5 ms·

With rent control, it seems to be it mostly (always?) seems to be implemented in a binary fashion: a geographic area tends to have most (all?) units controlled

With rent control, it seems to be it mostly (always?) seems to be implemented in a binary fashion: a geographic area tends to have most (all?) units controlled or not. When it is removed, then folks can be grandfathered in, so anyone who stays put is fine, but once a unit becomes vacant the unit becomes uncontrolled. I'd be curious to see a 'sliding scale' implementation: * all newly built units are uncontrolled * all units that are 5-10 years old have a maximum rental increase of 3xCPI * all units that are 10-15 years old have a maximum rental increase of 2xCPI * units >15 years old are rent controlled (~CPI increases) Is anyone aware of jurisdiction(s) that have done such a thing?

burkaman 2y ago
Not a sliding scale, but Washington DC has rent control only for buildings built before 1975.
sroussey 2y ago
California tends to work this way. Rent control (government chosen pricing) tends to affect only older buildings, not new ones, and is for rent increases not original rent. Places that implemented it (SF, Santa Monica, West Hollywood) now have the highest rents. People that are grandfathered never move. Reduces available locations by artificially scarcity. Landlords love it. Grandfathered renters love it. People moving in need to afford much more than older residents and hate it.
- azinman2 2y ago
  It also means that in places like SF those who built the cities character and provide the backbone of all kinds of services can stay. If the market price came to be they’d have to move, and then we’d only have tech workers who have way more elasticity in their budgets than kindergarten teachers. You have to recognize reality is messy and you need a mix.
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    That is how functioning markets need to work. If demand goes up, then the market price goes up. If the price goes up and tech workers want their kids to go to school, they need to pay teachers more. Right now, there are crappy 100 duct tape fixes. Maybe some teachers are in rent controlled places paying 25% market price, and some are paying full market. Some teachers are in City owned housing that only teachers qualify for. In short, it isnt a functioning market. For it to be a functioning market, you have to let the taxpayers confront the question of if they would rather pay for schools or not have them.
    - JoeAltmaier 2y ago
      OR supply can change. Increased demand, in the long run, in a well-functioning market can cause market price to fall. Because supply goes up, and production in volume decreases cost. Anyway we're talking people here (for now; AI will change this and soon). The only way unit price goes down is if their own costs go down e.g. education loans drop or disappear.
      - s1artibartfast 2y ago
        I think what I said holds true independent of increasing housing supply, which I also support. A functional market would find a labor price where necessary workers can afford the housing price, or face going without their labor. I think the current approach is counter productive because it tries to bypass this with policy solutions that mean workers keep making unsustainable wages, but are subsidized in several other ways with poor implementation. >Anyway we're talking people here.... The only way unit price goes down is if their own costs go down e.g. education loans drop or disappear. Im not sure what you are saying here. I dont think the costs to become a teacher are the bottleneck. Cost of living is the financial bottle neck, and the misery of working in a dysfunctional school districts is the emotional bottle neck. I know several former teachers in SF. You can afford to be a teacher in SF if you have rent control, but not if you dont. Some left for jobs that pay even worse because the conditions were so bad (broken bones from students, incompetent administrators, hostile parents, ect)
    - 2y ago
- panarky 2y ago
  > now have the highest rents This is not proof that rent control causes high rents. It could be that these are highly desirable areas without enough housing to meet demand, and rent control was in response to high rents. It could be that landlords are evading rent controls. It could be that rents would be even higher if rent control didn't exist.
daedrdev 2y ago
> all newly built units are uncontrolled Controlling them after few years later they are controlled, just with less harsh terms. The issue is supply, we are not building enough housing. Controlling after few years means the viability of projects goes down, which is meaningful with the absurdly high costs of regulation, land, and construction.
toast0 2y ago
My experience with rent control in San Jose, CA was that it only applied to lots where there were at least three units, built before 1979. If it'a a duplex, no rent control. If it's built in 1979 or newer, no rent control. If the renter leaves, a new renter's rent is not limited based on past rent. Regular annual increase is capped at 5%, but there's the usual exceptions available.
s1artibartfast 2y ago
San Francisco implemented a time cutoff for its rent control, which covers places prior to 1979. That said, the increase limit is much less than the CPI, about 0.5X, So covered rents grow much slower than inflation. As such, there is a pretty big secondary market where leaseholders make money subletting rent controlled places. I know about a dozen people who have moved to other cities and states, but sublet in SF making thousands.

burkaman 2y ago

Not a sliding scale, but Washington DC has rent control only for buildings built before 1975.

sroussey 2y ago

California tends to work this way. Rent control (government chosen pricing) tends to affect only older buildings, not new ones, and is for rent increases not original rent. Places that implemented it (SF, Santa Monica, West Hollywood) now have the highest rents. People that are grandfathered never move. Reduces available locations by artificially scarcity. Landlords love it. Grandfathered renters love it. People moving in need to afford much more than older residents and hate it.

azinman2 2y ago
It also means that in places like SF those who built the cities character and provide the backbone of all kinds of services can stay. If the market price came to be they’d have to move, and then we’d only have tech workers who have way more elasticity in their budgets than kindergarten teachers. You have to recognize reality is messy and you need a mix.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  That is how functioning markets need to work. If demand goes up, then the market price goes up. If the price goes up and tech workers want their kids to go to school, they need to pay teachers more. Right now, there are crappy 100 duct tape fixes. Maybe some teachers are in rent controlled places paying 25% market price, and some are paying full market. Some teachers are in City owned housing that only teachers qualify for. In short, it isnt a functioning market. For it to be a functioning market, you have to let the taxpayers confront the question of if they would rather pay for schools or not have them.
  - JoeAltmaier 2y ago
    OR supply can change. Increased demand, in the long run, in a well-functioning market can cause market price to fall. Because supply goes up, and production in volume decreases cost. Anyway we're talking people here (for now; AI will change this and soon). The only way unit price goes down is if their own costs go down e.g. education loans drop or disappear.
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      I think what I said holds true independent of increasing housing supply, which I also support. A functional market would find a labor price where necessary workers can afford the housing price, or face going without their labor. I think the current approach is counter productive because it tries to bypass this with policy solutions that mean workers keep making unsustainable wages, but are subsidized in several other ways with poor implementation. >Anyway we're talking people here.... The only way unit price goes down is if their own costs go down e.g. education loans drop or disappear. Im not sure what you are saying here. I dont think the costs to become a teacher are the bottleneck. Cost of living is the financial bottle neck, and the misery of working in a dysfunctional school districts is the emotional bottle neck. I know several former teachers in SF. You can afford to be a teacher in SF if you have rent control, but not if you dont. Some left for jobs that pay even worse because the conditions were so bad (broken bones from students, incompetent administrators, hostile parents, ect)
  - 2y ago
panarky 2y ago
> now have the highest rents This is not proof that rent control causes high rents. It could be that these are highly desirable areas without enough housing to meet demand, and rent control was in response to high rents. It could be that landlords are evading rent controls. It could be that rents would be even higher if rent control didn't exist.

daedrdev 2y ago

> all newly built units are uncontrolled Controlling them after few years later they are controlled, just with less harsh terms. The issue is supply, we are not building enough housing. Controlling after few years means the viability of projects goes down, which is meaningful with the absurdly high costs of regulation, land, and construction.

toast0 2y ago

My experience with rent control in San Jose, CA was that it only applied to lots where there were at least three units, built before 1979. If it'a a duplex, no rent control. If it's built in 1979 or newer, no rent control. If the renter leaves, a new renter's rent is not limited based on past rent. Regular annual increase is capped at 5%, but there's the usual exceptions available.

s1artibartfast 2y ago

San Francisco implemented a time cutoff for its rent control, which covers places prior to 1979. That said, the increase limit is much less than the CPI, about 0.5X, So covered rents grow much slower than inflation. As such, there is a pretty big secondary market where leaseholders make money subletting rent controlled places. I know about a dozen people who have moved to other cities and states, but sublet in SF making thousands.