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

581–590 of 1001 posts

Re: California Approves Statewide Rent Control

#581

Post by kube-system »

dcolkitt wrote: post #524
yocheckitdawg wrote: post #511

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who the fuck wants to live in a shipping container?

A shipping container is 320 square feet. Two pods can be joined into a single 740 square foot unit. That's a total cost of $80,000. Let's round to $100,000. Assume a rental yield of 12%. $1000 a month for a brand new 740 square foot apartment in the middle of San Francisco. Plus with modern finishes that are frankly much nicer than anything you'll find in the low-end SF rental market. I'd imagine quite a lot of peopl…

That seems like a lot of money compared to existing prefab options. For the same or less money, why not use something designed to be a dwelling to begin with?

Re: California Approves Statewide Rent Control

#582

Post by Railsify »

bhauer wrote: post #21

I am a landlord in Oregon, but not California. The curious, although ultimately predictable, outcome of the new rent control measure in Oregon is that while I have historically had an arrangement with my property management to be restrained in annual rent increases, they are now advising a default annual increase of the maximum allowed (7 percent before inflation). This is because larger adjustments cannot be made if…

I agree with your final statement, even if zoning and build regs are revamped rent control restricts the potential profit of those new buildings which will cause developers to build elsewhere.

Re: California Approves Statewide Rent Control

#583

Post by pmiller2 »

jlebar wrote: post #576
fivre wrote: post #533

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They may not be some grand cabal, but if biggerpockets.com posts are anything to go by, I have no qualms with any pernicious attacks against them. Ruthless capitalism and fundamental human needs do not mix well.

Ruthless capitalism and fundamental human needs do not mix well. I dunno. I don't have much trouble finding reasonably priced, nutritious, and tasty food (cooked or as ingredients) anywhere I've visited in the world. Yet food is governed by ruthless capitalism, no? Surely we wouldn't argue that farm subsidies are all that's standing in the way between people getting a decent meal and chaos? What about...petroleum? Li…

Neither food nor oil actually make your point, since both are heavily subsidized by the US government.

Re: California Approves Statewide Rent Control

#584

Post by manav »

The problem is we need new housing units and the local governments usually make the construction process so difficult that it's becoming increasingly unprofitable unless you are a very large corporation. This makes it even more difficult, especially in the multifamily space.

Re: California Approves Statewide Rent Control

#585

Post by usaar333 »

RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #55

AirBnb really changes the dynamics of rent control. If you rent to someone in a hot market, you are entering a long term agreement with less flexibility in raising the rent in accordance with market rates. In the past, when faced with rent control, the landlord had to either accept it, or let the property sit vacant. Now, with AirBnb, landlords have a much more viable option. They can put the property on AirBnb and h…

Agreed if there were no other side effects.

However, since both NIMBY owners occupying their home and renters hate AirBnB, it's quick to imagine anti-airbnb legislation (like what SF already has) quickly passed if the tide turned.

Re: California Approves Statewide Rent Control

#586

Post by jackvalentine »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #546
jackvalentine wrote: post #489

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would you deal with the root causes?

Impose relaxed zoning rules at the state level instead of imposing rent control there.

I would completely agree with that, but for some reason it isn't as politically do-able as this rent control legislation was.

Re: California Approves Statewide Rent Control

#587

Post by bbreier »

onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #567
guelo wrote: post #530

Earlier quoted context omitted.

California has also been creating high paying jobs at a fast pace, could that be a coincidence?

D.C. is probably a better example here. California is 1/6th of the US economy. It's not really creating "good" jobs relative to its size. And D.C. is only doing that because it's just one city. Cities are the winners in the current economy. They happen to be liberal. Cities in Texas and Tenesee happen to be conservative, and they're doing swimmingly also. Despite how much people get worked up, policy doesn't have a h…

> Cities in Texas and Tenesee happen to be conservative

I don't know anything about Tennessee, but cities in Texas are not conservative. See these maps of 2012 and 2016 election results by county:

https://www.chron.com/politics/election/local/article/Map-co...

Re: California Approves Statewide Rent Control

#588

Post by aaronblohowiak »

eagsalazar2 wrote: post #561
jeffdavis wrote: post #452

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Turnabout is fair play. The biggest myth is that this kind of stuff actually helps the less-powerful. In reality, it just means they are hurt twice: government artificially suppressing supply, and government manipulating prices which has bad side effects for mamy even if its good for a few. Also, in reality, the powerful often don't get hurt, and arbitrary market manipulations just introduce new ways for them to ge…

Give me a break. Until suppression of building new units stops (by poor, helpless owners), this is the only recourse. I agree wholeheartedly that the real solution is to build more homes but that doesn't appear to be in the cards. So the idea that rent control doesn't actually help lower income people is _completely_ nuts. I know of many people off the top of my head that no-way would still be living in San Francisco…

Rent control is another form of pulling up the bridge behind you.

Re: California Approves Statewide Rent Control

#589

Post by roenxi »

eagsalazar2 wrote: post #561
jeffdavis wrote: post #452

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Turnabout is fair play. The biggest myth is that this kind of stuff actually helps the less-powerful. In reality, it just means they are hurt twice: government artificially suppressing supply, and government manipulating prices which has bad side effects for mamy even if its good for a few. Also, in reality, the powerful often don't get hurt, and arbitrary market manipulations just introduce new ways for them to ge…

Give me a break. Until suppression of building new units stops (by poor, helpless owners), this is the only recourse. I agree wholeheartedly that the real solution is to build more homes but that doesn't appear to be in the cards. So the idea that rent control doesn't actually help lower income people is _completely_ nuts. I know of many people off the top of my head that no-way would still be living in San Francisco…

> Until suppression of building new units stops (by poor, helpless owners), this is the only recourse.

In the spirit of furious agreement, yes the best option would obviously be not to suppress construction.

Just because one interest group wants stupid things to happen that benefit them in the short term doesn't make it a good idea to go open season on stupid things. The goal should always be to improve the state of affairs; not to spread the pain around.

Everyone bar no-one needs institutions stuffed with people who make sensible long-term decisions. The best way to get that is to always pressure them in that direction. Bending to political expedience encourages people who make bad decisions; not a good strategy.

Re: California Approves Statewide Rent Control

#590

Post by foxtr0t »

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…

That is only true if you assume the housing market under rent control is otherwise efficient. In reality it is painfully inefficient. Scarcity due to rent control (due to existing tenants holding on to leases) allows landlords to price gouge on everything from open units to parking to laundry.

If you play that dynamic forward you end up in a situation where everyone is overpaying compared to a more fluid market, even those longer term tenants.

Post reply on HN