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

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

#391

Post by ageek123 » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 3:39 AM UTC

ghshephard wrote: post #182

I 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…

It's not just owners who are hurt by rent control -- it's also market-rate renters. If rent control were removed, market-rate rents would drop from where they are today. That said, I'm not sure why you think people only argue based on self-interest. Virtually every economist agrees that rent control is objectively bad.

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

#392

Post by kelnos » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 3:39 AM UTC

cookiecaper wrote: post #56

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? If they are living on someone else's property, and that person wishes to sell the property, and the lease and any other contractual or statutory guarantees have lapsed, then yes? This is really not a new thing. You can't do away with property ownership as a concept just because San Francisco is ridiculous.

I think your view of property ownership is a bit out of touch with reality. It's pretty rare that having a deed to a piece of land lets you do whatever you want with it. Or even close to whatever you want.

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

#393

Post by DonGateley » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 3:40 AM UTC

freehunter wrote: post #169

knorby wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I lived in Chicago before moving to SF a few years ago, and I can't imagine ever going back. There is an argument about jobs, people, and companies that's complex, but people pay so much for so little space because it really is that valuable. The weather is near perfect year round, the food/beer/wine is astounding, the landscape is glorious, and so on. Midwest winters, particularly as climate change is making them wo…

Is the weather, food/beer/wine, and landscape really that much better than Santa Cruz? Is it that much better than Raleigh? Or Austin? Or any other city that isn't San Francisco? Besides the benefits you might get from SF, let's be realistic: the city doesn't want you. It doesn't want any of you. The only benefit you're getting is the people who moved there just like you, and the city doesn't want them, either. If th…

Shhh. Stop talking about Santa Cruz. I'm retired there.

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

#394

Post by xasos » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 3:41 AM UTC

whiteboarder wrote: post #13

Build more houses. None of this shit would happen if SF would just build more houses.

Build more high rises possibly? Part of the charm of living in SF is that it feels "small" and homely, compared to a city like Chicago or NYC, where almost everyone lives in a flat in a building 20-30 stories high.

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

#395

Post by gergles » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 3:41 AM UTC

nowarninglabel wrote: post #266

cma wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You really think they will keep it as storage? Once the remaining tenant is out they will renovate everything and rent both units again.

No, they won't. Please actually read and understand the law: http://www.sftu.org/omi.html http://www.sfrb.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=192...

This is not an OMI/(a)(8) eviction. Please actually read and understand the letter.

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

#396

Post by maxlybbert » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 3:41 AM UTC

cc439 wrote: post #239

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…

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…

Generally speaking, that's how rent control is managed. The people who dream up rent control somehow never realize that property owners will change their behavior based on how they expect rent control to affect them. So, when a tenant moves out, for whatever reason, the property owner doesn't set rent based on the current economy, instead rent is based on what the market might look like years down the line.

So, after a few years, rent control effectively guarantees that no apartment is available at an affordable price. At least, you have to live in a controlled apartment for a few years for inflation to erode the value of money you send your landlord every month enough that you can feel like the apartment is affordable. And, of course, the people moving from one rent controlled apartment to another are affected by the market distortion as much as anyone else.

And places all over the world manage to provide affordable housing without rent control, so long as they allow their housing markets to work.

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

#397

Post by dlss » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 3:41 AM UTC

michaelochurch wrote: post #388

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 Yor…

> how can we trust them to build the future?

Don't! Whatever the alternative was in your head when you wrote this sentence -- do that! The world needs more future-builders :D

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

#398

Post by tptacek » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 3:42 AM UTC

Kalium wrote: post #338

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…

Rent control wouldn't be such a problem in SF if it didn't also lead to NIMBY-ism preventing the addition of more housing. I didn't call anyone silly. I said the idea that economics cease to apply because strong emotions and italic fonts are involved is silly.

Even without NIMBY-ism, rent control keeps new housing from being built, because it makes the return on investment for new housing uncertain. People generally don't build apartment buildings out of the kindness of their hearts.

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

#399

Post by kelnos » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 3:42 AM UTC

bigiain wrote: post #121

cookiecaper wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

On the other hand, the owner of this building would have benefitted from the intended effect of rent control on the price of the property when they bought it. There's no doubt that a rent controlled apartment building would fetch less at sale time than a non-rent-controlled equivalent. Sure, landlords "have the right to change their mind", but only within the legal/regulatory framework in which they've chosen to inve…

I think there's actually even more to the comparison you've made than you've said: the reason Uber is generally ok, even though it does make an end-run around some transportation regulation, is that the existence of Uber doesn't take anything away from anyone. Taxis still exist, people can ride in them. If existing taxi drivers are losing business, there are avenues they can take to recover that business (often imperfectly). Making an end-run around housing laws almost unilaterally benefits an already-privileged group (land owners), at the expense of others.

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

#400

Post by Aloisius » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 3:42 AM UTC

sukilot wrote: post #361

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…

Do you think the landlords support supply expansion? Construction limits are neatly equivalent to rent control (in the other direction) for landlords.

Landlords do not make up anywhere near a majority of voters in San Francisco. If renters wanted it, they could force the issue.