The economists are right: Rent control is bad

[Retired Account]

I don't think the solution is to build more in those "desirable places".

There's already plenty of housing stock. The key is to make other places desirable too.

In Europe and even DR...you can get most of everything you need no matter what neighborhood in the city you're in.

There's a grocer, a mechanic, a bank, a shopping plaza, etc.

If you put those amenities in less desirable locations with housing stock, they'll soon be occupied

In the case of New York City you can move further out and have those things but jobs cluster around certain areas.

also Europe outside of Sweden and Russia is more dense than the USA

 

[krackdagawd]

If rent control is bad , how do we address senior citizens or the disabled who are out of the workforce living on a fixed income of pension and/or social security?

Very good question that wont get answered.

 

[Isaiah Bradley]

For example, a March study from a group of Stanford University researchers shows that San Francisco’s rent-stabilization efforts failed. It’s true that the policy kept some residents’ rents lower. But landlords responded by converting their buildings into condos they could sell or business properties they could lease without rent-control restrictions — or by demolishing their old buildings and replacing them with new ones that did not qualify for rent stabilization. Effects such as these drove down the supply of rental housing and, therefore, drove up rents across the city — by 5.1 percent.

Landlord response is easily addressable by limiting purpose of development
I can't rent/buy commercial property to live in, so if your building is rent stabilized, then you shouldn't be able to convert it or risk losing it

Issuing development permits for affordable housing needs to outpace permits for luxury condos. Win/Win, make luxury condos rare thus higher demand and fair competition among those who could afford it

Spoiler

the problem starts with politicians not trying to solve a problem. They are either property owners/inspiring to be and is not trying to hurt their own, their donors', and well-off constituents' pockets

 

[DEAD7]

Subsidizing cost only exasperates the problem.

The demand is higher than the supply and the prices reflect that... plain and simple. It shouldn’t be governments responsibility to make sure you can live comfortably in the most expensive cities on the planet.

 

[wtfyomom]

The article seems miss the mark, considering it admits that "rent-control" policies aren't overarching to all forms of housing and there are plenty (intentional) loopholes to illustrate it's failure. So "rent-control" really isn't being applied universally.

The only thing I do agree with is that housing issues is very layered and zoning, existing housing density, location all contribute to housing costs and "Rent-Control" as a sole policy solution won't solve that. And I think especially in places like NYC, San fran, as long as demand is extremely high, housing costs is going to be an uphill battle.

its like every other progressive thing that gets attempted. some half measure that was never going to work in the first place fails and then conservatives turn around and say look your idea doesnt work

 

[JLova]

Pretty obvious. Take a bloody economics course. Demand is outpacing supply. It’s not bloody rocket science. Either address the demand or the supply side. Rent control is doing neither.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

I grew up in a town of 20,000 in Mississippi. All along the roads to Jackson were abandoned oil derricks that still had oil in the ground but was cheaper to get it from Saudi Arabia. Mississippi was once the largest exporter of catfish until China came along.

I know exactly what I'm talking about.

You're talking way late-entry stuff, export industry is not a solid base for a rural community.

I'm not advocating for building more land or developing more housing. I'm saying, We can't just refill those old lands cause there isn't the population to support it. You can't go from people having an average of 4 kids in the 50s to 1 or 2 but think we still need to fill as much land as we used to even with immigration.

Some people are saying there's too much population and others saying there's not enough. I don't have a clue why you're talking family size when there's obviously more people in America now than in any previous point in history. We aren't talking about needing to empty the cities, just shift some of the excess back to a healthier way of living.

Unless you want Wal-Mart to pay 20 an hr, the businesses that would be needed to anchor those outlier communities won't be there to sustain it.

Walmart?

WalMart is NOT a solid basis for a rural community under any circumstances. Again, you're talking the late-entry spasms of communities in decline, you are not talking about how rural communities actually work.

First, the basis has to be to develop the products that sustain the country. The obvious #1 is farming (we will NEVER outgrow the need to feed ourselves), to a lesser extent in some areas it can be fishing, logging, mining, manufacturing in some cases, etc.

Second, for the good of our bodies, our people, and our land, we need to break up the corporate control of farmland (a process that has been driven by corrupt and ill-intentioned federal government) and get the lands back in the hands of the people. The need for more farmers and specifically black farmers has been discussed here repeatedly.

https://www.thecoli.com/threads/his...boyd-jr-versus-the-usda.710060/#post-33722680
https://www.thecoli.com/threads/aft...lack-farmers-are-back-and-on-the-rise.425943/
https://www.thecoli.com/threads/wou...on-how-about-for-your-kids-occupation.580607/
Black farmers in Detroit are growing their own food. But they're having trouble owning the land.
https://www.thecoli.com/threads/com...-some-seek-to-transform-urban-society.698860/

You're not taking into account what it actually requires to sustain a community that people will stay in. Amenities, schooling, etc.

In what way am I not taking those things into account? The government's failure to provide those things is a big part of the problem. Suburbs are completely unsustainable and in many cases provide services at much greater cost than rural areas would, but the governments have still directed more money into unsustainable suburban sprawl. If we subsidized family farms and small business instead of Big Ag and other big business, if we put as much money into rural facilities as we've been putting into suburban facilities, there would be a much smaller gap.

I do believe, though, that in the long run the only way to get truly sustainable development will be a complete change in the economy. Otherwise we're fukked no matter where the people go.

The places that historically thrived and “developed” faster were dense areas, even going back to ancient times. Not sure why were arguing against density, it’s technological advancements that made rural living sustainable later on. Furthermore all that urban sprawl we once advocated for actually does more damage to the environment.

That's just wildly untrue. One after another the great urban civilizations were the very ones that collapsed, while the rural people kept on keeping on. It's not growth/density that fueled technological advancement, it's technological advancement that fueled growth, because only a more technologically capable society could manage the sorts of central control and central planning that allowed them to dominate large numbers of people. As we should have already learned from the 20th century and are beginning to witness again right now, technology favors tyranny.

Rural societies have always done a MUCH better job of sustaining themselves than urban societies did. The rural societies only begin dying out when the urban societies gain power over them and try to suck the rural areas dry in order to stave off their own decline.

That doesn't mean we need to abandon technology. We just need to work from an understanding of exactly what it is. If we treat technology as a moral good in and of itself, or falsely believe that more technological development will create better societies, we are fooling ourselves.

 

[Cynic]

I don't think the solution is to build more in those "desirable places".

There's already plenty of housing stock. The key is to make other places desirable too.

In Europe and even DR...you can get most of everything you need no matter what neighborhood in the city you're in.

There's a grocer, a mechanic, a bank, a shopping plaza, etc.

If you put those amenities in less desirable locations with housing stock, they'll soon be occupied

You are talking about the U.S. a place that literally uprooted streetcars so the automakers could profit.

You'd see lobbying like never before if anyone EVER tried that

 

[Ghost Utmost]

Market forces are undefeated

If you artificially clog up the flow of the landlord being able to charge as much as the market will bear, then they will work around that in every way they can up to just demolishing the building.

I feel bad for old people, but shouldn't they be living in a place they can naturally afford. Goes for poor people of other types too:

If NYC is a place where you can't make ends meet, maybe NYC just ain't for you. There's 49 other states and thousands of cities. I'm sure working at McDonalds will afford you a decent living SOMEWHERE. Just not the largest most expensive city on EARTH.

So I don't feel but so bad. People always act like the poor deserve all this extra consideration. Why do you DESERVE to live where you can't afford it? Move.

 

[Wiles]

Trash mindset

 

[jj23]

If rent control is bad , how do we address senior citizens or the disabled who are out of the workforce living on a fixed income of pension and/or social security?

Move or die. Capitalism gives you those choices.

 

[DEAD7]

Move or die. Capitalism gives you those choices.

Nature gives you those choices...

 

[Pressure]

If rent control is bad , how do we address senior citizens or the disabled who are out of the workforce living on a fixed income of pension and/or social security?

Logic would suggest if housing was more affordable senior citizens would have already paid for their homes or their family members would be able to house them.

The same goes for the disabled. They'd live with someone else. If you can't earn a living on your own you probably shouldn'teexpect to live on your own.

 

[Pressure]

Nature gives you those choices...

Or die moving

 

[DEAD7]

Move or die.

Or die moving