San Francisco rent control, affordable housing.

[paulhope]

Here's an example of the sort of thing I've found convincing in the Critical Review readings. I mention it specifically because it occurred to me that it might be of direct interest to at least two people who may be reading this. It has to do with applying some basic economics to affordable housing (using San Francisco as a particular example

Comments

[ode_to_tapirs]

Well. I certainly can't speak to the situation in San Francisco, but I can say a few words about New York City, where we're generally looking at rent stabilization rather than rent control (except in a very few cases where people have lived in their apartments all of their lives and are dying anyway...other than that, it's been replaced). However, I find that the two are generally confused. In a rent stabilized apartment, the amount you pay can be raised according to a normal rate of inflation (or sometimes even more, as landlords can be compensated for improvements to the building, etc.)If this system was not in place in at least a few types of buildings in New York City (and it really is just a few types of buildings) then landlords could charge absolutely exorbitant prices. For example, my dad's apartment (which has been occupied by his lady friend for over 20 years) is around $625 a month right now, but would be around $1600 a month if they were to move out (and would then be stablised at that rate). Let me just take a moment to

Also

[ode_to_tapirs]

In terms of the question of new affordable housing, I suppose I don't really understand that, at least in the case of Manhattan. What land lord would ever have incentive to build new affordable housing, when the rich want the space so badly? In addition, at least in New York, any new housing that's built is not subject to rent stabilization. Of course, all of this jibber jabbering about New York may not be totally applicable, because the vacancy rate is so insanely low. There are those who say that the vacancy rate would be much higher if rent stabilization was eliminated...which is true! Everyone who has made the community what it is over the past 20 or more years would be forced to leave. Anyway, I didn't really plan this out before saying it, and my dad is providing me with additional information, but it seems to me as though the community benefits from rent stabilization. Also, landlords don't generally open their books, so if they're running a slum...well...they might just be amoral slumlords, especially since they are

[polishcyclist]

"stabilization, not control

Hello New Friend!

[ode_to_tapirs]

You big meanie, I asked a genuine question, hoping for an honest response, and I didn't get one! I truly don't understand what the incentive is to build affordable housing...ever. Then again, I was unaware of the fact that "all the rich who want to live in the city already do so". I guess that means that all the high end condominiums being built won't be that profitable! I'd still be tempted to build them, however; they seem to be doing rather well. Also... plywood? I apologize for being snarky, but here I am, thwarted in my quest for knowledge. The main impetus for my response had been the request for hands on experience. Here I am, sitting in a very small but well maintained apartment, in the middle of a neighborhood that has been vastly improved by organizations such as the block association, which has been provided for by long term community members (many of whom would not be able to stay here due to the opportunities provided for price gouging in Manhattan if not for some set of guarantees concerning pricing and evictions),

[polishcyclist]

“capitalism fucks people by its very nature

[polishcyclist]

That's not actually a response to anything I said. The whole point to my argument is that RENT CONTROLS MAKE FOR MORE HOMELESSNESS. MORE EXPENSIVE HOUSING FOR ANYONE TRYING TO GET A HOUSE - AT ALL LEVELS OF THE MARKET

The last paragraph was more in regards to NIMBY attitudes and "omg - the nieghborhood cafe just changed into a bank - fuck it's all going to shit and we should enact laws to prevent this from happening". (note: nothing to do with homelessness). Its an argument about the character of a nieghborhood, and I'm saying: yes, the square is getting gentrified and less interesting, but let that happen - other places will be come more interesting and the circle of urbia will continue.

[anonymous]

I agree with all three bullet points as the actual and predictable consequences of rent-control in the sense of price-dictation (as you specified), which is a common but lazy and fundamentally deleterious “solution” to all kind of economic situations. The tragedy of its implementation, as you point out, is that while it appears to work for the short-term (prices are dictated, buildings don’t fall down, etc.), everything goes to hell in the long-term. And then once the problem is systemic, there’s no easy fix either (buildings don’t spring up overnight, etc

[polishcyclist]

Firstly, both responses seem to be from the point of view of someone with a rent controlled apartment. In their case, I can’t see it would be in their self-interest to remove the controls (their rents will probably go up). The argument is about what’s best for people as a whole (including the majority of other, non-rent-controlled, individuals). E.g. instead about asking what’s best for NY’s 2 million rent-controlled individuals, what’s in the interest of the 5 million not-rent-controlled individuals (or people that, god forbid, live outside the city

[polishcyclist]

Now, I’m going to make two responses to the constant arguments against de-rent-control

[paulhope]

I've been meaning to follow up on these arguments, although I don't really have the stomach for them