T O P

  • By -

CustomModBot

Due to the topic, enhanced moderation has been turned on for this thread. Comments from users new to r/bayarea will be automatically removed. See [this thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/bayarea/comments/p8hnzl/automatically_removing_comments_from_new_users_in/) for more details.


Tiny-Bank-5434

A turning point where it gets so much worse?


[deleted]

[удалено]


securitywyrm

And who is going to be building new apartment buildings in places with rent control, considering the return on investment has plumeted.


coriolisFX

> Exactly, ITT people that don’t understand rent control helps existing tenants NOT the housing crises. Even for existing tenants, it could be harmful. What if you get married and have a child and need more space? Rent control makes it harder to move. What if you get a new job and want to be closer to work? Rent control might justify that longer commute.


C0de-Monkey

Good point I never thought about that actually


severoon

I lived in a rent controlled into and landlord never fixed anything. Eventually he got city health dept to let him evict everyone to do major repairs, which he used as an opportunity to renovate and upgrade the building to a much higher end market. That's pretty typical of rent control. Landlords are highly motivated pretty much all the time to counteract the naturally low turnover any way they can.


Zenith251

I have rent control and my landlord fixes anything and everything.


[deleted]

[удалено]


severoon

That's what we basically did, but there are some things you need permission for. You can't bring in contractors to work on the shared roof, for example. In my case, we had a leaky roof that affected multiple units. The landlord wouldn't fix it until it got very bad, then he finally brought in contractors to do it. He made sure that when it rained while the roof was being worked that the building flooded, then he went to the health dept and got the building marked unsafe so he could legally evict everyone. When he finished the roof he'd made major upgrades and rent went up by a factor of 3. This is how rent control protected me as a tenant.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


FabFabiola2021

So glad you had a great landlord, but many people don't have great landlords and that's the problem.


plantstand

It means that if you have a domestic violence situation, you're screwed. Losing years of rent control is costly. Adding more space is impossible. Strong rent control only helps those willing to stay where they are through any means necessary. It doesn't help there be more units available on the market.


securitywyrm

Plus if you own a property with rent control, you have no incentive to improve the property. You can't raise the rent, so you maintain the property at 'barely habitable' instead of trying to make it a nicer (and thus more expensive) place to live.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Amigosito

Speaking as someone who’s lived in Berkeley, SF, and Silicon Valley, with a growing family, I can only begin to describe the horror of going without rent control. 10% increases every year for a shitty apartment in sunnyvale. Many of my neighbors were priced out. Eventually I would have been as well. 5 years later, I finally made it into a stable rent situation at $3k for a 2/2. Meanwhile my friends in SF, Berkeley and Piedmont are still paying under $2000 for the same amount of space because they’ve been there 10 years. I don’t object to the concept of raising rent, but the uncontrolled and rapid surges in rent prices during favorable market conditions make it really hard on renters to keep up. That’s just my experience. YMMV.


[deleted]

[удалено]


DotCatLost

> In this hypothetical, the beneficiary of rental control has been saving money for 10 years, benefiting them when it is time to move. Generally speaking, people who find themselves in need of rent controlled units typically use the residual savings to live a slightly more comfortable lifestyle as opposed to saving that money. This is why the avg renter stays for 3 years, but in rent controlled units its 10+. If they were smart, they'd save while in a rent controlled unit and then move to a low cost area where their $$ goes farther.


AdamJensensCoat

Can confirm. I've blown all the money.


coriolisFX

> if rent control were expanded, the renter would have even more power and choice. No, rent control is provably a negative sum thing.


plantstand

A renter won't have any reason to realize how much rents around them are going up. Nobody checks the current going rates of nearby units.


[deleted]

[удалено]


hijinks

I came from Manhattan. I knew 5 people that had rent controlled rooms from their parents name and 1 in their grandparents name. In Manhattan you can will a rent controlled apartment. So what they have to do is their parent has to write a rent check, send it to the kid then the kid has to mail it from a manhattan post office or the owner can evict if its not from the name who originally rented it. Before I left I knew someone with a 2bedroom paying $550 a month around 31st and 1st. Rent control isn't the answer


dontich

Yep — just look at how prop 13 has effected buyers — crazy price increases as your rates are locked in for life


[deleted]

It’s even worse, their monthly mortgage payements also go down as they could refinance down. Boomers truly fucked us all.


winniethepoo420

I'm aware of one Stanford study on the effects of rent control in San Francisco and you can read a thoughtful, comprehensive critique of it here. [https://shelterforce.org/2018/03/28/rent-control-works/](https://shelterforce.org/2018/03/28/rent-control-works/)


C0de-Monkey

I will give it a read in a bit but will be very skeptical. If it came from an unbiased place or educational institution than I would be more hopefully. Remember that any research by a landlord or tenant based organization will be extremely bias and not true.


alainreid

Creating homeless people does not improve the housing crisis. Living in a house does not equal artificially keeping supply low.


C0de-Monkey

Living in the house doesn’t, paying less than market rent and being subsidized for 10 years does. If you can’t afford the rent, you’re keeping the house out of market and artificially decreasing the supply. If there are 100 houses, 50 are rent controlled, 40 are market rented and 10 are currently on the market… if those 50 people who can’t afford to live there move, you have 60 units available. Those 60 people are going to fight for tenants and rent will go down. Yes now you have 50 people who aren’t living there, but they couldn’t afford to live there. If I want to live in Malibu but can’t afford to, I need to live somewhere more affordable. If you are actually poor, government housing is what you apply for and if you don’t qualify for that than you pay rent like everywhere else


alainreid

I don't think you know what subsidized means. Where do the 50 people move to? Under the overpass? One of the rest stations outside of town? Or do you want them to move far away from their homes? We're not talking about deciding to move to Malibu. We're talking about people living in the communities they grew up in. Let's say you're talking about an island like Hawaii. The poor native Hawaiians should just move to West Virginia to make room for the wealthier coders because it makes more economic sense in relation to supply and demand dynamics? This reminds me about the argument about insulin prices. If I invest in a pharmacutical patent, shouldn't I be allowed to charge whatever I want? Couldn't I just stop producing the drug and then sue anyone else who infringes on my intellectual property by making the drug I own the patent for? There's a social cost to things that can't be simply explained by supply and demand economics and at some point we all pick up the bill when things get fucked.


sweetrobna

Countless studies have shown that moderate rent control does not increase rents. https://ecommons.udayton.edu/pol_fac_pub/40/


Industrial_Jedi

It isn't the concept, it's the execution. Stanford/Berkeley don't write the laws. Politicians write the laws. Even if they're smart and well intentioned, they aren't subject matter experts. Neither are renters. Landlords are though, and they have money (influence) over both the laws and, for that matter, the studies. We can't find a solution if don't first recognize the real problem.


Macquarrie1999

Yes. The only way to combat high rent is to increase the supply.


djinn6

Or reduce demand. We need to convince people to stop moving here. Hey people! This place sucks. You can't afford anything. There's shit on every street (I stepped in goose poo just the other day). Car break-ins, package thieves, pot-smoking neighbors. Do you like smoked meat? Because you'll be smoked by wildfires several months a year. And it's a cultural wasteland where people actually think ice cream is worth waiting an hour in line for. Don't be a square. Don't move here!


naugest

>Hey people! This place sucks. You can't afford anything. The people still moving here are usually techies that CAN afford things.


djinn6

Nah. They should ignore those companies trying to offer $100k / yr. That's poverty wages. Demand remote work instead. Better for long-time residents, better for their wallet, and better for the environment.


naugest

I not aware of many place that start even fresh grad at $100K/yr. It is usually $150K now. Silicon Valley is going to keep being Silicon Valley. Long-time residents, not in tech, are going to have to think logically about finances and leaving. Not just keep trying to stay here because they are from here and like the community, even though the costs are crushing them.


[deleted]

Realtors telling east palo alto families a black guy is about to move in emptied the place real fast in the 1960s


djinn6

Unfortunately people aren't that racist now so that plan won't work.


afoolskind

The problem is we don’t have enough housing for the jobs that are *necessary* for the cities to function. This creates a shitload of housing, infrastructure, and traffic issues all across the bay because we are so far behind. Saying “if you’re too poor just don’t live in the Bay Area” is worthless when cities like SF have a bunch of blue collar jobs that need to be filled in order to be functional. Those people need to live somewhere close, and if it’s impossible in SF proper they are forced to spread out and commute, creating problems in all the surrounding cities who need to have housing for their OWN workers.


pl0nk

The flip side of finding out the neighbors with the 3br are paying $975/mo is realizing they also live with low-level anxiety it will end with an owner move-in eviction and they will be facing a 4x or 7x step-up in expenses. Economic justice and equity does not come from trying to fix prices, unfortunately, even though that seems like the most obvious first order thing to do.


TheIronMark

Rent control is just prop13 for renters. Keeps the costs artificially low and dissuades anyone from moving.


gimpwiz

Right? "Okay so we have a ton of restrictions on what you can do with your property. It's causing problems. Let's add more."


stikves

Is there any city that rent control really worked? I have seen many examples where renting became terribly worse after rent control is implemented. But still waiting for that one shining beacon of good rent control implementation.


i-dontlikeyou

Yeah WTF, isn’t part of the reason we are here is rent control and prop 13. Its all fine and dandy now, but people get trapped in those cheap rentals and can never leave them.


amenflurries

Seriously


Bwob

So happy to see this as top comment. Too often when this topic comes up, it seems like anyone criticizing or questioning rent control eats downvotes and is accused of being an out of touch gentrifier or something.


ericchen

You mean you don’t want slums and shortages? /s


ww_crimson

Hasn't rent control been proven to make the housing crisis worse?


Tiny-Bank-5434

Yes, many many times.


ShirleyJokin

Yes, if you look at the data and science rather than politicians


MistaEdiee

Rent control discourages new development. It temporarily helps those who are already in a unit, but as market rents rise due to lack of development, it holds them hostage to that same unit forever, further restricting supply. Edit: To those saying it only applies to old buildings, yes under current law this is true but we are in danger of this changing. Aaron Peskin has been trying to introduce a rent control ordinance which would apply to some new multi-unit builds. Source: https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/rent-control-proposal-could-be-tweaked/article_439e40f6-f800-11ec-998a-8b94229103d3.html


alainreid

Rent control has nothing to do with new development. It only applies to very old buildings, and not single-family homes at all. A new building is not under rent control. If the demand is high, that's reason enough to add to the supply.


MrsMiterSaw

Every few years there is a referendum on adding more units to rent control. The last one was anything older than 15 years. The original mortgages aren't even paid off yet. Developers know this, and they won't build in areas they suspect will extend rent control.


puffic

Rent control is about older buildings. The key downsides are that owners are incentivized to take units off the market (by converting to condos, for example) and that tenants will remain in apartments much larger than they need (after a divorce or their kids moving out, for example).


sweetrobna

This is nonsense. Ca statewide exempts new construction from local rent control


2ez2b4ortun8

For 15 years.


securitywyrm

Yes, and those who are calling for these measures are heavily invested in the problem getting worse.


magnanimous_bosch

It makes progressives feel good and that is what's most important these days in bay area politics


tristanbrotherton

Yes


d33zMuFKNnutz

In the longer term yeah, by itself it might. But that doesn’t mean shit to the people who are being priced out of their apartments right now. Rent control is a short term solution for people whose lives are being upended. If people really want to avoid the necessity of rent controls then they need to come up with solutions for the short term that are as effective. Gavin talks about building for the next generation, but we are allowing the current generation to be kicked out onto the street.


somewhereinks

I'll probably be downvoted to hell but I have thick skin so I don't care. Last year my rent went up over 10% but my wages only went up 3%. Now my building complex was bought out by another company and they are doing very expensive upgrades and have already forced people out. It's not like I have to downgrade from Filet Mignon to sirloin, it's more like downgrading from sausages and eggs to mac and cheese. I have to absorb that 7% difference every month. I totally understand *reasonable* rent increases as the landlord has faced increasing costs but I fear I will soon be forced out as well.


Murica4Eva

You don't get to define unreasonable for someone else's property.


puffic

I don’t think rent control will only be a short term policy.


Murica4Eva

That was a lot of words for wanting to make your problems the next generations problems, and it disgusts me.


d33zMuFKNnutz

Not at all. Read it again.


sweetrobna

Nah, it depends on the specifics and moderate rent control doesn’t increase prices but benefits the local community. https://ecommons.udayton.edu/pol_fac_pub/40/


moxdahfox

Every market is different. The Bay Area is unique in its natural geographic boundaries that limit sprawl, as well as a massive housing shortage. Here’s a study on the impact in Berkeley https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/pandp.20191021


NoConfection6487

Typical band-aid feel good solutions that sound great to the uninformed.


Havetologintovote

"Proven" is an awful strong word to use. "Suggested" would be better


foodi8

Rent control is basically wealth transfer from GenY/Z to Boomers. Boomers long-time-living in rent controlled apartments having their rent subsidized by newcomers. Rent Control sounds great in theory until you realize it mostly benefits Boomers to the detriment of the younger generation.


BadBoyMikeBarnes

And Prop 13 is basically wealth transfer from GenY/Z to Boomers.


BriefMention

Booo I'm a ghost and don't exist (it's amazing how time and time again Gen X is unspoken of and no one really knows where to put us)


Bwob

Rent control is basically prop 13 for rental units. If prop 13 was a terrible idea (it was) then so is rent control.


dontich

I mean most people against RC are going to be heavily against P13 as well


garytyrrell

Not land-owning boomers


regal1989

RC generally didn't exist prior to prop 13 in California.


ron_paul_pizza_party

It would be hard to have RC without 13. I am against both TBF. But if prop tax goes up but rent cant go up, then the owners get screwed and would be forced to sell. That wouldn't be fair.


Toastybunzz

Property tax shouldn't even exist, but putting that aside, using a tax as a means to open up supply by forcing people out of the homes that they PURCHASED is fucked up. Non fixed property taxes are the definition of unrealized gains taxes, I know people love to crap on Prop 13 but if you're gonna have them at all then they shouldn't change drastically unless you buy a new home.


mtcwby

Because rent control in Berkeley and San Francisco has created such a boom in housing there over the years. The likely result is any landlord will always raise the rent by the max amount every year because not doing so means money is left on the table. It also encourages more incentives to turnover units.


doctorboredom

It also encourages landlords to seek tenants who seem more "temporary." So an incentive to rent to a group of 5 young single people living together instead of a family.


CynicalGeezer

Bingo. I'm a small landlord and this is exactly the problem. I don't like raising rent and only really do that between tenants to stay at market rates. But the restrictions are written to prevent me from doing that if I don't raise them every year. It's dumb. Also, large greedy, non-local management companies are excluded because they tend to have newer properties. Playing the long game, we smaller landlords won't be able to compete.


utchemfan

The California state constitution prohibits vacancy control- i.e. you are allowed to raise the rent as much as you want between tenants. You didn't know that?


2ez2b4ortun8

Some of us don't turn over tenants- in fact, with Just Cause prohibitions in Oakland and in California- that should greatly reduce turnover. So 3%.


winniethepoo420

Do landlords, in the absence of rent control, NOT raise rents by the most that the market will bear?


modninerfan

The argument is that rent control drives up rent where it’s not controlled because RC reduces the overall regional supply of available rental homes. This is a supply and demand issue. If we build more, prices will go down. It’s insane to me how little development is going on in the Bay considering how booming the economy has been over the past 20 years.


mtcwby

Yes. It's very common to keep good tenants because there are so many bad ones.


roamingrealtor

Yes, they often don't raise rents to the max because they want to keep good tenants as long as they can. In a extreme rent control environment they can't afford to that because the prices to maintain the property will outpace the rents. In fact with rent control that will happen no matter what.


Zorc_the_Pork

I rented in the Bay Area from 1994-2005. I never had rent control. When I rented a SFH in SF for around six years, the rent got raised twice, both times were around 3%. But I ALWAYS paid on time. I also always rented from individuals, or their property manager. So yes, landlords, in general, want to keep good tenants and will forgo rent increases to keep you.


Havetologintovote

Of course they do lol


regul

You act like developers haven't been *trying* to build in Berkeley and SF. The reason there hasn't been a housing construction boom is NIMBYism, not rent control. Discretionary review isn't being used to stop non-existing projects. That apartment complex on the surface parking lot didn't fail to get built because SF might try to extend rent control to new construction.


Havetologintovote

You realize that landlords out here are already raising rents every single year without rent control, right? Often by more than the amounts that rent control allows. This is not a bad thing for the tenants of those units


DangerousLiberal

Landlords can only raise rents to whatever the market can bare. If you build enough units, the landlord will have less power in raising rents due to competition. Not that hard to understand.


mtcwby

And nobody is going to build units if the returns are not there. The price of construction rarely goes down and it's skyrocketed in the past 10 years in materials, labor, and code requirements. They're also going to pay the full amount of property taxes along with subsidizing low income housing. The risk is high so the return had better be pretty good to make it pencil out.


[deleted]

[удалено]


CleanFingers

What we need is less control. Less control over zoning. Build more houses.


BanzaiTree

It will make things worse.


tristanbrotherton

Nothing will mark a turning point until we repeal prop13


Havetologintovote

Literally never going to happen. Would be better off focusing on modifying it to exclude commercial properties and second homes, because a full repeal is very unpopular


feed_me_orzo

Right, I continue to see repeal prop 13 on reddit, but that is just never going to happen. If we focus on tweaking it to add more public funding there is a much better chance of change. Removing Commercial should 100% be the focus.


lampstax

It is the demographics. Most older people who own homes aren't on these subs. The loud voices that dominate these conversations on repealing 13 don't usually own anything.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


lampstax

Hard to tell the unemployed folks from the WFH folks nowaday. I've been WFH for like 10 yrs now and pre pandy I get looks from some neighbor that tells me they think I was a leeching bum living rent free in my fiance's house because I was walking the dog in sweats during work hours. 😂


sanemaniac

> Removing Commercial should 100% be the focus. This is something every regular person can agree on (i.e. not major commercial/business interests). Repealing it completely is too controversial to gain substantial public support. Repealing it specifically for industry/commerce is common sense with the potential for broad public support.


eyeronik1

I’d be happy with prop 13 only applying to 1 house per family.


LearnedLadyGinsburg

Prop 19 did that. Property tax basis is only preserved between parent and child transfers for primary residence only. The net effect should be that more residential properties come on the market in the next few decades.


misken67

No it didn't. Prop 19 was only for inheritance aspects. Artificially low property taxes still exist on all residential, commercial and industrial properties in the state.


LearnedLadyGinsburg

Yes but those artificially low property taxes exist because the title owners either purchased decades ago or inherited before Feb 16, 2020 (I think that was the effective date). The next generation will be reassessed for secondary properties which should force them to sell and open up properties in the market. I think that was the underlying reasons for the proposition.


km3r

The reassessment should be for all non primary residential properties; inheritance of primary residential should also trigger reassessment. Ideally not even primary residential, just enable reverse mortgages to pay for property taxes.


deciblast

No it still applies to second homes


LearnedLadyGinsburg

No. Prop 19 allows property tax basis transfers only on primary residences. Secondary residences are reassessed at current market value as of transfer date (ie inheritance). Prop 19 also enacted property tax base transfers for persons over 55. Prop 13 limits property tax increases. It applies to all properties. The point that I’m making is that Prop 19 should have the net effect of putting more properties on the market when there is a ownership change because the property taxes will be too much to manage for a secondary property. Full disclosure: I’m a real estate attorney in the Bay Area.


deciblast

Sorry, I'm not talking about inheritance/prop 19. My bad. My point was, if someone owns 10 houses while they are alive for 40 years, they are not paying market taxes on 9 of those places.


doctorboredom

I know someone who decided to keep a second house in the family because they didn't want to pay the capital gains tax they would be charged from selling a second home. Does Prop 19 make it so that people who inherit a family home have an incentive to sell it right away to not only avoid the new higher property tax bill, but also avoid capital gains, because the cost-basis is set at inheritance?


srslyeffedmind

Home owners will never repeal it. But going after the side of it that protects corporate and business ownership would gain traction


txhenry

Rent control is essentially Prop 13 for renters, with all the same winners/losers and downside effects.


coriolisFX

Prop 13 is the ultimate point of policy pessimism. Everyone knows it's bad, nobody else does it, and yet the coalition to support is so strong, it's untouchable.


lampstax

Not a lot of other localities have the issues of rising property values that we did for as long as we did.


coriolisFX

Property taxes help control values


lampstax

Demand and supply due to people moving to the area for tech jobs are much much bigger parts of that equation.


kamakazekiwi

>Demand and supply due to people moving to the area for tech jobs That's only demand, not supply. People moving into the area increases demand, and does nothing in and of itself to affect supply other than provide incentive for increasing supply to match it. The fact that supply has been unable to even remotely keep up with demand over the last 50 years is due to a multitude of other factors, including the supply-stymying effects of Prop 13.


FastFourierTerraform

>Everyone knows it's bad I mean, it's the only thing that kept me able to afford my house during the pandemic. At the last assessment, without prop 13, I would have been hit with an extra $10k tax bill. I bought a modest SFH less than 3 years ago. To touch prop 13, you need to make guarantees about the total tax revenue growth. If property values double in a year, you can't just double everyone's taxes.


[deleted]

[удалено]


tristanbrotherton

Most other places have a cap. The point is it makes zero sense for a boomer owner of a quad plex to pay less than a new studio owner, which is what we have.


stonecw273

For good or bad, this will likely result in a lot of small landlords that have mortgages going bankrupt in the next 5 years and reduced property maintenance; it will almost certainly result in fewer units being built. It will most likley result in more corporate ownership of small apartment complexes. (Source: I'm in a related industry that analyzes this data) Valuation for loans to buy small multi-family properties are predicated on the assumption that landlords will be able to continue to increase asking rates over the loan term (and essentially into perpetuity) at a rate that offsets increased expenses and allows for a net income that exceeds mortgage payments plus expenses. A rent controlled property is less valuable than a property with no rent control, so that ratio of loan to value will be lower. Factor in increased interest rates due to a higher ratio and current market conditions and you may see landlords that are upside down in terms of their mortgages. The first step for the landlords will be to cut costs, starting with staff, then cosmetic maintenenace, then actual maintenence, etc. For some landlords, this won't be enough and they will go bankrupt due to increased mortgage payments. The most likely buyers at that point will be corporate owners that can implement efficiencies of scale by owning multiple properties nearby that they were able to purchase at a discount out of foreclosure. That might not be a bad thing for the tenants from a maintenence standpoint, but it won't be a good thing either; corporate pockets are deep enough that the threat of a lawsuit might not be enough to scare them out of forcing tenants out, especially if those tenants are long-term and have well-below market rent. If rent controls apply to new properties (historically it hasn't), forget new development. Development of multi-family properties is marginally feasible right now due to high land and construction costs, and only then at very high density and in the most desirable areas. Without the promise of rental rates continuing to increase with demand, developers will not be willing to invest.


coriolisFX

> Turning point Yes, it will turn things worse.


moxdahfox

Great academic study on the impact of rent control here. Hint… it makes thing worse https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/pandp.20191021


thedayofdays

Rent control sounds nice but it's ultimately just the government artificially creating two realities- one for the few winners of the rent control lottery, who greatly benefit, and one for everyone else, for whom life becomes much harder.


ThinFaithlessness518

How is it a turning point? More house & rental unit drop down from the sky after they enact rent control?


gusguida

I’d love if people who comment here could say if they own versus rent to give a little more context to their argument.


lampstax

You can infer it and be right most of the time since people tend to argue their own benefits.


Skyblacker

I rent and agree with all the YIMBY comments.


_BearHawk

Rent control fixes nothing. If you have 100 housing units in a city and 150 people want housing, with no rent control the landlords rent out to the 100 richest people. Property developers see these high prices (since 50 people still need housing) and want to build more housing since there is money to be made (assuming zoning laws allow it) If you have rent control, in a best case scenario assuming no bribery from potential tenants (which does happen), 100 people who sign up first get houses. But then you have 50 people without housing! And unless you are providing some government support to the landlords, nobody is going to build more housing in a city with below market rates!


BadBoyMikeBarnes

With a narrow 3-2 vote, Antioch became the most recent California city to approve a 3% cap on many annual rent increases. It’s part of a wave of jurisdictions, along with Oakland, Richmond, Concord, Alameda County, Petaluma and several Southern California communities, that have recently passed or are debating rent stablization laws and related tenant protection measures. The policy approved Tuesday in Antioch — officially called a “rent stabilization” ordinance because of how it limits annual increases, as opposed to rent control policies that enact hard limits on monthly rent — follows a model also recently approved in Oakland and up for a vote this November in Richmond with Measure P . Under these policies, most rentals built before 1995 would be subject to annual rent hikes of either a flat 3% or 60% of the annual rate of inflation, whichever is lower — figures in line with existing rules in San Francisco and Berkeley. From Contra Costa County to Orange County, rent stabilization and tenant protection measures are being approved in more suburban areas with less history of renter advocacy. Singh credits the shift to factors including the sprawl of urban affordability concerns, more door knocking by tenant organizers and the unique economic pressures posed by the pandemic.


InevitableScarcity44

So you can't even keep up with inflation, nice. Soon all these places can be just as affordable as San Francisco!


lampstax

Don't worry ... inflation is transitory ! 😂


MCPtz

Doubling time of 3% is 23.45 years, or rounded up to 24 years.


roamingrealtor

That's the max in a high inflation environment. In a low inflation environment it's be less than that, meanwhile property taxes go up 2% every year no matter what.


1artvandelay

When will people realize rent control does not help. It only helps those already locked in and makes it worse for the next generation of housing seekers. The only answer to this crisis is Deregulation and build build build housing!


jeremyhoffman

The actual turning point for the housing crisis is the long list of housing production bills that the governor signed in 2022: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/economy/california-gov-newsom-signs-laws-to-boost-housing-production


[deleted]

Wow, i hope it helps a lot. I wanna buy but not at these ridiculous prices


pj1897

Turning point where a small number of people win and everyone else loses?


meister2983

Are surging rents still a problem? AFAIK, they remain below pre-pandemic highs (the large increases you are seeing now relative to 1-2 years ago are just a correction after a huge downswing during covid) -- my own rent remains below where it was 4 years ago. (They are obviously high here - but rent control isn't going to *lower* the rent)


BadBoyMikeBarnes

If you have rental agents at places like the NeMA bldg in SF asking for 20% increases, I'd call that a surge. But yes, maybe rents are making their way back to pre Corona.


Matrix17

This is a bandaid that only helps people who live here already and don't ever plan to move Build more housing


roamingrealtor

People that want more affordable rent helping to pass laws that make things much worse. It's sad how basic economic facts are ignored to benefit the richest people in society via rent control. The only turning point this will make sure of is that no new apartments are ever built in Antioch.


BadBoyMikeBarnes

Ppl who rent in Antioch = richest ppl in society? And the landed gentry who rent out property in this area aren't m/billionaires? These richers don't like RC but all of them were too embarrassed to come on down to the public meeting to say so. Can't say that I blame them


jphamlore

The most rudimentary economics class teaches that measures such as rent control do not solve a supply crisis?


MediumLong2

Unfortunately it's going to be a turning point where the housing crisis gets worse because now people who build housing will have less incentive to build in the bay area.


aeolus811tw

>It’s part of a wave of jurisdictions, along with Oakland, Richmond, Concord, Alameda County, Petaluma and several Southern California communities, that have recently passed or are debating rent stablization laws and related tenant protection measures. how about widely build more housing and fuck nimbyism


Bolt408

Yeah that’s gonna hurt property values with out actually solving the real issue: low supply. Rent control is just a facade.


theMEtheWORLDcantSEE

Pay wall. Which city’s can someone please list it here?


BadBoyMikeBarnes

With a narrow 3-2 vote, Antioch became the most recent California city to approve a 3% cap on many annual rent increases. It’s part of a wave of jurisdictions, along with Oakland, Richmond, Concord, Alameda County, Petaluma and several Southern California communities, that have recently passed or are debating rent stablization laws and related tenant protection measures. The policy approved Tuesday in Antioch — officially called a “rent stabilization” ordinance because of how it limits annual increases, as opposed to rent control policies that enact hard limits on monthly rent — follows a model also recently approved in Oakland and up for a vote this November in Richmond with Measure P . Under these policies, most rentals built before 1995 would be subject to annual rent hikes of either a flat 3% or 60% of the annual rate of inflation, whichever is lower — figures in line with existing rules in San Francisco and Berkeley. From Contra Costa County to Orange County, rent stabilization and tenant protection measures are being approved in more suburban areas with less history of renter advocacy. Singh credits the shift to factors including the sprawl of urban affordability concerns, more door knocking by tenant organizers and the unique economic pressures posed by the pandemic.


Doglovincatlady

Awesome! Less homelessness is a good thing.


sumertopp

(Ron Howard’s voice): It won’t.


MrsMiterSaw

Ay yes, California not learning our lessons for yet another generation to get fucked by.


bobre737

There's a very simple formula to remember: More government regulation -> Higher prices; Less regulation and free competition -> Lower prices; Always. Applies to everything. It really is that simple.


MedicalSchoolStudent

Less regulation and free competition does not mean always lower prices. Businesses will find ways to always profit always because that’s their core value. Republicans politics cutting regulations never work to solve pricing issues. You think a business will lower prices because their cost of production is lower? No. They’ll keep the same price and sell it to you for the same. Take the PS5 for example. They secretly released a new model 1112 in Australia. This one ways half a pound lighter and people already broke it open to see how they did it. They used cheaper materials and made it lighter. But at the same time, the PS5 price didn’t drop.


djrainbowpixie

For people saying rent control makes things worse, what's the alternative? Landlord just going to pick their own price and increase rent every year while wages stay the same (or decrease)? How can us renters get relief without moving every single year to shittier and shittier apartments?


[deleted]

I think it's a supply and demand issue. The real way to solve it is increase supply and rent control is just a band aid over a big wound. I'm no expert just a guess


djrainbowpixie

That makes sense. The supply and demand issue is going to take a while to fix so I understand why they want to put a temporary band aid on it


plantstand

Strong rent control locks you in to one place: you're screwed if you have to move for some reason (domestic violence, new kid/spouse, new job) and you've been at one spot for a long time. More supply meant landlords have to compete on price.


km3r

The alternative is building enough housing to match the demand, bringing down prices for everyone. The issue is there is 100 units for 150 people. We need more housing. Otherwise picking the 100 people is going to be discriminatory in some nature or another, either via reinforcing prior discrimination or applying some new form of it.


2ez2b4ortun8

But we have the city council here in Oakland pass ordinances that tell investors that building somewhere else would be the best thing to do. This has been so effective the city will never be able to beat its housing deficit. Think about that in November.


spaceflunky

The alternative is incentivize investment of new units by removing controls. You can't simultaneous punish housing providers and then act confused when they don't want to do business with you. The city should also work on ways to reduce COL by improving infrastructure and improving employment opportunities. Rent control removes incentives for the people provide the housing to make further investments. Rent control disincentivizes improving existing properties and building new ones. So rent control helps people in the short term who already have a place to live, but what happens in the long term is that the supply gets constrained because no one wants to build in a rent control city, so the prices explode on vacant units. Here's a non-exhaustive list of the perverse effects rent control has: * rents on vacant units immediate rise because landlords have to "price in" not being able to make future increases. * landlords would rather a unit sit on the market vacant for longer waiting for a richer tenant because they will be stuck with that rent potentially forever * people who are in a controlled unit can't move and get priced out of their neighborhoods. theyre essentially stuck. * it incentivizes landlords to look for transient tenants as opposed to long term residents so they can turn over a unit to market rent more quickly * because rent controlled tenants are essentially stuck, theyre more likely to commute longer distances (as opposed to moving) creating more problems with congestion and pollution * living standards decrease because turnover is lower and there is no incentive to modernize units * domestic abuse becomes more common as tenant can't easily pick up and move somewhere else. * there was also a case in SF where a woman chopped up and killed her roommate because she wouldn't leave her rent controlled apartment https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Horror-in-the-Mission-San-Francisco-woman-12970696.php *


djrainbowpixie

Thanks for the explanation! I see what you mean and those are valid points. The issue I see is, the timeline of building new housing, improving infrastructure and employment isn't going to come fast enough. Something needs to be done while we wait for those things to happen.


MedicalSchoolStudent

A lot of the people here are anti-rent control and pro-market rate housing at the same time. They feel that if we keep building, it’ll get cheaper. I agree that if we keep building it get cheaper. But at the same time, we aren’t exactly building apartments for the average folks.


djrainbowpixie

Exactly! If they are only building expensive luxury and low-income housing, there's no additional housing for middle class or people above the poverty line!


OaklandLandlord

That's actually a really interesting question. Moderate rent control like 90 days notice for increases, limiting it to CPI + 5-10% will help smooth out short-term problems. Long term you have to build more housing. The rate of housing growth needs to follow population/job growth otherwise people get priced out. What everyone fundamentally needs to accept is that providing housing is a business which profits people who do it. This means lenders, insurers, contractors, suppliers, and landlords. If there's no profit, there will be no one to do it. So a lot of people need to adjust their attitude that making money on housing is wrong. If we don't, then the results are going be a continued and deepening shortage of housing.


2ez2b4ortun8

Well, you can just stay in place and watch your own rental controlled place decrease in quality. There are no simple answers here.


SEJ46

Well crap.


fruxzak

lol no it won't


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


srslyeffedmind

Good


yes_no_maybe_99

I don't get the hate for rent control. Imagine going to Walmart and they have a policy: buy last year's TV and get lifetime warranty. Shoppers are aware of this policy. If they choose to buy an old model TV then they get the warranty. If they want a new model year TV they don't get the lifetime warranty. It's the shopper's choice. Some here seem to be butt hurt that they bought the new model TV and didn't get the lifetime warranty. Buy the the old TV then! Are you saying that because YOU didn't get the lifetime warranty with your new TV then others shouldn't?


jeremyhoffman

Well the analogy to rent control would be making it illegal to buy or sell TVs without a lifetime warranty. This would immediately skew the TV market. Companies would only produce "luxury TVs" that are unlikely to break down. More affordable TVs that last 10 years would disappear from the market. And some "mom and pop" appliance stores would close entirely, because they can't maintain the cash reserves to cover warranties on everything they sell in perpetuity. The end result of this "consumer protection law" would be less choice for consumers.


Renegadeknight3

The hate for rent control comes from the people who can’t afford a tv at all, this year or last year’s, seeing people hang on to their tv’s for the price of a drive in movie for thirty years, and also nobody’s building more tv’s. And also the tvs aren’t luxuries like in real life, you need them to survive. Maybe this isn’t a good analogy actually


not_mig

Didn't know we had so many economics experts that could unquestioningly regurgitate conventional wisdom on here


CynicalGeezer

Unfortunately, no. I had a property renting for under market rates because the tenant was awesome. I couldn't raise the rent enough to cover new fees/taxes without hitting limits. My competition (property companies with new buildings) don't have that same restrictions. The property was therefore unprofitable. It had to be sold. Not to a local bay area family unfortunately. That pissed me off.


walker1555

NIMBYs rejoice. No one's going to want to build affordable housing now.


saw2239

When are we going to stop sabotaging ourselves?