5 ms·

> Turnabout is fair play. The biggest myth is that this kind of stuff actually helps the less-powerful. In reality, it just means they are hurt twice: governme

> Turnabout is fair play. The biggest myth is that this kind of stuff actually helps the less-powerful. In reality, it just means they are hurt twice: government artificially suppressing supply, and government manipulating prices which has bad side effects for mamy even if its good for a few. Also, in reality, the powerful often don't get hurt, and arbitrary market manipulations just introduce new ways for them to get an advantage somehow.

rtpg 7y ago
> manipulating prices which has bad side effects for many even if its good for a few. There are way more renters than owners. Prices have been going up more than 5%. Owners are most definitely not the "less-powerful" here. So in reality the gov't might be artificially surpressing supply (though it's mostly due to owner pushback), but the "manipulating prices" (trying to keep rent growth from getting out of control) is helping less-powerful. I get the point about how this can default owners to just increase prices. Well they were going to be doing that anyways! Especially with surpressed supply! Arguing that "overall price increases with this law" > "overall prices increase without this law" is non-intuitive and probably just not true. (thought experiment: if raising 5% every year with the law made sense, why would it not make sense to raise it 5% every year without the law? This law doesn't prevent other owners from offering _lower_ rents, if the market calls for it)
- AnthonyMouse 7y ago
  > thought experiment: if raising 5% every year with the law made sense, why would it not make sense to raise it 5% every year without the law? If you don't raise it now then you can no longer do it later in the event that taxes or mortgage interest rates or some other cost increases. That creates a major risk for the landlord, which most of them would prefer to mitigate by raising rents even if it means apartments going vacant longer. And when they're all similarly situated, they all do the same thing, which means the tenants can't avoid the rent increases by moving to another apartment, which allows for more of the landlords to get in on the rent increase without incurring vacancies.
- tylerl 7y ago
  Having an actual number on the books shared by all creates an expectation. It's an anchor. If everyone agrees a 5% increase is reasonable, then everyone will do it. Now you don't need a reason, you're just keeping up with the market.
eagsalazar2 7y ago
Give me a break. Until suppression of building new units stops (by poor, helpless owners), this is the only recourse. I agree wholeheartedly that the real solution is to build more homes but that doesn't appear to be in the cards. So the idea that rent control doesn't actually help lower income people is _completely_ nuts. I know of many people off the top of my head that no-way would still be living in San Francisco if there weren't rent control (including my elderly aunt and uncle).
- Renevith 7y ago
  If there weren't rent control, market rents would certainly be much lower, so it's really hard to say whether your aunt and uncle could afford it or not. Surely you weren't basing your statement on the current market rent in their neighborhood? On what basis are you making that claim?
  - negrit 7y ago
    > If there weren't rent control, market rents would certainly be much lower source?
    - Renevith 7y ago
      Here's the latest: "... while rent control prevents displacement of incumbent renters in the short run, the lost rental housing supply likely drove up market rents in the long run, ultimately undermining the goals of the law." https://web.stanford.edu/~diamondr/DMQ.pdf https://web.stanford.edu/~diamondr/DMQ.pdf Previously: "Rent control policies generally lead to higher rents in the uncontrolled market, with rents some-times substantially higher than would be expected without rent control (i.e., between 10 to 25 percent higher). Over time, if rent control does not apply to new construction, there is some evidence that the impact on uncontrolled rents diminishes." https://www.nmhc.org/globalassets/knowledge-library/rent-control-literature-review-final2.pdf https://www.nmhc.org/globalassets/knowledge-library/rent-con... It also follows from supply and demand. Owners are more likely to sell rather than rent out their places, and tenants are more likely to stay in their below-market rent units, both of which reduces supply for new (i.e. market-rate) tenants.
jogjayr 7y ago
Think of it as landlords having to share some of their Prop 13 savings with tenants. Now both owners and renters can both enjoy the protection of not being forced from their homes due to an increase in cost.

rtpg 7y ago

> manipulating prices which has bad side effects for many even if its good for a few. There are way more renters than owners. Prices have been going up more than 5%. Owners are most definitely not the "less-powerful" here. So in reality the gov't might be artificially surpressing supply (though it's mostly due to owner pushback), but the "manipulating prices" (trying to keep rent growth from getting out of control) is helping less-powerful. I get the point about how this can default owners to just increase prices. Well they were going to be doing that anyways! Especially with surpressed supply! Arguing that "overall price increases with this law" > "overall prices increase without this law" is non-intuitive and probably just not true. (thought experiment: if raising 5% every year with the law made sense, why would it not make sense to raise it 5% every year without the law? This law doesn't prevent other owners from offering _lower_ rents, if the market calls for it)

AnthonyMouse 7y ago
> thought experiment: if raising 5% every year with the law made sense, why would it not make sense to raise it 5% every year without the law? If you don't raise it now then you can no longer do it later in the event that taxes or mortgage interest rates or some other cost increases. That creates a major risk for the landlord, which most of them would prefer to mitigate by raising rents even if it means apartments going vacant longer. And when they're all similarly situated, they all do the same thing, which means the tenants can't avoid the rent increases by moving to another apartment, which allows for more of the landlords to get in on the rent increase without incurring vacancies.
tylerl 7y ago
Having an actual number on the books shared by all creates an expectation. It's an anchor. If everyone agrees a 5% increase is reasonable, then everyone will do it. Now you don't need a reason, you're just keeping up with the market.

eagsalazar2 7y ago

Give me a break. Until suppression of building new units stops (by poor, helpless owners), this is the only recourse. I agree wholeheartedly that the real solution is to build more homes but that doesn't appear to be in the cards. So the idea that rent control doesn't actually help lower income people is _completely_ nuts. I know of many people off the top of my head that no-way would still be living in San Francisco if there weren't rent control (including my elderly aunt and uncle).

Renevith 7y ago
If there weren't rent control, market rents would certainly be much lower, so it's really hard to say whether your aunt and uncle could afford it or not. Surely you weren't basing your statement on the current market rent in their neighborhood? On what basis are you making that claim?
- negrit 7y ago
  > If there weren't rent control, market rents would certainly be much lower source?
  - Renevith 7y ago
    Here's the latest: "... while rent control prevents displacement of incumbent renters in the short run, the lost rental housing supply likely drove up market rents in the long run, ultimately undermining the goals of the law." https://web.stanford.edu/~diamondr/DMQ.pdf https://web.stanford.edu/~diamondr/DMQ.pdf Previously: "Rent control policies generally lead to higher rents in the uncontrolled market, with rents some-times substantially higher than would be expected without rent control (i.e., between 10 to 25 percent higher). Over time, if rent control does not apply to new construction, there is some evidence that the impact on uncontrolled rents diminishes." https://www.nmhc.org/globalassets/knowledge-library/rent-control-literature-review-final2.pdf https://www.nmhc.org/globalassets/knowledge-library/rent-con... It also follows from supply and demand. Owners are more likely to sell rather than rent out their places, and tenants are more likely to stay in their below-market rent units, both of which reduces supply for new (i.e. market-rate) tenants.

jogjayr 7y ago

Think of it as landlords having to share some of their Prop 13 savings with tenants. Now both owners and renters can both enjoy the protection of not being forced from their homes due to an increase in cost.