I can't believe a single glibertarian hasn't quoted Krugman on rent control yet.
“Your monthly rent .. shall increase from $2145 to $8900”
291–300 of 628 posts
Re: “Your monthly rent .. shall increase from $2145 to $8900”
#292Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't understand this argument. _Quality_ housing seems to me, to be a normal good, because when income increases the demand for such housing increases. Even crappy places in SF seem to be quality housing. Whether or not there are class issues, or your house is sentimental is irrelevant. Edit: typo
Apparently "normal good" is an economic technical term, and apparently you are using that technical definition here and not the normal use of "normal". I have no idea why you'd do that; as you point out, that technical term bears no relation to what I'm talking about.
to be fair I was confused to, because you were making an economics argument so I would presume you were using economics terms. Not saying that you should have or whatever, it's completely realistic that you wouldn't have heard of it, but it is something some people are going to bring in as context, so its understandable why they're confused.
Re: “Your monthly rent .. shall increase from $2145 to $8900”
#293Earlier quoted context omitted.
Vacancy decontrol = new construction can have whatever rent they want. So preventing a landlord from screwing over the current tenant does not prevent housing from meeting demand. New construction does face many other issues, though. NIMBY's, parking regulations, zoning, etc.
Rent control makes people become NIMBYs.
I concur. And it seems to me that the feedback mechanism is destroying SF.
Re: “Your monthly rent .. shall increase from $2145 to $8900”
#294Earlier quoted context omitted.
Landlords can impose rent increases far beyond fair market rents for new tenants because it's costly and inconvenient to move, but (in a sellers' market) cheap to replace tenants. The market rent is exactly what other potential tenants are willing to pay. Now, you can argue that particular rent control laws are too aggressive, or that the strategy for calculating bounds on rent increases cause excessive opportunity l…
> The market rent is exactly what other potential tenants are willing to pay. You're not understanding the scam. Suppose you move in to a place and pay the then-market rent of $1000 a month. Let's further suppose that it cost you $2400 to move, plus a shitload of time and effort that you'd rather not repeat. If the next year the market price remains $1000/month, the landlord can still raise the rent on you because yo…
> The exact amount they can get away with depends on personal tolerance and your time value for money, but given how much moving sucks, in practice it's quite a bit.
It is my experience, as you say, that rent tends to increase by a small amount each year, usually about 2%. Even people on fixed incomes tend to get cost of living adjustments, though, and the range is about the same as typical rent increases.
I do not see rents increasing by the amounts you suggest, which suggests that either all landlords since I started renting in 1991 have been leaving money on the table, or they can't actually do this reliably.
I think there are several reasons why they can't raise rents by 10% a year in order to keep people there, even though that extra money would be about what it costs to move:
Since the money it would cost to move grows only at inflation, by the second or third year it would suddenly be profitable to move, even for renters who really hated moving. In order to avoid this, landlords would have to apply the rise only once. But if they do this, then the market rate is just the higher one, and you could look at the initial lower rate as a promotion. In fact, this is quite common in rental advertising! Often it comes in the form of "first month free", which is about of the same scale.
More importantly, people who rent probably do not expect to stay in the same house or apartment for many years. In non-rent-controlled areas, rent is more expensive per month than buying the same sort of place, so if you intend to stay in the same location for more than a few years, there's no reason not to buy. As a renter, I've never lived in the same dwelling for more than three years, and when I move somewhere, I assume that I'll be moving again in a year or two, as conditions change (job, relationships, etc).
Re: “Your monthly rent .. shall increase from $2145 to $8900”
#295YC 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.
It really blows my mind that young people starting new companies want to live and work out there. There are other places to live that are less expensive and have venture capital! My hometown of San Antonio, while nowhere near as inexpensive as it was 10 years ago, is a great example of this. The startup scene in SAT is blowing up and you can get a gorgeous, brand-new apartment for under $2K.
Re: “Your monthly rent .. shall increase from $2145 to $8900”
#296I find it interesting that we can, with almost 95%+ success, determine who on these threads owns Real Estate in San Francisco, versus those who don't. There are admittedly some comments that are in the margins, but the number of false positives/negatives is probably pretty close to zero. In particular, those who rant about the evils of uncontrolled rental markets are 99% likely to not own real estate in San Francisco…
How can you verify your assumptions about whether or not a commenter owns real estate? For example, do I own real estate in San Francisco? I think your chances of getting that right are pretty close to 50%.
You haven't made any comments about Real Estate ownership, so I can't make any guesses.
I really like Warren Buffet's perspective, the rules one believes are right, should be created without you knowing what your circumstance will be. That is, if you are trying to determine what is right, or not, about rent controls, you should create without knowing whether you will be renter, or an owner.
I've never met a real estate owner in San Francisco who was rabidly opposed to uncontrolled rent markets - so, with 99% certainly (I'm sure there are some edge cases), anybody who is highly opposed to uncontrolled rent markets is, with a high level of certainty, not a real estate owner in San Francisco.
Re: “Your monthly rent .. shall increase from $2145 to $8900”
#297Earlier quoted context omitted.
All landlords aren't assholes, just the ones who try to force people out of their homes by jacking up rents to insane prices.
What's the not-asshole thing to do when you find out you could be making a profit literally ten times as big as your current profit? Especially when you know the supply being competed over won't be changing much.
The not-asshole thing to do is to continue making your current profit. Or hell, raise it a little, but not enough to make it financially untenable for your current tenant to live there. You think it's ok to do something that will benefit your bank account but will simultaneously force someone to move out of their home? Enriching yourself at the expense of others is an asshole move, to me at least.
Re: “Your monthly rent .. shall increase from $2145 to $8900”
#298Re: “Your monthly rent .. shall increase from $2145 to $8900”
#299Earlier 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…
> A group that votes to dictate what I can do with my property might be doing it by the letter of the law Why do you have property? Why does a police force and firefighters exist to protect that property? Why are there courts and contracts? The only reason is because a group of people have decided to set rules that protect your property - the only "natural property" you can have is that which you can fight for, and a…
Why are there courts and contracts?
It's not society that decided this. Most people in our society recognize the fact that the alternative would be to resolve disputes (including ones where no one intended to cause anyone any harm) through violence. We need courts, police and contracts so that we can live and create without fear of retaliation, without generations of Hatfields feuding with McCoys.
Re: “Your monthly rent .. shall increase from $2145 to $8900”
#300Earlier 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,…
Transaction costs. Moving is not free: at a minimum, there are search costs to find a new apartment and moving costs to pack all your stuff up and move it around. Very often, there are also storage needs, and if you move non-locally, there are jobsearch and job termination costs, recruiting costs by their employers, relocation costs, etc. Many of these are externalities - they're born by people who are not party to t…
Your on to some thing here. In some resort communities, with high housing costs and large "seasonal" residents, you'll find rent controlled properties for just the reason you mention: local labor. For example, aspen colorado has a "lottery" for these rent controlled properties, and has duplex housing right outside of town for local workers. An average home in town is in the millions, which is clearly outside the price range for a service or municipal worker, so they have some rent controlled properties. I've seen this in other sky towns as well.