5 ms·

Nope. The wonderful thing about rent-creation schemes (in the economic sense, not just "rented housing" although it's obviously a canonical example) is that th

Nope. The wonderful thing about rent-creation schemes (in the economic sense, not just "rented housing" although it's obviously a canonical example) is that they create built-in constituencies. Make the built-in constituency powerful enough to crowd out the competition and it is extremely difficult to dislodge. Examples: rent control, copyright law, professional certifications (eg law or medical license), government contracting standards, direct access to money supply...

wtvanhest 10y ago
I don't have rent control, but in my opinion it is fine to stay in the older buildings as long as we keep constructing new units. Once the percentage of units with rent control is high enough, it won't be as much of a factor.
- Kalium 10y ago
  When the number of old units full of rent-control tenants grows high enough, they can become a constituency in their own right. At this point, like any good constituency, they seek to preserve their position against dilution. Construction of new, un-controlled units would threaten such a dilution. Some believe this has already happened in SF and has been a major driver of the current housing crisis.
  - wtvanhest 10y ago
    The people in rent controlled units do not have enough power to stop construction. They delay projects, they even block and reduce some projects, but as time moves on, sf will build units and their power will shrink rapidly.
    - resonantjacket5 10y ago
      The problem is that for every unit that is built.. then the new dwellers then become in support of rent control. Even worse for each developer that is able to build, right after building the development they then start supporting rent control to prevent their prices from falling. Basically everyone who joins the club essentially tries their hardest to shut the door once they get in.
      - omgbear 10y ago
        In SF at least, new buildings are not under rent control
        resonantjacket5 10y ago
        Yes... and it doesn't apply to my point. Let's say a piece of land costs 1 million normally and 2 million under rent control. I buy land for say 2 million (which would be 1 million without rent control) and estimate over 20 years I can earn 2.5 million or whatever as long as its above 2 million. If rent control and building restrictions are removed, as more houses are built then rent will go down back to 1 million throughout the city and effect my own earnings. Hence every person who owns developed land in San Francisco is for rent control, while if their land is just one small house their against it. However, once the person develops their own land they also start supporting it.
        deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
      - GeneralMayhem 10y ago
        San Francisco's rent control only applies to buildings constructed before the law went into effect in 1979, so in principle that shouldn't be a concern.
  - crdoconnor 10y ago
    It's property/land-owners who fight new construction - they're protecting the value of their investment. People in rent controlled apartments have no dog in that fight. Some believe it's nice attempt to scapegoat the poor and vulnerable for the sins of the rich though.
    - geebee 10y ago
      Not necessarily. Keep in mind, property/land-owners own, as you mentioned, the land beneath their house. That land might be worth far more if it were rezoned for multi unit dwellings. Property owners in SF are often opposed to new construction, but I don't think that they are motivated by the desire to maximize the dollar value of their real estate assets. They're happy with where they live, they often bought long ago so their costs and taxes are low, and they just don't want change, especially in medium density neighborhoods that have been stable for 75+ years. Their opposition to rezoning probably goes against their economic interests measured purely in dollar signs. People in rent controlled apartments have a similar motivation. Their costs are very low, they don't want the disruption of new construction, and they are often concerned that there wouldn't be a place in the new construction for them. Why take that risk? The difference is that people in rent controlled units are more vulnerable than property owners. If they do find themselves out of a rent controlled apartment and on the general market, competing for the few new units that become available, they'll be displaced.
    - hx87 10y ago
      Grandma doesn't want to fight new construction because she wants to "protect her investment". If she actually wanted to maximize the value of her property she would take out a home equity loan, demolish her house, build an apartment in its place and rent it out (and maybe live on the ground floor). She just doesn't want the neighbors to be able to do that and "ruin the character" of her neighborhood.
crdoconnor 10y ago
Rent control is an ineffective band aid over the gaping wound caused by proposition 13, ZIRP and San Francisco's landed gentry working day and night to kill all forms of new development. America has a weird obsession with ripping off these ineffectual band aids while pretending the gaping wound doesn't exist. Absolutely coincidentally the 1%'s propaganda mouthpieces would have you believe that your real problem is rent control and occupational licensing for cat groomers: http://www.cato.org/blog/occupational-licensing-it-isnt-just-doctors-lawyers-any-more http://www.cato.org/blog/occupational-licensing-it-isnt-just... http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-274.html http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-274.html ... but you've gotta be "fair" to the people who extract eye watering rents: http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/property-ownership-fairness-act-protecting-property-rights http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/property-ownersh...
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

wtvanhest 10y ago

I don't have rent control, but in my opinion it is fine to stay in the older buildings as long as we keep constructing new units. Once the percentage of units with rent control is high enough, it won't be as much of a factor.

Kalium 10y ago
When the number of old units full of rent-control tenants grows high enough, they can become a constituency in their own right. At this point, like any good constituency, they seek to preserve their position against dilution. Construction of new, un-controlled units would threaten such a dilution. Some believe this has already happened in SF and has been a major driver of the current housing crisis.
- wtvanhest 10y ago
  The people in rent controlled units do not have enough power to stop construction. They delay projects, they even block and reduce some projects, but as time moves on, sf will build units and their power will shrink rapidly.
  - resonantjacket5 10y ago
    The problem is that for every unit that is built.. then the new dwellers then become in support of rent control. Even worse for each developer that is able to build, right after building the development they then start supporting rent control to prevent their prices from falling. Basically everyone who joins the club essentially tries their hardest to shut the door once they get in.
    - omgbear 10y ago
      In SF at least, new buildings are not under rent control
      - resonantjacket5 10y ago
        Yes... and it doesn't apply to my point. Let's say a piece of land costs 1 million normally and 2 million under rent control. I buy land for say 2 million (which would be 1 million without rent control) and estimate over 20 years I can earn 2.5 million or whatever as long as its above 2 million. If rent control and building restrictions are removed, as more houses are built then rent will go down back to 1 million throughout the city and effect my own earnings. Hence every person who owns developed land in San Francisco is for rent control, while if their land is just one small house their against it. However, once the person develops their own land they also start supporting it.
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
    - GeneralMayhem 10y ago
      San Francisco's rent control only applies to buildings constructed before the law went into effect in 1979, so in principle that shouldn't be a concern.
- crdoconnor 10y ago
  It's property/land-owners who fight new construction - they're protecting the value of their investment. People in rent controlled apartments have no dog in that fight. Some believe it's nice attempt to scapegoat the poor and vulnerable for the sins of the rich though.
  - geebee 10y ago
    Not necessarily. Keep in mind, property/land-owners own, as you mentioned, the land beneath their house. That land might be worth far more if it were rezoned for multi unit dwellings. Property owners in SF are often opposed to new construction, but I don't think that they are motivated by the desire to maximize the dollar value of their real estate assets. They're happy with where they live, they often bought long ago so their costs and taxes are low, and they just don't want change, especially in medium density neighborhoods that have been stable for 75+ years. Their opposition to rezoning probably goes against their economic interests measured purely in dollar signs. People in rent controlled apartments have a similar motivation. Their costs are very low, they don't want the disruption of new construction, and they are often concerned that there wouldn't be a place in the new construction for them. Why take that risk? The difference is that people in rent controlled units are more vulnerable than property owners. If they do find themselves out of a rent controlled apartment and on the general market, competing for the few new units that become available, they'll be displaced.
  - hx87 10y ago
    Grandma doesn't want to fight new construction because she wants to "protect her investment". If she actually wanted to maximize the value of her property she would take out a home equity loan, demolish her house, build an apartment in its place and rent it out (and maybe live on the ground floor). She just doesn't want the neighbors to be able to do that and "ruin the character" of her neighborhood.

crdoconnor 10y ago

Rent control is an ineffective band aid over the gaping wound caused by proposition 13, ZIRP and San Francisco's landed gentry working day and night to kill all forms of new development. America has a weird obsession with ripping off these ineffectual band aids while pretending the gaping wound doesn't exist. Absolutely coincidentally the 1%'s propaganda mouthpieces would have you believe that your real problem is rent control and occupational licensing for cat groomers: http://www.cato.org/blog/occupational-licensing-it-isnt-just-doctors-lawyers-any-more http://www.cato.org/blog/occupational-licensing-it-isnt-just... http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-274.html http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-274.html ... but you've gotta be "fair" to the people who extract eye watering rents: http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/property-ownership-fairness-act-protecting-property-rights http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/property-ownersh...

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]