3 ms·

Why? That argument doesn’t address the fact that many cities have an absolute limit on supply in the form of space, and no amount of construction that starts to

by dahart 6y ago

Why? That argument doesn’t address the fact that many cities have an absolute limit on supply in the form of space, and no amount of construction that starts today will bring prices down today. Here are some arguments to refute if you want to oppose rent control, particularly the first one (copied and pasted directly from investopedia): “Rental prices in many U.S. cities are rising far faster than wages for moderate-income jobs. [edit: note here that most of the US has banned rent control, and this is happening regardless] “Rent control enables moderate-income families and elderly people on fixed incomes to live decently and without fear of a personally catastrophic rent hike. “Neighborhoods are safer and more stable with a base of long-term residents in rent-controlled apartments.”

bradleybuda 6y ago
Berlin has 4,227 inhabitants/km², Hong Kong (widely considered to be a very livable city, and also one with hard geographic constraints on expansion) has 6,300. So we have existence proof that Berlin, if it chose to, could support an increase in housing of 50% or so, which would certainly drive rents way down. Edit: Not sure why I looked so far away, Paris is at 21,000. Like virtually every housing story, this is an example of the people who live in a place deciding they don't want anyone else to live there, and putting up economic walls that only the rich can surmount.
- ChuckNorris89 6y ago
  >Hong Kong widely considered to be a very livable city By whom? Ricchie McRich? Every working class Hong Konger I talked to (even highly skilled ones) said living there is cramped and brutally expensive and would like to emigrate.
- tom_mellior 6y ago
  > Berlin has 4,227 inhabitants/km² [...] Paris is at 21,000. These numbers aren't comparable: The municipality of Paris is just the small urban core of a much larger metropolitan region. Berlin has about 3.7 million inhabitants on 890 square kilometers, Paris 2.2 million on 105 square kilometers. A fairer comparison is with the Petite Couronne consisting of Paris + the innermost ring of its neighbors (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%8Ele-de-France#Petite_Couronne https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%8Ele-de-France#Petite_Cour...), which has 6.7 million people on 760 square kilometers. Still denser than Berlin! But the ratio is far less extreme than you made it look. For an alternative approach, take Berlin's densest districts: Friedrichshain-Kreuzberg, Mitte, and Neukölln add up to about 100 square kilometers (like Paris) and a bit over a million people. So about 2x less dense than Paris rather than 5x.
huitzitziltzin 6y ago
> [edit: note here that most of the US has banned rent control, and this is happening regardless] Where do you get that idea? It is false. New York? San Francisco? California has statewide rent control as of January 1 of last year. Many of the places where people want to move still do have rent control. Rent control is not a live issue in, e.g., Tulsa, OK or Amarillo, TX, whether it is legal or not. > “Neighborhoods are safer and more stable with a base of long-term residents in rent-controlled apartments.” If you have good evidence for this claim, I would like to see it. Moreover: "safer" and "more stable" relative to what? I guess your claim would be "safer and more stable than the counterfactual w/out rent control and with more housing." If you have good empirical evidence for that claim, I would love to see it.
- dahart 6y ago
  > Where do you get that idea? It is false. From Wikipedia "As of 2019, five states (California, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Oregon) and the District of Columbia have localities in which some form of residential rent control is in effect (for normal structures, excluding mobile homes). Thirty-seven states either prohibit or preempt rent control, while eight states allow their cities to enact rent control, but have no cities that have implemented it." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent_control_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent_control_in_the_United_Sta...
inglor_cz 6y ago
Berlin has a lot of empty space, including various brownfields that would look better if they were built over. German construction industry used to be chronically overbooked, though. IDK how does the situation look now. German bureaucracy probably does not help. When it comes to red tape, Germany is one of the most onerous countries to do anything new.
robertlagrant 6y ago
> Why? That argument doesn’t address the fact that many cities have an absolute limit on supply in the form of space, and no amount of construction that starts today will bring prices down today. You mean... scarcity? That the argument specifically mentions as the thing that price controls doesn't fix? Are you _sure_ it doesn't address it?
- dahart 6y ago
  Running out of land space permanently is not a temporary food shortage. Are you _sure_ your argument is even relevant?
  - robertlagrant 6y ago
    It's a statement about scarcity. Saying that a statement about scarcity ignores land scarcity is bizarre.
    - dahart 6y ago
      Calling a permanent unfixable limit a market “scarcity” is bizarre, and so is comparing it to something that’s only temporarily scare. Obviously the solutions to permanent loss of supply and temporary shortages must be completely different. There are some real downsides to rent control, and there are some real upsides in some cities and for some people. There are also huge downsides to allowing a free-for-all, especially for the people who need housing anywhere near their jobs. It’s easy to ignore an argument that is only semantics and opinionated dogma when it’s avoiding the realities of the problems at hand.

by dahart 6y ago

bradleybuda 6y ago

Berlin has 4,227 inhabitants/km², Hong Kong (widely considered to be a very livable city, and also one with hard geographic constraints on expansion) has 6,300. So we have existence proof that Berlin, if it chose to, could support an increase in housing of 50% or so, which would certainly drive rents way down. Edit: Not sure why I looked so far away, Paris is at 21,000. Like virtually every housing story, this is an example of the people who live in a place deciding they don't want anyone else to live there, and putting up economic walls that only the rich can surmount.

ChuckNorris89 6y ago
>Hong Kong widely considered to be a very livable city By whom? Ricchie McRich? Every working class Hong Konger I talked to (even highly skilled ones) said living there is cramped and brutally expensive and would like to emigrate.
tom_mellior 6y ago
> Berlin has 4,227 inhabitants/km² [...] Paris is at 21,000. These numbers aren't comparable: The municipality of Paris is just the small urban core of a much larger metropolitan region. Berlin has about 3.7 million inhabitants on 890 square kilometers, Paris 2.2 million on 105 square kilometers. A fairer comparison is with the Petite Couronne consisting of Paris + the innermost ring of its neighbors (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%8Ele-de-France#Petite_Couronne https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%8Ele-de-France#Petite_Cour...), which has 6.7 million people on 760 square kilometers. Still denser than Berlin! But the ratio is far less extreme than you made it look. For an alternative approach, take Berlin's densest districts: Friedrichshain-Kreuzberg, Mitte, and Neukölln add up to about 100 square kilometers (like Paris) and a bit over a million people. So about 2x less dense than Paris rather than 5x.

huitzitziltzin 6y ago

> [edit: note here that most of the US has banned rent control, and this is happening regardless] Where do you get that idea? It is false. New York? San Francisco? California has statewide rent control as of January 1 of last year. Many of the places where people want to move still do have rent control. Rent control is not a live issue in, e.g., Tulsa, OK or Amarillo, TX, whether it is legal or not. > “Neighborhoods are safer and more stable with a base of long-term residents in rent-controlled apartments.” If you have good evidence for this claim, I would like to see it. Moreover: "safer" and "more stable" relative to what? I guess your claim would be "safer and more stable than the counterfactual w/out rent control and with more housing." If you have good empirical evidence for that claim, I would love to see it.

dahart 6y ago
> Where do you get that idea? It is false. From Wikipedia "As of 2019, five states (California, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Oregon) and the District of Columbia have localities in which some form of residential rent control is in effect (for normal structures, excluding mobile homes). Thirty-seven states either prohibit or preempt rent control, while eight states allow their cities to enact rent control, but have no cities that have implemented it." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent_control_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent_control_in_the_United_Sta...

inglor_cz 6y ago

Berlin has a lot of empty space, including various brownfields that would look better if they were built over. German construction industry used to be chronically overbooked, though. IDK how does the situation look now. German bureaucracy probably does not help. When it comes to red tape, Germany is one of the most onerous countries to do anything new.

robertlagrant 6y ago

> Why? That argument doesn’t address the fact that many cities have an absolute limit on supply in the form of space, and no amount of construction that starts today will bring prices down today. You mean... scarcity? That the argument specifically mentions as the thing that price controls doesn't fix? Are you _sure_ it doesn't address it?

dahart 6y ago
Running out of land space permanently is not a temporary food shortage. Are you _sure_ your argument is even relevant?
- robertlagrant 6y ago
  It's a statement about scarcity. Saying that a statement about scarcity ignores land scarcity is bizarre.
  - dahart 6y ago
    Calling a permanent unfixable limit a market “scarcity” is bizarre, and so is comparing it to something that’s only temporarily scare. Obviously the solutions to permanent loss of supply and temporary shortages must be completely different. There are some real downsides to rent control, and there are some real upsides in some cities and for some people. There are also huge downsides to allowing a free-for-all, especially for the people who need housing anywhere near their jobs. It’s easy to ignore an argument that is only semantics and opinionated dogma when it’s avoiding the realities of the problems at hand.