4 ms·

Rent control is anti-market. You can never control the rent control and end up with rich people taking advantage of it and poor people paying extra because mark

by msoad 10y ago

Rent control is anti-market. You can never control the rent control and end up with rich people taking advantage of it and poor people paying extra because market is adjusted without those rent controlled units...

intopieces 10y ago
"Anti-market?" Sure. But using that as a point assumes that the market itself is otherwise efficient, and that rent control does more harm than good. I'm not so sure. Further, rent control is not one policy in every place, and not every market sees the same effects from those policies. The market does not exist as a continuum, where "pro-market" moves us closer to a platonic ideal that works for all players and anti-market just moves us further away. This article is really light on details. Can anyone link me to a more robust explanation of this particular fight?
r00fus 10y ago
The market is distorted. Is it sustainable when you have to make $216k/yr [1] to even afford rent (not mortgage) on a 2bdrm? [1] http://sf.curbed.com/2016/5/17/11692468/rent-salary-2016-san-francisco- http://sf.curbed.com/2016/5/17/11692468/rent-salary-2016-san...
- ThrustVectoring 10y ago
  The answer isn't to further distort the market with more price ceilings. All that will do is further mis-allocate resources.
- xacaxulu 10y ago
  There are many places in the country for those who make less money. No one is forced to live in those areas.
mancerayder 10y ago
The New York experience is that while 1M of about 2M rental apartments have laws that influence the rent maximum (rent stabilized), it's subject to distortions with regard to two things: the free market rentals, which are as expected quite high, and also, and this seems to be unique to NYC from my conversations with lucky people not renting here, broker fees. Yes, it is quite difficult to even go to visit an apartment rental without a broker, who will charge you 10-15% of the yearly rent as a fee, should you pull the trigger. Rent stabilized units are difficult to find without connections or brokers. Would rents be lower if 45 odd percent of the rental stock of New York City were all free market rentals? Honestly, I'm past ideological certainty at this point, so I honestly don't know. I know plenty of libertarian types with certainty. Anyone interested in the question might be interested in this very recent article from Bloomberg, which talks about the rent control laws in NYC and how a very wealthy landlord faces jail at the moment because he discovered buying out rent controlled apartments in NYC and converting them to market rate, even illegally, made him uber rich. " Out With the Poor, In With the Rich: The Landlord’s Guide to Gentrifying NYC Steve Croman has spent decades exploiting rent-control laws to bring in wealthier tenants. The state attorney general wants to make an example of him." http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-10-12/get-out http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-10-12/get-out

by msoad 10y ago

intopieces 10y ago

"Anti-market?" Sure. But using that as a point assumes that the market itself is otherwise efficient, and that rent control does more harm than good. I'm not so sure. Further, rent control is not one policy in every place, and not every market sees the same effects from those policies. The market does not exist as a continuum, where "pro-market" moves us closer to a platonic ideal that works for all players and anti-market just moves us further away. This article is really light on details. Can anyone link me to a more robust explanation of this particular fight?

r00fus 10y ago

The market is distorted. Is it sustainable when you have to make $216k/yr [1] to even afford rent (not mortgage) on a 2bdrm? [1] http://sf.curbed.com/2016/5/17/11692468/rent-salary-2016-san-francisco- http://sf.curbed.com/2016/5/17/11692468/rent-salary-2016-san...

ThrustVectoring 10y ago
The answer isn't to further distort the market with more price ceilings. All that will do is further mis-allocate resources.
xacaxulu 10y ago
There are many places in the country for those who make less money. No one is forced to live in those areas.

mancerayder 10y ago

The New York experience is that while 1M of about 2M rental apartments have laws that influence the rent maximum (rent stabilized), it's subject to distortions with regard to two things: the free market rentals, which are as expected quite high, and also, and this seems to be unique to NYC from my conversations with lucky people not renting here, broker fees. Yes, it is quite difficult to even go to visit an apartment rental without a broker, who will charge you 10-15% of the yearly rent as a fee, should you pull the trigger. Rent stabilized units are difficult to find without connections or brokers. Would rents be lower if 45 odd percent of the rental stock of New York City were all free market rentals? Honestly, I'm past ideological certainty at this point, so I honestly don't know. I know plenty of libertarian types with certainty. Anyone interested in the question might be interested in this very recent article from Bloomberg, which talks about the rent control laws in NYC and how a very wealthy landlord faces jail at the moment because he discovered buying out rent controlled apartments in NYC and converting them to market rate, even illegally, made him uber rich. " Out With the Poor, In With the Rich: The Landlord’s Guide to Gentrifying NYC Steve Croman has spent decades exploiting rent-control laws to bring in wealthier tenants. The state attorney general wants to make an example of him." http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-10-12/get-out http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-10-12/get-out