6 ms·

Insane prices or market prices?

by TheCondor 12y ago

kelnos 12y ago
Those aren't mutually-exclusive terms.
- Kalium 12y ago
  What's a not-asshole to do when all the other not-assholes have created a situation where the market price and the insane price are the same thing?
  - kelnos 12y ago
    How does it hurt the not-asshole to avoid behaving like the assholes?
    - Kalium 12y ago
      Because by creating a scenario that encourages assholes, all the not-assholes get pushed out. And thus, by being short-sighted nice people, you wind up with a city of assholes. Also, you should probably address harryh's excellent question about everyone else. Preferably with something other than an assertion of privilege.
      - kelnos 12y ago
        Because by creating a scenario that encourages assholes, all the not-assholes get pushed out. And thus, by being short-sighted nice people, you wind up with a city of assholes. As a landlord, deciding to raise rent on your units a modest amount, instead of a financially crippling amount, does not put you in a position to be "pushed out" than landlords who choose to be greedy. Your costs have not increased such that you need to charge your tenant more than what they can afford. With prop 13, property tax increases are capped, the cost of public utilities that a landlord often takes on (like trash and water) don't increase that much year-over-year, and neither does the cost of contractors to maintain the property. Any increases are in-line with non-housing-related cost of living increases. So what I don't understand about your statement is that you seem to assert that other landlords behaving like assholes somehow causes non-asshole landlords to be unable to maintain their properties and thus have to make the uncomfortable choice between either becoming assholes, or selling their properties to assholes and leaving. That doesn't seem to make sense unless somehow the cost of maintaining properties has started rising by more than single-digit percentage points per year, which doesn't make sense. Let's assume that property maintenance somehow increases in cost by 5% per year (which I think is at the high end). The apartment in question here would be covered by a $73/mo rent increase. While that's not nothing to most renters, I think it could be considered a reasonable increase, and something that probably wouldn't break the bank. But the apartment in question isn't getting its rent raised by 5%, or even 10%. It's getting raised by 315%. There's no possible way anyone could ever believe that it costs anywhere remotely close to 315% more to maintain that property this year than it did last year. Remember, we're not talking about profit here. We're just talking about the idea that you're pushing, that only charging a rent increase of 5% will put a landlord out of business, and that somehow the only way to stay in business is to "do what everyone else is doing" and raise rents by much higher numbers. If that's somehow true, I would love to see numbers that suggest that, because it sounds like an outrageous claim to me. Also, you should probably address harryh's excellent question about everyone else. Preferably with something other than an assertion of privilege. I find it interesting that you bring up the concept of privilege, as I believe landowners to be a particularly high-privilege group, especially when compared to many of the people who have been losing their homes over the past couple years. Regardless, I agree that it's an excellent question, and I've already replied. If you feel my response is lacking, please reply to it and I'll try to clarify my position better. I'm really just trying to understand and provide my perspective, and possibly learn a bit in the process.
        Kalium 12y ago
        Long story short, you believe that basic market forces should not apply to housing because that makes some people into assholes. Bluntly, this is naive. More importantly, it does exactly nothing to actually help address the problems at hand. All it does is give you a way to shake your head and make clucking noises as you feel morally superior. A few years ago, I would have listened to you and probably even agreed. These days, I'm more interested in solutions than I am in moralizing. > I'm really just trying to understand and provide my perspective, and possibly learn a bit in the process. Judging by your furious responses and insistence on labeling anyone making a sizable profit as an asshole, I'd say the only one of those goals you're meeting is the one of providing your perspective. Which is to say that landlords are assholes. Thanks. How about something helpful now?
        kelnos 12y ago
        Hey, this all started with a question by someone asking if making your renters unable to afford their rent to fulfill a profit motive makes one an asshole. I said yes. So what do we do to address the problem at hand? It sounds like you'd advocate for a repeal of rent control, because landlords should be able to extract all the profit they can from their properties? That's not going to fix the housing supply issue; all it's going to do is turn SF into a rich-people-only city where service workers need to live elsewhere and get bused in every day. That's not a place I want to live, and would be a direct result of "market forces" -- but not really, because government regulation nullifies market forces in many cases. Rent control is only one part of it... prop 13 and the city's byzantine planning process are others, and there are certainly more. So, looking for suggestions? Here's what we do: 1. Gut the city's construction planning process. Make it more objective and based on zoning laws and building codes, as well as continuing to include provisions for low-income housing. Raise (and in some areas eliminate) building-height restrictions. Also, residents in the area no longer get a veto on new construction projects. As long as a building proposal follows the rules, it gets a rubber stamp. No discussion. 2. Repeal prop 13 for rental properties, and only allow it to apply to an owner's primary residence (obviously this is more difficult since prop 13 is state and not city law). This recognizes that owning a home gives you an illiquid asset, and fluctuations in property taxes (especially in an area like SF with strongly rising property values) can cause people to need to move. Homeownership should at least still offer that kind of security. 3. Repeal rent control city-wide and replace it with a gov't subsidy tied to renters' income. This subsidy can be funded with extra tax revenue from #2, and can likely be phased out over several years as rents stabilize and drop. I expect that rents will initially rise, but will start to lower again after a year or two under the new rules, and even more after a few more years as #1 reduces (and hopefully eliminates) the deficit in the housing supply. The (temporary) subsidy protects existing tenants until there's enough housing to support people of any economic status. 4. This is more subjective, but: make it more attractive for landlords to buy out their tenants (or just keep them) than to use shady practices like finding reclassification loopholes and bullying by doing the bare minimum required by law to maintain their properties. I'm not sure of the exact mechanisms to do this, but incentives should be aligned so that landlords want to keep good, steady, reliable tenants, even if new tenants might net them some extra cash. Basically we want to create an environment where landlords are mostly happy to keep their current tenants, but while tenants are also not afraid of the prospect of needing to move. Is that helpful enough?

Insane prices or market prices?

kelnos 12y ago

Those aren't mutually-exclusive terms.

Kalium 12y ago
What's a not-asshole to do when all the other not-assholes have created a situation where the market price and the insane price are the same thing?
- kelnos 12y ago
  How does it hurt the not-asshole to avoid behaving like the assholes?
  - Kalium 12y ago
    Because by creating a scenario that encourages assholes, all the not-assholes get pushed out. And thus, by being short-sighted nice people, you wind up with a city of assholes. Also, you should probably address harryh's excellent question about everyone else. Preferably with something other than an assertion of privilege.
    - kelnos 12y ago
      Because by creating a scenario that encourages assholes, all the not-assholes get pushed out. And thus, by being short-sighted nice people, you wind up with a city of assholes. As a landlord, deciding to raise rent on your units a modest amount, instead of a financially crippling amount, does not put you in a position to be "pushed out" than landlords who choose to be greedy. Your costs have not increased such that you need to charge your tenant more than what they can afford. With prop 13, property tax increases are capped, the cost of public utilities that a landlord often takes on (like trash and water) don't increase that much year-over-year, and neither does the cost of contractors to maintain the property. Any increases are in-line with non-housing-related cost of living increases. So what I don't understand about your statement is that you seem to assert that other landlords behaving like assholes somehow causes non-asshole landlords to be unable to maintain their properties and thus have to make the uncomfortable choice between either becoming assholes, or selling their properties to assholes and leaving. That doesn't seem to make sense unless somehow the cost of maintaining properties has started rising by more than single-digit percentage points per year, which doesn't make sense. Let's assume that property maintenance somehow increases in cost by 5% per year (which I think is at the high end). The apartment in question here would be covered by a $73/mo rent increase. While that's not nothing to most renters, I think it could be considered a reasonable increase, and something that probably wouldn't break the bank. But the apartment in question isn't getting its rent raised by 5%, or even 10%. It's getting raised by 315%. There's no possible way anyone could ever believe that it costs anywhere remotely close to 315% more to maintain that property this year than it did last year. Remember, we're not talking about profit here. We're just talking about the idea that you're pushing, that only charging a rent increase of 5% will put a landlord out of business, and that somehow the only way to stay in business is to "do what everyone else is doing" and raise rents by much higher numbers. If that's somehow true, I would love to see numbers that suggest that, because it sounds like an outrageous claim to me. Also, you should probably address harryh's excellent question about everyone else. Preferably with something other than an assertion of privilege. I find it interesting that you bring up the concept of privilege, as I believe landowners to be a particularly high-privilege group, especially when compared to many of the people who have been losing their homes over the past couple years. Regardless, I agree that it's an excellent question, and I've already replied. If you feel my response is lacking, please reply to it and I'll try to clarify my position better. I'm really just trying to understand and provide my perspective, and possibly learn a bit in the process.
      - Kalium 12y ago
        Long story short, you believe that basic market forces should not apply to housing because that makes some people into assholes. Bluntly, this is naive. More importantly, it does exactly nothing to actually help address the problems at hand. All it does is give you a way to shake your head and make clucking noises as you feel morally superior. A few years ago, I would have listened to you and probably even agreed. These days, I'm more interested in solutions than I am in moralizing. > I'm really just trying to understand and provide my perspective, and possibly learn a bit in the process. Judging by your furious responses and insistence on labeling anyone making a sizable profit as an asshole, I'd say the only one of those goals you're meeting is the one of providing your perspective. Which is to say that landlords are assholes. Thanks. How about something helpful now?
        kelnos 12y ago
        Hey, this all started with a question by someone asking if making your renters unable to afford their rent to fulfill a profit motive makes one an asshole. I said yes. So what do we do to address the problem at hand? It sounds like you'd advocate for a repeal of rent control, because landlords should be able to extract all the profit they can from their properties? That's not going to fix the housing supply issue; all it's going to do is turn SF into a rich-people-only city where service workers need to live elsewhere and get bused in every day. That's not a place I want to live, and would be a direct result of "market forces" -- but not really, because government regulation nullifies market forces in many cases. Rent control is only one part of it... prop 13 and the city's byzantine planning process are others, and there are certainly more. So, looking for suggestions? Here's what we do: 1. Gut the city's construction planning process. Make it more objective and based on zoning laws and building codes, as well as continuing to include provisions for low-income housing. Raise (and in some areas eliminate) building-height restrictions. Also, residents in the area no longer get a veto on new construction projects. As long as a building proposal follows the rules, it gets a rubber stamp. No discussion. 2. Repeal prop 13 for rental properties, and only allow it to apply to an owner's primary residence (obviously this is more difficult since prop 13 is state and not city law). This recognizes that owning a home gives you an illiquid asset, and fluctuations in property taxes (especially in an area like SF with strongly rising property values) can cause people to need to move. Homeownership should at least still offer that kind of security. 3. Repeal rent control city-wide and replace it with a gov't subsidy tied to renters' income. This subsidy can be funded with extra tax revenue from #2, and can likely be phased out over several years as rents stabilize and drop. I expect that rents will initially rise, but will start to lower again after a year or two under the new rules, and even more after a few more years as #1 reduces (and hopefully eliminates) the deficit in the housing supply. The (temporary) subsidy protects existing tenants until there's enough housing to support people of any economic status. 4. This is more subjective, but: make it more attractive for landlords to buy out their tenants (or just keep them) than to use shady practices like finding reclassification loopholes and bullying by doing the bare minimum required by law to maintain their properties. I'm not sure of the exact mechanisms to do this, but incentives should be aligned so that landlords want to keep good, steady, reliable tenants, even if new tenants might net them some extra cash. Basically we want to create an environment where landlords are mostly happy to keep their current tenants, but while tenants are also not afraid of the prospect of needing to move. Is that helpful enough?