Hacker News Reader

Comment by baby | Hacker News Reader

I guess it shows how out of touch you guys are. When I moved here EVERYONE told me to find a rent controlled place. After hearing some horror stories I think you would be crazy to live in a non-rent controlled place.

Heck, I’ve never heard of non-rent control before moving to the US. No surprise there’s so many homeless people.

PS: look at what your free market did to the US healthcare.

View on HN

Of course everyone told you to get a rent controlled place. The government is mandating your landlord gives you money, so why not take it?

The point still stands that rent control is a terrible way to keep rent down, it causes a ton of problems.

Gives me money? What?

So arbitrary rent is a much better way to keep rent down? Come on...

Arbitrary rent? No, the market rate.

And yes, if you’re living in a rent controlled place and paying $1000 per month when the same place is going for $3000, it’s virtually a cash transfer from the landlord to you every month.

That’s why you hear about massive ($100k+) buyouts in SF.

This is wrong. Because the landlords are still making money. If they were renting at a cost they would have sold their places a long time ago.

No, if they stopped making money they would convert to owner occupied as imputed rents are not controlled. Which is what happened.

I know several landlords who are net negative on their rent. Why did they buy? For the expected appreciation.

And that’s why housing shouldn’t be an investment

It's only fair to pay market rate rent as a tenant if the landlord pays market rate property taxes. Why should the state subsidies the landlord and not the tenant?

It's mind blowing how landlords forget that the reason the vast majority of them can afford to be a landlord is because they don't pay market rate property taxes.

I think that’s a bit hyperbolic, land lords are not paying tenants even if they are operating at a 33% deficit.

These laws are not reducing rent, only slowing the increase yr/yr

Rent controlled places are great for the person living there. But, they’re bad for the supply of housing, which compounds the need for rent controls in the first place.

I live in a city where there are more residential properties than families. Prices are a tiny fraction of what y’all on the coasts cite. Apartments under $1000/month in trendy neighborhoods is common here. I’ve rented small apartments here for $500/month.

Rent controls may slow price increases, but encouraging supply decreases price. You can’t fix the problem until you treat the root cause rather than the symptom.

The US healthcare system is not a free market. In many parts of the country building a new hospital requires government permission. Pharmaceutical drug companies are allowed to set prices at higher prices here than the rest of the world and block imports. Most customers get their healthcare from their employers (due to tax law), so they do not shop around for the best price. Doctors are heavily regulated and it is very difficult for qualified foreign doctors to immigrate to the US.

Do you really think healthcare in the US is a free market?

If you do, you couldn't be more wrong. Healthcare is the most regulated, least free market in the US.

> No surprise there’s so many homeless people.

Pretty sure rent controls would have no effect on the amount of substance abuse and mental illness that plagues so many homeless.

Yeah sure. Let’s blame it on the drugs and the mental health it’s easier right?

When every scholarly piece of research cites those as reasons for homelessness (along with the price of housing), then yes, it's easy to repeat what the experts have already said.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com