4 ms·

Let's see... Can't increase supply because NYMBY? Check. Can't increase rent because rent control? Check. Removing tenants next to impossible? Ok, this is true

Let's see... Can't increase supply because NYMBY? Check. Can't increase rent because rent control? Check. Removing tenants next to impossible? Ok, this is true anywhere. Gee, I wonder why the incentives are all screwed up?

throwmeaway22 9y ago
> Gee, I wonder why the incentives are all screwed up? Just a guess, but maybe it's all the douchebag millennials who programmatically remove other's choices.
- anthonybullard 9y ago
  Wait, are there millennials on the board of governors? Because they are the ones who have actually removed people's choices - i.e., the choice to build something on their property. Which is the true cause of individual renter's choice being whittled down. Apartments don't get built for free, nor do they get maintained for free. And because of rent control and unreasonable tenant protections, landlords - who either bought, built, or inherited these properties - have an incentive to not maintain properties inhabited by long time tenants and create an atmosphere that makes them want to leave. The ones that are able to do that are probably pocketing a lot of (economic) rents, while the ones who try to do the right thing by their tenants end up on a sinking financial ship. You can talk all you want about "millennials", but tech workers need a place to live. They make a lot of money - and largely put a lot of it in the local economy since many of them are at a stage of life where conspicuous consumption makes sense for them. But because of Local and state politics, not one city will let anyone build enough of it. So if someone can't build a 400 unit tower in the mission, guess what? They'll find a way to get occupy 400 single family homes. No one wins really. Except some longstanding homeowners that get an underfed windfall in home value without paying any increased property tax, some unscrupulous landlords, developers with political connections, and some grandstanding politicians. Meanwhile, tech people drawn from all over the world come here to be vilified as colonizers, low-income people are left in the streets or pushed to the farthest reaches of the Bay (or out of state completely), and principled landlords are left with a money hole they can't withstand.
emodendroket 9y ago
So what's the argument here? We shouldn't take any measures to try and keep rents within reach for city residents, because arson is a natural, unavoidable consequence?
- manyoso 9y ago
  The argument is that the measures being taken are like cutting off your nose to spite your face.
- wheaties 9y ago
  No, it's that when you abandon healthy markets and try to impose artificial constraints that fly in the face of basic economics you wind up with horribly perverse incentive structures. Can someone find that article about the landlord who took a 2-family house, knocked down the 2nd unit and then was able to increase rent on the remaining unit 4x?
- vixen99 9y ago
  This seems to be a horrible example. Price is a message in the face of reality. You can democratically agree to ignore the message certainly but you have to be prepared to counter some of the results that follow. They may be containable or they may not. Are there great examples of price control which have proved successful in the long run?

throwmeaway22 9y ago

> Gee, I wonder why the incentives are all screwed up? Just a guess, but maybe it's all the douchebag millennials who programmatically remove other's choices.

anthonybullard 9y ago
Wait, are there millennials on the board of governors? Because they are the ones who have actually removed people's choices - i.e., the choice to build something on their property. Which is the true cause of individual renter's choice being whittled down. Apartments don't get built for free, nor do they get maintained for free. And because of rent control and unreasonable tenant protections, landlords - who either bought, built, or inherited these properties - have an incentive to not maintain properties inhabited by long time tenants and create an atmosphere that makes them want to leave. The ones that are able to do that are probably pocketing a lot of (economic) rents, while the ones who try to do the right thing by their tenants end up on a sinking financial ship. You can talk all you want about "millennials", but tech workers need a place to live. They make a lot of money - and largely put a lot of it in the local economy since many of them are at a stage of life where conspicuous consumption makes sense for them. But because of Local and state politics, not one city will let anyone build enough of it. So if someone can't build a 400 unit tower in the mission, guess what? They'll find a way to get occupy 400 single family homes. No one wins really. Except some longstanding homeowners that get an underfed windfall in home value without paying any increased property tax, some unscrupulous landlords, developers with political connections, and some grandstanding politicians. Meanwhile, tech people drawn from all over the world come here to be vilified as colonizers, low-income people are left in the streets or pushed to the farthest reaches of the Bay (or out of state completely), and principled landlords are left with a money hole they can't withstand.

emodendroket 9y ago

So what's the argument here? We shouldn't take any measures to try and keep rents within reach for city residents, because arson is a natural, unavoidable consequence?

manyoso 9y ago
The argument is that the measures being taken are like cutting off your nose to spite your face.
wheaties 9y ago
No, it's that when you abandon healthy markets and try to impose artificial constraints that fly in the face of basic economics you wind up with horribly perverse incentive structures. Can someone find that article about the landlord who took a 2-family house, knocked down the 2nd unit and then was able to increase rent on the remaining unit 4x?
vixen99 9y ago
This seems to be a horrible example. Price is a message in the face of reality. You can democratically agree to ignore the message certainly but you have to be prepared to counter some of the results that follow. They may be containable or they may not. Are there great examples of price control which have proved successful in the long run?