3 ms·

In San Francisco, I’m not a fan of Aaron Peskin’s ban on algorithmic rent-setting (Admin Code 37.10C https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/san_francisco/latest/

by yonran 1mo ago

In San Francisco, I’m not a fan of Aaron Peskin’s ban on algorithmic rent-setting (Admin Code 37.10C https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/san_francisco/latest/sf_admin/0-0-0-70856 https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/san_francisco/latest/s...) (which is probably similar to the other cities) because 1) it goes beyond antitrust law in just banning data gathering for no good reason, and 2) it rewards bounty hunters. 1. It goes beyond antitrust guidelines by banning rent prediction using any “non-public competitor data”, which is stricter than the former antitrust guidelines which prohibited sharing “competitively sensitive variables” (https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/attachments/dealings-competitors/ftcdojguidelines.pdf https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/attachments/dealings...). To the extent that it differs from banning competitively sensitive data, it is just banning the use of data to make rentals more efficient. If landlords are pricing accurately but not monopolistically, this should reduce turnover, reduce vacancy, and reduce the occasions where a listing gets a crowd of applicants, which is good for both landlord and tenant. It’s bad to try to ban accurate data. 2. It provides a private right of action for tenants and nonprofits to sue, just like Proposition 65 (Known by the State of California to cause cancer) incentivizes bounty hunters to sue. The point seems to be to punish landlords more than it is to establish fair rules. And it seems that these lawsuits are just piggybacking on the DOJ settlement by punishing anyone who uses RealPage as soon as the ordinance becomes effective in 30 days while RealPage was already working to settle federally. The complaints (e.g. the SF one https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73573242/gomez-v-greystar-management-services-llc/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73573242/gomez-v-greyst...) don’t have any new violations; just companies who are already settling. I don’t think that’s justice for a city to frontrun the federal settlement with new violations for the same program.

crooked-v 1mo ago
SF as a city has the fundamental problem that there's a huge part of the electorate will blame the housing shortage on absolutely anything they can find that's not the actual fundamental physical shortage of housing. That leads to an endless tangle of local laws and organizations supposedly trying to "do something about it", that are fundamentally just making the problem worse by adding marginal cost to every new already-difficult-to-pencil housing unit.
- yonran 1mo ago
  Yes, you would think that a city with such a rent crisis would be begging for development e.g. incentivizing homeowners to redevelop into townhouses and apartments. But instead, the so-called “Progressive” wing has very little interest in reducing market rents and prefers to chase fringe issues (to take one example, they spent the year 2015 very publicly attacking the “Moderate” David Chiu’s short-term rental law, only to arrive at substantively the same place that they started at the end of the year. And suddenly the issue disappeared).
stymaar 1mo ago
> The point seems to be to punish landlords more than it is to establish fair rules. Rules without punishments are useless though.
- yonran 1mo ago
  > Rules without punishments are useless though. There’s proportional punishment based on harm, and then there are abusive booby-traps. If a landlord uses a nonpublic dataset (e.g., a vendor’s model based on year-old data that would not harm competition under the antitrust settlement), then a tenant and nonprofit can each sue for civil penalties plus attorney fees even though there is no harm.
  - stymaar 1mo ago
    > There’s proportional punishment […], and then there are abusive booby-traps. Don't worry, no landlord will die or be maimed in the process. > based on harm Most laws don't require direct harm to have already occurred, fortunately. If one landlord is violating the law, then they deserve due punishment. Law and orders shouldn't stop at landlord.
BoiledCabbage 1mo ago
> If landlords are pricing accurately but not monopolistically, this should reduce turnover, reduce vacancy, and... Ah yes one of my favorite lines of argument: "We don't need laws, if companies are just behaving properly and against their financial interests to behave in a way that harms legit market pricing..." Except as we know companies won't behave well without incentives. Which is why we need laws on it.
- yonran 1mo ago
  > Ah yes one of my favorite lines of argument: "We don't need laws That’s not my argument at all. We do have federal antitrust law. My question was what does the ordinance do that differs from antitrust. The answer is that the ordinance rewards bounty hunters chasing the same federal case, and also bans non-“competitively sensitive” datasets.

by yonran 1mo ago

crooked-v 1mo ago

SF as a city has the fundamental problem that there's a huge part of the electorate will blame the housing shortage on absolutely anything they can find that's not the actual fundamental physical shortage of housing. That leads to an endless tangle of local laws and organizations supposedly trying to "do something about it", that are fundamentally just making the problem worse by adding marginal cost to every new already-difficult-to-pencil housing unit.

yonran 1mo ago
Yes, you would think that a city with such a rent crisis would be begging for development e.g. incentivizing homeowners to redevelop into townhouses and apartments. But instead, the so-called “Progressive” wing has very little interest in reducing market rents and prefers to chase fringe issues (to take one example, they spent the year 2015 very publicly attacking the “Moderate” David Chiu’s short-term rental law, only to arrive at substantively the same place that they started at the end of the year. And suddenly the issue disappeared).

stymaar 1mo ago

> The point seems to be to punish landlords more than it is to establish fair rules. Rules without punishments are useless though.

yonran 1mo ago
> Rules without punishments are useless though. There’s proportional punishment based on harm, and then there are abusive booby-traps. If a landlord uses a nonpublic dataset (e.g., a vendor’s model based on year-old data that would not harm competition under the antitrust settlement), then a tenant and nonprofit can each sue for civil penalties plus attorney fees even though there is no harm.
- stymaar 1mo ago
  > There’s proportional punishment […], and then there are abusive booby-traps. Don't worry, no landlord will die or be maimed in the process. > based on harm Most laws don't require direct harm to have already occurred, fortunately. If one landlord is violating the law, then they deserve due punishment. Law and orders shouldn't stop at landlord.

BoiledCabbage 1mo ago

> If landlords are pricing accurately but not monopolistically, this should reduce turnover, reduce vacancy, and... Ah yes one of my favorite lines of argument: "We don't need laws, if companies are just behaving properly and against their financial interests to behave in a way that harms legit market pricing..." Except as we know companies won't behave well without incentives. Which is why we need laws on it.

yonran 1mo ago
> Ah yes one of my favorite lines of argument: "We don't need laws That’s not my argument at all. We do have federal antitrust law. My question was what does the ordinance do that differs from antitrust. The answer is that the ordinance rewards bounty hunters chasing the same federal case, and also bans non-“competitively sensitive” datasets.