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

701–710 of 1001 posts

Re: California Approves Statewide Rent Control

#701

Post by meerita »

phil248 wrote: post #138

I'm shocked at the ideological fervor here and the fact that virtually no one seems to have looked at the details of the actual bill. This is nothing like the rent control ordinance in SF that has caused $3000 units to get stuck at $500 rents. That will never happen under this law. The allowable increases are so much higher than "normal" rent control laws that any given unit will catch up to market rates in a matter…

This has been tried in several countries, and it failed miserably. Rent control never worked. In Sweden you have to wait 20 years to get a flat with rent control. The only solution for the people is to increase the offer, how? by deregulating and allowing others to build more.

Re: California Approves Statewide Rent Control

#702

Post by brohee »

jjav wrote: post #687
namesbc wrote: post #671

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We currently have a drastic under provision of a good to the tune of 3.5 million homes in CA alone. This under provision is not because building new homes isn't profitable, it is because realtors, landlords and homeowners are actively blocking new supply in order to extract above market rents from desperate people. Adding a rent cap of MORE THAN DOUBLE inflation will have no affect on supply, it is ridiculously profi…

> it is ridiculously profitable to rent out your property right now I'd be curious if you can share specific numbers on where this is true? Where in CA can I buy a house/apt and rent it out for more than the mortgage+insurance+taxes+maintenance? A link to the MLS listing would be appreciated. Every now and then I look at housing costs vs. rental income to consider buying some investment property. But the numbers neve…

renting is profitable if you can rent for more than

interest_on_mortgage+insurance+taxes+maintenance-raise_in_house_valuation no?

If your formula was the one, renting would never make any sense...

Re: California Approves Statewide Rent Control

#703

Post by falsedan »

aaronblohowiak wrote: post #656
toastal wrote: post #648

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should I care about the woes of landlords as opposed to renters?

Because shrinking the number of landlords shrinks the number of units available, raising rents, _hurting renters_.

are these vanishing landlord eating their properties or just throwing them into the sea

Re: California Approves Statewide Rent Control

#704

Post by throwawaynihil »

baby wrote: post #149
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…

Stop making housing an investment?

[flagged]

Re: California Approves Statewide Rent Control

#705

Post by macspoofing »

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…

It is still rent control. The problems you see will not be fixed by the law.

>I think one could sanely argue that allowing increases of up to 5% plus inflation is a suitable restrictio

Based on what data?

And no, it's not a 'sane' argument:

1) if 5% + inflation is above market rates then this rent control is either a no-op or detrimental because it may incentivize landlords to hike rent to maximum because they won't have have the flexibility to do that in the future if the market changes.

2) if it is below market rates, then it's just rent control and it comes with all the same baggage and detrimental effects we always see.

Rent control does not work. I don't understand the appeal to continue experimenting.

Re: California Approves Statewide Rent Control

#706

Post by macspoofing »

toastal wrote: post #648
refurb wrote: post #517

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rent control in SF really is that bad. Rent increase limits are 60% of CPI, so it can’t even match inflation. If your costs go up (utilities) or you want to do capital improvements, good luck getting the rent board to approve a pass through. Want to prevent other people than the tenant from moving into a 1 bedroom? Tough, can’t say no to that, it just has to be under 3 people. Want to move into your own house? Sure,…

Why should I care about the woes of landlords as opposed to renters?

Ok. Then care about the tenants. Do you have one shred of evidence that rent control, broadly, helps tenants? Because every economist I ever heard on this topic, left or right, argues rent control is bad for tenants.

Re: California Approves Statewide Rent Control

#707

Post by macspoofing »

falsedan wrote: post #703
aaronblohowiak wrote: post #656

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because shrinking the number of landlords shrinks the number of units available, raising rents, _hurting renters_.

are these vanishing landlord eating their properties or just throwing them into the sea

No. They let population growth take care of that while they decide not to invest in rental properties.

Your flippant argument can be flipped around too. If there is a housing shortage, by what mechanism does rent control conjure new housing units?

Re: California Approves Statewide Rent Control

#708

Post by icebraining »

Jweb_Guru wrote: post #693
icebraining wrote: post #657

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because landlords start being unable to afford repairs, and you get a bunch of decrepit buildings falling apart all over the city (with all the dangers that implies, not just to occupants, but to nearby buildings as well). It happened in my home town, and it wasn't pretty. Landlords are not social security. It's probably better for the city to forcefully buy them out and create a new management model of the buildings…

Rents are growing insanely fast in SF compare to anything else. The idea that landlords can't afford to make repairs because they aren't extracting maximum rent from the property is completely ludicrous on the face of it. Do you actually believe these arguments?

Are you talking about all rents, or controlled ones? The post above wrote that rent control rules in SF limit increases to "60% of CPI, so it can’t even match inflation". If that's false, then my post doesn't apply, sure.

Re: California Approves Statewide Rent Control

#709

Post by mcv »

optimusclimb wrote: post #631
m463 wrote: post #448

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This happened to a family I know, except it was 50%. The building was purchased, "refurbished" and the rent was reset to a very high number.

> 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.

True, but if someone is already using it, it's shitty to increase the price that much. It makes it a bait-and-switch: offer for a reasonable price first, and once the family is all settled, jump a massive price increase on them. That's absolutely something that needs to be banned by law.

Re: California Approves Statewide Rent Control

#710

Post by icebraining »

falsedan wrote: post #703
aaronblohowiak wrote: post #656

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because shrinking the number of landlords shrinks the number of units available, raising rents, _hurting renters_.

are these vanishing landlord eating their properties or just throwing them into the sea

No, just leaving them vacant while the value increases.
Post reply on HN