3 ms·

I keep saying these same arguments put forth (add more affordable housing!) but the reality is that there are very specific laws that cause the crazy prices her

I keep saying these same arguments put forth (add more affordable housing!) but the reality is that there are very specific laws that cause the crazy prices here and it ISN'T because of a lack of housing. It's lack of liquidity. First there is Prop 13, which is the Ponzi scheme that let's older owners pay basically the same tax rate forever. This means that landlords have little reason to repair or sell properties. Which goes hand-in-hand with all the tenant protections that make it virtually impossible to vacate a tenant. And because landlords can't raise rents beyond a tiny margin each year (1% or so), they might have tenants paying 1/4 or less the going rate for an apartment, making it even less likely that they will reinvest in improving their building. So what happens? Anyone who has been living in the same rental for the past 5 years is pretty much locked in to their apartment now, no matter what. Every single tenant in SF who hasn't moved within the last 5 years is NOT MOVING UNLESS THEY NEED TO. Because they are paying about 50% less than the going rate. So those people will not move, which means their apartment won't be available for others, which means the supply of housing is significantly lower than it should be. Just as new homeowners in SF are paying some of the taxes that existing homeowners should pay, new renters are paying some of the rent that should be paid by existing renters.

x0x0 11y ago
Fact: units built after 1979 are not rent controlled. Fact: neither are single family homes, including most condos if you moved in after 1 jan 1986 (30 years ago).
- jacalata 11y ago
  Has anyone tried to work out what percentage of the market is covered by rent control?
- muzz 11y ago
  True but even with these, the percentage of rental units in SF that are rent-controlled is something like 75%
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
650REDHAIR 11y ago
Let's just evict everyone who isn't paying $3,000/mo for a 1 bedroom!
- randyrand 11y ago
  Not evict them, but reduce their "I was here first" privilege.
dv_dt 11y ago
If the system pushes out those renters, there's no guarantee that maybe the rents are freed to rise that much quicker...
justifier 11y ago
> I keep saying these same arguments put forth (add more affordable housing!) but the reality is that there are very specific laws that cause the crazy prices here and it ISN'T because of a lack of housing. It's lack of liquidity. i'm confused, how does liquidity affect the housing market? if you can admit there is plenty of housing then why are you unwilling to simply say, 'all of you would be tenants move into this available housing'? i think what you really mean by liquidity, which i'll interpret as an owner's ability to end a lease when and how they want, is that people, you?, want to live in a specific part of sf but all the housing there is already filled and the city has determined that those tenants' livelihood should be allotted some predictability by local law this is the thing that confuses people who have lived in a neighborhood for 4, 8, or 16 years the reason you want to move there is because of who is living there evict all you want and it will just be those that paid for their place who remain and if those people are so flush that they can pay any amount to consume the local culture they want, then the question is, will they be willing to contribute to a local culture or will the region stagnate as some former cultural artifact the poor will live where ever they can afford, and if that place is boring and seemingly uninhabitable then it is on them to make it fun, and they will, and then they will need to leave because you want to be where the pulse is at even if it is the exact same place you turned your nose up to 10 years earlier fillmore in the 30s -> north beach in the 50s -> haight in the 70s -> mission in the 90s -> ??? () https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fillmore_District,_San_Francisco https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fillmore_District,_San_Francis... () https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Beach,_San_Francisco https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Beach,_San_Francisco () https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haight-Ashbury https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haight-Ashbury () https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission_District,_San_Francisco https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission_District,_San_Francisc...
tryitnow 11y ago
Hmmm, rent control has some problems, but your critique is missing a pretty big part of the picture. We need to look at what the average rents are, not the average rents of current available units. Rent control reduces the former dramatically, but probably increases the latter. In other words, a lot of people are paying a lot lower rent than they would otherwise have to pay, but a lot of non-residents will have to pay higher rents in the future. I used to be anti-rent control until I thought about both sides of the issue. Rent control can make sense if your goal is to "reward" long time residents, but it may discourage new residents. From a policy perspective you have to ask yourself "Does our city have a problem attracting new residents." SF does not have this problem. But there is a problem of long term residents being forced to move. Rent control alleviates the latter problem.
- cowsandmilk 11y ago
  Rent control discourages downsizing, which has ugly effects on the housing market. If you've lived in a 2BR for 12 years while your kid grew up, you cannot rationally downsize to a 1BR. Why? Because the 1BR on the market has a higher rent than what you're paying for your 2BR. Same story with the taxes. You can sell your current place for top dollar and buy a smaller one, but you're going to take a huge hit on the new tax basis. A crucial component in freeing up housing is downsizing in later life, especially as we have the baby boomer generation starting to retire.
bluejekyll 11y ago
> Prop 13, which is the Ponzi scheme Prop 13 is a tax issue, not a housing supply problem. It affects schools more than housing prices. Also prop 13's worst offenders are corporations not individuals. Individual property owners sell/move on average every 7 years. And the taxes are reset at that point to market rate for the new owner. This has nothing to do with housing supply constraints, but for schools we should remove it from corporate property owners, who some like Wells Fargo have property that hasn't changed hands in over 100 years.
- ng12 11y ago
  > Prop 13 is a tax issue, not a housing supply problem If it's a tax issue that impacts the housing supply, isn't it both?
  - bluejekyll 11y ago
    It might reduce turnover, but what your arguing is that taxes replace rent as a forcing function for making people on fixed incomes move. That wouldn't increase housing, just displace lower income people more.
- mrexroad 11y ago
  > Individual property owners sell/move on average every 7 years. Really, on average? Just SF, or Bay Area overall?
  - bluejekyll 11y ago
    I said 7 to round up, but lmgtfy: http://www.mymovingreviews.com/move/how-often-and-why-americans-move http://www.mymovingreviews.com/move/how-often-and-why-americ... Which claims 5 year average nationwide in the US.
vacri 11y ago
> virtually impossible to vacate a tenant It should be virtually impossible for a landlord to do this. A landlord should be able to vacate a rental, perhaps, but not the tenant. :)
- bluejekyll 11y ago
  Even if you fix the grammar problem, it doesn't address the real issue: supply. Turnover of rentals doesn't increase supply. The core of the article is about needing more inventory.

x0x0 11y ago

Fact: units built after 1979 are not rent controlled. Fact: neither are single family homes, including most condos if you moved in after 1 jan 1986 (30 years ago).

jacalata 11y ago
Has anyone tried to work out what percentage of the market is covered by rent control?
muzz 11y ago
True but even with these, the percentage of rental units in SF that are rent-controlled is something like 75%
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

650REDHAIR 11y ago

Let's just evict everyone who isn't paying $3,000/mo for a 1 bedroom!

randyrand 11y ago
Not evict them, but reduce their "I was here first" privilege.

dv_dt 11y ago

If the system pushes out those renters, there's no guarantee that maybe the rents are freed to rise that much quicker...

justifier 11y ago

> I keep saying these same arguments put forth (add more affordable housing!) but the reality is that there are very specific laws that cause the crazy prices here and it ISN'T because of a lack of housing. It's lack of liquidity. i'm confused, how does liquidity affect the housing market? if you can admit there is plenty of housing then why are you unwilling to simply say, 'all of you would be tenants move into this available housing'? i think what you really mean by liquidity, which i'll interpret as an owner's ability to end a lease when and how they want, is that people, you?, want to live in a specific part of sf but all the housing there is already filled and the city has determined that those tenants' livelihood should be allotted some predictability by local law this is the thing that confuses people who have lived in a neighborhood for 4, 8, or 16 years the reason you want to move there is because of who is living there evict all you want and it will just be those that paid for their place who remain and if those people are so flush that they can pay any amount to consume the local culture they want, then the question is, will they be willing to contribute to a local culture or will the region stagnate as some former cultural artifact the poor will live where ever they can afford, and if that place is boring and seemingly uninhabitable then it is on them to make it fun, and they will, and then they will need to leave because you want to be where the pulse is at even if it is the exact same place you turned your nose up to 10 years earlier fillmore in the 30s -> north beach in the 50s -> haight in the 70s -> mission in the 90s -> ??? () https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fillmore_District,_San_Francisco https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fillmore_District,_San_Francis... () https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Beach,_San_Francisco https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Beach,_San_Francisco () https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haight-Ashbury https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haight-Ashbury () https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission_District,_San_Francisco https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission_District,_San_Francisc...

tryitnow 11y ago

Hmmm, rent control has some problems, but your critique is missing a pretty big part of the picture. We need to look at what the average rents are, not the average rents of current available units. Rent control reduces the former dramatically, but probably increases the latter. In other words, a lot of people are paying a lot lower rent than they would otherwise have to pay, but a lot of non-residents will have to pay higher rents in the future. I used to be anti-rent control until I thought about both sides of the issue. Rent control can make sense if your goal is to "reward" long time residents, but it may discourage new residents. From a policy perspective you have to ask yourself "Does our city have a problem attracting new residents." SF does not have this problem. But there is a problem of long term residents being forced to move. Rent control alleviates the latter problem.

cowsandmilk 11y ago
Rent control discourages downsizing, which has ugly effects on the housing market. If you've lived in a 2BR for 12 years while your kid grew up, you cannot rationally downsize to a 1BR. Why? Because the 1BR on the market has a higher rent than what you're paying for your 2BR. Same story with the taxes. You can sell your current place for top dollar and buy a smaller one, but you're going to take a huge hit on the new tax basis. A crucial component in freeing up housing is downsizing in later life, especially as we have the baby boomer generation starting to retire.

bluejekyll 11y ago

> Prop 13, which is the Ponzi scheme Prop 13 is a tax issue, not a housing supply problem. It affects schools more than housing prices. Also prop 13's worst offenders are corporations not individuals. Individual property owners sell/move on average every 7 years. And the taxes are reset at that point to market rate for the new owner. This has nothing to do with housing supply constraints, but for schools we should remove it from corporate property owners, who some like Wells Fargo have property that hasn't changed hands in over 100 years.

ng12 11y ago
> Prop 13 is a tax issue, not a housing supply problem If it's a tax issue that impacts the housing supply, isn't it both?
- bluejekyll 11y ago
  It might reduce turnover, but what your arguing is that taxes replace rent as a forcing function for making people on fixed incomes move. That wouldn't increase housing, just displace lower income people more.
mrexroad 11y ago
> Individual property owners sell/move on average every 7 years. Really, on average? Just SF, or Bay Area overall?
- bluejekyll 11y ago
  I said 7 to round up, but lmgtfy: http://www.mymovingreviews.com/move/how-often-and-why-americans-move http://www.mymovingreviews.com/move/how-often-and-why-americ... Which claims 5 year average nationwide in the US.

vacri 11y ago

> virtually impossible to vacate a tenant It should be virtually impossible for a landlord to do this. A landlord should be able to vacate a rental, perhaps, but not the tenant. :)

bluejekyll 11y ago
Even if you fix the grammar problem, it doesn't address the real issue: supply. Turnover of rentals doesn't increase supply. The core of the article is about needing more inventory.