5 ms·

Anecdotally speaking, at my last job I was positively priced out of all decent San Francisco neighborhoods while making $80k per year - it's simply not possible

Anecdotally speaking, at my last job I was positively priced out of all decent San Francisco neighborhoods while making $80k per year - it's simply not possible to compete with the Googlers and Apple folks making three times what you are. One showing I went to near Alamo Square had about 30 people viewing, and over 12 applied - it was a dingy one-bedroom, but you'd never know from the crowd or from the asking price. I shudder to think of the non-techies who aren't in rent-controlled apartments; this boom will be exceedingly unjust to them.

jayzee 14y ago
By the same token, rent-controlled apartments are unjust to the non-techies who are not in them. To me it is plausible that the average price of an apartment would actually drop if they were no rent-controlled apartments. You would have more supply etc...
- khuey 14y ago
  Unlikely. Remember that in San Francsico, just as renters are insulated from the real price of the rental, landlords are insulated from the real price of owning the land (via Prop 13). Repealing rent control without repealing prop 13 will just screw renters. There's a reason rent control was enacted shortly after prop 13 passed.
bhickey 14y ago
Rent control is screwing things up in the first place. For example, without the option to end leases landlord's can't empty a building, demolish it and rebuild with more units. This imposes an artificial constraint on supply. Demand isn't particularly elastic so prices rise. Meanwhile, the price ceiling encourages overconsumption amongst the rent control population. Kids are off to college -- why downgrade from a 3-bedroom? There's simply no incentive to do so. This further limits supply. If you want to see rents fall, repeal rent control, repeal Prop 13 and allow construction.
- geoffschmidt 14y ago
  Do you really think the main constraint on supply comes from rent control and not zoning limitations? In SF there is a strong desire to preserve the historical character of the neighborhoods (agree or disagree as you like, but the political will is there) and I think that's the root reason why it's difficult to demolish buildings and rebuild them with more units, not the mechanics of rent control. In any event, even in a rent controlled building, you absolutely can terminate all of your tenant's leases and kick them out, upgrade the property, condoize it, and sell the condos (Ellis Act.) The only restriction is that you must sell the units, not rent them. (speaking as someone who, as a side project, is in fact building high density residential units in SF)
  - rdl 14y ago
    Zoning is primary, but without rent control, the Tenderloin would be a lot better (convert the SROs into reasonable rentals). Of course, getting rid of the enablers of homelessness would also be necessary.
    - geoffschmidt 14y ago
      It's not rent control that keeps SROs around - there are separate SRO controls. You're not allowed to eliminate SRO beds without building replacement beds in another part of the city (or paying into a fund to cover the cost of someone else doing it, and it's a significant fee.) Many of the people in SROs have substance abuse or mental health problems or other disabilities, and most (?) SRO tenants are paying their rent in federal housing assistance vouchers (which is why SROs can be so profitable - the government pays you a high price to house people that otherwise wouldn't be welcomed on the rental market, housing discrimination laws notwithstanding.) Any zoning plan has to make space for this population somewhere in the city. If you let people demolish SRO beds, you're just going to discover that you have to build new ones at public expense.
  - bhickey 14y ago
    I should write more carefully. I didn't mean 'allow construction' was a consequence of removing rent control. I meant it literally as 'remove absurd zoning restrictions that impede construction'.

jayzee 14y ago

By the same token, rent-controlled apartments are unjust to the non-techies who are not in them. To me it is plausible that the average price of an apartment would actually drop if they were no rent-controlled apartments. You would have more supply etc...

khuey 14y ago
Unlikely. Remember that in San Francsico, just as renters are insulated from the real price of the rental, landlords are insulated from the real price of owning the land (via Prop 13). Repealing rent control without repealing prop 13 will just screw renters. There's a reason rent control was enacted shortly after prop 13 passed.

bhickey 14y ago

Rent control is screwing things up in the first place. For example, without the option to end leases landlord's can't empty a building, demolish it and rebuild with more units. This imposes an artificial constraint on supply. Demand isn't particularly elastic so prices rise. Meanwhile, the price ceiling encourages overconsumption amongst the rent control population. Kids are off to college -- why downgrade from a 3-bedroom? There's simply no incentive to do so. This further limits supply. If you want to see rents fall, repeal rent control, repeal Prop 13 and allow construction.

geoffschmidt 14y ago
Do you really think the main constraint on supply comes from rent control and not zoning limitations? In SF there is a strong desire to preserve the historical character of the neighborhoods (agree or disagree as you like, but the political will is there) and I think that's the root reason why it's difficult to demolish buildings and rebuild them with more units, not the mechanics of rent control. In any event, even in a rent controlled building, you absolutely can terminate all of your tenant's leases and kick them out, upgrade the property, condoize it, and sell the condos (Ellis Act.) The only restriction is that you must sell the units, not rent them. (speaking as someone who, as a side project, is in fact building high density residential units in SF)
- rdl 14y ago
  Zoning is primary, but without rent control, the Tenderloin would be a lot better (convert the SROs into reasonable rentals). Of course, getting rid of the enablers of homelessness would also be necessary.
  - geoffschmidt 14y ago
    It's not rent control that keeps SROs around - there are separate SRO controls. You're not allowed to eliminate SRO beds without building replacement beds in another part of the city (or paying into a fund to cover the cost of someone else doing it, and it's a significant fee.) Many of the people in SROs have substance abuse or mental health problems or other disabilities, and most (?) SRO tenants are paying their rent in federal housing assistance vouchers (which is why SROs can be so profitable - the government pays you a high price to house people that otherwise wouldn't be welcomed on the rental market, housing discrimination laws notwithstanding.) Any zoning plan has to make space for this population somewhere in the city. If you let people demolish SRO beds, you're just going to discover that you have to build new ones at public expense.
- bhickey 14y ago
  I should write more carefully. I didn't mean 'allow construction' was a consequence of removing rent control. I meant it literally as 'remove absurd zoning restrictions that impede construction'.