“Your monthly rent .. shall increase from $2145 to $8900” • Hacker News Board

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

#301

Post by brc » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 2:48 AM UTC

nodesocket wrote: post #136

s0uthPaw88 wrote: post #48

This 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.

At least you seem to be acknowledging your luck in being protected by law against market prices.

You should take advantage of your situation and save the money you are spared by law, so the day that the law stops protecting you, you have a buffer.

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

#302

Post by bratsche » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 2:49 AM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #270

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…

What you're missing is that housing is not a normal good This logic taken to its conclusion brings us to some pretty disquieting places. Maybe SF should just build a lot more housing .

Build where? You know there's water all around it right?

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

#303

Post by toomuchtodo » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 2:50 AM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #270

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…

What you're missing is that housing is not a normal good This logic taken to its conclusion brings us to some pretty disquieting places. Maybe SF should just build a lot more housing .

Heaven forbid we devalue the existing property! Or change SF's character! /s

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

#304

Post by tptacek » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 2:50 AM UTC

bratsche wrote: post #302

tptacek wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you're missing is that housing is not a normal good This logic taken to its conclusion brings us to some pretty disquieting places. Maybe SF should just build a lot more housing .

Build where? You know there's water all around it right?

UP, for crissakes.

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

#305

Post by brc » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 2:51 AM UTC

jlebar wrote: post #102

> The few of us who still remain in San Francisco have no choice but to live in sub-par conditions like mold, windows that don't shut, rodents and countless other issues because there is no other choice, because the rents are so high you can't move so you don't. Yes. But the solution isn't more rent controls. That just increases the gap in price between market-rate apartments and rent-controlled apartments. This make…

The rent control creates the mold and stuck windows. That's the point.

Supply is the answer. You cannot increase the number of people living in a city without increasing housing stock.

Build, build, build. It is the only answer.

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

#306

Post by Kalium » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 2:52 AM UTC

kelnos wrote: post #297

Kalium wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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.

So every lease becomes a lifetime deal. Hmm. Since rent keeps going up, this means prices are going to have to go up dramatically now so that I'm not completely hosed in ten to twenty years. After all, rent control increase caps are pretty much always below property tax increase caps.

Long-term, me-the-landlord is going to be put in a situation where rent doesn't even cover taxes. Nevermind repairs, maintenance, and insurance.

> 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?

Huh. I guess evictions for non-payment are out now. After all, it's their home, and it would be evil for me to evict someone from their home just for the sake of my bank account...

Between this and your previous point, you've made an excellent case that a moral and ethical person who owns property in SF would refuse to rent it under any circumstances. Well done.

> Enriching yourself at the expense of others is an asshole move, to me at least.

Are you aware that you just defined turning a profit as an asshole move? Perhaps you want to rethink your definition.

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

#307

Post by toomuchtodo » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 2:52 AM UTC

toephu2 wrote: post #263

vegardx wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The market might correct itself, but are you really sure that gentrification is good for the community and people in general? This is basically what is happening. Not everyone can easily pack up and just move. People are social beings, they have commitments, children and probably a place where they have some sort of personal connection.

How can we get rid of the homeless people in SF? I don't think anyone likes them and they contribute not only nothing to society but actually a negative amount. They are an eyesore and a burden to the community.

> They are an eyesore and a burden to the community.

The same could be said about SF's tech workers at $social_network_of_the_month. Just because you think you have value, does not make it so. People matter, period.

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

#308

Post by kelnos » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 2:53 AM UTC

Lewisham wrote: post #5

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…

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?

Why does it have to be fair to the landlord? How is the current situation fair the the renters? What makes fairness to one a higher priority than the other? If we have a limited amount of "fairness" to go around, I would rather hand it out to the people who would otherwise be displaced from their home, and possibly their city, than to the landlord who is already making a profit... just less of one than he/she could theoretically be making. Or does having money and property ownership entitle you to more fairness?

Remember that property is also a limited resource, and all plots of property are not created equal. Property ownership is an agreement between individuals and the state. The state gives the individual some rights to the property, but is empowered to restrict use of that properly when it believes the public good is better served. In theory, both sides benefit from that. But, for now, landlords are trying to throw aside what many (myself included) would consider the public good, in the name of higher profits.

I'm personally not a big fan of rent control, but simply dropping it (and allowing landlords to drive trucks through loopholes such as this) alone is not a way to get ourselves out of our current housing mess.

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

#309

Post by Chichikov » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 2:53 AM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #270

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…

What you're missing is that housing is not a normal good This logic taken to its conclusion brings us to some pretty disquieting places. Maybe SF should just build a lot more housing .

But there are many examples of goods that are not considered "normal." The state has always regulated such vital goods, usually ensuring supply. The Farm Bill is a perfect example. Housing is another.

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

#310

Post by TheCondor » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 2:54 AM UTC

wpietri wrote: post #212

orangecat wrote: post #137

Earlier 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…

That scam isn't that common or the reasoning for these laws. Let's just assume that most renters and most landlords are fair actors. Sure they both want a better deal but most landlords don't try to factor moving costs in to the equation. Fact of the matter, and I own rental properties, you generally want to keep great renters, at least in our market, want to keep them almost to the point of not raising rent to risk losing them