4 ms·

> there are many "free protections" that are taken for granted at our stage of civilizational development. Should fire departments be privatized? Police? I'd ar

by lmm 4mo ago

> there are many "free protections" that are taken for granted at our stage of civilizational development. Should fire departments be privatized? Police? I'd argue that housing security is even more important than those. We bear the costs together so that our lives are collectively better. But we don't. Everyone who works in the city is paying the costs, while the lucky few who moved in decades ago are the only ones who get the benefit. If everyone got to pay the same level of rent then I'd maybe support it, but there's nothing "collective" about the people who got here quicker protecting themselves while pulling the ladder up behind them. > Three, your entire framing is kind of bananas. Rent control is neither insurance nor expensive, but a cap on landlord profits. If anything, it's unbounded profiteering of basic necessities that's actually "expensive." It's got nothing to do with profit; if there are x homes and y>x people who want to live in them, either you give them to the x highest bidders, or you unfairly screw some people over. Rent control is one form of option B (there are others).

archagon 4mo ago
I moved to my city less than three years ago, not ten. I was not “lucky” to get my rent-controlled apartment: just had some foresight and was diligent in my search. My rent is high, but not as egregious as what the recent AI migrants are paying. (New upstairs neighbors are literally paying $2000/m more than we are for the same floor plan.) Thankfully, I have no fear of getting kicked out of my home due to a sudden rent spike, so I can focus on building a life. None of this seems egregious to me. Yes, existing residents are prioritized over new residents. This feels like an obvious tradeoff if you want to maintain community and QoL. The alternative is prioritizing the rich — landlords and wealthy renters alike. I do not want to live in a city where money has the final say.
- lmm 4mo ago
  > New upstairs neighbors are literally paying $2000/m more than we are for the same floor plan. > None of this seems egregious to me. Enough said. I wonder if it would feel egregious if you were the one paying $2000/m more.
  - archagon 4mo ago
    My upstairs neighbors have very well-paying jobs that allow them to move to the city in the midst of an AI boom. (When I moved here, I was in a similar boat.) They are not infuriated or offended by the rent they have to pay. And I've also had neighbors that payed thousands less in rent than me. (I was happy for them.) Everyone knows the rules when they move to my city; it's just not a big deal unless you're completely self-absorbed. The alternative is that half my street gets ousted whenever a tech boom happens. What a horrible way to live.
    - lmm 4mo ago
      > The alternative is that half my street gets ousted whenever a tech boom happens. What a horrible way to live. Or maybe if the pain was more evenly distributed you'd vote to legalise more housing. Not being able to live in a street like yours is just as horrible for those of us who didn't luck into arriving there earlier, we're just out of sight, out of mind.
      - archagon 4mo ago
        No, not getting to live on my street is not "just as horrible" as getting kicked to the curb with pets and/or dependents and losing your entire lifestyle and community without warning or recourse. (But again, I am 100% for building more housing using any incentives available. This is orthogonal to having robust tenant protections.)
        lmm 4mo ago
        > not getting to live on my street is not "just as horrible" as getting kicked to the curb with pets and/or dependents and losing your entire lifestyle and community without warning or recourse. Come off it, no-one's talking about kicking people out on the curb instantly. I'm all for processes and reasonable notice periods. But ultimately if you're not willing to pay what it costs to live where you do, yeah you should be pushed out for someone who will, rather than the rest of us subsidising you even as we're forced to cram into shared rooms miles away from our jobs. > This is orthogonal to having robust tenant protections. How can it be? How will residents know or care that their city doesn't have enough market-rate housing, that market-rate homes are too expensive, when they're not exposed to that market-rate price? Ever if they support building more housing in theory, they're absolutely going to object to it anywhere near them. It's not a coincidence that cities with rent control consistently build fuck all, that the few cities that have managed to actually build some homes over the past few years are in places like Texas.
kelnos 4mo ago
> If everyone got to pay the same level of rent then I'd maybe support it, but there's nothing "collective" about the people who got here quicker protecting themselves while pulling the ladder up behind them. I'm very sympathetic to this sort of framing, but I don't think that's happening here. Or if it is, then pulling up the ladder is a pretty reasonable, rational thing to do when you're protecting against other people climbing that ladder and throwing you back down to the ground.

by lmm 4mo ago

archagon 4mo ago

I moved to my city less than three years ago, not ten. I was not “lucky” to get my rent-controlled apartment: just had some foresight and was diligent in my search. My rent is high, but not as egregious as what the recent AI migrants are paying. (New upstairs neighbors are literally paying $2000/m more than we are for the same floor plan.) Thankfully, I have no fear of getting kicked out of my home due to a sudden rent spike, so I can focus on building a life. None of this seems egregious to me. Yes, existing residents are prioritized over new residents. This feels like an obvious tradeoff if you want to maintain community and QoL. The alternative is prioritizing the rich — landlords and wealthy renters alike. I do not want to live in a city where money has the final say.

lmm 4mo ago
> New upstairs neighbors are literally paying $2000/m more than we are for the same floor plan. > None of this seems egregious to me. Enough said. I wonder if it would feel egregious if you were the one paying $2000/m more.
- archagon 4mo ago
  My upstairs neighbors have very well-paying jobs that allow them to move to the city in the midst of an AI boom. (When I moved here, I was in a similar boat.) They are not infuriated or offended by the rent they have to pay. And I've also had neighbors that payed thousands less in rent than me. (I was happy for them.) Everyone knows the rules when they move to my city; it's just not a big deal unless you're completely self-absorbed. The alternative is that half my street gets ousted whenever a tech boom happens. What a horrible way to live.
  - lmm 4mo ago
    > The alternative is that half my street gets ousted whenever a tech boom happens. What a horrible way to live. Or maybe if the pain was more evenly distributed you'd vote to legalise more housing. Not being able to live in a street like yours is just as horrible for those of us who didn't luck into arriving there earlier, we're just out of sight, out of mind.
    - archagon 4mo ago
      No, not getting to live on my street is not "just as horrible" as getting kicked to the curb with pets and/or dependents and losing your entire lifestyle and community without warning or recourse. (But again, I am 100% for building more housing using any incentives available. This is orthogonal to having robust tenant protections.)
      - lmm 4mo ago
        > not getting to live on my street is not "just as horrible" as getting kicked to the curb with pets and/or dependents and losing your entire lifestyle and community without warning or recourse. Come off it, no-one's talking about kicking people out on the curb instantly. I'm all for processes and reasonable notice periods. But ultimately if you're not willing to pay what it costs to live where you do, yeah you should be pushed out for someone who will, rather than the rest of us subsidising you even as we're forced to cram into shared rooms miles away from our jobs. > This is orthogonal to having robust tenant protections. How can it be? How will residents know or care that their city doesn't have enough market-rate housing, that market-rate homes are too expensive, when they're not exposed to that market-rate price? Ever if they support building more housing in theory, they're absolutely going to object to it anywhere near them. It's not a coincidence that cities with rent control consistently build fuck all, that the few cities that have managed to actually build some homes over the past few years are in places like Texas.

kelnos 4mo ago

> If everyone got to pay the same level of rent then I'd maybe support it, but there's nothing "collective" about the people who got here quicker protecting themselves while pulling the ladder up behind them. I'm very sympathetic to this sort of framing, but I don't think that's happening here. Or if it is, then pulling up the ladder is a pretty reasonable, rational thing to do when you're protecting against other people climbing that ladder and throwing you back down to the ground.