5 ms·

"To evade various ridiculous NYC taxes (which make a lot of new construction unviable), you need to submit to rent control." Agreeing to not displace people to

"To evade various ridiculous NYC taxes (which make a lot of new construction unviable), you need to submit to rent control." Agreeing to not displace people to cash in on temporary market swings seems like a better tax shelter than some others I've heard of. "Sky high rents come from current demand. Rent control provides a disincentive to long term investments like new construction or major renovations to rental buildings." This doesn't make any sense. Without the current rent-control laws, the incentive would be to keep the housing supply low and spike rental rates. New construction would still be difficult (because it's NYC), plus current owners would spend their political capital on preventing it from happening to keep their incomes up. "Incidentally, neither of the 'things that bother you about the free market religion' are actually part of the free market ideology. 1) only applies to efficient markets (like the rental market, with many buyers and sellers, and good information) and 2) is closer to the Clinton/Bush/Dodd/Obama ideology that ownership is something to encourage." Maybe I should be more clear, my fault. My first point has less to do with pricing efficiency than with the basic idea that certain things with value can be priced at all (a person's contribution to the appeal of a neighborhood, for instance). My second point was that there are other kinds of risk (living in a bad neighborhood for its cheap rent) that should be rewarded by society over ownership (the windfall that the owner of a slum stumbles into as the neighborhood appreciates in value). "In some cases the people are completely unrelated." Of course, I never implied otherwise. My next sentence after the one you quoted was that I wouldn't claim such a thing. As for Harlem, I was almost going to use that to illustrate my point. Prices there are a lot cheaper there right now than the location would suggest they should be, and (despite your experience) tons of people are starting to look that way. Assuming living in the city stays cool, do you really think it's going to be as cheap as it is today in five years? And everyone who's moving there right now, who are going to make it that super-desirable place to live? They'll be priced out (see: SoHo, parts of Brooklyn, Hell's Kitchen, etc., etc). "As far as who "deserves" to live on some place, it's a wash. So lets not favor any particular group over the other." I disagree, let's favor the particular group that was already there, that's already established the place as their home. "As far as emotional appeals go, I'm not casting any group of people as assholes." Really? I've got some rental agencies to introduce you to.

yummyfajitas 18y ago
"This doesn't make any sense. Without the current rent-control laws, the incentive would be to keep the housing supply low and spike rental rates." Only if there were a monopolistic housing provider. Absent rent control, the incentive for any individual housing supplier would be to build more houses and cash in. By your logic, dell should (in the absence of computer-price control laws) cut back on computer production to spike prices. Of course, that's ridiculous; HP, Asus, Everex and others will pick up the slack and Dell will lose money. As for other landlords engaging in rent seeking, that's a problem, but a separate one. "My second point was that there are other kinds of risk (living in a bad neighborhood for its cheap rent) that should be rewarded by society over ownership (the windfall that the owner of a slum stumbles into as the neighborhood appreciates in value)." Living in a bad neighborhood is rewarded; the reward is cheap rent. "Prices there are a lot cheaper there right now than the location would suggest they should be, and (despite your experience) tons of people are starting to look that way." Prices are a lot cheaper than they should be precisely because newcomers don't want to live near Harlem natives. High prices elsewhere are driving people here, but the locals are not helping things. As an example of the issues, several of my female visitors have been hassled on their way home. So if you argue for subsidizing hip locals who make a neighborhood attractive, do you also want to penalize disagreeable locals? If not, why not?
- calambrac 18y ago
  "Only if there were a monopolistic housing provider." Come on, man, housing isn't a commodity. If you're an owner charging whatever crazy price you can get in the LES as passive income on top of doing whatever you do as a day job, you're not interested in going out and spending the energy on amping production of more housing units. Plus, maybe you live in the neighborhood yourself, and you'd hate to see soulless apartment blocks go in, and if they did go in, all the charm and neighborliness that makes it so great and desirable in the first place disappears, and prices collapse. You really don't think that guy is spending his political capital on preventing new apartment construction in his awesome neighborhood? I know that's how it happens in the Mission in SF, where I'm living now. "Living in a bad neighborhood is rewarded; the reward is cheap rent." Until the rich people see you living there happily and drive up prices trying to be your new neighbor - hence, rent control. "So if you argue for subsidizing hip locals who make a neighborhood attractive, do you also want to penalize disagreeable locals? If not, why not?" I said subsidize the people who make the neighborhood desirable to live in. It's pretty cynical if you think that's just the hip locals who moved in only a little before the rest of the wave. Harlem is a little rough today in parts, but I fucking love that part of town. Crime hurts everyone; people who are less well-off have just as much right to live in a crime-free neighborhood as everyone else. Squint a little, and maybe you can see it another way: how much does it suck that the rich white people have to move in before a neighborhood gets policed properly?

yummyfajitas 18y ago

"This doesn't make any sense. Without the current rent-control laws, the incentive would be to keep the housing supply low and spike rental rates." Only if there were a monopolistic housing provider. Absent rent control, the incentive for any individual housing supplier would be to build more houses and cash in. By your logic, dell should (in the absence of computer-price control laws) cut back on computer production to spike prices. Of course, that's ridiculous; HP, Asus, Everex and others will pick up the slack and Dell will lose money. As for other landlords engaging in rent seeking, that's a problem, but a separate one. "My second point was that there are other kinds of risk (living in a bad neighborhood for its cheap rent) that should be rewarded by society over ownership (the windfall that the owner of a slum stumbles into as the neighborhood appreciates in value)." Living in a bad neighborhood is rewarded; the reward is cheap rent. "Prices there are a lot cheaper there right now than the location would suggest they should be, and (despite your experience) tons of people are starting to look that way." Prices are a lot cheaper than they should be precisely because newcomers don't want to live near Harlem natives. High prices elsewhere are driving people here, but the locals are not helping things. As an example of the issues, several of my female visitors have been hassled on their way home. So if you argue for subsidizing hip locals who make a neighborhood attractive, do you also want to penalize disagreeable locals? If not, why not?

calambrac 18y ago
"Only if there were a monopolistic housing provider." Come on, man, housing isn't a commodity. If you're an owner charging whatever crazy price you can get in the LES as passive income on top of doing whatever you do as a day job, you're not interested in going out and spending the energy on amping production of more housing units. Plus, maybe you live in the neighborhood yourself, and you'd hate to see soulless apartment blocks go in, and if they did go in, all the charm and neighborliness that makes it so great and desirable in the first place disappears, and prices collapse. You really don't think that guy is spending his political capital on preventing new apartment construction in his awesome neighborhood? I know that's how it happens in the Mission in SF, where I'm living now. "Living in a bad neighborhood is rewarded; the reward is cheap rent." Until the rich people see you living there happily and drive up prices trying to be your new neighbor - hence, rent control. "So if you argue for subsidizing hip locals who make a neighborhood attractive, do you also want to penalize disagreeable locals? If not, why not?" I said subsidize the people who make the neighborhood desirable to live in. It's pretty cynical if you think that's just the hip locals who moved in only a little before the rest of the wave. Harlem is a little rough today in parts, but I fucking love that part of town. Crime hurts everyone; people who are less well-off have just as much right to live in a crime-free neighborhood as everyone else. Squint a little, and maybe you can see it another way: how much does it suck that the rich white people have to move in before a neighborhood gets policed properly?