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

481–490 of 1001 posts

Re: California Approves Statewide Rent Control

#481

Post by sgc »

jackvalentine wrote: post #424
dgzl wrote: post #414

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for that, I didn't know this term. However I disagree with the idea that two wrongs make a right. Forcing the suffering around like that just creates more problems than it's worth.

In this case two wrongs may not make a right, but at least it shares some pain with the rent-seeking property owning class and may in time cause them to accept change. It's a bit fatalistic but if we're going down anyway, we're going down together!

If they are making less money, they certainly won't allow more construction to deflate prices even further. Rent is already below mortgage in California, so I am not sure what kind of deal people are looking for. As others have said here in various ways, it seems more like lashing out at someone because it sucks life is so expensive where you live rather than dealing with the root causes.

Re: California Approves Statewide Rent Control

#482

Post by khawkins »

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…

Pernicious attacks on landlords because of some perceived collusion amongst them is ugly. The landlords aren't any more to blame for the lack of supply than their tenants or the politicians.

There's obviously money to be had in leveling a block of houses and increasing the population density by 10-30 times the amount. The market demand is extremely high. Real estate developers would jump at the chance to do so if they thought they could get through all the red tape. The landlords owning those houses would certainly sell for the right price.

The entire society is abandoning free market principles in favor of social engineering. If they're not careful, they'll kill the goose that lays the golden egg.

Re: California Approves Statewide Rent Control

#483

Post by sgc »

nradov wrote: post #469
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.

Many parts of California are already beyond 100% capacity for certain pieces of infrastructure like transportation, schools, water, and sewers. So I only support more housing in those areas if building permits are directly coupled with equivalent infrastructure upgrades.

There are places in California where infrastructure can't help. There is just not enough water for more people.

Re: California Approves Statewide Rent Control

#484

Post by todd8 »

Rent control benefits renters in the short term who don’t want or don’t need to move. However, property owners can’t price rents according to market conditions. This suddenly lowers the value of rental property and will mean that there is less incentive to build new rental property or maintain or improve existing rental property.

Where else is it being done? Is it a success in these places? There must be some places it is viewed as working or why else would California do this.

Re: California Approves Statewide Rent Control

#485

Post by refurb »

wahern wrote: post #440
dgzl wrote: post #402

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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: deregu…

> What if something crazy happens to the economy, say the dollar gets devalued, and all you have is rental property for income? In San Francisco rent control is indexed to inflation. If the dollar is devalued, inflation increases, and you get to increase your rent more. The same is true for Oregon's new law, which permits 7% increases in addition to inflation . > You're forgetting another option: deregulate and let t…

SF is capped at 60% of CPI. Inflation is 10%, you can get 6%. Doesn’t take long for that to add up.

Re: California Approves Statewide Rent Control

#486

Post by c22 »

dgzl wrote: post #402
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: deregu…

If the economy crashes is the best outcome for a large population to simultaneously become priced out of their homes? Policy has to consider its effects on society as a whole, not limit itself to one myopic viewpoint.

Re: California Approves Statewide Rent Control

#487

Post by dcolkitt »

dgzl wrote: post #409
human20190310 wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Maybe, but construction may not even be necessary. Shipping containers can now be easily retrofitted into stylish apartments. They can easily be stacked eight stories tall.

95% of the work can be done in overseas factories and is subject to the same globally competitive downward price pressure as every other manufactured good. Build them in Shenzen at a wholesale cost of $30,000 per pod, ship them to San Franciso for $2000, stack and install them at a cost of $8000. At 320 square feet, that's $120 per square foot. The same cost as new homes in rural Texas.

All the California legislature needs to do is pass a law zoning everywhere in the state for multi-story shipping container apartments. Then watch prices plummet. Even for single family regular construction homes, because the shipping container apartments will suck so much demand out of the market.

Re: California Approves Statewide Rent Control

#488

Post by human20190310 »

AmericanChopper wrote: post #474
human20190310 wrote: post #459

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So when over-regulation drives up the costs, the appropriate response is to introduce new regulations to fight the other regulations? Yes. The effort to reduce regulations on construction has failed. As such, retaliating against the beneficiaries of those regulations with counter-regulations is appropriate. It's not pretty or efficient, this is a fight between different interests, not a group problem-solving effort…

If over regulation drove up prices, what exactly do you expect from more regulation?

To expand the set of people suffering to include landlords and owners, instead of having own group of people benefiting from regulation (in the form of restricted supply) and another not.

EDIT: to be clear, not suffering for its own sake, but to pressure owners to stop supporting the current regulations.

Re: California Approves Statewide Rent Control

#489

Post by jackvalentine »

sgc wrote: post #481
jackvalentine wrote: post #424

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In this case two wrongs may not make a right, but at least it shares some pain with the rent-seeking property owning class and may in time cause them to accept change. It's a bit fatalistic but if we're going down anyway, we're going down together!

If they are making less money, they certainly won't allow more construction to deflate prices even further. Rent is already below mortgage in California, so I am not sure what kind of deal people are looking for. As others have said here in various ways, it seems more like lashing out at someone because it sucks life is so expensive where you live rather than dealing with the root causes.

How would you deal with the root causes?

Re: California Approves Statewide Rent Control

#490

Post by refurb »

flatline wrote: post #423
zaroth wrote: post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I dunno, a think a lot of homeowners would love to be able to build a little cottage in the back yard and cover half their mortgage renting it out.

I was thinking that too; but then, a lot more would complain about the renters at their neighbors’ house, increased traffic, noise, problems with lower income renters, HOA violations, and the ungodly backup at the city permitting office for any minor construction.

SF calls them ADUs(auxiliary dwelling units) and incentivized people to build them.

A lot of people don’t want to because once you’ve rented it out, the tenant can never be kicked out unless they break the law.

Do you want to sign up for someone living in your backyard for the next 20 years?

Post reply on HN