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

Gentrification's Price: S.F. Moves: Yuppies In, the Poor Out (1985)

articles.latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 77 posts

Re: Gentrification's Price: S.F. Moves: Yuppies In, the Poor Out (1985)

#41

Post by chollida1 »

crdoconnor wrote: post #27
whack wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> " Opponents of gentrification, and supporters of rent control, are generally considering the well-being of current residents. " And what about current residents who need to move? Suppose a disadvantaged woman decides to leave her abusive husband and is trying to find another place to move into. Is it fair that her well-being is completely neglected? I'm all in favor of the intentions behind rent control, but the im…

>I'm all in favor of the intentions behind rent control, but the implementation is an atrocious way to achieving its goals. If the goal is to help the poor long-time residents of a city, then do that directly. Rent control is a hack, but it's a hack that largely works. It's not nearly as atrocious as the reputation profit hungry landlords have tried to give it. Why not treat it exactly like any other kind of hack? Ta…

> Rent control is a hack, but it's a hack that largely works. It's not nearly as atrocious as the reputation profit hungry landlords have tried to give it

Well I'm not sure what economics degree you have, but a Nobel winning one, says that most economists are in agreement and they disagree with you

https://www.nytimes.com/2000/06/07/opinion/reckonings-a-rent...

> The analysis of rent control is among the best-understood issues in all of economics, and -- among economists, anyway -- one of the least controversial. In 1992 a poll of the American Economic Association found 93 percent of its members agreeing that ''a ceiling on rents reduces the quality and quantity of housing.'

So I guess the balls in your court. What evidence would you put forward to prove most economists wrong about rent control?

Re: Gentrification's Price: S.F. Moves: Yuppies In, the Poor Out (1985)

#42

Post by scythe »

madrox wrote: post #21

I often wonder about how sustainable SF’s growth is. Between the issues with housing, rent control, NIMBYism, and poor infrastructure, there has to be a price tag at which this can’t continue. I live in the city, and the quality of living here is terrible compared to other cities. The only thing SF has going for it is the people, but sooner or later the right social pressures could cause a mass exodus, and I wonder w…

SF, and the Bay as a whole, is the northernmost large snow-free area in the country. The weather alone practically guarantees someone will find a reason to live here. If there were other negatives besides high prices, I think the concern over decline could be more well-founded, but there will always be some sort of city by the Bay.

Re: Gentrification's Price: S.F. Moves: Yuppies In, the Poor Out (1985)

#43

Post by zethraeus »

joe_the_user wrote: post #25
whack wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> " Opponents of gentrification, and supporters of rent control, are generally considering the well-being of current residents. " And what about current residents who need to move? Suppose a disadvantaged woman decides to leave her abusive husband and is trying to find another place to move into. Is it fair that her well-being is completely neglected? I'm all in favor of the intentions behind rent control, but the im…

Suppose a disadvantaged woman decides to leave her abusive husband and is trying to find another place to move into. Your hypothetical disadvantaged woman would have zero ability to pay $2000/month rent for a studio, however many of these might be available. She would likely find it hard to get an apartment in a rent-controlled situation - so the situation is effectively "hard versus impossible", a condition where "h…

Why are the studios $2000/month in this alternate universe where we don't have rent control?

Re: Gentrification's Price: S.F. Moves: Yuppies In, the Poor Out (1985)

#44

Post by closeparen »

chollida1 wrote: post #41
crdoconnor wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I'm all in favor of the intentions behind rent control, but the implementation is an atrocious way to achieving its goals. If the goal is to help the poor long-time residents of a city, then do that directly. Rent control is a hack, but it's a hack that largely works. It's not nearly as atrocious as the reputation profit hungry landlords have tried to give it. Why not treat it exactly like any other kind of hack? Ta…

> Rent control is a hack, but it's a hack that largely works. It's not nearly as atrocious as the reputation profit hungry landlords have tried to give it Well I'm not sure what economics degree you have, but a Nobel winning one, says that most economists are in agreement and they disagree with you https://www.nytimes.com/2000/06/07/opinion/reckonings-a-rent... > The analysis of rent control is among the best-underst…

It’s entirely possible for someone to understand that, and to be willing to trade the quantity and quality of housing for stability in the lives of existing residents.

Re: Gentrification's Price: S.F. Moves: Yuppies In, the Poor Out (1985)

#45

Post by crdoconnor »

chollida1 wrote: post #41
crdoconnor wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I'm all in favor of the intentions behind rent control, but the implementation is an atrocious way to achieving its goals. If the goal is to help the poor long-time residents of a city, then do that directly. Rent control is a hack, but it's a hack that largely works. It's not nearly as atrocious as the reputation profit hungry landlords have tried to give it. Why not treat it exactly like any other kind of hack? Ta…

> Rent control is a hack, but it's a hack that largely works. It's not nearly as atrocious as the reputation profit hungry landlords have tried to give it Well I'm not sure what economics degree you have, but a Nobel winning one, says that most economists are in agreement and they disagree with you https://www.nytimes.com/2000/06/07/opinion/reckonings-a-rent... > The analysis of rent control is among the best-underst…

>Well I'm not sure what economics degree you have

Could your appeal to authority be a little more obvious please?

>a Nobel winning one, says that most economists are in agreement and they disagree with you

The economist profession is badly captured by moneyed interests. This is partly why they are terrible at building predictive models (think about it: which one of them wasn't blindsided by the financial crisis?).

Often the more prestigious seeming the economist, the more captured they are.

With Paul Krugman specifically this level of capture was made embarrassingly obvious when he wrote a screed saying "what's wrong with the TPP? More trade is always good!" and then got schooled by his own comments section about what was actually in that trade deal (that had nothing to do with "more trade") and what was wrong with it:

https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/12/krugman-running-bran...

He obviously wasn't too stupid to understand it, which is why after enough negative exposure he retracted.

I doubt you'll find any Nobel prize winning physicists having to retract a similar "mistake" although I can think of one climate scientist who might.

>So I guess the balls in your court. What evidence would you put forward to prove most economists wrong about rent control?

New York's highest level of house building occurred under strict rent controls.

Re: Gentrification's Price: S.F. Moves: Yuppies In, the Poor Out (1985)

#46

Post by pcwalton »

crdoconnor wrote: post #27
whack wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> " Opponents of gentrification, and supporters of rent control, are generally considering the well-being of current residents. " And what about current residents who need to move? Suppose a disadvantaged woman decides to leave her abusive husband and is trying to find another place to move into. Is it fair that her well-being is completely neglected? I'm all in favor of the intentions behind rent control, but the im…

>I'm all in favor of the intentions behind rent control, but the implementation is an atrocious way to achieving its goals. If the goal is to help the poor long-time residents of a city, then do that directly. Rent control is a hack, but it's a hack that largely works. It's not nearly as atrocious as the reputation profit hungry landlords have tried to give it. Why not treat it exactly like any other kind of hack? Ta…

> It's not nearly as atrocious as the reputation profit hungry landlords have tried to give it.

Please don't tar all landlords with the same brush. I might well be a landlord in the future if I ever move out of the Bay Area, because I really like SF and would like to keep owning my (small, modest) condo even if I have to take a job elsewhere in the future. Right now, because of Costa-Hawkins, rent control won't affect me even in that scenario. But, suppose CH were repealed and the Progs decided to throw owners of those "luxury condos" everyone hates under the bus to score political points by implementing vacancy control. In that case, I'd have no choice but to sell, because I literally couldn't pay the mortgage if I couldn't charge market rent. (Actually, even market rent, right now, would not be enough to pay the mortgage--I would have to start low and raise the rent over time, or else I'd have to sell.)

For some of us, it isn't about profit. I'm happy to give up profit for a good tenant. It's about not having the bank foreclose on our property--which, needless to say, would in eviction for our tenants.

Re: Gentrification's Price: S.F. Moves: Yuppies In, the Poor Out (1985)

#47

Post by jaysonelliot »

epicureanideal wrote: post #2

For anyone who is interested in a CPI inflation adjusted view of those numbers, "$900-$1000" for rent in North Beach in 1985 is supposedly worth about $2100-2400 now. Their combined salary of $30,000 per year would now be about $71,000. https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm However, the article says "$900-$1000" was for "an apartment" without specifying the number of rooms. It seems reasonable that it mig…

It probably was a two bedroom. When I moved to SF in 1994, I was sharing a four-bedroom on South Van Ness that cost $1200 total.

The next big rent spike came around '98 or so, as the dot com boom was in full swing. Rents didn't only shoot up, it got so that there was no housing left to be had. You could show up to an open rental with stellar credit and references, only to have someone else offer the landlord 25% above the asking rent, and pay the entire first year in advance.

Re: Gentrification's Price: S.F. Moves: Yuppies In, the Poor Out (1985)

#48

Post by stale2002 »

chollida1 wrote: post #41
crdoconnor wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I'm all in favor of the intentions behind rent control, but the implementation is an atrocious way to achieving its goals. If the goal is to help the poor long-time residents of a city, then do that directly. Rent control is a hack, but it's a hack that largely works. It's not nearly as atrocious as the reputation profit hungry landlords have tried to give it. Why not treat it exactly like any other kind of hack? Ta…

> Rent control is a hack, but it's a hack that largely works. It's not nearly as atrocious as the reputation profit hungry landlords have tried to give it Well I'm not sure what economics degree you have, but a Nobel winning one, says that most economists are in agreement and they disagree with you https://www.nytimes.com/2000/06/07/opinion/reckonings-a-rent... > The analysis of rent control is among the best-underst…

The problem with rent control is that it causes developers to build less.

This is certainly a problem that will happen in a purely competitive market.

But the SF housing market is NOT a competitive market. The bottleneck for developers to build more houses is the government that prevents them from doing so.

So i'd recommend focusing on getting rid of the other barriers to more housing before focusing on rent control.

Or in other words, rent control is indeed a bottleneck. But the thing with bottle necks is that only the smallest bottleneck matters.

Getting rid of the less bad bottleneck of rent control will do absolutely nothing unless the OTHER bottlenecks are addressed first.

Re: Gentrification's Price: S.F. Moves: Yuppies In, the Poor Out (1985)

#49

Post by stale2002 »

maxkimmel wrote: post #29
madrox wrote: post #21

I often wonder about how sustainable SF’s growth is. Between the issues with housing, rent control, NIMBYism, and poor infrastructure, there has to be a price tag at which this can’t continue. I live in the city, and the quality of living here is terrible compared to other cities. The only thing SF has going for it is the people, but sooner or later the right social pressures could cause a mass exodus, and I wonder w…

Your question gets asked often: How long can this continue? And the answer is: It will continue as long as people are willing to pay the rent. I understand from your post that you are fed up with the high rent and the low quality of living. But the most important part of what you said is the fact that you are still willing to pay, and you are still willing to stay, despite all of the disadvantages. In other words, yo…

Alternatively, a bunch of us could get together and change the laws, so as to make the city better.

The more people who get screwed by housing, the more political power we will gain, until something eventually gives out, and we start winning the political game.

Re: Gentrification's Price: S.F. Moves: Yuppies In, the Poor Out (1985)

#50

Post by crdoconnor »

stale2002 wrote: post #48
chollida1 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Rent control is a hack, but it's a hack that largely works. It's not nearly as atrocious as the reputation profit hungry landlords have tried to give it Well I'm not sure what economics degree you have, but a Nobel winning one, says that most economists are in agreement and they disagree with you https://www.nytimes.com/2000/06/07/opinion/reckonings-a-rent... > The analysis of rent control is among the best-underst…

The problem with rent control is that it causes developers to build less. This is certainly a problem that will happen in a purely competitive market. But the SF housing market is NOT a competitive market. The bottleneck for developers to build more houses is the government that prevents them from doing so. So i'd recommend focusing on getting rid of the other barriers to more housing before focusing on rent control.…

>The problem with rent control is that it causes developers to build less.

Yet New York's highest level of house building occurred under a period of very strict rent controls (50s).

The level to which rent control restricts building wildly exaggerated.

Post reply on HN