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

781–790 of 1001 posts

Re: California Approves Statewide Rent Control

#781

Post by intended »

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…

Thats incorrect - not all land is equally valuable, so just building more buildings doesn’t mean that housing is solved.

Infrastructure around the builds also matter, which means just building denser isn’t a solution.

Complimentary services like schools, stores, pubs, churches, skate parks, parks etc change the value of a location as well, and change it differently for different demographics.

So making it cheap and profitable only makes it profitable to build - it does not solve the problem of affordable housing.

Re: California Approves Statewide Rent Control

#782

Post by rayiner »

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?

Remember the US is a federal system so costs vary greatly depending on state/municipality. California regulatory costs result in high prices even though the state is less dense than many others like Ohio with far cheaper housing. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/house-costs-500000-build-sell....

Re: California Approves Statewide Rent Control

#783

Post by rayiner »

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?

Unless you have the capital to build your own house or apartment, you need landlords to put up their own capital to do that. It’s not like landlords are just assigned houses for free from the government to then lord over renter peons.

Re: California Approves Statewide Rent Control

#784

Post by rayiner »

tibbon wrote: post #765
icebraining wrote: post #710

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, just leaving them vacant while the value increases.

Cool- next up, a tax on vacant properties. Maybe they will have to sell. Perhaps the people can again seize the means of production (part of that being stable housing). I’d far rather know another 100,000 units are owned by the people that live in them than 100 landlords owning and profiteering from those units. If this “disrupts” the entire rental industry, that’s fine with me. Didn’t bring much value anyway

That’s worked great everywhere it’s been tried!

Re: California Approves Statewide Rent Control

#785

Post by dragonwriter »

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…

> The lack of affordable housing always has been and always will be a supply problem.

Yes, but in the expensive parts of California the limiting supply factor isn't how much people want to build but how much they are allowed to build because of zoning and other constraints, so there is a fairly large range where reducing the incentive to build will have no effect on actual results.

But, anyway, does this really reduce incentives for new construction? It seems to me rent control and eviction restrictions of this type increases the expected profits for new construction, because it doesn't limit existing rents, and doesn't allow high-end demand to be met by bouncing tenants out of lower-end units and renovating them and raising the prices. So, it reduces the competition new units face from existing ones at the top of the market while leaving the rents that can be charged initially for those new units unrestricted. (And, by limiting the ability to bounce unprofitable tenants in favor of new ones, if it doesn't spur new rental-focussed unit construction and housing demand remains the same it creates a greater incentive to build for sale as owner-occupied housing where, again, prices are unrestricted.)

The real danger isn't lack of incentive to build, it's lack of incentive to maintain existing units instead of milking what remaining profits can be made in the short term, then letting them fail in isolated, judgement proof, limited liability business enterprises by not reinvesting because you can't recover reinvestment with rent increases, while reinvesting the extracted profits elsewhere.

Re: California Approves Statewide Rent Control

#788

Post by icebraining »

tibbon wrote: post #765
icebraining wrote: post #710

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, just leaving them vacant while the value increases.

Cool- next up, a tax on vacant properties. Maybe they will have to sell. Perhaps the people can again seize the means of production (part of that being stable housing). I’d far rather know another 100,000 units are owned by the people that live in them than 100 landlords owning and profiteering from those units. If this “disrupts” the entire rental industry, that’s fine with me. Didn’t bring much value anyway

> I’d far rather know another 100,000 units are owned by the people that live in them than 100 landlords owning and profiteering from those units.

I'd rather have that too! But it's not the result of these patchwork rules. Fix it properly instead.

Re: California Approves Statewide Rent Control

#789

Post by eloff »

FussyZeus wrote: post #779
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…

> 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 are hardly perfect, but in this specific case it should be the most efficient solution to the problem - if you could fix the zoning and other laws that distort it so badly that it's dysfunctional. And your still going to want to add incentives for things you value but the market does not - perhaps like lower income housing. In some of the other cases you mentioned markets are not necessarily the best solution. Canada benefits greatly from having a single buyer for pharmaceuticals - that concentrates the negotiating power and we get better prices because of it.

Re: California Approves Statewide Rent Control

#790

Post by heyoni »

tomohawk wrote: post #749
heyoni wrote: post #653

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If that is important to you, then buy. Can't buy? Move out of CA to somewhere that's affordable. Take control of your life.

Oh why didn't I think of that?
Post reply on HN