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

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

#311

Post by tptacek » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 2:55 AM UTC

DannyBee wrote: post #149

tfigment wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rent control is in play here I believe to prevent price gouging. Some companies are not very moral/ethical when it comes to tenants. I would argue that the fairer thing (when Rent Control is in place) for owners might be that they can discontinue the contract when it expires but they also forfeit the right to rent that unit for a period of time (like 6 mo or 1 yr). Owners have some right to reclaim the property for o…

Sure, i understand the moral/ethical part, and i'm generally in favor of preventing price gouging. But the vast majority of complaints i've seen are more "my rent increased from 3000 to 4000", when all the other rents in the area are $4000. I had a bad experience myself renting in boston, that involved the health inspector fining the operating company about 20k.

Wait, really? You're in favor of artificial pricing constraints to avoid "gouging"? Doesn't virtually every reputable economist believe that those constraints decrease the supply of housing? The moral dimension to rent control seems just as dubious as the legal one!

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

#312

Post by tptacek » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 2:55 AM UTC

Chichikov wrote: post #309

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 .

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.

"The Farm Bill"?

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

#313

Post by hristov » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 2:56 AM UTC

raldi wrote: post #114

hristov wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do not know if you have been in SF lately, but the city is downright full of under construction apartment towers.

The mayor's goal, which we're not on track to hit, is to add 30,000 new homes by 2020. Meanwhile, the city's chief economist says we need at least 100,000 homes to start having a real impact on prices. Source: http://m.sfexaminer.com/sanfrancisco/leveling-sf-housing-fie...

He said that we need 100 000 new homes to have an impact equivalent to a $75 000 down-payment grant. He said the 30 000 homes would also have an impact but not as great.

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

#314

Post by brc » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 2:56 AM UTC

jsprogrammer wrote: post #199

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…

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 h…

And here we finally get to the 'all property is theft' argument.

Give me strength.

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

#315

Post by kelnos » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 2:56 AM UTC

maxharris wrote: post #277

wpietri wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

my particular moral code says you must abide by my particular moral code It's not merely an arbitrary moral code that I'm asserting. What other way is there to live than to use your mind as best you can to make the most of your limited time? What other way is there to live than to treat others neither as masters nor slaves, but as trading partners (in love, friendship, mentorship, business)?

Arbitrariness isn't the issue. Agreement between various moral codes -- often in harmony, often conflicting -- is what matters. And often that means compromising on some things. You don't appear willing to compromise on what seems like an advocation for absolute property ownership rights.

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

#316

Post by remarkEon » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 2:57 AM UTC

jackmaney wrote: post #222

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,…

"...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.

Please don't conflate the market calamity of 2008 with this issue. The lesson we should have learned from the housing crisis, and all the financial derivative wizardry therein, is not "more government regulations NOW" - it's sensible regulation when necessary. Rent control is neither.

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

#317

Post by jackmaney » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 2:57 AM UTC

joeclark77 wrote: post #271

jackmaney wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Isn't this guy getting his $12,500 security deposit returned? I think that would set you up pretty well with a U-Haul and gas.

What makes you think that the landlord wouldn't find a "reason" to keep the deposit?

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

#318

Post by brandonbloom » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 2:59 AM UTC

randallsquared wrote: post #294

wpietri wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 s…

I just moved out of a non-rent-controlled 1 bedroom in NYC, where my landlord wanted to raise the rent from $2550 to $3100 per month. I've spoken with the new tenant, who moved in at a rate of $2400 per month. I turned in my keys on Friday, they painted the apartment on Saturday, and the new tenant moved in on Sunday. Despite this being February, they rented the place so fast that the second half of the month was paid for twice.

The dollar and timeline figures here tells me one of two things:

1) they wanted to get rid of me, particularly, or...

2) they took a calculated risk based on their experience managing a great number of units

I'd bet heavily on #2, since this is a pretty typical story in NYC.

They tried to raise the rent 22% to something 29% above market rate. They weren't able to get anything close to that rate for a new tenant. They will pull the same crap on this tenant next year too.

> More importantly, people who rent probably do not expect to stay in the same house or apartment for many years.

This is patently false.

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

#319

Post by Frondo » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 2:59 AM UTC

Kalium wrote: post #245

wpietri wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What you're talking about is the idea that economics shouldn't apply because there are a lot more emotions involved in house than in most other markets. Do I need to point out that that is silly, or is it sufficiently self-evident that economics applies anyway? The real answer tends to be building enough housing for everyone. That also tends to be politically unpalatable, because the people with all the emotional att…

I wonder if economics could in some way factor in emotions besides greed.

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

#320

Post by Lazare » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 2:59 AM UTC

brc wrote: post #269

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 control is a shocking idea that makes a small claque of renters rich at the expense of everyone else. It's obscene. Everyone blames the owners or some lawyer when a protected tenant becomes unprotected. The blame lies in the law that built up an artificial wall around the tenant and protected them from the market. Rent control creates shortages, sub-standard properties and illegal tenancies. It should be abolish…

"Swedish economist (and socialist) Assar Lindbeck asserted, 'In many cases rent control appears to be the most efficient technique presently known to destroy a city—except for bombing.'"

Rent control is one of the small number of policies that economists on the left and right are essentially unanimous (93% in a survey of US economists; 95% in a survey of Canadian ones) in agreeing are always harmful, because they reduce both the quality and quantity of housing available.

It's not even some vague hypothetical either: In the linked story, the rent control laws have resulted in the conversion of a multi-tenant building into a single-family dwelling, which is a reduction in the number of housing units in the city. A reduction in the quantity supplied will, of course, lead to an increase in the equalibrium price. And the high equilibrium price is both why Follingstad's eviction is so painful, and why they were (effectively) evicted in the first place.

It's a textbook example of Why Rent Control Hurts Everyone, in one compact little story.