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

61–70 of 1001 posts

Re: California Approves Statewide Rent Control

#61

Post by cryptoz »

pitaj wrote: post #50
baby wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So are you saying that landlord should be able to double your rent like that?

Prices should increase in the case of increased demand. Prices must increase in that case if you want the supply to increase, which is the only way to actually meet demand. It's how the market works ffs.

The market is not working when actors frequently intentionally cause trauma and unexpected financial and life emergencies to tenets. The 'market' is not some divine thing that cannot go wrong; rather, trying to make the 'market' work is exactly why we have runaway climate change and incredible wealth disparity that's causing unnecessary pain and upheaval in the US today.

There's no need to swear at people, this is an interesting and complicated topic with many valid points to debate.

Re: California Approves Statewide Rent Control

#62

Post by pitaj »

tmh79 wrote: post #46
pitaj wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rent control deters the building of more housing. It's literally part of the problem.

do you have any clue about this specific measure? Its limited to buildings that are 15 years old or older, and it limits rent increases to 8% annually, which in practice is about 1 - 3% of all lease agreements in CA, a very small amount. Commercial construction loans are based on the 15 year revenue generating potential of the proposed building, this law was created specifically with that in mind so as not to interfe…

> do you have any clue about this specific measure?

Any price control inevitably has negative consequences in the market. This is practically a law of economics.

> Its limited to buildings that are 15 years old or older, and it limits rent increases to 8% annually, which in practice is about 1 - 3% of all lease agreements in CA, a very small amount.

If it with have such minimal effect why even have it?

> Commercial construction loans are based on the 15 year revenue generating potential of the proposed building, this law was created specifically with that in mind so as not to interfere.

Then it's not as bad as it could be. Doesn't mean it's justified.

Re: California Approves Statewide Rent Control

#63

Post by pitaj »

tmh79 wrote: post #49
chaostheory wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> generational warfare, the olds vs the millennials This is a good example of that. Rent control tends to benefit the older generation at the expense of younger people and families. It does nothing to solve the actual problem of lack of housing inventory.

millennials in CA are disproportionately renters, not home owners. This bill will provide millennials with some extra security so they know their rent won't be spiked and they'll need to move.

At the cost of further increasing the price of rents across the board due to limited housing supply.

Re: California Approves Statewide Rent Control

#64

Post by zaroth »

ahelwer wrote: post #31

Perhaps an alternative real solution to the housing crises is the abolishment of professional landlords themselves. Why should we support a system where people can own many properties, each feeding them 1/2 of someone else's paycheck? Public-owned housing is the future. It works in Europe and it can work here. Treating housing as an investment vehicle is fundamentally incompatible with the ideal of housing being affo…

The first house I ever owned was a condo I bought in 2005, way out in the sticks, because the further I got from the city the cheaper the houses got, and because I had a strong suspicion that housing prices were too damn high.

By the time I had to move to CA for work in 2009 of course the market had crashed badly and the condo was well underwater, not even counting the $20k I had put into the kitchen and bathroom.

It was a $185k 2BR 1.5BA unit, with a condo fee of $300/mo and a monthly payment (principle + interest) of $980 with a 3/1 ARM at 3.5%. I got lucky because the rate was indexed to the LIBOR and it was being manipulated to ~0% back then, so my rate stayed super low even though it was adjusting every year.

I put the unit on the market for $165k for two months and got zero showings. So I offered it for rent at $1400 on Craigslist and it was rented that weekend.

I just sold the property last year, to the person who was renting it (and had been for 4 years) for $185k. I gave him the last 4 months before closing rent free because we closed without any broker (no commission) and because I didn’t have to do a thing to the unit pre-closing, seeing as how he was already living there.

Not all landlords are scum out to make a buck on the back of tenants they never met and don’t care about. Not all landlords are even in it because they initially set out to be! And very few landlords are being “fed” half of someone’s paycheck, but more like, covering the costs plus a few percentage points, as long as nothing unexpected happens.

Re: California Approves Statewide Rent Control

#65

Post by jedberg »

baby wrote: post #34
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…

So are you saying that landlord should be able to double your rent like that?

Not in isolation. But if building restrictions and zoning restrictions were lifted, and supply could meet demand, then rent control wouldn't be necessary, because the landlord wouldn't be able to get away with doubling rent.

Re: California Approves Statewide Rent Control

#66

Post by fuzz4lyfe »

mc32 wrote: post #17
rubicon33 wrote: post #6

Ah, because it worked so well in SF to ease housing prices! So why don't we expand the program? Will never cease to amaze me just now inept politicians are.

This reminds me of the approach dictators have to issues. Issue an edict or decree making the problem itself illegal. Problem solved!

Sparrows are eating a great deal of the produce grown in California, let's remove them to end food insecurity.

Re: California Approves Statewide Rent Control

#67

Post by pitaj »

cryptoz wrote: post #61
pitaj wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Prices should increase in the case of increased demand. Prices must increase in that case if you want the supply to increase, which is the only way to actually meet demand. It's how the market works ffs.

The market is not working when actors frequently intentionally cause trauma and unexpected financial and life emergencies to tenets. The 'market' is not some divine thing that cannot go wrong; rather, trying to make the 'market' work is exactly why we have runaway climate change and incredible wealth disparity that's causing unnecessary pain and upheaval in the US today. There's no need to swear at people, this is an…

The reason the market is not working is because of onerous regulation by the government in the first place.

Re: California Approves Statewide Rent Control

#68

Post by gregs1986 »

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…

Landlords who choose to increase rents at the maximum rate permitted each year do so at the risk that they will be undercut by competing property owners who do not do so. Given this, I think that your property management company is offering you bad advice.

Most landlords already increase rents at the maximum rate that the market will bear. Capping annual increases at 7% just ensures that in a year when the market would allow landlords to get away with increasing rents by over 7%, they won't be able to do so.

I do not follow when you say that the strategy of increasing rents by the maximum amount permissible is necessary "because larger adjustments cannot be made if and when necessary due to market conditions". In what scenario would larger adjustments be necessary? If you made a viable investment in a property and are currently renting it out, wouldn't rent increases just need to equal inflation in order for you to maintain the same level of profitability? Sure, increasing by more than inflation allows you to increase profits, but I hardly see why maximizing profits should be seen as a necessity---especially when it comes at the cost of pushing people out onto the streets.

Re: California Approves Statewide Rent Control

#69

Post by ahelwer »

zaroth wrote: post #64
ahelwer wrote: post #31

Perhaps an alternative real solution to the housing crises is the abolishment of professional landlords themselves. Why should we support a system where people can own many properties, each feeding them 1/2 of someone else's paycheck? Public-owned housing is the future. It works in Europe and it can work here. Treating housing as an investment vehicle is fundamentally incompatible with the ideal of housing being affo…

The first house I ever owned was a condo I bought in 2005, way out in the sticks, because the further I got from the city the cheaper the houses got, and because I had a strong suspicion that housing prices were too damn high. By the time I had to move to CA for work in 2009 of course the market had crashed badly and the condo was well underwater, not even counting the $20k I had put into the kitchen and bathroom. It…

I own a condo too. And if I move I probably won't sell it, but rather rent it out until I move back (while living in a rented place of my own). Individual home ownership is not a problem, it should be encouraged. The problem is people (and REITs) who lever up with a bunch of properties to be fed half of people's paycheck in the manner described.

I will nitpick and say that paying your mortgage is not a cost. That is equity you're getting.

Re: California Approves Statewide Rent Control

#70

Post by mc32 »

fuzz4lyfe wrote: post #66
mc32 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This reminds me of the approach dictators have to issues. Issue an edict or decree making the problem itself illegal. Problem solved!

Sparrows are eating a great deal of the produce grown in California, let's remove them to end food insecurity.

Exactly! The “Four Pests Campaign” (除四害) aka the Great Sparrow Campaign (打麻雀运) agree.

[1]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Pests_Campaign

Post reply on HN