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

Rent controls have split housing in Berlin into two distinct markets

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

691–700 of 724 posts

Re: Rent controls have split housing in Berlin into two distinct markets

#691

Post by chii »

konjin wrote: post #645
chii wrote: post #631

Earlier quoted context omitted.

that's funny because many cities have a replacement rate less than 2, not counting immigration. And even with population growth at e^n, the constants matter in the analysis. l^3 growth may be enough until humans reach space faring.

Space only grows as l^3 and the speed of light. Any species that does not limit the number of surviving children per parent to two will run out of space no matter what they do.

the absurdity of that argument can be shown by demonstrating that if the rate of population grows so fast that it outstrips the l^3 at the speed of light, the biomass would just collapse into a black hole.

the point is that human's growth is slowing, and the fact that space can open up means that as long as humanity reaches being a space faring species, it won't really be a problem.

Re: Rent controls have split housing in Berlin into two distinct markets

#692

Post by [deleted] »

el_nahual wrote: post #152

An issue that many commenters here are missing is that the problem with rent control will manifest more sharply in the future. Sure, the impact today seems relatively equitable: a windfall for people that rent today coupled with a small drop in supply. But fast forward 10 or 20 years and the situation looks far worse: everyone who got a windfall today is still living in the same apartment, whereas anyone trying to en…

[deleted]

Re: Rent controls have split housing in Berlin into two distinct markets

#693

Post by galfarragem »

latchkey wrote: post #316
e40 wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I experienced exactly this in the early 1980's. In Berkeley, CA. Apartments were scarce because of rent control. I had a coworker that lived in his apartment from late 70's until late 90's. He paid less than $300/mo. It was great for him. He saved a ton of money and bought a house in Berkeley in the late 90's. But, as a student I had to live in Oakland and was never able to find an apartment. Every time I went to loo…

Around 1994/5 I wanted to move to Berkeley. I had a very hard time finding a place. I looked at so many attics turned into bedrooms and other crappy places. Eventually, I found an ideal (relatively) place and there was a good 50+ people looking at the same apartment during a showing... I walked up to the landlord (who was a lawyer in his day job) and said... "I know you can't pick favorites, but I have a good salary…

My urban planning teacher used to say, as a synthesis, that rent control does more damage to a city than bombing..

Why? Buildings will degrade. Fast forward some years and rents will not justify any building maintenance by landlords. History is full of examples that ideology recurrently ignores.

Re: Rent controls have split housing in Berlin into two distinct markets

#695

Post by cassepipe »

brutusborn wrote: post #560
cousin_it wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The alternative proposed by the article is basically : let it unregulated, the market will provide. Which is how it was before. Was the problem solved? No. Sigh. Here's what the article actually says: > The right answer to that shortage would be to increase supply — for instance, by cutting red tape in zoning and construction. That's an alternative reform proposal, not going back to how things were before. I think…

It frustrates me to no end that on threads like these, comments on Georgist land-value taxes are buried so deeply. I wonder why they are not more widely recognised or discussed?

Georgist land-value taxes ?

Re: Rent controls have split housing in Berlin into two distinct markets

#696

Post by JamesBarney »

tptacek wrote: post #671
xyzzyz wrote: post #669

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they had no reason to turn down drivers other than their race, sure, but that's because it's illegal (on top of being morally repugnant). They can turn down drivers for other reasons just fine, though, even if they are disproportionately black. For example, I'm told that voter ID laws are wrong, because black people are less likely to have ID (presumably driver's license). Alamo is perfectly able to turn down driv…

My point is that the expectation is so strong that, absent something on your driving record to prevent it, you'll get a rental no matter what you look like as long as you have a reservation (which you'll get sight unseen). That is not true of apartment renting; in fact, I'd argue, it's distinctively untrue of renting. Thus, my rebuttal to Rayiner.

This is much more true of rental companies that work at a scale close to Alamo. If you pass a background check and have a deposit you get a spot.

This is less true of mom and pop rentals. This is probably less true of mom and pop anything.

I think you're right that intuition based decisions make it easier for racism to creep in and are harder to diagnose and fix than process based decisions.

But this problem with renting is probably more true of hiring and firing and more impactful. Should we apply the same rules to hiring and firing?

Re: Rent controls have split housing in Berlin into two distinct markets

#697

Post by zamfi »

heterodoxxed wrote: post #600
zamfi wrote: post #590

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess? But > I advocate a combination of strong rent control, aggressively subsidized housing and consistent growth (especially vertically) where possible. That assumes rational actors in local government , which strikes me as even more fanciful.

I'm of the mind that markets may be rational *given* (and here's the key) a long enough time period. However, human needs have an expiration date and often cannot wait for the market to make sense. | That assumes rational actors in local government No it doesn't, if you can build enough power you can force local governments to enact these kinds of reforms. All politicians can be pressured if you know where to push.

Yes, on the one hand you could bet on the power of a bunch of individuals the system serves well-enough (after all, they're still here!) to apply political pressure to some set of local governments (though, note that rent control is starting to be regulated at the state level) to change policy to help the less-well-off in their neighborhoods.

On the other hand, you could bet on "rational activity" from landlords and developers—aka greedy self-interest.

So, sure, you might get a conscientious grassroots group to apply political pressure for rent control when it's not in their own self-interest. But you can 100% count on developers and landlords to be greedy, and I'd much rather channel that group into the outcome I want while I wait and hope for the former.

Re: Rent controls have split housing in Berlin into two distinct markets

#698

Post by walshemj »

gruez wrote: post #151
walshemj wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But you are buying an asset instead of just paying rent.

That's the point. People are forced concentrating their wealth into a single asset.

If the other option is just handing it to the landlord how is this better.

Re: Rent controls have split housing in Berlin into two distinct markets

#699

Post by aserafini »

Xylakant wrote: post #312
el_nahual wrote: post #152

An issue that many commenters here are missing is that the problem with rent control will manifest more sharply in the future. Sure, the impact today seems relatively equitable: a windfall for people that rent today coupled with a small drop in supply. But fast forward 10 or 20 years and the situation looks far worse: everyone who got a windfall today is still living in the same apartment, whereas anyone trying to en…

A counterexample is Vienna, which utilizes a well balanced system of rent-control and social housing to have incredibly low rents and still a stable supply of flats. One tweak they apply is that rent-control does not apply to new developments, so creating new flats is more lucrative than turning old buildings into luxury developments. The city also acts as a competitor, driving prices down by offering cheap flats. Th…

That is not a tweak: Berlin did exactly the same thing, the rent controls did not apply to new apartments.

Re: Rent controls have split housing in Berlin into two distinct markets

#700

Post by jboog »

_-___________-_ wrote: post #676
jboog wrote: post #620

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was clearly talking about in the US. Literally the previous sentence I was talking about the danger in the US of fossil fuels, then I wrote about the danger of nuclear and then move on to worldwide. Nothing I wrote was false at all. It's almost like you're intentionally trying to misread my argument to paint me as disingenuous.

Maybe it’s my non-US viewpoint but I didn’t read it that way at all. The fact that you qualified the previous sentence with “in the US” made the next sentence seem intentionally broad. I also don't understand why the number of people that have died in nuclear accidents only in the US is a remotely useful metric in the context of the discussion.

Why would I start talking about coal deaths in the US, then immediately broaden it to worldwide nuclear deaths. Lie about Nuclear deaths by only counting US, then immediately after lying bring up Chernobyl and Fukushima to prove I lied or something??

You're trying to ascribe malice and dishonesty because you happen to disagree with me. I don't know why the internet does this to people

Post reply on HN