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

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

#341

Post by cc439 » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 3:08 AM UTC

rodgerd wrote: post #205

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…

> 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 does a police force and firefighters exist to protect that property?"

Because the landlord wants to protect their property and pays the property tax towards that goal unlike the renter? (yes it is built into the cost of rent but it's also built into the cost of every business transaction and people don't criticize that point)

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

#342

Post by brandonbloom » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 3:08 AM UTC

cc439 wrote: post #336

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…

That would be an insane decision on the part of the landlord though. An increase in price is either tolerable or intolerable. If the tenant is willing to pay an additional $1,000 a month, that's the new market price. If the tenant is willing to move, the landlord loses out on $500-2,000 as it takes time to bring in a new renter in even the hottest market. The total loss of income is enough incentive for the landlord…

> If the tenant is willing to pay an additional $1,000 a month, that's the new market price.

That is incorrect. That is the new price of that unit for that tenant, as if it were a market of size 1. A similar unit on the market would rent for a different rate paid by similar tenants in the market.

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

#343

Post by x0x0 » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 3:08 AM UTC

harryh wrote: post #168

vertex-four wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it's sitting unoccupied and the owner has no plans to do anything with it, the owner is being irrational. If the owner does have plans to do something with it, they have to kick the tenant out, meaning that any additional supply as a result of renting out these houses is short-term, thus just pushing the problem back a bit. You'd still have to deal with the problem in the future.

1) Maybe they don't have plans to do anything with it today, but they don't want to get locked into renting to a tenant for decades. That's not irrational. 2) No, that's not just pushing the problem back a bit. That is wrong. There will always be owners who want do do something with their property somewhere down the road. If you allow them to rent it out in the meantime (without getting locked into a forever contract…

Owners may evict a tenant in an owner move in. There are a variety of regulations that you can get caught up in, designed to protect from abuse by commercial landlords, but practically speaking, if you own a single building and wish to evict rent controlled tenants live in one of the units, you'll be able to. Your objections continue to demonstrate an unfamiliarity with rent control in sf.

@harryh: your complaint is rent control prevents owners from renting out their property (while doing something in the meantime) without getting locking into a forever rental. For small landlords, it does not, at least not in this enumerated (most likely the most important) instance. As a small landlord, most importantly of a single unit, you may rent it out as you wish and move back in later, evicting a rent controlled tenant if necessary.

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

#344

Post by icelancer » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 3:08 AM UTC

dools wrote: post #273

Rent control seems monumentally stupid. In Australia, the government owns houses and rents them out to people cheaply. The owners of the house are compensated when the house is bought. It seems insane that owners of a property should be expected to keep rent artificially low to help poor people. This is the government's job. But then, in America, you guys don't trust the government to do anything like house, educate…

> But then, in America, you guys don't trust the government to do anything like house, educate and heal people.

Or fight wars or manage finances. Because there is strong precedence that the government is pretty bad at these things.

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

#345

Post by ageek123 » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 3:09 AM UTC

charonn0 wrote: post #279

cc439 wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> So why not create a lifetime rent control that is tied to the occupancy of the current tenant That's already how it's supposed to work.

That's how any sensible rent control ordinance would work, but that's not how it works in San Francisco. Units remain under rent control even if a tenant voluntarily moves out, dies, etc.

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

#346

Post by sukilot » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 3:09 AM UTC

DannyBee wrote: post #60

mcpherrinm wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's sort of obnoxious and should be illegal to force renters to leave their homes just because. That hardly seems fair to the tenant, no?

For at least the past thousand years, the bedrock principal of law has been "restraints on alienation of property are generally considered invalid". That is, property owners are free to do what they want with their property. Another is: Your rights cannot exceed those of who you got them from (IE tenants cannot have greater rights to land than landlords) Tenants are tenants for a reason. The whole point of ownership…

I'd expect you, an expert lawyer , to know better. There are many laws that grant rights to people just for living somewhere long enough. Zoning laws exist. And eminent domain privileges are enshrined in the USA. Usury laws go back centuries. Law is a social contract, there is no inherent natural right of one person obeer another when multiple individuals live together in society.

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

#347

Post by abalone » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 3:09 AM UTC

The typical false-wise answer to the housing crisis is something like "build more housing, supply & demand, read an Econ 101 textbook, DUH."

The reality is more complex.

The real Economics 101 answer is: You can't know the effect of more supply on prices without knowing the demand curve. No one truly knows that, but consider this. The current market price is basically what a startup employee can support on their salary without kids, much savings, etc. If there's a large supply of people willing to move into SF for jobs like this and pay that price, but unable to pay more, then that whole worldwide supply needs to be exhausted before the market price comes down. That could take years or even decades depending on how the startup boom goes.

In the meantime, the macroeconomic effects of widespread losses in housing for blue collar, service industry workers, the middle class, artists, etc. can have very undesirable long term effects on a city. There is good reason for city governments to consider managing this growth.

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

#348

Post by kelnos » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 3:10 AM UTC

mod wrote: post #57

x0x0 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The law was passed in 1979. It's hard to seriously claim landlords could possibly be unaware of the law before becoming a landlord. If for some reason they just can't possibly see themselves in any other career, they may also choose to solely invest in buildings built since 1980.

Maybe I'm a bit ignorant here, but I don't always know the laws about things I'm doing before I do them. If I wanted to rent my apartment out I wouldn't go searching for laws--I'd go searching for tenants (and a basic lease agreement I could modify). If there's a required course or something, I guess it would make sense then.

"A bit" is an understatement. You're incredibly, dangerously ignorant. Yes, I know, that sounds harsh, but "doing your homework" is a necessary precondition for doing, well... anything.

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

#349

Post by ageek123 » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 3:11 AM UTC

Lazare wrote: post #320

brc wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 red…

Indeed, even Paul Krugman thinks rent control is a bad idea: http://www.nytimes.com/2000/06/07/opinion/reckonings-a-rent-...

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

#350

Post by harryh » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 3:12 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.

What about the other person who really wants to move to SF, is willing to pay more than your current tenant, but now can't because there is so little other supply available the market price on those is through the roof?

Do we just not care about that person?