4 ms·

That's because the article is pretty much boilerplate. It's the same hackneyed arguments that's always trotted out with no attempt to actually analyze the very

That's because the article is pretty much boilerplate. It's the same hackneyed arguments that's always trotted out with no attempt to actually analyze the very real problems in San Francisco and the surrounding area. Cases in point: The author blames two classic boogeymen: control and tenant protection laws. As you pointed out, rent control simply doesn't apply here. As far as tenant protection laws scaring off landlords, even that doesn't hold up to even the most cursory analysis. As the meme says, "The Rent is too damn high." If landlords were really holding apartments vacant at sizable rate, the rents would increase even higher and The Market(tm) would simply bring the vacant apartments online because the expected value of the apartment would simply be too great to ignore. Finally, if you follow the link that says "thousands of units are simply being kept off the market", you find out that the unit in question is actually rented to family instead of perfect strangers. Which is to say, the unit isn't vacant.

Animats 10y ago
"That's because the article is pretty much boilerplate." That's Reason magazine. SF has had two housing crashes in the last 30 years. This discourages building large numbers of apartments. There's a tall apartment building near Twitter HQ which was vacant for over a decade. It takes a long time to pay off an apartment building. The boom may not last. Check out the Pink Slip Parties of 2001, when it collapsed last time.[http://www.sfgirl.com/gallery_pink/pinkslip4/ps4.html http://www.sfgirl.com/gallery_pink/pinkslip4/ps4.html]. It will all start tumbling down when Twitter goes under. Their stock has gone from 70 to 18 in the last year and a half, and they're not profitable. Figure that anything that's large and not profitable at this stage in the cycle is headed for trouble.
- herdrick 10y ago
  San Francisco real estate famously did not crash in in 2001 nor in 2009. Prices remained steady and started increasing rapidly again within a year or two.

Animats 10y ago

"That's because the article is pretty much boilerplate." That's Reason magazine. SF has had two housing crashes in the last 30 years. This discourages building large numbers of apartments. There's a tall apartment building near Twitter HQ which was vacant for over a decade. It takes a long time to pay off an apartment building. The boom may not last. Check out the Pink Slip Parties of 2001, when it collapsed last time.[http://www.sfgirl.com/gallery_pink/pinkslip4/ps4.html http://www.sfgirl.com/gallery_pink/pinkslip4/ps4.html]. It will all start tumbling down when Twitter goes under. Their stock has gone from 70 to 18 in the last year and a half, and they're not profitable. Figure that anything that's large and not profitable at this stage in the cycle is headed for trouble.

herdrick 10y ago
San Francisco real estate famously did not crash in in 2001 nor in 2009. Prices remained steady and started increasing rapidly again within a year or two.