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

San Francisco Landlords may lose everything [video]

youtube.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 118 posts

Re: San Francisco Landlords may lose everything [video]

#71

Post by alchemist1e9 »

monkaiju wrote: post #28
achates wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So if you fulfill basic human needs you aren't allowed to make a profit but every other industry can?

Yes. You arent just like born into 'fulfilling' a basic human need. These services, think healthcare, food, and housing, should be public services that are guaranteed not delivered by the market. You cannot look at the market-based solutions to literally any of these objectively and think it is performing well. At least, not if you value human life.

Sounds like you have alternative history to what I learned.

Re: San Francisco Landlords may lose everything [video]

#72

Post by philsquared_ »

rufus_foreman wrote: post #63
nix666 wrote: post #15

if you have a vacant unit that you're having trouble filling and you don't want to be taxed, the free market is telling you to lower the price. it's not complicated.

If you've got landlords who would rather leave units vacant rather than renting them out, the free market is also telling you something about your regulations on renting out those units. I mean they would rather take zero money than some money. Why is that?

Because they think their line of work shouldn't involve any risk.. They don't want to risk filling a unit at a lower price and only being able to raise rate 1-2% per year when if they held off for a year they can charge 15 - 20% more..

If you want to play that game you have to live with the consequences...

Re: San Francisco Landlords may lose everything [video]

#73

Post by alchemist1e9 »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #42
HarryHirsch wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Guess he is against private ownership of public infrastructure, because of what experience has shown. Invariably, there is persistent underinvestment to increase short-term profit, and once the physical plant is so run down that it plainly can't function any longer, it is renationalized at great loss to the public. The current model has led to a persistent underinvestment in housing, especially entry-level housing si…

OK, but there is still an unstated proposition, that housing is (or should be) public infrastructure. That was not even stated, and if it were stated, there would be very wide disagreement with it. This style of posting - assuming but not stating a controversial position, but stating as given what follows from it - is real bad news. First, it's essentially a dishonest way of communicating. They state as truth somethi…

It’s a terrible post I agree. The other issue is how basic capitalism is constantly under attack despite the overwhelming empirical evidence of it’s remarkable success.

It’s a repeated pattern in history that always ends in darkness for humanity if it gains enough momentum to make changes.

https://iea.org.uk/publications/socialism-the-failed-idea-th...

How are we even debating private ownership of property and housing. What an incredible failure of basic education systems. It’s like denying evolution or holding some other profoundly unscientific and un-objective emotional belief.

Hopefully my comment complies with HN guidelines. It’s can be hard to comply we dealing with such absurd proposals and theories.

Unless tinker-bell is real and has fairy dust to build houses and provide basic needs.

Re: San Francisco Landlords may lose everything [video]

#74

Post by mistrial9 »

zapdrive wrote: post #18
mistrial9 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

nice defense, but you realize that edit many landlords are not like that at all.. the court system here in Alameda County California has a backlog of a decade+ for extremely abusive landlords

And some tenants are sucky too. Courts are backed up for evictions due to non payment of rent too.

"two wrongs don't make a right"

Re: San Francisco Landlords may lose everything [video]

#75

Post by alchemist1e9 »

Duwensatzaj wrote: post #30
breakyerself wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Landlords are the reason housing is unaffordable, but in a world without landlords if homeownership is out of reach for a segment of the population there should be public housing to accommodate that need.

Wrong. Housing is unaffordable because demand outstrips supply. Economic illiterates who blame “greed” making public policy tend to make it even worse.

Exactly correct and based on hard empirical reality.

The real problem we have is exactly what you labeled “economic illiteracy”. This is a serious problem and issue with education systems worldwide.

In the future I hope one day humanity realizes that it’s equivalent in the past to failing to teach reading and writing or denying evolution.

Re: San Francisco Landlords may lose everything [video]

#76

Post by sharts »

blitz_skull wrote: post #5
wellthisisgreat wrote: post #2

Sucks that SF is decay. But about the title - That's VERY Good! Humanity and society does not need an occupation identified as a "landlord". Housing should not be an investment ever.

Not sure it’s an “occupation” for most. I make less than 5% of my monthly living expenses off my rental property and treat my tenants with the care I’d treat my own family. I’m not sure a few bad actors taking advantage of people warrants statements like, “Housing should not be an investment ever.”

All the shady landlords I experienced in my life (that stole my deposit, I had to sue…and still refused) were from the bay area.

I’m glad I own now but it’s really hard to sympathize when so many have been crooks.

Re: San Francisco Landlords may lose everything [video]

#77

Post by sharts »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #29
breakyerself wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Landlords are the reason housing is unaffordable, but in a world without landlords if homeownership is out of reach for a segment of the population there should be public housing to accommodate that need.

> Landlords are the reason housing is unaffordable Zoning laws are the reason housing is unaffordable. Landlords lobby for zoning laws, but if you have the political power to prohibit renting then presumably you have the political power to reform zoning. Moreover, you should do that anyway, because if all you do is prohibit renting without allowing new housing to be built, you're going to have a bad time. > if homeow…

In the end it’s really supply/demand. Perhaps there need to be quotas on how much population can be in the city at any given time.

Added benefit would be less traffic, congestion, and waiting in lines for anything

Re: San Francisco Landlords may lose everything [video]

#78

Post by alchemist1e9 »

breakyerself wrote: post #55
Duwensatzaj wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wrong. Housing is unaffordable because demand outstrips supply. Economic illiterates who blame “greed” making public policy tend to make it even worse.

Demand is outstripping supply because policy makers have left it up to the market to supply the need and the market has failed. The reason supply used to meet demand is that the government didn't just pray to the almighty free hand, it acted with policy to ensure there was housing for everyone. A large portion of the supply is being held by investors like landlords which restricts the supply. Removing them from the e…

> Removing them from the equation would increase supply and decrease prices.

As a landlord I’d be interested to understand your proposed mechanism to “remove” me.

Could you also elaborate what happens to my capital and what I should be doing instead with the excess capital my productivity generates over my chosen needs and wants?

Re: San Francisco Landlords may lose everything [video]

#79

Post by th0ma5 »

UncleEntity wrote: post #66
th0ma5 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You need to challenge your assumptions more, why couldn't you just make single family dwellings illegal in high demand areas? And have the state in charge of housing? Unless you mean to argue about current laws and situations, the main point of these discussions and this post is that they are not working.

> ...why couldn't you just make single family dwellings illegal in high demand areas? Because this isn't how things work in civil society. They can't just decree that all single family homes in San Jose are now illegal and you have to vacate by the end of the month.

I guess you remind me of imminent domain, and the also other legal and not so legal ways people manipulate property values like cash for houses signs.

Re: San Francisco Landlords may lose everything [video]

#80

Post by th0ma5 »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #61
th0ma5 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You need to challenge your assumptions more, why couldn't you just make single family dwellings illegal in high demand areas? And have the state in charge of housing? Unless you mean to argue about current laws and situations, the main point of these discussions and this post is that they are not working.

The existing problem is that multi-family dwellings are illegal in many high demand areas. Otherwise it would be highly profitable to build them there. If you fix that you don't need to do anything else. Putting the state in charge of housing is the cause of the existing problem. They become captured by landlords, or favor higher property values because they increase property tax revenues. What you need is some const…

Why isn't more regulation the answer? If children misbehave at school we don't give them more freedom. There are widely published opinions that state this just makes landlords richer and housing rarer to further deregulate.
Post reply on HN