4 ms·

Rent control is one of the best ideas, and it may be a civilizational, foundational idea. Property ownership is at the very core of entrenched power, and the f

Rent control is one of the best ideas, and it may be a civilizational, foundational idea. Property ownership is at the very core of entrenched power, and the foundation of rent-seeking and wealth asymmetry. If you look at even the Monarchs of long past - it wasn't their 'titles' that made them powerful - it was the economic rent that came along with the land ownership. Even in more open market economies, property is still is basically long term economics lording over short term economics of wage earning workers. Being able to kick someone out of their home almost arbitrary basically puts working class people at the 'total whims of the market' and it's one of the most disruptive concepts imaginable. If we take the view that 'housing is about housing first - only about investment to the extent it does not disrupt housing' - then a different perspective takes shape. Many Canadian provinces have 'basic rent controls' and it does not generally prevent new housing development. If anything, providing 'housing stability' is probably the best way to create base prosperity, so those people can go out and spend on all the other things. There might need to be some degree of leeway here and there for certain kinds of density challenges, but that can be had with rent control There is almost unlimited land in North America to build on - if in one spot it's a bit difficult - build elsewhere. If people want to have 'density' then incorporate an area and 'build density' in that area. Also it does need to be 'affordable' but that can work with regulations. Edit: our housing problems are about screwed up management, it's actually not even an ideological problem underneath. Like 'rent control' the way it is framed scares some people, but its literally province wide in Ontario, Quebec and it's a 'non issue' for new unit hinderance. Even the nimbyism stuff can be worked around: if people don't want high-rises next to them, it's their right, but there's a lot less opposition to 'mild density' especially if it fits in local cultural and aesthetic context. We can have our cake and it eat on housing. I think we invent ideological lenses because it's easier to frame 'narratives' than it is just weird policies, special circumstances, hiccups, different municipal things going on all at once.

wyager 7mo ago
> Rent control is one of the best ideas It's funny how this question might have the greatest divergence in answer distribution between people who do and don't know what they're talking about Other candidates are "is debt good" and "is property tax better or worse than income tax"
- bluegatty 7mo ago
  I think it's a matter of perspective maybe more than 'knowing what they are talking about'. Like - seeing property as 'investment and ownership' vs 'places where people live' is sometimes pretty big gap. Especially when we've been grounded in 'mortgages and wealth creation' for regular middle class people. Rent control and the underlying civilization power dynamics are kind of a subtle thing, I think most folks are going to just answer in terms of 'what is good for them'.
  - hunterpayne 7mo ago
    Rent control drives up rents, not down. Since rent control was enacted in SF, rents have increased by 15x in 45 years. That's 24% a year annualized over 45 years. Its similar for other places that enacted it. Rarely in human history has a specific policy failed more spectacularly. Yet you still hear supposedly educated people advocate for it every year.
    - simoncion 7mo ago
      > Rent control drives up rents, not down. Since rent control was enacted in SF, rents have increased by 15x in 45 years. A couple of things: You're aware of the Californian property tax control? If you aren't, go read up on the 197X Proposition 13, as well as the ways even vaguely-savvy landowners can get around the "tax is reassessed when the property changes hands" rule. IMO, it's only fair that tenants get the same sort of price-increase-protection that landlords get. If the landlords get rid of Prop 13 and anything even remotely like it for the next fifty years, I'll be first in line to clamor for the removal of what passes for rent control in the few cities that have it. Unless you -as a developer- especially request otherwise, SF's rent control only applies to buildings that were in existence back in 197X, when the ordinance was enacted. New units are not covered by rent control. It does not apply to any commercial buildings... just residential rentals. It also only controls the rate of rent increase until the unit is vacated. Once it's vacated, the landlord is free to charge whatever rent they wish. Your story gets confounded by the fact that -for a variety of reasons- it's nearly impossible to build any new residential buildings in SF. When demand is met with a nearly zero increase in the supply, the cost of the thing being demanded tends to go up. Rents are generally quite high in California, not just in SF. From [0] 2000 1990 1980 1970 1960 1950 1940 United States $602 $447 $243 $108 $71 $42 $27 California $747 $620 $283 $126 $79 $42 $27 Washington $663 $445 $254 $113 $71 $43 $22 Only a few cities in California have rent control [1], so that doesn't explain the fact that rents are high state-wide. Though, it is more interesting to look at the numbers when adjusted to 2000's dollar. [2] I wonder if your "15x" figure is inflation-adjusted... 2000 1990 1980 1970 1960 1950 1940 United States $602 $571 $481 $415 $350 $257 $284 California $747 $792 $560 $484 $389 $256 $286 Washington $663 $569 $503 $434 $350 $263 $226 [0] <https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/decennial/tables/time-series/coh-grossrents/grossrents-unadj.txt https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/decennial/tables/ti...> [1] Costa-Hawkings prevents cities from even considering the adoption of the policy to level the playing field with Prop 13-subsidized landlords. [2] <https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/decennial/tables/time-series/coh-grossrents/grossrents-adj.txt https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/decennial/tables/ti...>
hahahacorn 7mo ago
It would be far more efficient to simply tax away all rent collected from land instead of grossly warping markets and creating terrible incentives for all involved. The reason is that you can’t produce more land. Fixed supply will also warp economic markets and create terrible incentives (land speculation). If you want the best solution, you implement a land value tax. If you want the 2nd best solution, tax property (Land + Building value). If you want the worst solution, implement rent control.
- bluegatty 7mo ago
  Rent control is not 'warping markets' - it's the notion that 'homes are markets' that is 'warped' - that's the basis of the problem. The workaround is to build more dwellings, and rc generally is not an inhibitor there. Funny enough 'wealth taxes' may actually be the worst of tax of all - aka a double negative - like a double negative. What we want to do is make it so that 'rich people get rich' not from rent-seeking but from real value creation.
  - culopatin 7mo ago
    Who builds them? Private party. What’s their incentive? Making money.
    - bluegatty 7mo ago
      It's not the 'building' that's the problem - it never wars. It's property ownership this is the core problem. It's a zero sum game, of no value creation and mostly just economic rent extraction. It's the 'property problem' not the 'thing on it'. We have no problem getting people to 'make stuff and sell it'.
      - hahahacorn 7mo ago
        Property is not zero sum. You can build nicer things and improve land and me doing so doesn't hurt you. Land IS zero sum. Land I own is land you do not own, and does not serve you, and I should not profit from the value of the LAND, only the value of the property I build / maintain / manage.
jmyeet 7mo ago
Rent control is the wrong solution to the right problem (ie affordable housing). It creates all sorts of problems that wouldn't exist otherwise. For example, if you've been in a rent control house or apartment for 10+ years and are paying significantly less, what happens if you want to move? Or just need a bigger place? It's a huge impeediment to mobility and flexibility. Also, you have an adversarial relationship with your landlord. They want you to leave so they can raise the rent. They'll skimp on maintenance, turn off the heat (even when it's illegal) and generally make your life miserable until you leave. The solution to these problems is social housing, meaning the government becomes a significant supplier of affordable, quality housing. The very wealthy and the real estate industry don't want this however because it will decrease profits. > Property ownership is at the very core of entrenched power, In the literature, there is a distinction made between private property and personal property. I'm fine with people owning their own home if they want. That's personal property. Private property is when we allow people and corporations to hoard housing. I'm all for making it financiall punitive to own more than one house.
- bluegatty 7mo ago
  The problems that rent control creates are far smaller than the problems that exist without it. To start - your 'very first example' is not even really 'a problem'. 'Without rent control' - you get kicked out of your abode every few years if your salary doesn't keep up with housing inflation. With rent control, you have the option of 'having a home; you decide when you want to leave (for the most part). The answer to the 'second example', 'adversarial tenant/landlord' is that the theory doesn't line up with reality for the most part. Again - in most rent controlled areas this kind of stuff does not happen, especially if it's entrenched in the culture. It works well in a ton of housing markets like Quebec, Germany. The primary concern about rent control limiting expansion ... just does not exist. It doesn't really impede new builds.
  - jmyeet 7mo ago
    > To start - your 'very first example' is not even really 'a problem'. Yes, it is. Anywhere with significant and strong rent control results in a large number of people who simply cannot move. Look, rent control is better than no rent control but it address the symptom not the problem. The real problem is that rents shouldn't significantly outpace inflation. In a better world, you should be able to easily move because you're not locked in to a below-market rent that you don't want to lose. And rents get more expensive because a whole bunch of people make sure that housing is an appreciating asset. It should be a depreciating asset. > The answer to the 'second example', 'adversarial tenant/landlord' is that the theory doesn't line up with reality for the most part. Again - in most rent controlled areas this kind of stuff does not happen You will not find in any American city, especially one with rent control, where tenants do not absolutely hate their landlords as the general rule. What are you smoking?
slopinthebag 7mo ago
> our housing problems are about screwed up management, it's actually not even an ideological problem underneath Broadly, our housing problems are bureaucratic in origin and I think bureaucracy is indeed an ideology.
deleted 7mo ago
[deleted]

wyager 7mo ago

> Rent control is one of the best ideas It's funny how this question might have the greatest divergence in answer distribution between people who do and don't know what they're talking about Other candidates are "is debt good" and "is property tax better or worse than income tax"

bluegatty 7mo ago
I think it's a matter of perspective maybe more than 'knowing what they are talking about'. Like - seeing property as 'investment and ownership' vs 'places where people live' is sometimes pretty big gap. Especially when we've been grounded in 'mortgages and wealth creation' for regular middle class people. Rent control and the underlying civilization power dynamics are kind of a subtle thing, I think most folks are going to just answer in terms of 'what is good for them'.
- hunterpayne 7mo ago
  Rent control drives up rents, not down. Since rent control was enacted in SF, rents have increased by 15x in 45 years. That's 24% a year annualized over 45 years. Its similar for other places that enacted it. Rarely in human history has a specific policy failed more spectacularly. Yet you still hear supposedly educated people advocate for it every year.
  - simoncion 7mo ago
    > Rent control drives up rents, not down. Since rent control was enacted in SF, rents have increased by 15x in 45 years. A couple of things: You're aware of the Californian property tax control? If you aren't, go read up on the 197X Proposition 13, as well as the ways even vaguely-savvy landowners can get around the "tax is reassessed when the property changes hands" rule. IMO, it's only fair that tenants get the same sort of price-increase-protection that landlords get. If the landlords get rid of Prop 13 and anything even remotely like it for the next fifty years, I'll be first in line to clamor for the removal of what passes for rent control in the few cities that have it. Unless you -as a developer- especially request otherwise, SF's rent control only applies to buildings that were in existence back in 197X, when the ordinance was enacted. New units are not covered by rent control. It does not apply to any commercial buildings... just residential rentals. It also only controls the rate of rent increase until the unit is vacated. Once it's vacated, the landlord is free to charge whatever rent they wish. Your story gets confounded by the fact that -for a variety of reasons- it's nearly impossible to build any new residential buildings in SF. When demand is met with a nearly zero increase in the supply, the cost of the thing being demanded tends to go up. Rents are generally quite high in California, not just in SF. From [0] 2000 1990 1980 1970 1960 1950 1940 United States $602 $447 $243 $108 $71 $42 $27 California $747 $620 $283 $126 $79 $42 $27 Washington $663 $445 $254 $113 $71 $43 $22 Only a few cities in California have rent control [1], so that doesn't explain the fact that rents are high state-wide. Though, it is more interesting to look at the numbers when adjusted to 2000's dollar. [2] I wonder if your "15x" figure is inflation-adjusted... 2000 1990 1980 1970 1960 1950 1940 United States $602 $571 $481 $415 $350 $257 $284 California $747 $792 $560 $484 $389 $256 $286 Washington $663 $569 $503 $434 $350 $263 $226 [0] <https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/decennial/tables/time-series/coh-grossrents/grossrents-unadj.txt https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/decennial/tables/ti...> [1] Costa-Hawkings prevents cities from even considering the adoption of the policy to level the playing field with Prop 13-subsidized landlords. [2] <https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/decennial/tables/time-series/coh-grossrents/grossrents-adj.txt https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/decennial/tables/ti...>

hahahacorn 7mo ago

It would be far more efficient to simply tax away all rent collected from land instead of grossly warping markets and creating terrible incentives for all involved. The reason is that you can’t produce more land. Fixed supply will also warp economic markets and create terrible incentives (land speculation). If you want the best solution, you implement a land value tax. If you want the 2nd best solution, tax property (Land + Building value). If you want the worst solution, implement rent control.

bluegatty 7mo ago
Rent control is not 'warping markets' - it's the notion that 'homes are markets' that is 'warped' - that's the basis of the problem. The workaround is to build more dwellings, and rc generally is not an inhibitor there. Funny enough 'wealth taxes' may actually be the worst of tax of all - aka a double negative - like a double negative. What we want to do is make it so that 'rich people get rich' not from rent-seeking but from real value creation.
- culopatin 7mo ago
  Who builds them? Private party. What’s their incentive? Making money.
  - bluegatty 7mo ago
    It's not the 'building' that's the problem - it never wars. It's property ownership this is the core problem. It's a zero sum game, of no value creation and mostly just economic rent extraction. It's the 'property problem' not the 'thing on it'. We have no problem getting people to 'make stuff and sell it'.
    - hahahacorn 7mo ago
      Property is not zero sum. You can build nicer things and improve land and me doing so doesn't hurt you. Land IS zero sum. Land I own is land you do not own, and does not serve you, and I should not profit from the value of the LAND, only the value of the property I build / maintain / manage.

jmyeet 7mo ago

Rent control is the wrong solution to the right problem (ie affordable housing). It creates all sorts of problems that wouldn't exist otherwise. For example, if you've been in a rent control house or apartment for 10+ years and are paying significantly less, what happens if you want to move? Or just need a bigger place? It's a huge impeediment to mobility and flexibility. Also, you have an adversarial relationship with your landlord. They want you to leave so they can raise the rent. They'll skimp on maintenance, turn off the heat (even when it's illegal) and generally make your life miserable until you leave. The solution to these problems is social housing, meaning the government becomes a significant supplier of affordable, quality housing. The very wealthy and the real estate industry don't want this however because it will decrease profits. > Property ownership is at the very core of entrenched power, In the literature, there is a distinction made between private property and personal property. I'm fine with people owning their own home if they want. That's personal property. Private property is when we allow people and corporations to hoard housing. I'm all for making it financiall punitive to own more than one house.

bluegatty 7mo ago
The problems that rent control creates are far smaller than the problems that exist without it. To start - your 'very first example' is not even really 'a problem'. 'Without rent control' - you get kicked out of your abode every few years if your salary doesn't keep up with housing inflation. With rent control, you have the option of 'having a home; you decide when you want to leave (for the most part). The answer to the 'second example', 'adversarial tenant/landlord' is that the theory doesn't line up with reality for the most part. Again - in most rent controlled areas this kind of stuff does not happen, especially if it's entrenched in the culture. It works well in a ton of housing markets like Quebec, Germany. The primary concern about rent control limiting expansion ... just does not exist. It doesn't really impede new builds.
- jmyeet 7mo ago
  > To start - your 'very first example' is not even really 'a problem'. Yes, it is. Anywhere with significant and strong rent control results in a large number of people who simply cannot move. Look, rent control is better than no rent control but it address the symptom not the problem. The real problem is that rents shouldn't significantly outpace inflation. In a better world, you should be able to easily move because you're not locked in to a below-market rent that you don't want to lose. And rents get more expensive because a whole bunch of people make sure that housing is an appreciating asset. It should be a depreciating asset. > The answer to the 'second example', 'adversarial tenant/landlord' is that the theory doesn't line up with reality for the most part. Again - in most rent controlled areas this kind of stuff does not happen You will not find in any American city, especially one with rent control, where tenants do not absolutely hate their landlords as the general rule. What are you smoking?

slopinthebag 7mo ago

> our housing problems are about screwed up management, it's actually not even an ideological problem underneath Broadly, our housing problems are bureaucratic in origin and I think bureaucracy is indeed an ideology.

deleted 7mo ago

[deleted]