6 ms·

> What if the other unit needed to be knocked down for a reason other than to get rid of rent control? Let the owner give adequate notice to vacate (where I li

> What if the other unit needed to be knocked down for a reason other than to get rid of rent control? Let the owner give adequate notice to vacate (where I live it's 60 days notice without cause). But the rent-control limitation stays on that land parcel for some period of time after a new building is constructed on the site. Don't want to rent it? No problems. > Newly moved in renters realize that they are paying 10x as much as the rest of the country, leave. Rent goes down People have a limited ability to live a certain distance away from work - an hour, sure - two, ... okay but that's pushing it. Three? Well now half your waking day is spent commuting. Four? You're probably not driving because you need to sleep. Property owners who're assholes will continue to push rental prices up (which is what we're seeing in OPs example) to "what the market will bear". Meaning people who're willing to live in some shithole on ramen and minimal lighting and heat for >half their wage can live within a reasonable distance of their workplace. All so some asshole (which is probably a company), can make more money. Great for the rich.

clarky07 12y ago
Why are all landlords assholes again? Why is making a profit evil? Do you sell your services for half of what they are worth just to be nice?
- jsprogrammer 12y ago
  By definition, profit is extracting more than the 'worth' of something.
  - harryh 12y ago
    False. In reality, in most transactions, both parties profit due to the fact that there is no fixed concept of "worth." The apple that you bought from your grocer for 50 cents was valued at 40 cents by him and 60 cents by you.
    - jsprogrammer 12y ago
      Why would I value an apple higher than what a grocer is willing to sell? I wouldn't.
      - SamReidHughes 12y ago
        Because you bought it? Clearly it has more value to you than the money.
      - harryh 12y ago
        Because that's what consumer surplus is. Look it up. Without it you'd never bother to buy anything because you would gain no value from the transaction.
        jsprogrammer 12y ago
        You're just stating things without making any argument. I am aware of consumer surplus, thank you very much. You said that I value something at 60 cents and the seller values it at 40 cents, therefore I will buy it at 50 cents. Not only is your simple linear model absurdly reductionist, it's just ignorant. If a grocer is willing to sell at 40 cents, I would never pay a 50% markup when I wouldn't have to, your assertion that I would notwithstanding. I would just pay the 40 cents, and therefore the only objective measurement of how what I valued it at would come out at 40 cents. You stating that I actually value it at 60 cents is just you trying to fit a scenario to your fictional model.
        harryh 12y ago
        Are you dumb? I just made up the numbers. I never said anything was linear and even though the grocer is willing to sell at 40 cents he doesn't because then he wouldn't be able to meet supply so he raises the price until he can. Maybe the real life numbers are 45, 50 & 55. Maybe they're 34, 37 & 50. Maybe you really fucking love apples and it's 34, 37 & 5000 in which case go nuts, buy up the whole orchard, and keep all the doctors away for all time. Maybe those numbers aren't even close because what exactly does an apple cost these days I don't even know exactly. But the point holds. There is a price at which the transactions happens. Somewhere below that is the producer willingness to sell. The difference between those numbers is the producer surplus. Somewhere above the price is the consumer willingness to pay. The difference between that number and the price is the consumer surplus. Go find any economics 101 textbook in the known world and you'll have a downward sloping demand curve, and an upward sloping supply curve. They intersect at a market price. Then you get some shaded in areas for the producer and consumer surplus. If you don't know what one of these graphs looks like then you aren't qualified to participate in any discussion ever about what things should cost. Just shut up and go back to writing shitty software using the worst programming language in general use today.
  - jusben1369 12y ago
    You have to finish that thought with "Otherwise you wouldn't do the action. And the buyer wouldn't benefit from your output."
  - brc 12y ago
    No, profit is arranging a voluntary transaction where both parties where both parties trade something they value less for something they value more. Where did all this 'profit is evil' talk come from anyway? This is a site dedicated to startups and tech talk, and all of a sudden we have activist student slogans passing for comment?
    - jsprogrammer 12y ago
      The term is a bit ambiguous. You are referring to profit, the concept. I am referring to profit, the concrete measurable (ie. revenue - cost).
- thefreeman 12y ago
  All landlords aren't assholes, just the ones who try to force people out of their homes by jacking up rents to insane prices.
  - Kalium 12y ago
    What's the not-asshole thing to do when you find out you could be making a profit literally ten times as big as your current profit? Especially when you know the supply being competed over won't be changing much.
    - kelnos 12y ago
      The not-asshole thing to do is to continue making your current profit. Or hell, raise it a little, but not enough to make it financially untenable for your current tenant to live there. You think it's ok to do something that will benefit your bank account but will simultaneously force someone to move out of their home? Enriching yourself at the expense of others is an asshole move, to me at least.
      - Kalium 12y ago
        > The not-asshole thing to do is to continue making your current profit. Or hell, raise it a little, but not enough to make it financially untenable for your current tenant to live there. So every lease becomes a lifetime deal. Hmm. Since rent keeps going up, this means prices are going to have to go up dramatically now so that I'm not completely hosed in ten to twenty years. After all, rent control increase caps are pretty much always below property tax increase caps. Long-term, me-the-landlord is going to be put in a situation where rent doesn't even cover taxes. Nevermind repairs, maintenance, and insurance. > You think it's ok to do something that will benefit your bank account but will simultaneously force someone to move out of their home? Huh. I guess evictions for non-payment are out now. After all, it's their home, and it would be evil for me to evict someone from their home just for the sake of my bank account... Between this and your previous point, you've made an excellent case that a moral and ethical person who owns property in SF would refuse to rent it under any circumstances. Well done. > Enriching yourself at the expense of others is an asshole move, to me at least. Are you aware that you just defined turning a profit as an asshole move? Perhaps you want to rethink your definition.
- zobzu 12y ago
  Basically rent in big cities is extremely low risk income. It means if you're lucky enough to be born/married the right places and own a few buildings, you do not need to work, nor will ever need, nor will your children ever need. So.. it doesn't make landlords assholes or evil, but its not like there wasnt a class issue. The only reason why this thread explodes is because the wealth difference is getting bigger and bigger.
EpicEng 12y ago
>All so some asshole (which is probably a company), can make more money. Great for the rich. Ummm... yeah, that's why I bought the place. That's why I took the risk on the investment. That's why I deal with all of the administration. That's why I keep it up to code. So... now I have to rent it for 25% market value? I'll find any way I can out of that situation, and no, it doesn't make me an asshole.
- kelnos 12y ago
  Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. Deciding that you need a fatter paycheck at the expense of a renter who can't afford your desire -- yes, desire, not need -- for more money... yeah, in my book that makes you an asshole. Any rent increase that isn't tied to an increase in costs (sure, maybe plus a few percent for profit) or a CPI/inflation increase is just greed, plain and simple. Put another way: landlords who are already making a comfortable profit off their property don't magically stop making a profit just because demand has increased. But that's not enough: people won't say no to a chance at more profits, even if that has a negative impact on other people. Listen, there's no reason why all the landlords across SF need to raise rents. They do it because they want more money, and know that demand is so high and that the high income earners in the area can afford it, and that there are enough of those types of people to keep the market going, at least for a while. And, to be frank, I could keep affording an apartment in SF even if it got much worse than it is now. But I wouldn't want to live here. The thought of living in a place populated by only the rich is entirely unpalatable to me. The idea of lining the pockets of people who are displacing families and individuals who have been living in SF for years and decades... that's disgusting. After a while, if things don't get better, I'll give up and move somewhere else, and give my rental money to people more deserving. I'll be sad to leave, but will realize that the city I love has already left me.
  - EpicEng 12y ago
    So, unless I'm in it to only make as little money as possible for me to have a reasonably comfortable existence (by some standard you have set), I'm a greedy asshole. I disagree. I want to be rich someday. I want to retire at 50 and travel the world, eating at overpriced restaurants along the way. I want to leave some wealth to my children. That's why I bust my hump working a day job as well as building assets in my spare time; so that someday my investments pay my way with little effort on my end. I am indeed in it to make money; I have no interest in running self-subsidized housing. There's nothing morally wrong with charging market value. It's not that I have no empathy for these people, but circumstances change for a variety of reasons and we all have to adapt. Neighborhoods change over time; rent control won't stop that. My investment finally paid off and you want me to run a charity. I'm sorry that doesn't jive with your political/world outlook, but that doesn't make me a bad person. There are pros and cons to any economic system, but apparently capitalism is not for you. That's fine, just drop the holier than thou attitude.

clarky07 12y ago

Why are all landlords assholes again? Why is making a profit evil? Do you sell your services for half of what they are worth just to be nice?

jsprogrammer 12y ago
By definition, profit is extracting more than the 'worth' of something.
- harryh 12y ago
  False. In reality, in most transactions, both parties profit due to the fact that there is no fixed concept of "worth." The apple that you bought from your grocer for 50 cents was valued at 40 cents by him and 60 cents by you.
  - jsprogrammer 12y ago
    Why would I value an apple higher than what a grocer is willing to sell? I wouldn't.
    - SamReidHughes 12y ago
      Because you bought it? Clearly it has more value to you than the money.
    - harryh 12y ago
      Because that's what consumer surplus is. Look it up. Without it you'd never bother to buy anything because you would gain no value from the transaction.
      - jsprogrammer 12y ago
        You're just stating things without making any argument. I am aware of consumer surplus, thank you very much. You said that I value something at 60 cents and the seller values it at 40 cents, therefore I will buy it at 50 cents. Not only is your simple linear model absurdly reductionist, it's just ignorant. If a grocer is willing to sell at 40 cents, I would never pay a 50% markup when I wouldn't have to, your assertion that I would notwithstanding. I would just pay the 40 cents, and therefore the only objective measurement of how what I valued it at would come out at 40 cents. You stating that I actually value it at 60 cents is just you trying to fit a scenario to your fictional model.
        harryh 12y ago
        Are you dumb? I just made up the numbers. I never said anything was linear and even though the grocer is willing to sell at 40 cents he doesn't because then he wouldn't be able to meet supply so he raises the price until he can. Maybe the real life numbers are 45, 50 & 55. Maybe they're 34, 37 & 50. Maybe you really fucking love apples and it's 34, 37 & 5000 in which case go nuts, buy up the whole orchard, and keep all the doctors away for all time. Maybe those numbers aren't even close because what exactly does an apple cost these days I don't even know exactly. But the point holds. There is a price at which the transactions happens. Somewhere below that is the producer willingness to sell. The difference between those numbers is the producer surplus. Somewhere above the price is the consumer willingness to pay. The difference between that number and the price is the consumer surplus. Go find any economics 101 textbook in the known world and you'll have a downward sloping demand curve, and an upward sloping supply curve. They intersect at a market price. Then you get some shaded in areas for the producer and consumer surplus. If you don't know what one of these graphs looks like then you aren't qualified to participate in any discussion ever about what things should cost. Just shut up and go back to writing shitty software using the worst programming language in general use today.
- jusben1369 12y ago
  You have to finish that thought with "Otherwise you wouldn't do the action. And the buyer wouldn't benefit from your output."
- brc 12y ago
  No, profit is arranging a voluntary transaction where both parties where both parties trade something they value less for something they value more. Where did all this 'profit is evil' talk come from anyway? This is a site dedicated to startups and tech talk, and all of a sudden we have activist student slogans passing for comment?
  - jsprogrammer 12y ago
    The term is a bit ambiguous. You are referring to profit, the concept. I am referring to profit, the concrete measurable (ie. revenue - cost).
thefreeman 12y ago
All landlords aren't assholes, just the ones who try to force people out of their homes by jacking up rents to insane prices.
- Kalium 12y ago
  What's the not-asshole thing to do when you find out you could be making a profit literally ten times as big as your current profit? Especially when you know the supply being competed over won't be changing much.
  - kelnos 12y ago
    The not-asshole thing to do is to continue making your current profit. Or hell, raise it a little, but not enough to make it financially untenable for your current tenant to live there. You think it's ok to do something that will benefit your bank account but will simultaneously force someone to move out of their home? Enriching yourself at the expense of others is an asshole move, to me at least.
    - Kalium 12y ago
      > The not-asshole thing to do is to continue making your current profit. Or hell, raise it a little, but not enough to make it financially untenable for your current tenant to live there. So every lease becomes a lifetime deal. Hmm. Since rent keeps going up, this means prices are going to have to go up dramatically now so that I'm not completely hosed in ten to twenty years. After all, rent control increase caps are pretty much always below property tax increase caps. Long-term, me-the-landlord is going to be put in a situation where rent doesn't even cover taxes. Nevermind repairs, maintenance, and insurance. > You think it's ok to do something that will benefit your bank account but will simultaneously force someone to move out of their home? Huh. I guess evictions for non-payment are out now. After all, it's their home, and it would be evil for me to evict someone from their home just for the sake of my bank account... Between this and your previous point, you've made an excellent case that a moral and ethical person who owns property in SF would refuse to rent it under any circumstances. Well done. > Enriching yourself at the expense of others is an asshole move, to me at least. Are you aware that you just defined turning a profit as an asshole move? Perhaps you want to rethink your definition.
zobzu 12y ago
Basically rent in big cities is extremely low risk income. It means if you're lucky enough to be born/married the right places and own a few buildings, you do not need to work, nor will ever need, nor will your children ever need. So.. it doesn't make landlords assholes or evil, but its not like there wasnt a class issue. The only reason why this thread explodes is because the wealth difference is getting bigger and bigger.

EpicEng 12y ago

>All so some asshole (which is probably a company), can make more money. Great for the rich. Ummm... yeah, that's why I bought the place. That's why I took the risk on the investment. That's why I deal with all of the administration. That's why I keep it up to code. So... now I have to rent it for 25% market value? I'll find any way I can out of that situation, and no, it doesn't make me an asshole.

kelnos 12y ago
Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. Deciding that you need a fatter paycheck at the expense of a renter who can't afford your desire -- yes, desire, not need -- for more money... yeah, in my book that makes you an asshole. Any rent increase that isn't tied to an increase in costs (sure, maybe plus a few percent for profit) or a CPI/inflation increase is just greed, plain and simple. Put another way: landlords who are already making a comfortable profit off their property don't magically stop making a profit just because demand has increased. But that's not enough: people won't say no to a chance at more profits, even if that has a negative impact on other people. Listen, there's no reason why all the landlords across SF need to raise rents. They do it because they want more money, and know that demand is so high and that the high income earners in the area can afford it, and that there are enough of those types of people to keep the market going, at least for a while. And, to be frank, I could keep affording an apartment in SF even if it got much worse than it is now. But I wouldn't want to live here. The thought of living in a place populated by only the rich is entirely unpalatable to me. The idea of lining the pockets of people who are displacing families and individuals who have been living in SF for years and decades... that's disgusting. After a while, if things don't get better, I'll give up and move somewhere else, and give my rental money to people more deserving. I'll be sad to leave, but will realize that the city I love has already left me.
- EpicEng 12y ago
  So, unless I'm in it to only make as little money as possible for me to have a reasonably comfortable existence (by some standard you have set), I'm a greedy asshole. I disagree. I want to be rich someday. I want to retire at 50 and travel the world, eating at overpriced restaurants along the way. I want to leave some wealth to my children. That's why I bust my hump working a day job as well as building assets in my spare time; so that someday my investments pay my way with little effort on my end. I am indeed in it to make money; I have no interest in running self-subsidized housing. There's nothing morally wrong with charging market value. It's not that I have no empathy for these people, but circumstances change for a variety of reasons and we all have to adapt. Neighborhoods change over time; rent control won't stop that. My investment finally paid off and you want me to run a charity. I'm sorry that doesn't jive with your political/world outlook, but that doesn't make me a bad person. There are pros and cons to any economic system, but apparently capitalism is not for you. That's fine, just drop the holier than thou attitude.