221–230 of 342 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The law specifically excludes discounts in fact: " In determining the lowest gross rental amount pursuant to this section, any rent discounts, incentives, concessions, or credits offered by the owner of such unit of residential real property and accepted by the tenant shall be excluded. " Civil code section 1947.12.
Seems like a loophole ripe for abuse.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People are moving out but not in. Move-ins determine the rental market price.
This is an oversimplification of already simple market dynamics. What sets the market is the supply and demand. If demand drops sharply after an event like covid-19 and supply is held constant, prices will go down except in extremely distorted markets like the ones ISPs and telcos play in.
The intrinsic value may in fact be down, but there is no way to know for sure without two parties in the transaction.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This has not been true in any major market for years, once you factor in all the fees that AirBnB doesn't disclose until you book a listing. Once fees are included, AirBnB is usually more expensive in markets like SF, LA, or NY for individual/couple listings than a comparably furnished hotel room (inclusive of fees).
Have you seen SF hotel rates during convention season? The most basic rooms go for $3-400. Have you tried to book a Paris hotel in summer? In my experience your statement is not true
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The law specifically excludes discounts in fact: " In determining the lowest gross rental amount pursuant to this section, any rent discounts, incentives, concessions, or credits offered by the owner of such unit of residential real property and accepted by the tenant shall be excluded. " Civil code section 1947.12.
Seems like a loophole ripe for abuse.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Rent control has a lot of unintended consequences. It is supposed to be a short term band-aid for bad zoning policies, but the zoning policies actually have to be fixed if you want to remove the band-aid.
I'm willing to bet you more than a beer that a large share of people under rent-control are high earners.
As you mention, a significant percentage of tenants with rent control would be regarded as "high income" households.
Hell, I know a guy who has a rent control units for a couple decades. He can pay his monthly rent with one day's take-home pay.
If remote work becomes permanent for a lot of people and/or social distancing lasts a long time, I would expect a number of changes to happen: - Homes with more bedrooms will become significantly more attractive because people will want home offices (maybe one for each spouse!) - Homes with outdoor space will become more attractive - Quiet homes without noise from neighbors or the surrounding area will become more at…
I think what we might see is an increase in demand for bigger units in the city as a young single person may want a two bedroom place, one for their home office and one for sleeping, but still want to be in the city to be near all the cultural and social amenities.
And we'll also see increased demand for even bigger suburban homes as each spouse needs their own home office.
So I think we'll see increased demand for larger homes in both the city and the suburbs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm willing to bet you more than a beer that a large share of people under rent-control are high earners.
Someone did a study on this in SF. You can probably google it. As you mention, a significant percentage of tenants with rent control would be regarded as "high income" households. Hell, I know a guy who has a rent control units for a couple decades. He can pay his monthly rent with one day's take-home pay.
It sounds outrageous, but I know someone like that too. Got a rent controlled box in Berkeley as a student, never left. Rent is only about $700 a month now. If you make $180,000 a year, that's a single day's pay.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Rent control has a lot of unintended consequences. It is supposed to be a short term band-aid for bad zoning policies, but the zoning policies actually have to be fixed if you want to remove the band-aid.
In defense of rent control, it provides a stabilizing force during a downturn. How many folks who live in an apartment that has been under rent control for 10+ years are packing up and moving into their parents basement right now? My guess is very few. It certainly has its issues, but there are much worse market distorting policies that I would like to see be fixed before rent control gets put on the chopping block.
It is absolutely not in owner interests. But cities by and large have been built in accordance with owner interests.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm willing to bet you more than a beer that a large share of people under rent-control are high earners.
Rent control is trumpeted as some sort of protection for low-income people, but it actually has no such provisions that make it available to, or targets such people. The only beneficiaries of rent-control are people who happen to be incumbent residents.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm willing to bet you more than a beer that a large share of people under rent-control are high earners.
Rent control is trumpeted as some sort of protection for low-income people, but it actually has no such provisions that make it available to, or targets such people. The only beneficiaries of rent-control are people who happen to be incumbent residents.
"Affordable housing" is a completely separate issue.