Comment by simoncion | Hacker News Reader

Comment by simoncion | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> ...rent control seems like part of the problem to me, in the sense that it hides the true extent of market distortions from many people living in the area...

musesum mentions:

> Am lucky to have rent control. Right now, if I move away, I wouldn't be able to afford moving back.

Everyone I speak to in my building [0] is very aware of the current ludicrously high rents in the city and how it limits their ability to keep a slumlord in line. I can't imagine the situation is substantially different in any other rent-controlled building in the city.

Also, be aware that SF's rent-control is more correctly termed rent-stabilization. Vacated units can have their rent set to any rate. Stabilization only kicks in once that unit is occupied.

> ...while incentivizing weird and unethical behavior to circumvent it by developers who could probably be nudged...

I honestly don't know what you're talking about here. Were you aware that rent control in SF doesn't apply to new construction [1]; only to housing built or occupied before June 13, 1979? [2]

If you were aware of that, would you be so kind as to tell me what you are referring to? :)

[0] Including the old lady who is afflicted with alzheimer's.

[1] Unless -as happened with Sangiacomo's Trinity Place on Market street- a special arrangement is reached to destroy existing rent-controlled units, but have a 1:1 replacement in the new construction.

[2] https://www.sftu.org/rentcontrol/#Rent_Control_Coverage

Wow, I didn't realize there was a 1979 cutoff. Glad to know there's a perk to this oven/icebox victorian.

> Wow, I didn't realize there was a 1979 cutoff.

Frankly, it seems that that most folks who speak in public forums (landlords and developers included) don't understand this. It drives me batshit. (No offence intended. :) )

> Glad to know there's a perk to this oven/icebox victorian.

From what I've seen and heard about those things, I bet it's just about the only perk, eh? :(

Other perks include plunger-assisted-plumbing and laser-guided-kitties.

One of those two perks sounds immensely adorable! =)

About %70-%80 of the buildings in SF were made before 1979 also. So it's not a very useful metric. Go see whats for sale, most of it was built before 1979. Then go see stories about people trying to build a SFH on a empty lot and being block by neighborhood bullshit for over a decade.

> ...go see stories about people trying to build a SFH on a empty lot and being block by neighborhood bullshit...

True. AIUI, it has been incredibly difficult to get anything new built in the city for a wide variety of reasons for a very long time.

However, I bring up the limits of rent stabilization because I often see people saying:

"More people would build in San Francisco if it wasn't for that damned Rent Control in the city."

or

"Rent Control is why noone builds in San Francisco."

It turns out that -not infrequently-, many of these folks don't understand that rent stabilization doesn't cover new construction. [0]

I hope that once one discovers that rent stabilization doesn't prevent a developer from building a new building full of 1000sf (or smaller!) units that -currently- rent for ~3k/month, and can be adjusted to "market rate" at any time the lease between the landlord and tenant permits, one starts digging around to discover more about the especially fucked up process of getting new construction approved in this town.

[0] Except when specially negotiated, as mentioned in my previous comment.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com