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

California Approves Statewide Rent Control

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 1001 posts

Re: California Approves Statewide Rent Control

#151

Post by pitaj »

baby wrote: post #118
pitaj wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Prices should increase in the case of increased demand. Prices must increase in that case if you want the supply to increase, which is the only way to actually meet demand. It's how the market works ffs.

I guess it shows how out of touch you guys are. When I moved here EVERYONE told me to find a rent controlled place. After hearing some horror stories I think you would be crazy to live in a non-rent controlled place. Heck, I’ve never heard of non-rent control before moving to the US. No surprise there’s so many homeless people. PS: look at what your free market did to the US healthcare.

Do you really think healthcare in the US is a free market?

If you do, you couldn't be more wrong. Healthcare is the most regulated, least free market in the US.

Re: California Approves Statewide Rent Control

#152

Post by amahani »

bhauer wrote: post #21

I am a landlord in Oregon, but not California. The curious, although ultimately predictable, outcome of the new rent control measure in Oregon is that while I have historically had an arrangement with my property management to be restrained in annual rent increases, they are now advising a default annual increase of the maximum allowed (7 percent before inflation). This is because larger adjustments cannot be made if…

You are absolutely correct: rent control (1) increases upward pressure, and (2) decreases rental supplies (and therefore drives up the price of rent) , and (3) benefits high-income earners when not coupled with income limits.

(1) Since rent control laws put limits on increases (and not decreases) every landlord understands that he/she should test the upper boundary at all times to avoid renting severly below market rates during boom years. With sufficient landlords undertaking this task, rents should go higher than without this limitation. Moreover, the cost of moving is higher for the tenant (who has to find a home and move his/her property) than the landlord (who has to find a new tenant).

(2) real estate becomes less attractive builders and buyers, given the mandated constraints on charging rent. See https://web.stanford.edu/~diamondr/DMQ.pd. For a counter, see https://www.housinghumanright.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11... (you'll have to wade through ad hominem attacks).

(3) high-income earners tend to benefit the most on rent control over time. As market rates for rentals increase (i.e., property up for rent), only higher-income individuals can afford to move in. Over time that leads to the displacement of lower-income individuals. Anecdotally, I can attest how some of my high-income earning friends pay very little for housing in SF because they locked in rates before 2011.

Lastly, pro-rent-control reports/papers I read highlighted the need for a comprehensive housing strategy beyond rent control, like increasing rental supply by making it easier to build ("It is also critical to recognize that the need for reforms extends beyond rent control and housing policy more broadly ... This includes developing new funding sources for affordable housing development and addressing exclusionary zoning policies at the root of the displacement crisis, https://haasinstitute.berkeley.edu/opening-door-rent-control). As the article already mentions, Scott Wiener's bill to override local zoning laws was shelved. The CA legislature did not have the stomach to address the underlying cause.

A far more sensible solution (IMO) is: (1) override zoning laws / ordinances that prohibit building more homes (2) tie rent control to income.

Re: California Approves Statewide Rent Control

#153

Post by baby »

refurb wrote: post #144
baby wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess it shows how out of touch you guys are. When I moved here EVERYONE told me to find a rent controlled place. After hearing some horror stories I think you would be crazy to live in a non-rent controlled place. Heck, I’ve never heard of non-rent control before moving to the US. No surprise there’s so many homeless people. PS: look at what your free market did to the US healthcare.

Of course everyone told you to get a rent controlled place. The government is mandating your landlord gives you money, so why not take it? The point still stands that rent control is a terrible way to keep rent down, it causes a ton of problems.

Gives me money? What?

So arbitrary rent is a much better way to keep rent down? Come on...

Re: California Approves Statewide Rent Control

#154

Post by baby »

driverdan wrote: post #99
baby wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So are you saying that landlord should be able to double your rent like that?

If that's what demand has done to pricing then yes. Where are rents increasing 100% per year?

Have you looked at the rents in SF? It is pretty insane.

Re: California Approves Statewide Rent Control

#155

Post by chank »

We're already at unsustainable YoY rent increase levels in many places IMO. I for one have no problems moving if my LL decides to increase my rent ANY percentage. I know that over the course of my next lease I will always be able to come out ahead by hundreds if not thousands of dollars for the same price I'm currently paying and for sometimes better place.

Re: California Approves Statewide Rent Control

#156

Post by bsder »

tolmasky wrote: post #134
decebalus1 wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The real solution to a housing problem is to incentivize and facilitate the building of more housing. You need to have some degree of control. I live in a suburb close to a tech hub in WA. They built a lot of housing in the past 3 years. And I mean a lot. At least a couple of hundred of apartments on the market every year, after raising 3-4 buildings at the same time, in a town of 20k people. One would think that t…

Losing an entire year of 1.2K rent breaks even with 1.7K rent after roughly 3.3 years , breaks even (1.7(x-12)=1.2x, x = 40 months). And that’s if the new tenants stay with no churn and you don’t play the same game forcing them out for another year. Had they just raised your rent $200, the break even point becomes almost 6 years. I don’t understand your landlords at all. With regard to the story before it, it sounds…

There's some weird legal implications that I know that I don't understand.

I see this all the time where a large ownership company will leave apartments or commercial real estate totally unoccupied rather than allow a cheaper rent.

I don't understand what they gain.

Re: California Approves Statewide Rent Control

#157

Post by baby »

johngrefe wrote: post #80

You hear that? That's the sound of my home rising in value as supply to compete against it is reduced. Very cool CA!

Hear this? These are the tenants that would have had to move out because they made the mistake of not moving in a rent-controlled place.

Re: California Approves Statewide Rent Control

#158

Post by baby »

joshfraser wrote: post #117

When you mess with supply and demand there are always unintended consequences. I'm currently a beneficiary of rent control and am lucky to be paying below-market rate for my apartment. It would be nice to move to another neighborhood, but it would be dumb for me to give up the savings. My neighbor pays 1/10th of what I pay for the same size apartment. Neither of us are leaving anytime soon. This is why there's no liq…

Same. I’m in a rent control place and I would never ever make the mistake of moving in a place that can arbitrarily increase its rent. I fee bad for people who didn’t have a choice and will probably have to move out at some point because of that :/

Re: California Approves Statewide Rent Control

#159

Post by joshAg »

bzbz wrote: post #85
joshAg wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The entire point of the law is to prevent you from being able to make those larger adjustments, though. How often do you replace tenants? And what's your occupancy rate? If you're in a situation where you can reliably raise rent 7% YoY indefinitely without decreasing your occupancy rate, then you were severely underpriced for the market (and you should probably fire that management company for pricing you that absurd…

So then what’s the point of not being able to make those larger adjustments?

There's certain hot zones in cities where the rent can increase by much greater than 7% YoY. In those hot zones no one's wages are rising at the same rate, so that law is the only thing that prevents the people previously living there from being forced to move even if they would rather stay. Essentially, it's the policy that is in response to all the stories about retirees being forced out of a home they rented for decades or the stories about the cops and firemen sleeping in their cars because their job is a 20 hour drive from their house and they can't afford anything closer to their job.

Re: California Approves Statewide Rent Control

#160

Post by baby »

pitaj wrote: post #151
baby wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess it shows how out of touch you guys are. When I moved here EVERYONE told me to find a rent controlled place. After hearing some horror stories I think you would be crazy to live in a non-rent controlled place. Heck, I’ve never heard of non-rent control before moving to the US. No surprise there’s so many homeless people. PS: look at what your free market did to the US healthcare.

Do you really think healthcare in the US is a free market? If you do, you couldn't be more wrong. Healthcare is the most regulated, least free market in the US.

Mkay
Post reply on HN