Because if it is uneconomical to rent out, there are few units available to rent and the few that are are super expensive. And the property won't be maintained properly. These unintended consequences ultimately hit tenants.

In Paris there is a similar impact of bad regulation. It has become so hard to expel a tenant that has stopped paying that landlords will demand extraordinary guaranties: bank credit lines, guaranties from relatives, sometimes even medical exam, etc and will be super picky. I knew of a foreign investment banker, high salary, not allowed to get in financial dispute because of his profession, who just couldn't find a place to rent in Paris because he couldn't provide some of those.

Because it is hurting the would-be renter group even more?

I personally know two people who are renting rent-controlled apartments in SF and don't live in them. Their lives have moved elsewhere and they don't need the place anymore. One uses it as a weekend getaway and the other one visits rarely.

Thanks to rent control their rent is so cheap that it's worth hanging on to it even though they don't live there.

So these two units are off the rental market effectively forever, sitting empty most of the time.

Because landlords start being unable to afford repairs, and you get a bunch of decrepit buildings falling apart all over the city (with all the dangers that implies, not just to occupants, but to nearby buildings as well). It happened in my home town, and it wasn't pretty.

Landlords are not social security. It's probably better for the city to forcefully buy them out and create a new management model of the buildings than to impose strangling limits on prices.

Rents are growing insanely fast in SF compare to anything else. The idea that landlords can't afford to make repairs because they aren't extracting maximum rent from the property is completely ludicrous on the face of it. Do you actually believe these arguments?

That crosses into personal attack. Please don't do that on HN.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

I know a few landlords and that’s exactly what’s happening. I’m not sure why you find it hard to believe.

When you have a 3 unit building and everyone is paying less than 1/3 the market rate, it’s not worthwhile in the least for a landlord to fix up the building beyond the absolute minimum. Contractor rates have skyrocketed in SF, so even just repainting the building might cost $15k, which might represent several years of profit.

The skyrocketing rates for services are directly tied to the skyrocketing rent increases. The cost of performing these services does not change substantially from city to city, or else landlords renting to people in cities with more reasonably priced units would not be able to repair them. The big difference is the cost of living for the contractors, which gets passed to the people paying for repairs--and by far the largest component of cost of living in SF is rent. Like I said in the other comment, this is a largely self-imposed problem.

Not sure how big an impact that is. There aren't many contractors moving into the area like tech workers. Most of them are locals who have lived here for decades, so either have a rent controlled place or bought a home when prices were more reasonable.

Yup, our three floor building was 40k to repaint and fix a few custom windows (with plastic instead of custom wrapped glass) . Hadn’t been painted in over 20 years though.

You assume the rents are actually going to and staying with the landlords. In reality, landlords also have bills --

big bills (mortgages, property taxes) and bills that move [upwards] dynamically (gas, electricity, water, repairmen).

Property taxes in California are miniscule. Mortgages are only as high as they are because people assume they can extract ridiculous rents from tenants, so this is a self-made problem that should go away with sufficiently stringent rent control. The other bills do not vary significantly enough from city to city to justify the absurd rent differences between them.

So no, I'm not assuming anything of the sort. Beyond that, landlords are extremely notorious for spending much less money on repairs than they should and saddling their tenants with the bills.

Are you talking about all rents, or controlled ones? The post above wrote that rent control rules in SF limit increases to "60% of CPI, so it can’t even match inflation". If that's false, then my post doesn't apply, sure.

Rent is far above its CPI-inflated average right now, so saying that rent increases must match inflation makes no sense. The time to do that would've been long ago. But in any case I'm pretty sure rent increases are capped at much higher than inflation.

One possible scenario is if a landlord purchased property at a price factoring in assuming certain increases in rent, then they’re constrained by the debt payments.

Then they were taking a gamble by purchasing a property they couldn't actually afford, and lost. If you want risk-free investments, try bonds.

Do you think contractor costs and material costs are going down?

Do you think they are going up faster than rents in SF have?

Perhaps... I don't know. Thats why I asked.

No. They haven't.

According to https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/San-Francisco-p..., construction costs in SF rose 5% last year (2018). Also according to the SF chronicle (https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/networth/article/After-...), rents increased 3.7% year over year.

According to https://www.curbed.com/2018/12/17/18144657/construction-home..., San Francisco's high construction cost is mainly driven by the high cost of construction labor. It is disproportionately driven by labor cost when compared to all other cities.

So we have some data now, rather than just pithy statements, and I don't think it agrees with what you want.

Because the result is that small landlords who can't deal with the fixed costs hassles simply sell out and consolidate into larger ones with more clout with politicians to weaken renter rights and legal resources to fight pesky tenants whom they simply don't want, or create shared blacklist databases like has been done in New York. If you're going to gird up for class warfare, realize that tenants are probably going to lose as long as zoning restricts your options

My experience has always been that dealing with a large PMC like IMT or Greystar is far preferable to dealing with some guy who's renting his property out.

Wow, I literally belly laughed.

If a renter can't find a landlord to rent from, then what?

"Why should I care about the woes of water treatment plants as opposed to water drinkers?" Do you want drinkable water, or not?

Because shrinking the number of landlords shrinks the number of units available, raising rents, _hurting renters_.

are these vanishing landlord eating their properties or just throwing them into the sea

That reasoning works on land. (Hence a land value tax can't be passed on to tenants.)

But it doesn't work on the houses on top of the land. Because we can build more or less of them. Or higher.

No. They let population growth take care of that while they decide not to invest in rental properties.

Your flippant argument can be flipped around too. If there is a housing shortage, by what mechanism does rent control conjure new housing units?

who the what now

my point is, vanishing landlord or no, the units remain

>my point is, vanishing landlord or no, the units remain

Still wrong:

1) Apartments get converted to condos, or re-purposed because the property has value, but renting doesn't.

2) The population keeps growing meaning that your same number of units don't meet the needs.

3) Rental supply also drops as people opt not to move and sit on their rent-controlled apartments, limiting the supply for those looking.

This is why rent-control has the effect of making housing worse, even if the rental supply is maintained.

> Still wrong:

ah, ok, they eat them. thanks for clearing that up

You do realize there is a second, third, and even a fourth line (and more) after this first line.

oh yeah, I see them. thanks for clearing that up

No, just leaving them vacant while the value increases.

Cool- next up, a tax on vacant properties. Maybe they will have to sell.

Perhaps the people can again seize the means of production (part of that being stable housing).

I’d far rather know another 100,000 units are owned by the people that live in them than 100 landlords owning and profiteering from those units.

If this “disrupts” the entire rental industry, that’s fine with me. Didn’t bring much value anyway

That’s worked great everywhere it’s been tried!

> I’d far rather know another 100,000 units are owned by the people that live in them than 100 landlords owning and profiteering from those units.

I'd rather have that too! But it's not the result of these patchwork rules. Fix it properly instead.

SF Metro vacancy rate is below the national average for large metro areas.[0]

[0] https://www.sfchronicle.com/realestate/article/An-estimated-...

And if those markets were the same except for the rent control rules, we could conclude that rent control doesn't increase the vacancy rate. But they aren't.

Also it lowers incentive to build new units if renting them out becomes too much of a hassle.

Ok. Then care about the tenants. Do you have one shred of evidence that rent control, broadly, helps tenants? Because every economist I ever heard on this topic, left or right, argues rent control is bad for tenants.

Rent control is good for politicians getting elected. No point in analyzing farther than that.

Unless you have the capital to build your own house or apartment, you need landlords to put up their own capital to do that. It’s not like landlords are just assigned houses for free from the government to then lord over renter peons.

Because landlords supply housing and renters don't.

Why should I care about the woes of you opposed to me? Why should I care about the woes of the poor opposed to the rich?