And then there were two... (Boston, Pepperell: lease, tenant, calculated)

[WestieWhitie]

The few that are "controlled" and you or nearly anyone else have zero chance of getting are a lot less. The rest are somewhere far above stratosphere because no new housing gets built but people still need to live somewhere.

Originally Posted by Boston Shudra

What is it being controlled at?

I didn’t know SF had rent control at all, let alone how it works over there.

[timberline742]

Originally Posted by Boston Shudra

What is it being controlled at?

I didn’t know SF had rent control at all, let alone how it works over there.

It's not much different than prop 2.5 here. It's a cap at how much it can be raised per year. It's not about new rentals. I believe there is something that makes it about older buildings too. It's very much targeted to help modest income people who are long term tenants of their buildings. Just like prop 2.5 helps long term owners not get priced (or reduces it) out of their homes.

It doesn't impact new construction one little bit since new construction isn't covered by it. Well, not quite true, there are cases where it has been claimed that it promotes new construction since some building owners try to work loopholes to do teardowns of older buildings where rent control is in place to build new places where it isn't, but that's not hugely widespread or easy.

It's, of course, mythology that rent control drives up the prices of other units. A landlord will maximize their rent on every single unit they can. If they have 20 units under rent control, and 20 units not under rent control, the latter 20 will have the max price they can charge. If the 20 units currently under rent control leave rent control, those will be maximized as well. It's not like the landlord will be "oh, I can get $3k for the second 20 units, but I'll reduce it to $2200 because I have other units I can raise". Economics/markets just do not work like that.

[WestieWhitie]

Rent control absolutely does affect new construction by making it unprofitable. And it does affect rents in desirable cities - no one ever leaves their rent-controlled units, nothing new gets built and any available condo starts in the seven figures, which means you have a very large number of renters competing for a few available market-rate units, with the highest bidder dictating the rent. That's exactly what's been happening in SF, and it will happen here if Wu has it her way.


https://freakonomics.com/podcast/rent-control/

Originally Posted by timberline742

It's not much different than prop 2.5 here. It's a cap at how much it can be raised per year. It's not about new rentals. I believe there is something that makes it about older buildings too. It's very much targeted to help modest income people who are long term tenants of their buildings. Just like prop 2.5 helps long term owners not get priced (or reduces it) out of their homes.

It doesn't impact new construction one little bit since new construction isn't covered by it. Well, not quite true, there are cases where it has been claimed that it promotes new construction since some building owners try to work loopholes to do teardowns of older buildings where rent control is in place to build new places where it isn't, but that's not hugely widespread or easy.

It's, of course, mythology that rent control drives up the prices of other units. A landlord will maximize their rent on every single unit they can. If they have 20 units under rent control, and 20 units not under rent control, the latter 20 will have the max price they can charge. If the 20 units currently under rent control leave rent control, those will be maximized as well. It's not like the landlord will be "oh, I can get $3k for the second 20 units, but I'll reduce it to $2200 because I have other units I can raise". Economics/markets just do not work like that.

[timberline742]

Originally Posted by WestieWhitie

Rent control absolutely does affect new construction by making it unprofitable. And it does affect rents in desirable cities - no one ever leaves their rent-controlled units, nothing new gets built and any available condo starts in the seven figures, which means you have a very large number of renters competing for a few available market-rate units, with the highest bidder dictating the rent. That's exactly what's been happening in SF, and it will happen here if Wu has it her way.

You are very very wrong.

New construction isn't governed by rent control in SF.

There is no lack of new construction either.

People not leaving an apartment doesn't impact anything since they would need to locate to another apartment making it a zero sum scenario.

Best not to comment on things you do not know about.

[WestieWhitie]

https://freakonomics.com/podcast/rent-control/

Or, if you feel like doing some serious reading, there are quite a few published articles, with all of them coming to the same conclusion. Google away!

Originally Posted by timberline742

You are very very wrong.

New construction isn't governed by rent control in SF.

There is no lack of new construction either.

People not leaving an apartment doesn't impact anything since they would need to locate to another apartment making it a zero sum scenario.

Best not to comment on things you do not know about.

[timberline742]

Originally Posted by WestieWhitie

https://freakonomics.com/podcast/rent-control/

Or, if you feel like doing some serious reading, there are quite a few published articles, with all of them coming to the same conclusion. Google away!

That has nothing to do with rent control in SF which is specifically excluded from rent control.

I like Glaeser. Good guy. Spoke to him several times. But his analysis was based on NYC and similar models which didn't exclude new construction from the policy.

YOU specifically brought up the SF model of rent control which (and I just checked) doesn't affect any construction done in the last 40+ years.


Glaeser, as an economist, is also looking at the (Wait for it) economics of the policy. Rent control policies aren't just about economics, they're about the social and societal costs.

Again, you are speaking about things you have no idea about.

[WestieWhitie]

Enlighten me, oh wise one wiser than every economist out there, why are you not seeing any new housing being built in San Francisco and why do you see six figure techies living in vans because they can't afford rent?

Originally Posted by timberline742

That has nothing to do with rent control in SF which is specifically excluded from rent control.

I like Glaeser. Good guy. Spoke to him several times. But his analysis was based on NYC and similar models which didn't exclude new construction from the policy.

YOU specifically brought up the SF model of rent control which (and I just checked) doesn't affect any construction done in the last 40+ years.


Glaeser, as an economist, is also looking at the (Wait for it) economics of the policy. Rent control policies aren't just about economics, they're about the social and societal costs.

Again, you are speaking about things you have no idea about.

[timberline742]

Originally Posted by WestieWhitie

Enlighten me, oh wise one wiser than every economist out there, why are you not seeing any new housing being built in San Francisco and why do you see six figure techies living in vans because they can't afford rent?

You do see new construction. A great deal considering how small an area it is and already built out it is. In fact, the SF rent control model contributes to a boom new construction because it is explicitly exempt from the rent control rule.

You see that because its an incredibly desirable area with resulting high prices. Similar to other highly desirable locations.

You are now enlightened.

(PS "every economist" doesn't oppose rent control. The ones that only look at the flow of money generally oppose it. Those that take more wholistic looks find it generally benefits a city. Case in point, Columbia University's Professor Van Nieuwerburgh's research.)

[WestieWhitie]

Mostly built out? Most of the city is single families and a few low-density multi-families here and there, it makes Boston look like Manhattan.
https://apnews.com/article/lifestyle...5af209dedb88e3 - could this be the reason why, oh wise one? Or do you think developers are charities and will keep building even though they will never be able to recoup their investment on anything other than a few ultra-luxury towers?

Originally Posted by timberline742

You do see new construction. A great deal considering how small an area it is and already built out it is. In fact, the SF rent control model contributes to a boom new construction because it is explicitly exempt from the rent control rule.

You see that because its an incredibly desirable area with resulting high prices. Similar to other highly desirable locations.

You are now enlightened.

(PS "every economist" doesn't oppose rent control. The ones that only look at the flow of money generally oppose it. Those that take more wholistic looks find it generally benefits a city. Case in point, Columbia University's Professor Van Nieuwerburgh's research.)

[timberline742]

Originally Posted by WestieWhitie

Mostly built out? Most of the city is single families and a few low-density multi-families here and there, it makes Boston look like Manhattan.
https://apnews.com/article/lifestyle...5af209dedb88e3 - could this be the reason why, oh wise one? Or do you think developers are charities and will keep building even though they will never be able to recoup their investment on anything other than a few ultra-luxury towers?

Yes, built out, there is very little open space to build.

And why would they never be able to recoup their investments? You apparently do not understand, despite my telling you time and time again, that the rent control system does not apply to new construction. It has ZERO IMPACT ON WHAT NEW CONSTRUCTION CAN CHARGE FOR RENT. Does it take capital letters for it to sink in?

You really don't get it. It also sounds like you've never been there or lived there as there are large apartment buildings all over. I lived in one. I was surrounded by them. Every where I went except for a handful of neighborhoods had them.