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

“Your monthly rent .. shall increase from $2145 to $8900”

facebook.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 628 posts

Re: “Your monthly rent .. shall increase from $2145 to $8900”

#221

Post by baddox »

Brian-Puccio wrote: post #27
Lewisham wrote: post #5

Earlier 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…

> 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.

There is a fairly well-accepted economic system that advocates both profit-seeking and making desired goods affordable. Far from being mutually exclusive, they can be mutually reinforcing.

Re: “Your monthly rent .. shall increase from $2145 to $8900”

#222

Post by jackmaney »

IgorPartola wrote: post #17
jackowayed wrote: post #3

If you read the caption, the real issue here is a horrible abuse of the rent control law. When the renter signed their lease, the unit was covered by rent control, putting very tight restrictions on rent increases and evictions. However, the landlord then essentially destroyed the other unit in the building so that they could reclassify the building as a single-family home instead of a multi-unit building. Single-fam…

OTOH, how much can you restrict the property owner? What if the other unit needed to be knocked down for a reason other than to get rid of rent control? Would it be OK for the law to tell the owner to fix it some other way? What if both units were destroyed in a natural disaster and a new structure had to be built from nothing? Is that still rent-controlled? Also, is rent control even a good idea? In the short term,…

"...and let the market correct itself."

No. This is the philosophy that put our economy in the shitter in the first place. More government regulations, please.

Re: “Your monthly rent .. shall increase from $2145 to $8900”

#223

Post by curun1r »

thearn4 wrote: post #89
therealwill wrote: post #58

Here is the home: http://www.trulia.com/homes/California/San_Francisco/sold/71... Taxes are 11,043 with a value of 904,085. $2145 looks like an EXTREMELY low rent for a house of this size in San Francisco. (half of the rent is just property taxes.) The landlord was likely losing money keeping it rented at $2145 even if he owned it free and clear.

> 1 full bath, 1,900 sqft Single-Family Home > a value of $904,085 I understand the nature of supply and demand and the appeal of living in an area full of like minded people, but as someone in a flyover state, this absolutely blows my mind.

That's in a somewhat out-of-the-way part of SF. More central/desirable neighborhoods are considerably more.

Examples:

http://www.trulia.com/property/3191871255-1097-Howard-St-302...

http://www.trulia.com/property/3006745092-2801-Jackson-St-30...

http://www.trulia.com/property/3191823695-425-1st-St-5005-Sa...

http://www.trulia.com/property/3190475980-2145-Powell-St-215...

Re: “Your monthly rent .. shall increase from $2145 to $8900”

#224

Post by blake_himself »

jsprogrammer wrote: post #207
mmarx wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The landlord was likely losing money keeping it rented at $2145 even if he owned it free and clear. This conveniently omits the fact that there used to be two units in that house, so the actual rent would certainly have been closer to double that amount.

It also conveniently omitted any calculation about how the owner is 'losing money', despite there being a ~$14,000 positive difference between what the tenant is paying per year and the taxes due.

Losing, compared to what he could have been making.

Re: “Your monthly rent .. shall increase from $2145 to $8900”

#225

Post by jsprogrammer »

harryh wrote: post #202
jsprogrammer wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By definition, profit is extracting more than the 'worth' of something.

False. In reality, in most transactions, both parties profit due to the fact that there is no fixed concept of "worth." The apple that you bought from your grocer for 50 cents was valued at 40 cents by him and 60 cents by you.

Why would I value an apple higher than what a grocer is willing to sell? I wouldn't.

Re: “Your monthly rent .. shall increase from $2145 to $8900”

#226

Post by candu »

cookiecaper wrote: post #56
vertex-four wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Rentals are for a limited time by definition. I know people (in fact, every branch of my family, along with many of my friends) who have rented their entire lives, because they can't own - they've never been able to amass enough capital or convince someone else to lend them it. Should they be uprooted every year (or more often) because someone wants to make a bit more money? Rentals are whatever the combination of…

>Should they be uprooted every year (or more often) because someone wants to make a bit more money? If they are living on someone else's property, and that person wishes to sell the property, and the lease and any other contractual or statutory guarantees have lapsed, then yes? This is really not a new thing. You can't do away with property ownership as a concept just because San Francisco is ridiculous.

You absolutely can alter the concept of property ownership; to think otherwise is a failure of imagination, historical perspective, or both. (For instance: who owned the land under the buildings at 8th and Market three million years ago? What would an early Christian think of our complex system of interest-bearing loans? Have you ever read any sci-fi novels depicting societies in which property rights took fundamentally different forms? Should landlords be allowed to kill or enslave tenants if that would increase their profits? What if the government knocks on your door and claims eminent domain? And so on.)

Whether you should do so is another question, one to which I don't have the answer.

Re: “Your monthly rent .. shall increase from $2145 to $8900”

#227

Post by psychboo »

r0naa wrote: post #15
Sir_Cmpwn wrote: post #12

YC sings the praises of San Fransisco, and they're right about the culture and the startup scene there. But things like this, and the cost of living overall, make me hesitate to start something out there.

Me too, I have yet to graduate from college but things like that make me feel that I should stay in Waterloo (Canada).

I'm in nearby Guelph (Canada) and feel the same way. The developing technology scene in Ontario is enough to keep me put for now.

Re: “Your monthly rent .. shall increase from $2145 to $8900”

#229

Post by baddox »

dragonwriter wrote: post #142
jlebar wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> not to mention supply/demand doesn't work for something with fairly inelastic demand lolwut? The free market works pretty OK for gasoline and food (taken as a whole; obviously specific foods are elastic). When was the last time you heard people clamoring for price controls at the grocery store? Even more to the point, the free market works just fine for housing in the vast majority of the US that does not have any…

Neither gasoline nor food are "free markets", even approximately. Government actively intervenes to influence the supply and price of gasoline, and actively intervenes in food, subsidizing both production and consumption. So, if whatever is being done for gas and food works well, that's not an endorsement of the free market.

But now we've ended up where we always end up, where each side of a debate rejects any alleged historical evidence supporting their opponent's position on the grounds that their opponent's proposal has not been perfectly implemented.

Re: “Your monthly rent .. shall increase from $2145 to $8900”

#230

Post by EpicEng »

will_hughes wrote: post #91
IgorPartola wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OTOH, how much can you restrict the property owner? What if the other unit needed to be knocked down for a reason other than to get rid of rent control? Would it be OK for the law to tell the owner to fix it some other way? What if both units were destroyed in a natural disaster and a new structure had to be built from nothing? Is that still rent-controlled? Also, is rent control even a good idea? In the short term,…

> What if the other unit needed to be knocked down for a reason other than to get rid of rent control? Let the owner give adequate notice to vacate (where I live it's 60 days notice without cause). But the rent-control limitation stays on that land parcel for some period of time after a new building is constructed on the site. Don't want to rent it? No problems. > Newly moved in renters realize that they are paying 1…

>All so some asshole (which is probably a company), can make more money. Great for the rich.

Ummm... yeah, that's why I bought the place. That's why I took the risk on the investment. That's why I deal with all of the administration. That's why I keep it up to code. So... now I have to rent it for 25% market value? I'll find any way I can out of that situation, and no, it doesn't make me an asshole.

Post reply on HN