3 ms·

I don't have citations on hand, but as I recall, studies on rent control have shown both positive and negative effects. Proponents/opponents like to pick and ch

I don't have citations on hand, but as I recall, studies on rent control have shown both positive and negative effects. Proponents/opponents like to pick and choose the studies that back their existing convictions. But the whole must be considered. I'll tell you from personal experience that not having to worry about arbitrary rent increases and evictions is a massive relief that I imagine few renters in other American cities get to experience. Frankly, it's unconscionable for people to be pushed out of their homes due to market forces outside their control. I strongly support building new housing, but not at the expense of renter security — even if it means that some new people don't get to move to the city. > Eliminating the zoning premium would bring houses down in price by $400,000 each. I suspect you’d be able to afford to buy. No, I can't afford a $2M home and I won't be able to afford a $1.6M home either. And it won't happen right away, if it ever does.

arcticbull 2y ago
I cited the specific study on San Francisco that supports my argument as [2] — I edited it in for posterity so it may not have been there when you looked. We can just end rent control for anyone who doesn’t have it but ending it is strictly good policy. There’s no rational basis in economics to support it. Rent prices wouldn’t go up if supply and demand were allowed to meet making rent control unnecessary anyways. You get both security and lower prices if you just build. If you want to lock in the price negotiate such a lease directly or buy, but don’t leverage the state to force it.
- archagon 2y ago
  > Rent prices wouldn’t go up if supply and demand were allowed to meet making rent control unnecessary anyways. You get both security and lower prices if you just build. If you want to lock in the price negotiate such a lease directly or buy. You can do other things to increase supply (rezone, force vacant properties to be rented, offer subsidies to developers, etc.) while still maintaining rent control. The end result will be the same once the market stabilizes, except rent control has the benefit of protecting renters again unforeseen future market distortions, such as your neighborhood suddenly becoming popular with the nouveau riche. I see the elimination of rent control as a blatantly anti-renter, pro-landlord policy that's dressed up as pro-renter market correction.
  - arcticbull 2y ago
    Again rent control has no economic basis, and when supply and demand meet rent prices don’t rise anyways.
    - archagon 2y ago
      Labor rights don't have an economic basis, either. Some policies put the human first instead of capital.
      - arcticbull 2y ago
        Sure they do. But again when supply and demand meet there’s no use for rent control anyways. Rent control is favoring some people at the expense of everybody else on the basis that they happen to get there early. It’s not a rational policy. It’s the same irrational policy that guarantees existing landowners a massive return. Btw a 2M house in SF these days is a mansion. You can get a 3bed 2bath for like $899K. Take $400K off and you’re cooking with gas. https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/148-Peralta-Ave-A-San-Francisco-CA-94110/2093305961_zpid/ https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/148-Peralta-Ave-A-San-Fra... You can get a 5bed 4bath for $1.8 https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1959-19th-Ave-San-Francisco-CA-94116/15114771_zpid/ https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1959-19th-Ave-San-Francis...
        archagon 2y ago
        > Sure they do. How? Child labor, unbounded workdays and workweeks, hazardous work conditions, hiring discrimination, firing without cause, etc. make complete economic sense. Workers didn't like that very much, though, and so a lot of blood was spilled to win the rights we enjoy today. > But again when supply and demand meet there’s no use for rent control anyways. As I alluded to earlier, a stable market isn't guaranteed to remain that way and will have distortions over time. If a bunch of millionaires suddenly decide that some neighborhood is the place to be, it's unconscionable for long-time renters in that neighborhood to be forced to move out. (Not everyone is a spry 20-something with no pets or dependents, minimal furniture and belongings, ephemeral local ties, and flexible work hours.) Yes, the policy favors existing renters at the expense of new ones. It's difficult for me to see that as unfair or irrational.

arcticbull 2y ago

I cited the specific study on San Francisco that supports my argument as [2] — I edited it in for posterity so it may not have been there when you looked. We can just end rent control for anyone who doesn’t have it but ending it is strictly good policy. There’s no rational basis in economics to support it. Rent prices wouldn’t go up if supply and demand were allowed to meet making rent control unnecessary anyways. You get both security and lower prices if you just build. If you want to lock in the price negotiate such a lease directly or buy, but don’t leverage the state to force it.

archagon 2y ago
> Rent prices wouldn’t go up if supply and demand were allowed to meet making rent control unnecessary anyways. You get both security and lower prices if you just build. If you want to lock in the price negotiate such a lease directly or buy. You can do other things to increase supply (rezone, force vacant properties to be rented, offer subsidies to developers, etc.) while still maintaining rent control. The end result will be the same once the market stabilizes, except rent control has the benefit of protecting renters again unforeseen future market distortions, such as your neighborhood suddenly becoming popular with the nouveau riche. I see the elimination of rent control as a blatantly anti-renter, pro-landlord policy that's dressed up as pro-renter market correction.
- arcticbull 2y ago
  Again rent control has no economic basis, and when supply and demand meet rent prices don’t rise anyways.
  - archagon 2y ago
    Labor rights don't have an economic basis, either. Some policies put the human first instead of capital.
    - arcticbull 2y ago
      Sure they do. But again when supply and demand meet there’s no use for rent control anyways. Rent control is favoring some people at the expense of everybody else on the basis that they happen to get there early. It’s not a rational policy. It’s the same irrational policy that guarantees existing landowners a massive return. Btw a 2M house in SF these days is a mansion. You can get a 3bed 2bath for like $899K. Take $400K off and you’re cooking with gas. https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/148-Peralta-Ave-A-San-Francisco-CA-94110/2093305961_zpid/ https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/148-Peralta-Ave-A-San-Fra... You can get a 5bed 4bath for $1.8 https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1959-19th-Ave-San-Francisco-CA-94116/15114771_zpid/ https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1959-19th-Ave-San-Francis...
      - archagon 2y ago
        > Sure they do. How? Child labor, unbounded workdays and workweeks, hazardous work conditions, hiring discrimination, firing without cause, etc. make complete economic sense. Workers didn't like that very much, though, and so a lot of blood was spilled to win the rights we enjoy today. > But again when supply and demand meet there’s no use for rent control anyways. As I alluded to earlier, a stable market isn't guaranteed to remain that way and will have distortions over time. If a bunch of millionaires suddenly decide that some neighborhood is the place to be, it's unconscionable for long-time renters in that neighborhood to be forced to move out. (Not everyone is a spry 20-something with no pets or dependents, minimal furniture and belongings, ephemeral local ties, and flexible work hours.) Yes, the policy favors existing renters at the expense of new ones. It's difficult for me to see that as unfair or irrational.