5 ms·

This is an interesting conversation. As others have said, this article does indicate rent control works for the renters. What are the arguments about who it doe

by xrd 8y ago

This is an interesting conversation. As others have said, this article does indicate rent control works for the renters. What are the arguments about who it doesn't work for? I've heard landlords angry about this kind of thing in Oregon but never heard them complain about the values of their properties skyrocketing. It's human nature to only see the downside. But, is the solution to make these rent controls temporary? Is the big problem, as the article suggests, that the laws don't adapt to the dynamic nature inherent to cities? Could blockchain solve this? Joking!

orangecat 8y ago
this article does indicate rent control works for the renters Current renters. Future renters get locked out. What are the arguments about who it doesn't work for? By discouraging development, it creates an environment where the only people who can afford housing are the rent control lottery winners, and the very wealthy who can outbid everyone else for the few remaining units. In other words, San Francisco.
- repsilat 8y ago
  It also discourages downsizing. If you're old and retired, and want to move into a house that's a bit smaller now that your kids have moved out, maybe you can't afford to because it would mean paying more in rent than you do currently. This can exacerbate (or cause) shortages.
  - xrd 8y ago
    I would argue this is actually a separate thing. Rent control does one thing. Zoning laws like they have in SF that prevent building more dense structures prevent people from selling in one area and then finding a new property that is much smaller in the same area. The combination of rent control and NIMBY zoning laws makes downsizing challenging.
- geezerjay 8y ago
  > (...) creates an environment where the only people who can afford housing are the rent control lottery winners, and the very wealthy who can outbid everyone else for the few remaining units. In other words, San Francisco. I would also add that it also creates the ideal environment for corruption and organized crime, as bribing decision-makers becomes the only way for some to have access to desirable housing. Supply and demand always works, and if those with a higher purchasing power are in the race then their highet offers are extended through side-channels.
- xrd 8y ago
  That's interesting. When all is said and done, I'm not opposed to discriminating against future renters. My reasoning: I grew up in Portland, and I love(d) the art and music scene there. And, lots of the people who were at the forefront of building that culture (rightly or wrongly) did not (or could not) invest in their long term housing future by buying a crappy house in a terrible neighborhood that now is totally gentrified. I feel like they made an investment in the quality of life that I benefited from, and rent control seems like it helps them. It does discriminate against future renters. But, isn't that the point, that future renters didn't invest in the city in the same way? I would love to find a solution that makes it so that future artists can come in and make the same contributions without having to be trustafarians, and it seems like organizations like the Actors Fund in NYC (https://actorsfund.org/ https://actorsfund.org/) work to make this possible in a small way. I do see that rent control policies discriminate (prevents a pure free market) against property owners. But, it does not seem like we are really accounting for all the benefits they get when a property increases in value because of the investments made by renters in the area. If we could do that honestly, maybe we could come up with a more honest way to handle rent control.
  - bzbarsky 8y ago
    > I'm not opposed to discriminating against future renters. Note that in the typical case the "future renters" are the kids of the current renters....
aeternus 8y ago
I would also be careful about saying it 'works' for the renters. I know multiple people that are subleasing rent-controlled apartments in SF. The actual renter lives well outside of SF, and sublets the apartment at slightly below market. This works out for both the original renter and the new renter (who would not qualify for rent-control) so there is negative incentive to report. In some cases, the renter can live off the delta in rent and 'invest' nothing but the security deposit. Risk of getting caught is minimal, and there is little paper-trail. Interestingly, you now have two people / families rather than just one that is pro-rent control.

by xrd 8y ago

orangecat 8y ago

this article does indicate rent control works for the renters Current renters. Future renters get locked out. What are the arguments about who it doesn't work for? By discouraging development, it creates an environment where the only people who can afford housing are the rent control lottery winners, and the very wealthy who can outbid everyone else for the few remaining units. In other words, San Francisco.

repsilat 8y ago
It also discourages downsizing. If you're old and retired, and want to move into a house that's a bit smaller now that your kids have moved out, maybe you can't afford to because it would mean paying more in rent than you do currently. This can exacerbate (or cause) shortages.
- xrd 8y ago
  I would argue this is actually a separate thing. Rent control does one thing. Zoning laws like they have in SF that prevent building more dense structures prevent people from selling in one area and then finding a new property that is much smaller in the same area. The combination of rent control and NIMBY zoning laws makes downsizing challenging.
geezerjay 8y ago
> (...) creates an environment where the only people who can afford housing are the rent control lottery winners, and the very wealthy who can outbid everyone else for the few remaining units. In other words, San Francisco. I would also add that it also creates the ideal environment for corruption and organized crime, as bribing decision-makers becomes the only way for some to have access to desirable housing. Supply and demand always works, and if those with a higher purchasing power are in the race then their highet offers are extended through side-channels.
xrd 8y ago
That's interesting. When all is said and done, I'm not opposed to discriminating against future renters. My reasoning: I grew up in Portland, and I love(d) the art and music scene there. And, lots of the people who were at the forefront of building that culture (rightly or wrongly) did not (or could not) invest in their long term housing future by buying a crappy house in a terrible neighborhood that now is totally gentrified. I feel like they made an investment in the quality of life that I benefited from, and rent control seems like it helps them. It does discriminate against future renters. But, isn't that the point, that future renters didn't invest in the city in the same way? I would love to find a solution that makes it so that future artists can come in and make the same contributions without having to be trustafarians, and it seems like organizations like the Actors Fund in NYC (https://actorsfund.org/ https://actorsfund.org/) work to make this possible in a small way. I do see that rent control policies discriminate (prevents a pure free market) against property owners. But, it does not seem like we are really accounting for all the benefits they get when a property increases in value because of the investments made by renters in the area. If we could do that honestly, maybe we could come up with a more honest way to handle rent control.
- bzbarsky 8y ago
  > I'm not opposed to discriminating against future renters. Note that in the typical case the "future renters" are the kids of the current renters....

aeternus 8y ago

I would also be careful about saying it 'works' for the renters. I know multiple people that are subleasing rent-controlled apartments in SF. The actual renter lives well outside of SF, and sublets the apartment at slightly below market. This works out for both the original renter and the new renter (who would not qualify for rent-control) so there is negative incentive to report. In some cases, the renter can live off the delta in rent and 'invest' nothing but the security deposit. Risk of getting caught is minimal, and there is little paper-trail. Interestingly, you now have two people / families rather than just one that is pro-rent control.