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

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

#381

Post by maxlybbert » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 3:32 AM UTC

glesica wrote: post #327

Kalium wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Economics is not value-free. Actually, economics already has a way of dealing with exactly the problem GP cites: externalities. Taking away someone's home involves potentially massive negative externalities (emotional and otherwise). Therefore, if you want to maintain the political theater that says capitalism is designed to benefit everyone, you have to accept that it may be preferable, optimal in fact, to incur som…

"Externality" means something more than "thing I don't like."

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

#382

Post by kelnos » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 3:33 AM UTC

mod wrote: post #51

vertex-four wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Rentals are for a limited time by definition. I know people (in fact, every branch of my family, along with many of my friends) who have rented their entire lives, because they can't own - they've never been able to amass enough capital or convince someone else to lend them it. Should they be uprooted every year (or more often) because someone wants to make a bit more money? Rentals are whatever the combination of…

> Should they be uprooted every year (or more often) because someone wants to make a bit more money? No, they shouldn't be, but that's not really the issue. The issue is: should landlords be legally allowed to uproot them? My answer is a decisive yes. For whatever the reason, they should be able to not renew a contract once it expires. I don't see why laws should be in place to restrict how much someone makes. Nobody…

My answer is a decisive yes. For whatever the reason, they should be able to not renew a contract once it expires.

And therein lies some of the disconnect: my answer is a decisive no. I think there are some reasons for which a landlord should be able to kick out a tenant, but I do not believe that any reason will suffice.

And that's why we have (imperfect) laws such as the Ellis Act, and a raft of other things that protect tenants from capricious, rent-seeking landlords.

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

#383

Post by ageek123 » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 3:34 AM UTC

hindsightbias wrote: post #321

Well, like all good things, HN has passed Eternal September. Or more quaintly: http://imgur.com/L00Fn2t

Why, because you disagree with what some people are saying?

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

#384

Post by tptacek » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 3:34 AM UTC

maxlybbert wrote: post #379

bratsche wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, you've got to tear a bunch of stuff down first. And I've read before that the city doesn't want to build up too much because they want to retain some of their character or something.

> I've read before that the city doesn't want to build up too much because they want to retain some of their character or something. That's kind of the point. The city has several conflicting goals: make it an affordable place to live, don't allow new growth to change the character of the place, attract high paying jobs, don't widen the roads, attract new residents without kicking out old ones, etc. Rent control is o…

It's worse than a losing battle; it actually makes the housing problem worse. It's good for the lucky few who end up in rent-controlled housing, but most of the people who can't afford $4k/mo rents also aren't that lucky.

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

#385

Post by EpicEng » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 3:35 AM UTC

wpietri wrote: post #155

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,…

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…

It's not your home if you're renting. We're not talking about booting people out of their homes here, were talking about raising rent. You shouldn't expect to be able to stay in your rental in perpetuity, that's why you signed a lease.

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

#386

Post by tptacek » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 3:36 AM UTC

maxlybbert wrote: post #381

glesica wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Economics is not value-free. Actually, economics already has a way of dealing with exactly the problem GP cites: externalities. Taking away someone's home involves potentially massive negative externalities (emotional and otherwise). Therefore, if you want to maintain the political theater that says capitalism is designed to benefit everyone, you have to accept that it may be preferable, optimal in fact, to incur som…

"Externality" means something more than "thing I don't like."

That's a bit of a snarky way to put it, but this is correct; the parent comment is abusing the term "externality". The consequences of rental contracts for tenants in a free housing market are not an externality; the tenant is a party to the transaction.

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

#387

Post by EpicEng » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 3:36 AM UTC

dragontamer wrote: post #366

esrauch wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Tear something away from a person and you can absolutely traumatize them. It can be a teddy bear for a little kid, a car for an adolescent, your laptop, you get the idea. I don't understand the point: none of those things are being torn away from people due to market forces.

Then lets say someone's house due to foreclosure from a variable-rate mortgage. Happened all the time a few years ago, and its the same situation. The interest rates rose, people couldn't afford their mortgage anymore and were forced out.

While there is definitely a lot of blame to be placed on the creditors, don't you hold the homeowners to any standard of responsibility? They signed the mortgage.

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

#388

Post by michaelochurch » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 3:36 AM UTC

I can't take San Francisco seriously anymore.

If the VCs weren't there, it'd be a third-rate city, and much of what the VCs are funding isn't even technology but the post-apocalyptic sort of "attempt to engage in one of the short-term natural monopolies that technology sometimes creates" gambits that bloom in the caldera of an imploded technology industry. Yet it has become a more expensive place to live than New York, despite being dysfunctional in every measure other than tech salaries.

I cannot see why California hasn't done something about Prop 13 NIMBYs. All that those useless parasites do is block progress, drive up the rents by preventing new housing from being built, and cause measles epidemics with their anti-vax nonsense. It's really time to call in some Texans on that shit and fix the NIMBY problem. If California can't do that, then how are we supposed to take them seriously? If they can't get their heads out of the ass of the past that the NIMBYs claim that they are preserving, how can we trust them to build the future?

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

#389

Post by necrodawg » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 3:37 AM UTC

TheHypnotist wrote: post #190

mmarx wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The landlord was likely losing money keeping it rented at $2145 even if he owned it free and clear. This conveniently omits the fact that there used to be two units in that house, so the actual rent would certainly have been closer to double that amount.

Judging by the series of downvoted comments in this thread, are you surprised? Apparently circumventing rent control is OK amongst the HN crowd.

Cause libertarians.

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

#390

Post by kelnos » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 3:37 AM UTC

cookiecaper wrote: post #24

vertex-four wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they think it's unfair, they could just... not rent their buildings out. There's plenty of buildings in the US that don't come under rent control laws that they could buy and rent out.

Landlords have the right to change their mind when it comes time for lease renewal. You're arguing that landlords should be forced to always rent their property to the same tenant once they begin. That's how ownership, not rental, works. Rentals are for a limited time by definition.

Rentals are for a limited time by definition.

If you're going to trot out an absolutist term like "by definition", I'd like to inform you that "limited time" is by no means a condition for being defined as "rent": http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rent

I know that sounds a bit pedantic and splitting hairs, but if you're going to base your argument on re-defining what words mean... that's a bit of a problem.