5 ms·
Simple. Put a ceiling on rents. Allow no-one to own more than one home and insist they live in the one they own. In the UK we have a "bedroom tax" but it is aim
by cutler 8y ago
Simple. Put a ceiling on rents. Allow no-one to own more than one home and insist they live in the one they own. In the UK we have a "bedroom tax" but it is aimed at the poor, not the rich as it should be. Make it illegal to discriminate against anyone based on their income source or the state of their health. Build housing exclusively for low-income occupants instead of throwing everything onto the insidious property market. Ban property markets altogether and replace them with government-regulated allocation. No. Thought not. No-one is really serious about solving the world housing crisis. So long as politicians rely on the comfortable middle-class for their survival nothing will change.
- spookthesunset 8y ago> Put a ceiling on rents Sorry, but this is the worst possible solution. Source: basic economics. Rent control is one of the most dangerous "solutions" to high housing costs people ever toss out. It would destroy the housing market and make it vastly more expensive than it is now.
- cutler 8y agoDemonstrably untrue. Spend some time in Vienna or Berlin.
- conanbatt 8y agoEh, berlin is a city with the housing capacity in multiples of its population. You dont need to put any ceiling on rents to have them down.
- deathanatos 8y ago> We find that landlords actively respond to the imposition of rent control by converting their properties to condos and TICs or by redeveloping the building in such as a way as to exempt it from the regulations. In sum, we find that impacted landlords reduced the supply the available rental housing by 15%. Consistent with this evidence, we find that there was a 20% decline in the number of renters living in impacted buildings, relative to 1990-1994 levels, and a 30% decline in the number of renters living in units protected by rent control. > These results highlight that forcing landlords to provided insurance against rent increases leads to large losses to tenants —The Effects of Rent Control Expansion on Tenants, Landlords, and Inequality: Evidence from San Francisco[1] The study largely fins that, in addition to rent control causing the available supply to decrease, and tenant mobility/freedom to decrease, it largely harms new renters, and results in a wealth transfer to existing renters. It does not solve the problem, and it does not on the whole benefit society. [1]: https://www.nber.org/papers/w24181.pdf https://www.nber.org/papers/w24181.pdf
- axilmar 8y agoDoesn't it seem to you that the problem is those regulations that can allow the exemptions rather than rent control? I mean, if it wasn't possible to exempt a building from the regulations, there wouldn't be an issue with rent control.
- nostrademons 8y agoWhen you don't allow exemptions from rent control, you get something like the Bronx in the 1970s, where landlords set fire to their own buildings to collect insurance money rather than rent them out. [1] There's always an exemption - if you don't provide a legal one, people will find an undetectable illegal one. [1] https://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20100610/BLOGS01/306109998/a-history-lesson-on-rent-regulation-in-the-1970s https://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20100610/BLOGS01/30610...
- axilmar 8y agoThe article you posted does not say anything about fire (I searched for the word 'fire'). Even in that case though, what was the percentage of buildings burnt because of rent controls? if it was extremely low (as in less then 0.01%), then there is no real problem.
- nostrademons 8y agoSearch for "arson" instead. There was a photo-essay of the devastation (seriously, it looked like a war zone) posted on HN about a month ago. I can't find the link now, but if you Google "pictures of 1970s Bronx", the Image Search links give you a sense.
- pascalxus 8y agoAnd this is exactly why the bay area is in such terrible conditions. Every bit of regulation you add, only decreases the housing available. more regulation is what got us into this mess. The less regulation we have, and less zoning, the more housing we'll have, it's that simple. We simply need more housing, lots more. once that happens prices will come down.
- collyw 8y ago> We simply need more housing, lots more. once that happens prices will come down. When the majority of politicians or their partners own second homes, that ain't going to happen.
- lubujackson 8y agoThis is so illogical. For one, who is going to build these properties for low-income people only? Costs will be almost the same, profits will be way less. So why would a developer bother? In fact, the recent change to require a higher percentage of low income units in new structures has killed the pipeline for new building starts. Even if it seems counterproductive to the goal of helping low income people, historically new building starts have always been aspirational. Which makes sense - everyone wants a new car, but if you have little money you are better off getting a reliable used car. It is exactly the same for housing. When someone moves into a new condo that opens up a unit (and lowers the price incrementally) for someone who has less to spend. Would it make sense to force carmakers to build cheap cars that only low-income people are eligible to buy?
- cutler 8y agoYou're thinking purely within a capitalist framework. There is no capitalist solution to this problem. The solution is unprofitable. I encourage you to think outside this framework as humanity itself is at stake not just profits.
- cbkeller 8y agoOk, so I could imagine rent control would work fine in (e.g.) the bay area if there was also (1) Government-built (or heavily subsidized) housing to get around the fact that rent control limits the capitalist demand for new housing (2) Strong central government to force out NIMBYs for the greater social good In this context, would you agree that rent control seems counterproductive unless we were to switch to a socialized economy overall? > There is no capitalist solution to this problem. I'm curious if others here would agree with this; I don't have a strong opinion yet.
- conanbatt 8y agoReally, housing is where capitalism breaks down.
- com2kid 8y ago
- hackeraccount 8y agoRegulations increase the value of goods and services by creating predictability. Competition reduces the cost of goods.
- cutler 8y agoSo spake Adam Smith. Sorry but the Invisible Hand is a fairy tale.
- pcwalton 8y agoIn this utopia, if you want to move into SF for work, then what happens, specifically? Is it like Vienna, where you go on a wait list?
- dragonwriter 8y ago> Put a ceiling on rents. Allow no-one to own more than one home and insist they live in the one they own. Doesn't the latter make the former moot, or is this a limit on rent of spare rooms in owner-occupied housing?
- ReptileMan 8y agoBuild more highrises seems better solution. Asia builds them on the cheap and on conveyor belt. And they do fine.