4 ms·

> 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

> 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
  "I want a pony. And a boat. But I don't get those things" Couldn't we turn that argument on those who want to live in the cities? "You're trivialiaing the problem." And you're trivializing the problem of forcing people out. "This isn't about satisfying people's whims or preferences." Bullshit. You're making this about satisfying the whims or preferences of those moving in. "A fair market and a livable minimum wage would seem like an infinitely better solution." A fair market is one in which one does not get priced out of their home.
- eli_gottlieb 10y ago
  >"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. That's still a very privileged view. The predominant reason people move is for work: they'll be (or continue to be) unemployed if they don't.
- mistersquid 10y ago
  What you're missing in your arguments against rent control is that rent control protects socioeconomic diversity. Without rent control, fair market value may force people who are not high earners out, displaced by a more homogeneous population of highly-educated and high-earning people. This is not an unalloyed good. One of the primary goals of rent control is to ensure a mixed-income population in highly-desirable urban centers, and in many cases it is precisely rich socio-economic diversity that many (not all, but many) people find attractive. EDIT: readability

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
"I want a pony. And a boat. But I don't get those things" Couldn't we turn that argument on those who want to live in the cities? "You're trivialiaing the problem." And you're trivializing the problem of forcing people out. "This isn't about satisfying people's whims or preferences." Bullshit. You're making this about satisfying the whims or preferences of those moving in. "A fair market and a livable minimum wage would seem like an infinitely better solution." A fair market is one in which one does not get priced out of their home.
eli_gottlieb 10y ago
>"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. That's still a very privileged view. The predominant reason people move is for work: they'll be (or continue to be) unemployed if they don't.
mistersquid 10y ago
What you're missing in your arguments against rent control is that rent control protects socioeconomic diversity. Without rent control, fair market value may force people who are not high earners out, displaced by a more homogeneous population of highly-educated and high-earning people. This is not an unalloyed good. One of the primary goals of rent control is to ensure a mixed-income population in highly-desirable urban centers, and in many cases it is precisely rich socio-economic diversity that many (not all, but many) people find attractive. EDIT: readability