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

791–800 of 1001 posts

Re: California Approves Statewide Rent Control

#791

Post by HelloMcFly »

leftyted wrote: post #770
chmod775 wrote: post #753

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your quote is completely irrelevant to this discussion, because increasing "amount and quality of broadly affordable rental housing" is not the goal of this law as described by your GP. The law is supposed to give families enough time to adjust or move away and find affordable housing elsewhere, without becoming bankrupt in the meantime. A completely different goal. Quoting opinions on something that is at best tange…

How is "economists broadly agree that rent control is bad" irrelevant to a discussion of rent control? The intention of the law is what's irrelevant. What matters is what the law will actually do . Economists broadly agree that rent control will drive down supply. Are they right? Is this law different? Time will tell. But there's every reason to be skeptical.

This is not really an apples-to-apples comparison. Yes, it is a form of rent control, but it's not the "rent control" that people typically think of or was referenced in that quote given its link to SF and NYC. While there are some increase limits, they are large and not on a scale likely to have a material limiting impact. What is definitely impacted is the timeframe in which the changes are applied.

> Is this law different?

Yes, it is, both in intention (i.e., to give people time to move vs. enabling them to stay where they live) and in details. I think this will certainly reduce investment groups buying properties though, which I personally think is a great thing overall. I think that clearly something needs to be done, I'm glad California is trying to find a middle-ground here. Not to say they shouldn't also find ways to increase supply as well, but to me the two are not mutually exclusive.

But hey, maybe I'm wrong and totally off-base. I think it's a worthwhile bill though, and look forward to seeing the impact one way or the other.

Re: California Approves Statewide Rent Control

#792

Post by heyoni »

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…

Yup, that's exactly what I was thinking about. Same deal here, rent is nearly $4k but I know it can only go up by guideline amounts.

Re: California Approves Statewide Rent Control

#793

Post by el_cujo »

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…

You could make the opposite argument as well, that if the market was "freer" or less regulated or whatever then anyone could build and supply would better match demand. It's a situation where you can skew the message whichever way you want to benefit an agenda since most of our systems are neither pure free-market capitalism nor pure socialism. Obviously zealots from either side are going to say our shortcomings are because we've given too many concessions to the other.

Re: California Approves Statewide Rent Control

#794

Post by heyoni »

busterarm wrote: post #771
bardam wrote: post #751

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

OP and my apartments are actually new developments benefiting from these breaks.

Re: California Approves Statewide Rent Control

#796

Post by amyjess »

And of course there are exemptions for mom & pop landlords in the law.

This is why I'd rather do business with big megacorps than with small businesses; mom & pops are straight-up allowed to hurt their customers and their employees in ways megacorps aren't legally allowed to. See also: exemptions mom & pops have from mandatory sick leave laws, anti-discrimination laws, mandatory health insurance, etc.

Re: California Approves Statewide Rent Control

#797

Post by amyjess »

lr4444lr wrote: post #760
toastal wrote: post #648

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Because the result is that small landlords who can't deal with the fixed costs hassles simply sell out and consolidate into larger ones with more clout with politicians to weaken renter rights and legal resources to fight pesky tenants whom they simply don't want, or create shared blacklist databases like has been done in New York. If you're going to gird up for class warfare, realize that tenants are probably going…

My experience has always been that dealing with a large PMC like IMT or Greystar is far preferable to dealing with some guy who's renting his property out.

Re: California Approves Statewide Rent Control

#798

Post by kube-system »

strstr wrote: post #677
kortilla wrote: post #618

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re conflating “an investment” with “an exponentially growing investment”.

That's sort of the classic interpretation of investment. AFAIK, the first question most people ask about investments is "what is the expected rate of return (relative to the risk)?". I would not describe my car as an investment, since it's basically guaranteed to depreciate. Housing could be expected to behave in a similar manner (although that would likely require a decrease in population growth).

The value of the structure does often decrease over time. The land might be a different story, if it’s a neighborhood where people want to move. Location, location, location. You can get property that decreases in value too, just move into a neighborhood in decline.

Re: California Approves Statewide Rent Control

#799

Post by algaeontoast »

taejo wrote: post #682
algaeontoast wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This needs to be talked about more. Entitlement was never a core tenant (no pun intended) of the American dream.

It's tenet if you don't intend the pun, by the way.

You have been successful in calling me cheeky on The Internet :)
Post reply on HN