Choosing a subclass of people to scapegoat doesn't solve a structural problem.
It's also useful to think about who is doing things to make things better or worse. Moving in makes things worse, moving away makes things better. Building more housing helps, removing housing makes things worse.
So far that seems to make sense, but here's the counterintuitive part: in any given year, choosing not to move away is as bad as moving in. You're taking up space someone else could use.
(But normally we don't beat ourselves up too much for taking up space.)
But no place does that. They actively encourage new growth, just not new housing, which has the effect of systematically displacing lower income people, and eventually the middle class too. Long term it ends up hurting the original people it was supposed to benefit - ie. all the Californians crying about how their kids can’t stay in state when it’s the discriminatory policies they supported that created that situation.
> If you don’t want anyone to move to an area raise taxes and stop allowing new business etc. - ie, actually discourage new growth.
Personal responsibility is still a thing. If someone can't afford to live in some area, or they don't like what they're getting out of it in terms of wages or expenses, they shouldn't move there.
> They actively encourage new growth, just not new housing
If people continue to move there, they are signaling they are OK with low wages or high expenses or any other drawbacks associated with that choice. If they are not OK with those things, they shouldn't move there.
I, for one, would like to raise the bar a bit and give more people actually good options.
Anyone who suggests that a "best option" that involves commuting 3 hours every day is actually a good option is not someone I want in charge of public policy.
I have seen a lot of people in my area assert that my political will should be subordinate to theirs because I came from somewhere else. Last place I lived, the notion that a particular demographic I fall into should be kept out of the general housing market when possible due to pricing others out was not just a fringe idea but part of several (ultimately successful) city council candidates' platforms. Perhaps people in your area are less nutty about outsiders.
If someone can't afford to live in some area…
Yes, those who can't afford the rent can live elsewhere, so rent control is not needed.
https://www.sfgate.com/expensive-san-francisco/article/peter...
This is an opinion and not fact - it's how it looks from your perspective. The line between what is a smart investment and unfair feudalism is pretty gray, and I am betting people decide how to frame the situation based on how it personally affects them. That is, I am betting everyone is acting in a self-serving manner.
> Not what's good for the SF boomer wanting to sell his shack for 2M and retire in Florida.
This statement comes off as ageist. Why is it wrong for the SF boomer to want to make a gain off their investment and retire elsewhere? This is a core mechanism of every modern society.
> A couple of billionaires in Atherton should have no say on Caltrain improvements that could benefit millions of working people at the expense of a couple of trees in their backyards.
You are cherry-picking. It isn't just a "couple of billionaires in Atherton". But even if it were, why can't they choose to defend their quality of life? Why does everyone have to live in the bay area? This all comes off as people feeling entitled to live in a highly-desirable region, but on terms that suit them.
It's not just people moving into an area, it's moving within an area.
Rent control creates an market where existing renters are inhibited from moving even into the building next to their current residence. It prevents free movement in/out and within the market.
This also makes it so landlords want to evict/churn renters as much as possible, so they are incentivized to become slum lords. Landords invest as little as possible into the property because as soon as a renter moves in, that renter is never going to leave and the landlord sees diminishing returns over time.
But let me note that this must be done only for long-term residents (that is, those who have been there for years). For example, if someone moved to SF within the last 5 years, they should have known what the price of living there is. This is one of the most desirable cities, and it makes sense that it would be expensive and that not everyone would get to live there. Those moving there in recent years therefore, simply made an irresponsible personal choice and must yield to the consequences, rather than being subsidized at others' expense.
It's not super unreasonable for a city to try to protect its current residents but when an entire country of cities are all protecting their own residents that country is much worse off.
Just to be clear, "move to an area" includes "move out of their parents' house and live on their own".
> because it serves existing constituents above new ones
Because the "new ones" are the kids of the "existing ones", in many cases, if not most. As in, they are also existing constituents.
Do you have a source for this? Personally I don't buy it.
But just for a second, let's assume that's the case. Would you be OK with limiting rent subsidies to just those who either have provably been residents for multiple years (let's say 5+ years) or have long-time roots (e.g. family)? I don't think any city owes expansion and housing supply and a re-architecture to accommodate just anyone who wants to move there.
Non-anecdotal? Not at the moment, sorry. I'd have to go dig. But anecdotally, most of the people I hear complaining about rents (not in SV, various places on the East Coast) are complaining about it being impossible to stay near aging relatives.
> Would you be OK with limiting rent subsidies to just those who either have provably been residents for multiple years (let's say 5+ years) or have long-time roots (e.g. family)?
I personally? It really depends on the form the "rent subsidies" take and how they're financed. I do think that thinking of "build more housing if there's more demand" as a "rent subsidy" is a bit odd, if that's the sort of thing we're talking about here.
> I don't think any city owes expansion and housing supply and a re-architecture to accommodate just anyone who wants to move there.
Now we're talking about the moral and ethical dimension of things, right? Opinions on this differ widely; I personally do not have strong opinions that would apply in a blanket way, and would prefer to analyze specific cases (i.e. specific cities) on a case-by-case basis.
Because walling off cities has awful consequences for national GDP
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/06/opinion/housing-regulatio...
But it's also a bit hypocritical to encourage and incentivize building tons of new office space, and then be surprised when the people who are to fill that office space would like to live within a reasonable commute distance of that office, and then deny them that opportunity, because "it will change the character of the neighborhood", or, "it will reduce my home value".
Whilst unlimited population growth is impossible, stagnant communities and regions tend to slide into decline. Those regions most amenable to and rewarding of new activity tend to grow.
California occupied this position, globally, for much of the period from ~1930 - 2000, and particularly from ~1950-1975 or so. It does so far less now, with housing costs being a major factor.
Also consider existing renters who need to move, or people who become renting-age.
I will need to move out of the city if I lose my place. I'm paying $1000 below market value.
Here's a better alternative to rent control. Instead of rent control on a per-unit basis, cities could provide subsidies to long-term low-income residents that reduce their personal expenditure on rent. The subsidies would be paid for through taxes, thus amortizing the subsidy across the local tax base instead of impacting an individual landlord or unit.
But let me note that this must be done only for long-term residents (that is, those who have been there for years). For example, if someone moved to SF within the last 5 years, they should have known what the price of living there is. This is one of the most desirable cities, and it makes sense that it would be expensive and that not everyone would get to live there. Those moving there in recent years therefore, simply made an irresponsible personal choice and must yield to the consequences, rather than being subsidized at others' expense.
Yes, and they would still be available. If wages/living conditions are not good enough for them and they move away, there would be an under-supply of their labor which would cause their wages to rise, which would self-correct the problem.
Right now, those same people are willing to work for less. This is a personal choice they are making. And I don't think it obligates lower residents to provide lower-cost housing or greater housing supply.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/los-angeles-hidden-homeless-pri...
They're going to move there anyway. Making it more difficult and expensive won't stop them, as the example of SF shows. Accomodating them, then, is about mitigating the negative effects of immigration on residents and welcoming your new neighbors.
I don't think this is going to be true in the longer-term, and clearly SF has an exodus underway (https://www.sfgate.com/expensive-san-francisco/article/Bay-A...). People will (are?) realize that the benefits of SF are not worth the tradeoffs (if their circumstances are such that they can't make it there), and move elsewhere. They might (should?) make their way to many of the inexpensive cities away from the coasts that are more affordable, and the new residents moving into those cities will help make them vibrant cities.
At some point, the incumbent residents of SF or other communities may change their policies if what they desire is different. Or not.
But I don't think there is any lack of housing supply or jobs in the middle of the US. What is lacking is the exact housing people want, at the exact price point people desire, at the exact locations they want to live in, in the line of work they want to be in. Demanding such an exceptional situation is highly unreasonable. Making tradeoffs/compromises is a part of life, and no one is entitled to have the best on every dimension by default - that has to be earned.
You're right! SF has an exodus underway among certain groups. It may be possible that this might be distinct from an overall exodus and resulting shrinking population, however.
Is it possible that your perspective, while completely valid in every possible way, may not be as widely shared as you could hope for?
But I guess they just don't care. "I got mine; fuck you" seems to be an attitude prevalent around here.