Evicted in San Francisco

The linked article is great reading, thanks!

It's true that landlords can set the price of a vacant unit arbitrarily, unlike say NYC's rent stabilization, which limits increases even between tenants.

However, I'd argue SF rent control isn't very "soft" by the article's definition - there's no hardship or rate of return provisions for the landlord, and during a tenant's stay, the allowable increases are negligible (less than CPI/inflation and certainly much less than market rate you'd expect on an investment with similar risk). Because a landlord has to evaluate a potential tenant for a lifetime lease, a lot of the same negative dynamics apply during the rental transaction. The landlord is trying to reduce their uncertainty - finding a tenant who will not only pay the greatest possible rent, but also stay for the shortest possible time.

As market prices rise, tenants of rent-controlled units are highly incentivized to stay in their current home, because a new lease would be so much more expensive. This further reduces the available supply.

It gets even worse when you consider the variety of protected classes SF rental law has created. Elderly and disabled tenants cannot be evicted without special cause, even if they've stopped paying rent years ago. The intent of the law is good: to protect vulnerable populations who would suffer greatly if they were evicted. But in effect, it only protects vulnerable tenants who already have a lease. Every other member of that class will find it much harder to find housing, because their tenancy comes with strings attached. There are anti-discrimination provisions in housing law, but in a competitive market, those are incredibly difficult to enforce.

1) Life-expectancy in Roman times was very low. 50 is a more appropriate age for your rhetoric.

2) "Serfs" are medieval. And besides, this is an argument about free citizens, so the very concept is irrelevant.

3) The colleges were all independent, spontaneously organised by poor citizens. Anyway, apart from subsidised grain and generalised patronage the Roman ruling classes didn't design social welfare systems akin to anything we would recognise (and again, the comparison is difficult, because the patricians were generally using their own fortunes to win favour with the masses)

4) The colleges insured primarily against the possibility of funeral costs in the event of sudden death - the most important shock financial event the average poor Roman expected to face. There was no effective medical technology in Roman times, but Romans cared a lot about having a good funeral and being remembered.

5) The colleges weren't "available" to anyone unless they paid their way. If you wanted that protection, you paid your membership dues. So yes, if the destitute old free citizen had been prudent and consistently paid their dues before striking bad luck, they would be okay (well, they'd get their nice funeral, but you know what I mean.)

6) Maybe your millions of people making "less than the living wage" (however you define that) should take a leaf out of the book that seems popular to users of this site - looking for ways to improve the value of the services they offer?

7) What is so wrong with the idea of people directly petitioning others for funds to purchase healthcare? Heck, they don't even need to just petition the extremely wealthy. Powerful modern technology allows people to petition the entire world for funds (if they can convince people their cause is worthy.)[1] One of the benefits of living in a more advanced age than 50BC.

8) I feel like you are imagining me wrong. To be clear: I am young, broke, and largely unaccomplished. I have no significant assets beyond my intelligence and my ambition. I have no vested interest to protect. In fact, I am someone who stands to gain the most short-term from these sorts of welfare policies. Hell, I even work for "minimum wage" currently - another thing I would like to see abolished!

I simply want society to reward and encourage people who provide genuine value, and stop forcing productive citizens to subsidise unproductive citizens, without any accountability or metrics for the benefit of their investment, because a) I want to make my way up in the world honestly, by offering true value for trade, and b) because I am concerned about the economic damage caused by pervasive, dysfunctional contemporary policy.

If society got rid of all this terrible policy, the abundance of opportunities from the ensuing economic growth would do more to improve the fortunes of the assiduous in a few years than social welfare has accomplished in decades.

[1] www.kickstarter.com

> At the end of the day, it's private property. She's not entitled to live there if the owner doesn't want her to.

That's not how it works in many places, including in SF. She was not entitled to live there because it was not a legal dwelling.

I do not think government can take away citizen's liberties just because it wants to make government's life simple. This is even more applicable to the weaker sections of the society because they are far more vulnerable. I am sure government can be more creative to come up with better enforceable laws in these cases. It is not in the interest of both tenant and landlord to frequently find themselves visiting a court. They are likely to come up with their own settlement in most cases.

Also there is an opportunity cost involved here. How much resources are spent directly or indirectly by both city administration and other citizens for homeless people and any problems they create ? How much potential revenue in taxes is City losing because such units are not legal ?

I deny that a state that taxes its citizens and provides services to all in return is necessarily tyrannical. I also deny that I said what you think I said, because your black and white view of the world appears to preclude shades of gray. If it suits you to use scary words, however, then my answer is yes - it is still preferable to your alternative.