3 ms·

Yes, evictions have been made difficult because of the enormous power difference between a landlord and a tenant. You really think that's a bad thing? edit: ty

by rquantz 13y ago

Yes, evictions have been made difficult because of the enormous power difference between a landlord and a tenant. You really think that's a bad thing? edit: typo

prostoalex 13y ago
End of the day it's all priced in - other renters pay inflated prices to compensate for a few bad apples. So yeah, it's kinda a bad deal for those who always pay on time - they're measured against the same risk as a rando off the street, which is why a rental application today can involve a background check and employment reference.
- rdl 13y ago
  Given that the people I (and the startup scene in general) selfishly want in the Bay Area are largely younger, immigrant (from abroad or other parts of the country), or otherwise don't have a long credit history, and haven't been living in rent controlled apartments for a long time, it seems pretty clear where self interest lies, here, too. Of course, Prop 13 screws the same people -- a 55 year old state worker who has lived in his house for 25 years pays ~nothing in property taxes, where a startup person (or really any 23 year old without family property) either pays inflated property tax rates (on a recent purchase; both the percentage rate and dollar value of property are high) directly, or pays them in rent (a person who has owned a house for 40 years can still rent it on the market at the prevailing rate, which is high due to supply constraint and any new supply needing to reflect current purchase and thus tax levels). I'm all for tenants, in general, vs. landlords, and generally for people beginning their careers vs. incumbents, but rent control doesn't help new households.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > either pays inflated property tax rates (on a recent purchase; both the percentage rate and dollar value of property are high) Under Prop 13, property tax rates in California are limited to 1% of assessed value. Its true that a new purchaser will pay this on something like the actual current value, unlike someone who has owned for a long time with real appreciation faster than the limited rate of increase of assessed value, but the rate won't be any higher for the recent purchaser.
    - rdl 13y ago
      I meant that for the same total property tax collection, if it were applied to all property at the current value, the rate would be less than 1% for everyone, since "old" properties would have higher assessed values. (although 1% as a property tax isn't inherently bad; I'd prefer 1-2% property tax or a higher rate as LVT, and correspondingly lower income, corporate, and capital gains taxes, and/or better quality state services)

by rquantz 13y ago

Yes, evictions have been made difficult because of the enormous power difference between a landlord and a tenant. You really think that's a bad thing? edit: typo

prostoalex 13y ago

End of the day it's all priced in - other renters pay inflated prices to compensate for a few bad apples. So yeah, it's kinda a bad deal for those who always pay on time - they're measured against the same risk as a rando off the street, which is why a rental application today can involve a background check and employment reference.

rdl 13y ago
Given that the people I (and the startup scene in general) selfishly want in the Bay Area are largely younger, immigrant (from abroad or other parts of the country), or otherwise don't have a long credit history, and haven't been living in rent controlled apartments for a long time, it seems pretty clear where self interest lies, here, too. Of course, Prop 13 screws the same people -- a 55 year old state worker who has lived in his house for 25 years pays ~nothing in property taxes, where a startup person (or really any 23 year old without family property) either pays inflated property tax rates (on a recent purchase; both the percentage rate and dollar value of property are high) directly, or pays them in rent (a person who has owned a house for 40 years can still rent it on the market at the prevailing rate, which is high due to supply constraint and any new supply needing to reflect current purchase and thus tax levels). I'm all for tenants, in general, vs. landlords, and generally for people beginning their careers vs. incumbents, but rent control doesn't help new households.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > either pays inflated property tax rates (on a recent purchase; both the percentage rate and dollar value of property are high) Under Prop 13, property tax rates in California are limited to 1% of assessed value. Its true that a new purchaser will pay this on something like the actual current value, unlike someone who has owned for a long time with real appreciation faster than the limited rate of increase of assessed value, but the rate won't be any higher for the recent purchaser.
  - rdl 13y ago
    I meant that for the same total property tax collection, if it were applied to all property at the current value, the rate would be less than 1% for everyone, since "old" properties would have higher assessed values. (although 1% as a property tax isn't inherently bad; I'd prefer 1-2% property tax or a higher rate as LVT, and correspondingly lower income, corporate, and capital gains taxes, and/or better quality state services)