4 ms·
In all, the proposals' opponents have raised more than $1.8 million against the measures in the five cities, according to campaign finance records, largely from
by shawnee_ 10y ago
In all, the proposals' opponents have raised more than $1.8 million against the measures in the five cities, according to campaign finance records, largely from groups like the National Association of Realtors and an array of landlords including apartment giant Equity Residential. That far outstrips the roughly $200,000 reported raised by various groups supporting rent control.
Real estate is a broken industry. Moreso in the Bay area, but the negative effects there ripple outward. See: http://ecosteader.com/alternative http://ecosteader.com/alternative
In the Airbnb story yesterday, my comment (which was maliciously downvoted), was this:
"Landlords and Realtors get their cut every time there's a turnover in occupancy. Interestingly, this is the root problem at both ends -- from people living in poverty (Portland's sidewalk tent campers who get shuffled around), those suburbanites affected by the housing "crisis", and those who can afford to own in any upscale hip-n-trendy neighborhoods where Airbnb rentals are desperately sought. Those rooting for turnover are usually those who profit the most from it.
Sure, people travel and need to rent rooms once in a while. People like to rent while they're young and mobile, but the two use cases need very serious and separate delineation from each other. Airbnb is pushing them more into "overlap" territory. Airbnb's expansion into "subletting" was the kicker.
So, long story made short: it's an interesting economics problem I've been working on solving in my spare time, as a very long and iterated side project with Ecosteader (ecosteader.com). Some of the details emerging need a better format for communication; however, the most clear thing to come from my research is that people need to _own_, and they need to be able to transact with each other directly. Middlemen (Airbnb is the middleman here) taking significant commissions is part of the problem.
But the middlemen problem has sort of an obvious solution: to tax rental income so aggressively that it's just not an appealing source of investment to people who invest in rentals. Use the tax generated from over-inflated rents to build properties for sale, and/or figure out a way to use that money to grant-deed land on which people can build. This last option seems the more fun opportunity to me, and is what I originally had in mind building an eco- site.
The homesteading movement needs to come back, adapted a bit for the 21st century."
Disagree if you want... but explain how the problem can be solved better any other way.
- natrius 10y agoMost Americans do not have the savings required to own in cities. Ownership might be a solution that works for you, but penalizing landlords penalizes renters who can't afford ownership.
- _delirium 10y agoWhether it's affordable to own in cities isn't entirely independent of what restrictions we put on landlords. To take one end of the restrictions scale: if being a landlord were simply banned, i.e. you could occupy property but not rent it out, purchase prices of apartments in most situations would end up lower. Copenhagen does that in large swathes of its property market, for example, by requiring owner-occupancy in some categories of housing. And you can clearly see the price differential: apartments in the buildings that allow unrestricted rental have much higher purchase prices than otherwise similar apartments in buildings restricted to owner-occupancy, by often a factor of 2-3x. (That isn't to say as a policy proposal this would fix SF's particular problems, just that purchase prices aren't independent of landlords' role in the property market, as prospective owner-occupiers have to bid against prospective landlords in cases where landlordism is permitted.)
- natrius 10y agoWe agree with each other. Restricting rentals reduces competition for owning homes, which lowers the price to purchase a home. You'll get more homeowners. Everyone who still rents is worse off because the supply of rental housing has been choked off. They will live in less desirable neighborhoods than they would in a world without such restrictions.
- kspaans 10y agoAlternatively you could remove the mortgage interest tax credit and/or tax the imputed rent that homeowners earn. That could cool the market, at least if you could apply it selectively to overheated markets.