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.
You’ve just severely discredited yourself. Nobody is going to believe anything you have to say about that region now.
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.
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.
Well, it’s not all high rises, but pretty much the the only land left unbuilt is streets and parks and greenbelts.
I was referring to the “the only land left unbuilt is streets and parks” part. No, it’s not all high rises.
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.
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.
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:
- Deny the consensus of economists that rent control leads to housing shortages;
- 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);
- 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/) - assert that citing the views of Nobel laureates on economic matters within their field of expertise is “an appeal to authority;” and
- Expect others to believe things you saw firsthand, and do not cite, that contradict the above.
Am I getting this right?
Still wrong.
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?
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.
Oh, and instead of a off the cuff out of context comment I leave you with a actual paper:
https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1120&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.*
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.
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:
Gunnar Myrdal, 1974 laureate, said:
Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek wrote a whole pamphlet about the topic: http://www.walterblock.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/RentControlMythsRealities.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Psychology and economics do not exist outside the US? DAMN NOW YOU TELL ME!
Your cite used the wrong font. I won’t accept it.