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

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

#471

Post by Kalium » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 5:11 AM UTC

aceperry wrote: post #466

tptacek wrote: post #415

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A better way for him to have put it would have been: "Just like the Indiana state legislature can't by statute declare pi to be 3.14, San Francisco cannot repeal the law of supply and demand". Rent control or not, the law of supply and demand still applies; it just expresses itself in more dysfunctional and unproductive ways. That's the problem with rent control. Reasonable people can disagree about whether the publi…

"Rent control or not, the law of supply and demand still applies... or about whether rent control works. It doesn't work." Without rent control, I'm pretty sure that a LOT more people would be pushed out of San Francisco. It seems to me that places like San Francisco, New York, and a few other places are not typical of what other areas experience. I know it's fashionable amongst the libertarian set to blame problems…

The general response from economists seems to be that rent control suppresses growth in the supply of housing that could otherwise address the cost of housing.

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

#472

Post by Kalium » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 5:15 AM UTC

vegardx wrote: post #83

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,…

The market might correct itself, but are you really sure that gentrification is good for the community and people in general? This is basically what is happening. Not everyone can easily pack up and just move. People are social beings, they have commitments, children and probably a place where they have some sort of personal connection.

A recent study I read suggested that about the only thing worse than gentrification is being bypassed as that redevelopment money goes into other areas.

So... there aren't a lot of other choices.

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

#473

Post by thedudemabry » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 5:16 AM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #415

vacri wrote: post #407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't legislate life into some gentle state. So you don't believe laws against crime? You can use the same argument for any good or service. None of the things you mentioned have the universality of a home, which strikes almost everyone, regardless of demographic. Those who aren't adversely affected by not having a home are notable for being extreme outliers. As wpietri said, housing is not a normal good.

A better way for him to have put it would have been: "Just like the Indiana state legislature can't by statute declare pi to be 3.14, San Francisco cannot repeal the law of supply and demand". Rent control or not, the law of supply and demand still applies; it just expresses itself in more dysfunctional and unproductive ways. That's the problem with rent control. Reasonable people can disagree about whether the publi…

This is an interesting topic. Eviction inflicts a disproportionate harm to those least-equipped to bear it. While rent-control inflicts a purely proportional harm to those best-equipped to bear it. But rent-control also inflicts a difficult-to-characterize harm in the form of stagnant rental construction.

I would be totally cool with a city deciding to make the first tradeoff as a public policy goal, if the construction stagnation (across all rates) could be mitigated. Have there been any successful experiments in that area (I'm only familiar with the craziness of NYC's implementation)?

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

#474

Post by nedwin » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 5:22 AM UTC

kartikkumar wrote: post #181

So, there's no mention of the tenant's salary in this story. Does rent control in SF or the US in general not stipulate that rent control is also a function of the tenant's ability to pay? Here, in The Netherlands, this is an important criterion in determining what the maximum increase is in rent for a given property [1]. My general understanding of the law in The Netherlands based on having rented once during univer…

if only SF rent control was linked to the income of the renter! Plenty of well paid engineers and execs living in significantly below market apartments when they could easily afford market-priced housing.

If the aim is to create affordable housing for low income earners, rent control is not the solution.

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

#475

Post by mortdeus » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 5:24 AM UTC

EpicEng wrote: post #387

dragontamer wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Many of the families who lost their homes to foreclosure signed into a mortgage under the assumption that they would be employed/in-business for the next 20-30 years.

Unfortunately, when one economic domino falls and sets of a chain reaction leading to a market crash, a lot of hard working and responsible people get caught up in and swept away by the ensuing tsunami.

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

#476

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 5:31 AM UTC

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.

[deleted]

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

#477

Post by kelnos » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 5:54 AM UTC

Kalium wrote: post #358

kelnos wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those aren't mutually-exclusive terms.

What's a not-asshole to do when all the other not-assholes have created a situation where the market price and the insane price are the same thing?

How does it hurt the not-asshole to avoid behaving like the assholes?

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

#478

Post by Kalium » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 5:58 AM UTC

kelnos wrote: post #477

Kalium wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's a not-asshole to do when all the other not-assholes have created a situation where the market price and the insane price are the same thing?

How does it hurt the not-asshole to avoid behaving like the assholes?

Because by creating a scenario that encourages assholes, all the not-assholes get pushed out. And thus, by being short-sighted nice people, you wind up with a city of assholes.

Also, you should probably address harryh's excellent question about everyone else. Preferably with something other than an assertion of privilege.

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

#479

Post by lukeschlather » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 6:01 AM UTC

Kalium wrote: post #471

aceperry wrote: post #466

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Rent control or not, the law of supply and demand still applies... or about whether rent control works. It doesn't work." Without rent control, I'm pretty sure that a LOT more people would be pushed out of San Francisco. It seems to me that places like San Francisco, New York, and a few other places are not typical of what other areas experience. I know it's fashionable amongst the libertarian set to blame problems…

The general response from economists seems to be that rent control suppresses growth in the supply of housing that could otherwise address the cost of housing.

Zoning suppresses growth in the supply of housing. Of course, that doesn't mean that zoning is bad by definition. Instead of artificially keeping building height low, you could mandate new buildings have at least so many stories.

San Francisco's problem seems to be that they can't possibly build enough housing to meet market demands without revising zoning restrictions in ways that would make current home owners angry.

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

#480

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 6:03 AM UTC

lukeschlather wrote: post #479

Kalium wrote: post #471

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The general response from economists seems to be that rent control suppresses growth in the supply of housing that could otherwise address the cost of housing.

Zoning suppresses growth in the supply of housing. Of course, that doesn't mean that zoning is bad by definition. Instead of artificially keeping building height low, you could mandate new buildings have at least so many stories. San Francisco's problem seems to be that they can't possibly build enough housing to meet market demands without revising zoning restrictions in ways that would make current home owners angr…

[deleted]