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

311–320 of 326 posts

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

#311

Post by kelnos »

refurb wrote: post #248
kelnos wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing that baffles me, though, is that you can take a $1.5M house and update it for much, much less than another $1.5M. Sure, it's annoying: it takes time, and you either have to pay for two residences or live with the dust and noise while the renovation is in progress. And finding reliable contractors in the bay area has been getting harder and harder given the level of demand there as well, but it seems crazy t…

Is renovation that affordable in SF? I had a friend do relatively major renovations (add another floor) and I was shocked when he told me it cost him $800k. Is he adding more than $800k to the value of his home? Probably, but it's not as much as one would expect.

It's certainly not cheap, but if you're doing things like replacing appliances, countertops, sinks, and windows, I can't imagine it costing anywhere near as much as what your friend experienced.

But I'm just getting this from talking to friends who have done it; no first-hand experience here yet.

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

#312

Post by spike021 »

closeparen wrote: post #310
shostack wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Many complexes along El Camino on the peninsula seem to be increasing rent wherever possible. They "renovate" (add stainless appliances basically) and it lets them increase rent for a unit by a few hundred dollars at least. They also charge 200-300 more for a parking spot (I've spoken with complexes before where one unit without parking was 200-300 less than another with one spot, or a unit with an extra/second spot).

Some of these areas (Redwood City in this case) are next to major Caltrain stations with Baby Bullet stops. But they're also convenient (technically speaking) for going on 101S/N to work, etc.

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

#313

Post by kelnos »

carlmr wrote: post #293
kelnos wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except that in SF, a landlord can get a tenant for nearly any price, because demand really is that high, and supply really is that low. On the occasion that a rent controlled apartment goes back into the market in SF, it's snapped up within a week, even if the listing price is set above market rate. A savvy renter (which you have to be, if you want to get a place in SF) will know that they're paying a higher price fo…

>in SF, it's snapped up within a week, even if the listing price is set above market rate That makes it the market rate for the apt though. You'd be above market rate if it didn't get rented out in a normal timeframe.

No it's not; that's a pretty circular definition. Determining the market rate involves comparisons with similar units in the same neighborhood.

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

#314

Post by muzz »

spike021 wrote: post #264
muzz wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How exactly do you get a rent controlled steal in San Jose? Those 8% annual increases add up (multiply up) very quickly.

Found a small, privately-owned 8 or so unit apartment building that a coworker of mine was living at back when I was in school. She recommended me to the apartment manager/owner, who then gave me a good deal on a unit that needed things re-done (carpet, paint, etc.) by not renovating it as planned. Since it's rent-controlled they've only increased my rent by a small amount twice in my 5 years living there.

if they only increased it twice, then that's not due to rent control, which allowed for 8% each year (recently changed to 5%)

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

#315

Post by spike021 »

muzz wrote: post #314
spike021 wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Found a small, privately-owned 8 or so unit apartment building that a coworker of mine was living at back when I was in school. She recommended me to the apartment manager/owner, who then gave me a good deal on a unit that needed things re-done (carpet, paint, etc.) by not renovating it as planned. Since it's rent-controlled they've only increased my rent by a small amount twice in my 5 years living there.

if they only increased it twice, then that's not due to rent control, which allowed for 8% each year (recently changed to 5%)

No. You misunderstand what I said.

My unit is rent-controlled. However, the owner of the building has only increased rent twice, both being the max they could under the rent control limit. They just haven't continually increased it on an annual basis because apparently they haven't needed to.

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

#316

Post by shostack »

closeparen wrote: post #310
shostack wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The schools in RWC are not great (although hopefully that will change with the influx of reset Prop 13 tax dollars from new residents.

The downtown has a solid layout though and lots of room for growth. The RWC downtown has the potential for offering a lot more than some neighboring downtowns that are less dense and could be a nice hybrid between SF and more "suburban" Peninsula cities.

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

#317

Post by muzz »

spike021 wrote: post #315
muzz wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

if they only increased it twice, then that's not due to rent control, which allowed for 8% each year (recently changed to 5%)

No. You misunderstand what I said. My unit is rent-controlled. However, the owner of the building has only increased rent twice, both being the max they could under the rent control limit. They just haven't continually increased it on an annual basis because apparently they haven't needed to.

so you're saying they "banked" the increase

still, an annualized 8% is quite a bit (over 5 years it would be 46%)

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

#318

Post by AnimalMuppet »

dang wrote: post #258
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Would you please refrain from doing ideological flamewar on HN? Surely you're aware it's the exact opposite of what we're trying to have here? I realize other people were doing just that, but that's all the more reason not to feed it. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Mea culpa. Trying to prevent him from doing it, and wound up doing it.

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

#319

Post by spike021 »

muzz wrote: post #317
spike021 wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. You misunderstand what I said. My unit is rent-controlled. However, the owner of the building has only increased rent twice, both being the max they could under the rent control limit. They just haven't continually increased it on an annual basis because apparently they haven't needed to.

so you're saying they "banked" the increase still, an annualized 8% is quite a bit (over 5 years it would be 46%)

Yeah. I'm honestly very fortunate in my situation. Many low income families pay more and don't necessarily have rent control like I do.

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

#320

Post by closeparen »

kinkrtyavimoodh wrote: post #71
theduro wrote: post #12

Rent control is a failed experiment. All it does is force land lords to massively increase rent amounts when someone moves out to account for multi-year market increases. Basically, if the real market price of an apartment is ~$3,000/mo, but in 5 years it realistically would be $5,000, they will simply list it for $5,000 now, to mitigate the loss. My mother-in-law is a land lord in Los Angeles (a very fair one at tha…

Nothing against your MIL but it is extremely common for people to not walk the talk. It's much easier to talk in pure abstract models when it is someone else's life and money on the line. I am sure most people here who claim that the likes of Google and Apple should not 'avoid' taxes take every possible tax deduction in their personal lives so as to minimize their tax liability. There's a reason the young are such id…

The young are not going to become homeowners or start families if they can’t afford it. It’s not a wait your turn, stages of life kind of thing. There is no path for someone who is in their 20s now to ever own a $2m home. Indeed, household formation and fertility are low and declining compared to previous generations at the same point in their lives.
Post reply on HN