3 ms·

Under rent control the highest possible rent is set by laws. If you fall behind on the allowed rent increase you’re usually not allowed to catch up to market ra

Under rent control the highest possible rent is set by laws. If you fall behind on the allowed rent increase you’re usually not allowed to catch up to market rate later, such as when your tenant leaves and you put the unit back on the market. So to avoid getting stuck at below market rate with no legal way to catch up, you have to take the maximum allowable rent increase every year. In some situations it’s better to leave a unit empty and wait for someone be willing to rent at the rate than it is to lower rent, because the consequences of lowering rent will stick with the unit for years. Without rent control, rents can be kept constant, moved up, or moved down without having to consider the consequences for years to come. The ceiling is set by the market rate, but there isn’t a function driving all of the landlords to raise by the annually permissible maximum so they try to discover it instead. Rent control is instituted in cities that have constrained housing supplies, so the demand is there. Landlords switch to raising rents in unison by the maximum allowable amount every year because that’s the only way to operate.

tyre 2mo ago
I live in NYC, which has rent control, and the idea that a landlord would otherwise lower rent is hilarious. Landlords raise rent by the max allowed because they can. There is no “catch up” because the purpose is to protect renters against huge jumps. I think rent controlled units that sit empty should be subject to a tax based on an escalating percentage of the market rent. You can own property to rent out, but in a city with a tremendous shortage of housing, you need to rent it out. I lived in a building with affordable housing units and management decided they would rather not rent them out at all. Horrible.
- Aurornis 2mo ago
  > I think rent controlled units that sit empty should be subject to a tax based on an escalating percentage of the market rent They would just be taken off the market and then relisted later. Forcing people to rent their properties and also forcing the price isn’t something I can get behind. People need to be able to choose what they do with their property.
  - Nursie 2mo ago
    In a city or country with housing shortages or a very tight market, that’s asking a lot. People need homes, and there is a balance to be struck for the public good.
    - crooked-v 2mo ago
      Housing shortages are a result of local policies, and rent control makes housing shortages worse (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1051137725000221 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S105113772...).
      - Nursie 2mo ago
        Just as well I’m not arguing for rent control or any particular policy then isn’t it? I’m pointing out that the “it’s my property I can do what I want” attitude needs to be balanced with public needs for housing, because society isn’t purely about optimising the content of your wallet, and extreme deregulation results in slums. (Your linked paper there also says that rent control results in more properties having affordable rent at the low end of the market, but less overall rental property supply, indicating a reduction at the higher end. I’m good with that as a consequence, those who are better off can usually afford to get into purchasing a property. In some markets, like much of Australia, having fewer landlords and wannabe landlords competing to purchase properties would be a bonus. This actually looks like a win all round TBH. tl;dr - congrats, you’ve used science to sell me on rent control)
        crooked-v 2mo ago
        The same paper specifically notes that the increase of units affordable to very low income levels depends on there being any significant number of units affordable to very low income levels in the first place, and that's something that's functionally nonexistent in places like San Francisco and NYC.
        Aurornis 2mo ago
        > (Your linked paper there also says that rent control results in more properties having affordable rent at the low end of the market, but less overall rental property supply, indicating a reduction at the higher end. Your conclusion is completely wrong. What happens when you reduce the higher end of the rental property range? Do you think the people who would have been renting those properties simply vanish? Disappear from the rental market? No, obviously they don't. So what are they doing instead? They're renting those mid-end properties instead. And what happens to the people who would have rented those mid-end properties that are now occupied by the wealthier renters? They get pushed to the low-end properties. What happens to the people who were trying to get into the low-end properties? They're pushed into being roommates or leaving the city. Any policy that reduces overall housing supply is a loss for the low end. The way you're bending over backwards to try to imagine this as a good thing indicates something very wrong with your assumptions. This is a case where someone has become so narrowly focused on hurting the people they perceive as wealthy (people who rent the expensive units) that even solutions that hurt the poor (policies which reduce housing supply) look like a good idea. This isn’t a good way to think.
- JumpCrisscross 2mo ago
  New York’s rent control works differently from the Bay Area’s. It’s absolutely worth it to just raise the rent on a Bay Area unit if it’s rent controlled even if that means it runs empty. That isn’t usually the case in New York.
  - roosterIllusi0n 2mo ago
    Fix it.
    - JumpCrisscross 2mo ago
      Not my city.
- hdgvhicv 2mo ago
  Just charge a tax on the value of the land.
  - nwah1 2mo ago
    Underrated comment.
tdeck 2mo ago
None of this is relevant to Berkeley since California law prohibits rent control on vacant units (and has for decades). When renting ti a new tenant landlords can charge whatever they like. It's honestly absurd to read this thread because everyone who has ever rented in the SF bay area knows this, yet there's a whole discussion based on some half-assumed idea of what the system is.
BoiledCabbage 2mo ago
> Landlords switch to raising rents in unison by the maximum allowable amount every year Blaming this on rent control? This entire take is absurd. Because of the simple fact that landlords, especially using this software, do this in cities without rent control. Unless now type arguing that Berkley rent control forces landlords in cities without rent control to seek maximum rents... Rent control is flawed, limiting housing stock is flawed. But blaming landlord's pricing behavior on this is obviously false. Simply because it happens without rent control.
- Aurornis 2mo ago
  > Blaming this on rent control? This entire take is absurd Rent control is one of the few topics where the vast majority of economists agree on something. It makes people who don't understand second-order effects really angry when the conclusion doesn't match what they want to see, but it's been proven out across the world so many times that anyone who refuses to acknowledge the real problems with rent control is either uninformed or denying reality at this point.
  - BoiledCabbage 2mo ago
    You're proving my point. You just want to talk about rent control. Even when it's not the issue at hand. It's the equivalent of watching a kid fall and skin his knee and someone steps forward to get on a soap box about rent control. Rent control can be bad, but it's not even close to the cause of every problem in housing. Most importantly, it's not the cause here, and it's absurd to say it is.
roosterIllusi0n 2mo ago
Sounds like we should prevent rent increases. Fix the law, don't throw it away. Landlords that cannot afford to be landlords need to sell and go get a real job. No one is entitled to be a lazy landlord taxing other people's existence and its extremely rare for a landlord to have built new houses, they mostly gatekeep the existing housing. People in california need to take advantage of a populace willing to vote for constitutional amendments and override the politicians.
juiceland 2mo ago
If the maximum allowable rent under rent control is bearable by the market, why would a landlord not do that in the absence of rent control? Are there landlords that are stupid and hate money?

tyre 2mo ago

I live in NYC, which has rent control, and the idea that a landlord would otherwise lower rent is hilarious. Landlords raise rent by the max allowed because they can. There is no “catch up” because the purpose is to protect renters against huge jumps. I think rent controlled units that sit empty should be subject to a tax based on an escalating percentage of the market rent. You can own property to rent out, but in a city with a tremendous shortage of housing, you need to rent it out. I lived in a building with affordable housing units and management decided they would rather not rent them out at all. Horrible.

Aurornis 2mo ago
> I think rent controlled units that sit empty should be subject to a tax based on an escalating percentage of the market rent They would just be taken off the market and then relisted later. Forcing people to rent their properties and also forcing the price isn’t something I can get behind. People need to be able to choose what they do with their property.
- Nursie 2mo ago
  In a city or country with housing shortages or a very tight market, that’s asking a lot. People need homes, and there is a balance to be struck for the public good.
  - crooked-v 2mo ago
    Housing shortages are a result of local policies, and rent control makes housing shortages worse (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1051137725000221 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S105113772...).
    - Nursie 2mo ago
      Just as well I’m not arguing for rent control or any particular policy then isn’t it? I’m pointing out that the “it’s my property I can do what I want” attitude needs to be balanced with public needs for housing, because society isn’t purely about optimising the content of your wallet, and extreme deregulation results in slums. (Your linked paper there also says that rent control results in more properties having affordable rent at the low end of the market, but less overall rental property supply, indicating a reduction at the higher end. I’m good with that as a consequence, those who are better off can usually afford to get into purchasing a property. In some markets, like much of Australia, having fewer landlords and wannabe landlords competing to purchase properties would be a bonus. This actually looks like a win all round TBH. tl;dr - congrats, you’ve used science to sell me on rent control)
      - crooked-v 2mo ago
        The same paper specifically notes that the increase of units affordable to very low income levels depends on there being any significant number of units affordable to very low income levels in the first place, and that's something that's functionally nonexistent in places like San Francisco and NYC.
      - Aurornis 2mo ago
        > (Your linked paper there also says that rent control results in more properties having affordable rent at the low end of the market, but less overall rental property supply, indicating a reduction at the higher end. Your conclusion is completely wrong. What happens when you reduce the higher end of the rental property range? Do you think the people who would have been renting those properties simply vanish? Disappear from the rental market? No, obviously they don't. So what are they doing instead? They're renting those mid-end properties instead. And what happens to the people who would have rented those mid-end properties that are now occupied by the wealthier renters? They get pushed to the low-end properties. What happens to the people who were trying to get into the low-end properties? They're pushed into being roommates or leaving the city. Any policy that reduces overall housing supply is a loss for the low end. The way you're bending over backwards to try to imagine this as a good thing indicates something very wrong with your assumptions. This is a case where someone has become so narrowly focused on hurting the people they perceive as wealthy (people who rent the expensive units) that even solutions that hurt the poor (policies which reduce housing supply) look like a good idea. This isn’t a good way to think.
JumpCrisscross 2mo ago
New York’s rent control works differently from the Bay Area’s. It’s absolutely worth it to just raise the rent on a Bay Area unit if it’s rent controlled even if that means it runs empty. That isn’t usually the case in New York.
- roosterIllusi0n 2mo ago
  Fix it.
  - JumpCrisscross 2mo ago
    Not my city.
hdgvhicv 2mo ago
Just charge a tax on the value of the land.
- nwah1 2mo ago
  Underrated comment.

tdeck 2mo ago

None of this is relevant to Berkeley since California law prohibits rent control on vacant units (and has for decades). When renting ti a new tenant landlords can charge whatever they like. It's honestly absurd to read this thread because everyone who has ever rented in the SF bay area knows this, yet there's a whole discussion based on some half-assumed idea of what the system is.

BoiledCabbage 2mo ago

> Landlords switch to raising rents in unison by the maximum allowable amount every year Blaming this on rent control? This entire take is absurd. Because of the simple fact that landlords, especially using this software, do this in cities without rent control. Unless now type arguing that Berkley rent control forces landlords in cities without rent control to seek maximum rents... Rent control is flawed, limiting housing stock is flawed. But blaming landlord's pricing behavior on this is obviously false. Simply because it happens without rent control.

Aurornis 2mo ago
> Blaming this on rent control? This entire take is absurd Rent control is one of the few topics where the vast majority of economists agree on something. It makes people who don't understand second-order effects really angry when the conclusion doesn't match what they want to see, but it's been proven out across the world so many times that anyone who refuses to acknowledge the real problems with rent control is either uninformed or denying reality at this point.
- BoiledCabbage 2mo ago
  You're proving my point. You just want to talk about rent control. Even when it's not the issue at hand. It's the equivalent of watching a kid fall and skin his knee and someone steps forward to get on a soap box about rent control. Rent control can be bad, but it's not even close to the cause of every problem in housing. Most importantly, it's not the cause here, and it's absurd to say it is.

roosterIllusi0n 2mo ago

Sounds like we should prevent rent increases. Fix the law, don't throw it away. Landlords that cannot afford to be landlords need to sell and go get a real job. No one is entitled to be a lazy landlord taxing other people's existence and its extremely rare for a landlord to have built new houses, they mostly gatekeep the existing housing. People in california need to take advantage of a populace willing to vote for constitutional amendments and override the politicians.

juiceland 2mo ago

If the maximum allowable rent under rent control is bearable by the market, why would a landlord not do that in the absence of rent control? Are there landlords that are stupid and hate money?