Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

facebook.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

431–440 of 628 posts

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

#431

Post by zobzu »

clarky07 wrote: post #128
will_hughes wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What if the other unit needed to be knocked down for a reason other than to get rid of rent control? Let the owner give adequate notice to vacate (where I live it's 60 days notice without cause). But the rent-control limitation stays on that land parcel for some period of time after a new building is constructed on the site. Don't want to rent it? No problems. > Newly moved in renters realize that they are paying 1…

Why are all landlords assholes again? Why is making a profit evil? Do you sell your services for half of what they are worth just to be nice?

Basically rent in big cities is extremely low risk income. It means if you're lucky enough to be born/married the right places and own a few buildings, you do not need to work, nor will ever need, nor will your children ever need.

So.. it doesn't make landlords assholes or evil, but its not like there wasnt a class issue. The only reason why this thread explodes is because the wealth difference is getting bigger and bigger.

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

#432

Post by sumitviii »

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…

"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"

Much of what is funded has always been that.

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

#433

Post by IgorPartola »

impendia wrote: post #104
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 goes down. The market has corrected itself and all is well. What am I missing? You're missing the fact that rent won't go down -- at least not by much, because living in San Francisco will remain desirable for enough people who are willing to pay very high rents. Only the very wealthy, or those who bought in a long time ago, would be able to live in San Francisco. Of course, this is increasingly the case anywa…

So the SF is just a very expensive place to live. So is NYC, Tokyo, and London. Whether you consider these outcomes acceptable or not, it seems they are inevitable. By keeping rent control, you are actually leading people into believing they can afford to live in a place that is poised to prove them out one way or another.

I personally cannot fathom why one place can be son much more expensive than another. Sure, there is a price differential, but is SF really that much better than Brimingham, or Durham, or Albany?

Besides, if you want to be the master of your destiny and put a root down, buy. Renting is a tool for when you cannot afford to buy yet, or for when you are on the move. It's greatest strength is that it lets you up and move. I never understood why you would rent the same place for more than a few years. If you plan on staying, buy. If you cannot afford to buy, why are you staying in this place?

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

#434

Post by tptacek »

ultrasaurus wrote: post #429
bratsche wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

On Mission street in my neighborhood alone there are at lease 3 large lots with derelict buildings on them and they've been that way for years. There are quite a few other smaller parcels on Mission and smaller streets. If we want to take housing seriously, let's start with a law that says "If the building is abandoned for 5 years, you lose it, it becomes housing."

Unless SF eliminates its insane height restrictions, the very few buildings that would be repurposed in this fashion would immediately become $4000 apartments.

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

#435

Post by [deleted] »

maratd wrote: post #286
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…

You can use the same argument for any good or service. 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. You can't legislate life into some gentle state. It is what it is. You can, however, smooth out the bumps. Unfortunately, rent control does the exact opposite. It creates stupidity like this. Wh…

[deleted]

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

#436

Post by harryh »

tptacek wrote: post #386
maxlybbert wrote: post #381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

The funny thing is that he has a Masters in Economics. You'd think he knows what the word means.

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

#437

Post by error54 »

colanderman wrote: post #16

"the security deposit [...] shall increase to $12,500 per month" Can someone explain what this means? I've never had to pay a security deposit per month . That must be a copy + paste error?

I believe the person was paying month to month so the per month deposit just refers to general security deposit.

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

#438

Post by Kalium »

Frondo wrote: post #351
toephu2 wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Homeless people are also human beings, and worthy of care, compassion, and generosity because of that fact, no matter the cause of their homelessness.

Abstractly, yes, you are absolutely correct in every detail.

In practice, how much money should that be expected to translate to? From what I've seen, SF could dump literally it's entire yearly budget at offering care, compassion, and generosity to the homeless without the homeless population shrinking.

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

#439

Post by jsprogrammer »

harryh wrote: post #253
jsprogrammer wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would I value an apple higher than what a grocer is willing to sell? I wouldn't.

Because that's what consumer surplus is. Look it up. Without it you'd never bother to buy anything because you would gain no value from the transaction.

You're just stating things without making any argument. I am aware of consumer surplus, thank you very much.

You said that I value something at 60 cents and the seller values it at 40 cents, therefore I will buy it at 50 cents. Not only is your simple linear model absurdly reductionist, it's just ignorant. If a grocer is willing to sell at 40 cents, I would never pay a 50% markup when I wouldn't have to, your assertion that I would notwithstanding. I would just pay the 40 cents, and therefore the only objective measurement of how what I valued it at would come out at 40 cents. You stating that I actually value it at 60 cents is just you trying to fit a scenario to your fictional model.

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

#440

Post by jsprogrammer »

maxharris wrote: post #233
jsprogrammer wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

- What about the software I wrote in the past year and a half for the schools I work for? - What about the designs my co-worker painstakingly worked on over the same period? - What about the reams of reports my wife wrote at her company, which makes heart valves? She gets up at 4:30 in the morning, comes home at around 5 at night, works after dinner. When there's an important deadline coming up (which is almost all t…

None of that is real property. Attaching the word 'property' to those things is a legal fiction and completely different from what we were talking about.
Post reply on HN