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

Abundance isn't going to happen unless politicians are scared of the status quo

inpractice.yimbyaction.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

521–530 of 539 posts

Re: Abundance isn't going to happen unless politicians are scared of the status quo

#521

Post by pixelatedindex »

mapt wrote: post #448
throw4847285 wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been a renter since I was born, and I have rented from both mom and pop landlords and bigger corporations, and I can tell you that whether or not the "small landlords" were good people or not, our financial interests were diametrically opposed. If I did not live in cities with good tenant protections, there would be no incentive whatsoever for the people who owned the place where I lived from providing basic ser…

Financial incentives stop aligning because of two things: * Rent control means that tenants are paying less than market rate. * Extremely low property tax rates combined with anti-development policy mean that asset price appreciation exceeds rents by a significant amount. Stop controlling rents, tax the hell out of these people, and one way or another spend it on residents, and you are exacting a redistribution of we…

Yes, but without rent control landlords will charge as much as they want to charge. The price of what the market will bear just goes up because everyone will raise prices. Software like RealPage will become even more prevalent. It really only helps the landlord, who is already well off to begin with.

Additionally, I can’t think of any homeowner who will vote to increase their property tax, especially if it’s already based on a $1M house.

Re: Abundance isn't going to happen unless politicians are scared of the status quo

#522

Post by pixelatedindex »

phil21 wrote: post #268
throw4847285 wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been a renter since I was born, and I have rented from both mom and pop landlords and bigger corporations, and I can tell you that whether or not the "small landlords" were good people or not, our financial interests were diametrically opposed. If I did not live in cities with good tenant protections, there would be no incentive whatsoever for the people who owned the place where I lived from providing basic ser…

I have total opposite experiences from renting most of my life. I can't think of a mom and pop landlord I had a poor experience with. Financial incentives generally aligned fairly well for me. I was an extremely low-maintenance tenant, only calling for major repairs like mechanicals or outright dead appliances. I handled all basic maintenance and minor wear and tear myself at every property I rented from a small time…

> This resulted in pretty much zero rent increases across the 15 or so total years renting from such individuals. I had exactly one rent increase during that time due to a large property tax increase which I found to be reasonable.

I tried to rent most from mom and pop landlords but the ones here in the Bay Area have been mostly terrible to deal with. I even had to take one to court. I think you’re extremely lucky to just have one increase over 15 years. Conversely, the corporate ones were much easier to deal with it (although the promptness of repair is 50/50).

Re: Abundance isn't going to happen unless politicians are scared of the status quo

#523

Post by obscurette »

worik wrote: post #503
baskinator wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd love to rent out my current home but I hear horror stories of how hard it is to evict non paying tenants in my town. The big players are diversified and can eat the cost but an owner landlord with one property can be bankrupted by a bad tenant. It's a regulatory moat as much as it is tenant protections.

> I'd love to rent out my current home Sell it

In place where I live I'm afraid to sell any real estate. We have a law that a seller is responsible for any hidden defects buyer will discover up to three years after the deal. We have seen bankruptcies etc because of that.

Re: Abundance isn't going to happen unless politicians are scared of the status quo

#525

Post by Braxton1980 »

CivBase wrote: post #395
Braxton1980 wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>My perception was that she ran on "more of the same but also different But >most people didn't know what to expect from her.

I do not see any conflicts between those statements.

You're right.

How do you know most people didn't and what was Trump's plan?

Re: Abundance isn't going to happen unless politicians are scared of the status quo

#526

Post by simoncion »

hylaride wrote: post #423
simoncion wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I can't think of a mom and pop landlord I had a poor experience with. Financial incentives generally aligned fairly well for me. I can think of a couple who were absolute nightmares. I can think of a couple others who were an absolute dream. The worst small-time landlord was WAY worse than the worst big property management firm, but the best small-time landlord was far better than the best big property management f…

I believe in strong tenants rights - IF you pay your rent on time and are not damaging property or otherwise misbehaving. If you stop paying, you should be out within 60 days that your security deposit should cover. There should be mechanisms where through a process tenants can legally withhold rent if basic repairs or maintenance aren't being done. If a landlord can't or won't do it, they shouldn't be a landlord. Ev…

> If you stop paying, you should be out within 60 days that your security deposit should cover.

Sure, if you stop paying, and if there isn't some sort of temporary hardship that you could reasonably fight your way through to make good on back and current rent. Given what you've written, I expect that you know that that's part of what the eviction process is for... determining if the landlord is lying about the state of the tenant/landlord business relationship and determining if letting the tenant stay in the place for a while longer would result in a far, far better outcome for the tenant and minimal harm to the landlord.

> I have mixed feelings around rent controls...

I don't. Rent controls are godawful price distortions that should not have any reason to exist. However, I'm very glad I live in a rent-controlled San Francisco apartment. Why? Because every landowner in the state of California has property tax control, regardless of whether their property is their personal home, a residential rental, or most any other commercial property.

It's massively unfair that landowners across the state get to control a huge part of their costs, but it's illegal for all but a very few cities in the state to permit residents to do the same. [0]

Get rid of the property tax control across the board, wait a year or four for everything to shake out, then I'd be fine with getting rid of rent control in California.

[0] Seriously, Costa-Hawkins can go straight to hell.

Re: Abundance isn't going to happen unless politicians are scared of the status quo

#527

Post by simoncion »

robertlagrant wrote: post #458
hylaride wrote: post #423

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe in strong tenants rights - IF you pay your rent on time and are not damaging property or otherwise misbehaving. If you stop paying, you should be out within 60 days that your security deposit should cover. There should be mechanisms where through a process tenants can legally withhold rent if basic repairs or maintenance aren't being done. If a landlord can't or won't do it, they shouldn't be a landlord. Ev…

> I have mixed feelings around rent controls, though. In a healthy, competitive market they should be unnecessary over the long term, but if cities are going to restrict housing construction... They're a (terrible-outcome-causing) band aid over a combination of too many people and not enough construction.

> They're a (terrible-outcome-causing) band aid...

Look into California's state-wide property tax control law commonly known as Proposition 13. Then look into California's anti-rent-control law commonly known as Costa-Hawkins.

I do agree that rent control should never, ever have a reason to exist. But sometimes there are super fucked-up situations on the ground that make rent control better than not having it.

Re: Abundance isn't going to happen unless politicians are scared of the status quo

#528

Post by singpolyma3 »

bluecalm wrote: post #178
singpolyma3 wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is ideal if you're a landlord, but hell if you're a tenant.

Limiting tenants' rights is good for vast majority (95%+ at least) of tenants. The way it is there are more and more obstacles (insurance, requiring proof of contract/work, very high deposits etc.) to just rent an apartment or a house. If the government thinks everyone deserves a roof then the government should build cheap, simple housing of last resort instead of forcing the property owners to take the risk.

Ban deposits and proof of work requests like we have here

Re: Abundance isn't going to happen unless politicians are scared of the status quo

#529

Post by htss2013 »

pixelatedindex wrote: post #521
mapt wrote: post #448

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Financial incentives stop aligning because of two things: * Rent control means that tenants are paying less than market rate. * Extremely low property tax rates combined with anti-development policy mean that asset price appreciation exceeds rents by a significant amount. Stop controlling rents, tax the hell out of these people, and one way or another spend it on residents, and you are exacting a redistribution of we…

Yes, but without rent control landlords will charge as much as they want to charge. The price of what the market will bear just goes up because everyone will raise prices. Software like RealPage will become even more prevalent. It really only helps the landlord, who is already well off to begin with. Additionally, I can’t think of any homeowner who will vote to increase their property tax, especially if it’s already…

Landlords require a certain multiple of rent in proven income. So the rent is automatically capped by local wages.

It's pretty black and white - either the landlord asked a price in line with local wages or they didn't. If they go too far,the landlord gets punished with expensive vacancies, or they loosen rent/income requirements and get punished with even more expensive evictions.

Point is, landlords aren't gangsters who can demand whatever number they pull out of their arses. They have to keep rent a reasonable ratio of local wages or they feel the pain.

Re: Abundance isn't going to happen unless politicians are scared of the status quo

#530

Post by tsycho »

jon-wood wrote: post #361
BrenBarn wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The path forward from this is to stop trying to write laws that are wealth-neutral on these kinds of matters. Small mom-and-pop should be allowed to do many things that extremely wealthy landlords and/or corporations are not allowed to do. The penalties for violations should be ruinous for the wealthy and small for the non-wealthy.

Why? If I'm renting a place it doesn't matter whether my landlord is a big corporation or some guy and his wife, I still need to know that the rent isn't going to triple next week, I still need to know I won't be evicted without notice, and I still need the heating the work. If mom-and-pop can't cope with the responsibilities of being a landlord they should sell up to someone who can, not expect to be let off the hoo…

Because of disproportional risk.

Landlords generally can't suddenly increases rents. It happens only at the end of lease, and everyone knows when the lease is going to expire, and you have 1-2 months at a minimum to negotiate the lease renewal. If a landlord suddenly increases the rent by a lot (although most leases, or city laws, cap max rent increases), it will be disruptive to you. But your worst case scenario is to move to another market price rental in 1-2 months.

For a landlord, a tenant who stops paying rent, damages the place, etc is a much bigger financial and logistical risk. In most places, it's a lengthy, high-effort process to evict a bad tenant even when you have documented evidence. This is a very difficult scenario for a mom and pop homeowner, hence rules should be different for them at least, compared to large corporations.

And in your good (but overzealous) intent to protect the general majority of good tenants, you're not realizing that thenet result of the above is:

- Landlords are hesitant to rent their places or ADUs unless they really need the money, which reduces supply, thus increasing rents

- Landlords have to charge higher to account for the risk of a bad tenant, as well as for a complex eviction process, thus increasing rents

Rent control like laws benefit current renters, in their current properties, while harming both landlords and importantly for your pov, future renters, including current renters in their next rental. But since this cost is diffused to the future, it's easy to ignore and forget.

Post reply on HN