8 ms·

The rent control laws in NYC aren't even nearly as bad as SF, despite how much they get demonized here on HN. In NYC units that might be _actually cheap_, as i

The rent control laws in NYC aren't even nearly as bad as SF, despite how much they get demonized here on HN. In NYC units that might be _actually cheap_, as in rent controlled and not stabilized, number roughly 17k units _in total_. And only about 1/3 of those are significantly below market or in desirable neighborhoods. It's almost insignificant and the number of rent controlled units has gone down by roughly HALF in the last 5 years, because the tenants in them are dying and income limits on any descendants usually kick the units out of being controlled into stabilized. NYC has a much larger number of rent stabilized units, which is somewhere near 1/3 of all available units that are renting at or below $2700 (twice the national average, btw). The overwhelming majority of these are within a few hundred dollars of market rate. There are about 4.2M housing units in NYC with roughly 30k being added every year. The "cheap" rent-controlled units are a rounding error. That is not anything like the situation folks in SF are rightfully railing against.

irq11 7y ago
The rent control laws in SF aren’t even as bad as HN comments would have you believe. Rent control doesn’t apply to new construction in SF. It also allows a regulated annual increase, and rent automatically jumps back up to market upon a number of different conditions - not the least of which is that the owner can push you out to renovate the building! HN commenters are usually just repeating stuff they heard somewhere, and have no idea what the laws actually say. Moreover, while there are indeed lots of publications on the theoretical impacts of rent control, few of those publications consider laws as they actually exist, or if they do, the scope of the impacts is rarely communicated when translated into HN talking points. Every study I’m aware of has shown, at worst, diffuse, long-term negative impacts to housing costs. Meanwhile, many of them do exactly what they set out to do: stabilize short-term prices for vulnerable populations. These laws are simply not the boogeymen that comments here make them seem.
- refurb 7y ago
  Rent control in SF really is that bad. Rent increase limits are 60% of CPI, so it can’t even match inflation. If your costs go up (utilities) or you want to do capital improvements, good luck getting the rent board to approve a pass through. Want to prevent other people than the tenant from moving into a 1 bedroom? Tough, can’t say no to that, it just has to be under 3 people. Want to move into your own house? Sure, just pay the tenant a few tens of thousands in “pay off”. SF rent control is absolutely onerous and definitely shrinks the pool of potential landlords and thus potential units.
  - toastal 7y ago
    Why should I care about the woes of landlords as opposed to renters?
    - aaronblohowiak 7y ago
      Because shrinking the number of landlords shrinks the number of units available, raising rents, _hurting renters_.
      - falsedan 7y ago
        are these vanishing landlord eating their properties or just throwing them into the sea
        macspoofing 7y ago
        No. They let population growth take care of that while they decide not to invest in rental properties. Your flippant argument can be flipped around too. If there is a housing shortage, by what mechanism does rent control conjure new housing units?
        falsedan 7y ago
        who the what now my point is, vanishing landlord or no, the units remain
        macspoofing 7y ago
        >my point is, vanishing landlord or no, the units remain Still wrong: 1) Apartments get converted to condos, or re-purposed because the property has value, but renting doesn't. 2) The population keeps growing meaning that your same number of units don't meet the needs. 3) Rental supply also drops as people opt not to move and sit on their rent-controlled apartments, limiting the supply for those looking. This is why rent-control has the effect of making housing worse, even if the rental supply is maintained.
- bobcostas55 7y ago
  >Rent control doesn’t apply to new construction in SF. Conveniently, SF doesn't allow new construction either.
heyoni 7y ago
I think rent stabilized apartments can go a lot higher than $2700. Lots of luxury buildings are taking tax abatements in exchange for rent stabilization and setting aside a number of rent controlled units.
- busterarm 7y ago
  Nope. Units deregulate at $2700. Also there's no such thing as new rent controlled or rent stabilized units since 1970. There's other housing programs like Mitchell-Lama, some that are like what you mentioned, but that's a completely separate thing and a small amount of units. "Rent controlled" and "Rent stabilized" are technical terms in NY.
  - bardam 7y ago
    Your information is correct in general, but there are many exceptions that prove the grandparent correct. My apartment was built in the last 10 years (i.e., after 1970), rents for close to $4k, and IS rent stabilized. See information here: https://www1.nyc.gov/site/rentguidelinesboard/resources/rent-stabilized-building-lists.page https://www1.nyc.gov/site/rentguidelinesboard/resources/rent... Specifically: "Also, some newly constructed buildings may be stabilized due to a 421-a or J-51 tax exemption even if the rent is $2,000 or more." A program that a significant number of developers have taken advantage of.
    - busterarm 7y ago
      Do tell me how your $4k apartment rental, at nearly 3 times the national average rent and above market for most of NYC, is the scourge of housing markets, forcing rents up for everyone and preventing new construction. Because that's what rent regulation's detractors are arguing, even though your empirical evidence (and mine) suggest the opposite. That's the context we're discussing this in.
      - heyoni 7y ago
        OP and my apartments are actually new developments benefiting from these breaks.

irq11 7y ago

The rent control laws in SF aren’t even as bad as HN comments would have you believe. Rent control doesn’t apply to new construction in SF. It also allows a regulated annual increase, and rent automatically jumps back up to market upon a number of different conditions - not the least of which is that the owner can push you out to renovate the building! HN commenters are usually just repeating stuff they heard somewhere, and have no idea what the laws actually say. Moreover, while there are indeed lots of publications on the theoretical impacts of rent control, few of those publications consider laws as they actually exist, or if they do, the scope of the impacts is rarely communicated when translated into HN talking points. Every study I’m aware of has shown, at worst, diffuse, long-term negative impacts to housing costs. Meanwhile, many of them do exactly what they set out to do: stabilize short-term prices for vulnerable populations. These laws are simply not the boogeymen that comments here make them seem.

refurb 7y ago
Rent control in SF really is that bad. Rent increase limits are 60% of CPI, so it can’t even match inflation. If your costs go up (utilities) or you want to do capital improvements, good luck getting the rent board to approve a pass through. Want to prevent other people than the tenant from moving into a 1 bedroom? Tough, can’t say no to that, it just has to be under 3 people. Want to move into your own house? Sure, just pay the tenant a few tens of thousands in “pay off”. SF rent control is absolutely onerous and definitely shrinks the pool of potential landlords and thus potential units.
- toastal 7y ago
  Why should I care about the woes of landlords as opposed to renters?
  - aaronblohowiak 7y ago
    Because shrinking the number of landlords shrinks the number of units available, raising rents, _hurting renters_.
    - falsedan 7y ago
      are these vanishing landlord eating their properties or just throwing them into the sea
      - macspoofing 7y ago
        No. They let population growth take care of that while they decide not to invest in rental properties. Your flippant argument can be flipped around too. If there is a housing shortage, by what mechanism does rent control conjure new housing units?
        falsedan 7y ago
        who the what now my point is, vanishing landlord or no, the units remain
        macspoofing 7y ago
        >my point is, vanishing landlord or no, the units remain Still wrong: 1) Apartments get converted to condos, or re-purposed because the property has value, but renting doesn't. 2) The population keeps growing meaning that your same number of units don't meet the needs. 3) Rental supply also drops as people opt not to move and sit on their rent-controlled apartments, limiting the supply for those looking. This is why rent-control has the effect of making housing worse, even if the rental supply is maintained.
bobcostas55 7y ago
>Rent control doesn’t apply to new construction in SF. Conveniently, SF doesn't allow new construction either.

heyoni 7y ago

I think rent stabilized apartments can go a lot higher than $2700. Lots of luxury buildings are taking tax abatements in exchange for rent stabilization and setting aside a number of rent controlled units.

busterarm 7y ago
Nope. Units deregulate at $2700. Also there's no such thing as new rent controlled or rent stabilized units since 1970. There's other housing programs like Mitchell-Lama, some that are like what you mentioned, but that's a completely separate thing and a small amount of units. "Rent controlled" and "Rent stabilized" are technical terms in NY.
- bardam 7y ago
  Your information is correct in general, but there are many exceptions that prove the grandparent correct. My apartment was built in the last 10 years (i.e., after 1970), rents for close to $4k, and IS rent stabilized. See information here: https://www1.nyc.gov/site/rentguidelinesboard/resources/rent-stabilized-building-lists.page https://www1.nyc.gov/site/rentguidelinesboard/resources/rent... Specifically: "Also, some newly constructed buildings may be stabilized due to a 421-a or J-51 tax exemption even if the rent is $2,000 or more." A program that a significant number of developers have taken advantage of.
  - busterarm 7y ago
    Do tell me how your $4k apartment rental, at nearly 3 times the national average rent and above market for most of NYC, is the scourge of housing markets, forcing rents up for everyone and preventing new construction. Because that's what rent regulation's detractors are arguing, even though your empirical evidence (and mine) suggest the opposite. That's the context we're discussing this in.
    - heyoni 7y ago
      OP and my apartments are actually new developments benefiting from these breaks.