5 ms·

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 tha

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.
spankalee 12y ago
It's not hyperbole in the least bit, I've seen it first hand. A lot, maybe most by now, of my friends who live in SF cannot afford to move at all - they really are trapped in their current lease. It's often even worse because rent control encourages so many off-the-books subleases, so they can't directly deal with the landlord for fear of being caught. If the lease holder decides to give the lease up, they're screwed. This has happened to more than one of my friends who lived with someone else who had the lease and then moved out. The original leaseholder kept the lease as a courtesy, but it's actually a liability to them and they won't do it indefinitely. It's a shitty situation for all involved. One argument against rent control is that it drastically drives up the price of the available units because there's such a reduced supply, exactly because the "trapped" can't move. This is a vicious cycle that causes even more renters to become trapped. With subsidies instead of rent control, the available rental stock would be bigger, renters could choose from more options, and not be penalized for needing to move. Subsidies would still have an effect of increasing demand and ability to pay, thus pushing up prices a little, but the price inflation would be spread across the whole market, rather than concentrated on just the small portion of vacant units.
- timr 12y ago
  I'm one of those poor, suffering people, "trapped" by my rent control. If this is confinement, then I'll admit that I much prefer confinement to the life of freedom I would experience when my landlord kicks me out in order to get a richer tenant. Thanks for your concern, though. It's really touching.
  - spankalee 12y ago
    Hey, I am too, though I recently moved so I got hit with the reset. I guess you're just ignoring the part where no rent control and direct subsidies would lower the prices of the available rental stock. Do you like being penalized for moving? I don't.
    - timr 12y ago
      Yes, I'm ignoring your completely unsupported hypothetical about subsidies. You don't need to invent fancy theories to explain rents in SF: we're in a demand bubble, driven by the influx of venture-funded tech companies into the city. This is neither new, nor surprising.

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.

spankalee 12y ago

It's not hyperbole in the least bit, I've seen it first hand. A lot, maybe most by now, of my friends who live in SF cannot afford to move at all - they really are trapped in their current lease. It's often even worse because rent control encourages so many off-the-books subleases, so they can't directly deal with the landlord for fear of being caught. If the lease holder decides to give the lease up, they're screwed. This has happened to more than one of my friends who lived with someone else who had the lease and then moved out. The original leaseholder kept the lease as a courtesy, but it's actually a liability to them and they won't do it indefinitely. It's a shitty situation for all involved. One argument against rent control is that it drastically drives up the price of the available units because there's such a reduced supply, exactly because the "trapped" can't move. This is a vicious cycle that causes even more renters to become trapped. With subsidies instead of rent control, the available rental stock would be bigger, renters could choose from more options, and not be penalized for needing to move. Subsidies would still have an effect of increasing demand and ability to pay, thus pushing up prices a little, but the price inflation would be spread across the whole market, rather than concentrated on just the small portion of vacant units.

timr 12y ago
I'm one of those poor, suffering people, "trapped" by my rent control. If this is confinement, then I'll admit that I much prefer confinement to the life of freedom I would experience when my landlord kicks me out in order to get a richer tenant. Thanks for your concern, though. It's really touching.
- spankalee 12y ago
  Hey, I am too, though I recently moved so I got hit with the reset. I guess you're just ignoring the part where no rent control and direct subsidies would lower the prices of the available rental stock. Do you like being penalized for moving? I don't.
  - timr 12y ago
    Yes, I'm ignoring your completely unsupported hypothetical about subsidies. You don't need to invent fancy theories to explain rents in SF: we're in a demand bubble, driven by the influx of venture-funded tech companies into the city. This is neither new, nor surprising.