6 ms·

> It also reduces tenant mobility this is such a great point and I wish it was talked about more in the discussions of these issues. rent control basically tra

> It also reduces tenant mobility this is such a great point and I wish it was talked about more in the discussions of these issues. rent control basically traps people in a single apartment for the rest of their lives. it traps their sons and daughters there too (if they elect to "inherit" the apartment, which they frequently do). this is one of the ways that ghettos come in to existence. the ability to move to somewhere else is really fundamental to preserving a person's freedom and quality of life. rent control takes that away and replaces it with a market dislocation and transfer payment.

netc 12y ago
Have you ever looked at the possibility where one's family has to move every year or so because landlord decided to increase rent to 'catch up' with market. This is what it looks like in communities where lot of people wants to move in but no rent control. One can move in but will not have any stability.
- cdr 12y ago
  And with 30 days notice - not fun in an overheated rental market. In Denver as few as 7 days notice, if the rental is monthly. http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_27709567/apartment-dwellers-metro-denver-getting-priced-out-pushed http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_27709567/apartment-dwe...
- rconti 12y ago
  There's a lot more "catching up" to do in a highly rent-controlled market (assuming you're not subject to rent control). For the same reasons "market rate" is artificially high (as pointed out by the linked article), the "market rate" goes up by a very large percentage each year. If all units were market rate, the market rate would not be increasing by nearly as much.
  - thinkmoore 12y ago
    I live in Somerville, MA, which does not have rent control. My rent has gone up by at least 10% every year for the past 4 years. This is not sustainable.
    - spankalee 12y ago
      No, it isn't. Unless inflation is at least 10% as well - and wages keep up. But imagine if Somerville did have rent control. The minority of units on the market would have rents go up by much, much more than 10% a year, and people who need a new place would be screwed. This is what's happened in SF.
- gscott 12y ago
  I lived in an apartment complex where the owner raised the rent $50 every month. Rent was $850 and by the time I left it was at $1250. Best to get a lease and not rent month to month sometimes.
- RealGeek 12y ago
  I moved into an apartment in Westchester, NY two years ago. My landlord keeps increasing the rent by 20% every year. It is owned / managed by a large company which owns many apartments in the area; they just keep inflating the rental prices. I can't deal with this anymore, as a result I have to move out now.
  - deepsun 12y ago
    I see nothing wrong here. It's his apartment, and it's market. Want stability -- buy a house, (PS: I'm myself renting for a cheap price because of rent control, but I admit it's a bad system).
    - RealGeek 12y ago
      It's his apartment, but such high increase is not in line with the market prices, inflation and wage growth. They are simply banking on the fact that moving for tenants is costly, time consuming and could affect kid's school. Moreover, they only gave me 3 days to decide if I want to renew or move out. They gave the renewal offer 33 days before lease end, and I have to give a notice of 30 days if I want to move out. Last year, I fell into their trap and gave into the substantially increased rent; but now what they are asking is at least 30% higher than market.
      - djrogers 12y ago
        If your lease is being modified you are likely not bound by the 30 day notice...
  - aros 12y ago
    Move somewhere with a good local job market and affordable housing. After purchasing my house a few years ago, my mortgage payments will remain exactly the same every year for 30 years.
dreamweapon 12y ago
rent control basically traps people in a single apartment for the rest of their lives. It doesn't "trap" anyone; that's just hyperbole. The main effect is that it gives a significant number of people a chance to stay in the city in a profoundly deteriorating market for middle-class housing stock (driven, in NYC's case, to no small degree by external factors such foreign investment, and radical and -- in the view of many -- essentially undemocratic "pro-building" changes to the local zoning laws). this is one of the ways that ghettos come in to existence. Perhaps. But given the vastly greater forces at play (racism/classism; the collapse of inner-city manufacturing base; and deliberate wholesale razing of neighborhoods in NYC, Boston and elsewhere; mistaken notions about the wonderful community-building effects moving people out of quirky single-family housing and into massive high-rise development projects; and just the inevitable effect of multi-lane freeways in high-density urban areas, generally) it seems you'd have a hard time pinning it as one of the major factors.
- e40 12y ago
  When I went to UC Berkeley, I never lived in Berkeley. I knew people that lived in ultra cheap apartments and houses, but every time I went to an open house, there were 50 other people waiting with me. I always lived in Oakland. A guy I worked with had lived in his apartment for 20 years when he finally bought a house (because he got married). He had been paying a ridiculously low rent for decades, and he just couldn't move and spend 10x more for what he got. It may be counter intuitive to you, but it is not hyperbole.
  - zem 12y ago
    right, so the question is, was he "trapped" in his apartment, or was he given the chance to stay there when he would otherwise have been forced out long ago by rising rents.
    - LanceH 12y ago
      He wasn't trapped, he was greedy. Only to him, he was trapped, because the other people were being greedy for wanting market rates.
cyphunk 12y ago
>> It also reduces tenant mobility > rent control basically traps people in a single apartment for the rest of their lives. so does buying a house. still, some people tend to appreciate it regardless of how bad the added lack of mobility is for them.
- bkjelden 12y ago
  Owning a home means you are subject to housing market fluctuations. If you want to move elsewhere, and housing prices have gone up substantially, you have increased equity in your current property to cover the increased cost elsewhere.
- spankalee 12y ago
  You're completely ignoring equity. Mortgage payments are based on the loan amount, not the value of the property. Excluding transactions costs, if you buy a $X house and have $Y month payments, then the property value doubles to $2X, you can sell and still buy another house that costs $2X, add $X to the down payment, and still have a $Y/month mortgage. So if you own a home, not only do you have mobility, but if you move to another house of lesser value you can extract equity without increasing monthly costs. Now Prop 13 is what restricts mobility for homeowners, because property tax can be 10x on a new purchase if you've been in the old house long enough. Rent control and Prop 13 both need to go.
  - cbd1984 12y ago
    > You're completely ignoring equity. You're assuming equity is guaranteed. If you buy a house at $X, and it adjusts to $X/2 because of speculation or job losses in the area, you're still paying down the $X + $Y mortgage, where $Y is interest, fees, and whatever else the bank tacks on, now or in the future, and have no way to recoup your losses. And you still have to pay property tax, based on the assessed value of your property circa pre-collapse.
    - twblalock 12y ago
      I know people who had their homes re-assessed in 2009-2010 and their property taxes decreased significantly from the pre-collapse amount.
wpietri 12y ago
I cannot fathom how this is a trap. If the resident can afford to move elsewhere, then it's certainly not a trap. And if they can't afford to move, then removing rent control doesn't "free" them. They're just fucked. I know many people who have moved out of rent-controlled apartments for one reason or another. I've done it myself. I don't know a single one who says, "Whew! Thank goodness I escaped that terrible trap of being able to afford living in a place I liked!"
- philipwalton 12y ago
  The assumption is that without rent control, average prices would be lower. Therefore someone who couldn't afford to move previously now could.
  - hkmurakami 12y ago
    Or if the intent is to provide a subsidy, to have a system where the tenant can receive the same relative amount of subsidy no matter where she may choose to reside.
  - ubernostrum 12y ago
    The assumption is that without rent control, average prices would be lower. So... the assumption is that left to itself, a good which is incredibly scarce in a market full of wealthy, fiercely competitive customers would see a price decline? I mean, I can sort of see a long-term argument for it (the people who would occupy the housing are dependent on a much larger and much less wealthy serving class for their food and other necessaries and luxuries, and as that serving class was priced out of being able to live anywhere within an increasingly-large radius, housing would begin to become less attractive and thus prices would finally come down at least a bit). But I highly doubt that's the argument attempting to be made here, as one of the goals of rent control is to shortcut to the end of that cycle (where costs have come down enough that the serving class can afford to live nearby again).
    - nindalf 12y ago
      I wonder if you read the article at all or went straight to the comments. Your comment reminded me of the "banana" experiment that Ars Technica ran a while ago.

netc 12y ago

Have you ever looked at the possibility where one's family has to move every year or so because landlord decided to increase rent to 'catch up' with market. This is what it looks like in communities where lot of people wants to move in but no rent control. One can move in but will not have any stability.

cdr 12y ago
And with 30 days notice - not fun in an overheated rental market. In Denver as few as 7 days notice, if the rental is monthly. http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_27709567/apartment-dwellers-metro-denver-getting-priced-out-pushed http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_27709567/apartment-dwe...
rconti 12y ago
There's a lot more "catching up" to do in a highly rent-controlled market (assuming you're not subject to rent control). For the same reasons "market rate" is artificially high (as pointed out by the linked article), the "market rate" goes up by a very large percentage each year. If all units were market rate, the market rate would not be increasing by nearly as much.
- thinkmoore 12y ago
  I live in Somerville, MA, which does not have rent control. My rent has gone up by at least 10% every year for the past 4 years. This is not sustainable.
  - spankalee 12y ago
    No, it isn't. Unless inflation is at least 10% as well - and wages keep up. But imagine if Somerville did have rent control. The minority of units on the market would have rents go up by much, much more than 10% a year, and people who need a new place would be screwed. This is what's happened in SF.
gscott 12y ago
I lived in an apartment complex where the owner raised the rent $50 every month. Rent was $850 and by the time I left it was at $1250. Best to get a lease and not rent month to month sometimes.
RealGeek 12y ago
I moved into an apartment in Westchester, NY two years ago. My landlord keeps increasing the rent by 20% every year. It is owned / managed by a large company which owns many apartments in the area; they just keep inflating the rental prices. I can't deal with this anymore, as a result I have to move out now.
- deepsun 12y ago
  I see nothing wrong here. It's his apartment, and it's market. Want stability -- buy a house, (PS: I'm myself renting for a cheap price because of rent control, but I admit it's a bad system).
  - RealGeek 12y ago
    It's his apartment, but such high increase is not in line with the market prices, inflation and wage growth. They are simply banking on the fact that moving for tenants is costly, time consuming and could affect kid's school. Moreover, they only gave me 3 days to decide if I want to renew or move out. They gave the renewal offer 33 days before lease end, and I have to give a notice of 30 days if I want to move out. Last year, I fell into their trap and gave into the substantially increased rent; but now what they are asking is at least 30% higher than market.
    - djrogers 12y ago
      If your lease is being modified you are likely not bound by the 30 day notice...
- aros 12y ago
  Move somewhere with a good local job market and affordable housing. After purchasing my house a few years ago, my mortgage payments will remain exactly the same every year for 30 years.

dreamweapon 12y ago

rent control basically traps people in a single apartment for the rest of their lives. It doesn't "trap" anyone; that's just hyperbole. The main effect is that it gives a significant number of people a chance to stay in the city in a profoundly deteriorating market for middle-class housing stock (driven, in NYC's case, to no small degree by external factors such foreign investment, and radical and -- in the view of many -- essentially undemocratic "pro-building" changes to the local zoning laws). this is one of the ways that ghettos come in to existence. Perhaps. But given the vastly greater forces at play (racism/classism; the collapse of inner-city manufacturing base; and deliberate wholesale razing of neighborhoods in NYC, Boston and elsewhere; mistaken notions about the wonderful community-building effects moving people out of quirky single-family housing and into massive high-rise development projects; and just the inevitable effect of multi-lane freeways in high-density urban areas, generally) it seems you'd have a hard time pinning it as one of the major factors.

e40 12y ago
When I went to UC Berkeley, I never lived in Berkeley. I knew people that lived in ultra cheap apartments and houses, but every time I went to an open house, there were 50 other people waiting with me. I always lived in Oakland. A guy I worked with had lived in his apartment for 20 years when he finally bought a house (because he got married). He had been paying a ridiculously low rent for decades, and he just couldn't move and spend 10x more for what he got. It may be counter intuitive to you, but it is not hyperbole.
- zem 12y ago
  right, so the question is, was he "trapped" in his apartment, or was he given the chance to stay there when he would otherwise have been forced out long ago by rising rents.
  - LanceH 12y ago
    He wasn't trapped, he was greedy. Only to him, he was trapped, because the other people were being greedy for wanting market rates.

cyphunk 12y ago

>> It also reduces tenant mobility > rent control basically traps people in a single apartment for the rest of their lives. so does buying a house. still, some people tend to appreciate it regardless of how bad the added lack of mobility is for them.

bkjelden 12y ago
Owning a home means you are subject to housing market fluctuations. If you want to move elsewhere, and housing prices have gone up substantially, you have increased equity in your current property to cover the increased cost elsewhere.
spankalee 12y ago
You're completely ignoring equity. Mortgage payments are based on the loan amount, not the value of the property. Excluding transactions costs, if you buy a $X house and have $Y month payments, then the property value doubles to $2X, you can sell and still buy another house that costs $2X, add $X to the down payment, and still have a $Y/month mortgage. So if you own a home, not only do you have mobility, but if you move to another house of lesser value you can extract equity without increasing monthly costs. Now Prop 13 is what restricts mobility for homeowners, because property tax can be 10x on a new purchase if you've been in the old house long enough. Rent control and Prop 13 both need to go.
- cbd1984 12y ago
  > You're completely ignoring equity. You're assuming equity is guaranteed. If you buy a house at $X, and it adjusts to $X/2 because of speculation or job losses in the area, you're still paying down the $X + $Y mortgage, where $Y is interest, fees, and whatever else the bank tacks on, now or in the future, and have no way to recoup your losses. And you still have to pay property tax, based on the assessed value of your property circa pre-collapse.
  - twblalock 12y ago
    I know people who had their homes re-assessed in 2009-2010 and their property taxes decreased significantly from the pre-collapse amount.

wpietri 12y ago

I cannot fathom how this is a trap. If the resident can afford to move elsewhere, then it's certainly not a trap. And if they can't afford to move, then removing rent control doesn't "free" them. They're just fucked. I know many people who have moved out of rent-controlled apartments for one reason or another. I've done it myself. I don't know a single one who says, "Whew! Thank goodness I escaped that terrible trap of being able to afford living in a place I liked!"

philipwalton 12y ago
The assumption is that without rent control, average prices would be lower. Therefore someone who couldn't afford to move previously now could.
- hkmurakami 12y ago
  Or if the intent is to provide a subsidy, to have a system where the tenant can receive the same relative amount of subsidy no matter where she may choose to reside.
- ubernostrum 12y ago
  The assumption is that without rent control, average prices would be lower. So... the assumption is that left to itself, a good which is incredibly scarce in a market full of wealthy, fiercely competitive customers would see a price decline? I mean, I can sort of see a long-term argument for it (the people who would occupy the housing are dependent on a much larger and much less wealthy serving class for their food and other necessaries and luxuries, and as that serving class was priced out of being able to live anywhere within an increasingly-large radius, housing would begin to become less attractive and thus prices would finally come down at least a bit). But I highly doubt that's the argument attempting to be made here, as one of the goals of rent control is to shortcut to the end of that cycle (where costs have come down enough that the serving class can afford to live nearby again).
  - nindalf 12y ago
    I wonder if you read the article at all or went straight to the comments. Your comment reminded me of the "banana" experiment that Ars Technica ran a while ago.