[meerita]

This has been tried in several countries, and it failed miserably. Rent control never worked. In Sweden you have to wait 20 years to get a flat with rent control. The only solution for the people is to increase the offer, how? by deregulating and allowing others to build more.

[Ardren]

But this is not what the new bill is about. It doesn't cap total costs, it allows 5% per year increase, it doesn't apply to new homes, etc.

[bko]

> It doesn't cap total costs, it allows 5% per year increase, it doesn't apply to new homes

If you tell everyone that you cannot increase more than 5% a year, this is used as a signal to all landlords to increase 5% a year. It's a coordination mechanism. And it helps hedge for years in which the market rent has increased by more than 5% and the landlord is unable to adjust. A commenter who is a landlord confirmed this as well.

And this will increase the incentive to build new homes. This could be good but new homes tend to be more expensive and serve the high end. Much like the median price of a new car is significantly higher than the median price of all cars on the market.

There are entire industries in New York that focus on buying units and converting them from rent stabilized/controlled to market rents through any means (direct payment, intimidation, legal, etc). To think this will somehow lower what people actually pay for housing is naive.

[eru]

New homes being nicer is not a problem. It's good. (See https://www.planetizen.com/blogs/100293-how-filtering-increa... ) It's how we upgrade the national housing stock over time.

Landlords already charge as much as the market can bear. Coordination isn't really necessary.

[bko]

> Landlords already charge as much as the market can bear. Coordination isn't really necessary.

This statement doesn't mean anything.

Consider a game where you try to maximize revenue. You play along with other players with the same goal. If you set your rent too high, other players undercut you. You set the price too low, you leave money on the table. Now consider a rule that says you can at most raise the prices x% a year and the same is true for all players. Now you're anchored to this increase and an equilibrium is more likely to emerge such that every participant increases prices by that amount every year. Much like a minimum wage gives a signal to employers who rely on low cost labor to pay the minimum wage allowed. If you look at distribution of wages, you'll see a huge spike at the minimum as employers essentially use that value to coordinate among themselves.

[0] https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DBkn94UVoAEqBey.png

[Retric]

With rent if the increase is above what the market accepts, units will stay empty. That limits price increases to what the market will accept.

[rdtwo]

The cost of moving is always a factor, rent will be at market the first year then above market thereafter until it rises to the point that the cost of moving is worthwhile.

[eru]

If you allow new players to enter the game or existing players to expand their supply, the coordination strategy you outline invites defection.

[meerita]

If there is any attempt to rent control is what I mentioned, not any particular point of the bill. The truth and I don't get it why people downvote me for just plainly state a fact, any kind of rent control and construction regulations just bring housing problems. Making caps (control) will not ease the crisis. Areas like SF or NY are very crowded and need more offer, not caps.

[tomohawk]

Yah - all you have to do is deal with the super awesome and efficient state government every time you want to do anything with your own property that you're responsible for. The responsible agencies will never let feature creep create ever more strangling regulations based on this law, and ever more byzantine procedures to interact with them.