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

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

#571

Post by Kalium » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 3:38 PM UTC

kelnos wrote: post #504

Kalium wrote: post #478

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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. As a landlord, deciding to raise rent on your units a modest amount, instead of a financially crippling amount, does not put you in a position to be "pushed out" than landlords who choose to be greedy. Your costs have not increased such that y…

Long story short, you believe that basic market forces should not apply to housing because that makes some people into assholes.

Bluntly, this is naive. More importantly, it does exactly nothing to actually help address the problems at hand. All it does is give you a way to shake your head and make clucking noises as you feel morally superior.

A few years ago, I would have listened to you and probably even agreed. These days, I'm more interested in solutions than I am in moralizing.

> I'm really just trying to understand and provide my perspective, and possibly learn a bit in the process.

Judging by your furious responses and insistence on labeling anyone making a sizable profit as an asshole, I'd say the only one of those goals you're meeting is the one of providing your perspective. Which is to say that landlords are assholes. Thanks. How about something helpful now?

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

#572

Post by nedwin » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 3:39 PM UTC

simoncion wrote: post #537

nedwin wrote: post #474

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Most new places (and some old places in desirable areas) in SF are going for ~$3000->$4000/month. In order to cover $3000/month rent, average power, internet access, and $400/week spending cash, you need to gross $100k/year . If you pull in less than that, then you run out of money and get evicted. Notice that no provision has been made for savings. I know of a great many programmers working for successful Bay Area c…

Here's the thing - imagine what it's like if you're making median income in the city of $75k. Or if you're one of the thousands of service workers who are earning sub-$50k yet people on $100k+ also get access to $1000pm apartments.

Doesn't make sense if we're trying to achieve equality (I still don't know what it's really trying to achieve - some kind of nativism)

There is an argument that removing rent control would actually reduce the price of rent through San Francisco but it would take a few years to stabilize.

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

#573

Post by Kalium » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 3:45 PM UTC

kelnos wrote: post #492

harryh wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

If that person's ability to move to SF hinges on someone else getting kicked out of their home and city, then no, I don't care about that person. But I'd rather be able to care about both people. I'd rather SF's planning process wasn't so idiotic that it's impossible to build at the rate we need to in order to house everyone who wants to live here, at whatever economic level. I'd rather that rent control hadn't helpe…

So, your answer is to assert privilege - they were there first, so they deserve it more, go fuck off.

What's been noted repeatedly across history is that rent control tends strongly to encourage a culture of NIMBYIsm. Rent control has contributed heavily to creating the current situation and its persistence increases the political resistance to building more housing.

Have you not noticed the routine grumbling about extending rent control to new housing and different kinds of housing? That scares the crap out of would-be builders and investers. Couple that with moralizing about how profit margins need to be razor-thin to be morally acceptable, and the scenarios you imagine are ones in which no developer is willing to work.

The result is pretty much what we have now - not enough building. If rent control were relaxed now, or even made hugely more difficult to extend, those fears would be reduced.

But right now? Rent control has created a witch's brew for political stasis. That's what you wanted, right? To enable privilege for people who are deserving by virtue of living in sufficiently old housing?

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

#574

Post by Kalium » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 3:46 PM UTC

davidw wrote: post #531

chongli wrote: post #455

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, but there are serious externalities involved when classes of people are driven out of communities.

They perhaps they should consider building more housing. With the bonkers prices there, I bet even with a portion dedicated to low income housing, stuff would still get built, as long as the rules were clear.

In theory, yes. In practice, local activists tend to demand new buildings be 100% affordable, and the result is generally gridlock where nothing at all gets built.

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

#575

Post by Kalium » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 3:49 PM UTC

kelnos wrote: post #487

Kalium wrote: post #428

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't believe we're talking about rent control here, or at least not exclusively. The original article is about someone's rent increasing by over 400%. Yes, because the unit is no longer controlled and the landlord wants them out. In your eyes, that makes the landlord an asshole. That may be, but the reality on the ground is that there are few ways to do that... and they found one. Does it even matter why? What i…

Does it even matter why? Of course it does! A big part of whether or not someone is an asshole is about intent. What if the landlord wants somewhere for their aging grandmother to live so they can care for her? Would that still make them an asshole? I suspect you'll say yes, because they're looking to push someone out of their home. The Ellis Act provides for landlords who want to take a property off the rental marke…

> The idea that landowners should be allowed to extract every bit of profit possible out of land -- a public, limited good -- no matter what the consequences, is absolutely reprehensible to me.

And this idea has led to strict rent control, which in turn has led to NIMBYism, which together have led to the clusterfuck that is San Francisco's housing market. Privileged groups act first and foremost to preserve their privilege, and rent control works by creating a privileged group. Hilarity ensues.

You said you wanted to gain in understanding. I think you should internalize that before going on. It's critical to the whole issue.

In short, you need to consider that attempting to put your ideals into policy may have resulted in creating the problems you fear.

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

#576

Post by Kalium » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 3:52 PM UTC

simoncion wrote: post #519

Kalium wrote: post #428

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't believe we're talking about rent control here, or at least not exclusively. The original article is about someone's rent increasing by over 400%. Yes, because the unit is no longer controlled and the landlord wants them out. In your eyes, that makes the landlord an asshole. That may be, but the reality on the ground is that there are few ways to do that... and they found one. Does it even matter why? What i…

> Maybe the tenant has caused so many headaches that it's not worth putting up with them for the profit anymore. Tough. If your tenant isn't doing anything that you can evict them for, that's too bad for you as the landlord. When a landlord rents out his property as a home for another, that property becomes the lessee's castle. In all but a very few aspects, that property is now effectively the lessee's to use in any…

> In California, there is a legal way to do this. It's one of the ways that the Ellis Act permits landlords to evict rent-controlled tenants.

And pretty much everywhere, you also have the option of increasing their rent to get them to want to move out. Like has happened here.

> The Ellis Act is a pretty fair and just law.

Really? Because if I walk outside and ask around, I'm pretty sure I'm going to be told that it's inherently evil and abusive and needs to be repealed, because a lease should be a lifetime contract for a locked-in low rate.

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

#577

Post by toomuchtodo » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 4:12 PM UTC

visarga wrote: post #453

toomuchtodo wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Heaven forbid we devalue the existing property! Or change SF's character! /s

They should realize that not everyone can live in a good area of the city. A city, by its structure, has a center and periphery. The good zones are good by relation to the other zones, otherwise, space is just space. So, valuable property will always be limited in quantity.

> They should realize that not everyone can live in a good area of the city. A city, by its structure, has a center and periphery. The good zones are good by relation to the other zones, otherwise, space is just space. So, valuable property will always be limited in quantity.

And who lives in the good parts of a city should not be determined solely by the depth of their pockets.

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

#578

Post by eridius » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 4:14 PM UTC

eridius wrote: post #378

shaftoe wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Property rights aren't "useful and important." Property rights are the fundamental basis for any other right. What right to life does anyone have if not because they "own" their own life? What right to free speech do they have if they do not "own" their own speech? Thievery doesn't become acceptable because someone makes a compelling case or a pretty argument. Justice doesn't become "fundamentalism" because it won't…

> What right to life does anyone have if not because they "own" their own life? Congratulations, you just justified slavery.

I was absolutely serious about that comment. Am I being downvoted because people disagree, or just because the Libertarians here don't like being told that treating lives as property ownership is the basis for slavery? Either way, I'm open to discussion on this point.

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

#579

Post by wpietri » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 4:27 PM UTC

shaftoe wrote: post #265

wpietri wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is essentially a fundamentalist view of property rights. It seems like that for any X, you can find people to assert that X is obviously the most important thing in the world, so anything else doesn't matter. Fundamentalisms are mentally satisfying, because you always have clear answers. But they're practically dangerous, because the ignored concerns don't actually go away. Land, of course, does not work like yo…

Property rights aren't "useful and important." Property rights are the fundamental basis for any other right. What right to life does anyone have if not because they "own" their own life? What right to free speech do they have if they do not "own" their own speech? Thievery doesn't become acceptable because someone makes a compelling case or a pretty argument. Justice doesn't become "fundamentalism" because it won't…

That you have found a way to construct all the rights you can think of based on a specific construction chattel property rights is interesting. But it doesn't it make it the only way to think about rights (or ethics or morals), or even a particularly good one.

Your fixation on one thing and your refusal to compromise or even to admit the validity of other views is exactly what fundamentalists do.

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

#580

Post by holograham » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 4:35 PM UTC

kelnos wrote: post #504

Kalium wrote: post #478

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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. As a landlord, deciding to raise rent on your units a modest amount, instead of a financially crippling amount, does not put you in a position to be "pushed out" than landlords who choose to be greedy. Your costs have not increased such that y…

While this post has some good points it lacks an understanding of capitalism. Mainly that the prices charged are in relation to what the market can bear and NOT just what the costs are. A real estate investor is (just like any investor) is looking to maximize profits based on 1. What tenants can afford and 2. What competitors are charging. Raising rent only works if there are customers willing to pay the increase which is affected by the supply of housing in the same area.

This specific case the tenant raised prices to boot an renter under rent control so its really just a perversion of the rent control law (and another great example of how it doesnt work). When the answer to regulation is more regulation you start seeing an infinite loop. Laws developed -> entrapenuers figure a way around them -> new laws created -> new loopholes found -> repeat