U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-15-2015, 09:03 PM
 
1,478 posts, read 2,007,372 times
Reputation: 1579

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt View Post
There is a huge difference between getting priced out of the area in which you live, and not being able to move into an area. The concept that government should protect incumbents from being price-pushed out of their homes and neighborhoods is well established, going back at least to 1978 (Proposition 13).
Prop 13 isn't federal and it doesn't explicitly protect the most susceptible population (renters). Other municipalities have property tax relief for long standing homeowners, which IMO is better than the draconian measures enacted in CA. If we want to examine how that assists renters, look at San Francisco and tell me how that worked out. If you want to look at federal policy, look at the majority of federal court decisions, which generally reserve the right of property owners to sell their property to whom they choose (presuming this complies with existing zoning and does not present nuisance issues to the community). Or look at Kelo v New London. The govt can take your land to support economic development, regardless of your housing tenure.

The entire issue of gentrification is a catch 22. The poor can only afford certain areas because those areas were disinvested due to fleeing middle and upper class capital. So we want to reinvest in cities, which requires some of that capital return, making those areas more attractive to middle and upper class households. Those two items are in large part mutually exclusive of one another. The alternative is that individuals are restricted to whom they can sell their property to on the basis of the buyer's social status. Is that the slippery slope you're willing to go down? We fought that battle once before.

I'm all for creating provisions for less privileged households to ease that burden. That could mean affordable housing provisions/construction incentives in neighborhoods and some form of rent escalation caps at 10 percent per year or something similar. Overall, this investment we are seeing in urban neighborhoods is overwhelmingly positive, however.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-15-2015, 09:29 PM
 
26,595 posts, read 52,444,015 times
Reputation: 20461
SF and many other urban areas of California have rent control...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-15-2015, 11:51 PM
 
Location: Chicago - Logan Square
3,396 posts, read 6,195,233 times
Reputation: 3717
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt View Post
Nothing stopping them from selling at market prices. How do you propose handling families vulnerable to the displacement that gentrification brings? Let them eat cake in some other neighborhood?
Yes, they will sell at market prices and I think that's as it should be.

What should be done is to require affordable housing units in large development projects, and yes - some renters will have to move. That's how it's being done now.

I ask you again - in the case of my neighbor who bought a unit 30 years and spent years working on it and renting it out. Now that her son wants to sell the unit would you propose preventing him from cashing out (most likely to developers) on the smart investment she made and the work she put into it? How do you think that situation should be handled? It's a very common situation.

Like I said before - you can deal with things like raising the minimum wage, fundign affordable housing, increasing social services and support to make changes to the cause of the problem, or you can goof off with impotent complaints about the symptoms of the real problem.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultrarunner View Post
SF and many other urban areas of California have rent control...
Unfortunately I don't think rent control works, and depending on how the laws are written it can actually encourage the tearing down of buildings for new development. It's pretty clear that it didn't make SF a Mecca of affordable housing (or Cambridge, NYC, or other areas with rent control).

Last edited by Attrill; 02-16-2015 at 12:00 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-16-2015, 02:54 PM
 
26,595 posts, read 52,444,015 times
Reputation: 20461
Quote:
Originally Posted by Attrill View Post
Yes, they will sell at market prices and I think that's as it should be.

What should be done is to require affordable housing units in large development projects, and yes - some renters will have to move. That's how it's being done now.

I ask you again - in the case of my neighbor who bought a unit 30 years and spent years working on it and renting it out. Now that her son wants to sell the unit would you propose preventing him from cashing out (most likely to developers) on the smart investment she made and the work she put into it? How do you think that situation should be handled? It's a very common situation.

Like I said before - you can deal with things like raising the minimum wage, fundign affordable housing, increasing social services and support to make changes to the cause of the problem, or you can goof off with impotent complaints about the symptoms of the real problem.



Unfortunately I don't think rent control works, and depending on how the laws are written it can actually encourage the tearing down of buildings for new development. It's pretty clear that it didn't make SF a Mecca of affordable housing (or Cambridge, NYC, or other areas with rent control).
It kind of depends... I work with an older Doctor that rented an apartment in a very desirable place in SF 30 years ago... his rent is $1450 per month and vacant units not subject to rent control are going for $5000.

He is quite wealthy and said he will never give up his place in the city... he has not "Lived" there for 25 years... just kind of rotates through his kids and a vacation go to spot...

Rent Control works if you stay put... just like Prop 13
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-16-2015, 07:55 PM
 
Location: Chicago - Logan Square
3,396 posts, read 6,195,233 times
Reputation: 3717
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultrarunner View Post
It kind of depends... I work with an older Doctor that rented an apartment in a very desirable place in SF 30 years ago... his rent is $1450 per month and vacant units not subject to rent control are going for $5000.

He is quite wealthy and said he will never give up his place in the city... he has not "Lived" there for 25 years... just kind of rotates through his kids and a vacation go to spot...

Rent Control works if you stay put... just like Prop 13
If rent control is intended to be a way to provide affordable housing, it is very inefficient at best, and possibly a complete failure.

The main problem is that people who need assistance with housing costs are also the people who are most likely to have to move, miss a rent payment now and then, or not be savvy enough to know what they're entitled to.

The situation you describe used to be very common in Cambridge MA when they had rent control. Plenty of people (frequently academics) would sublet their rent controlled apartments to students, and tack on a fee for themselves every month. Since the controls only applied to older buildings the property owners usually weren't large development companies, but were small time landlords who had owned in the area for a long time. In many cases it resulted in situations where developers could buy buildings more easily since owners of smaller properties had a harder time paying for upkeep and higher taxes on the buildings.

Ending rent control in Cambridge definitely contributed to rising rents, but only by a little bit (IIRC correctly most studies attribute about 20% of any increase to the loss of rent control). Market forces were responsible for the majority of the increases. Keeping rents 5 or 10% lower can help a small group of people, but it really isn't going to change the make up or a neighborhood and certainly doesn't help with true affordable housing.

The example you cite is a good example of a complete failure of rent control - it isn't providing affordable housing to people who need it, it isn't keeping the same people in the neighborhood, and it doesn't encourage upkeep of buildings by their owners.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-16-2015, 10:29 PM
 
33,046 posts, read 22,138,093 times
Reputation: 8970
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultrarunner View Post
SF and many other urban areas of California have rent control...

Outside of NYC and California, I am not aware of any place in this country with rent control. Many states explicitly prohibit rent control.

The usual path is for a city to propose rent control, or for local voters to initiate a ballot proposal, followed by landlords running to the legislature to impose a blanket prohibition.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-16-2015, 10:32 PM
 
33,046 posts, read 22,138,093 times
Reputation: 8970
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultrarunner View Post
It kind of depends... I work with an older Doctor that rented an apartment in a very desirable place in SF 30 years ago... his rent is $1450 per month and vacant units not subject to rent control are going for $5000.

He is quite wealthy and said he will never give up his place in the city... he has not "Lived" there for 25 years... just kind of rotates through his kids and a vacation go to spot...

Rent Control works if you stay put... just like Prop 13

Exactly...rent control is protectionism for incumbent renters, with no regard for those unable to find housing. Prop 13 is protectionism for incumbent homeowners, with no regard for those unable to buy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-16-2015, 10:37 PM
 
33,046 posts, read 22,138,093 times
Reputation: 8970
Quote:
Originally Posted by Attrill View Post
Yes, they will sell at market prices and I think that's as it should be.

What should be done is to require affordable housing units in large development projects, and yes - some renters will have to move. That's how it's being done now.

I ask you again - in the case of my neighbor who bought a unit 30 years and spent years working on it and renting it out. Now that her son wants to sell the unit would you propose preventing him from cashing out (most likely to developers) on the smart investment she made and the work she put into it? How do you think that situation should be handled? It's a very common situation.

Like I said before - you can deal with things like raising the minimum wage, fundign affordable housing, increasing social services and support to make changes to the cause of the problem, or you can goof off with impotent complaints about the symptoms of the real problem.



Unfortunately I don't think rent control works, and depending on how the laws are written it can actually encourage the tearing down of buildings for new development. It's pretty clear that it didn't make SF a Mecca of affordable housing (or Cambridge, NYC, or other areas with rent control).

I propose that additional housing units be permitted on a one-for-one basis in order to accommodate those displaced.

Rent control works for incumbent renters. It does not work for anyone else.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-16-2015, 11:11 PM
 
26,595 posts, read 52,444,015 times
Reputation: 20461
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt View Post
Exactly...rent control is protectionism for incumbent renters, with no regard for those unable to find housing. Prop 13 is protectionism for incumbent homeowners, with no regard for those unable to buy.
I would say both are for people able to enter the market... not necessary to be incumbent... my new neighbors will have the benefits owning or renting here in Oakland...

A good example how Prop 13 has not had the dampening effect on housing turnover can be easily demonstrated over the last 6 years... many homes changed hands and many were flips... a home I had been following was foreclosed upon and sold for 60% of what was owed... 18 months later with almost no work done the home was again sold at exactly the pre foreclosure price... selling the home meant losing the low Prop 13 basis... almost 40% of Bay Area homes have been selling for all cash...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-16-2015, 11:12 PM
 
26,595 posts, read 52,444,015 times
Reputation: 20461
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt View Post
I propose that additional housing units be permitted on a one-for-one basis in order to accommodate those displaced.

Rent control works for incumbent renters. It does not work for anyone else.
Rent control works for those that stay put... it does not work for those that move around... the idea of rent control and Prop 13 was stability and those that are stable stand the most to benefit...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top