Oregon passed sweeping housing crisis laws • Hacker News Board

Re: Oregon passed sweeping housing crisis laws

#31

Post by wpietri » Sat, Jul 20, 2019, 1:54 PM UTC

sampo wrote: post #2

> Lawmakers passed a first-in-the-nation cap on rent increases Unfortunately, rent control will have the opposite effect of what Oregon thinks, and only make housing scarcity worse. https://www.nytimes.com/2000/06/07/opinion/reckonings-a-rent... https://www.governing.com/gov-institute/voices/col-rent-cont... > in an effort to spur new homebuilding, became the only state to eliminate single-family-only zoning in many…

> 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 time and money to move than it is for a landlord turn over a new unit. That means a landlord can extract money well above a true market rate. A third is of interest. Individuals and the community have a interest in healthy social bonds, while absentee lords mainly want to extract cash.

I understand free-market fundamentalists hate all rent control, but Oregon's rent control laws are designed to preserve incentives to construct new housing: https://www.npr.org/2019/02/27/698509957/oregon-set-to-pass-...

The first 15 years of a new building are free from rent control, and after that they can increase rent at 7% above CPI, meaning in real terms rents can still double circa every 10 years. And if a tenant moves out, landlords can raise rents as much as they like.

For this to affect construction today, a builder would have to be betting on a very tight market continuing unabated during the 2035-2045 period. But that's a ridiculous bet to make, rent control laws or not. Anybody building new housing will want to be sure the economics work if rent increases return to their long-term average, which is well below 7% above CPI: https://www.apartmentlist.com/rentonomics/rent-growth-since-...

Re: Oregon passed sweeping housing crisis laws

#32

Post by jessaustin » Sat, Jul 20, 2019, 1:54 PM UTC

s_Hogg wrote: post #26

ISL wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This would encourage tearing down old rental units in order to build new rental units in their place.

Are you saying that because you think it's a good thing or a bad thing? Seems to me like either (or both) of these could be the case.

In most situations it would be good for rich renters and bad for poor renters, for an older building with apartment sizes and amenities that are typical of older buildings to be replaced by a new building with apartment sizes and amenities that are typical of new buildings.

Re: Oregon passed sweeping housing crisis laws

#33

Post by danharaj » Sat, Jul 20, 2019, 1:55 PM UTC

scribu wrote: post #13

Misdicorl wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is exclusionary by nature; economic segregation is often the intent, and in most cases the impact. This seems awfully reductionist. I think often the intent is more along the lines of- "We want to live in a place where kids can walk to their friends house without an adult escort and/or play kickball in the street. We've observed that this becomes unsafe in places with high density populations, so lets prevent hi…

> We've observed that [leaving children unattended] becomes unsafe in places with high density populations. Is that factually accurate, or just a false impression that people get? Let's assume it is objectively more unsafe. Is the problem the high density or is it some other aspect that causes issues? Most kids in East European countries, the vast majority of which grow up in high density neighborhoods, are left unat…

The reasons you will get will all be euphemisms for "I think black people are criminals".

Re: Oregon passed sweeping housing crisis laws

#34

Post by jessaustin » Sat, Jul 20, 2019, 1:57 PM UTC

wwdhx wrote: post #28

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

Your kids are not going to be kidnapped by black people either.

Re: Oregon passed sweeping housing crisis laws

#35

Post by nickserv » Sat, Jul 20, 2019, 1:58 PM UTC

Misdicorl wrote: post #5

TulliusCicero wrote: post #3

Good. Mandatory single family home zoning should not exist, anywhere. It is exclusionary by nature; economic segregation is often the intent, and in most cases the impact. It's one thing to accept the free market causing this sort of segregation as the collective result of individual choices, quite another to suggest that the government ought to be using regulatory power to help enforce the creation of invisibly gate…

> It is exclusionary by nature; economic segregation is often the intent, and in most cases the impact. This seems awfully reductionist. I think often the intent is more along the lines of- "We want to live in a place where kids can walk to their friends house without an adult escort and/or play kickball in the street. We've observed that this becomes unsafe in places with high density populations, so lets prevent hi…

It's not the density that makes urban areas unsafe, it's all the cars.

A downtown pedestrian street is perfectly safe for kids to hang out and play. Neighbors, older kids and shopkeepers keep an eye out without being in helicopter mode.

In the few cities I've been to that have banned vehicular traffic in downtown areas, you do see bunches of kids running around, as done for millennia.

Re: Oregon passed sweeping housing crisis laws

#36

Post by Sharlin » Sat, Jul 20, 2019, 1:58 PM UTC

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"?

Re: Oregon passed sweeping housing crisis laws

#37

Post by ajross » Sat, Jul 20, 2019, 2:00 PM UTC

throw0101a wrote: post #8

sampo wrote: post #2

> Lawmakers passed a first-in-the-nation cap on rent increases Unfortunately, rent control will have the opposite effect of what Oregon thinks, and only make housing scarcity worse. https://www.nytimes.com/2000/06/07/opinion/reckonings-a-rent... https://www.governing.com/gov-institute/voices/col-rent-cont... > in an effort to spur new homebuilding, became the only state to eliminate single-family-only zoning in many…

> Unfortunately, rent control will have the opposite effect of what Oregon thinks, and only make housing scarcity worse. I always found it odd that rent control always seems to be an all-or-nothing policy: either things are tamped down on, or it's a laissez faire system. Does any locality have a "hybrid" approached. Something like: * buildings 0-5 years old, allow up to 3x inflation rent increases * buildings 5-10 ye…

> I always found it odd that rent control always seems to be an all-or-nothing policy: either things are tamped down on, or it's a laissez faire system.

It's not. Rent control argument on the internet looks like that because it's always a bunch of strawman arguments about political philosophy. In fact the Oregon laws in question have features exactly like what you're talking about.

Re: Oregon passed sweeping housing crisis laws

#38

Post by spoonie » Sat, Jul 20, 2019, 2:00 PM UTC

Mountain_Skies wrote: post #23

throw0101a wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Unfortunately, rent control will have the opposite effect of what Oregon thinks, and only make housing scarcity worse. I always found it odd that rent control always seems to be an all-or-nothing policy: either things are tamped down on, or it's a laissez faire system. Does any locality have a "hybrid" approached. Something like: * buildings 0-5 years old, allow up to 3x inflation rent increases * buildings 5-10 ye…

Older buildings have all kinds of maintenance issues. Even if predictable, they're still an added expense, especially for major systems. Without allowing rental unit owners to pass those costs along to the renters, either the units will be taken off the rental market or they will be allowed to disintegrate over time until they're no longer habitable.

That assumes that the market is able to bear those costs. What do landlords do in stable markets where rents are flat or track inflation? Are all rentals dilapidated in those markets?

Re: Oregon passed sweeping housing crisis laws

#39

Post by thepangolino » Sat, Jul 20, 2019, 2:00 PM UTC

Mountain_Skies wrote: post #23

throw0101a wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Unfortunately, rent control will have the opposite effect of what Oregon thinks, and only make housing scarcity worse. I always found it odd that rent control always seems to be an all-or-nothing policy: either things are tamped down on, or it's a laissez faire system. Does any locality have a "hybrid" approached. Something like: * buildings 0-5 years old, allow up to 3x inflation rent increases * buildings 5-10 ye…

Older buildings have all kinds of maintenance issues. Even if predictable, they're still an added expense, especially for major systems. Without allowing rental unit owners to pass those costs along to the renters, either the units will be taken off the rental market or they will be allowed to disintegrate over time until they're no longer habitable.

In most of Europe building maintenance costs are counted outside of rent. This makes it difficult to hunt and compare flats as those costs can greatly vary.

Re: Oregon passed sweeping housing crisis laws

#40

Post by Misdicorl » Sat, Jul 20, 2019, 2:01 PM UTC

scribu wrote: post #13

Misdicorl wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is exclusionary by nature; economic segregation is often the intent, and in most cases the impact. This seems awfully reductionist. I think often the intent is more along the lines of- "We want to live in a place where kids can walk to their friends house without an adult escort and/or play kickball in the street. We've observed that this becomes unsafe in places with high density populations, so lets prevent hi…

> We've observed that [leaving children unattended] becomes unsafe in places with high density populations. Is that factually accurate, or just a false impression that people get? Let's assume it is objectively more unsafe. Is the problem the high density or is it some other aspect that causes issues? Most kids in East European countries, the vast majority of which grow up in high density neighborhoods, are left unat…

> Is that factually accurate, or just a false impression that people get?

I don't know, and its a good question; the answer should definitely inform regulations like these. Though, even if the fear is imagined, it will still affect your behavior and how you're able to parent. I think its also important to note that it isn't just safety at risk here- its opportunity. High density areas are unlikely to support multi-use infrastructure since the primary use will force out secondary uses (e.g. playing kickball in the street).

There are also a variety of other things you can slot into that sentence that dont invoke the sanctity of kid safety. Admittedly, a lot of them are more personal decisions that don't require regulations enforced on others.