3 ms·

Yes, the real solution is to make life as easy as possible for real estate developers and strip tenants of their rights. That is definitely good for tenants, a

Yes, the real solution is to make life as easy as possible for real estate developers and strip tenants of their rights. That is definitely good for tenants, according to landlords such as yourself. For the rest of us, I hope you understand why this sounds fairly nonsensical. "More housing" does not automatically translate to "affordable housing" and many regulations are there for a reason--including regulations protecting tenants from unscrupulous landlords.

eru 7y ago
How does more housing not translate to more affordable housing? Do rich people to afford that extra housing get created out of thin air?
- Jweb_Guru 7y ago
  The government is perfectly capable of paying for housing if it is so inclined. It is also capable of providing incentives for creating new housing in certain markets, such as discounts; the idea that this can only be incentivized by charging new and existing tenants insanely high rents is the problem. Perhaps it could get some of the money required to do this by extracting it from the tremendous number of wealthy people living in SF, many of whom are probably browsing HN right now. It would likely be easier to do that if their rents weren't so astronomical, of course... As for "does not translate to affordable housing"--right now landlords and property developers have two ways of extracting money from the system: charge high rents, or pass the property on to other landlords. Maximizing profit on either of these requires rents to keep going up, and for the second there's no particular reason to actually have tenants. Beyond that, "market rate" in SF right now is nowhere close to affordable for most people and will not be for the foreseeable future, even if building greatly increases, which means that the people currently protected by rent control--those who can't afford "market rate", like the vast majority of people in the U.S.--aren't helped one bit by the creation of new housing.
- woah 7y ago
  As amazing as it seems, a lot of far left people in the Bay Area who engage in the housing debate actually don’t believe in supply and demand. Hard to have any kind of discussion on that basis.
  - Jweb_Guru 7y ago
    I believe that, on average, housing prices increase when housing is limited and decrease when it is not. I don't believe this relationship is nearly as linear as people imagine, especially since not all "demand" for housing comes from people wanting to live in it (thanks to rampant speculation in the market). I also don't believe that even a tremendous increase in available housing will cause the price to decrease enough that rent is actually affordable for the people who currently depend on rent control, and I am not willing to treat those people as "collateral damage" in the quest to lower housing prices in SF.
    - eru 7y ago
      If we built lots more housing, there are two mutually exclusive possibilities (though honestly, they are on a spectrum): A) Housing becomes affordable, or B) housing stays expensive. The latter means we added trillions of dollars to the national wealth. By the way, please go ahead and do tax property a lot. Ideally, you'd only tax the unterlying land with a land value tax. But even a naive property tax is OK. That way foreigners buying up local real estate for speculation means foreigners paying for local services.
fbonetti 7y ago
> "More housing" does not automatically translate to "affordable housing" Imagine two hypothetical cites, each with one million residents. The first one has half a million apartments, while the second one has ten million apartments. Which city would have cheaper apartments?
- Jweb_Guru 7y ago
  What city are you imagining where ten million apartments would be built with no demand for them? I'm assuming the city with ten million apartments and half a million residents is economically depressed, since that many apartments were clearly built for a much larger number of people. Here's a better question: under a realistic model of building, where building slows down when landlords and property owners feel they have maximized the profit they will get out of it, by what date do you think housing prices will be low enough that current residents who rely on rent control to stay in SF will be able to live there again? 2025? 2035? 2050? What is your recommendation for those people in the meantime?
  - matchbok 7y ago
    Nobody is entitled to live in posh neighborhoods. That is a false argument.
    - Jweb_Guru 7y ago
      You don't see any reason why it might be worse for someone who lives in an area, and already has a life there, to be kicked out, than it would be for someone else not to be able to move in?
      - matchbok 7y ago
        The biggest bargaining chip a renter has is the ability to leave. If the housing market is functioning correctly then renters should have the upper hand and these issues don't matter. Nobody is "kicked" out because nobody has an intrinsic right to live in a particular neighborhood. Arguing such a thing is in complete opposition to a free market.

eru 7y ago

How does more housing not translate to more affordable housing? Do rich people to afford that extra housing get created out of thin air?

Jweb_Guru 7y ago
The government is perfectly capable of paying for housing if it is so inclined. It is also capable of providing incentives for creating new housing in certain markets, such as discounts; the idea that this can only be incentivized by charging new and existing tenants insanely high rents is the problem. Perhaps it could get some of the money required to do this by extracting it from the tremendous number of wealthy people living in SF, many of whom are probably browsing HN right now. It would likely be easier to do that if their rents weren't so astronomical, of course... As for "does not translate to affordable housing"--right now landlords and property developers have two ways of extracting money from the system: charge high rents, or pass the property on to other landlords. Maximizing profit on either of these requires rents to keep going up, and for the second there's no particular reason to actually have tenants. Beyond that, "market rate" in SF right now is nowhere close to affordable for most people and will not be for the foreseeable future, even if building greatly increases, which means that the people currently protected by rent control--those who can't afford "market rate", like the vast majority of people in the U.S.--aren't helped one bit by the creation of new housing.
woah 7y ago
As amazing as it seems, a lot of far left people in the Bay Area who engage in the housing debate actually don’t believe in supply and demand. Hard to have any kind of discussion on that basis.
- Jweb_Guru 7y ago
  I believe that, on average, housing prices increase when housing is limited and decrease when it is not. I don't believe this relationship is nearly as linear as people imagine, especially since not all "demand" for housing comes from people wanting to live in it (thanks to rampant speculation in the market). I also don't believe that even a tremendous increase in available housing will cause the price to decrease enough that rent is actually affordable for the people who currently depend on rent control, and I am not willing to treat those people as "collateral damage" in the quest to lower housing prices in SF.
  - eru 7y ago
    If we built lots more housing, there are two mutually exclusive possibilities (though honestly, they are on a spectrum): A) Housing becomes affordable, or B) housing stays expensive. The latter means we added trillions of dollars to the national wealth. By the way, please go ahead and do tax property a lot. Ideally, you'd only tax the unterlying land with a land value tax. But even a naive property tax is OK. That way foreigners buying up local real estate for speculation means foreigners paying for local services.

fbonetti 7y ago

> "More housing" does not automatically translate to "affordable housing" Imagine two hypothetical cites, each with one million residents. The first one has half a million apartments, while the second one has ten million apartments. Which city would have cheaper apartments?

Jweb_Guru 7y ago
What city are you imagining where ten million apartments would be built with no demand for them? I'm assuming the city with ten million apartments and half a million residents is economically depressed, since that many apartments were clearly built for a much larger number of people. Here's a better question: under a realistic model of building, where building slows down when landlords and property owners feel they have maximized the profit they will get out of it, by what date do you think housing prices will be low enough that current residents who rely on rent control to stay in SF will be able to live there again? 2025? 2035? 2050? What is your recommendation for those people in the meantime?
- matchbok 7y ago
  Nobody is entitled to live in posh neighborhoods. That is a false argument.
  - Jweb_Guru 7y ago
    You don't see any reason why it might be worse for someone who lives in an area, and already has a life there, to be kicked out, than it would be for someone else not to be able to move in?
    - matchbok 7y ago
      The biggest bargaining chip a renter has is the ability to leave. If the housing market is functioning correctly then renters should have the upper hand and these issues don't matter. Nobody is "kicked" out because nobody has an intrinsic right to live in a particular neighborhood. Arguing such a thing is in complete opposition to a free market.