Hacker News Reader

Comment by bluegatty | Hacker News Reader

The problems that rent control creates are far smaller than the problems that exist without it.

To start - your 'very first example' is not even really 'a problem'.

'Without rent control' - you get kicked out of your abode every few years if your salary doesn't keep up with housing inflation. With rent control, you have the option of 'having a home; you decide when you want to leave (for the most part).

The answer to the 'second example', 'adversarial tenant/landlord' is that the theory doesn't line up with reality for the most part. Again - in most rent controlled areas this kind of stuff does not happen, especially if it's entrenched in the culture. It works well in a ton of housing markets like Quebec, Germany.

The primary concern about rent control limiting expansion ... just does not exist. It doesn't really impede new builds.

View on HN

> 'adversarial tenant/landlord' is that the theory doesn't line up with reality

So disconnected from reality that it beggars belief.

Anytime you put two or more adult people into a relationship together and at least one person feels like they do not have the option to leave if things get bad (e.g. landlord feels like the tenant is wrecking the property but has no right to evict, tenant feels like landlord is not taking care of maintenance but feels pressured to stay due to artificially low rent), the result is toxic suffering.

Why is right to evict tied to rent control? Seems irrelevant

"Pressure to stay" can certainly be alleviated, rent control all properties. Half measures do not necessarily solve half the problem.

Rent control is literally the removal of the right to evict a tenant who refuses the otherwise-uncontrolled rent increase you request. The inability to evict them for refusing the rent increase is what de-facto keeps the rent from increasing beyond its controlled limit.

Oh, I get that, but what's stopping the landlord from evicting someone who damages their property? Or if the landlord no longer wants to rent and wants to live in it themselves?

> To start - your 'very first example' is not even really 'a problem'.

Yes, it is. Anywhere with significant and strong rent control results in a large number of people who simply cannot move. Look, rent control is better than no rent control but it address the symptom not the problem. The real problem is that rents shouldn't significantly outpace inflation. In a better world, you should be able to easily move because you're not locked in to a below-market rent that you don't want to lose. And rents get more expensive because a whole bunch of people make sure that housing is an appreciating asset. It should be a depreciating asset.

> The answer to the 'second example', 'adversarial tenant/landlord' is that the theory doesn't line up with reality for the most part. Again - in most rent controlled areas this kind of stuff does not happen

You will not find in any American city, especially one with rent control, where tenants do not absolutely hate their landlords as the general rule. What are you smoking?

"Anywhere with significant and strong rent control results in a large number of people who simply cannot move."

Having the choice when to move if the far, far more ideal scenario - there is not even a discussion.

This is not Apples to Oranges, it's Apple to Bag of Apples.

Rent Control gives people the option to stay, yes, with the realization that it may be more costly to move later.

So 'no rent control' is a horrible situation, with rent control it's a workable situation.

"l not find in any American city, especially one with rent control, where tenants do not absolutely hate their landlords as the general rule. What are you smoking?"

That is a function of garbage culture and total social break down - not rent control.

I live in an area where everything is rent controlled in entire region - and we dont have that.

This is tantamount to the "We need guns everywhere to stay safe!" argument so many people make because they can't wrap their heads around a community of people that just don't act crazy and violent.

>'Without rent control' - you get kicked out of your abode every few years if your salary doesn't keep up with housing inflation. With rent control, you have the option of 'having a home; you decide when you want to leave (for the most part).

But your renting, you don't own your home, why are you entitled to live there forever paying a below market rate? Maintenance has costs too, eventually if you live there long enough the property owner can even be losing money on your share of the building upkeep (paid by other people's higher rents). And yes the government _should_ let you increase rent in that instance, but then you're relying on your local government, which can dramatically change decade to decade as the political landscape changes.

The quickest Google revealed rents have gone up 71% since 2019 in Quebec [1], so I'm not sure if it's the poster child for rent control. I will say that at least makes them seam reasonable to accepting increases.

[1] https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-rent-registry...

> 'Without rent control' - you get kicked out of your abode every few years if your salary doesn't keep up with housing inflation.

Nope, you don't. You just do your best to foresee that outcome in advance before renting and pick a house you can afford. And if rents start to move against you, you plan to move out well in advance of getting "kicked out" by unaffordable prices. But that's actually easier than the status quo since no rent control means (1) lower rents overall for the same quality housing! and (2) everyone gets a home for the right price, there is no hidden privilege or lottery aspect to it. Of course it should be paired with higher property taxes or LVT so the rent itself isn't just value-capture by landlords, but that's politically doable. Just a matter of not picking the wrong political fight.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com