3 ms·

The point is that rent control (over time) drives up the price of rental dwellings, a phenomenon which greatly harms the poor. Here's why: In many cities, new

by mmmurf 18y ago

The point is that rent control (over time) drives up the price of rental dwellings, a phenomenon which greatly harms the poor. Here's why: In many cities, new buildings are exempt from rent control if they are "luxury" buildings. So the supply of luxury housing increases. Meanwhile, the incentive to build non-luxury buildings is greatly diminished b/c those buildings fall under mandatory rent control. Also, there is a bigger incentive to turn buildings into condos, etc., to avoid having to deal with rent control. Not sure where you heard that new properties are exempt in most cases. This may be due to the fact that most are luxury buildings. So there is a finite amount of rent-controlled housing, and since it's such a great deal, the landlords have little incentive to improve the fixtures, furnishings, etc. They will rent the place without improvements, so there is no reason to spend the money on them. Thus the places deteriorate over time and begin to become more and more slumlike. Rent control also encourages over-consumption of housing space. My 3br apt example above explains one example. Without rent control, supply and demand can function properly. Maybe this means that cheaper housing is located a bit further from the highest rent area of a city. More likely, if there is demand for cheaper housing, someone will figure out a way to build it. The huge number of condemned buildings in major cities is evidence of the resources that have been completely wasted b/c nobody had the incentive to improve the places enough to make them liveable! If you rent, it's not a permanent home. This has many advantages -- if you get laid off you can easily move with a month's notice. You don't have to worry about long term upkeep, you don't have to worry about hiring a realtor or trying to recoup your investment if the market dips. The other side of the coin is that sometimes prices change to reflect other realities. An increasing price probably means that the area is thriving and (surprise) the space is actually worth more. Once you get into declaring that things should be priced by public officials rather than based on the market price (what they are actually worth to someone else who's willing to pay for them) you are stepping onto a very slippery slope.

calambrac 18y ago
New properties are exempt at least in NYC and SF, the main cities the article harps on. I don't know about elsewhere. A place deteriorating over time happens, but from the POV of the tenant whose alternative is getting booted to the curb, this seems like a reasonable tradeoff, doesn't it? The over-consumption of housing space is a pretty lame argument, and it's contradicted by the point that other people are making about a black-market rising up for illegal subletting & etc. "Supply and demand functioning properly" is a bit heartless in this context, don't you think? I mean, we don't exist so that some theoretical system can work in a way we can easily describe. When people get kicked out of the place they live, that has a cost - even if we haven't figured out how to put a price tag on it yet. I'm more than happy to say "screw the newcomers" in favor of the established citizenry. As for rent control being a slippery slope: this is bullshit (sorry). Despite free-market dogma to the contrary, reasonable government policy is not the enemy of the good. See: the recent credit crunch. What would something similar look like for a community? Let's see: an area of town becomes trendy, young folks with lots of disposable income bid up the prices like mad, all the old tenants leave, an economic downturn hits or the neighborhood loses its trendiness, all the young folks who have no real ties leave, and then...
- mmmurf 18y ago
  I have no problem with a program designed to subsidize housing for people with tax dollars. If the democracy decides that people with attributes x, y, and z deserve a $2000/month housing subsidy, that's fine. It's no different than the subsidy given to mortgage debtors (tax breaks), parents (the child tax credit), electric car owners (tax credit), student loan debtors (student loan interest deduction), farmers (direct subsidy), etc., etc. But consider how paternalistic any of these programs are compared to simply giving the person cash to spend on whatever he/she wants. Also, the above programs are taxpayer subsidized so the burden is distributed across all taxpayers. Rent control, on the other hand, screws over the building owners only, effectively making a single building owner personally provide a $1000+ subsidy to a hundreds of people. Compared to a broad, taxpayer-subsidized program, this is equivalent to a 70% additional tax just on landlords, this is on top of that person's fair share of income and payroll tax already being paid! The biggest problem, though, is the distortion caused by rent control... which causes all of the problems in my above post. To make obvious the issue of price controls leading to shortages, consider this: During the 1970s when Nixon instituted price controls on gas at the pump, there were massive lines outside gas stations. This was not due to the "evil Arabs" withholding gas. It was due to the price controls: People who would have decided to carpool or walk if the price had been at market price decided to buy gas at Nixon's price. This led to huge lines.
  - calambrac 18y ago
    That's a fair point, though I disagree about the parallel to gas prices (housing isn't a commodity, and rent control only applies to existing tenants). I've been in the position of defending 'rent control' on this thread, but really all I'm committed to are the ideas that the op was a terrible article that proved nothing, and that not displacing people from their homes is a worthy societal goal. If there are better ways to accomplish that than rent control, I'm all for them.
    - mmmurf 18y ago
      Fair enough. On a slightly tangential note, I think that the idea of "uprooting from homes" is a bit of an unfortunate cliche. In reality, it is home ownership that shackles people to jobs they hate, etc. If you rent, you can move whenever you want. If you own a home, you can't move if the job market declines or you find a better offer elsewhere unless you hire a Realtor and go through a major home sale project... and if the local economy is in decline, you're probably not the only person trying to sell your house and so you may end up selling it at a big loss (as was the case in post-industrial Flint, Michigan). I realize that landlords have been vilified in the past, but who is really benefited by suppressing the mobility of the population? It's businesses (whose workers can't leave), it's politicians (who don't have to worry as much about people packing up and leaving in response to bad policies, corruption, etc.), and it's banks -- most people pay at least the value of their home in mortgage interest, and are effectively enslaved to the bank, an unrelenting landlord who can inflict the equivalent of modern-day debtors prison in the form of foreclosure credit destruction and confiscation of any equity earned since purchase. How many people are tremendously afraid of losing their job because they might lose their house (their biggest investment)? How many people put up with unfulfilling, soul-sucking work just to make that house payment? Consider how this has all changed -- how many more debt slaves were created -- when the housing market tanked. Home ownership is not the American dream, nor is being part of a community for the long term, nor is having the same job for 30 years and then retiring with a gold watch and a pension. True freedom is in being able to take a better offer and being able to reinvent one's self whenever one wants. But our entire financial system, it seems, was based on the idea of encouraging long-term debt (mortgages) and the stasis that accompanies it. So I think the ideal that you are striving for with not uprooting people from their rental apartments is not only illusory but destructive. Price changes contain information, and preventing price changes simply hides information, keeps people in the dark, etc. Maybe being uprooted will (metaphorically) allow the plant to catch flight and land somewhere better... Maybe rental real-estate prices are so high because tons of rich people are moving in and they all plan on sending their kids to private school, leading to the destruction of the public schools -- this is the case in SF where most people with money would never send their kids to SF public schools even though it costs $2K/month to rent a dumpy 1BR apartment and so objectively it's a "rich" area.

by mmmurf 18y ago

calambrac 18y ago

New properties are exempt at least in NYC and SF, the main cities the article harps on. I don't know about elsewhere. A place deteriorating over time happens, but from the POV of the tenant whose alternative is getting booted to the curb, this seems like a reasonable tradeoff, doesn't it? The over-consumption of housing space is a pretty lame argument, and it's contradicted by the point that other people are making about a black-market rising up for illegal subletting & etc. "Supply and demand functioning properly" is a bit heartless in this context, don't you think? I mean, we don't exist so that some theoretical system can work in a way we can easily describe. When people get kicked out of the place they live, that has a cost - even if we haven't figured out how to put a price tag on it yet. I'm more than happy to say "screw the newcomers" in favor of the established citizenry. As for rent control being a slippery slope: this is bullshit (sorry). Despite free-market dogma to the contrary, reasonable government policy is not the enemy of the good. See: the recent credit crunch. What would something similar look like for a community? Let's see: an area of town becomes trendy, young folks with lots of disposable income bid up the prices like mad, all the old tenants leave, an economic downturn hits or the neighborhood loses its trendiness, all the young folks who have no real ties leave, and then...

mmmurf 18y ago
I have no problem with a program designed to subsidize housing for people with tax dollars. If the democracy decides that people with attributes x, y, and z deserve a $2000/month housing subsidy, that's fine. It's no different than the subsidy given to mortgage debtors (tax breaks), parents (the child tax credit), electric car owners (tax credit), student loan debtors (student loan interest deduction), farmers (direct subsidy), etc., etc. But consider how paternalistic any of these programs are compared to simply giving the person cash to spend on whatever he/she wants. Also, the above programs are taxpayer subsidized so the burden is distributed across all taxpayers. Rent control, on the other hand, screws over the building owners only, effectively making a single building owner personally provide a $1000+ subsidy to a hundreds of people. Compared to a broad, taxpayer-subsidized program, this is equivalent to a 70% additional tax just on landlords, this is on top of that person's fair share of income and payroll tax already being paid! The biggest problem, though, is the distortion caused by rent control... which causes all of the problems in my above post. To make obvious the issue of price controls leading to shortages, consider this: During the 1970s when Nixon instituted price controls on gas at the pump, there were massive lines outside gas stations. This was not due to the "evil Arabs" withholding gas. It was due to the price controls: People who would have decided to carpool or walk if the price had been at market price decided to buy gas at Nixon's price. This led to huge lines.
- calambrac 18y ago
  That's a fair point, though I disagree about the parallel to gas prices (housing isn't a commodity, and rent control only applies to existing tenants). I've been in the position of defending 'rent control' on this thread, but really all I'm committed to are the ideas that the op was a terrible article that proved nothing, and that not displacing people from their homes is a worthy societal goal. If there are better ways to accomplish that than rent control, I'm all for them.
  - mmmurf 18y ago
    Fair enough. On a slightly tangential note, I think that the idea of "uprooting from homes" is a bit of an unfortunate cliche. In reality, it is home ownership that shackles people to jobs they hate, etc. If you rent, you can move whenever you want. If you own a home, you can't move if the job market declines or you find a better offer elsewhere unless you hire a Realtor and go through a major home sale project... and if the local economy is in decline, you're probably not the only person trying to sell your house and so you may end up selling it at a big loss (as was the case in post-industrial Flint, Michigan). I realize that landlords have been vilified in the past, but who is really benefited by suppressing the mobility of the population? It's businesses (whose workers can't leave), it's politicians (who don't have to worry as much about people packing up and leaving in response to bad policies, corruption, etc.), and it's banks -- most people pay at least the value of their home in mortgage interest, and are effectively enslaved to the bank, an unrelenting landlord who can inflict the equivalent of modern-day debtors prison in the form of foreclosure credit destruction and confiscation of any equity earned since purchase. How many people are tremendously afraid of losing their job because they might lose their house (their biggest investment)? How many people put up with unfulfilling, soul-sucking work just to make that house payment? Consider how this has all changed -- how many more debt slaves were created -- when the housing market tanked. Home ownership is not the American dream, nor is being part of a community for the long term, nor is having the same job for 30 years and then retiring with a gold watch and a pension. True freedom is in being able to take a better offer and being able to reinvent one's self whenever one wants. But our entire financial system, it seems, was based on the idea of encouraging long-term debt (mortgages) and the stasis that accompanies it. So I think the ideal that you are striving for with not uprooting people from their rental apartments is not only illusory but destructive. Price changes contain information, and preventing price changes simply hides information, keeps people in the dark, etc. Maybe being uprooted will (metaphorically) allow the plant to catch flight and land somewhere better... Maybe rental real-estate prices are so high because tons of rich people are moving in and they all plan on sending their kids to private school, leading to the destruction of the public schools -- this is the case in SF where most people with money would never send their kids to SF public schools even though it costs $2K/month to rent a dumpy 1BR apartment and so objectively it's a "rich" area.