Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

The argument (or lack thereof) that the author is making is hardly based on sound economic analysis. This "thought experiment" ignores a few fundamental facets of SF's rent control ordinance. As a "second-generation" rent control ordinance, the economics surrounding the issue are less clear-cut.

For starters, the story doesn't account for the fact that new housing may be built without being rent-controlled. This allows new housing stock to be built without regard to whether it will be rented under rent-control.

Secondly, SF doesn't have a "rent control" ordinance per se. It has a rent stabilization ordinance. Landlords can indeed increase a tenant's rent, but there are restrictions on how much they can raise a tenant's rent. It's based on the Consumer Price Index (though I don't think this is a good choice of index to peg rental rates to).

What it basically boils down to is less about economics and more about social mobility. Between rent control and prop 13, the Bay Area is set up for social stability. It is intended to encourage people to stay where they are. Us techies, mostly being from elsewhere in the world, are more inclined to push for more mobility.



Aren't SF residents actively fighting the building of new apartment complexes to "preserve the skyline"?


Generally, yes. Sometimes the goal is to stop the new construction to preserve the character of the neighborhood. Sometimes it's to preserve "historic" (read: old and I like it) buildings. Sometimes it's to demand that the new complex be entirely below-market-rate housing.

Opposition is pretty much guaranteed, though.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: