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

Post by joeclark77 » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 2:34 AM UTC

jackmaney wrote: post #249

clarky07 wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1 - first, so what? second, nobody needs to live "there". They can move to a different rental. 2 - moving isn't "that" expensive. It's a pain in the ass, but you can do it in a weekend with a few hundred dollar moving truck. You might be able to raise rates a few percent, but you can't just move them significantly above market.

> moving isn't "that" expensive. It's a pain in the ass, but you can do it in a weekend with a few hundred dollar moving truck Care to show me a single company that would allow me to rent a truck for a cross country move for less than four hundred dollars? Go ahead. Take your time.

Post by dools » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 2:35 AM UTC

Post by brc » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 2:36 AM UTC

impendia wrote: post #104

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,…

> Rent goes down. The market has corrected itself and all is well. What am I missing? You're missing the fact that rent won't go down -- at least not by much, because living in San Francisco will remain desirable for enough people who are willing to pay very high rents. Only the very wealthy, or those who bought in a long time ago, would be able to live in San Francisco. Of course, this is increasingly the case anywa…

Post by maxharris » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 2:36 AM UTC

wpietri wrote: post #192

maxharris wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 yo…

Post by charonn0 » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 2:38 AM UTC

cc439 wrote: post #239

wpietri wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you're missing is that housing is not a normal good. Sure, there is a housing marketplace, which can provide some correction. But houses are also homes. People are born in them. People die in them. They love them, they cherish them, they fight for them. There's a lot of truth in the saying, "Home is where the heart is." What you're missing in that scenario is the large number of people who are displaced not just…

So why not create a lifetime rent control that is tied to the occupancy of the current tenant? One they're gone, it's fair game for anyone at any price and you protect the "right to a home" for the existing resident. That said, I don't think a rental can ever be a home in the way you describe it. The fact that the property is owned by another party means the resident will always be limited in their sense of place dur…