Washington Post: The intentions are good, but the economist are right "Rent Control is Bad"

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Let the market control the prices. Build more supply that can match the demand. Prices will either stabilize or drop. It's simple supply and demand. Rent control just creates more demand, less supply. Prices can only go one way and that's up! On top of that, a lot of people with money are benefiting from these controls because they will lock themselves into one of these properties with no plans of moving when they can easily afford more. That shuts out those who make a lower income that need it.

I'm not super ideological but I worked in residential real estate management in Cali before the 2008 crisis. The problem with rent control was its stipulations were draconian. They would only allow a 1% increase per year, purportedly in line with CPI but of course materials and contractors get more and more expensive. Even if you wanted to do the right thing, having someone paying only 20% more than what they paid in the 1980s didn't give you much room to even maintain or improve the place. I'm not talking about getting rich, just staying break even. That's why people stayed using these Mexicans to do work. I gave work to Black folk but I had to make sure they bid competitively.

Since rent control was relaxed if you sell, most people just sold the houses and new investors evicted everyone. A middle ground would have been better for everybody. That's where the speeded up gentrification came from.The only people I saw it was reasonable for were the old people on fixed incomes who had no where else to go. I could empathize with them but it was still financially difficult.

Honestly, given our history the best long term solution is to own. We can't trust anyone to do us right, rent control or not.

while I agree with all of this, what should happen is in addition to this is...

1. TOTAL REZONING TO ALLOW MORE HOUSE IN DENSE SUPPLY
2. Repeal the Faircloth Amendment (limited government housing expansion)

 

[JLova]

while I agree with all of this, what should happen is in addition to this is...

1. TOTAL REZONING TO ALLOW MORE HOUSE IN DENSE SUPPLY
2. Repeal the Faircloth Amendment (limited government housing expansion)

I agree.

 

[BillBanneker]

Let the market control the prices. Build more supply that can match the demand. Prices will either stabilize or drop. It's simple supply and demand. Rent control just creates more demand, less supply. Prices can only go one way and that's up! On top of that, a lot of people with money are benefiting from these controls because they will lock themselves into one of these properties with no plans of moving when they can easily afford more. That shuts out those who make a lower income that need it.

The majority of the supply that is going to be built is luxury housing, and will be out of the range of affordability for those who need it. Developers aren't going to cut profits to create affordable housing, especially your missing the fact that cities such as NYC/San Fran have a limited amount of land to generate new supply from.

And missing the issue of NIMBYs in especially desirable areas boycotting any sort of additional traffic/congestion in their neighborhood. Which also limits any chances for addiitional supply (since many have an incentive to inflate there own home prices), so that I can kinda agree with you on.

 

[Kenny West]

while I agree with all of this, what should happen is in addition to this is...

1. TOTAL REZONING TO ALLOW MORE HOUSE IN DENSE SUPPLY
2. Repeal the Faircloth Amendment (limited government housing expansion)

 i like these ideas

Let the market control the prices. Build more supply that can match the demand.

Not working as of right now.

Prices will either stabilize or drop. It's simple supply and demand. Price control just creates more demand, less supply. Prices can only go one way and that's up!

Is this strictly from theory tho? The study prettyich solidifies the case on that particular implementation of price control

Like any form of influence on the market can make price go up? Surely thats not possible

On top of that, a lot of people with money are benefiting from these controls because they will lock themselves into one of these properties with no plans of moving when they can easily afford more. That shuts out those who make a lower income that need it.

Well you would think lawmakers would account for this considering thats the demographic populists are pushing this for


but knowing this country they'll just convince cacs all the black and immigrants are in them and it will be exactly what ends up happening

 

[JLova]

The majority of the supply that is going to be built is luxury housing, and will be out of the range of affordability for those who need it. Developers aren't going to cut profits to create affordable housing, especially your missing the fact that cities such as NYC/San Fran have a limited amount of land to generate new supply from.

And missing the issue of NIMBYs in especially desirable areas boycotting any sort of additional traffic/congestion in their neighborhood. Which also limits any chances for addiitional supply (since many have an incentive to inflate there own home prices), so that I can kinda agree with you on.

It's the government who is responsible for building the supply. They're going to have to pay developers to build. As far as New York and SF, they need to build more vertical housing. 60s, 70s buildings. Government has plenty of land they can convert into housing.

But doing nothing and putting in rent controls expecting that to solve the supply issues is silly. Plenty of dilapidated housign that can be redeveloped. The land is there.