7 ms·

"Although rent controls are widely believed to lower rents, data I have collected from eighteen North American cities show that the advertised rents of availabl

"Although rent controls are widely believed to lower rents, data I have collected from eighteen North American cities show that the advertised rents of available apartments in rent-regulated cities are dramatically higher than they are in cities without rent control." Uh... no shit? Why would a city with low rents have any impetus to impose rent control? "There can be no doubt that rent control creates housing shortages. For almost 20 years, national vacancy rates have been at or above 7 percent--a figure generally considered normal. Cities such as Dallas, Houston, and Phoenix, where development is welcomed, have often had vacancy rates above 15 percent." Yes, but these are also sprawling shitholes. And: ridiculously high vacancy rates are a good thing now? "Young people who migrate to New York or San Francisco usually must settle for paying $600 a month to share a two-bedroom apartment with several other people or commuting from a nearby city. Crowding is a manifestation of rent control." It has nothing to do with NYC being an island and SF being a peninsula. And we'll ignore that if you consider an area the size of Houston around both of these cities, you start seeing affordable housing again - commuting 5 miles from another city is a bad thing, but commuting 20 miles from the same city is awesome. "The goal in getting rid of rent control should be to allow the curve of housing prices to return to the elegant symmetry of the free market." Ah, so it's an aesthetic concern. This is just a ridiculous article. There are 3 cities cited as suffering from the supposed ill-effects of rent control, New York, San Francisco, and San Jose (and Boston has "overtones of the rent-control effect at the upper end", whatever that means). The data that illustrates the supposed terrible effects of rent control is the price of apartments on the market on one weekend, completely ignoring the entire point of rent control, which is to allow people to stay in their homes (which the article perversely tries to twist into people becoming "prisoners of their own apartment" - because people in great locations in NYC and SF would otherwise really want to move if only their apartments weren't so damn cheap). There's never any attempt to prove that rent control actually drives out affordable housing, there's only the "no shit, that's the point" observation that newcomers to an in-demand city with rent control pay more. I moved to San Francisco last February, and I'm moving to New York in a month, so I'm not exactly a fan of rent control - I know my price is much higher than my neighbor's because of it. At the same time, though, I recognize that it's really shitty that I could take my programmer's salary and use it like a club against the people who were already living in the city. Why do I want to move to these places? Don't the people who were living there before me get some credit for making it desirable enough that I want to move there? Maybe I should be okay with subsidizing them.

loumf 18y ago
Great points. I love how people think that because they heard of someone abusing rent control, that that's the norm. There is no system that isn't gamed in some way -- sure it's unfair, but is the net effect better? Since CATO can obviously afford to do a proper study of the effects of rent control -- I can only assume that they know it won't support their idealogical position.
yummyfajitas 18y ago
"It has nothing to do with NYC being an island and SF being a peninsula." It's not just that. NYC is not built up the way it should be, and most of the buildup of recent years is condos. For many years, there was a ridiculous incongruity in NYC: sky high rents and abandoned buildings. Why renovate when you can't charge rents commensurately? These days it's mostly a Harlem/Inwood phenomenon. By the way, why is "allowing" people to stay in "their" homes (fine print: homes which are not really theirs) a good thing? Are unskilled workers somehow more deserving of a house in Manhattan than skilled workers? Do retirees deserve to live close to young workers jobs more than the young workers do? A guy with a family has a very good reason to pay more for a house close to his job.
- calambrac 18y ago
  Rent stabilization in NYC isn't mandatory for new construction, so new buildup being condos is not a response to rent control (unless it's a response to the threat of future rent control). Also, you'll need to explain how "sky high rents + abandoned buildings" corresponds to "Why renovate when you can't charge rents commensurately?" - if landlords can't charge rents commensurately, where are the sky high rents coming from? The argument that rent control prevents owners from maintaining their buildings is pure bullshit. There's not a rent-control law in existence that doesn't allow annual increases sufficient for maintenance. Buildings aren't maintained because the owner sees the opportunity for dramatically increased profits if the current tenant leaves and lets the building fall to shit in an effort to drive them out. As for why allowing people to stay in their homes is a good thing (and forgive me for being sentimental, but these are their homes, even if other people own the buildings - they do live there): there a few things that bother me about the free market religion: 1. The belief that all things with value have been priced appropriately. 2. The belief that ownership is the only form of risk that should be rewarded by society. Neighborhoods don't just magically become expensive to live in. I won't claim that the only reason is because good, noble people moved in when things were cheap and turned things around, but it's ridiculous to suggest that the people living in a place have nothing to do with that place becoming a desirable place for wealthier people to live. As for whether unskilled workers are somehow more deserving of a house in Manhattan than skilled workers: no, but then again, they don't deserve to be run away from their jobs and families simply because some rich asshole can price them out, either. You're making an emotional appeal for a guy with a family to have a right to be close to his job - that cuts both ways, you know.

loumf 18y ago

Great points. I love how people think that because they heard of someone abusing rent control, that that's the norm. There is no system that isn't gamed in some way -- sure it's unfair, but is the net effect better? Since CATO can obviously afford to do a proper study of the effects of rent control -- I can only assume that they know it won't support their idealogical position.

yummyfajitas 18y ago

"It has nothing to do with NYC being an island and SF being a peninsula." It's not just that. NYC is not built up the way it should be, and most of the buildup of recent years is condos. For many years, there was a ridiculous incongruity in NYC: sky high rents and abandoned buildings. Why renovate when you can't charge rents commensurately? These days it's mostly a Harlem/Inwood phenomenon. By the way, why is "allowing" people to stay in "their" homes (fine print: homes which are not really theirs) a good thing? Are unskilled workers somehow more deserving of a house in Manhattan than skilled workers? Do retirees deserve to live close to young workers jobs more than the young workers do? A guy with a family has a very good reason to pay more for a house close to his job.

calambrac 18y ago
Rent stabilization in NYC isn't mandatory for new construction, so new buildup being condos is not a response to rent control (unless it's a response to the threat of future rent control). Also, you'll need to explain how "sky high rents + abandoned buildings" corresponds to "Why renovate when you can't charge rents commensurately?" - if landlords can't charge rents commensurately, where are the sky high rents coming from? The argument that rent control prevents owners from maintaining their buildings is pure bullshit. There's not a rent-control law in existence that doesn't allow annual increases sufficient for maintenance. Buildings aren't maintained because the owner sees the opportunity for dramatically increased profits if the current tenant leaves and lets the building fall to shit in an effort to drive them out. As for why allowing people to stay in their homes is a good thing (and forgive me for being sentimental, but these are their homes, even if other people own the buildings - they do live there): there a few things that bother me about the free market religion: 1. The belief that all things with value have been priced appropriately. 2. The belief that ownership is the only form of risk that should be rewarded by society. Neighborhoods don't just magically become expensive to live in. I won't claim that the only reason is because good, noble people moved in when things were cheap and turned things around, but it's ridiculous to suggest that the people living in a place have nothing to do with that place becoming a desirable place for wealthier people to live. As for whether unskilled workers are somehow more deserving of a house in Manhattan than skilled workers: no, but then again, they don't deserve to be run away from their jobs and families simply because some rich asshole can price them out, either. You're making an emotional appeal for a guy with a family to have a right to be close to his job - that cuts both ways, you know.