Oregon passed sweeping housing crisis laws • Hacker News Board

Re: Oregon passed sweeping housing crisis laws

#121

Post by Misdicorl » Sat, Jul 20, 2019, 3:42 PM UTC

eropple wrote: post #96

Misdicorl wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is disingenuous. Lets admit that there are racist people who use and/or co-opt these types of regulations and address the genuine arguments in their favor. Then maybe we can find compromises that help both `sides`.

Assuming that one "side"--the one inventing things about people with more melanin--is in any way deserving of compromise is immediate and irrevocable surrender. The white-supremacist contingent understands this and are not looking to compromise. They'll take whatever compromise is handed to them and immediately refuse to change their behavior at all.

As far as these regulations are a proxy for racism, yes absolutely they need to be removed. But lets understand the arguments that aren't based in racism, and I think they exist, to try and accommodate those aspects of single family home neighborhoods.

I think if 1/4 of high density space is dedicated to public parks, that would go a long way towards addressing the real issues. Those parks can't just be space 'somewhere' either. There has to be one within ~two blocks of every home in my estimation.

Re: Oregon passed sweeping housing crisis laws

#122

Post by ndonnellan » Sat, Jul 20, 2019, 3:43 PM UTC

LaserToy wrote: post #98

So, I probably drastically misunderstanding how rent control works, but I don’t see how it is going to help. I would argue it will push house prices even higher as you will have less people trying to rent places. Why? I was reading a bit about renting as a business (plus I have 1 house in Bay Area I rent) and there is so-called rule of 1%, which means for cash flow to be positive you should rent your house for at lea…

I imagine you'd have to do the math. The 1% (or even 2%) rule only really applies to properties in areas where appreciation is minimal (or negative). A simplified view would be:

Total profit = (Rental cashflow + appreciation) - (Maintenance + other costs)

If you predict appreciation to be high, it may offset low net cashflow or even negative net cashflow. Especially if you use leverage (loans), and have appreciation of 5%+/year.

In Austin it's similar (maybe not as extreme): a $300,000 house may rent for $1,500/mo which probably doesn't even cover the mortgage. But 5%/year is $1250/mo. AND there are more than a few tax advantages to barely making money renting (or losing) but selling at a profit later. I am not an accountant or landlord, but I have run the math and it seems to make sense.

Re: Oregon passed sweeping housing crisis laws

#123

Post by sdenton4 » Sat, Jul 20, 2019, 3:46 PM UTC

LargeWu wrote: post #100

pmoriarty wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Its very expensive to fill a rental. A landlord usually needs at least a month to find another tenant. That's a month of foregone rent" If a month of foregone rent was such a huge burden to landlords then it wouldn't be so common for them to keep their properties vacant. Just recently, Los Angeles lawmakers have proposed a vacancy tax on the 111,000 vacant homes in the area.[1] [1] - https://www.latimes.com/local/la…

We had to rent our former home for 4 years after we moved, but couldn't sell because the market value was too low after the real estate crash. It's really hard to find tenants that aren't total deadbeats. Raise your rent and it's almost impossible to fill the vacancy. Lower the rent and get nothing but unqualified applicants with terrible credit and criminal records. So sure, maybe I could lower the rent to get someo…

Great! If you can't fill the spot to your liking, you should get out of the game. Sell to someone who needs a place to live, or is comfortable lowering rents and dealing with the work load.

Re: Oregon passed sweeping housing crisis laws

#124

Post by Misdicorl » Sat, Jul 20, 2019, 3:46 PM UTC

Redoubts wrote: post #114

Misdicorl wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stranger danger isn't the only risk to children. Being hit by fast moving vehicle traffic is much higher on most people's worry list.

Well I feel much more worried about being a pedestrian in the suburbs than in a city. Drivers seem to forget people and bikes exist unless they’re constantly reminded of their presence.

Trying to get from point A to point B? Absolutely. Just hanging around near point A? Absolutely not. Point A in the suburbs invariably has a space within 2 blocks that sees two to three cars a day (excluding rush hour).

Re: Oregon passed sweeping housing crisis laws

#125

Post by boomlinde » Sat, Jul 20, 2019, 3:48 PM UTC

gamblor956 wrote: post #75

boomlinde wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Combine it with laws that protect a decent standard for apartments and make it much harder to kick tenants out without a good reason. I.e. enforce basic tenants' protection instead of worrying about what incentives landlords have. It shouldn't matter whether the landlord wants to take a unit off the market if the tenants aren't willing or can't move. Then it lies on the landlord to create an incentive for tenants to…

You've literally just described LAs renters protections and tenants rights organisations in a nutshell...

Maybe, but the effect has to be considered together with the proposed "hybrid approach" to rent control. Los Angeles rent stability ordinance (which lately caps rent increases at 4% since this year) only affects apartments built before the 80s, and rents are on average up 6% since last year. Using a moving free market window and a lower cap may have a different effect.

Re: Oregon passed sweeping housing crisis laws

#126

Post by LaserToy » Sat, Jul 20, 2019, 3:51 PM UTC

apo wrote: post #109

LaserToy wrote: post #98

So, I probably drastically misunderstanding how rent control works, but I don’t see how it is going to help. I would argue it will push house prices even higher as you will have less people trying to rent places. Why? I was reading a bit about renting as a business (plus I have 1 house in Bay Area I rent) and there is so-called rule of 1%, which means for cash flow to be positive you should rent your house for at lea…

> Based on rule it should be 10k to make it interesting for the investors (buy and rent to make some profit). The only reason I didn’t sell it is the hope that prices will go up in x years, but right now I technically subsidizing people living there + waiting on possible rent increase in couple years. Maybe the market is telling you that SF house prices are wildly overvalued. Maybe the best move is not to wait for ev…

They are not overpriced. When eng with 10 years of expirience can make 250base + 500k in stock per year (or 4 years can get 1M in pre IPO lyft stock), it is hard not to see why Bay Area houses are so expensive. Area with money coming in will become more expensive to live in.

Housing price in SF are tied to valuation of tech companies. Valuation goes up, house prices go up.

I actually think houses in Bay Area are cheap.

Re: Oregon passed sweeping housing crisis laws

#127

Post by Misdicorl » Sat, Jul 20, 2019, 3:52 PM UTC

TulliusCicero wrote: post #91

Misdicorl wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those traffic fatalities are vastly more vehicle-vehicle collisions. I believe the EU even in the last decade legislated car design changes to address the risks of vehicle-pedestrian accidents that are far more prevalent there.

Of course they're more vehicle-vehicle in the US; hardly anyone walks in America. Just look at the stats. Even the walk-iest big city in the US, NYC, only has like 6% walk mode share. However, controlled for number of trips/distance, being a pedestrian in the US is generally quite dangerous compared to elsewhere.

I see 28% walk share for NYC (pdf warning): http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/nycdot-citywide-mo...

Re: Oregon passed sweeping housing crisis laws

#128

Post by nothrabannosir » Sat, Jul 20, 2019, 3:53 PM UTC

bko wrote: post #52

wpietri wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Unfortunately, rent control will have the opposite effect of what Oregon thinks, and only make housing scarcity worse. It depends on the kind of rent control. Housing has important asymmetries it's reasonable to address through legislation. One is asymmetry in scale: you have one unit; landlords have many more. This gives them stronger negotiating power. Another is cost of change. It's much more expensive for me in…

> It depends on the kind of rent control. Housing has important asymmetries it's reasonable to address through legislation. One is asymmetry in scale: you have one unit; landlords have many more. Not necessarily true. Sure , the landlord knows more about the apartment but you know more about yourself as a tenant. Landlord takes a huge risk in terms of allowing someone rent, especially given protections afforded to th…

> He can't just sell it tomorrow but I could easily choose another rental.

At worst, the landlord loses money. At worst, the tenant is on the streets. Emotionally, finding a new tenant is business (maslow level.. 4?). Emotionally, finding a new home touches on your core safety and wellbeing (maslow level 2). Switching tenants means a new contract and new risk to lose money. Switching neighbourhoods means losing your neighbours, your area, any ties you have there, and having to build it all anew.

And since we're talking about areas where rent control is necessary, a landlord can quite easily find another tenant and a tenant has a hard time finding another house. But as you can see above that's just a "bonus".

Economic analyses tend to discount emotional factors, by their very nature. Make no mistake about it: landlords have a massive advantage in any negotiation with a tenant.

Re: Oregon passed sweeping housing crisis laws

#129

Post by briandear » Sat, Jul 20, 2019, 3:54 PM UTC

Sharlin wrote: post #36

wwdhx wrote: post #28

Eastern European countries have a racial homogeneity that the United States doesn't have.

Is there any evidence that this has ever explained anything, or is it just racism? Seems like it's the go-to argument of some people to explain away just about any situation where some other country has something desirable and the US doesn't. "We can't have nice things because black people"?

What does the data say?

Re: Oregon passed sweeping housing crisis laws

#130

Post by jbay808 » Sat, Jul 20, 2019, 3:55 PM UTC

bassman9000 wrote: post #92

wpietri wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Unfortunately, rent control will have the opposite effect of what Oregon thinks, and only make housing scarcity worse. It depends on the kind of rent control. Housing has important asymmetries it's reasonable to address through legislation. One is asymmetry in scale: you have one unit; landlords have many more. This gives them stronger negotiating power. Another is cost of change. It's much more expensive for me in…

That means a landlord can extract money well above a true market rate. The market rate IS what the landlord extracts from it, which is what the market, you, is willing to pay.

I assume the GP is referring to something like this:

https://equilibriabook.com/an-equilibrium-of-no-free-energy/

> What about houses? Millions of residential houses change hands every year, and they cost more than stock shares. If we expect the stock market to be well-priced, shouldn’t we expect the same of houses?

> The answer is “no,” because you can’t short-sell a house. Sure, there are some ways to bet against aggregate housing markets, like shorting real estate investment trusts or home manufacturers. But in the end, hedge fund managers can’t make a synthetic financial instrument that behaves just like the house on 6702 West St. and sell it into the same housing market frequented by consumers like you. Which is why you might do very well to think for yourself about whether the price seems sensible to you before buying a house: because you might know better than the market price, even as a non-specialist relying only on publicly available information.

In this case, since the GP is referring to rent increases, the only members of the market are you and the landlord, and the landlord can leverage the large burden of moving to increase rent to a higher price than one that would be competitive on the broader market.

If you were a perfect rational decisionmaker you could perhaps have priced this risk in at the start and said "$1000/month is too expensive because I know the landlord will increase it 25% as soon as I finish unpacking". But in practice, people budget according to the price they're advertised.