Weakening them in 1974 if anything seemed to restrict supply.
SF has comically low density housing that is driven by homeowners lobbying to restrict development.
The difference between SF and Seattle is probably property taxes (higher in Seattle). It discourages land from being hoarded and used unproductively.
Then when rent controlled unit can be redeveloped, there's a desire to allocate various percentages to different income levels. This means that some units have less income for the same cost so it's hard to balance meaning fewer projects get off the ground.
Now there's even further issues about development as a right vs requiring a use permit...
So, there's a lot of contributors, but the political impact of the politics of rent control is significant.
[0] https://www.berkeleyside.org/2021/07/28/uc-berkeley-settleme...
and yet to keep up with demand we would've needed to more than 3x what we did, though from what I understand, the infrastructure to build more high density housing even faster just doesn't exist. Seattle was literally building housing as fast as it is possible for a US city to build housing.
If true that, in my opinion, points to a more significant problem in America.
Assuming a family of 4 would live there instead, she's effectively removing 3 people from the city. That can force other old women to move out of nearby homes that aren't rent controlled (since prices become higher than they'd be if more people could fit in existing housing), or it could prevent people from moving in. But either way, less people can live there. The policy isn't without harm.
> I can imagine. She could get priced out of the city entirely I suppose.
kind of an unlikely worst case. There's a gradient of prices as you move further from the city center, and this particular hypothetical woman is moving to a much smaller unit. I haven't heard of a city where the average market price unit was 10x the rent controlled price. It's probably 2x-3x at worst for an equivalent unit.
I think is overrated concern in general. Most popular cities aren't underdeveloped. Rather the problem is concentration of resource. Having less optimized areas are actually a good things as that means more areas are equivalent. Which is really what supply is in housing markets. It's when every one too young, old or poor have to move you get problems because now all the attractive things are in the same area. Which means the demand will be very high.
Also this is happening in the housing market in general but apparently it isn't a problem when it's wealthy people retiring in their forties because of the housing market itself.
> There's a gradient of prices as you move further from the city center, and this particular hypothetical woman is moving to a much smaller unit.
That is mostly true if you are moving voluntarily. Because if you couldn't find something beneficial you wouldn't move in the first place. It isn't as true when you are being forced to move. Often it isn't even about what you are moving to but what you are moving from. Once you can't live close to your family, acquaintances or familiar establishment it doesn't matter as much.
It's sort of curious how so many seem to agree that we are "losing our values" in society (or whatever) but then base everything on assets. If we want people to be able to live close to their grandchildren, know their friends from growing up, involve themselves in organization or otherwise make social connections it isn't going to be free.
> More bread baking. Higher bread taxes. Limit bread prices while the effects of all these magical new baking companies flocking to lower prices and higher taxes kick in.
Also, some will get cheap subsidised bread allotments, others won't get anything. And if you get an allotment of bread to feed 3 people but it's only you, there's no mechanism that redistributes the excess to those who need it most, despite massive scarcity.
And if you get a certain type of bread you like at a certain age, but your preferences change and it becomes bland, there's no mechanism for others who love your type of bread, to be incentivised to exchange your types.
e.g. my dad, who is in a rent-controlled apartment with 3 bedrooms in the capital city and has no mechanism or incentive to move out, despite not using the space, not wanting the space, and not wanting to live in such an in-demand area necessarily. Oh wait, I meant bread.
Rent control has 2nd order effects that can do a lot of harm. If rent-control was mixed with market based incentives and a limited time to the right to an apartment, it wouldn't be as bad. I'm not against rent-control per se, but as with all things, it must be balanced. Just adding more of it isn't a solution. And balancing existing rent-control rules with reasonable additional (market) incentives, would help.
For example, if cities allow an individual to live in a rent-controlled unit for 8 years, after which they must leave, that's better. The unit can then go to someone else, also rent-controlled. Instead, some people get a lifetime right, and others a lifetime waiting list. That's a fundamentally unfair use of public funds. It's not perfect (leaving a home has a chance of making it harder to stay connected to a local labour/social circle), but two people having each 8 years is clearly preferable to one having 16 and the other nothing.
Another example is if (such as in Germany I believe, if anyone can link an English source that'd be great) you have a system where your rent is controlled based on usage. e.g. suppose market rent is 1500 for a 3 bedroom, rent controlled it's 750 for a family of 3. The moment you live there alone it's no longer 750, but instead say 1000. That creates natural incentives to only renting a place that is necessary to fit your lifestyle. My dad for example would exchange his place with someone who lives with a family of 3 in a 1 or 2 bedroom home, because of this.
https://www.guernicamag.com/the-rise-and-fall-of-public-hous...
Edit: I guess you mean taxes on land, not the houses. But even then, would this not encourage to build high-yield luxury condos instead of high-density cheap space?
Yet the strictest rent controls went hand in hand with the fastest homebuilding spree in 1950s NYC.
It clearly didnt discourage that much. Maybe it didnt discourage it at all?
Or maybe it does a bit but is eclipsed by the effect of, say, NIMBY landlords inhibiting development, hellbent on staying above water on their eyewatering SF mortgage.
>Rent control can decrease efficiency of living situations. You can imagine an old woman living alone in a 3 bedroom unit with rent control because it would be more expensive for her to move to a smaller unit.
I can imagine. She could get priced out of the city entirely I suppose.
It seems to me that if the market rate is intent on 10x'ing her rent maybe it's the market that should be forced to adjust first, not her.
More home building. Higher property taxes. Rent control while the effects kick in.