3 ms·

> It seems to me that if the market rate is intent on 10x'ing her rent maybe it's the market that should be forced to adjust first, not her. Assuming a family

> It seems to me that if the market rate is intent on 10x'ing her rent maybe it's the market that should be forced to adjust first, not her. Assuming a family of 4 would live there instead, she's effectively removing 3 people from the city. That can force other old women to move out of nearby homes that aren't rent controlled (since prices become higher than they'd be if more people could fit in existing housing), or it could prevent people from moving in. But either way, less people can live there. The policy isn't without harm. > I can imagine. She could get priced out of the city entirely I suppose. kind of an unlikely worst case. There's a gradient of prices as you move further from the city center, and this particular hypothetical woman is moving to a much smaller unit. I haven't heard of a city where the average market price unit was 10x the rent controlled price. It's probably 2x-3x at worst for an equivalent unit.

oolang 5y ago
> Assuming a family of 4 would live there instead, she's effectively removing 3 people from the city. I think is overrated concern in general. Most popular cities aren't underdeveloped. Rather the problem is concentration of resource. Having less optimized areas are actually a good things as that means more areas are equivalent. Which is really what supply is in housing markets. It's when every one too young, old or poor have to move you get problems because now all the attractive things are in the same area. Which means the demand will be very high. Also this is happening in the housing market in general but apparently it isn't a problem when it's wealthy people retiring in their forties because of the housing market itself. > There's a gradient of prices as you move further from the city center, and this particular hypothetical woman is moving to a much smaller unit. That is mostly true if you are moving voluntarily. Because if you couldn't find something beneficial you wouldn't move in the first place. It isn't as true when you are being forced to move. Often it isn't even about what you are moving to but what you are moving from. Once you can't live close to your family, acquaintances or familiar establishment it doesn't matter as much. It's sort of curious how so many seem to agree that we are "losing our values" in society (or whatever) but then base everything on assets. If we want people to be able to live close to their grandchildren, know their friends from growing up, involve themselves in organization or otherwise make social connections it isn't going to be free.

oolang 5y ago

> Assuming a family of 4 would live there instead, she's effectively removing 3 people from the city. I think is overrated concern in general. Most popular cities aren't underdeveloped. Rather the problem is concentration of resource. Having less optimized areas are actually a good things as that means more areas are equivalent. Which is really what supply is in housing markets. It's when every one too young, old or poor have to move you get problems because now all the attractive things are in the same area. Which means the demand will be very high. Also this is happening in the housing market in general but apparently it isn't a problem when it's wealthy people retiring in their forties because of the housing market itself. > There's a gradient of prices as you move further from the city center, and this particular hypothetical woman is moving to a much smaller unit. That is mostly true if you are moving voluntarily. Because if you couldn't find something beneficial you wouldn't move in the first place. It isn't as true when you are being forced to move. Often it isn't even about what you are moving to but what you are moving from. Once you can't live close to your family, acquaintances or familiar establishment it doesn't matter as much. It's sort of curious how so many seem to agree that we are "losing our values" in society (or whatever) but then base everything on assets. If we want people to be able to live close to their grandchildren, know their friends from growing up, involve themselves in organization or otherwise make social connections it isn't going to be free.