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

201–210 of 1001 posts

Re: California Approves Statewide Rent Control

#201

Post by hindsightbias »

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…

Why should we subsidize your landlord, paying on a Prop 13 valuation 1/10th the market rate?

None of them are suffering.

Re: California Approves Statewide Rent Control

#202

Post by throwaway5752 »

phil248 wrote: post #138

I'm shocked at the ideological fervor here and the fact that virtually no one seems to have looked at the details of the actual bill. This is nothing like the rent control ordinance in SF that has caused $3000 units to get stuck at $500 rents. That will never happen under this law. The allowable increases are so much higher than "normal" rent control laws that any given unit will catch up to market rates in a matter…

This should be the top comment. The upshot is that if you are a family that is renting, you won't be forced out of your home on short notice.

Try - for a moment - to imagine you are living close to your maximum expenses and your landlord increases your rent by 20% next year.

Re: California Approves Statewide Rent Control

#203

Post by gbacon »

olliej wrote: post #90
souprock wrote: post #12

Oh joy, politicians trying to get votes from the economically unaware. If you thought there was a housing crisis, just wait. It's going to be crazy. Here is a different article, more tolerant of private browsing: https://www.forbes.com/sites/adammillsap/2019/09/04/more-ren...

Here's the problem: Prop 13 amended the CA constitution to prevent the state from increasing assessed property value by more than 2% a year. Landlords recognize that the real value is actually increasing faster than 2% and so increase the rent at the actual market rate. Given living costs make up the single largest force controlling cost of living, including for tax payer funded workers: police, firefighters, teacher…

So tax-control bad, rent-control good? Owners’ properties benefiting from services that they aren’t paying for also bad? Renters benefiting from services they aren’t paying for doubleplus good?

Re: California Approves Statewide Rent Control

#204

Post by cybersnowflake »

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…

Also

2. Realize that not everybody in the world needs to or should live in the Bay Area/Hollywood.

3. Don't pass statewide laws catering primarily to the group of people aspiring to do so.

Re: California Approves Statewide Rent Control

#205

Post by xur17 »

baby wrote: post #145
forrestthewoods wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It’s here to ensure people can still find affordable places to live. Rent control does the opposite. It radically reduces choices and increase on price on people looking for a place to live. Rent control chooses a small handful of existing renters to be winners. And it makes everyone else a loser. Except it's also shitty renters, because it traps them in place. Sure it gives them a home somewhere. But it denies the…

That’s FUD. It works great in other countries and if strict can give equal chances to tenants no matter your background.

> if strict can give equal chances to tenants no matter your background.

The GP's point is that it gives equal chances to tenants to stay. New tenants do not benefit from rent control, they instead are hurt by the higher prices due to lower supply.

Re: California Approves Statewide Rent Control

#206

Post by kd0amg »

halflings wrote: post #195
john_moscow wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>they are now advising a default annual increase of the maximum allowed (7 percent before inflation) Is the property management company collecting an extra commission each time a new tenant moves in? Because all this strategy is going to do is let tenants quit once the rent goes considerably above the market rate. A much wiser strategy, IMO, would be to watch the market rates and keep the existing tenants' rate const…

Isn't OP saying they are doing this because of rent control? (e.g not being able to change rent selectively, only able to constantly increase rent?)

Specifically, it's an attempt to hedge against the possibility of the market rate increasing by more than 7% in a year.

Re: California Approves Statewide Rent Control

#207

Post by pitaj »

52-6F-62 wrote: post #198
pitaj wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your article says this: > So far, empirical evidence shows that rent control has not crippled the purpose-built rental market. But the economic concensus is exactly the opposite. https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2015/08/30/... https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/12/business/economy/rent-con... https://www.businessinsider.com/does-rent-control-work-no-it... https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-0…

The article continues beyond that line. They outline, with numbers, the practical effects of rent control in the sample size of metro Toronto. I’m not an economist but I didn’t think consensus was a valid benchmark against empirical data.

Consensus are built from empirical data of more than just one metro area.

Re: California Approves Statewide Rent Control

#208

Post by pcwalton »

wahern wrote: post #131

Rent control is about housing security for existing tenants. Even a perennial 7% increase can be better than discovering your rent will jump 300% next month. But rent control in the absence of housing supply increases will undoubtedly exacerbate the problem, and at a steady 7% inflation would also slowly price out existing tenants. Many parts of California already had rent control that was based on building age. Theo…

> I think most developers in California would have bargained statewide rent control for development as-of-right.

In fact, that was more or less the deal—until Anthony Portantino torpedoed it.

Re: California Approves Statewide Rent Control

#209

Post by blisterpeanuts »

lettergram wrote: post #103

I’m sorry, I think it’s pretty odd when you can’t set the price for your property being leased. If you like better rates, negotiate, fix zoning, or buy. If you can’t do any of those, you should leave. The rest of the country is really not that bad.

California already has a net outflow of people, especially middle class. This is offset by immigration and undocumented migration from Mexico so that the state's population actually continues to grow. But most of the newcomers are not affluent, will almost certainly rent rather than own, and tend to live together in large family groups like 10 people in one apartment. This is going to keep putting pressure on the housing market -- people need a place to live, they can't afford to buy, so the powers that be, in their wisdom, decided to just legislate limits to the price, hoping no one would notice all the unintended consequences that will definitely happen.
Post reply on HN