Straight Dope Message Board

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by Corry El

....

Rent control is price fixing. Price fixing creates misallocation of resources and perverse incentives as compared to market price discovery. If the outcome of market pricing is judged unacceptably 'unfair', a subjective judgement call, then collecting taxes to subsidize people who cannot pay market prices is virtually always preferable to govt price fixing.

Not really. If the landlords are allowed to reset rents when a vacancy occurs, and are allowed to raise the rents a reasonable amount a year, then it's fluctuation control, not price fixing. That's how it is in San Jose. It just protects both sides from weird short term market fluctuations. 151

[Ravenman]

It protects certain lucky tenants from paying market rates, for sure. How does this system “protect” landlords? 152

[DragonAsh]

Originally Posted by DesertDog

This young lady is paying 69,000-yen a month for an 8²-meter apartment in Tokyo. In the final minutes she says it is a bit high for the size but among other things, she likes the bed being in a loft rather than everything being in one tiny room, and they rent by the month rather than two-year leases like most places offer; her work-visa has to be renewed every months.

That also includes all utilities and internet - which is probably around Y12,000 a month - plus the contract is month-to-month with no key money required, and it's near a Yamanote Line station, which is -very- central Tokyo.

It's a pretty good deal all told. It's not just the size it's the location. 153

[TokyoBayer]

Originally Posted by China Guy

I hear you. Tokyo made me emotionally preview what living while black in American might mean. I landed my first profession job in the early 1990's for a Swiss Investment Bank making about $80k/year. I didn't have a gaijin package but I could easily afford a $1500/month 6-mat apartment. My Japanese was not great, but I could cover the basics.

One place just freaked when I tried to walk in "no, no, no gaijin". Other's put up with me but knew it was a waste of time. One that found me a place would start out saying "I've got a special situation here. Works for a Swiss Investment Bank, has a guarantee from the bank, speaks some Japanese, nice guy, has the deposit ready, by the way is a gaijin (white guy). He landed my place and I was thankful.

Rental agency #1 also got a rock thru the window. Fuckin' A, I don't think I have ever been so pissed off in my life. Here I am with a professional job, cash and you won't even give me the time of day. And I did realize it was just a small taste of what many people of color live every day in the US. YMMV.

This exactly.

After have had lived in Japan on and off for several years over a ten-year period, I married a Japanese woman and moved to Japan in 1990. I've been in Asia since then. My wife and I lived with her parents for a year while we saved money.

I wasn't working for a foreign company, but I was working for a Japanese one. I was married to a Japanese. I had a guarantee from my Japanese father-in-law. I spoke close to fluent Japanese and could read and write Japanese.

We decided to move out on our own in about 1992ish. As you put it, Fuck'A. My wife was doing apartment shopping and would go someplace. They would look at some interesting places and she would ask if it would be a problem if her husband was a foreigner. “No problem.” Until I showed up in my light brown hair and hazel eyes. Suddenly there were absolutely no apartments to rent.

One realtor was very kind, explained it was difficult to find places and spent a while on the phone calling the realtors who represented the landlords only to get turned down a number of time.

One place in particular, I wanted to come back with a fucking shotgun. The bored realtor was reading a newspaper but jumped to attention when the bell on the door rang as we opened it. He saw me, his eyes went right back to the paper and he simply waved his hands in dismissal, as if shooing away a fly.

I also came away from that experience with a greater appreciation of what people of color experience.

I had a relationship for a while with a divorced woman I picked up in Roppongi. As her part of divorce, she had three or four apartments in central Tokyo which she was able to live off of. She wouldn’t rent to foreigners. She had absolutely no problem getting picked up and fucking them, she just wouldn’t rent to them.

I knew hundreds of foreigners in the 25 plus years I lived there. All of them were living in fixed abodes and not just crashing in the park, so people would find places.

I didn’t have any problem purchasing a house. I also had a couple of friends who made money by renting apartments and then subleasing them to foreigners. 154

[Nava]

Originally Posted by Ravenman

At the expense of supply.

Is it a reasonable assumption on my part that your extremely narrow answer is intended to convey that in a city with high rents, you would prefer to cap the increases in rents, knowing that shortages of rental units is an easily foreseeable consequence; rather than increase supply, knowing that lower costs would logically follow?

How do you increase supply when the only land left unbuilt is streets and parks, and it's all already high rises (by US standards)? The total supply of living units isn't very manageable; you need to work on own/rent balance. Doing this has two facets: a cultural one which is long-term, and a price-based one which is short-term. One of the biggest, if not the biggest, problems with the AirBnB market is that the short-term rentals are prohibitive for anybody who doesn't have Daddy Corporate to pay for him and the long-term rentals are being replaced by short-term rentals, so the growth in the total rental market is actually lowering the amount of units available for "real renters". 155

[Ruken]

Originally Posted by Nava

How do you increase supply when the only land left unbuilt is streets and parks, and it's all already high rises (by US standards)?

This describes zero cities in the US. 156

[Ravenman]

Originally Posted by Nava

How do you increase supply when the only land left unbuilt is streets and parks, and it's all already high rises (by US standards)?

The places we are talking about is NOT already all high rises. Not even close. Go around the Bay Area and you see tons and tons of single family homes built just after World War II. I’m not talking about the parts of San Francisco like the Marina District or Nob Hill; look at the Sunset, most of Silicon Valley, most of the East Bay, etc. But for the most part, these communities have chosen policies that stop redevelopment of these neighborhoods.

One of the biggest, if not the biggest, problems with the AirBnB market is that the short-term rentals are prohibitive for anybody who doesn't have Daddy Corporate to pay for him and the long-term rentals are being replaced by short-term rentals, so the growth in the total rental market is actually lowering the amount of units available for "real renters".

I agree. I have no issue with regulating homeshares, like limiting it to owner-occupied units. 157

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by Ravenman

It protects certain lucky tenants from paying market rates, for sure. How does this system “protect” landlords?

As I have said before, not a lot of landlords are savvy. They will kick out good solid tenants to chase new tenant with higher rents, not realizing that in a year, the cycle changes and rents will go down, and those rich dot.com guys will either have their own house or be broke. Thus they will have lost good solid clean tenants who have paid on time for five years to chase quick, cheap profits, and int he end, lose. 158

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by Ruken

This describes zero cities in the US.

No, it more or less describes the entire SF bay area. 159

[Bone]

Originally Posted by DrDeth

No, it more or less describes the entire SF bay area.

I live in the bay area. Do you have any evidence for this? 160

[iiandyiiii]

https://haasinstitute.berkeley.edu/s...cisco-bay-area

According to this, 67% of Oakland's residential land is zoned for single-family homes, and 47% of Berkeley. Those are significant chunks of the bay area that are single-family only. 161

[Ruken]

Originally Posted by DrDeth

No, it more or less describes the entire SF bay area.

You've just severely discredited yourself. Nobody is going to believe anything you have to say about that region now. 162

[Ruken]

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii

https://haasinstitute.berkeley.edu/s...cisco-bay-area

According to this, 67% of Oakland's residential land is zoned for single-family homes, and 47% of Berkeley. Those are significant chunks of the bay area that are single-family only.

A third of the buildings in SF itself are single-family, and another 20% are 2-4 units. Although new construction is heavily biased toward units in 20+-unit buildings. 163

[Ravenman]

Originally Posted by Ruken

You've just severely discredited yourself. Nobody is going to believe anything you have to say about that region now.

Well, he’s said more redicilous things. Like that landlords are “protected” from getting rid of good tenants because rent control. The arguments have gotten sillier than the rents in Nob Hill.

ETA: but apparently only landlords in old housing units need such protection in San Jose, since only they are “protected” by rent control. 164

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by Bone

I live in the bay area. Do you have any evidence for this?

Well, it's not all high rises, but pretty much the the only land left unbuilt is streets and parks and greenbelts. 165

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by Ruken

You've just severely discredited yourself. Nobody is going to believe anything you have to say about that region now.

I was referring to the "the only land left unbuilt is streets and parks" part. No, it's not all high rises. 166

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by Ravenman

Well, he’s said more redicilous things. Like that landlords are “protected” from getting rid of good tenants because rent control....

That's what the landlord representatives on the Rent board said, and also the tri-county landlord association.



Landlords and owners made that claim. 167

[Ravenman]

Originally Posted by DrDeth

That's what the landlord representatives on the Rent board said, and also the tri-county landlord association.



Landlords and owners made that claim.

Let me guess: you saw it on TV one time. 168

[Ruken]

Originally Posted by DrDeth

I was referring to the "the only land left unbuilt is streets and parks" part. No, it's not all high rises.

Well that's not how English works. But then we are in agreement that my post was correct: "the only land left unbuilt is streets and parks, and it's all already high rises (by US standards)" describes zero cities in the US. 169

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by Ravenman

Let me guess: you saw it on TV one time.

No, several times at the meetings of the San Jose Commission meetings, where I was a member. 170

[Ravenman]

Originally Posted by DrDeth

No, several times at the meetings of the San Jose Commission meetings, where I was a member.

So hold on now. You have some kind of official capacity in dealing with rent laws in San Jose, and you:

1. Deny the consensus of economists that rent control leads to housing shortages;
2. Assert that San Jose limits rent increases to 8%, when that law was changed in 2016 to lower the limit to 5% (your post 77);
3. You assert that the landlords’ association likes San Jose rent laws, even though they had “strong opposition” to the 2016 rent law changes that you seem unaware of;
(https://caanet.org/rent-control-ratified-sj/)
4. assert that citing the views of Nobel laureates on economic matters within their field of expertise is “an appeal to authority;” and
5. Expect others to believe things you saw firsthand, and do not cite, that contradict the above.

Am I getting this right? 171

[Miller]

Originally Posted by DrDeth

Well, it's not all high rises, but pretty much the the only land left unbuilt is streets and parks and greenbelts.

Still wrong. 172

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by Ravenman

So hold on now. You have some kind of official capacity in dealing with rent laws in San Jose, and you:

1. Deny the consensus of economists that rent control leads to housing shortages;
2. Assert that San Jose limits rent increases to 8%, when that law was changed in 2016 to lower the limit to 5% (your post 77);
3. You assert that the landlords’ association likes San Jose rent laws, even though they had “strong opposition” to the 2016 rent law changes that you seem unaware of;
(https://caanet.org/rent-control-ratified-sj/)
...

They do not. It depends on the level of rent control.

That was when I was on the board.

Yes, they liked the laws, as is. That doesnt mean they want more laws, now does it?

How long have you sat as a City Commissioner? 173

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by Ravenman

..

But when Nobel Prize winning economists like Krugman and the architect of the Swedish welfare system, Gunnar Myrdal, tell people it is foolish to think that rent control is good economic policy, people should listen. ....

Ok, then cite them. Cute where they said, exactly, that those two Nobel laureates said "rent control leads to housing shortages".

Simply saying they did is the argument from authority.

Citing their exact words is not.

I'll wait.

Now, i want their words, in context. Not somebody else quoting them. Their words on their papers.

Yes, they love to quote "Rent control has in certain Western countries constituted, maybe, the worst example of poor planning by governments lacking courage and vision.” However, the certain western nation he was talking about was Sweden, not the USA . So, in context.




https://www.chicagoreader.com/Bleade...ard-that-right

Oh, and instead of a off the cuff out of context comment I leave you with a actual paper:
https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/...&context=cjlpp

With middle-class neighborhoods disappearing and society becoming increasingly stratified by social class, 266 now, more than ever, it is
important to adopt policies that encourage mixed-income living arrangements, particularly those that deconcentrate the poor. Rent control
should be used as one part of a larger strategy to revitalize decaying
neighborhoods, disperse the poor, and promote higher homeownership
rates in inner cities. By enlisting the spirited and underutilized determination of potential homeowners, along with their stabilizing and positively socializing presence, blighted communities may be transformed
into healthy and stable places to live. The proposed rent control schemeseeks to weave the marginalized poor into the mainstream fabric of society and prevent unhealthy neighborhood conditions from producing the
costly "concentration effects" that benefit no one. 174

[Ravenman]

Originally Posted by DrDeth

Ok, then cite them. Cute where they said, exactly, that those two Nobel laureates said "rent control leads to housing shortages".

I note that you’ve already set this up so that if economists don’t use the precise magic words that you seek, you’re going to pretend they are t saying what they are saying.


http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/rent-control

Check out the responses to this survey. Of note, Angus Deaton, 2015 laureate in economics, and his response and confidence level. Or Richard Thaler, 2017 laureate, who wondered if the next stupid question would be if the sun revolves around the earth.

Paul Krugman, 2008 laureate, wrote:

The analysis of rent control is among the best-understood issues in all of economics, and — among economists, anyway — one of the least controversial. In 1992 a poll of the American Economic Association found 93 percent of its members agreeing that ”a ceiling on rents reduces the quality and quantity of housing.”

Gunnar Myrdal, 1974 laureate, said:

Rent control has in certain Western countries constituted, maybe, the worst example of poor planning by governments lacking courage and vision.

Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek wrote a whole pamphlet about the topic: http://www.walterblock.com/wp-conten...sRealities.pdf

Face it: anyone advocating rent control today is like Mao in the aftermath of the Great Leap Forward, thinking, “Gee, that was a disaster — what if we tried the same thing, BUT WITH MORE GUSTO!”

Good luck with your housing crisis. Come back in five years and tell me how San Jose has fixed it.

ETA: you keep citing lawyers. Lawyers do not examine the distribution of scare resources, no more than economists review contracts. 175

[Bone]

And yet, the Bay Area is trying to impose greater rent control across the 9 bay area counties. It's a demonstration of hubris and ignorance. 176

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by Ravenman

I note that you’ve already set this up so that if economists don’t use the precise magic words that you seek, you’re going to pretend they are t saying what they are saying.


http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/rent-control

Check out the responses to this survey. Of note, Angus Deaton, 2015 laureate in economics, and his response and confidence level. Or Richard Thaler, 2017 laureate, who wondered if the next stupid question would be if the sun revolves around the earth.

...
ETA: you keep citing lawyers. Lawyers do not examine the distribution of scare resources, no more than economists review contracts.

That doesnt have the quotes from Krugman & Gunnar Myrdal that say "rent control leads to housing shortages". In fact, your cite doent appear to have anything from Krugman & Gunnar Myrdal.

And that's not a paper from either of those two worthies, just a off the cuff comment. Let's see a actual paper (you know, with citations, published, peer reviewed, that sort of stuff, liek I have given) from either on rent control. Not a one liner.

Then you quote Krugman & Gunnar Myrdal , without a cite and without context.
Now, i want their words, in context. Not somebody else quoting them. Their words on their papers.

Yes, but I cited a actual paper, with references, citations, etc.

That lovely quote i mentioned from Myrdal has been used a lot, but at least two commentators have pointed out it is used out of context and doesnt refer to the USA at all.

So, I guess you dont have what i asked for. 177

[Kobal2]

Originally Posted by Corry El

Rent control is price fixing. Price fixing creates misallocation of resources and perverse incentives as compared to market price discovery. If the outcome of market pricing is judged unacceptably 'unfair', a subjective judgement call, then collecting taxes to subsidize people who cannot pay market prices is virtually always preferable to govt price fixing.

Except that IME people are a lot more OK with earning lower rents than with any talk of tax hikes. Even if the tax hike would be smaller than the loss they make on controlled rent. Psychologically, money leaving the coffer "hurts" more - that's true in France (where we already pay pretty high taxes, although Macron is hard at work to fix that. For the very rich, that is.), and from what I can gather from across the pond it's even more true in the US where any politician talking about raising taxes for any reason whatsoever might as well shoot themselves in the face on live television and spare themselves some trouble. And we're talking about raising taxes to help the least fortunate, even... fuggedaboudit !
Rent control might make less economic sense, but it's still easier to enable than active redistribution of resources. I mean it's still very difficult to get it passed, but... yes.

Originally Posted by GreenHell

If you deal with a cartel, you are going to get gouged. If you need to deal with the intersection of TWO cartels . . .

But cartels and monopolies are, and have always been, the end result of capitalism and unbridled greed throughout history. And it pretty much can't proceed otherwise, barring some form of active intervention (which never happens barring catastrophic prospects because, again, unbridled greed).
Left alone, the accumulation of capital within the hands of some of the people makes it much easier for their children to accumulate even more capital in turn, invest, own more land etc... Over time capital gravitates towards the hands of fewer and fewer people who become more and more politically, socially and culturally powerful and skew the system even further in their favour ; while the proportion of people living in abject, way below average conditions keeps increasing. Rinse, repeat until foreign invasion, bloody revolution & land reform or Red Scare prompting a hurried redistributive effort - Interesting Times in all cases.
Then the cycle begins anew because even though we keep writing it down people just can't seem to History worth a brass fucking farthing. 178

[Nava]

Originally Posted by Ruken

This describes zero cities in the US.

Psychology and economics do not exist outside the US? DAMN NOW YOU TELL ME! 179

[Ravenman]

Originally Posted by DrDeth

That doesnt have the quotes from Krugman & Gunnar Myrdal that say "rent control leads to housing shortages". In fact, your cite doent appear to have anything from Krugman & Gunnar Myrdal.

And that's not a paper from either of those two worthies, just a off the cuff comment. Let's see a actual paper (you know, with citations, published, peer reviewed, that sort of stuff, liek I have given) from either on rent control. Not a one liner.

Then you quote Krugman & Gunnar Myrdal , without a cite and without context.
Now, i want their words, in context. Not somebody else quoting them. Their words on their papers.

Yes, but I cited a actual paper, with references, citations, etc.

That lovely quote i mentioned from Myrdal has been used a lot, but at least two commentators have pointed out it is used out of context and doesnt refer to the USA at all.

So, I guess you dont have what i asked for.

Your cite used the wrong font. I won’t accept it. 180

[Ruken]

Originally Posted by Nava

Psychology and economics do not exist outside the US? DAMN NOW YOU TELL ME!

Anyone able to translate this one? 181

[Shodan]

Originally Posted by Ruken

Anyone able to translate this one?

Presumably in places outside the United States, the only land left unbuilt is streets and parks, and it's all already high rises (by US standards).

I don't doubt it, but I expect psychology and economics (if there is any difference between the two terms) operate in different markets.

Regards,
Shodan 182

[Ravenman]

If the only unbuilt places in the United States are indeed parks and streets, then logically the only building permits for housing in the Bay Area must be for housing destroyed by disasters like fire and earthquakes.

So, is all new housing in the Bay Area actually just replacements for destroyed homes? Like, when the mayor of San Jose says he wants to build 10,000 new units, that will also require the destruction of 10,000 old units? 183

[Deeg]

DrDeth, here is an op-ed written by Krugman in 2000 in response to problems in San Francisco. It doesn't have the exact words "rent control leads to housing shortages" but it comes pretty close:

The analysis of rent control is among the best-understood issues in all of economics, and -- among economists, anyway -- one of the least controversial. In 1992 a poll of the American Economic Association found 93 percent of its members agreeing that ''a ceiling on rents reduces the quality and quantity of housing.''

https://www.nytimes.com/2000/06/07/o...nt-affair.html 184

[Bone]

Originally Posted by Ravenman

If the only unbuilt places in the United States are indeed parks and streets, then logically the only building permits for housing in the Bay Area must be for housing destroyed by disasters like fire and earthquakes.

So, is all new housing in the Bay Area actually just replacements for destroyed homes? Like, when the mayor of San Jose says he wants to build 10,000 new units, that will also require the destruction of 10,000 old units?

There's this hip new website called Zillow. You can look for just open lots/land. Unsurprisingly, there's hundreds of hits in the bay area. 185

[Ravenman]

Originally Posted by Bone

There's this hip new website called Zillow. You can look for just open lots/land. Unsurprisingly, there's hundreds of hits in the bay area.

I’ve been stridently told that this is not the case. Who am I to believe: those who disagree with selling-settled economic principles, or the lyin’ internet? 186

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by Deeg

DrDeth, here is an op-ed written by Krugman in 2000 in response to problems in San Francisco. It doesn't have the exact words "rent control leads to housing shortages" but it comes pretty close:

The analysis of rent control is among the best-understood issues in all of economics, and -- among economists, anyway -- one of the least controversial. In 1992 a poll of the American Economic Association found 93 percent of its members agreeing that ''a ceiling on rents reduces the quality and quantity of housing.''

https://www.nytimes.com/2000/06/07/o...nt-affair.html

Yes, it is well known that economists dont like price controls. And rent controls could well be considered a type of price control. But of course supply and demand doesnt apply to something like housing, even with no government rules, it takes a year or more to build new housing.

However, with many economists, they arent specialists in urban planning. Would you go to Michael W. Young, Nobel laureate in medicine for your heart condition? Just like Linus Pauling, one of the great minds- who went out of his specialty with Vitamin C. 187

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by Bone

There's this hip new website called Zillow. You can look for just open lots/land. Unsurprisingly, there's hundreds of hits in the bay area.

How many are suited for a 20 story apartment complex? 188

[Bone]

Originally Posted by DrDeth

How many are suited for a 20 story apartment complex?

Are those the goalposts that you're using now? Didn't realize that was the requirement. How many would I have to come up with for you to concede that your blanket statement was wrong? 189

[Shodan]

Originally Posted by DrDeth

But of course supply and demand doesnt apply to something like housing, even with no government rules, it takes a year or more to build new housing.

Most goods take time to produce. Unless the demand is very volatile, the law of supply and demand is still going to apply. It's another form of investment. The developer who built my subdivision lives down the street from me. He and his partners predicted (correctly) that demand for housing in my suburb would go up, so they sunk a lot of money into building houses, including the one where my wife and I live.

He's kind of a funny guy. He's now retired, and spends his time keeping an eye on the neighborhood. Which is kind of un-nerving when he knows when everyone leaves for work, what times of day I walk the dog, who is doing remodeling, etc., and kind of reassuring when he called the cops when somebody broke into my neighbor's house, because he knew they were on vacation.

And of course new housing is not the only kind of housing there is. Demand goes up, my house appreciates in value, I have a greater incentive to sell, or rent out a room, or something like that.

Regards,
Shodan 190

[Deeg]

Originally Posted by DrDeth

Yes, it is well known that economists dont like price controls. And rent controls could well be considered a type of price control. But of course supply and demand doesnt apply to something like housing, even with no government rules, it takes a year or more to build new housing.

However, with many economists, they arent specialists in urban planning. Would you go to Michael W. Young, Nobel laureate in medicine for your heart condition? Just like Linus Pauling, one of the great minds- who went out of his specialty with Vitamin C.

So then why ask for a direct quote from Krugman if you're going to ignore it anyway? Just state up front that you don't care what economists say. 191

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by Deeg

So then why ask for a direct quote from Krugman if you're going to ignore it anyway? Just state up front that you don't care what economists say.

Well, that wasnt a paper or study that he wrote, true? Just a Op ed? And he gets lots of stuff wrong, but first he admits he doesnt know much about the issue:

Not that I have any special knowledge about San Francisco's housing market -- in fact, as of yesterday morning I didn't know a thing about it.


Then "After all, the sort of landlord behavior described in the article -- demanding that prospective tenants supply resumes and credit reports, that they dress nicely and act enthusiastic -- doesn't happen in uncontrolled housing markets. "- boy is that wrong. Pretty much, everywhere in CA, rent control or no, you need a credit report to rent any decent apartment or house.

Then he goes on "And so I had no doubts about what I would find after a bit of checking -- namely, that San Francisco is a city where a technology-fueled housing boom has collided with a draconian rent-control law."

Draconian? SF follows CA state law, which means no unit built after 1979 is covered. And only for multi-plexes.

Apt are hard to get and rent in SF not mostly due to rent control, but due to not enuf space for building. SF is very small and very crowded.

So, here we have a perfect example of the Pauling effect. A expert in one field trying to apply his expertise to something outside his speciality. 192

[iiandyiiii]

Originally Posted by DrDeth

Well, that wasnt a paper or study that he wrote, true? Just a Op ed? And he gets lots of stuff wrong, but first he admits he doesnt know much about the issue:



Not that I have any special knowledge about San Francisco's housing market -- in fact, as of yesterday morning I didn't know a thing about it.





Then "After all, the sort of landlord behavior described in the article -- demanding that prospective tenants supply resumes and credit reports, that they dress nicely and act enthusiastic -- doesn't happen in uncontrolled housing markets. "- boy is that wrong. Pretty much, everywhere in CA, rent control or no, you need a credit report to rent any decent apartment or house.



Then he goes on "And so I had no doubts about what I would find after a bit of checking -- namely, that San Francisco is a city where a technology-fueled housing boom has collided with a draconian rent-control law."



Draconian? SF follows CA state law, which means no unit built after 1979 is covered. And only for multi-plexes.



Apt are hard to get and rent in SF not mostly due to rent control, but due to not enuf space for building. SF is very small and very crowded.



So, here we have a perfect example of the Pauling effect. A expert in one field trying to apply his expertise to something outside his speciality.

Right - not enough houses. Luckily, there's lots of room in SF and the metro area to build up. Unluckily, there are lots of NIMBY folks opposing this for selfish reasons, limiting the overall prosperity. 193

[Ravenman]

Originally Posted by DrDeth

Well, that wasnt a paper or study that he wrote, true? Just a Op ed? And he gets lots of stuff wrong, but first he admits he doesnt know much about the issue:

Not that I have any special knowledge about San Francisco's housing market -- in fact, as of yesterday morning I didn't know a thing about it.


Then "After all, the sort of landlord behavior described in the article -- demanding that prospective tenants supply resumes and credit reports, that they dress nicely and act enthusiastic -- doesn't happen in uncontrolled housing markets. "- boy is that wrong. Pretty much, everywhere in CA, rent control or no, you need a credit report to rent any decent apartment or house.

Then he goes on "And so I had no doubts about what I would find after a bit of checking -- namely, that San Francisco is a city where a technology-fueled housing boom has collided with a draconian rent-control law."

Draconian? SF follows CA state law, which means no unit built after 1979 is covered. And only for multi-plexes.

Apt are hard to get and rent in SF not mostly due to rent control, but due to not enuf space for building. SF is very small and very crowded.

So, here we have a perfect example of the Pauling effect. A expert in one field trying to apply his expertise to something outside his speciality.

Here’s some more incompetent economists who looked at San Francisco and came to the same finding as Krugman. I suppose this means that they are incompetent as well, because... well, I can’t wait to hear why.

https://web.stanford.edu/~diamondr/DMQ.pdf 194

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii

Right - not enough houses. Luckily, there's lots of room in SF and the metro area to build up. Unluckily, there are lots of NIMBY folks opposing this for selfish reasons, limiting the overall prosperity.

Really in the SF metro area there is lots of vacant land that isnt parks or greenbelt?


Or do you mean the folks who bought a $2M house with a view- and doesnt want that view obscured by a 80 story complex? For which there would be no parking and not enough streets to handle the extra traffic? 195

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by Ravenman

Here’s some more incompetent economists who looked at San Francisco and came to the same finding as Krugman. I suppose this means that they are incompetent as well, because... well, I can’t wait to hear why.

https://web.stanford.edu/~diamondr/DMQ.pdf

I didnt say he was "incompetent". Linus Pauling was one of the greatest scientists of our time. But he stepped out of his speciality and failed. 196

[Bone]

Originally Posted by DrDeth

Really in the SF metro area there is lots of vacant land that isnt parks or greenbelt?

Now you've restricted your claim down to the metro area? That's an entirely different claim than the SF bay area. Will the next move to restrict to a particular address? 197

[iiandyiiii]

Originally Posted by DrDeth

Really in the SF metro area there is lots of vacant land that isnt parks or greenbelt?

Or do you mean the folks who bought a $2M house with a view- and doesnt want that view obscured by a 80 story complex? For which there would be no parking and not enough streets to handle the extra traffic?

I mean that government policy has created lots of artificial restrictions (i.e. single-family zoning) that restrict the market's ability to set "natural" prices for housing that would result in greater affordability and prosperity overall. 198

[Ravenman]

Originally Posted by DrDeth

Or do you mean the folks who bought a $2M house with a view- and doesnt want that view obscured by a 80 story complex?

If you’re just going to be dramatic, you should say it’s an 8,000 story complex. 199

[Lord Feldon]

80 story complexes absolutely should be legal everywhere along the coasts* of urban California, especially if they don't have parking, but it would be nice if even, say, modest 3 or 4-story buildings were legal everywhere in an urban area. People throw fits over those too. Basically anything at all that changes the "character of the community."

*California is only getting hotter. Pushing all development out into areas that are going to be as hot as Phoenix is nonsensical. Cramming as much as possible into the narrow strip of the state that has its climate moderated by the ocean is common sense. 200