6 ms·

Many of the comments on sfgate refer to the moral ambiguity of profiting off of a rent-controlled property -- definitely an interesting wrinkle.

optimusclimb 13y ago
I don't see any ambiguity there. Airbnb is just one such abuse. In talking to people, I've heard countless examples of "master tenants" charging incoming roommates much higher rent than an "even split" on the rent. In one extreme, a tenant in a 3 bedroom was living 100% rent free while the other two tenants covered the entire costs - until they learned of this and moved out on principle. Tenants moving in as roommates on rent controlled apartments are apparently even offering cash bribes exceeding $1k for the privilege of obtaining a spot. Quite the broken system, imho.
- tpurves 13y ago
  Rent control is a broken system. You have cases of someone with a long rent controlled $1500 rent on a 3bdr that would go for 3k or 4k market rates. If they listed a bedroom at $500 on CL they would get ten thousand of applicants.
  - malandrew 13y ago
    Furthermore, the quality of the applicants would be far lower than putting it on for market rate. Someone who can afford $1500 a month is more likely to be gainfully employed with greater job security. They are also likely to be able to contribute much more to a household. Even if someone were to rent out a room for $500, it behooves them to select from the applicant pool those who are capable of paying $1500 a month. Someone paying $500 and capable of $500 is less likely to want to contribute to common spaces and shared household necessities.
    - mrxd 13y ago
      So you're saying that the main disadvantage with rent control is that poor people can afford the rent?
      - hindsightbias 13y ago
        If we could just make being poor a crime.
      - malandrew 13y ago
        No, I'm 100% against rent control. What I'm saying that even if I had rent control and rented a room pro rata based on floor space, I would probably still choose someone as my roommate that could afford the high rent. I've had roommates that wouldn't pitch in for things like fixing things in the house and replacing things that needed replacing, and whose contributions to the commons were not desirable, like worn out, stained furniture. If you put a ad on craigslist for a room for $500 today, you would go mad trying to select for the best roommate. Absent other automatic filters for roommates, like being able to filter on lifestyle choices/preferences, the ability to afford a high rent is a poor proxy for other desirable traits, but better than the alternative of no proxy. It's not like craigslist currently let's me put an ad out that only allows considerate, easy-going roommates with no undesirable habits to apply.
        mrxd 13y ago
        You don't personally want to live with the poors -- that's fine, you should get to live with whomever you want. I just think that using public policy to create a city-wide filter based on class and income just so you can get to inbox zero faster when you post a craigslist ad is maybe not right.
        malandrew 13y ago
        You're now just forming an ad hominem by twisting my words. Good for you. I want to live with people with the wherewithal to contribute equitably to the commons of the household in which I live. In my current household, I currently supply most of the common goods (sponges, garbage bags, soap, tools for home improvement, laundry detergent, toilet paper, cleaning supplies, etc.). It gets pretty old after a while when no one else feels the need to contribute equitably. If I left things up to my roommates to take care of things, we'd run out of those basic needs. We are two days away from no toilet paper today and I'm certain that I'm the only one that thought to take care of that. I'm the only one in the house that buys the tools we need to fix things (drills, screwdrivers, pliers, etc.). I would prefer to live with people who, when inconvenienced by something that inconveniences us all, won't hesitate to pony up the cash to resolve it. Personally, I absolutely despise the situation that exists in the city and thinks everyone is selfish and unwilling to bell the cat by applying the only solution that makes sense: more housing. The landlords are selfish. Those with rent control are selfish. The homeowners are selfish. The only people who aren't selfish are those at the bottom of the food chain getting taken to the cleaners by the landlords, primary tenants on the lease and the homeowners blocking all zoning improvements. I'm not poor, but I'm certainly not rich either. I earn enough to to live in this city, but certainly can't afford to live comfortably at $1500 a month, especially when I help out two other family members with money. That being said, absent other better systems for filtering, putting out a classified ad at a high rate is still a practical proxy for what you want in a roommate, even though I'm one of those filtered out by an ad for a $1500 room. If you were a master tenant with a 3 bedroom for $1500 a month, would you put a classified ad for each room at $500 each? Answer honestly. I don't think anyone would (or does since I've never seen such an ad on craigslist and I know that there is no lack of rooms that should cost that much with ~175,000 rent control units in San Francisco.) Furthermore, with supply as constrained as it is, nobody will actually read you ad or care what it is you want in a roommate. At $500, everyone will apply whether or not they actually meet your criteria. Let's say you want to live with single, pet-free non-smokers between 30 and 40 and you say so in your ad. Do you think that hundreds to thousands of people who don't meet that criteria will refrain from sending you an email for a chance at living in a $500 a month room?
- refurb 13y ago
  Not splitting rent based on square footage is actually illegal in SF. If your roommates find out, they just have to go to the Tenant's board and complain and whoever benefited will be required to pay the difference back.
smsm42 13y ago
Of course the solution for rent-seeking (a bit of a pun here, sorry) behavior produced by regulation is always more regulation. And when that produces unintended consequences, we always can have more regulation to fix that regulation, and ad infinitum, ad nauseam.
- mikeash 13y ago
  Is somebody proposing more regulation? I don't see it if so. Everybody seems to be merely proposing that people follow the regulations already in place.

optimusclimb 13y ago

I don't see any ambiguity there. Airbnb is just one such abuse. In talking to people, I've heard countless examples of "master tenants" charging incoming roommates much higher rent than an "even split" on the rent. In one extreme, a tenant in a 3 bedroom was living 100% rent free while the other two tenants covered the entire costs - until they learned of this and moved out on principle. Tenants moving in as roommates on rent controlled apartments are apparently even offering cash bribes exceeding $1k for the privilege of obtaining a spot. Quite the broken system, imho.

tpurves 13y ago
Rent control is a broken system. You have cases of someone with a long rent controlled $1500 rent on a 3bdr that would go for 3k or 4k market rates. If they listed a bedroom at $500 on CL they would get ten thousand of applicants.
- malandrew 13y ago
  Furthermore, the quality of the applicants would be far lower than putting it on for market rate. Someone who can afford $1500 a month is more likely to be gainfully employed with greater job security. They are also likely to be able to contribute much more to a household. Even if someone were to rent out a room for $500, it behooves them to select from the applicant pool those who are capable of paying $1500 a month. Someone paying $500 and capable of $500 is less likely to want to contribute to common spaces and shared household necessities.
  - mrxd 13y ago
    So you're saying that the main disadvantage with rent control is that poor people can afford the rent?
    - hindsightbias 13y ago
      If we could just make being poor a crime.
    - malandrew 13y ago
      No, I'm 100% against rent control. What I'm saying that even if I had rent control and rented a room pro rata based on floor space, I would probably still choose someone as my roommate that could afford the high rent. I've had roommates that wouldn't pitch in for things like fixing things in the house and replacing things that needed replacing, and whose contributions to the commons were not desirable, like worn out, stained furniture. If you put a ad on craigslist for a room for $500 today, you would go mad trying to select for the best roommate. Absent other automatic filters for roommates, like being able to filter on lifestyle choices/preferences, the ability to afford a high rent is a poor proxy for other desirable traits, but better than the alternative of no proxy. It's not like craigslist currently let's me put an ad out that only allows considerate, easy-going roommates with no undesirable habits to apply.
      - mrxd 13y ago
        You don't personally want to live with the poors -- that's fine, you should get to live with whomever you want. I just think that using public policy to create a city-wide filter based on class and income just so you can get to inbox zero faster when you post a craigslist ad is maybe not right.
        malandrew 13y ago
        You're now just forming an ad hominem by twisting my words. Good for you. I want to live with people with the wherewithal to contribute equitably to the commons of the household in which I live. In my current household, I currently supply most of the common goods (sponges, garbage bags, soap, tools for home improvement, laundry detergent, toilet paper, cleaning supplies, etc.). It gets pretty old after a while when no one else feels the need to contribute equitably. If I left things up to my roommates to take care of things, we'd run out of those basic needs. We are two days away from no toilet paper today and I'm certain that I'm the only one that thought to take care of that. I'm the only one in the house that buys the tools we need to fix things (drills, screwdrivers, pliers, etc.). I would prefer to live with people who, when inconvenienced by something that inconveniences us all, won't hesitate to pony up the cash to resolve it. Personally, I absolutely despise the situation that exists in the city and thinks everyone is selfish and unwilling to bell the cat by applying the only solution that makes sense: more housing. The landlords are selfish. Those with rent control are selfish. The homeowners are selfish. The only people who aren't selfish are those at the bottom of the food chain getting taken to the cleaners by the landlords, primary tenants on the lease and the homeowners blocking all zoning improvements. I'm not poor, but I'm certainly not rich either. I earn enough to to live in this city, but certainly can't afford to live comfortably at $1500 a month, especially when I help out two other family members with money. That being said, absent other better systems for filtering, putting out a classified ad at a high rate is still a practical proxy for what you want in a roommate, even though I'm one of those filtered out by an ad for a $1500 room. If you were a master tenant with a 3 bedroom for $1500 a month, would you put a classified ad for each room at $500 each? Answer honestly. I don't think anyone would (or does since I've never seen such an ad on craigslist and I know that there is no lack of rooms that should cost that much with ~175,000 rent control units in San Francisco.) Furthermore, with supply as constrained as it is, nobody will actually read you ad or care what it is you want in a roommate. At $500, everyone will apply whether or not they actually meet your criteria. Let's say you want to live with single, pet-free non-smokers between 30 and 40 and you say so in your ad. Do you think that hundreds to thousands of people who don't meet that criteria will refrain from sending you an email for a chance at living in a $500 a month room?
refurb 13y ago
Not splitting rent based on square footage is actually illegal in SF. If your roommates find out, they just have to go to the Tenant's board and complain and whoever benefited will be required to pay the difference back.

smsm42 13y ago

Of course the solution for rent-seeking (a bit of a pun here, sorry) behavior produced by regulation is always more regulation. And when that produces unintended consequences, we always can have more regulation to fix that regulation, and ad infinitum, ad nauseam.

mikeash 13y ago
Is somebody proposing more regulation? I don't see it if so. Everybody seems to be merely proposing that people follow the regulations already in place.