6 ms·

Indeed, rent control is usually about preventing people from being priced out of neighborhoods. It seems that a lot of people are happy if people get priced out

Indeed, rent control is usually about preventing people from being priced out of neighborhoods. It seems that a lot of people are happy if people get priced out of areas, as long as it's other people who get priced out of them. And even though it's more socially problematic - it's more of a problem when a family is forced to relocate against their wishes (and dealing with issues like switching schools) than when someone who is already relocating can't find an affordable apartment in the area they prefer.

jahewson 10y ago
That's a strawman. People moving in can have children too, or be looking to start families. Likewise people in rent-controlled properties don't all have school-aged children, and they certainly don't all send them to local schools. I'd argue it's a bigger social problem for talented young people to not be able to move into centres of employment because of people who's children have grown up and left home still living in rent controlled properties. Such people are locked out of living in a perfectly reasonable place against their wishes - because of a rigged system that entitles those who came first to play by an entirely different set of rules. Why should they get an easy ride, while everyone else, who's working just as hard - or often much harder, to pay their inflated rent - suffers as a consequence?
- Chathamization 10y ago
  > People moving in can have children too, or be looking to start families. Yes, but rent control doesn't force them to relocate or switch schools - the people who are negatively affected by this are people who have already decided to move. In contrast, the people who are negatively affected by removing rent control will be people who don't want to move but are forced to move by rising rent. At least to me, it seems that people having to leave their neighborhoods because of rising rent is a larger negative impact (both to them personally and to society as a whole) than people who are already moving having to pick a neighborhood that is not their preferred neighborhood.
  - jahewson 10y ago
    > the people who are negatively affected by this are people who have already decided to move. "Decided to move" is not a reasonable description of the reasons for people to move into cities - they want jobs, they want to live among their peers, they want to take their place in the world. They didn't "decide to move", as if somehow they could live in their hometown all their life achieving their dreams. > the people who are negatively affected by removing rent control will be people who don't want to move but are forced to move by rising rent. I want a pony. And a boat. But I don't get those things, and I'm certainly not going to demand that I get to buy those things at a price far-below market rate. It might be nice to allow a group of people to not have to move "because they don't want to" rather than because they can't afford to stay - but it's unjustifiable when it comes at the expense of locking an entire generation out of the rental market and locking out younger people from living perfectly reasonable lives. You can't defend a privilege that seeks to entitle one group to live according to their whims, isolated from the economic realities in which everyone else is forced to live. Rent control is a zero-sum game, it only provides benefits to one group by screwing over another. > it seems that people having to leave their neighborhoods because of rising rent is a larger negative impact (both to them personally and to society as a whole) than people who are already moving having to pick a neighborhood that is not their preferred neighborhood. You're trivialiaing the problem. This isn't about satisfying people's whims or preferences. An entire generation is being locked-out of living where they work, with many being shut out of jobs because of that. The person who can't afford to move to SF doesn't live in a less desirable neighbourhood of SF, because they can't afford to live there either, and they don't move to Oakland anymore, because that's expensive too now (guess what, they have rent control too). So is Richmond, and Almeda. So they move where? Concord? The commute alone is going to eliminate them from many potential jobs in SF. Meanwhile you defend single-earner part-time worker older couples living on Nob Hill (and who likely have ample savings) working irrelevant jobs which could be anywhere because they "don't want to move". One person's whim does not outweigh another's necessity. Never mind the issue that rent control is probably harming the very people it aims to protect by putting so much pressure on the rental market that they can never afford to move, and so much knock-on pressure on the housing market that they can never afford to buy. So even if you're convinced of its social value, it's still non-sensical. A fair market and a livable minimum wage would seem like an infinitely better solution.
- st3v3r 10y ago
  "That's a strawman." No, it's not. " People moving in can have children too, or be looking to start families." Maybe. But they haven't already set down those roots. What makes them more deserving that the people who already have? "Such people are locked out of living in a perfectly reasonable place against their wishes - because of a rigged system that entitles those who came first to play by an entirely different set of rules." And those who are pushed out? Are they not locked out of living in a perfectly reasonable place against their wishes, because of a rigged system that entitles newer people to come in and change the rules? "Why should they get an easy ride, while everyone else, who's working just as hard - or often much harder, to pay their inflated rent - suffers as a consequence?" I have to ask the same thing of those moving in. Why do they get to push other people out?

jahewson 10y ago

That's a strawman. People moving in can have children too, or be looking to start families. Likewise people in rent-controlled properties don't all have school-aged children, and they certainly don't all send them to local schools. I'd argue it's a bigger social problem for talented young people to not be able to move into centres of employment because of people who's children have grown up and left home still living in rent controlled properties. Such people are locked out of living in a perfectly reasonable place against their wishes - because of a rigged system that entitles those who came first to play by an entirely different set of rules. Why should they get an easy ride, while everyone else, who's working just as hard - or often much harder, to pay their inflated rent - suffers as a consequence?

Chathamization 10y ago
> People moving in can have children too, or be looking to start families. Yes, but rent control doesn't force them to relocate or switch schools - the people who are negatively affected by this are people who have already decided to move. In contrast, the people who are negatively affected by removing rent control will be people who don't want to move but are forced to move by rising rent. At least to me, it seems that people having to leave their neighborhoods because of rising rent is a larger negative impact (both to them personally and to society as a whole) than people who are already moving having to pick a neighborhood that is not their preferred neighborhood.
- jahewson 10y ago
  > the people who are negatively affected by this are people who have already decided to move. "Decided to move" is not a reasonable description of the reasons for people to move into cities - they want jobs, they want to live among their peers, they want to take their place in the world. They didn't "decide to move", as if somehow they could live in their hometown all their life achieving their dreams. > the people who are negatively affected by removing rent control will be people who don't want to move but are forced to move by rising rent. I want a pony. And a boat. But I don't get those things, and I'm certainly not going to demand that I get to buy those things at a price far-below market rate. It might be nice to allow a group of people to not have to move "because they don't want to" rather than because they can't afford to stay - but it's unjustifiable when it comes at the expense of locking an entire generation out of the rental market and locking out younger people from living perfectly reasonable lives. You can't defend a privilege that seeks to entitle one group to live according to their whims, isolated from the economic realities in which everyone else is forced to live. Rent control is a zero-sum game, it only provides benefits to one group by screwing over another. > it seems that people having to leave their neighborhoods because of rising rent is a larger negative impact (both to them personally and to society as a whole) than people who are already moving having to pick a neighborhood that is not their preferred neighborhood. You're trivialiaing the problem. This isn't about satisfying people's whims or preferences. An entire generation is being locked-out of living where they work, with many being shut out of jobs because of that. The person who can't afford to move to SF doesn't live in a less desirable neighbourhood of SF, because they can't afford to live there either, and they don't move to Oakland anymore, because that's expensive too now (guess what, they have rent control too). So is Richmond, and Almeda. So they move where? Concord? The commute alone is going to eliminate them from many potential jobs in SF. Meanwhile you defend single-earner part-time worker older couples living on Nob Hill (and who likely have ample savings) working irrelevant jobs which could be anywhere because they "don't want to move". One person's whim does not outweigh another's necessity. Never mind the issue that rent control is probably harming the very people it aims to protect by putting so much pressure on the rental market that they can never afford to move, and so much knock-on pressure on the housing market that they can never afford to buy. So even if you're convinced of its social value, it's still non-sensical. A fair market and a livable minimum wage would seem like an infinitely better solution.
st3v3r 10y ago
"That's a strawman." No, it's not. " People moving in can have children too, or be looking to start families." Maybe. But they haven't already set down those roots. What makes them more deserving that the people who already have? "Such people are locked out of living in a perfectly reasonable place against their wishes - because of a rigged system that entitles those who came first to play by an entirely different set of rules." And those who are pushed out? Are they not locked out of living in a perfectly reasonable place against their wishes, because of a rigged system that entitles newer people to come in and change the rules? "Why should they get an easy ride, while everyone else, who's working just as hard - or often much harder, to pay their inflated rent - suffers as a consequence?" I have to ask the same thing of those moving in. Why do they get to push other people out?