Live data from Hacker News

How Rent Control Drives Out Affordable Housing

cato.org

171–180 of 189 posts

Re: How Rent Control Drives Out Affordable Housing

#171
post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I asked if you would yield price controls, which certainly do exist, and I was curious whether wild market fluctuations were pivotal to your position. I'm assuming this is why you haven't addressed the essence of my point.

I haven't addressed the essence of your point because I don't know what it is. Rent control only really exists in large cities that have experienced wild market fluctuations (in the form of surging rent prices) that displaced renters. If there weren't surging rents displacing people, why would there be rent control? In that case, I would yield them... but in that case, they wouldn't have existed in the first place. S…

If there weren't surging rents displacing people, why would there be rent control?

Because politicians try to appease renters, who in turn tend to wrongly assume that "rent control" is something that would benefit them. A prevalent assumption among renters seems to be that if a given thing is bad for landlords, it must automatically be good for renters. For example, when landlords back advertisements against rent control measures, that is actually given as a reason by "tenant's rights" advocates to vote the opposite way.

By the way, the rest of the "tenant's rights" -- including any kind of tenant rights -- also contribute to homelessness and high rent prices. Also contributing are building codes, construction codes, use codes, etc. Without any of those, apartments would necessarily be dirt cheap, and there would be no such thing as homelessness.

Re: How Rent Control Drives Out Affordable Housing

#172
post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

New properties are exempt at least in NYC and SF, the main cities the article harps on. I don't know about elsewhere. A place deteriorating over time happens, but from the POV of the tenant whose alternative is getting booted to the curb, this seems like a reasonable tradeoff, doesn't it? The over-consumption of housing space is a pretty lame argument, and it's contradicted by the point that other people are making a…

I have no problem with a program designed to subsidize housing for people with tax dollars. If the democracy decides that people with attributes x, y, and z deserve a $2000/month housing subsidy, that's fine. It's no different than the subsidy given to mortgage debtors (tax breaks), parents (the child tax credit), electric car owners (tax credit), student loan debtors (student loan interest deduction), farmers (direc…

That's a fair point, though I disagree about the parallel to gas prices (housing isn't a commodity, and rent control only applies to existing tenants). I've been in the position of defending 'rent control' on this thread, but really all I'm committed to are the ideas that the op was a terrible article that proved nothing, and that not displacing people from their homes is a worthy societal goal. If there are better ways to accomplish that than rent control, I'm all for them.

Re: How Rent Control Drives Out Affordable Housing

#173
post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rising prices are a subset of wild fluctuations. The other part is falling prices. Rent control isn't really necessary for the latter, is it now?

No, wild fluctuations are wild -- your adjective -- continual change up and down. May I suggest a dictionary? fluc⋅tu⋅a⋅tion [fluhk-choo-ey-shuhn] Show IPA Pronunciation –noun 1. continual change from one point or condition to another. 2. wavelike motion; undulation. This does not subsume longer-term trends. EDIT: I want to know if your issue is simply with rising prices. If it is -- and it seems pretty clear that it…

Dude, come on. Your contribution to this conversation is really going to be latching onto my use of 'wild fluctuations' instead of 'large price increases' as somehow disingenuous?

Re: How Rent Control Drives Out Affordable Housing

#175
post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"the costs of raising meat (which, in effect, only the wealthy can afford to eat)" I guess the 99 cent hamburger must also be part of my delusion, then.

Yes, it is, actually. It's amazing that you would cite McDonald's while arguing against a form of government subsidies. Seriously, go read the Omnivore's Dilemma.

What is the size of the subsidy of a 99 cent McDonald's hamburger?

Re: How Rent Control Drives Out Affordable Housing

#176
post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have no problem with a program designed to subsidize housing for people with tax dollars. If the democracy decides that people with attributes x, y, and z deserve a $2000/month housing subsidy, that's fine. It's no different than the subsidy given to mortgage debtors (tax breaks), parents (the child tax credit), electric car owners (tax credit), student loan debtors (student loan interest deduction), farmers (direc…

That's a fair point, though I disagree about the parallel to gas prices (housing isn't a commodity, and rent control only applies to existing tenants). I've been in the position of defending 'rent control' on this thread, but really all I'm committed to are the ideas that the op was a terrible article that proved nothing, and that not displacing people from their homes is a worthy societal goal. If there are better w…

Fair enough. On a slightly tangential note, I think that the idea of "uprooting from homes" is a bit of an unfortunate cliche. In reality, it is home ownership that shackles people to jobs they hate, etc. If you rent, you can move whenever you want. If you own a home, you can't move if the job market declines or you find a better offer elsewhere unless you hire a Realtor and go through a major home sale project... and if the local economy is in decline, you're probably not the only person trying to sell your house and so you may end up selling it at a big loss (as was the case in post-industrial Flint, Michigan).

I realize that landlords have been vilified in the past, but who is really benefited by suppressing the mobility of the population? It's businesses (whose workers can't leave), it's politicians (who don't have to worry as much about people packing up and leaving in response to bad policies, corruption, etc.), and it's banks -- most people pay at least the value of their home in mortgage interest, and are effectively enslaved to the bank, an unrelenting landlord who can inflict the equivalent of modern-day debtors prison in the form of foreclosure credit destruction and confiscation of any equity earned since purchase.

How many people are tremendously afraid of losing their job because they might lose their house (their biggest investment)? How many people put up with unfulfilling, soul-sucking work just to make that house payment?

Consider how this has all changed -- how many more debt slaves were created -- when the housing market tanked. Home ownership is not the American dream, nor is being part of a community for the long term, nor is having the same job for 30 years and then retiring with a gold watch and a pension.

True freedom is in being able to take a better offer and being able to reinvent one's self whenever one wants. But our entire financial system, it seems, was based on the idea of encouraging long-term debt (mortgages) and the stasis that accompanies it.

So I think the ideal that you are striving for with not uprooting people from their rental apartments is not only illusory but destructive. Price changes contain information, and preventing price changes simply hides information, keeps people in the dark, etc.

Maybe being uprooted will (metaphorically) allow the plant to catch flight and land somewhere better... Maybe rental real-estate prices are so high because tons of rich people are moving in and they all plan on sending their kids to private school, leading to the destruction of the public schools -- this is the case in SF where most people with money would never send their kids to SF public schools even though it costs $2K/month to rent a dumpy 1BR apartment and so objectively it's a "rich" area.

Re: How Rent Control Drives Out Affordable Housing

#177
post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a fair point, though I disagree about the parallel to gas prices (housing isn't a commodity, and rent control only applies to existing tenants). I've been in the position of defending 'rent control' on this thread, but really all I'm committed to are the ideas that the op was a terrible article that proved nothing, and that not displacing people from their homes is a worthy societal goal. If there are better w…

Fair enough. On a slightly tangential note, I think that the idea of "uprooting from homes" is a bit of an unfortunate cliche. In reality, it is home ownership that shackles people to jobs they hate, etc. If you rent, you can move whenever you want. If you own a home, you can't move if the job market declines or you find a better offer elsewhere unless you hire a Realtor and go through a major home sale project... an…

I agree with basically everything you've said here, except the conclusion that all this means allowing people to avoid being uprooted from their homes is destructive. This is mainly because I don't think that the argument that "rent control traps renters in their low-rent apartments" holds any water - the alternative would have been displacement from the increased rent, and the tenant still wouldn't have been able to find a place in the same area (this terrible articles assertions aside). Also - price changes contain information, sure, but how is that information being hidden in a rent-control environment? With increase-on-vacate and no rent-control on newly constructed units, it seems like it's pretty rare that rent-controlled units would be so highly concentrated in an area to mask the true market value.

Re: How Rent Control Drives Out Affordable Housing

#178
post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fair enough. On a slightly tangential note, I think that the idea of "uprooting from homes" is a bit of an unfortunate cliche. In reality, it is home ownership that shackles people to jobs they hate, etc. If you rent, you can move whenever you want. If you own a home, you can't move if the job market declines or you find a better offer elsewhere unless you hire a Realtor and go through a major home sale project... an…

I agree with basically everything you've said here, except the conclusion that all this means allowing people to avoid being uprooted from their homes is destructive. This is mainly because I don't think that the argument that "rent control traps renters in their low-rent apartments" holds any water - the alternative would have been displacement from the increased rent, and the tenant still wouldn't have been able to…

I agree that the item you mention is not a particularly strong argument, but I wanted to mention some examples of how rent control blocks a price signal that might even be useful for the beneficiary of rent control. I think it's uncontroversial that it blocks the price signal to renovate the buildings and to build new affordable housing as discussed above.

But if you agree on the major point that the social engineering geared at getting people to live/work in one place for a long time is on the wrong track, then our differences seem focused on rent control.

I should mention that in my last building in SF there was a guy who had lived there in a rent controlled apartment since the 1970s. After the first year I lived there, a letter arrived in the mail informing me that rent would increase by exactly 1.5%, the maximum increase allowed by law, and that the landlord was pushing for "utility cost pass-through", a rent-control exception that allows slightly bigger increases in cases of utility price jumps. So I was a beneficiary of rent control.

Back to the guy. His apartment had a view of the bay and golden gate bridge from every window, including the bathroom. It could probably be rented for $3500+/month because of the amazing views. He was a wealthy lawyer, arch-enemy of the landlord and heavily involved in the tenants union, and completely not in need of any help paying rent. With rent control he was probably paying under $1000/month for his apartment and had been for years. He will probably live there until the day he dies.

I'd have been far less skeptical of rent control if there had been an immigrant family living in that apartment or someone who worked at the local Walgreens.

Re: How Rent Control Drives Out Affordable Housing

#179
post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Take a look at a list of what is considered an uninsurable condition for personal health insurance. That alone would hit more than 1% of the population.

Do you happen to have a list of these?

I think it is state by state, but quite possibly varies from company to company. I found this list (which is similar to ones I've seen before), which is for Ohio: http://www.healthcarereform.ohio.gov/HCRDoc/RepresentativeLi.... Some of the ones on the list are pretty shocking and many of them are hereditary.

Re: How Rent Control Drives Out Affordable Housing

#180
post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with basically everything you've said here, except the conclusion that all this means allowing people to avoid being uprooted from their homes is destructive. This is mainly because I don't think that the argument that "rent control traps renters in their low-rent apartments" holds any water - the alternative would have been displacement from the increased rent, and the tenant still wouldn't have been able to…

I agree that the item you mention is not a particularly strong argument, but I wanted to mention some examples of how rent control blocks a price signal that might even be useful for the beneficiary of rent control. I think it's uncontroversial that it blocks the price signal to renovate the buildings and to build new affordable housing as discussed above. But if you agree on the major point that the social engineeri…

Maybe I should have been more clear. I agree that social constructs designed to chain people to a given location are bad; I disagree that rent control is one of these constructs. It might be true that people tend to hang on to apartments that they otherwise wouldn't because they're getting a great deal, but this is a voluntary choice, not the company store. The bit about "allow[ing] the plant to catch flight and land somewhere better" seem like a little bit of movie logic. Many people do derive real value from being established in a community, and would be hurt by being forced to move.

Why does the debate always veer back to renovation of the buildings? Do you really think that adding stainless-steel appliances to an apartment is a more desirable goal than not displacing established residents?

As for your personal experience with the wealthy lawyer, here's the balancing anecdote: I live in the Mission, a part of town where rents are rapidly increasing (I'm sure I'm guilty of driving up prices). There are plenty of people down here who can only afford to stay in their homes because of rent control, and stories of tenant intimidation are plentiful.

Post reply on HN