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

Stanford paper says rent control is driving up cost of housing in San Francisco

sf.curbed.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 326 posts

Re: Stanford paper says rent control is driving up cost of housing in San Francisco

#261

Post by taneq »

tomohawk wrote: post #33
dmix wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sometimes the cost of intervention outweigh benefits, sometimes they don't. + Sometimes it works for a short period, as the policy reflected the economy at the time of creation, then becomes irrelevant via technology/market reaction to policy/general progress... but yet stays a policy for decades. The important point is that we rarely ever measures whether it does work or not, and policy tends to have an extremely…

Heinlen in "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" introduces the idea of a legislature with 2 chambers. One for creating laws and the other for getting rid of them. The threshold for creating them being higher. The way it is now, everything is geared towards "doing" things, and credit is received for "accomplishments". Its usually much harder to undo things. It would be refreshing to have specialists in undoing things.

While I don't disagree, I feel compelled to point out that in the same book he also introduces the idea of shoving people out of an airlock for being rude to you.

Re: Stanford paper says rent control is driving up cost of housing in San Francisco

#262

Post by taneq »

cryptonector wrote: post #254
ghouse wrote: post #5

Rent control solves some problems. Creates other problems. Similar to almost any intervention in free markets. Sometimes the cost of intervention outweigh benefits, sometimes they don't. Rent control allows people (wealthy or poor) to remain where they are without purchasing their residence. Unfortunately, to do accomplish this objective, it increases the price for new arrivals (be they wealthy or poor). In Californi…

Rent control solves no problems. It only causes problems. EDIT: But I like the observation that prop 13 is to ownership as rent control is to rent.

It solves the problem of landlords waiting until you're established in the rental property (or worse yet, waiting until some misfortune befalls you that prevents you from moving) and then jacking the rent up.

Re: Stanford paper says rent control is driving up cost of housing in San Francisco

#263

Post by joejerryronnie »

taneq wrote: post #260
joejerryronnie wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One second-order effect of true UBI would be to inflate the cost of goods to the level of UBI, thus rendering UBI pointless.

The price of basic necessities is limited by the cost of production, not some fundamental scarcity. We could produce as much food, clothing etc. as anyone could want without increasing the cost. (In fact, the cost should decrease slightly due to economies of scale.)

The price of basic necessities is based on what people will pay for it (or what merchants can charge for it). If everyone has $10 today to buy groceries and all of a sudden, tomorrow everyone has $100 to buy groceries, what do you think is going to happen to the price of groceries?

Re: Stanford paper says rent control is driving up cost of housing in San Francisco

#264

Post by spike021 »

muzz wrote: post #257
spike021 wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe this is exactly my current dilemma: I live in San Jose, I commute to SF 3 days a week (super thankful for the chance to work remote 2x a week). My current apartment (a 1BR I live in by myself) costs a bit less than 1k a month and is rent-controlled. The equivalent in SJ is probably worth 2-2.5x as much per month, and in SF (or somewhere in-between) it can be worth anywhere from 2.5-4x as much. I've been hun…

How exactly do you get a rent controlled steal in San Jose? Those 8% annual increases add up (multiply up) very quickly.

Found a small, privately-owned 8 or so unit apartment building that a coworker of mine was living at back when I was in school. She recommended me to the apartment manager/owner, who then gave me a good deal on a unit that needed things re-done (carpet, paint, etc.) by not renovating it as planned. Since it's rent-controlled they've only increased my rent by a small amount twice in my 5 years living there.

Re: Stanford paper says rent control is driving up cost of housing in San Francisco

#265

Post by thinkloop »

linkregister wrote: post #79
s73ver_ wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what's the solution for addressing this problem, AND not having local families from being muscled out by tech employees? Because whatever is proposed, if it means that local families have to leave because the rent was increased astronomically underneath them, then it's a non-starter.

What in particular about incumbent renters justifies making policies that benefit that group above all others? Is there something inherently less worthy about families seeking to return to a city after having left it? About a daughter seeking to move out of her parents house?

It's not about favoring one group over another, it's about (trying to) reduce volatility, favoring less change over more change when it comes to housing because forced relocation can be tough. Also things like reducing class segregation, etc. Not saying it works.

Re: Stanford paper says rent control is driving up cost of housing in San Francisco

#266

Post by JamesBarney »

taneq wrote: post #262
cryptonector wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rent control solves no problems. It only causes problems. EDIT: But I like the observation that prop 13 is to ownership as rent control is to rent.

It solves the problem of landlords waiting until you're established in the rental property (or worse yet, waiting until some misfortune befalls you that prevents you from moving) and then jacking the rent up.

This is what leases are for. And I don't think this is a thing. I am a landlord, and a member of several landlord groups. Most landlords I know increases the price of rent slower than the market for good tenants(some follow market, none raise above market). This is because it costs just as much for a landlord to replace a tenant as vice versa. A landlord usually pays 1 months rent to find a new tenant. Plus any losses out on rent while it's not being rented(several weeks). Has to run through and do audit of the property. Replace locks, etc..

It can easily cost $1800 on a $1000 a month rental. And moving is usually cheaper than $1800.

Re: Stanford paper says rent control is driving up cost of housing in San Francisco

#267

Post by shostack »

zghst wrote: post #238
closeparen wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but in the counterfactual non-rent-control world, staying in SJ at $1000 isn’t even an option. Maybe efficiencies bring down prevailing rents a little bit, but enough to matter? The more interesting question is, why are the 50 miles between SF and SJ reserved for sparsely packed single family homes and one story strip malls?

That’s changing. They’re building higher up in Redwood City, South SF, and the surrounding areas. It’s costly to replace the older model of American development from the 50’s. They waited until the last minute to start working on the issue.

Redwood City has been interesting to watch. I hope they get more diverse retail with the added increased density. Right now it is a lot of restaurants and bars, which while nice to have, means that it misses out on a lot of the foot traffic and such that other Peninsula cities like neighboring San Carlos, or Mountain View, etc. have.

Redwood City is also nicely positioned as a mid-point between SF and South Bay.

Beyond that, it seems the entire El Camino corridor is being heavily developed with retail and high-density condos and apartments.

Re: Stanford paper says rent control is driving up cost of housing in San Francisco

#268

Post by racer-v »

joejerryronnie wrote: post #194
spike021 wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe this is exactly my current dilemma: I live in San Jose, I commute to SF 3 days a week (super thankful for the chance to work remote 2x a week). My current apartment (a 1BR I live in by myself) costs a bit less than 1k a month and is rent-controlled. The equivalent in SJ is probably worth 2-2.5x as much per month, and in SF (or somewhere in-between) it can be worth anywhere from 2.5-4x as much. I've been hun…

Real question, why not look for a different job closer to San Jose?

You're asking: what's the advantage of being willing to look farther afield to find your perfect job? That's what people in this thread are talking about when they say "labor mobility".

In case you want me to answer, there are myriad advantages: the chance to work with your most preferred tools, on a product that's more interesting you, with maximally compatible coworkers, etc. All the normal reasons people go somewhere besides where they were born for a job.

Re: Stanford paper says rent control is driving up cost of housing in San Francisco

#269

Post by mjevans »

gwright wrote: post #192
mjevans wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would rather see rents controlled in an area by requiring that sufficient housing is built. Address the issue with more supply. (At a livable standard of living, including proper sound isolation and fresh air, and even a space for vehicle storage* because people need to leave the city some time... *: Having an in city goods and services transport layer in weather controlled environments that leads to peripheral IO…

> requiring that sufficient housing is built. I realize what you are trying to say (I think), but your phrasing is curious. Shortages are almost always caused by government intervention in a market by increasing the burden for suppliers and/or capping prices. There is no need to mandate anything, but instead just let developers do what they already want to do, build. It is the prohibitions (zoning regulations) on dev…

Actually construction wants to expend the least effort for the most profit. Given how critical the housing gap is in most areas* (that are near jobs) right now all that 'wants' to be built is the upper end of housing. If the market hadn't reached these levels that /would/ be fine, since then previous housing from that category would depreciate in to the lower income strata in an actual trickle down method. What will happen instead is that only enough housing will be built to maintain the current status of an unhealthy market.

In order to have an actual //correction// in current trends directed building must be several times beyond a normal build rate to make up for the decades of under-performance.

Re: Stanford paper says rent control is driving up cost of housing in San Francisco

#270

Post by gyrgtyn »

mattlong wrote: post #24
45h34jh53k4j wrote: post #4

Now, I have not read the paper, but I would have thought the free market combined with sky-high wages and demand, combined with a lack of inventory, was the cause. Rent Control surely just prevents local families from being muscled out by the tech employees?

> Rent Control surely just prevents local families from being muscled out by the tech employees? Correct. And in the process of doing so, further contributes to the lack of inventory of market-rate rental units available to the influx of newcomers/tech employees. As mentioned elsewhere in the comments here, this causes huge disparities for rents of similar units within a given building as landlords attempt to compens…

and for some reason people are upset about the 400?
Post reply on HN