Earlier quoted context omitted.
If not for rent control, my studio apartment would be over $3,000 a month. Everyday I thank rent control.
So what? Why do you think you should get to live somewhere highly desireable at a below market rate?
[deleted]
“Your monthly rent .. shall increase from $2145 to $8900”
191–200 of 628 posts
Re: “Your monthly rent .. shall increase from $2145 to $8900”
#192Earlier quoted context omitted.
The idea behind limiting the landlord's profit is that many believe that it is more important for people to be able to afford housing than for others to make larger profits through, literally, rent-seeking. It's not just because, it's a social priority. Kinda like the comment the other day on HN that was something along the lines of "I don't see why we need the gov't regulating water prices, why can't the free market…
It's not just because, it's a social priority. How does this legitimize it? A group that votes to dictate what I can do with my property might be doing it by the letter of the law, but that doesn't make it morally right. If I've earned something (e.g., I've gotten it legitimately through trade, as opposed to theft or fraud), that means I've poured some part of my life into earning that thing. Apart from issues where…
This is essentially a fundamentalist view of property rights. It seems like that for any X, you can find people to assert that X is obviously the most important thing in the world, so anything else doesn't matter. Fundamentalisms are mentally satisfying, because you always have clear answers. But they're practically dangerous, because the ignored concerns don't actually go away.
Land, of course, does not work like you imagine it does. See, e.g.,:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_tenure#Modes_of_ownership_...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_possession
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_reform
In addition to all that, you ignore that concepts like "trade" and "law" and even "earned" are all intrinsically social concepts. No man is an island. That doesn't mean that property rights aren't useful and important, but if you want everybody to agree on a particular set of rights, you'll have to make a case that is more compelling than, "my particular moral code says you must abide by my particular moral code".
Re: “Your monthly rent .. shall increase from $2145 to $8900”
#193Earlier quoted context omitted.
And up to 10,000 units in San Francisco are vacant because they think it's unfair. http://kalw.org/post/growing-number-san-francisco-landlords-...
Someone could do arbitrage on this by creating a pipeline of "high quality" tenants that they can market to landlords as less likely to skip out on rent or become problem tenants: Ivy-League graduates, employees of well-known companies, etc.
Rental discrimination laws very strict, someone would probably try to sue you.
Re: “Your monthly rent .. shall increase from $2145 to $8900”
#194Earlier quoted context omitted.
If not for rent control, my studio apartment would be over $3,000 a month. Everyday I thank rent control.
So what? Why do you think you should get to live somewhere highly desireable at a below market rate?
Many people think they should be able to live in a place they can afford with the reasonable expectation that it will be their home for the foreseeable future. Many benefits, to both the economy and society at large, come from ensuring the populace in general is able to find stable housing. While San Francisco's rent control may be too stringent for its own good, there are many reasons to support a more reasonable rent stabilization policy in a jurisdiction with unstable rental prices.
Re: “Your monthly rent .. shall increase from $2145 to $8900”
#195Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it's sort of obnoxious and should be illegal to force landlords to keep renters ad infinitum just because. That hardly seems fair to the landlord, no?
The idea behind limiting the landlord's profit is that many believe that it is more important for people to be able to afford housing than for others to make larger profits through, literally, rent-seeking. It's not just because, it's a social priority. Kinda like the comment the other day on HN that was something along the lines of "I don't see why we need the gov't regulating water prices, why can't the free market…
I wouldn't make the "let the landlord make more money" argument, I would be making the "rent control is a significant distortion of the market which hurts both renters and tenants in the long run" argument. Housing absolutely is a social priority, and while rent control is definitely a well intentioned attempted and addressing the issue, a more effective approach would be to build more - not restrict the price signalling mechanism.
Re: “Your monthly rent .. shall increase from $2145 to $8900”
#196"the security deposit [...] shall increase to $12,500 per month" Can someone explain what this means? I've never had to pay a security deposit per month . That must be a copy + paste error?
The numbers are just there to make it impossible to pay. They want the tenant out so they can sell the house.
I get that. But the concept of a security deposit is that you get it back when you leave, so long as you haven't damaged the place. Having to pay an additional security deposit each month doesn't make logistical or logical sense. Do they hand you a check for $1M when you leave after ten years? Does the number of damageable surfaces in the apartment increase each month?
Re: “Your monthly rent .. shall increase from $2145 to $8900”
#197This is a perfect example of why rent control is a terrible system that leads to market inefficiencies and worse outcomes for a community. The law has made it more profitable for this landlord to remove housing stock and charge market rate for the remaining unit than to rent out both units in the building under rent control laws. Cities with low vacancy rates like SF need to rethink their approach to housing if they…
If not for rent control, my studio apartment would be over $3,000 a month. Everyday I thank rent control.
And what about everyone else? That is an extremely selfish view.
Rent control stifles new construction, and allows you to live in relative luxury at the expense of others.
Let me ask you, if rent control is the solution to high rent, why not introduce legislation to cut all current rent rates in half?
Re: “Your monthly rent .. shall increase from $2145 to $8900”
#198This was almost certainly illegal.
Removing dwelling units in SF (as they did to the downstairs neighbor's flat) almost always requires a public hearing. See http://www.sf-planning.org/index.aspx?page=2816
(via https://twitter.com/markasaurus/status/577252542419062784 )
Re: “Your monthly rent .. shall increase from $2145 to $8900”
#199Earlier quoted context omitted.
The idea behind limiting the landlord's profit is that many believe that it is more important for people to be able to afford housing than for others to make larger profits through, literally, rent-seeking. It's not just because, it's a social priority. Kinda like the comment the other day on HN that was something along the lines of "I don't see why we need the gov't regulating water prices, why can't the free market…
It's not just because, it's a social priority. How does this legitimize it? A group that votes to dictate what I can do with my property might be doing it by the letter of the law, but that doesn't make it morally right. If I've earned something (e.g., I've gotten it legitimately through trade, as opposed to theft or fraud), that means I've poured some part of my life into earning that thing. Apart from issues where…
Most property, if you trace out the actual chain of transactions, originates in theft or fraud. Either a monarch or other military force took it from another group by force and parceled out pieces of it (theft) or literally just claimed it from afar (without occupation) and decided who to grant it to (fraud). Just because you are some steps removed from the beginning of the transaction chain, does not mean that you have 'earned something', or as you put it, 'gotten it legitimately'.
Re: “Your monthly rent .. shall increase from $2145 to $8900”
#200This person should be grateful they were able to live in a place in such high demand so cheaply due to unfair rent control laws. If a 4x increase in rent is bearable by the market then it's not a sign of landlord greed, it's a sign of a broken system. I'm sure if this person was offered the opportunity to make an extra 5k a month with little to no change in effort on their part they would do so and be offended if peo…
> If a 4x increase in rent is bearable by the market then it's not a sign of landlord greed, it's a sign of a broken system.
It's not bearable by the market. $2145 is low but market rate is nowhere near $8900 for a place like this; not even half that. This is clearly an attempt to force the tenant out with an inflated rate.
I'm not going to comment on either sides rights here but this rate is not simply "what the market will bear".