4 ms·

Proposition 10 in California lost because it was a horrible idea. Economists agree, at almost the scale of way they agree about climate change, from the left t

Proposition 10 in California lost because it was a horrible idea. Economists agree, at almost the scale of way they agree about climate change, from the left to the right, that rent control is the most effective way to destroy a city and is counterproductive to its goals. It is a simplistic solution designed by people that have flunked economics who think that just declaring that "rent shall be frozen" that that will make housing cheaper. It was not because billionaires supported it. It failed because it was a terrible idea. * https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-01-18/yup-rent-control-does-more-harm-than-good https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-01-18/yup-re...

RodericDay 8y ago
economists are not scientists rent control makes rent cheaper in montreal
chrisco255 8y ago
Yeah, the way you deal with expensive housing...it should be obvious...is to increase the supply of housing.
- purplezooey 8y ago
  Seen any of that happening lately? :). Last year we built 1 housing unit for every 7 jobs created.
bcherny 8y ago
I’m not sure that’s quite accurate. If you just look at it through the lens of supply and demand, of course rent control is bad. But the real issues are more nuanced than that. For example, a recent study from Stanford found that rent control reduces supply of housing by 15% and raises the income you need to move into the city; on the other side, that same study found that rent control helps protect people that live in the city already, which disproportionately helps people of color and lower income people. There’s a few similar studies. There are definitely tradeoffs here, which depend on your own values. https://web.stanford.edu/~diamondr/DMQ.pdf https://web.stanford.edu/~diamondr/DMQ.pdf
- compsciphd 8y ago
  isn't that another way of saying its a way to create slums? i.e. if wealthier people can't move in, I'd think there's a good chance the existing wealthy people will move out as well, leaving only the lower income people without any tax base to support the services needed for them.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - bcherny 8y ago
    I’m not sure there’s any evidence of that in the studies I’ve seen. It seems a bit far removed from what we actually see today.
- outside1234 8y ago
  When you apply rent control you are basically telling the landlord to not invest in the property any longer. I would bet that you'd find that this only helps people of color and lower income people in the very short run and that eventually you'd find that these apartments turn into ghettos.
femiagbabiaka 8y ago
Almost everyone I’ve met in opposition to rent control is a landlord themselves. Purely anecdotal, but it’s been bulletproof so far. It’s true, rent control is terrible for landlords, but it doesn’t stop housing development. If anything, it encourages it — there’s no other way someone can make a sizable amount of money off of a new property.
- outside1234 8y ago
  How does it encourage it? By saying that the owner will not be able to recoup a return? That does not encourage development. The best way we can help housing is more supply, which in the bay area at least, means higher and denser housing.

RodericDay 8y ago

economists are not scientists rent control makes rent cheaper in montreal

chrisco255 8y ago

Yeah, the way you deal with expensive housing...it should be obvious...is to increase the supply of housing.

purplezooey 8y ago
Seen any of that happening lately? :). Last year we built 1 housing unit for every 7 jobs created.

bcherny 8y ago

I’m not sure that’s quite accurate. If you just look at it through the lens of supply and demand, of course rent control is bad. But the real issues are more nuanced than that. For example, a recent study from Stanford found that rent control reduces supply of housing by 15% and raises the income you need to move into the city; on the other side, that same study found that rent control helps protect people that live in the city already, which disproportionately helps people of color and lower income people. There’s a few similar studies. There are definitely tradeoffs here, which depend on your own values. https://web.stanford.edu/~diamondr/DMQ.pdf https://web.stanford.edu/~diamondr/DMQ.pdf

compsciphd 8y ago
isn't that another way of saying its a way to create slums? i.e. if wealthier people can't move in, I'd think there's a good chance the existing wealthy people will move out as well, leaving only the lower income people without any tax base to support the services needed for them.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- bcherny 8y ago
  I’m not sure there’s any evidence of that in the studies I’ve seen. It seems a bit far removed from what we actually see today.
outside1234 8y ago
When you apply rent control you are basically telling the landlord to not invest in the property any longer. I would bet that you'd find that this only helps people of color and lower income people in the very short run and that eventually you'd find that these apartments turn into ghettos.

femiagbabiaka 8y ago

Almost everyone I’ve met in opposition to rent control is a landlord themselves. Purely anecdotal, but it’s been bulletproof so far. It’s true, rent control is terrible for landlords, but it doesn’t stop housing development. If anything, it encourages it — there’s no other way someone can make a sizable amount of money off of a new property.

outside1234 8y ago
How does it encourage it? By saying that the owner will not be able to recoup a return? That does not encourage development. The best way we can help housing is more supply, which in the bay area at least, means higher and denser housing.