6 ms·

UBI needs to be paired with restricting rent increases or eliminating zoning restrictions that limit housing supply then.

thisisnico 6y ago
As a landlord, and landlording in an area with restricted rent, it makes zero difference. It's only good if you stay where you rent, but if you move, it's market rent. You can't adequately control market rent because there are so so many variable on what market rent is for every individual unit, location, type, etc. I'm all for the eliminating zoning restrictions though.
- nostrademons 6y ago
  That's the case for rent restrictions. It's actually worse - rent control decreases housing mobility (nobody wants to give up a rent-controlled apartment, even if it no longer meets their needs) and disincentivizes development, so the prevailing market rate for non-rent-controlled apartments goes up. But eliminating zoning restrictions and building more housing actually does work. Then when you move, you have your pick of many apartments to choose from, and nobody has pricing power to charge more.
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    I live in a rent-restricted area. There is quite a bit of construction, and the average person moves almost once every two years. The effects of rent-restriction you quote are theoretical effects. In the real world, it does work, as long as the rent-restrictions are well-thought-out.
    - xapata 6y ago
      My interpretation of the evidence leads to the opposite conclusion. Here's a good summary: https://www.slowboring.com/p/induced-demand https://www.slowboring.com/p/induced-demand
      - sudosysgen 6y ago
        This article is completely orthogonal. Yes, building more pushes price down. Eventually though, you stop being able to increase density economically, and at that point the only way to prevent housing prices from increasing is rent restrictions. It's important to note that even according to your article, you need to drastically increase supply even for a modest decrease in rent. No one here is against increasing density. It is however insane to believe that increasing density is enough to fix the problem. Cities at the edge of density still have affordability issues, whereas much less dense cities with appropriate rent restrictions don't. There is not a single reference to induced demand here. As long as housing stays a profitable investment, and as long as density cannot be increased infinitely without increasing marginal costs, then rent will rise. The only long term solution is to reduce the profitability of speculation on land prices, so that only productive activities, such as building, are profitable. Rent restrictions are part of this, as rent is a large part of the profitability of land. And rent restrictions can work. There are many cases where they have been implemented without a significantly negative impact to mobility. So why oppose them?
        xapata 6y ago
        Not completely orthogonal. Perhaps they should be, but the intersection of the two sets (advocates for rent restrictions and advocates of zoning restrictions) appears to be a large portion of the total, as far as I can tell. > enough to fix the problem I think we need to define the problem before we start arguing solutions. In my view "can't afford the rent" is a poverty problem, not a rent prices problem. So, I want anti-poverty solutions, not rent price adjustment solutions. I view "the rent is too high" as a distinct problem from "can't afford the rent." So in my mind, rent price adjustments via price regulation are inappropriate for both problems. > so that only productive activities ... are profitable I understand taxing negative externalities, but this sounds anti-democratic. Who decides what's productive? Let's put an appropriate tax on pollution (broadly defined) and let the market figure out what's most productive. That's what it's good at. > why oppose them? I don't know of any instances where rent control didn't affect mobility. Are you considering the effect on immigration and wages in other cities? If they didn't affect mobility, then almost by definition they had no effect whatsoever. They'd have to be covering such a tiny portion of the market that they can essentially be ignored, both cost and benefit. Which makes them a waste of bureaucracy.
    - ch4s3 6y ago
      > and the average person moves almost once every two years Are you sure? There's lot of research n rent control and it basically all highlights decreased housing mobility, event he pro rent control authors mention it asa downside.
      - sudosysgen 6y ago
        In my province, the rent office arranges for two measures to counterbalance and increase mobility. Firstly, most rental agreements are made to end on July 1st - legally up to 1974 but now mostly out of tradition. This allows for much less friction, as everyone can change housing without any downtime with access to the full market. Secondly, landlords are allowed to evict if they do sufficient improvements to the property, which allows a safety valve. There are so many people that move in the month of July, that over 7% of the entire population - including people who don't rent - moves out on that day. It's pretty much impossible to get a rental truck to move for the entire month of July. The statistics are that, around July 1st alone, 250 000 out of 900 000 people move. Add in people that don't move in this period, and you get almost half of renters in the entire city moving, despite strict rent control. You just need to do your rent control carefully. There will be some reduction in mobility, but if you counterbalance them, you can have minimal impacts in mobility and large impact in affordability.
        ch4s3 6y ago
        Ahh, are you in Quebec? > landlords are allowed to evict if they do sufficient improvements to the property This is a REALLY unusual provision in rent stabilization laws in the US and as far as I know the EU which normally don't allow evictions like this and severely cap rent increases for improvements. If you are in Quebec, the RDL is really unique as a form of rent control in that it doesn't set prices or cap increases but rather acts as an arbiter for rent increase disputes. I understand that there are some local criticisms of the system, but I'm not very well versed on the subject. I think most HN comments about rent control are referring the type that exists in SF where prices are more or less locked in place or otherwise set by the government.
        6y ago
- tenebrisalietum 6y ago
  I was thinking of something like a cap on rent increase (e.g. max 10% rent increase or something like that), not banning rent increase entirely, if it matters. Maybe with exceptions if the landlord improves (not just maintains) the property.
xapata 6y ago
> restricting rent increases No, that'll just create a lottery system and unemployment or lower wages, because people won't be able to move to the jobs. > eliminating zoning restrictions that limit housing Yes, this would be great.
Enginerrrd 6y ago
Rent controls don't work very well. Much better to remove the barriers that prevent creation of more housing.

thisisnico 6y ago

As a landlord, and landlording in an area with restricted rent, it makes zero difference. It's only good if you stay where you rent, but if you move, it's market rent. You can't adequately control market rent because there are so so many variable on what market rent is for every individual unit, location, type, etc. I'm all for the eliminating zoning restrictions though.

nostrademons 6y ago
That's the case for rent restrictions. It's actually worse - rent control decreases housing mobility (nobody wants to give up a rent-controlled apartment, even if it no longer meets their needs) and disincentivizes development, so the prevailing market rate for non-rent-controlled apartments goes up. But eliminating zoning restrictions and building more housing actually does work. Then when you move, you have your pick of many apartments to choose from, and nobody has pricing power to charge more.
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  I live in a rent-restricted area. There is quite a bit of construction, and the average person moves almost once every two years. The effects of rent-restriction you quote are theoretical effects. In the real world, it does work, as long as the rent-restrictions are well-thought-out.
  - xapata 6y ago
    My interpretation of the evidence leads to the opposite conclusion. Here's a good summary: https://www.slowboring.com/p/induced-demand https://www.slowboring.com/p/induced-demand
    - sudosysgen 6y ago
      This article is completely orthogonal. Yes, building more pushes price down. Eventually though, you stop being able to increase density economically, and at that point the only way to prevent housing prices from increasing is rent restrictions. It's important to note that even according to your article, you need to drastically increase supply even for a modest decrease in rent. No one here is against increasing density. It is however insane to believe that increasing density is enough to fix the problem. Cities at the edge of density still have affordability issues, whereas much less dense cities with appropriate rent restrictions don't. There is not a single reference to induced demand here. As long as housing stays a profitable investment, and as long as density cannot be increased infinitely without increasing marginal costs, then rent will rise. The only long term solution is to reduce the profitability of speculation on land prices, so that only productive activities, such as building, are profitable. Rent restrictions are part of this, as rent is a large part of the profitability of land. And rent restrictions can work. There are many cases where they have been implemented without a significantly negative impact to mobility. So why oppose them?
      - xapata 6y ago
        Not completely orthogonal. Perhaps they should be, but the intersection of the two sets (advocates for rent restrictions and advocates of zoning restrictions) appears to be a large portion of the total, as far as I can tell. > enough to fix the problem I think we need to define the problem before we start arguing solutions. In my view "can't afford the rent" is a poverty problem, not a rent prices problem. So, I want anti-poverty solutions, not rent price adjustment solutions. I view "the rent is too high" as a distinct problem from "can't afford the rent." So in my mind, rent price adjustments via price regulation are inappropriate for both problems. > so that only productive activities ... are profitable I understand taxing negative externalities, but this sounds anti-democratic. Who decides what's productive? Let's put an appropriate tax on pollution (broadly defined) and let the market figure out what's most productive. That's what it's good at. > why oppose them? I don't know of any instances where rent control didn't affect mobility. Are you considering the effect on immigration and wages in other cities? If they didn't affect mobility, then almost by definition they had no effect whatsoever. They'd have to be covering such a tiny portion of the market that they can essentially be ignored, both cost and benefit. Which makes them a waste of bureaucracy.
  - ch4s3 6y ago
    > and the average person moves almost once every two years Are you sure? There's lot of research n rent control and it basically all highlights decreased housing mobility, event he pro rent control authors mention it asa downside.
    - sudosysgen 6y ago
      In my province, the rent office arranges for two measures to counterbalance and increase mobility. Firstly, most rental agreements are made to end on July 1st - legally up to 1974 but now mostly out of tradition. This allows for much less friction, as everyone can change housing without any downtime with access to the full market. Secondly, landlords are allowed to evict if they do sufficient improvements to the property, which allows a safety valve. There are so many people that move in the month of July, that over 7% of the entire population - including people who don't rent - moves out on that day. It's pretty much impossible to get a rental truck to move for the entire month of July. The statistics are that, around July 1st alone, 250 000 out of 900 000 people move. Add in people that don't move in this period, and you get almost half of renters in the entire city moving, despite strict rent control. You just need to do your rent control carefully. There will be some reduction in mobility, but if you counterbalance them, you can have minimal impacts in mobility and large impact in affordability.
      - ch4s3 6y ago
        Ahh, are you in Quebec? > landlords are allowed to evict if they do sufficient improvements to the property This is a REALLY unusual provision in rent stabilization laws in the US and as far as I know the EU which normally don't allow evictions like this and severely cap rent increases for improvements. If you are in Quebec, the RDL is really unique as a form of rent control in that it doesn't set prices or cap increases but rather acts as an arbiter for rent increase disputes. I understand that there are some local criticisms of the system, but I'm not very well versed on the subject. I think most HN comments about rent control are referring the type that exists in SF where prices are more or less locked in place or otherwise set by the government.
        6y ago
tenebrisalietum 6y ago
I was thinking of something like a cap on rent increase (e.g. max 10% rent increase or something like that), not banning rent increase entirely, if it matters. Maybe with exceptions if the landlord improves (not just maintains) the property.

xapata 6y ago

> restricting rent increases No, that'll just create a lottery system and unemployment or lower wages, because people won't be able to move to the jobs. > eliminating zoning restrictions that limit housing Yes, this would be great.

Enginerrrd 6y ago

Rent controls don't work very well. Much better to remove the barriers that prevent creation of more housing.