In California for example, due to state-wide rent control, it's very dangerous for a landlord to lower rents. I would rather offer 6 months free rent than lock into permanent nonadjustable lower rent situation.
No one wants to live in Social housing projects in the U.K. and for a good reason they are all rubbish, the U.K. has had some of the worst designed and built social blocks in the world many of them were demolished within 1-2 decades.
Stuffing poor people into high density housing is a horrible idea every study shows that spreading them out is not only cheaper but also much more beneficial to them.
1. Not all social housing is high rise or high density. Look outside of the cities for example - new towns. Lessons can be learned this time.
2. Much of the social housing was sold off in the 80's I think, the trick is to keep government ownership of it, not sell it for a pittance and let private landlords profit from price increases.
Concentrating poor and vulnerable people isn't a good strategy they do better when they are surrounded by the better off, having 2 low income families on a street would produce a much better outcome and shoving 200 of them.
Social housing in the UK is complex, at some point nearly 80% of the people lived in social housing, it wasn't for low income families but rather for nearly anyone but the most affluent which often held titles and on the other spectrum the most remote and rural communities.
Social housing was seen as a means to bring workers into the cities during the industrialization of the UK.
Today despite the fact that anyone is still eligible outside of political corruption which ironically nearly exclusively plagues Labour councillors, MP's and party officials which somehow jump to the front of the queue despite earning well above the mean council housing is seen as a solution for the working poor.
Councils already offer rent assistance, have council properties which are used to temporary house vulnerable people, building more of those won't help just look what happens when you have council flats in new build projects, drugs, anti social behaviour and damage to properties simply due to the high concentration of these individuals.
So while having 20-30% social flats in a new build project might seem like a good idea the only thing that it causes is a huge backlash from the regular tenants due to this behaviour and nearly always they end up winning.
0/10 would not use AirBNB again. Sleep on a friend's couch or floor, or shell out the money for a hotel. Or use a hostel if money is tight.
I'd be in more favor of rent control if it would also freeze property taxes, electrician bills, utility costs. It is turtles all the day down.
But again: the reason rent control is passed is because enough people with significant political leverage were hurting. We need to be able to show them a better alternative if we don't want the pain of rent control's (un?)intended consequences to linger.
Utilities across the US also have regulated rates.
Let me guess, you have huge problem with the homeless situation, but are unwilling to consider lowering rents? Is that right?
"In determining the lowest gross rental amount pursuant to this section, any rent discounts, incentives, concessions, or credits offered by the owner of such unit of residential real property and accepted by the tenant shall be excluded."
So if your rent is $3k/month, and the landlord gives you 3 months rent-free, your rent according to AB 1482 is still $3k.
It's certainly not the people moving in from outside the area who want to rent for affordable rates.
Landlords are part of the NIMBY problem, but not the only part.
You are saying that "the supply line isn't to blame for the demand line" when the problem is where they intersect.
I realize Im oversimplifying the supply constraints because landlords aren't all of the NIMBY problem.
No times been better than post-covid for a desire to branch SV outward. My two cents would be looking at how to employ the people outside SV. Like is it noise about quality of their education or abilities? Not being able to interact with them locally?
I had this thought recently to make a programming “agency”. How to structure an organization that actually works on a programming task comparably to how a 1-3 person team would, but regardless of program complexity. Wonder if this and hiring people to WFH are compatible.
The core problem is Prop 13, not that Prop 13 doesn't exclude for-profit properties. There are a ton of property/owner classes that should absolutely not get the Prop 13 discount. Malcolm Gladwell did an episode on why golf courses (specifically member-owned courses) in California are massive misallocations due to Prop 13.