Rent Control Needs Retirement, Not a Comeback

Re:Rent Control Needs Retirement, Not a Comeback by Thriptic on Friday February 09, 2018 @09:40AM (#16340445)

That's a perfectly fair stance to take, but then people will simply have to accept that rents will be sky high in cities like SF in perpetuity. The high prices are fundamentally a supply issue; build enough housing and prices will inevitably fall.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Rent Control Needs Retirement, Not a Comeback by Retric on Friday February 09, 2018 @09:44AM (#16340473)

That's also likely real opposition, people with inflated assets want them to stay inflated.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Rent Control Needs Retirement, Not a Comeback by MarkMc on Friday February 09, 2018 @12:01PM (#16341834)

In don't understand this. If you can get permission to knock down a two-storey house and build a six-storey apartment block, doesn't that increase the value of your house?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Rent Control Needs Retirement, Not a Comeback by kaybe on Friday February 09, 2018 @12:08PM (#16341895)

Not if your house is the one next to it.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Rent Control Needs Retirement, Not a Comeback by MarkMc on Friday February 09, 2018 @12:50PM (#16342260)

Why not? If my neighbor gets planning permission to do something, doesn't that increase the chance that I might also get such permission in future? If so, doesn't that increase the value of my house?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Rent Control Needs Retirement, Not a Comeback by Retric on Friday February 09, 2018 @01:13PM (#16342483)

Only 1/N homes would be converted to apartment complexes. If 1/N * (gain for selling home to build apartments) < (average loss in home values) it's a net loss for the community.

So, the real question is how much home density are you are adding. Further, density can get vastly higher as people would be adding 20 story buildings not just smaller apartments which means most homes would not be converted.

[ Parent | on HN ]