5 ms·

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.
    - falsedan 7y ago
      > Still wrong: ah, ok, they eat them. thanks for clearing that up
      - macspoofing 7y ago
        You do realize there is a second, third, and even a fourth line (and more) after this first line.
        falsedan 7y ago
        oh yeah, I see them. thanks for clearing that up
icebraining 7y ago
No, just leaving them vacant while the value increases.
- bakuninsbart 7y ago
  SF Metro vacancy rate is below the national average for large metro areas.[0] [0] https://www.sfchronicle.com/realestate/article/An-estimated-100-000-homes-are-sitting-empty-in-13692007.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/realestate/article/An-estimated-...
  - icebraining 7y ago
    And if those markets were the same except for the rent control rules, we could conclude that rent control doesn't increase the vacancy rate. But they aren't.
- tibbon 7y ago
  Cool- next up, a tax on vacant properties. Maybe they will have to sell. Perhaps the people can again seize the means of production (part of that being stable housing). I’d far rather know another 100,000 units are owned by the people that live in them than 100 landlords owning and profiteering from those units. If this “disrupts” the entire rental industry, that’s fine with me. Didn’t bring much value anyway
  - rayiner 7y ago
    That’s worked great everywhere it’s been tried!
  - icebraining 7y ago
    > I’d far rather know another 100,000 units are owned by the people that live in them than 100 landlords owning and profiteering from those units. I'd rather have that too! But it's not the result of these patchwork rules. Fix it properly instead.
Double_a_92 7y ago
Also it lowers incentive to build new units if renting them out becomes too much of a hassle.
eru 7y ago
That reasoning works on land. (Hence a land value tax can't be passed on to tenants.) But it doesn't work on the houses on top of the land. Because we can build more or less of them. Or higher.

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.
  - falsedan 7y ago
    > Still wrong: ah, ok, they eat them. thanks for clearing that up
    - macspoofing 7y ago
      You do realize there is a second, third, and even a fourth line (and more) after this first line.
      - falsedan 7y ago
        oh yeah, I see them. thanks for clearing that up

icebraining 7y ago

No, just leaving them vacant while the value increases.

bakuninsbart 7y ago
SF Metro vacancy rate is below the national average for large metro areas.[0] [0] https://www.sfchronicle.com/realestate/article/An-estimated-100-000-homes-are-sitting-empty-in-13692007.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/realestate/article/An-estimated-...
- icebraining 7y ago
  And if those markets were the same except for the rent control rules, we could conclude that rent control doesn't increase the vacancy rate. But they aren't.
tibbon 7y ago
Cool- next up, a tax on vacant properties. Maybe they will have to sell. Perhaps the people can again seize the means of production (part of that being stable housing). I’d far rather know another 100,000 units are owned by the people that live in them than 100 landlords owning and profiteering from those units. If this “disrupts” the entire rental industry, that’s fine with me. Didn’t bring much value anyway
- rayiner 7y ago
  That’s worked great everywhere it’s been tried!
- icebraining 7y ago
  > I’d far rather know another 100,000 units are owned by the people that live in them than 100 landlords owning and profiteering from those units. I'd rather have that too! But it's not the result of these patchwork rules. Fix it properly instead.

Double_a_92 7y ago

Also it lowers incentive to build new units if renting them out becomes too much of a hassle.

eru 7y ago

That reasoning works on land. (Hence a land value tax can't be passed on to tenants.) But it doesn't work on the houses on top of the land. Because we can build more or less of them. Or higher.