7 ms·

Has any place every imposed rent controls, but later removed them? Some of those quoted in the article speak of rent control as a temporary measure, to buy tim

Has any place every imposed rent controls, but later removed them? Some of those quoted in the article speak of rent control as a temporary measure, to buy time while other more permanent solutions to be brought to bear. Does that ever happen?

bluejekyll 10y ago
San Francisco did this in a way, rent control exists, but only for buildings constructed before 1970? (Not sure of the date) This effectively meant it was "temporary" because any new buildings wouldn't be covered, which will eventually mean that as buildings are replaced or built new there will be less and less rent control available in the City. Probably not the temporary you mean...
- raldi 10y ago
  1979, and that rule comes from a state law called Costa-Hawkins which prohibits any California municipality from requiring rent control on any new unit constructed after then. The intention was to spur construction by offering a carrot to anyone who built a new (and presumably bigger) apartment building. The unforeseen consequence is that now city planning commissions in places like SF simply don't issue demolition permits anymore for pre-1979 apartment buildings.
  - MichaelBurge 10y ago
    > The unforeseen consequence is that now city planning commissions in places like SF simply don't issue demolition permits anymore for pre-1979 apartment buildings. Is that even legal? It's one thing to use zoning for city planning as a general guideline, or to require permits to ensure work is done safely; but people ultimately have rights to their property. Has it been taken to court before? It's borderline a violation of the Takings Clause: "private property [shall not] be taken for public use, without just compensation."
    - flamedoge 10y ago
      State can take from citizen with just compensation via eminent domain, so people really do not have rights to real estate. They have rights to market value of property.
    - dexterdog 10y ago
      Of course it's legal. Just ask the guys that write the laws to protect the people who pay for their campaigns.
  - timr 10y ago
    "The unforeseen consequence is that now city planning commissions in places like SF simply don't issue demolition permits anymore for pre-1979 apartment buildings." That isn't true. There's a well-defined process for it -- demolition is one of the few just causes for eviction here, and the planning department only has to take rent control into consideration as one factor when issuing new permits -- and it happens regularly in SF: https://www.sftu.org/merger/ https://www.sftu.org/merger/ http://planning.sanfranciscocode.org/3/317/ http://planning.sanfranciscocode.org/3/317/ Demolition permits are also so routinely issued for rent-controlled buildings in NYC that landlords are using it as a tactic to push out rent-controlled tenants: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/02/realestate/02cover.html?pagewanted=print http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/02/realestate/02cover.html?pa...
    - sroussey 10y ago
      Trinity demolished buildings by civic center, but were required to move the people there into the new buildings at the same rent controlled rates. So it isn't true in a strict sense, but effectively it's true.
    - raldi 10y ago
      It happens very rarely, and when it does, it's a scandal and a total "man bites dog" story: http://48hills.org/2014/09/08/sf-planners-decide-just-fine-demolish-rent-controlled-housing/ http://48hills.org/2014/09/08/sf-planners-decide-just-fine-d... Gabriel Ng & Architechs Inc. wants to build two new structures on the large corner lot at 26th and Clement. Each building would have three units, with three-bedrooms each. The project sponsor argued that there’s a need for family housing in the city, and that six new units, which most likely would be sold as condos, would help the crisis. But to make room for one of the buildings, the project calls for the demolition of an existing apartment building with two smaller rent-controlled units. And that’s something the city isn’t supposed to allow. In fact, when the mayor with great fanfare issued his housing directive in 2013, he made it clear that demolishing existing rental housing should only be allowed in unusual circumstances. [T]he 4-3 vote in favor was directly in defiance of city policy and the mayor’s directive regarding the preservation of existing rent-controlled housing. In the past year, the Planning Department has repeatedly refused to approve projects that involve a loss of rental units [...] The mayor has directed the Department to adopt policies which encourage the preservation of existing housing stock [as] the city’s highest priority.
  - DrScump 10y ago
    There have, however, been a number of major fires in older apartment buildings in the past couple of years; at least two resulted in the whole building being condemned. I'm sure it's just coincidence.
simonsarris 10y ago
Yes, Cambridge MA comes to mind, ending rent control in 1994.
- kqr2 10y ago
  Did the housing situation improve after rent control was ended?
  - eropple 10y ago
    If by "improve" you mean "allow for skyrocketing rents and push the poor and most of the middle class further away from the city," yes, it did. I'm currently moving from Somerville, which adjoins Cambridge and is often called "where everybody moved when the rich people pushed them out of Cambridge" to Malden (some distance away by bus or car) because the rental situation has continued to deteriorate for everyone except the landlords.
    - CydeWeys 10y ago
      Absent actually owning property, does anyone have a right to live in any particular place?
      - eropple 10y ago
        This argument always comes up, and it is a bad one. No, no one has a right to live in any particular place. It's the same thing as the people who fall back on "but but First Amendment" when somebody's saying "you're an asshole." Nobody's saying it isn't legal, but you can still be an asshole while acting legally. If the best defense I could muster for something is that it is not literally illegal, I would be looking hard in the mirror. But that's just me.
        CydeWeys 10y ago
        I don't understand your response. You're talking about the 2nd Amendment and things not being literally illegal, neither of which address what I said. I'm not talking about the legality/illegality of squatting (which is the only thing that seems relevant to housing). I see a lot of attitudes in regards to housing that I can only describe as entitled, which is unfortunate because it's a very negative word. But nothing else immediately comes to mind. Do people have a right to live in any given area, absent their ability to pay for it? I don't think so. There's no amendment for it. There's no laws for it. The closest applicable laws are those providing for rent control, but all that does is decrease the cost of living somewhere (at the expense of supply and housing quality) -- it still doesn't guarantee you a right to live there absent the ability to pay the lower rate. There are lots of places I would love to live in but cannot because I either cannot afford it or am not willing to spend a very large percentage of my salary on it. It's a purely economic decision. How is there a right to live somewhere that is independent of your ability to afford it? Are you making an argument that if you are born somewhere, you have a lifelong right to live there at the prevailing rent at the time of your birth (adjusted only for inflation), and that this right should transfer to your children? That's really what it comes down to when people complain about no longer being able to afford living somewhere that they previously were able to live in. I don't think there is such a right, and it's certainly not reflected in any laws.
rm999 10y ago
A big example is the almost-universal rent control in the USA during WWII to help keep wages down and production up. This was an emergency measure designed to be temporary (although there was never a guarantee it would be). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Price_Administration#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Price_Administration...
- bufordsharkley 10y ago
  Which is famously why the U.S. ended up with health insurance tied to one's employer-- a workaround to the limits of price controls (employers could offer this additional perk, but not additional money). Yet another unintended consequence that continues to impress generations later. (I wonder why they didn't simply let wages rise.)
sroussey 10y ago
Los Angeles. Santa Monica and West Hollywood kept theirs. Guess which neighborhoods have the highest rents?
cauterized 10y ago
NYC has been gradually deregulating rent controlled and rent stabilized apartments as previous tenants move out or pass away. (The original intention was partly to make sure people on fixed incomes - especially the elderly - wouldn't lose their long time homes). I won't say that deregulation has done anything to improve the housing market tho. Supply and demand for land, the cost of construction, and the city's enormous population growth have far bigger impacts on the availability of housing, affordable or otherwise.

bluejekyll 10y ago

San Francisco did this in a way, rent control exists, but only for buildings constructed before 1970? (Not sure of the date) This effectively meant it was "temporary" because any new buildings wouldn't be covered, which will eventually mean that as buildings are replaced or built new there will be less and less rent control available in the City. Probably not the temporary you mean...

raldi 10y ago
1979, and that rule comes from a state law called Costa-Hawkins which prohibits any California municipality from requiring rent control on any new unit constructed after then. The intention was to spur construction by offering a carrot to anyone who built a new (and presumably bigger) apartment building. The unforeseen consequence is that now city planning commissions in places like SF simply don't issue demolition permits anymore for pre-1979 apartment buildings.
- MichaelBurge 10y ago
  > The unforeseen consequence is that now city planning commissions in places like SF simply don't issue demolition permits anymore for pre-1979 apartment buildings. Is that even legal? It's one thing to use zoning for city planning as a general guideline, or to require permits to ensure work is done safely; but people ultimately have rights to their property. Has it been taken to court before? It's borderline a violation of the Takings Clause: "private property [shall not] be taken for public use, without just compensation."
  - flamedoge 10y ago
    State can take from citizen with just compensation via eminent domain, so people really do not have rights to real estate. They have rights to market value of property.
  - dexterdog 10y ago
    Of course it's legal. Just ask the guys that write the laws to protect the people who pay for their campaigns.
- timr 10y ago
  "The unforeseen consequence is that now city planning commissions in places like SF simply don't issue demolition permits anymore for pre-1979 apartment buildings." That isn't true. There's a well-defined process for it -- demolition is one of the few just causes for eviction here, and the planning department only has to take rent control into consideration as one factor when issuing new permits -- and it happens regularly in SF: https://www.sftu.org/merger/ https://www.sftu.org/merger/ http://planning.sanfranciscocode.org/3/317/ http://planning.sanfranciscocode.org/3/317/ Demolition permits are also so routinely issued for rent-controlled buildings in NYC that landlords are using it as a tactic to push out rent-controlled tenants: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/02/realestate/02cover.html?pagewanted=print http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/02/realestate/02cover.html?pa...
  - sroussey 10y ago
    Trinity demolished buildings by civic center, but were required to move the people there into the new buildings at the same rent controlled rates. So it isn't true in a strict sense, but effectively it's true.
  - raldi 10y ago
    It happens very rarely, and when it does, it's a scandal and a total "man bites dog" story: http://48hills.org/2014/09/08/sf-planners-decide-just-fine-demolish-rent-controlled-housing/ http://48hills.org/2014/09/08/sf-planners-decide-just-fine-d... Gabriel Ng & Architechs Inc. wants to build two new structures on the large corner lot at 26th and Clement. Each building would have three units, with three-bedrooms each. The project sponsor argued that there’s a need for family housing in the city, and that six new units, which most likely would be sold as condos, would help the crisis. But to make room for one of the buildings, the project calls for the demolition of an existing apartment building with two smaller rent-controlled units. And that’s something the city isn’t supposed to allow. In fact, when the mayor with great fanfare issued his housing directive in 2013, he made it clear that demolishing existing rental housing should only be allowed in unusual circumstances. [T]he 4-3 vote in favor was directly in defiance of city policy and the mayor’s directive regarding the preservation of existing rent-controlled housing. In the past year, the Planning Department has repeatedly refused to approve projects that involve a loss of rental units [...] The mayor has directed the Department to adopt policies which encourage the preservation of existing housing stock [as] the city’s highest priority.
- DrScump 10y ago
  There have, however, been a number of major fires in older apartment buildings in the past couple of years; at least two resulted in the whole building being condemned. I'm sure it's just coincidence.

simonsarris 10y ago

Yes, Cambridge MA comes to mind, ending rent control in 1994.

kqr2 10y ago
Did the housing situation improve after rent control was ended?
- eropple 10y ago
  If by "improve" you mean "allow for skyrocketing rents and push the poor and most of the middle class further away from the city," yes, it did. I'm currently moving from Somerville, which adjoins Cambridge and is often called "where everybody moved when the rich people pushed them out of Cambridge" to Malden (some distance away by bus or car) because the rental situation has continued to deteriorate for everyone except the landlords.
  - CydeWeys 10y ago
    Absent actually owning property, does anyone have a right to live in any particular place?
    - eropple 10y ago
      This argument always comes up, and it is a bad one. No, no one has a right to live in any particular place. It's the same thing as the people who fall back on "but but First Amendment" when somebody's saying "you're an asshole." Nobody's saying it isn't legal, but you can still be an asshole while acting legally. If the best defense I could muster for something is that it is not literally illegal, I would be looking hard in the mirror. But that's just me.
      - CydeWeys 10y ago
        I don't understand your response. You're talking about the 2nd Amendment and things not being literally illegal, neither of which address what I said. I'm not talking about the legality/illegality of squatting (which is the only thing that seems relevant to housing). I see a lot of attitudes in regards to housing that I can only describe as entitled, which is unfortunate because it's a very negative word. But nothing else immediately comes to mind. Do people have a right to live in any given area, absent their ability to pay for it? I don't think so. There's no amendment for it. There's no laws for it. The closest applicable laws are those providing for rent control, but all that does is decrease the cost of living somewhere (at the expense of supply and housing quality) -- it still doesn't guarantee you a right to live there absent the ability to pay the lower rate. There are lots of places I would love to live in but cannot because I either cannot afford it or am not willing to spend a very large percentage of my salary on it. It's a purely economic decision. How is there a right to live somewhere that is independent of your ability to afford it? Are you making an argument that if you are born somewhere, you have a lifelong right to live there at the prevailing rent at the time of your birth (adjusted only for inflation), and that this right should transfer to your children? That's really what it comes down to when people complain about no longer being able to afford living somewhere that they previously were able to live in. I don't think there is such a right, and it's certainly not reflected in any laws.

rm999 10y ago

A big example is the almost-universal rent control in the USA during WWII to help keep wages down and production up. This was an emergency measure designed to be temporary (although there was never a guarantee it would be). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Price_Administration#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Price_Administration...

bufordsharkley 10y ago
Which is famously why the U.S. ended up with health insurance tied to one's employer-- a workaround to the limits of price controls (employers could offer this additional perk, but not additional money). Yet another unintended consequence that continues to impress generations later. (I wonder why they didn't simply let wages rise.)

sroussey 10y ago

Los Angeles. Santa Monica and West Hollywood kept theirs. Guess which neighborhoods have the highest rents?

cauterized 10y ago

NYC has been gradually deregulating rent controlled and rent stabilized apartments as previous tenants move out or pass away. (The original intention was partly to make sure people on fixed incomes - especially the elderly - wouldn't lose their long time homes). I won't say that deregulation has done anything to improve the housing market tho. Supply and demand for land, the cost of construction, and the city's enormous population growth have far bigger impacts on the availability of housing, affordable or otherwise.