4 ms·

> I dont understand what the argument of this article is. As someone who has tried to maintain a blue collar job in a large city (im an engine mechanic) Its ne

> I dont understand what the argument of this article is. As someone who has tried to maintain a blue collar job in a large city (im an engine mechanic) Its nearly impossible to live anywhere near your job without rent control. Therein lies the problem. Rent control is not the only way to make housing affordable to low-income people. It's not the most efficient or effective way, either. But it persists, because politically it's an easy concept (even if it's an ineffective one), and it also creates a stable voting bloc that will protect it, even if they don't actually need the rent control[0]. [0] In most places, rent control isn't means-tested, so you can end up with incredibly wealthy people living in very valuable properties for next to nothing. Ed Koch, the former mayor of NYC with a net worth of about $10 million, died living in a multimillion dollar penthouse apartment that he rented for $300/month, because the apartment was subject to rent control.

oxryly1 8y ago
It persists because it's the only remotely affordable housing positive legislation that appeals to both renters _and_ homeowners. New market-rate development that would keep pace with demand is consintently zoned and voted out by the electorate. It's an issue in every city in CA for sure.
- chimeracoder 8y ago
  > It persists because it's the only remotely affordable housing positive legislation that appeals to both renters _and_ homeowners. It's really not at all, and I don't know where you get the idea that rent control appeals to homeowners (homeowners hate it!). > New market-rate development that would keep pace with demand is consintently zoned and voted out by the electorate. It's an issue in every city in CA for sure. There are plenty of other programs which are much more effective. In California, no, but that's not the only place to look for examples.
  - oxryly1 8y ago
    Well, I guess its more accurate to say it's the only thing that homeowners will even tolerate -- they do in my city. It's the landlords that hate it, but fortunately they don't get a lot of sympathy in my town's electorate. Now if you talk zoning and granting permits, that's where the hate really begins. And yes, I'm referring to CA where the housing-as-investment vehicle has distorting things more than most other places.

oxryly1 8y ago

It persists because it's the only remotely affordable housing positive legislation that appeals to both renters _and_ homeowners. New market-rate development that would keep pace with demand is consintently zoned and voted out by the electorate. It's an issue in every city in CA for sure.

chimeracoder 8y ago
> It persists because it's the only remotely affordable housing positive legislation that appeals to both renters _and_ homeowners. It's really not at all, and I don't know where you get the idea that rent control appeals to homeowners (homeowners hate it!). > New market-rate development that would keep pace with demand is consintently zoned and voted out by the electorate. It's an issue in every city in CA for sure. There are plenty of other programs which are much more effective. In California, no, but that's not the only place to look for examples.
- oxryly1 8y ago
  Well, I guess its more accurate to say it's the only thing that homeowners will even tolerate -- they do in my city. It's the landlords that hate it, but fortunately they don't get a lot of sympathy in my town's electorate. Now if you talk zoning and granting permits, that's where the hate really begins. And yes, I'm referring to CA where the housing-as-investment vehicle has distorting things more than most other places.