Live data from Hacker News

The redistribution of housing wealth caused by rent control (2023) [pdf]

rhawa.org

111–120 of 161 posts

Re: The redistribution of housing wealth caused by rent control (2023) [pdf]

#111
post #34

One effect of rent-control that I have observed in San Francisco is that well-off people get into baller apartments with the intention of keeping them forever. Over time the rental rate gets inflated away to almost nothing, the person buys a mansion in suburbia, keeping their rent controlled penthouse as a pied-a-terre. In theory landlords would be looking to petition for eviction but that's usually not what happens.

> In theory landlords would be looking to petition for eviction but that's usually not what happens. For a small time landlord, a good tenant is worth their weight in gold. It's not worth chasing out a reliable tenant you have a good history with just to try to squeeze a few extra bucks out of the property.

I don't think you appreciate the scale of the discount on market rates. If you've lived somewhere for 30+ years, you might be paying $400/month for something that would now be $8000/month.

In NYC, they stopped giving out rent control leases in 1971. What you see advertised now are rent-stabilized (which is what rent-controlled apartments became once vacated). Those are two entirely different things however. But, rent control apartments can be inherited by someone who had been living in the apartment. Naturally, landlords become desperate to stop this happening because, if it does, they're facing possibly another 50+ years of having to rent out a 3 bedroom apartment overlooking Central Park for $600/month (actual example).

Now I don't like rent control as a long-term solution because it's this very American model of pushing what is intended to be a social safety net onto private individuals. I don't care about the landlords. I care about the tenants. With this system you have constant fights where landlords don't do repairs, won't turn the heat on when it's cold (even when legally obligated to do so), will make it unpleasant to live in (eg by doing excessive construction), etc to essentially force tenants out.

Instead we should have the government own and supply below-market rents for people who need it. Nurses, teachers, firefighters, etc. Anyone can get a rent-stabilized apartment now no matter how rich. The only real requirement is you need to be resident in the city, which means 6 months and a day per year. Back when Boston still had rent-control, the mayor had one.

Also, we need to stop letting people hoard property like this.

I used to live in NYC. My apartment was exactly $2k. The previous tenant at the time paid $600/month (they have to tell you this). The owners used a loophole at the time to break it out of rent-stabilization (by doing exactly enough improvements to take the rent to $2000/month at a 40-to-1 ratio IIRC). I think it now rents for $5000/month.

Houses should be for living in, not for parasitic speculation.

Re: The redistribution of housing wealth caused by rent control (2023) [pdf]

#112

[flagged]

Can you please stop posting low-substance comments like this on HN? This comment was jarring to read, as it's effectively an editorialized summary of the article, posted with little apparent thought, and doing nothing to cultivate curious conversation. This is exactly the kind of commenting we're hoping to avoid here. Looking over your comment history, most of your comments are like this. It's a hallmark of a low-thought pattern of commenting that many of the comments don't even wrap to a second line or end with a period.

If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.

Re: The redistribution of housing wealth caused by rent control (2023) [pdf]

#113
post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's not a law in the same way as physical laws. Most of the failures in economics of the past 50 years can be mostly directly attributed to a fatal overcommitment to the belief that these attributed relations are incontrivertible. What really exists, closest to the limit we will call "hard science" or "physics", is the microcosmic focus on individuals interacting in a market. Everything else -- supply and demand…

The supply and demand curves are different for every person and every business. That makes it complicated - but not wrong.

That's what makes it a model, not a law.

Re: The redistribution of housing wealth caused by rent control (2023) [pdf]

#114
post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're wildly overestimating the rationality of investors.

If other investors are irrational that's a wonderful arbitrage opportunity. But good arbitrage opportunities are rare and don't last very long, so maybe they are rational.

That does depend on the underlying market. Often you can make money (especially as a small participant) only if you can predict when the other participants in the market will snap back to reality. This can be pretty difficult when the market is more detached from the underlying activity it's supposed to represent (and property markets are often not very transparent or fast-moving).

Re: The redistribution of housing wealth caused by rent control (2023) [pdf]

#115
post #3

> This paper studies the effects of rent control on the housing wealth of renters, landlords, and homeowners. Over the nine months following the passage of rent control in St. Paul, Minnesota in 2021, average property values fell by 4.4% to 5.8%. This seems like too short-term a study. The argument against artificially holding prices down is that people won't produce as much as they would otherwise and people won't b…

I think this argument depends on what exactly is constraining supply: if prices are at a level where there is still a profit to be made building new housing, it will be built anyhow. If developers and landlords truly are capturing an outsize fraction of the value in building and renting new property, then it might redistribute that value without affecting supply. But in that case the supply is being constrained by something else and it might be better overall to focus on relieving that constraint instead (property development and rental is an area with lots of room for creative accounting, and it seems to vary a lot who is making money and how, I would love to see some detailed breakdown on this).

Re: The redistribution of housing wealth caused by rent control (2023) [pdf]

#116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Rational investors have no problem whatsoever projecting the impact to future cash flows and adjusting the amount they're willing to pay now. That's not accounting for the time value of money. Suppose you have a rental unit and before rent control you were planning to rent it out. That now has far less attractive returns and it suddenly makes more sense to sell it as a condo to an occupant rather than keeping it to…

This argument presupposes multiple levels of assumption. By the point where the assertion is made that construction costs would drop, the prediction's error bars equal the entire range. There's no reason to believe that construction companies would accept jobs at prices below the cost of materials and labor. Construction companies frequently let workers go rather than accept large negative cash flows.

> There's no reason to believe that construction companies would accept jobs at prices below the cost of materials and labor.

Who's talking about cost of material and labor though?

Not only construction companies make good money, but the price of the land is a significant part of housing cost. And this price is entirely driven by the value of the real estate that will sit on it.

Re: The redistribution of housing wealth caused by rent control (2023) [pdf]

#117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're wildly overestimating the rationality of investors.

If you're smarter than other investors, you can make a lot of money doing the opposite of what they do.

In a beauty contest, being right alone against everyone else just makes you lose.

Markets can remain irrational much longer than you can remain solvent.

Re: The redistribution of housing wealth caused by rent control (2023) [pdf]

#118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Massachusetts law requiring cities/towns to build high-density housing around commuter rail stops neglected one thing. There's no open space. To build high-density housing, the city or state would have to buy out the existing landowners, demolish the existing property, and then build anew. They also neglected the effect of travel time on behavior. Back in the day, I was commuting from a rich suburb to Cambridge,…

> Sadly, the billionaires would be untouched. Why would you conclude that? Billionaires have their money invested in the same things as your 401k, etc.

Indeed, stock market crashes are the greatest tool for reducing wealth inequality. We should want more of them, surely!

Re: The redistribution of housing wealth caused by rent control (2023) [pdf]

#119
post #3

> This paper studies the effects of rent control on the housing wealth of renters, landlords, and homeowners. Over the nine months following the passage of rent control in St. Paul, Minnesota in 2021, average property values fell by 4.4% to 5.8%. This seems like too short-term a study. The argument against artificially holding prices down is that people won't produce as much as they would otherwise and people won't b…

> “…average property values fell by 4.4% to 5.8%”

I’m not clever enough to follow these arguments, but I’m struck by the idea of home prices going down in the face of so much demand. And I think it’s a miracle to have discovered such a lever.

Re: The redistribution of housing wealth caused by rent control (2023) [pdf]

#120
post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In theory landlords would be looking to petition for eviction but that's usually not what happens. For a small time landlord, a good tenant is worth their weight in gold. It's not worth chasing out a reliable tenant you have a good history with just to try to squeeze a few extra bucks out of the property.

I don't think you appreciate the scale of the discount on market rates. If you've lived somewhere for 30+ years, you might be paying $400/month for something that would now be $8000/month. In NYC, they stopped giving out rent control leases in 1971. What you see advertised now are rent-stabilized (which is what rent-controlled apartments became once vacated). Those are two entirely different things however. But, rent…

I have a friend that got a rent-controlled apartment, circa 2004, exactly one block from Dolores Park (SFbay hotspot). His rent remains under $2000 for a 3/1 apartment (he illegally sublets the other two for much more than this).

>Instead we should have the government own and supply below-market rents for people who need it.

Similar to a few school districts which have built teacher housing complexes; or like a few CostCo locations which have attached apartments, subsidized for employees.

----

My current living situation is as part-time property manager for a few slummier duplexes, on a street of two-dozen identical structures (only three separate humans own the entire street). Just a few years ago there were twice as many owners; happy to see rents cooling off after their overinvestment into an already-functional neighborhood.

Post reply on HN