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

771–780 of 1001 posts

Re: California Approves Statewide Rent Control

#771

Post by busterarm »

bardam wrote: post #751
busterarm wrote: post #745

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope. Units deregulate at $2700. Also there's no such thing as new rent controlled or rent stabilized units since 1970. There's other housing programs like Mitchell-Lama, some that are like what you mentioned, but that's a completely separate thing and a small amount of units. "Rent controlled" and "Rent stabilized" are technical terms in NY.

Your information is correct in general, but there are many exceptions that prove the grandparent correct. My apartment was built in the last 10 years (i.e., after 1970), rents for close to $4k, and IS rent stabilized. See information here: https://www1.nyc.gov/site/rentguidelinesboard/resources/rent... Specifically: "Also, some newly constructed buildings may be stabilized due to a 421-a or J-51 tax exemption even if…

Do tell me how your $4k apartment rental, at nearly 3 times the national average rent and above market for most of NYC, is the scourge of housing markets, forcing rents up for everyone and preventing new construction.

Because that's what rent regulation's detractors are arguing, even though your empirical evidence (and mine) suggest the opposite. That's the context we're discussing this in.

Re: California Approves Statewide Rent Control

#772

Post by folkrav »

34679 wrote: post #764
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…

The lack of affordable housing always has been and always will be a supply problem. When demand for homes outpaces the number of homes being built, prices go up. Plain and simple. Homes that are built for renting (mainly apartments and condos, but some houses, too) are built for profit. If you make it less profitable to build, fewer will be built. If fewer homes are built, the problem is compounded, not rectified. If…

Not American, so my knowledge on the matter is limited. Is it that expensive even outside SF and LA areas?

Also, AFAIK, these two areas (and surroundings) are very, very stressed in terms of traffic, and more housing means more people, and more cars. Can those cities deal with more traffic?

Re: California Approves Statewide Rent Control

#773

Post by dragonwriter »

folkrav wrote: post #772
34679 wrote: post #764

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The lack of affordable housing always has been and always will be a supply problem. When demand for homes outpaces the number of homes being built, prices go up. Plain and simple. Homes that are built for renting (mainly apartments and condos, but some houses, too) are built for profit. If you make it less profitable to build, fewer will be built. If fewer homes are built, the problem is compounded, not rectified. If…

Not American, so my knowledge on the matter is limited. Is it that expensive even outside SF and LA areas? Also, AFAIK, these two areas (and surroundings) are very, very stressed in terms of traffic, and more housing means more people, and more cars. Can those cities deal with more traffic?

> more housing means more people, and more cars.

More housing in SF requires design that supports fewer cars. That's not as true in LA, perhaps, but it would still be the best way to do it.

Re: California Approves Statewide Rent Control

#774

Post by hcknwscommenter »

rjf72 wrote: post #690
seraphsf wrote: post #556

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with you. I’m renting out a previous condo, and as a landlord, this law strikes me as reasonable and measured. The market will still find its natural level. These controls merely dampen short-term shocks, allowing tenants and communities time to adjust as market conditions change.

To take the other side of the argument here I'm completely against this change but I'm happy that it passed. The reason is simple: without data we're all just speculating. If I'm correct, now I will have real bias-free (since we're looking at this exact location as opposed to other locations where rent control has had... issues) data to support my views. And of course only a fool would cling to certainty on issues th…

"Did minimum wage increases . . . cause some economic damage? Yes."

Citation needed. My admittedly cursory review of the latest results suggest no damage at all.

Re: California Approves Statewide Rent Control

#775

Post by TuringNYC »

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?

You assume the rents are actually going to and staying with the landlords. In reality, landlords also have bills --

big bills (mortgages, property taxes) and bills that move [upwards] dynamically (gas, electricity, water, repairmen).

Re: California Approves Statewide Rent Control

#777

Post by Jotra7 »

refurb wrote: post #766
Jweb_Guru wrote: post #693

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I know a few landlords and that’s exactly what’s happening. I’m not sure why you find it hard to believe. When you have a 3 unit building and everyone is paying less than 1/3 the market rate, it’s not worthwhile in the least for a landlord to fix up the building beyond the absolute minimum. Contractor rates have skyrocketed in SF, so even just repainting the building might cost $15k, which might represent several yea…

Good. Down with the rent seeking leech class.

Re: California Approves Statewide Rent Control

#778

Post by hcknwscommenter »

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…

"Where in CA can I buy a house/apt and rent it out for more than the mortgage+insurance+taxes+maintenance?"

Anecdata for sure, but I know of more than a handful of landlords in SF that charge more rent (and get more rental income) than mortgage+insurance+taxes+maintenance. Moreover, that equation ignores the increase in value of the property. You are confusing cashflow with making money, which are two very different things.

My current landlord just bought our entirely rent-controlled building three years ago. As part of the sale/marketing, gross income from the building was made available at a very granular level. It is certain that our landlord is losing money in terms of income-(mortgage+insurance+taxes+maintenance). However, it is equally certain that the landlord has profited greatly. First you have the fact that the building itself has increased in value by about 20% over the last three years. Accordingly, the landlord has made a profit in the low seven figures. Second, you have the straightline depreciation, which is a massive tax benefit if you have other appreciable income.

Re: California Approves Statewide Rent Control

#779

Post by FussyZeus »

34679 wrote: post #764
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…

The lack of affordable housing always has been and always will be a supply problem. When demand for homes outpaces the number of homes being built, prices go up. Plain and simple. Homes that are built for renting (mainly apartments and condos, but some houses, too) are built for profit. If you make it less profitable to build, fewer will be built. If fewer homes are built, the problem is compounded, not rectified. If…

> Homes that are built for renting (mainly apartments and condos, but some houses, too) are built for profit. If you make it less profitable to build, fewer will be built. If fewer homes are built, the problem is compounded, not rectified.

Arguments like this continue to be made for more and more aspects of our market: pharmaceuticals, heathcare services, elder care services, and now housing. Everywhere you look the markets seem ill equipped to handle the needs of people.

Maybe the problem is markets then? Maybe the problem is expecting our entire society to work based on profit motive? I don't deny it's served us fairly well for awhile, but it seems like we're hitting the wall a lot lately.

Re: California Approves Statewide Rent Control

#780

Post by verbify »

34679 wrote: post #764
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…

The lack of affordable housing always has been and always will be a supply problem. When demand for homes outpaces the number of homes being built, prices go up. Plain and simple. Homes that are built for renting (mainly apartments and condos, but some houses, too) are built for profit. If you make it less profitable to build, fewer will be built. If fewer homes are built, the problem is compounded, not rectified. If…

I used to think so too. Now I'm on the fence. High interest rates means people can borrow less, and has a dampening effect on house prices, low interest rates means people can borrow more, so house prices go up.

Our current environment of low interest rates means that borrowing is cheap - which has pushed up prices, as now people can now afford larger mortgages. This has come at the same time as a withdrawal of mortgage finance from first-time-buyers, so effectively people who have bought before can buy another house, while those who haven't can't get on 'the housing ladder'. This is according to economist Ian Mulheirn, and is very much based on the UK (although similar arguments might apply elsewhere). Supply is part of the problem, but according to him, the smallest part.

https://housingevidence.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/201...

Post reply on HN