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

661–670 of 1001 posts

Re: California Approves Statewide Rent Control

#661

Post by dredmorbius »

cabaalis wrote: post #367
baby wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stop making housing an investment?

I've seen this argument before. Why shouldn't it be an investment? 1. Land is a limited resource. 2. Property improvements last for a very long time, and are incrementally improved. 3. The buy-in price is relatively high, so only very interested parties get involved. 4. It's a home for goodness sake, why would you not call it an investment?

Who made the land?

What contributes most to increased value?

What are economic rents?

What is the perfect tax?

What is the land value tax?

Re: California Approves Statewide Rent Control

#662

Post by adamsb6 »

ac29 wrote: post #321
macspoofing wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So ... you are arguing rent control is good? Or that this isn't rent control? Or that some rent control is good, but more is really bad?

The point was that this CA statewide bill is quite different from places like SF. New state law: 5% + inflation SF: 60% of inflation. This has has never been over 2.9% a year since the law changed in 1992 from a fixed 4% [0]. I think one could sanely argue that allowing increases of up to 5% plus inflation is a suitable restriction, while limiting increases to significantly below inflation is not. [0] https://sfrb.or…

What if the market clearing price increases at greater than 5% plus inflation?

This isn’t a free lunch, the tradeoff of a price cap is under provision of a good.

Re: California Approves Statewide Rent Control

#663

Post by namesbc »

cybersnowflake wrote: post #204
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…

Also 2. Realize that not everybody in the world needs to or should live in the Bay Area/Hollywood. 3. Don't pass statewide laws catering primarily to the group of people aspiring to do so.

Bay Area has more jobs than it does housing for the people who work those jobs. There just isn't an option for everyone to move away from the bay area and still have work.

Take your "I've got mine so screw everyone else" attitude out of the bay area, we don't have room here for people with so little empathy for their neighbors.

Re: California Approves Statewide Rent Control

#664

Post by mratzloff »

heyoni wrote: post #653
optimusclimb wrote: post #631

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The building was purchased, "refurbished" and the rent was reset to a very high number. And if someone was willing to pay that number, then that's what the place was worth.

Yea but moving as an individual is stressful and 10x moreso for families. We’re trying to keep people off the streets and from having to make bad decisions without hurting the landlords ability to capitalize on their investment. This is a compromise.

Not to mention a sudden, unexpected expense in a situation where renters are on a tight budget and likely don't have much or any savings.

Re: California Approves Statewide Rent Control

#665

Post by adamsb6 »

joshAg wrote: post #159
bzbz wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So then what’s the point of not being able to make those larger adjustments?

There's certain hot zones in cities where the rent can increase by much greater than 7% YoY. In those hot zones no one's wages are rising at the same rate, so that law is the only thing that prevents the people previously living there from being forced to move even if they would rather stay. Essentially, it's the policy that is in response to all the stories about retirees being forced out of a home they rented for d…

What happens to the people that want to live there and are willing to pay a higher price for it?

Re: California Approves Statewide Rent Control

#666

Post by eloisant »

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 don't think so.

I've been tenant in France, with restrained rent increases. Every year my rent was increasing 20 euros or so.

I've been tenant in California without rent control. After one year, my rent went up 500 dollars.

But well, maybe that's because in France the allowed increase is calculated from a rent index in the area, not a fixed number like "7%" (no idea where it comes from).

Also, don't say "necessary due to market conditions" when the reality is just "can get away with it due to market conditions". It's not like the increase of the rent market causes you more fees or increase your mortgage.

Re: California Approves Statewide Rent Control

#667

Post by namesbc »

masonic wrote: post #426
human20190310 wrote: post #322

There is no functioning market to begin with. Housing prices and rent are through the roof in California, yet supply is not rising to meet demand, largely because existing owners oppose new construction. Turnabout is fair play. If owners organize politically to control supply, tenants can organize politically to control prices.

supply is not rising to meet demand How will that aspect not worsen with added rent control?

We are so very very far above market equilibrium rents. Even if CA did something drastic and limited rents to say $500 per bedroom it would still be profitable to build more housing.

Lack of profit incentives is NOT what is blocking housing construction in CA right now.

This very minor, way above inflation, rent cap will not affect housing supply.

Re: California Approves Statewide Rent Control

#668

Post by pontifier »

I've just read through this law, and I think there might be some problems with it.

My uncle has just been evicted so that the owner can fix the place up and raise the rent. Under this law, that would be illegal, but this protection only comes into effect starting January first.

I expect to see thousands of similar last-minute evictions as anyone contemplating this course of action tries to get their tenant out before the end of the year.

Re: California Approves Statewide Rent Control

#669

Post by mratzloff »

yojo wrote: post #595
joshAg wrote: post #457

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>> (If you're in California, you should also know that the new law punishes your landlord for trying to do you a solid and keep your rent stable across lease terms.) The CA law allows the rental price to reset to market rate for a new tenant, so unless the landlord doing you a solid was planning to stick you specifically with a rent increase down the line to recapture the present solid, they can still keep your rent…

I am a CA landlord of a single house. Keeping track of “market rate” is an annoying exercise and I tend to just leave the rate unchanged for multiple years (3-5) then bring it up in one go. The last time I did this the rent increased ~12%. Before, the tenant was happy because they got below market rent for 4 years, and I was happy because I could defer pricing work without long term penalty or risking a move-out duri…

Was the tenant happy when you increased it? Increasing rent 12% in one go effectively kicks out most tenants. A smaller annual increase will give them time to adjust to market conditions and choose over a longer period whether or not to move and to save up to do so.

You are doing no one any favors except short-term renters who never get an increase. In other words, your so-called benefit is actually a detriment to long-term renters.

Re: California Approves Statewide Rent Control

#670

Post by pmiller2 »

dantheman wrote: post #337
phil248 wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is simply about spreading out massive rent hikes over the course of a few years instead of a few months. It gives families time to adapt or move. The allowable increases under this law are very high. It may not seem justified to you, but to a low income family in a rapidly gentrifying area, it means everything.

All you need to do is say, if you're increasing the rent by more than 7% then you need to give a years notice. That's it.

What’s a year’s notice going to do for anyone that 60 days doesn’t already?
Post reply on HN