5 ms·

I live in cambridge MA. We had rent control on some units, now we don't. It seems to have done little to stem the tide of expensive rental units. I think bui

I live in cambridge MA. We had rent control on some units, now we don't. It seems to have done little to stem the tide of expensive rental units. I think building more adding more supply is the only way to help keep rents and sales prices at a reasonable level. They charge higher taxes to non-resident owners, which is an interesting tactic. But rents have gone up enough that people who leave my building often opt to rent their units rather than sell them. It doesn't help that my state doesn't seem to make public transit outside the city core a priority (Boston, Cambridge, Somerville, Brookline), meaning commutes into the city from outside can be painful.

vonkow 12y ago
I grew up in Cambridge. When rent control went away, the rent skyrocketed and a large swath of the lower/middle class was forced to move to the suburbs. It sucks, because only 2 or 3 towns in MA had rent control, but developers scared city councils across the state into voting to ban the practice.
- driverdan 12y ago
  > It sucks Why does it suck? The market should be allowed to work.
  - glibgil 12y ago
    They already told you. "a large swath of the lower/middle class was forced to move to the suburbs". Read.
  - s73v3r 12y ago
    Why? Why is the market considered the be-all, end-all of desirable outcomes? Quite frankly, I consider "the market" forcing people out of areas they've lived in for most of their lives to be a far worse outcome.
    - aetherson 12y ago
      I genuinely don't understand all of the native bias in these discussions. Like, if Joe lives in town A, and Frank lives in town B, and both would like to live in town A, and Joe and Frank are otherwise utterly equivalent people, lots of people seem to regard it as totally natural that Joe should have primacy over Frank. I don't. I don't really know why anyone would. Like, ideally in a perfect world both Joe and Frank would be able to live where they want, but given that land is a persistently scarce resource, what's the basis for privileging Joe over Frank? And what is the magnitude of the privilege that we should regard as a natural right? Surely not infinite.
      - zem 12y ago
        because there's a high cost to moving - you lose the connections and communities that you've built up over time. the basis of these laws is that frank having more money than joe should not give him the leverage to force joe to pay that cost.
      - s73v3r 12y ago
        Why should Frank have primacy over Joe? Joe was there first. Should it simply be because Frank has more money? That's a pretty terrible way to decide these things. I mean, at what point do we say that Frank deserves Joe's other things simply because he has more money? Basically, you're just making a "Might makes right" argument, but substituting wealth for physical might.
        sokoloff 12y ago
        Why should the owner of the building have to lease the unit to Joe at a lower cost than he could rent it to Frank? (Joe and Frank are otherwise equivalent as stipulated by GP.) Do I have to sell my labor to my current employer cheaper than a prospective new employer? Do I have to sell my used car cheaper to someone who once rode in it than I could to another buyer? Why then should landlords be subject to those restrictions?
        eszed 12y ago
  - nemo 12y ago
    Whether it sucks depends on whether you care more about humanity or markets.
    - deepsun 12y ago
      I'd better to care about markets -- counter-intuitively, humanity will be better then. I've grew up in USSR, and I know what I'm talking about. The rent control smells so communist to me.
      - nemo 12y ago
        There are good reasons to care about markets, though it needs to be recognized that markets serve humanity. If you go to the Marxist extreme of a centrally planned economy people aren't taken into account. If you go to the extreme of a completely unregulated free market economy people aren't taken into account. The happy medium is a free market that's regulated to prevent coercive and abusive practices. The US had a much stronger overall economy and greater general prosperity when it followed that model. The neoliberal extremist policies that have been been adopted since the 80s have been a series of unfolding tragedies for the poor and middle class in the US. Rent controls don't appear in a vacuum, they are a response to the unfolding human tragedies of rentier exploitation that harm actual people. They may not be optimally implemented in SF, but to label them Communist is extremist. The neoliberal shock-treatment approach in Russia was a human disaster as well, and the horrors in Chile, parts of the EU, and elsewhere show why extremism that cares more about ideology than humanity is a vice. It doesn't matter if the ideologues are Marxists or Capitalists, ideologues always promote policies that are bad for humanity, since they care more about ideological purity than practicality or humanity.
psychometry 12y ago
The other problems in the Boston area are oppressive zoning laws and height restrictions that discourage or make impossible the construction of cheap, high-occupancy buildings. Boston, despite its liberal reputation, is a very conservative city economically speaking and is a perfect example of what happens when NIMBYism runs amok. Cambridge and Brookline are probably worse in this respect.
- Shivetya 12y ago
  To be blunt, altruistic behavior is seemingly assigned to liberals without question the end results of many of those actions seems to have the opposite effect but when you dig down it had the effect they desired. simply put, they don't want the type of people associated with that type of housing messing up their neighborhood. The lesson learned in the 60s is that it takes regulation to control who can move into an area by simply pricing it beyond the means of the undesired groups from moving in. The separation is now more money based than race, but a little of the latter still exist; actually a lot of the latter still exists
- jff 12y ago
  SF is the same way, down to the oppressive height restrictions.

vonkow 12y ago

I grew up in Cambridge. When rent control went away, the rent skyrocketed and a large swath of the lower/middle class was forced to move to the suburbs. It sucks, because only 2 or 3 towns in MA had rent control, but developers scared city councils across the state into voting to ban the practice.

driverdan 12y ago
> It sucks Why does it suck? The market should be allowed to work.
- glibgil 12y ago
  They already told you. "a large swath of the lower/middle class was forced to move to the suburbs". Read.
- s73v3r 12y ago
  Why? Why is the market considered the be-all, end-all of desirable outcomes? Quite frankly, I consider "the market" forcing people out of areas they've lived in for most of their lives to be a far worse outcome.
  - aetherson 12y ago
    I genuinely don't understand all of the native bias in these discussions. Like, if Joe lives in town A, and Frank lives in town B, and both would like to live in town A, and Joe and Frank are otherwise utterly equivalent people, lots of people seem to regard it as totally natural that Joe should have primacy over Frank. I don't. I don't really know why anyone would. Like, ideally in a perfect world both Joe and Frank would be able to live where they want, but given that land is a persistently scarce resource, what's the basis for privileging Joe over Frank? And what is the magnitude of the privilege that we should regard as a natural right? Surely not infinite.
    - zem 12y ago
      because there's a high cost to moving - you lose the connections and communities that you've built up over time. the basis of these laws is that frank having more money than joe should not give him the leverage to force joe to pay that cost.
    - s73v3r 12y ago
      Why should Frank have primacy over Joe? Joe was there first. Should it simply be because Frank has more money? That's a pretty terrible way to decide these things. I mean, at what point do we say that Frank deserves Joe's other things simply because he has more money? Basically, you're just making a "Might makes right" argument, but substituting wealth for physical might.
      - sokoloff 12y ago
        Why should the owner of the building have to lease the unit to Joe at a lower cost than he could rent it to Frank? (Joe and Frank are otherwise equivalent as stipulated by GP.) Do I have to sell my labor to my current employer cheaper than a prospective new employer? Do I have to sell my used car cheaper to someone who once rode in it than I could to another buyer? Why then should landlords be subject to those restrictions?
        eszed 12y ago
- nemo 12y ago
  Whether it sucks depends on whether you care more about humanity or markets.
  - deepsun 12y ago
    I'd better to care about markets -- counter-intuitively, humanity will be better then. I've grew up in USSR, and I know what I'm talking about. The rent control smells so communist to me.
    - nemo 12y ago
      There are good reasons to care about markets, though it needs to be recognized that markets serve humanity. If you go to the Marxist extreme of a centrally planned economy people aren't taken into account. If you go to the extreme of a completely unregulated free market economy people aren't taken into account. The happy medium is a free market that's regulated to prevent coercive and abusive practices. The US had a much stronger overall economy and greater general prosperity when it followed that model. The neoliberal extremist policies that have been been adopted since the 80s have been a series of unfolding tragedies for the poor and middle class in the US. Rent controls don't appear in a vacuum, they are a response to the unfolding human tragedies of rentier exploitation that harm actual people. They may not be optimally implemented in SF, but to label them Communist is extremist. The neoliberal shock-treatment approach in Russia was a human disaster as well, and the horrors in Chile, parts of the EU, and elsewhere show why extremism that cares more about ideology than humanity is a vice. It doesn't matter if the ideologues are Marxists or Capitalists, ideologues always promote policies that are bad for humanity, since they care more about ideological purity than practicality or humanity.

psychometry 12y ago

The other problems in the Boston area are oppressive zoning laws and height restrictions that discourage or make impossible the construction of cheap, high-occupancy buildings. Boston, despite its liberal reputation, is a very conservative city economically speaking and is a perfect example of what happens when NIMBYism runs amok. Cambridge and Brookline are probably worse in this respect.

Shivetya 12y ago
To be blunt, altruistic behavior is seemingly assigned to liberals without question the end results of many of those actions seems to have the opposite effect but when you dig down it had the effect they desired. simply put, they don't want the type of people associated with that type of housing messing up their neighborhood. The lesson learned in the 60s is that it takes regulation to control who can move into an area by simply pricing it beyond the means of the undesired groups from moving in. The separation is now more money based than race, but a little of the latter still exist; actually a lot of the latter still exists
jff 12y ago
SF is the same way, down to the oppressive height restrictions.