Should the City of Atlanta enact rent control? (fit in, apartment complexes)

[lorilove]

Years ago the city of San Mateo was a customer of mine. They had a program where any new development had to be a % of affordable housing. They were technically fully built out as a city based on their land ordinances.

An affordable house was still quite expensive in that area. But the city workers still told me that a lot of those homes went to individuals that worked for the city or knew someone etc basically because they were in the know about what was available or coming on the market.

Of course they had to take this approach because no developer would every come to the area and want to develop an entire complex lets say for $250,000 (yes that was affordable) when they could easily develop a $600,00+ unit

[SoCal25]

Yes rent control has been shown to be a miracle, it increases the affordability of rents in even non-rent controlled units and encourages capital investment as investors rush to build even more housing in rent controlled areas. It has done wonders for affordability in San Francisco, New York, Santa Monica and many other places. It'll work in Atlanta to.

[bu2]

Originally Posted by primaltech

I live outside the city, but I voted no. Rent control as a policy has fallen out of favor even among liberal economists. It has almost disappeared in the cities that have it, so I don't see why Atlanta would want to start now. Let the market do its thing. Just my take on it.

This exactly.

Increasing supply is what creates affordability.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottbe.../#5d6f0bf7af10

“These statistics are glaring, and show that the urban housing affordability crisis, and its solution, is far simpler than many pundits suspect. In their ongoing quest to satisfy their anti-growth biases, they’ve settled on demand-side responses (read: government subsidies) that ignore or worsen the fundamental problem of under-supply; while they continue to blame various third party boogeymen, including developers, landlords, Airbnb hosts, techies, hipsters, Asian families buying second homes, and migrants in general.
.
But, again, the Census data sheds light on the actual nature of the issue: some metros in America are building a LOT of housing. Other metros may think they are, but actually are not. And housing prices within given metros are either stabilizing or skyrocketing based on this decision. While it’s not clear just how many units metros like San Francisco need to reach market equilibrium, it’s obviously more than 10,000 per year, given that the population is growing by 60,000 people annually. Meanwhile, only 3 of these major destination metros are issuing truly significant permit numbers, and only two of them–Dallas and Houston–are doing so without tacking on a bunch of added regulatory costs. Not coincidentally, they’re also America’s two leading affordability success stories, growing by the largest raw population numbers, yet maintaining some of the cheapest housing.”

[Iconographer]

Originally Posted by SoCal25

Yes rent control has been shown to be a miracle, it increases the affordability of rents in even non-rent controlled units and encourages capital investment as investors rush to build even more housing in rent controlled areas. It has done wonders for affordability in San Francisco, New York, Santa Monica and many other places. It'll work in Atlanta to.

Do you have a source for these assertions?
This article indicates otherwise.

"Since a rent-controlled unit can rent for market rate when it becomes vacant, San Francisco’s rent control laws don’t make an affordable rental market any more than New York’s laws do. The median rent for both cities now exceeds over $3,000 a month, which makes them the two most expensive in the nation (with S.F. at number one). As Trulia puts it rather bluntly, “you’d need to make well over $120,000 to afford the median rent” in either city. The most recent census data projects the city’s average household income at $104.8K— seems, relatively, like a lot, maybe, but it’s not enough for rents like these."

The best and worst of San Francisco’s rent control - On The Block

[fourthwarden]

Originally Posted by SoCal25

Yes rent control has been shown to be a miracle, it increases the affordability of rents in even non-rent controlled units and encourages capital investment as investors rush to build even more housing in rent controlled areas. It has done wonders for affordability in San Francisco, New York, Santa Monica and many other places. It'll work in Atlanta to.

Pretty much everything I've seen has said, rather conclusively, otherwise.

I'm all for trying to keep people where they are, and for increasing affordability, but we should be doing that by building density, and the infrastructure to both support and incentivize it.

[AcidSnake]

I'd say go for it.

Because let's keep it real:

Our government already picks winners and losers in "the market" anyways...with these tax breaks, helping to fund new stadiums, and blocking new entrants from taking on the various cartels of their respective industries who operate in Georgia.

That whole "let the market decide" talk can often be a bit one-sided when it comes how and where this logic is applied.

So for me?

Might as well allow for a bit more interventionist government, I would think.

[fourthwarden]

Originally Posted by AcidSnake

I'd say go for it.

Because let's keep it real:

Our government already picks winners and losers in "the market" anyways...with these tax breaks, helping to fund new stadiums, and blocking new entrants from taking on the various cartels of their respective industries who operate in Georgia.

That whole "let the market decide" talk can often be a bit one-sided when it comes how and where this logic is applied.

So for me?

Might as well allow for a bit more interventionist government, I would think.

Just because it happens doesn't mean it should happen. I'm not calling for full libertarianism or anything, but there's hard, numerical, empirical, evidence to show that rent control does not help in the long run.

I can't ignore that, no matter how much I want people to be able to stay and remain in their home neighborhoods despite rising prices.

The BEST way to help them, and the city in general, is to bring in more housing stock in all forms. The government can, and might should, incentivize certain types of housing to respond to rises in prices, and can even install funding mechanisms and stop gaps to retain residents as new developments come in.

I have advocated for as much here before.

I just can not support a policy that stops development, as rent freezing does, over bringing more.

[bu2]

Originally Posted by AcidSnake

I'd say go for it.

Because let's keep it real:

Our government already picks winners and losers in "the market" anyways...with these tax breaks, helping to fund new stadiums, and blocking new entrants from taking on the various cartels of their respective industries who operate in Georgia.

That whole "let the market decide" talk can often be a bit one-sided when it comes how and where this logic is applied.

So for me?

Might as well allow for a bit more interventionist government, I would think.

That part isn't necessary. Its much more prevalent in the Atlanta area than many other places.

[Thulsa]

Originally Posted by SoCal25

Yes rent control has been shown to be a miracle, it increases the affordability of rents in even non-rent controlled units and encourages capital investment as investors rush to build even more housing in rent controlled areas. It has done wonders for affordability in San Francisco, New York, Santa Monica and many other places. It'll work in Atlanta to.

Originally Posted by LovinDecatur

Do you have a source for these assertions?
This article indicates otherwise.

"Since a rent-controlled unit can rent for market rate when it becomes vacant, San Francisco’s rent control laws don’t make an affordable rental market any more than New York’s laws do. The median rent for both cities now exceeds over $3,000 a month, which makes them the two most expensive in the nation (with S.F. at number one). As Trulia puts it rather bluntly, “you’d need to make well over $120,000 to afford the median rent” in either city. The most recent census data projects the city’s average household income at $104.8K— seems, relatively, like a lot, maybe, but it’s not enough for rents like these."

The best and worst of San Francisco’s rent control - On The Block

My first thought is that SoCal25 was being sarcastic and wanted to rep the post.
So, SoCal25, you're joking aren't you? Please let us know.

[cqholt]

Inclusionary zoning is a much better vehicle to ensure gentrification is equitiable.