8 ms·

The amount of popular support for rent control depresses me in the same way that the popularity of lottery tickets does. People in general seem to have an endle

by majos 8y ago

The amount of popular support for rent control depresses me in the same way that the popularity of lottery tickets does. People in general seem to have an endless capacity to believe that the rare, improbable, valuable opportunity will go to them.

majormajor 8y ago
Rent control to reduce uncertainty for people already living there isn't a lottery odds thing - it's not a solution to the problem of hard to find new places, it's a solution to the problem of getting priced out by external forces. It has side effects, but is also addressing a specific problem people want to handle that isn't necessarily fixed by "just build a bunch of new market-rate housing." Weakening rent control in the 90s in CA didn't prevent the current homelessness problems, so I have some skepticism around taking that even further. Pushing people who could afford marginal housing into no longer being able to afford it seems like a bang-up way to increase homelessness. Part of the root of the problem seems to be cities that trying to both avoid densifying but also increase commercial and office space and occupancy and jobs. Either policy would be fine by itself, but they explode when put together. Some cities are slowly starting to realize this, but saying "we don't need a constant economic growth rate of X% if we don't want the feel of our city to change" may not be an easy choice for politicians to sell.
- majos 8y ago
  Good point. I was thinking of this from the perspective of people who can't afford to live in place x, not people trying to avoid being forced out of place x by rising rents. I'm not well-versed in the state of rent control in CA, but I am seeing more rent control put forth as a viable alternative to just building more residences. That strikes me as a bad idea.
- roenxi 8y ago
  > It has side effects, but is also addressing a specific problem people want to handle that isn't necessarily fixed by "just build a bunch of new market-rate housing." It is a sad fact of life that the best outcome for everybody is to let the economically productive take first pick of any available resources; because they will by definition take them and turn them into more resources. This idea that someone has a right to live somewhere because they were there first is not unreasonable, but the path of least suffering is that people pay the market price for rent. There needs to be pretty overwhelming evidence that the problem is with what consenting adults agree to rather than the government being unreasonable with the rules on constructing new building. I'd bet that the US hasn't reached that threshold yet.
  - majormajor 8y ago
    Why does the market price in one city need to be several times higher than in another? Why do so many of the high-paying tech jobs need to be concentrated on the west coast instead of more distributed? Are the benefits of that concentration truly higher, and truly purely rational "path of least suffering," in order to justify all the costs of it? You also make an distinction between what consenting adults agree to in contracts and what those same consenting adults do in local governance and regulation. But why wouldn't they have the right to say "we don't want buildings over three stories here," say? Why is that necessarily "unreasonable" yet a landlord deciding to raise someone's rent 40% wouldn't be?
    - twoodfin 8y ago
      “They” don’t own the buildings, but the landlord owns his. If no one wants to pay an additional 40%, he gets to pound sand.
  - zamazingo 8y ago
    > It is a sad fact of life that the best outcome for everybody is to let the economically productive take first pick of any available resources That is not a fact of life, it is simply a hypocritical way of legitimizing monopolistic advantage. What one defines as economically productive will unequivocally align with the groups one favors over others. Power is not natural, it is created and reproduced, and naturalized beyond the realm of critical thought by false claims to the facts of Life. Does life really as facts? Which life?
    - closeparen 8y ago
      “Economically productive” isn’t a subjective interpretation. It’s what produces the most money. In a society we tax productivity and use the revenue collected to run services that lift up those at the bottom. More money is available for redistribution when we are collectively more productive. Suppressing productivity in the name of fairness is highly satisfying to a large contingent of politically active folks who are passionate about it, but better outcomes can usually be purchased with the tax revenue it brings. Case in point: neighborhoods that are proud of themselves for thwarting evil developers in the name of affordability end up with fewer affordable units, because we fund affordable units as a percentage of total construction.
- nerfhammer 8y ago
  It's a lottery in that if you are lucky enough to have a certain kind of lease already you deserve to get cheap rent for life but not if you don't already have a certain kind of lease. It's not something you qualify for by falling into a condition where you need it or it stops when/if you no longer need it. I know plenty of people that became quite wealthy and of course still get rent control.
damnyou 8y ago
(to be sure, the most insidious form of rent control in California is Prop 13)
scarmig 8y ago
Rent control isn't the fundamental cause of high housing costs: it's mostly a matter of supply and demand. And, yes, rent control limits supply a bit, but nowhere near as much as complicated, arcane, and expensive building and zoning codes. Given the trade offs, the only reforms I'd make to rent control is having some kind of gradual income requirements. The higher your income, the less rent control you get, up to the point (say, $100k+) where you aren't protected by it at all. Even that is mostly for optics, though, and wouldn't help housing costs too much.
- majos 8y ago
  Agreed, but my primary bone to pick here is that people seem to be proposing further rent control as a viable solution to the housing problem, rather than fixing existing restrictive building codes.
  - scarmig 8y ago
    Hahah. Well, if rent control's high level of support raises your blood pressure, wait till I tell you about San Francisco's popular BMR lottery... ;)
    - closeparen 8y ago
      A low-income applicant has a nonzero chance in a BMR lottery, which is better than their 0% chance in a market-rate building. There is a logic to it. Unfortunately the thinking usually stops there, rather than considering how to raise the chances overall.
  - closeparen 8y ago
    Further rent control is a viable solution to the problem of existing residents being displaced. It isn’t a solution to the difficulty of moving to desirable areas, but rent control advocates don’t consider that a legitimate problem. Or at least are okay with dampening the upward mobility of already affluent creative-class types to protect marginalized communities.
ericmcer 8y ago
I feel like its a branding issue. "Rent Control" sounds good, I don't think people consider it beyond the initial feeling the words imbue. It is also weird that young people are generally in favor of rent control even though they move frequently and it is just another wealth transfer from the young to the old.
Ar-Curunir 8y ago
The problem isn't with rent control, it's wit rich folks opposing new construction because of various flimsy reasons. Where do you think new housing has come up most in the Bay Area? Poor neighborhoods with lots of rent control, or rich neighbourhoods? (Hint: you don't hear about gentrification issues in rich parts of the bay area because nobody can build new things there)

by majos 8y ago

majormajor 8y ago

Rent control to reduce uncertainty for people already living there isn't a lottery odds thing - it's not a solution to the problem of hard to find new places, it's a solution to the problem of getting priced out by external forces. It has side effects, but is also addressing a specific problem people want to handle that isn't necessarily fixed by "just build a bunch of new market-rate housing." Weakening rent control in the 90s in CA didn't prevent the current homelessness problems, so I have some skepticism around taking that even further. Pushing people who could afford marginal housing into no longer being able to afford it seems like a bang-up way to increase homelessness. Part of the root of the problem seems to be cities that trying to both avoid densifying but also increase commercial and office space and occupancy and jobs. Either policy would be fine by itself, but they explode when put together. Some cities are slowly starting to realize this, but saying "we don't need a constant economic growth rate of X% if we don't want the feel of our city to change" may not be an easy choice for politicians to sell.

majos 8y ago
Good point. I was thinking of this from the perspective of people who can't afford to live in place x, not people trying to avoid being forced out of place x by rising rents. I'm not well-versed in the state of rent control in CA, but I am seeing more rent control put forth as a viable alternative to just building more residences. That strikes me as a bad idea.
roenxi 8y ago
> It has side effects, but is also addressing a specific problem people want to handle that isn't necessarily fixed by "just build a bunch of new market-rate housing." It is a sad fact of life that the best outcome for everybody is to let the economically productive take first pick of any available resources; because they will by definition take them and turn them into more resources. This idea that someone has a right to live somewhere because they were there first is not unreasonable, but the path of least suffering is that people pay the market price for rent. There needs to be pretty overwhelming evidence that the problem is with what consenting adults agree to rather than the government being unreasonable with the rules on constructing new building. I'd bet that the US hasn't reached that threshold yet.
- majormajor 8y ago
  Why does the market price in one city need to be several times higher than in another? Why do so many of the high-paying tech jobs need to be concentrated on the west coast instead of more distributed? Are the benefits of that concentration truly higher, and truly purely rational "path of least suffering," in order to justify all the costs of it? You also make an distinction between what consenting adults agree to in contracts and what those same consenting adults do in local governance and regulation. But why wouldn't they have the right to say "we don't want buildings over three stories here," say? Why is that necessarily "unreasonable" yet a landlord deciding to raise someone's rent 40% wouldn't be?
  - twoodfin 8y ago
    “They” don’t own the buildings, but the landlord owns his. If no one wants to pay an additional 40%, he gets to pound sand.
- zamazingo 8y ago
  > It is a sad fact of life that the best outcome for everybody is to let the economically productive take first pick of any available resources That is not a fact of life, it is simply a hypocritical way of legitimizing monopolistic advantage. What one defines as economically productive will unequivocally align with the groups one favors over others. Power is not natural, it is created and reproduced, and naturalized beyond the realm of critical thought by false claims to the facts of Life. Does life really as facts? Which life?
  - closeparen 8y ago
    “Economically productive” isn’t a subjective interpretation. It’s what produces the most money. In a society we tax productivity and use the revenue collected to run services that lift up those at the bottom. More money is available for redistribution when we are collectively more productive. Suppressing productivity in the name of fairness is highly satisfying to a large contingent of politically active folks who are passionate about it, but better outcomes can usually be purchased with the tax revenue it brings. Case in point: neighborhoods that are proud of themselves for thwarting evil developers in the name of affordability end up with fewer affordable units, because we fund affordable units as a percentage of total construction.
nerfhammer 8y ago
It's a lottery in that if you are lucky enough to have a certain kind of lease already you deserve to get cheap rent for life but not if you don't already have a certain kind of lease. It's not something you qualify for by falling into a condition where you need it or it stops when/if you no longer need it. I know plenty of people that became quite wealthy and of course still get rent control.

damnyou 8y ago

(to be sure, the most insidious form of rent control in California is Prop 13)

scarmig 8y ago

Rent control isn't the fundamental cause of high housing costs: it's mostly a matter of supply and demand. And, yes, rent control limits supply a bit, but nowhere near as much as complicated, arcane, and expensive building and zoning codes. Given the trade offs, the only reforms I'd make to rent control is having some kind of gradual income requirements. The higher your income, the less rent control you get, up to the point (say, $100k+) where you aren't protected by it at all. Even that is mostly for optics, though, and wouldn't help housing costs too much.

majos 8y ago
Agreed, but my primary bone to pick here is that people seem to be proposing further rent control as a viable solution to the housing problem, rather than fixing existing restrictive building codes.
- scarmig 8y ago
  Hahah. Well, if rent control's high level of support raises your blood pressure, wait till I tell you about San Francisco's popular BMR lottery... ;)
  - closeparen 8y ago
    A low-income applicant has a nonzero chance in a BMR lottery, which is better than their 0% chance in a market-rate building. There is a logic to it. Unfortunately the thinking usually stops there, rather than considering how to raise the chances overall.
- closeparen 8y ago
  Further rent control is a viable solution to the problem of existing residents being displaced. It isn’t a solution to the difficulty of moving to desirable areas, but rent control advocates don’t consider that a legitimate problem. Or at least are okay with dampening the upward mobility of already affluent creative-class types to protect marginalized communities.

ericmcer 8y ago

I feel like its a branding issue. "Rent Control" sounds good, I don't think people consider it beyond the initial feeling the words imbue. It is also weird that young people are generally in favor of rent control even though they move frequently and it is just another wealth transfer from the young to the old.

Ar-Curunir 8y ago

The problem isn't with rent control, it's wit rich folks opposing new construction because of various flimsy reasons. Where do you think new housing has come up most in the Bay Area? Poor neighborhoods with lots of rent control, or rich neighbourhoods? (Hint: you don't hear about gentrification issues in rich parts of the bay area because nobody can build new things there)