[aaronblohowiak]

Because shrinking the number of landlords shrinks the number of units available, raising rents, _hurting renters_.

[falsedan]

are these vanishing landlord eating their properties or just throwing them into the sea

[eru]

That reasoning works on land. (Hence a land value tax can't be passed on to tenants.)

But it doesn't work on the houses on top of the land. Because we can build more or less of them. Or higher.

[macspoofing]

No. They let population growth take care of that while they decide not to invest in rental properties.

Your flippant argument can be flipped around too. If there is a housing shortage, by what mechanism does rent control conjure new housing units?

[falsedan]

who the what now

my point is, vanishing landlord or no, the units remain

[macspoofing]

>my point is, vanishing landlord or no, the units remain

Still wrong:

1) Apartments get converted to condos, or re-purposed because the property has value, but renting doesn't.

2) The population keeps growing meaning that your same number of units don't meet the needs.

3) Rental supply also drops as people opt not to move and sit on their rent-controlled apartments, limiting the supply for those looking.

This is why rent-control has the effect of making housing worse, even if the rental supply is maintained.

[falsedan]

> Still wrong:

ah, ok, they eat them. thanks for clearing that up

[macspoofing]

You do realize there is a second, third, and even a fourth line (and more) after this first line.

[icebraining]

No, just leaving them vacant while the value increases.

[tibbon]

Cool- next up, a tax on vacant properties. Maybe they will have to sell.

Perhaps the people can again seize the means of production (part of that being stable housing).

I’d far rather know another 100,000 units are owned by the people that live in them than 100 landlords owning and profiteering from those units.

If this “disrupts” the entire rental industry, that’s fine with me. Didn’t bring much value anyway

[rayiner]

That’s worked great everywhere it’s been tried!

[icebraining]

> I’d far rather know another 100,000 units are owned by the people that live in them than 100 landlords owning and profiteering from those units.

I'd rather have that too! But it's not the result of these patchwork rules. Fix it properly instead.

[bakuninsbart]

SF Metro vacancy rate is below the national average for large metro areas.[0]

[0] https://www.sfchronicle.com/realestate/article/An-estimated-...

[icebraining]

And if those markets were the same except for the rent control rules, we could conclude that rent control doesn't increase the vacancy rate. But they aren't.

[Double_a_92]

Also it lowers incentive to build new units if renting them out becomes too much of a hassle.