5 ms·

Giving people "incentive to move" – aka forcing them out of their homes – doesn't increase supply. Unless they're "moving" onto the streets in which case you di

Giving people "incentive to move" – aka forcing them out of their homes – doesn't increase supply. Unless they're "moving" onto the streets in which case you did free up a flat.

jdxcode 6y ago
"I'd like to move out of my rent-controlled apartment in SF because my job is in Mountain View, but I don't want to walk away from this rate."
- anoncake 6y ago
  We're talking about Berlin.
  - pertymcpert 6y ago
    It's just a temporary short term fix. Like opioid pain killers, over time the downsides massively outweigh any benefits.
    - imtringued 6y ago
      Exactly, it's a pain killer. It's about making people shut up and stop talking about the problem.
    - anoncake 6y ago
      It's not that simple. Opioids are used all over the world, only in the USA did they cause a crisis. Countries with saner political systems shouldn't judge policies by how they worked in the USA.
  - floren 6y ago
    "I'd like to move out of my rent-controlled apartment in Spandau because my job is in Eberswalde, but I don't want to walk away from this rate."
    - vkou 6y ago
      For every one person in that situation, there are nine who can't move out of their rent-controlled apartment, not because they don't want to walk away from their rate, but because they can't afford to. Well-off-techies who somehow stumbled into both getting a grandfathered rent controlled rate, and a job in the next city over might be a majority of posters on HN[1], but are a tiny minority of the population. You probably shouldn't be basing overall public policy around them. [1] I personally think it's unlikely.
      - nitrogen 6y ago
        When there's more movement in a market, it's easier for supply to increase and prices to stabilize.
      - edbob 6y ago
        > For every one person in that situation, there are nine who can't I'd be interested to know the actual numbers, but I doubt they happen to be 90%.
    - anoncake 6y ago
      That could happen if the Mietendeckel is made permanent and the Abgeordnetenhaus refuses to do its job and adjust it as necessary for a few decades. In reality, your strawman is not realistic.
- callmeal 6y ago
  You would be able to if apartments in Mountain View were also rent-controlled.
  - jamesliudotcc 6y ago
    Huh? Give one example of a working transfer of the rent controlled apartment from one jurisdiction to another. Even if there was rent control both places, you'd have to find a rent controlled apartment in the new place. And in reality, you can't, because nobody is willing to leave their rent controlled apartments in the next place either.
    - anoncake 6y ago
      What does "transferring an apartment" mean? We aren't talking about rent-controlled caravans.
  - ink_13 6y ago
    Indeed, every apartment in Mountain View is rent controlled by municipal ordinance. But it only applies to increases on existing tenancies; when someone moves out, the landlord can charge whatever they want to the new tenants.
  - kanwisher 6y ago
    Pure lotto to get a rent controlled building. The whole problem with rent control, is there is always a limited supply and you can't use dollars to vote where more supply should be made. Market forces determine where new construction should go cause its profitable to do so. Otherwise you just have to hope you can get a house and if you can't you are out of luck
justapassenger 6y ago
> aka forcing them out of their homes They aren't theirs. They're renters.
- Fargren 6y ago
  "Your home" means the place where you live. It's not the same as "your house", which is a building that you own. Evicting a renter is kicking someone out of their home.
  - justapassenger 6y ago
    “Your” here is like with a chain - as strong as a weakest link in the chain. Creating your home in someone else’s property doesn’t really make it yours overall.
    - asdff 6y ago
      You don't really own your house either. Stop paying your mortgage, stop paying taxes, watch you eventually end up the same as someone who stops paying their rent, just through a slightly different bureaucratic process. Sometimes you might not have the liberty to freely modify your home, much like a lease.
      - justapassenger 6y ago
        Yeah, totally. But you have very different risk profile in terms of likelihood of you being kicked out - your expenses are much more predictable than with renting. Capitalism approach heavily prefers owning vs renting.
        yibg 6y ago
        I'm not following your point here. Renting is not the same as owning correct. But the topic is rent control, how does ownership play into this?
- omginternets 6y ago

Giving people "incentive to move" – aka forcing them out of their homes – doesn't increase supply. Unless they're "moving" onto the streets in which case you did free up a flat.

jdxcode 6y ago

"I'd like to move out of my rent-controlled apartment in SF because my job is in Mountain View, but I don't want to walk away from this rate."

anoncake 6y ago
We're talking about Berlin.
- pertymcpert 6y ago
  It's just a temporary short term fix. Like opioid pain killers, over time the downsides massively outweigh any benefits.
  - imtringued 6y ago
    Exactly, it's a pain killer. It's about making people shut up and stop talking about the problem.
  - anoncake 6y ago
    It's not that simple. Opioids are used all over the world, only in the USA did they cause a crisis. Countries with saner political systems shouldn't judge policies by how they worked in the USA.
- floren 6y ago
  "I'd like to move out of my rent-controlled apartment in Spandau because my job is in Eberswalde, but I don't want to walk away from this rate."
  - vkou 6y ago
    For every one person in that situation, there are nine who can't move out of their rent-controlled apartment, not because they don't want to walk away from their rate, but because they can't afford to. Well-off-techies who somehow stumbled into both getting a grandfathered rent controlled rate, and a job in the next city over might be a majority of posters on HN[1], but are a tiny minority of the population. You probably shouldn't be basing overall public policy around them. [1] I personally think it's unlikely.
    - nitrogen 6y ago
      When there's more movement in a market, it's easier for supply to increase and prices to stabilize.
    - edbob 6y ago
      > For every one person in that situation, there are nine who can't I'd be interested to know the actual numbers, but I doubt they happen to be 90%.
  - anoncake 6y ago
    That could happen if the Mietendeckel is made permanent and the Abgeordnetenhaus refuses to do its job and adjust it as necessary for a few decades. In reality, your strawman is not realistic.
callmeal 6y ago
You would be able to if apartments in Mountain View were also rent-controlled.
- jamesliudotcc 6y ago
  Huh? Give one example of a working transfer of the rent controlled apartment from one jurisdiction to another. Even if there was rent control both places, you'd have to find a rent controlled apartment in the new place. And in reality, you can't, because nobody is willing to leave their rent controlled apartments in the next place either.
  - anoncake 6y ago
    What does "transferring an apartment" mean? We aren't talking about rent-controlled caravans.
- ink_13 6y ago
  Indeed, every apartment in Mountain View is rent controlled by municipal ordinance. But it only applies to increases on existing tenancies; when someone moves out, the landlord can charge whatever they want to the new tenants.
- kanwisher 6y ago
  Pure lotto to get a rent controlled building. The whole problem with rent control, is there is always a limited supply and you can't use dollars to vote where more supply should be made. Market forces determine where new construction should go cause its profitable to do so. Otherwise you just have to hope you can get a house and if you can't you are out of luck

justapassenger 6y ago

> aka forcing them out of their homes They aren't theirs. They're renters.

Fargren 6y ago
"Your home" means the place where you live. It's not the same as "your house", which is a building that you own. Evicting a renter is kicking someone out of their home.
- justapassenger 6y ago
  “Your” here is like with a chain - as strong as a weakest link in the chain. Creating your home in someone else’s property doesn’t really make it yours overall.
  - asdff 6y ago
    You don't really own your house either. Stop paying your mortgage, stop paying taxes, watch you eventually end up the same as someone who stops paying their rent, just through a slightly different bureaucratic process. Sometimes you might not have the liberty to freely modify your home, much like a lease.
    - justapassenger 6y ago
      Yeah, totally. But you have very different risk profile in terms of likelihood of you being kicked out - your expenses are much more predictable than with renting. Capitalism approach heavily prefers owning vs renting.
      - yibg 6y ago
        I'm not following your point here. Renting is not the same as owning correct. But the topic is rent control, how does ownership play into this?
omginternets 6y ago