5 ms·

In theory, you're right. In practice, San Francisco's progressives keep scheming to bring newer apartments under rent control: https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2015/1

• ubernostrum 10y ago
  No, in practice the commenter you responded to is right. "In practice" refers to actuality. The fact that some politicians have talked about proposing changes to the current status does not change the current actually-true situation.
  • apsec112 10y ago
    The "in theory" part is the assumption that laws will stay as they are. The "in practice" is that Bay Area development regulations are a one-way ratchet, where more and more restrictions and costs are imposed over time. First something is proposed; then the government starts offering incentives for it; then it becomes mandatory; then it becomes stricter and stricter. Eg., take subsidized housing units ("inclusionary housing"). At first, the state offered an incentive to build them, through the state density bonus law. Then San Francisco made 15% subsidized units mandatory in 2002. Then it went up to 25% earlier this year. And now you can't even get the state density bonus, because San Francisco will just pretend it doesn't exist, and dare you to sue them if you bring it up.
    • ubernostrum 10y ago
      Sure. And all you do is put up with having those "affordable" units for a couple years, then you wander in one day and tell the tenants you'll evict anyone who doesn't sign a piece of paper to convert their apartment to a condo with an 8000% monthly increase to keep living there. The Terrible, Horrible, No-Good Very-Bad Socialist Soviet Liberal Big Government Regulations Nanny State Market-Hater's Utopian People's Republic of San Francisco basically only exists in comments like yours. Or should I say: in theory you're right, but in practice you're not.
  • michaelkeenan 10y ago
    A non-trivial probability of future rent control decreases the incentive to invest in new construction.
    • x0x0 10y ago
      Right. The mere fact that it hasn't happened in, say, 37 years is unrelated.
      • michaelkeenan 10y ago
        Um, hi. I have tone feedback on your comment, if you want it. I am of course some internet stranger to you, with the unimportance that carries; this is just a request, not an insult or a demand or anything like that. I found your comment more unpleasant to read than the non-sarcastic form would have been. I think that sarcasm often obscures meaning in a way that makes conversation less productive, and I think that happened in this case. It seems you weren't attacking the principle I proposed; rather, you were questioning whether it applies to San Francisco (specifically: whether the probability is non-trivial). Without sarcasm, it would have been easier to state that directly. You could have made explicit that you think the 37-year history of no new rent control is better outside-view evidence that it won't happen than the inside-view evidence that the earlier commenter brought up: https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2015/12/15/aaron-peskin-proposes-expanding-san-francisco-rent-control/ https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2015/12/15/aaron-peskin-proposes-e... If that's what you meant, we'd be talking about that. As the article says, "Peskin, who was sworn in as a supervisor last week, says he will ask the City Attorney’s Office to study an idea he thinks will get around the state ban on extending rent control. He wants to explore the possibility of imposing controls on new developments". If there's an interesting conversation to be had about whether Peskin's proposal is impossible considering the history, we could be talking about that, but the sarcastic form of argument doesn't naturally lead to that. So I request that if we interact again, please refrain from initiating sarcasm and other forms of hostility. (Again, this is just a request; you are of course free to say whatever you want.)
        • ubernostrum 10y ago