Hacker News Reader

Comment by pchristensen | Hacker News Reader

Here’s an anti rent control argument I haven’t heard (this applies to stricter rent control regimes like NYC, SF - not sure about this new OR law). Getting a spot in a rent-controlled apartment is a valuable, non-transferable asset. If you buy a house and it gains $100,000 in equity, you can sell it and buy a bigger house, sell it and cash out while getting a smaller house, borrow against it. With a rent-control asset, you can’t do any of those things, so you have fewer options, but if you move, you just forfeit the asset. That’s a big economic drag.

I wonder how many rent-controlled residents in SF/NYC would accept a $100k buyout that would convert the apt to market rate. Has anyone seen a study of the spreads between market/rent-controlled, by city/zip/census tract? I’d love to see that.

View on HN

Your observation also highlights how rent control is institutionalized privilege.

Those who already have a home are given an ownership right to that status, while those without a home are being permanently excluded.

Exclusionary zoning is an even worse form of institutionalized privilege that benefits the wealthy and middle class rather than the poor and middle class.

In a fair system we’d all need to take turns in being homeless and share our homes around.

Maybe, for some definitions of "fair". There are other definitions where that wouldn't be fair at all.

In my fair system, building housing on your own land would be legal.

That's how great cities are made!

I would love to see that data as well, but can’t find any reliable numbers that control for newness/niceness of the apartments. Anecdotally, I pay about $1000 a month less than market rate on the west side of LA due to rent control, which realistically is a big reason I haven’t already left LA entirely. It would take an offer in the $50k range to buy me out. Landlord offers tend to be lower than that [1].

[1] https://www.google.com/amp/s/la.curbed.com/platform/amp/2018...

I'm in a similar position. I was thinking about finding a new smaller place in the west side perhaps one with an in unit laundry or better air-conditioning.

Looking around I've realized that rent control has me paying significantly less than market and that even if I downsized I'd probably end up paying $1000/month extra if I moved. After realizing this I'm unlikely to move until/unless I decide to leave LA.

I'm happy I'm getting a good deal but it doesn't feel very efficient for the housing market over all.

> I wonder how many rent-controlled residents in SF/NYC would accept a $100k buyout that would convert the apt to market rate.

NYC has a possibility for something like this, but only in the context of condo conversion. Although there's always stories floating around about people that didn't take it and are living for $250/mo in some fancy condo building my sense is that generally an arrangement is reached.

Great idea, I second that! Could there be a special marketplace for rent controlled places? Could allow people to swap with each other and/or use public servant status as a credit, to help teachers, firefighters, etc get living in very pricy districts.

If you want to help public servants, pay them more, don't give them special privileges.

Special privileges are anathema to equality under the law. When applied to government employees, it can start to get very bad quickly.

This article does a good job explaining the problems with that approach - https://pedestrianobservations.com/2019/06/22/teacher-housin...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com