after implementing a 100% land value tax.

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

#309

Post by bigmanwalter »

patricius wrote: post #297
bigmanwalter wrote: post #292

In Montreal, we have rent control that has worked spectacularly. Rent is significantly below what it costs in comparable cities across Canada, the United States and even Europe. This all stems from our laws originating in French common law which is decidedly more for-the-people than British law. Our rent control works because it applies between leases. Last year rent increases were frozen at 0.5%. In the apartment th…

How does it work from the landlord’s perspective?

The landlord is allowed to ask for whatever price they want. After signing the lease, if the landlord has made an illegal rent increase, the tenant can ask for a hearing before the Housing Authority (Régie de Logement). In the hearing, a judge will reduce the rent retroactively to the maximum allowed increase.

If a tenant refuses to pay a rent increase, the landlord may apply for a hearing before the Housing Authority to have the tenant evicted, but the judge will take the illegality of the rent increase into consideration before giving permission to evict.

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

#310

Post by closeparen »

shostack wrote: post #267
zghst wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Redwood City has been interesting to watch. I hope they get more diverse retail with the added increased density. Right now it is a lot of restaurants and bars, which while nice to have, means that it misses out on a lot of the foot traffic and such that other Peninsula cities like neighboring San Carlos, or Mountain View, etc. have. Redwood City is also nicely positioned as a mid-point between SF and South Bay. Beyo…

Interesting. I looked at some of these complexes - similar rents to new construction in downtown SF (and similar unit sizes). Why? Schools, maybe?
Post reply on HN