4 ms·

Rent control decreases the liquidity of the rental market because anyone currently renting is strongly incentivized to stay put in order to keep their low rate.

by kec 7y ago

cryptoz 7y ago
I still don't understand this. Most people are motivated by a lot more than the desire to pay less rent. Jobs change, people move, they go upward in their careers, etc. Is there any evidence to suggest that rent prices are actually "strong incentives" to not move? I think this isn't true. I think people are much more motivated by their social circles, their job prospects, upward social mobility by working hard, or starting a business, etc. There are so many factors that go into choosing where to live that I find it difficult to believe that simple rent control like this would "strongly incentivize" people at large to not move. Especially in California. Anecdotally, I have voluntarily left 5+ rent-controlled apartments without even a thought to them being rent controlled and my next place being unknown. It simply has not mattered, because the amount saved by rent is often far less important than the other aspects of life.
- kec 7y ago
  Your experience may be exceptional. When money is tight, people make what can send to be strange decisions. Also anecdotally, I don’t know anyone in SF living in a tent controlled apartment whose name is actually on the lease, they’re all illegally subletting from the actual named tenant to keep the rate locked in.
  - cryptoz 7y ago
    > because anyone currently renting Not everyone who is renting has tight money situation. Your complement states that everyone who is renting will have a tight money situation and then follow the 'strong incentives' that you have prescribed to them without knowing who they are. You don't know what incentivizes those people. It sure as heck isn't primarily saving on rent, especially in SF. > Also anecdotally, I don’t know anyone in SF living in a tent controlled apartment whose name is actually on the lease, they’re all illegally subletting from the actual named tenant to keep the rate locked in. Well that seems like an entirely separate issue. Go after the people doing illegal things that are hurting your rental market. Stop that activity from happening if it's illegal, don't use some existent, illegal activity to then set into stone why passing new laws is bad. That doesn't make any sense.

Rent control decreases the liquidity of the rental market because anyone currently renting is strongly incentivized to stay put in order to keep their low rate.

by kec 7y ago

Rent control decreases the liquidity of the rental market because anyone currently renting is strongly incentivized to stay put in order to keep their low rate.

cryptoz 7y ago

I still don't understand this. Most people are motivated by a lot more than the desire to pay less rent. Jobs change, people move, they go upward in their careers, etc. Is there any evidence to suggest that rent prices are actually "strong incentives" to not move? I think this isn't true. I think people are much more motivated by their social circles, their job prospects, upward social mobility by working hard, or starting a business, etc. There are so many factors that go into choosing where to live that I find it difficult to believe that simple rent control like this would "strongly incentivize" people at large to not move. Especially in California. Anecdotally, I have voluntarily left 5+ rent-controlled apartments without even a thought to them being rent controlled and my next place being unknown. It simply has not mattered, because the amount saved by rent is often far less important than the other aspects of life.

kec 7y ago
Your experience may be exceptional. When money is tight, people make what can send to be strange decisions. Also anecdotally, I don’t know anyone in SF living in a tent controlled apartment whose name is actually on the lease, they’re all illegally subletting from the actual named tenant to keep the rate locked in.
- cryptoz 7y ago
  > because anyone currently renting Not everyone who is renting has tight money situation. Your complement states that everyone who is renting will have a tight money situation and then follow the 'strong incentives' that you have prescribed to them without knowing who they are. You don't know what incentivizes those people. It sure as heck isn't primarily saving on rent, especially in SF. > Also anecdotally, I don’t know anyone in SF living in a tent controlled apartment whose name is actually on the lease, they’re all illegally subletting from the actual named tenant to keep the rate locked in. Well that seems like an entirely separate issue. Go after the people doing illegal things that are hurting your rental market. Stop that activity from happening if it's illegal, don't use some existent, illegal activity to then set into stone why passing new laws is bad. That doesn't make any sense.