“I'm gay. I strongly support the rights of transgender people to participate as normal individuals in society. I strongly support the right of transgender people to find doctors who are willing to treat them. I'm not sure this procedure qualifies as medically necessary.”
“Fred just got hired to work at Google in Mountain View, CA. He's moving into the neighborhood. But every time he shows up to try and rent some rent controlled apartment which is dramatically below market, five people have already showed up in front of him. If something is below-market, it's extremely difficult to be the first person to show up and rent it.
So instead of outbidding one of the incumbent tenants, Fred is forced to pay whatever the market rate is for the few market rate apartments out there that haven't been regulated. The supply of market-rate apartments has been dramatically reduced due to rent control, and when supply goes down, the market rate goes up.
There are pros and cons to rent control. But it does force new people moving to the neighborhood to scramble for an apartment and it drives up the price.”
kokoyumyum2 on May 16, 2014 at 15:41:28
“a tight housing market is tight. Try to buy a house in the even remote area.”
“It creates big distortions in the rental market and every economist will agree that without vacancy decontrol it forces a housing shortage.
NYC has some interesting provisions for creating affordable housing separate from rent control. In order to build a new building, developers are required to set aside some units as affordable housing that have an income cap. The affordable units are less valuable to the developer, but he's willing to tolerate that to get the zoning permit. THAT is a solution which treats capital fairly and with respect. Sponsoring other community-based initiatives to create affordable housing, as well as limiting red tape on multifamily housing development can also keep rents low.
Coming in and imposing rent control- and not allowing rent to naturally keep pace with inflation is not fair to landlords-or to capital.”
kokoyumyum2 on May 16, 2014 at 15:44:25
“Building UP, is what happens in New York on its great foundation bedrock. That is not true in San Francisco. Rent control has been around a long time in SF. This not a now imposed restriction. And NYC is full of rent controlled buildings and even has artist set asides.”
“If the state wants to make housing more affordable for poor people, it should develop housing at its own expense. Rent stabilization should simply be a tool for slowing the pace at which communities gentrify and people are forced out. Rent control should not be a tool for guaranteeing that housing is affordable.
If I were a landlord, and I were forced to have a below-market rent controlled apartments with no vacancy decontrol, I'd only lease to friends and relatives- rich people like me. Or I'd require additional rent paid under the table at the start of the lease, like what's happening in Mumbai.
There's a balancing act going on. Socialists want to abuse capital and wealth. The Tea Party wants to worship it. Moderate Democrats (former Northeastern Republicans) like me just want to treat it reasonably fairly and respectfully while we try to minimize social costs.
If we abuse landlords, no new livable housing will get built. If we go completely market rate, there will be a lot of homeless widows and grandparents in NYC. If we cap rent increases to inflation + 5% but allow vacancy decontrol, people aren't thrown out of neighborhoods immediately because rents go up, but landlords are assured of maintaining close to market rates over the long run.
If the government wants affordable housing, it should sponsor it rather than force market-rate housing to become affordable.”
“I know. But my point is that if rents aren't allowed to keep up with housing prices over the long run, the landlord doesn't have a full economic interest in the building he owns.
If you walk into a bank and deposit $1000 in a 5 year CD at 3% interest, you expect to get paid 3%. If the federal government comes along and caps CD interest rates at 1%, you're effectively losing a little less than 5 x 2%, or a little less than 10% of the CD's value today. You don't own all of that CD- you only own 90% of it. The bank has just been given the other 10%.
What I'd much rather see is a change in the rental contract. When you lease a property, the lease should give you 10% or 20% of the property's increase in value at the end of the term. Rents will be more expensive, but you will have more money to sign your next lease with. And people don't get stuck in the same place for 20, 30, or 40 years due to rent control.”
Cybdiver on May 15, 2014 at 15:22:41
“confusion, I was simply trying to say that rich people should not be entitled to the rent control that lower income people were getting. If your income goes up and you can afford a higher rent then why should you get the benefit. Of course a landlord should be able to make a living and cover the expenses of running the building. No point in property if there is no profit. I think were saying the same thing only differently.”
“No. The landlord owns the building and he can choose who he wants to live there. He can also live there himself once the lease terminates.
I'm not opposed to rent stabilization but I am opposed to rent control. People have the right for the value of their investments keep up with inflation. And because some investments can sometimes fail to keep pace with inflation, you need a rent increase cap of at least 1-2% more than CPI.
I think New York has a reasonably fair system where rent is stabilized and increases are limited to about 5-10%/year and vacancy decontrol allows the landlord to reset to the market rate when tenants leave. Widows and orphans aren't getting kicked out of their homes, rent keeps pace with inflation, but the neighborhood is allowed to slowly evolve.
If we don't allow people to largely *own* the homes they buy, no new homes will get built, and the housing stock for lower and middle income people will never improve. We don't have to treat capital obsequiously, but we do have to treat it fairly and landlords have to feel like they own their properties.”
kokoyumyum2 on May 15, 2014 at 15:47:01
“rent control is to keep the population of the city able to have employees live there. I It has worked for half a century. This is not new. If there were no rent control in large metropolitan areas there would be no one to do any of the work that a city and the citizens need to have done.”
Cybdiver on May 14, 2014 at 09:31:32
“I never said the landlord didn't own the building. never mind”
I honestly think a default lease agreement should include some equity participation on the property. IE you get 20% of the value of any increase in the property over the life of the lease. Leases would be more expensive and everyone would live in smaller apartments, but people would have more security in their living arrangements.”
“Many areas of California make development very difficult. The state has too many people.
Rent controls also keep prices low for existing tenants but drive them up for everyone else.”
kokoyumyum2 on May 15, 2014 at 15:55:30
“How does rent control drive up rents for everyone else? What California has is too many people who want to live in the best places as far as culture to live. Lots of empty beautiful land in the Golden State. Love Eureka.”
“It's a promise to pay 12 monthly installments for housing. If you lose your job, they can't evict you for a month. They sure as heck have the right to get a credit report and financial information on you.
I do agree that if you pay a one-year lease up front and have a security deposit to cover however long an eviction takes, you shouldn't have to go through a credit check.”
“It's the landlord's building. He gets to choose tenants based on business decisions. People who earn $100K or more are more likely to be able to service a 1-year lease than people who don't.”
philman on May 15, 2014 at 19:45:31
“I think you missed the point of the story, which was that he sent these letters to current, lease-holding tenants with no indication that they ever failed to pay their rent.”
Cybdiver on May 12, 2014 at 08:24:42
“We are talking about "Rent Controlled" buildings. If there is no rent control to keep the price of rent down then I don't care what the landlord wants to charge. The purpose of rent control is to give lower income people the opportunity to have a descent place to live.”
bbailey123 on May 11, 2014 at 17:58:56
“But if people have multi year leases and are paying on time, he has no grounds to evict them. It's called contract law.”
“My problem is that all of the solutions involved using government rather than volunteering and philanthropy.”
jeremiahwasa on Apr 29, 2014 at 09:59:07
“Then you were probably raised like I was. My parents are the most giving people I have ever seen and I try so hard to emulate them. I just have a hard time seeing the good that the ultra rich are doing if at all in some cases. Maybe I just need to dig deeper. It certainly wouldn't hurt their cause if they'd advertise it just a little bit more.”
“I'm just glad that while Warren gets rich off of the royalties, millions of minimum wage warehouse workers will be walking at exactly 4 mph for 8 hours/day shipping her books. Yay! More profits for Sen. Warren!
Have a nice day.”
Licensedtojill on Apr 25, 2014 at 02:28:02
“Are you attempting to imply Sen Warren is somehow responsible for the pay rate at these companies? Should she have stipulated the employees must make an additional 3 dollars an hour while working with her books?”