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

401–410 of 1001 posts

Re: California Approves Statewide Rent Control

#401

Post by shuckles »

baby wrote: post #253
refurb wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Arbitrary rent? No, the market rate. And yes, if you’re living in a rent controlled place and paying $1000 per month when the same place is going for $3000, it’s virtually a cash transfer from the landlord to you every month. That’s why you hear about massive ($100k+) buyouts in SF.

This is wrong. Because the landlords are still making money. If they were renting at a cost they would have sold their places a long time ago.

No, if they stopped making money they would convert to owner occupied as imputed rents are not controlled. Which is what happened.

Re: California Approves Statewide Rent Control

#402

Post by dgzl »

jdavis703 wrote: post #341

There's three paths: 1) Rent cap landlords. The landlords will cry Big Government. 2) Abolish single family-only zoning and legalize backyard cottages, townhomes and small apartments. The homeowners will cry Big Government. 3) Do nothing. Watch as more people start living in tents or endure super-commutes that snarl your traffic and worsen climate change.

I'm not a landlord or homeowner, and 1 makes me cry Big Government.

What if something crazy happens to the economy, say the dollar gets devalued, and all you have is rental property for income? Realistically you would raise your rental price.... But wait, there's a cap, and you can't.

2) "legalizing backyard cottages" is actually against Big Government, and I'm with you there.

You're forgetting another option: deregulate and let the market compete.

Re: California Approves Statewide Rent Control

#403

Post by um_ya »

human20190310 wrote: post #377
ralusek wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's just not even talk about the fact that regulation is the reason why housing is scarce, let's just assume California is 100% at capacity. How the hell does rent control increase turnabout? It just let's people who got in at the right time have their status as a resident enforced indefinitely, when there are plenty of people who are willing and able to pay far more in order to live there.

It hurts the owners who would be receiving the wealthy newcomers' money. It doesn't solve anything directly, but it's an attack on the prosperity of the people who are maintaining artificial restrictions on new construction. A laissez-faire approach to both construction and rent would probably be a better option. But that's already not happening, and it's not going to happen without pressuring homeowners and landlord…

Do you really expect a place like California to reduce regulations? Their solution is a new regulation!

Re: California Approves Statewide Rent Control

#404

Post by shuckles »

holy_city wrote: post #161
ng12 wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

$120,000 comes out to around $6k/mo. A mediocre studio in SF is pretty close to $3k.

After taxes it's a bit under $6,900 so 40% of that is ~$2,700. Browsing Zillow/Apartments.com/Padmapper shows several thousand listings for studios under $2k and single bedrooms around $2.2-2.7k, depending on area. SF proper seems pretty tiny and the most expensive, is everyone just trying to cram in there? Do people try not to commute?

You are right that most casual analyses overstate the real cost of living in SF. A Bart commute in the Daly City direction, or Oakland, or a drive in from Pacifica all get you much more reasonable cost / commute trade offs for jobs in the city. Certainly in absolute prices remain absurd.

Re: California Approves Statewide Rent Control

#405

Post by freedomben »

jonfw wrote: post #386
jacobolus wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

YMMV, but in my experience people who use phrases like “Big Daddy government” and accuse everyone else of “pure ignorance” are typically not arguing in good faith.

This is a fair criticism, but attacking his credibility is irrelevant. He had no credbility to start with, this is an anonymous forum and nobody knows who that guy is. A strong counter here would include a counter-argument, and ideally even some support for that counter-argument.

He's also not making an argument that requires any credibility:

> I feel like an amount of the general public just wants Big Daddy government ...

He's just stating how he feels personally. I would think most humans are for the most part qualified to analyze and describe their own feelings.

Re: California Approves Statewide Rent Control

#406

Post by TheReveller »

ralusek wrote: post #393
jdavis703 wrote: post #341

There's three paths: 1) Rent cap landlords. The landlords will cry Big Government. 2) Abolish single family-only zoning and legalize backyard cottages, townhomes and small apartments. The homeowners will cry Big Government. 3) Do nothing. Watch as more people start living in tents or endure super-commutes that snarl your traffic and worsen climate change.

I'm a landlord and would love decreased housing regulations, even if it decreases the value of my property by increasing supply.

When regulations allow for denser housing land prices go up because you can put more rentable dwellings in the same space.

Re: California Approves Statewide Rent Control

#407

Post by cryptoz »

kec wrote: post #126
cryptoz wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This phrase is repeated frequently throughout these comments but never with an explanation. I think the opposite of that phrase is true; that in these circumstances, rent control is part of what will enable an increase in the supply of housing. The inequality gap must be lessened for there to be sustainable growth in the housing construction market; this rent control is part of that.

Rent control decreases the liquidity of the rental market because anyone currently renting is strongly incentivized to stay put in order to keep their low rate.

I still don't understand this. Most people are motivated by a lot more than the desire to pay less rent. Jobs change, people move, they go upward in their careers, etc.

Is there any evidence to suggest that rent prices are actually "strong incentives" to not move? I think this isn't true.

I think people are much more motivated by their social circles, their job prospects, upward social mobility by working hard, or starting a business, etc. There are so many factors that go into choosing where to live that I find it difficult to believe that simple rent control like this would "strongly incentivize" people at large to not move. Especially in California.

Anecdotally, I have voluntarily left 5+ rent-controlled apartments without even a thought to them being rent controlled and my next place being unknown. It simply has not mattered, because the amount saved by rent is often far less important than the other aspects of life.

Re: California Approves Statewide Rent Control

#408

Post by malandrew »

bgorman wrote: post #27

One thing I have noticed as I have become more aware is that many of our laws are aimed at trying to freeze a moment of time, often by piling on contradictory policies on top of each other. Subsidize home loans Ban new construction Ban rent increases It is no wonder why housing prices/rents continue to rise in these markets. In software engineering sometimes conclude that a rewrite is necessary. How can we completely…

rm -rf regulations/

... like Idaho did with its regulatory reset.

Re: California Approves Statewide Rent Control

#409

Post by dgzl »

human20190310 wrote: post #377
ralusek wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's just not even talk about the fact that regulation is the reason why housing is scarce, let's just assume California is 100% at capacity. How the hell does rent control increase turnabout? It just let's people who got in at the right time have their status as a resident enforced indefinitely, when there are plenty of people who are willing and able to pay far more in order to live there.

It hurts the owners who would be receiving the wealthy newcomers' money. It doesn't solve anything directly, but it's an attack on the prosperity of the people who are maintaining artificial restrictions on new construction. A laissez-faire approach to both construction and rent would probably be a better option. But that's already not happening, and it's not going to happen without pressuring homeowners and landlord…

Construction isn't easy anymore. we've taxed and regulated it into a luxury.
Post reply on HN