I Have Read Prop F

Re:I Have Read Prop F by smsm42 on Saturday September 26, 2015 @02:51AM (#10282371)

In-laws and regular rental apartments are quite different things, so if they hope that this would make a difference in the market I think they would be disappointed. If somebody has unused space that is not being rented or occupied already then converting it to a rentable unit would be a considerable expense, especially if one has to be ADA-compliant, etc. I doubt that a lot of people would go to that expense only to rent out the units well under market prices (otherwise, there's no point in rent-controlling them).

> idea being the new in-laws are hoped to contribute to regular (mostly rent-controlled I believe)

No, the idea is to increase specifically rent-controlled stock, with the preference of no new rental space at all over new rental space that is not rent-controlled. At least this is how it looks from the proposals.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:I Have Read Prop F by gkop on Saturday September 26, 2015 @03:03AM (#10282394)

I'm not sure what you are trying to say. I don't support rent control either, but I suspect there is still money to be made building rent control in-laws in these boom times - and perhaps even more money to be made putting in-laws on Airbnb. Also re: ADA the point that the new in-laws are generally on the ground floor seems to me a plausible reason why ADA-compliance may be easier than otherwise.

I agree that's how it looks from proposals, I think you have articulated the politics in a helpful way.

[ Parent | on HN ]