Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by bluegatty 89 days ago
I think it's a matter of perspective maybe more than 'knowing what they are talking about'.

Like - seeing property as 'investment and ownership' vs 'places where people live' is sometimes pretty big gap. Especially when we've been grounded in 'mortgages and wealth creation' for regular middle class people.

Rent control and the underlying civilization power dynamics are kind of a subtle thing, I think most folks are going to just answer in terms of 'what is good for them'.
1 comments
hunterpayne 88 days ago
Rent control drives up rents, not down. Since rent control was enacted in SF, rents have increased by 15x in 45 years. That's 24% a year annualized over 45 years. Its similar for other places that enacted it.

Rarely in human history has a specific policy failed more spectacularly. Yet you still hear supposedly educated people advocate for it every year.

link
simoncion 88 days ago
> Rent control drives up rents, not down. Since rent control was enacted in SF, rents have increased by 15x in 45 years.

A couple of things:

You're aware of the Californian property tax control? If you aren't, go read up on the 197X Proposition 13, as well as the ways even vaguely-savvy landowners can get around the "tax is reassessed when the property changes hands" rule. IMO, it's only fair that tenants get the same sort of price-increase-protection that landlords get. If the landlords get rid of Prop 13 and anything even remotely like it for the next fifty years, I'll be first in line to clamor for the removal of what passes for rent control in the few cities that have it.

Unless you -as a developer- especially request otherwise, SF's rent control only applies to buildings that were in existence back in 197X, when the ordinance was enacted. New units are not covered by rent control. It does not apply to any commercial buildings... just residential rentals. It also only controls the rate of rent increase until the unit is vacated. Once it's vacated, the landlord is free to charge whatever rent they wish.

Your story gets confounded by the fact that -for a variety of reasons- it's nearly impossible to build any new residential buildings in SF. When demand is met with a nearly zero increase in the supply, the cost of the thing being demanded tends to go up.

Rents are generally quite high in California, not just in SF. From [0]

                        2000    1990    1980    1970    1960    1950    1940
  United States         $602    $447    $243    $108     $71     $42     $27
  California            $747    $620    $283    $126     $79     $42     $27
  Washington            $663    $445    $254    $113     $71     $43     $22
Only a few cities in California have rent control [1], so that doesn't explain the fact that rents are high state-wide.

Though, it is more interesting to look at the numbers when adjusted to 2000's dollar. [2] I wonder if your "15x" figure is inflation-adjusted...

                        2000    1990    1980    1970    1960    1950    1940
  United States         $602    $571    $481    $415    $350    $257    $284
  California            $747    $792    $560    $484    $389    $256    $286
  Washington            $663    $569    $503    $434    $350    $263    $226
[0] <https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/decennial/tables/ti...>

[1] Costa-Hawkings prevents cities from even considering the adoption of the policy to level the playing field with Prop 13-subsidized landlords.

[2] <https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/decennial/tables/ti...>

link