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

81–90 of 118 posts

Re: San Francisco Landlords may lose everything [video]

#81

Post by [deleted] »

philsquared_ wrote: post #72
rufus_foreman wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

[deleted]

Re: San Francisco Landlords may lose everything [video]

#82

Post by AnthonyMouse »

sharts wrote: post #77
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

Restricting demand is inhumane. Increase supply.

Re: San Francisco Landlords may lose everything [video]

#83

Post by kcplate »

HarryHirsch wrote: post #44
kcplate wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there any place on this earth where “public housing” was anything but an unmitigated disaster that was used simply to corral “the have nots” away from “the haves”? Whatever the solution is, it’s damn sure is not public housing .

Vienna is always held up as a model. Also Berlin, until recently.

I am sure the chance for success is much greater in a society that is fairly homogenous.

Re: San Francisco Landlords may lose everything [video]

#84

Post by 29athrowaway »

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.

There was a place with no landlords. It was called the Soviet Union. I am sure you would love it there.

Re: San Francisco Landlords may lose everything [video]

#85

Post by evilos »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #58
evilos wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe a more workable and less authoritarian tack would be that the government plays in the market as a limited profit entity, thereby ensuring that a cartel cannot fully capture the market and endlessly drive prices upwards. Limited profit (capped at some percentage over revenue) is allowed in order to let the entity invest in expansions so that they don't simply end up being 1% of the market that can be ignored by…

Landlords aren't a cartel in that sense. The way they get together and "fix prices" is by having the government restrict housing density to increase scarcity. A non-profit that has to follow the same zoning rules can't fix that. Whereas if prices are high and you don't prohibit lower density housing from being replaced with higher density housing, there is money in doing that and the market takes care of it for you.

I mean my preferred solution would be zoning reform first, yes. I was just proposing an amendment to OPs policy, I don't think it's politically viable in the US.

In my large US city, a lot of apartments are held by various corporations that collude via third party software to raise and keep prices high. The local building managers have no say in lease pricing. Maybe a small percentage of people are lucky enough to find mom/pop landlords but many are stuck paying whatever the large complexes charge.

Re: San Francisco Landlords may lose everything [video]

#86

Post by HarryHirsch »

kcplate wrote: post #83
HarryHirsch wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Vienna is always held up as a model. Also Berlin, until recently.

I am sure the chance for success is much greater in a society that is fairly homogenous.

There are large tracts of the US that are mostly ethnically homogeneous - most everywhere is not an urban Babel like NYC or SF. Meanwhile, the Habsburg monarchy was the prototype of a multiethnic state, and its capital was everything but uniform.

Also Sanhedrin 38a: https://www.sefaria.org/Sanhedrin.38a.8

Re: San Francisco Landlords may lose everything [video]

#87

Post by breakyerself »

blitz_skull wrote: post #59
breakyerself wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A few bad actors? You are the exception to the norm. Beyond that people are working to pay your mortgage increasing your net worth. You may not have much income, but you are getting wealthier.

You say I’m getting wealthier like that’s inherently a bad thing? But beyond that, I still don’t think banning owning a rental (however that would be enforced anyway) is the solution there. It’s not a realistic suggestion.

It's not inherently a bad thing to get wealthier, but buying a necessity so you can rent it back to people isn't a great way to do it.

Re: San Francisco Landlords may lose everything [video]

#88

Post by breakyerself »

kcplate wrote: post #83
HarryHirsch wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Vienna is always held up as a model. Also Berlin, until recently.

I am sure the chance for success is much greater in a society that is fairly homogenous.

This is a gross way of saying we have too many minorities here to provide public services.

Re: San Francisco Landlords may lose everything [video]

#89

Post by breakyerself »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #64
breakyerself wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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. The free market used to work better before it got handcuffed by zoning laws everywhere. If you prohibit the free market from working, don't then mock the free market because it's not working. > A large portion of the supply is being held by investors…

Landlords restrict the supply of houses available for purchase.

Re: San Francisco Landlords may lose everything [video]

#90

Post by breakyerself »

alchemist1e9 wrote: post #78
breakyerself wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

You'd have to sell your rental properties. Invest your money in something else. It's not my concern. Your desire for investment vehicles is less important than the public need for housing.
Post reply on HN