5 ms·

Because pricing people out of their homes is an extreme inconvenience, and also expensive - finding a new place takes time, moving in costs time and money. And

Because pricing people out of their homes is an extreme inconvenience, and also expensive - finding a new place takes time, moving in costs time and money. And that's assuming that if they can't find housing sufficiently nearby, they may also need to find a new job, lose friends, have a harder time staying in touch with family, etc.

robbiemitchell 7y ago
If you want something long term, you must own. I'm not suggesting it's easy to own, but emphasizing that the rental market is a market, and rents change whenever a new contract comes due. If you want to smooth the rates over a long time horizon, buy something or sign a long-term lease.
- niek_pas 7y ago
  Not everybody has the luxury to own. Limiting long-term stability to the those with stable, well-paying jobs will only further marginalise and destabilise those who are already struggling. Rent control is one possible solution to this problem.
  - robbiemitchell 7y ago
    I know that. Owning a home isn’t supposed to be a luxury. But in that part of the country, it is, and it doesn’t change the fact that rents are subject to change every time the term renews. Unfortunately, rent control fails consistently. It doesn’t change the fact that too many people need too few homes, not to mention the margin squeeze for property owners. The Bay Area needs way more home, especially multi-family units near transportation.
- urthen 7y ago
  Well I'm golly sure glad you were around to alert people of this! Renters being priced out just need to buy the multi-million dollar properties they could barely afford to rent in the first place! Who would have thought of this one weird trick if not for you?
  - robbiemitchell 7y ago
    It should be easier to (a) buy a home and (b) rent somewhere else but still commute to a job. We probably agree on that. But that doesn’t change the fact that renting is fundamentally unstable, and a short-term contract comes with risks. You seem focused on shooting the messenger.
    - davidgay 7y ago
      I'm reminded of this thread from yesterday: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21021709 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21021709 The relevant issue: Switzerland has rent control (and has had it for a long time). So if it's tenable position for the 2nd richest nation (and has been for a long time), it does suggest that renting being "fundamentally unstable" is not a requirement.
speby 7y ago
That's what a lease is for. Many rental leases are a "fixed price" for 1 year. If, during that time period, there is a large acceleration in rental prices, it is an individual's responsibility to be aware of those consequences and plan accordingly. Unfair? Well, yes, it is. But if rental prices are rising quickly, why is that? Usually one reason is because there are others coming into the market who are paying substantially more. Should they be disallowed from renting that place? Is that fair? The same individual responsibility for the rental price is on the landlord. If prices rise substantially during their renter's lease period, the landlord is going to pay attention to that. If the rental market increases only a little bit, it is not uncommon for landlords to leave the rental price more or less the same when there is an upcoming lease renewal because it is often more of a hassle (and a risk) to jack the price up, potentially piss off the renter, then they move out, and the landlord now has the new hassle and risk of finding a new renter and possibly going one or more months without revenue. But in cases where rents rise, say 25% or more in a 1-year lease period, what should a landlord do? Not raise the price for his renter? Leave that money on the table? Or raise the price, run the risk that the current renter cannot afford it, and they either move out or pay. I'm basically describing normal market behavior. And I think this discussion often devolves into what we often deem to be our "rights" as people. We see the same discussions occurring with healthcare, too, and there are pieces of that applying to housing as well. Renters cannot easily "control" what happens to their supply/demand of rental housing units in their area but when there are large swings, how much "protection" from those swings are people really entitled to? Perpetual rent controls seem awfully unfair, in my view. There has to be at least some form of rent price adaptation that allows a rental unit to always converge towards its market price if a renter is already living in it.

robbiemitchell 7y ago

If you want something long term, you must own. I'm not suggesting it's easy to own, but emphasizing that the rental market is a market, and rents change whenever a new contract comes due. If you want to smooth the rates over a long time horizon, buy something or sign a long-term lease.

niek_pas 7y ago
Not everybody has the luxury to own. Limiting long-term stability to the those with stable, well-paying jobs will only further marginalise and destabilise those who are already struggling. Rent control is one possible solution to this problem.
- robbiemitchell 7y ago
  I know that. Owning a home isn’t supposed to be a luxury. But in that part of the country, it is, and it doesn’t change the fact that rents are subject to change every time the term renews. Unfortunately, rent control fails consistently. It doesn’t change the fact that too many people need too few homes, not to mention the margin squeeze for property owners. The Bay Area needs way more home, especially multi-family units near transportation.
urthen 7y ago
Well I'm golly sure glad you were around to alert people of this! Renters being priced out just need to buy the multi-million dollar properties they could barely afford to rent in the first place! Who would have thought of this one weird trick if not for you?
- robbiemitchell 7y ago
  It should be easier to (a) buy a home and (b) rent somewhere else but still commute to a job. We probably agree on that. But that doesn’t change the fact that renting is fundamentally unstable, and a short-term contract comes with risks. You seem focused on shooting the messenger.
  - davidgay 7y ago
    I'm reminded of this thread from yesterday: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21021709 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21021709 The relevant issue: Switzerland has rent control (and has had it for a long time). So if it's tenable position for the 2nd richest nation (and has been for a long time), it does suggest that renting being "fundamentally unstable" is not a requirement.

speby 7y ago

That's what a lease is for. Many rental leases are a "fixed price" for 1 year. If, during that time period, there is a large acceleration in rental prices, it is an individual's responsibility to be aware of those consequences and plan accordingly. Unfair? Well, yes, it is. But if rental prices are rising quickly, why is that? Usually one reason is because there are others coming into the market who are paying substantially more. Should they be disallowed from renting that place? Is that fair? The same individual responsibility for the rental price is on the landlord. If prices rise substantially during their renter's lease period, the landlord is going to pay attention to that. If the rental market increases only a little bit, it is not uncommon for landlords to leave the rental price more or less the same when there is an upcoming lease renewal because it is often more of a hassle (and a risk) to jack the price up, potentially piss off the renter, then they move out, and the landlord now has the new hassle and risk of finding a new renter and possibly going one or more months without revenue. But in cases where rents rise, say 25% or more in a 1-year lease period, what should a landlord do? Not raise the price for his renter? Leave that money on the table? Or raise the price, run the risk that the current renter cannot afford it, and they either move out or pay. I'm basically describing normal market behavior. And I think this discussion often devolves into what we often deem to be our "rights" as people. We see the same discussions occurring with healthcare, too, and there are pieces of that applying to housing as well. Renters cannot easily "control" what happens to their supply/demand of rental housing units in their area but when there are large swings, how much "protection" from those swings are people really entitled to? Perpetual rent controls seem awfully unfair, in my view. There has to be at least some form of rent price adaptation that allows a rental unit to always converge towards its market price if a renter is already living in it.