4 ms·

Opponents of gentrification, and supporters of rent control, are generally considering the well-being of current residents. "blighted parts of the city" are of

Opponents of gentrification, and supporters of rent control, are generally considering the well-being of current residents. "blighted parts of the city" are often homes to people and the place where their communities are located. These people see themselves priced out of the place they've lived for years and are forced to start a new life elsewhere when the area they live in is gentrified. This is incredibly stressful and hugely disruptive to these people's lives and it's not unreasonable that they desire some protection for their way of life. The recognition of this fact is also the source of rent control (whether rent control is the right mechanism to prevent these hardships is another conversation). Without societal protections landlords wield a huge amount of power over tenants, raising rent by exorbitant amounts is no different than eviction for most families. In a desire to protect their own communities and livelihoods many residents vote for such policies.

mc32 8y ago
For clarification, landlords have an advantage when there is a boom, but a disadvantage when in a bust.
whack 8y ago
> "Opponents of gentrification, and supporters of rent control, are generally considering the well-being of current residents." And what about current residents who need to move? Suppose a disadvantaged woman decides to leave her abusive husband and is trying to find another place to move into. Is it fair that her well-being is completely neglected? I'm all in favor of the intentions behind rent control, but the implementation is an atrocious way to achieving its goals. If the goal is to help the poor long-time residents of a city, then do that directly. Raise property taxes, impose a city-income-tax, and use the proceeds to offer assistance to means-tested long-time residents. This would be far better than what SF has currently.
- dbasedweeb 8y ago
  I think the question is who’s responsibility it is to protect the woman in your hypothetical. Is it the landlord? New tenants? Some people from Amazon looking to expand? The new cafe charging $5 for rainbow bagels? The state or federal government? The goals of most of those entities are agnostic about the woman, not against her or for her. Rent control basically says the landlord is responsible, your formulation says the government is responsible through increased taxation. I don’t know the answer, but I can understand that most people are too preoccupied with their own lives to prioritize the woman. At the end of the day, someone or a lot of someone’s need to take or share responsibility for the circumstances of the less foruntate, because the alternative is terrible for everyone.
- joe_the_user 8y ago
  Suppose a disadvantaged woman decides to leave her abusive husband and is trying to find another place to move into. Your hypothetical disadvantaged woman would have zero ability to pay $2000/month rent for a studio, however many of these might be available. She would likely find it hard to get an apartment in a rent-controlled situation - so the situation is effectively "hard versus impossible", a condition where "hard" is less harsh. And I mean, I've lived off and on in the Bay Area under both these conditions over the last forty years and the impossible rents of course are the hardest for those of lesser means. Of frickin course.
  - zethraeus 8y ago
    Why are the studios $2000/month in this alternate universe where we don't have rent control?
    - closeparen 8y ago
      Because NIMBYism, height limits, and single family zoning over most of the landmass still exist, and have much stronger effects.
    - joe_the_user 8y ago
      They are in the present universe, where we don't have effective rent control. And effective rent would require controlling evictions and controlling rents on vacant units (infringing further on sacred property rights, certainly). Now, the most effective policy would involved rent control but with exemptions for new very high density units, incentivizing increases in the total housing stock for an urban area. But we're here with weak rent control and tacit collusion of homeowners and builders, who talk about their property rights when convenient and use the state to keep their monopoly when convenient.
  - whack 8y ago
    You've ignored my second paragraph which explains a far better way of helping those in need. I'm all in favor of the intentions behind rent control, but the implementation is an atrocious way to achieving its goals. If the goal is to help the poor long-time residents of a city, then do that directly. Raise property taxes, impose a city-income-tax, and use the proceeds to offer assistance to means-tested long-time residents. This would be far better than what SF has currently.
- crdoconnor 8y ago
  >I'm all in favor of the intentions behind rent control, but the implementation is an atrocious way to achieving its goals. If the goal is to help the poor long-time residents of a city, then do that directly. Rent control is a hack, but it's a hack that largely works. It's not nearly as atrocious as the reputation profit hungry landlords have tried to give it. Why not treat it exactly like any other kind of hack? Take it out, sure, but not a second before the real fix is in place. >Raise property taxes Yes. A lot. And do it first.
  - chollida1 8y ago
    > Rent control is a hack, but it's a hack that largely works. It's not nearly as atrocious as the reputation profit hungry landlords have tried to give it Well I'm not sure what economics degree you have, but a Nobel winning one, says that most economists are in agreement and they disagree with you https://www.nytimes.com/2000/06/07/opinion/reckonings-a-rent-affair.html https://www.nytimes.com/2000/06/07/opinion/reckonings-a-rent... > The analysis of rent control is among the best-understood issues in all of economics, and -- among economists, anyway -- one of the least controversial. In 1992 a poll of the American Economic Association found 93 percent of its members agreeing that ''a ceiling on rents reduces the quality and quantity of housing.' So I guess the balls in your court. What evidence would you put forward to prove most economists wrong about rent control?
    - closeparen 8y ago
      It’s entirely possible for someone to understand that, and to be willing to trade the quantity and quality of housing for stability in the lives of existing residents.
    - crdoconnor 8y ago
      >Well I'm not sure what economics degree you have Could your appeal to authority be a little more obvious please? >a Nobel winning one, says that most economists are in agreement and they disagree with you The economist profession is badly captured by moneyed interests. This is partly why they are terrible at building predictive models (think about it: which one of them wasn't blindsided by the financial crisis?). Often the more prestigious seeming the economist, the more captured they are. With Paul Krugman specifically this level of capture was made embarrassingly obvious when he wrote a screed saying "what's wrong with the TPP? More trade is always good!" and then got schooled by his own comments section about what was actually in that trade deal (that had nothing to do with "more trade") and what was wrong with it: https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/12/krugman-running-brand-fumes-transpacific-partnership-edition.html https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/12/krugman-running-bran... He obviously wasn't too stupid to understand it, which is why after enough negative exposure he retracted. I doubt you'll find any Nobel prize winning physicists having to retract a similar "mistake" although I can think of one climate scientist who might. >So I guess the balls in your court. What evidence would you put forward to prove most economists wrong about rent control? New York's highest level of house building occurred under strict rent controls.

mc32 8y ago

For clarification, landlords have an advantage when there is a boom, but a disadvantage when in a bust.

whack 8y ago

> "Opponents of gentrification, and supporters of rent control, are generally considering the well-being of current residents." And what about current residents who need to move? Suppose a disadvantaged woman decides to leave her abusive husband and is trying to find another place to move into. Is it fair that her well-being is completely neglected? I'm all in favor of the intentions behind rent control, but the implementation is an atrocious way to achieving its goals. If the goal is to help the poor long-time residents of a city, then do that directly. Raise property taxes, impose a city-income-tax, and use the proceeds to offer assistance to means-tested long-time residents. This would be far better than what SF has currently.

dbasedweeb 8y ago
I think the question is who’s responsibility it is to protect the woman in your hypothetical. Is it the landlord? New tenants? Some people from Amazon looking to expand? The new cafe charging $5 for rainbow bagels? The state or federal government? The goals of most of those entities are agnostic about the woman, not against her or for her. Rent control basically says the landlord is responsible, your formulation says the government is responsible through increased taxation. I don’t know the answer, but I can understand that most people are too preoccupied with their own lives to prioritize the woman. At the end of the day, someone or a lot of someone’s need to take or share responsibility for the circumstances of the less foruntate, because the alternative is terrible for everyone.
joe_the_user 8y ago
Suppose a disadvantaged woman decides to leave her abusive husband and is trying to find another place to move into. Your hypothetical disadvantaged woman would have zero ability to pay $2000/month rent for a studio, however many of these might be available. She would likely find it hard to get an apartment in a rent-controlled situation - so the situation is effectively "hard versus impossible", a condition where "hard" is less harsh. And I mean, I've lived off and on in the Bay Area under both these conditions over the last forty years and the impossible rents of course are the hardest for those of lesser means. Of frickin course.
- zethraeus 8y ago
  Why are the studios $2000/month in this alternate universe where we don't have rent control?
  - closeparen 8y ago
    Because NIMBYism, height limits, and single family zoning over most of the landmass still exist, and have much stronger effects.
  - joe_the_user 8y ago
    They are in the present universe, where we don't have effective rent control. And effective rent would require controlling evictions and controlling rents on vacant units (infringing further on sacred property rights, certainly). Now, the most effective policy would involved rent control but with exemptions for new very high density units, incentivizing increases in the total housing stock for an urban area. But we're here with weak rent control and tacit collusion of homeowners and builders, who talk about their property rights when convenient and use the state to keep their monopoly when convenient.
- whack 8y ago
  You've ignored my second paragraph which explains a far better way of helping those in need. I'm all in favor of the intentions behind rent control, but the implementation is an atrocious way to achieving its goals. If the goal is to help the poor long-time residents of a city, then do that directly. Raise property taxes, impose a city-income-tax, and use the proceeds to offer assistance to means-tested long-time residents. This would be far better than what SF has currently.
crdoconnor 8y ago
>I'm all in favor of the intentions behind rent control, but the implementation is an atrocious way to achieving its goals. If the goal is to help the poor long-time residents of a city, then do that directly. Rent control is a hack, but it's a hack that largely works. It's not nearly as atrocious as the reputation profit hungry landlords have tried to give it. Why not treat it exactly like any other kind of hack? Take it out, sure, but not a second before the real fix is in place. >Raise property taxes Yes. A lot. And do it first.
- chollida1 8y ago
  > Rent control is a hack, but it's a hack that largely works. It's not nearly as atrocious as the reputation profit hungry landlords have tried to give it Well I'm not sure what economics degree you have, but a Nobel winning one, says that most economists are in agreement and they disagree with you https://www.nytimes.com/2000/06/07/opinion/reckonings-a-rent-affair.html https://www.nytimes.com/2000/06/07/opinion/reckonings-a-rent... > The analysis of rent control is among the best-understood issues in all of economics, and -- among economists, anyway -- one of the least controversial. In 1992 a poll of the American Economic Association found 93 percent of its members agreeing that ''a ceiling on rents reduces the quality and quantity of housing.' So I guess the balls in your court. What evidence would you put forward to prove most economists wrong about rent control?
  - closeparen 8y ago
    It’s entirely possible for someone to understand that, and to be willing to trade the quantity and quality of housing for stability in the lives of existing residents.
  - crdoconnor 8y ago
    >Well I'm not sure what economics degree you have Could your appeal to authority be a little more obvious please? >a Nobel winning one, says that most economists are in agreement and they disagree with you The economist profession is badly captured by moneyed interests. This is partly why they are terrible at building predictive models (think about it: which one of them wasn't blindsided by the financial crisis?). Often the more prestigious seeming the economist, the more captured they are. With Paul Krugman specifically this level of capture was made embarrassingly obvious when he wrote a screed saying "what's wrong with the TPP? More trade is always good!" and then got schooled by his own comments section about what was actually in that trade deal (that had nothing to do with "more trade") and what was wrong with it: https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/12/krugman-running-brand-fumes-transpacific-partnership-edition.html https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/12/krugman-running-bran... He obviously wasn't too stupid to understand it, which is why after enough negative exposure he retracted. I doubt you'll find any Nobel prize winning physicists having to retract a similar "mistake" although I can think of one climate scientist who might. >So I guess the balls in your court. What evidence would you put forward to prove most economists wrong about rent control? New York's highest level of house building occurred under strict rent controls.