Greedy tenant still wouldn’t take it…Why is there are protected class of tenants?.. The rest of us move when economics dictate it…Including me…Why are these leeches guaranteed housing in a city that is out growing them?
America is a land of migrants…It is in our traditions and DNA…Where is the conditional right to have subsidized rent?
Landlord are one of the black 5 category in communist mind. US is becoming communist so the gov will do everything to make the landlord miserable
Fundamentally, if you agree housing is a human right, then rent control makes sense and it should be implemented everywhere and expanded to cover all housing. If you do not agree that it’s a human right, then you won’t support rent control at all.
This is the source of all these problems. It’s either black or white. There is nothing in between. Problems arise when someone like the government tries to make it grey. No matter what you do, you end up with issues that conflict with these fundamental beliefs because you cannot satisfy both sides at the same time.
If the government truly believes housing is a human right, then it should not rely on private companies to provide housing. It should take over all housing and provide for all, because it’s a human right. There is no other way to guarantee this right if any private ownership is involved (private companies can still be hired by government to run the leasing business).
What’s happening now is the government is indecisive. Maybe it’s not the executive branch, it’s the supreme court which says rent control is constitutional but private ownership is also constitutional. These are conflicting messages. Then it gives a lot of room for all levels of government to interpret the law as they see fit. Whoever has the most voting power wins, be it money-driven or politically-influenced.
But why, I say? Every freaking economist in the Western Hemisphere and beyond agrees that rent control causes distortions that are negative in the housing market. Why won’t governments at least acknowledge this?
Does it make sense that when real costs are rising, that it is fair to not allow the provider of housing the right to recoup that increase in real cost?
Means Testing. Why is that notion so bad? You rich, you don’t get to keep a rent controlled apartment that can go to someone not rich. Why is this so bad of an idea?
I say, a whole lot of gray can be introduced to the system that will actually help the situation that we are in.
What economists agree on has nothing to do with what the government does. It’s like the whole scientific world agree on global warming but government can still ignore it. Also it’s not possible that “all economists” agree on something as there will always be someone who thinks differently.
I think the government in general agrees with this. Most if not all rent control policies let landlord provide proof and recoup cost if it meets their standards, but this is much easier said than done.
Means testing will make it more fair, but fundamentally even if rent control only covers low-income tenants who are means-tested, the basic issue is still there. You are only reducing the amount of landlords who are “presumably” treated unfairly by the rent control policy.
You can add grey, but the fundamental problem cannot be worked around. There is no way around this until the fundamental problem is resolved. It will always be there. All we are doing is to try to shift the balance point either more toward or away from tenant protections. In the big picture, it’s just noise. Of course if the noise level gets high enough then it can trigger bigger-magnitude shifts, and we will be one step closer to resolving the fundamental problem. Either direction is possible.
Even if housing is a human right, why does it have to be housing in one of the most expensive cities in the country? Why can’t be in housing in a low cost city?
It costs $1M/unit to build affordable housing in SF. There are parts of the country where that same money could buy 10+ SFH. The residents would also need far less monthly subsidy to afford the rent/mortgage.
Once you acknowledge housing is human right, you will be open to all the consequences which includes deciding who should live where. I can’t imagine what kind of system would be needed to determine that, but it’s not entirely impossible for the outcome to be that the current tenants should have preference to stay where they are now. It doesn’t have to make economic sense, because it’s a human right. There are a lot of other parallel human rights which cost a lot of money but we need to fund to maintain those rights.
My main point is, as with a lot of other things in life, you can’t go halfway and stop there. For example, I respect LGBTQ people the same way as I respect everyone else, and I agree they should have equal rights. I have coworkers who are openly gay, and that’s total fine with me. But once one has gone down this path (support equal rights for LGBTQ), one needs to be mindful that it’s going to have consequences that may not be so obvious up front, and it will be a moment of truth sooner or later to show whether one really supports equal rights. If one says he supports equal rights but do not want to deal with the consequences, then a hypocrite is born.
That’s the thing, not everyone agrees that housing is a human right. Did Early Man simply pound on his chest and say, give me my 2 bd condo with no HOA? No, he had to go out and avoid the saber tooth tigers to make it happen by finding/building shelter. If one didn’t want to make it happen well they perished.
If we can put a man on the moon, to me, the rent control question and affordable housing situation, are easy Honey To Do items. We can fix them by trying new policies instead of not trying at all. What is the worse thing that can happen if you try a pilot test program? It fails, but you learn. How does success happen? Typically after trials of failure, no?
Housing can be a right, but it doesn’t mean the person has a right to the housing they want.
Calling it a right is probably incorrect legally. Are there any rights which are material in nature? All the rights in the constitution are defined as things inherent in people that can’t be taken away. They aren’t things that are given to people. There’s actually not a right in the constitution that creates a burden on others to provide it. Generally, the rights of an individual end when they infringe on the rights of others.
Yet, we have rent control, deemed 150% legal and constitutional…
Every right infringes on others’ rights. One guy’s right to speak crap infringes my right to not listen to crap. Key is balancing.
When someone becomes a suspect of a crime, he or she has the right to face a fair trial. If that person cannot afford an attorney, the public will shoulder the cost to hire one for him or her. This is necessary in order to maintain that person’s right, even though it forces a cost upon the rest of us.
I am not advocating that housing is a right. I personally do not believe it’s a right, let alone housing at a desirable location. The government can provide assistance to all who need it, but that doesn’t necessarily make it a right. My point is there is no midpoint in this process. It’s either a right, or it’s not a right. There is no 50% right, or right in this case but no right in that case even though the 2 cases are identical. You have to pick a side, otherwise you’ll get into a situation where some of your beliefs will conflict with some of your other beliefs after you expand on them.
The government cannot say, oh housing is absolutely a human right, but it’s not my problem and you guys go figure it out. Supreme court says rent control is constitutional, which essentially means tenants have a right to remain in the housing accommodations indefinitely (beyond contract period) as long as tenants do not cause any major fault. It’s not the same as saying housing is a right for all, but for tenants who are already in these housing accommodations where it’s covered by rent control, housing is indeed a right for those particular tenants. The economic situation of the business does not matter. Once it becomes a right, all other issues are secondary and are frankly not worth discussing.
So what about those folks who just moved to town and are looking for a place to live? Why isn’t housing a right to them as well? Why are they not treated equally as those who have already been there for a while? Or what about those who are looking to move from one apt to another in the same town? In order to eliminate this unfairness, vacancy control needs to be established so that new leasers can enjoy the same benefits as existing ones. And there shouldn’t be any discriminating special treatment on MFH vs SFH/condos, so repealing Costa-Hawkins makes perfect sense if you agree housing is a right.
Then what about landlords who want to exit the market causing the tenant’s right to be denied? Well if private property rights are still constitutional (big if), the only possible outcome will be for the government to step in and become the housing provider in order to maintain that right. What if population grows but housing stocks do not increase because developers can’t make money? The government has to step in. This is unavoidable since it’s human rights we are talking about. Under private ownership, it’s impossible to maintain those rights. So if you agree housing is a right, you have to go as far as you need to go. It will only get yourself into a bigger hole if you only take step 1 then stops. If the fundamentals are conflicting, no amount of patch-up will solve it.
Not sure this is the correct interpretation of “rent control is constitutional”. I thought it merely means city can implement rent control regulations. Rent control is not defined precisely, subject to law makers’ wish.
Is human right well defined in the Constitution? I thought human right is not a legal concept, it’s a moral concept so it is nice to have but not mandatory.
Is eating a human right? Can I force that neighborhood restaurant to feed me for life at a controlled price?
Eating is most definitely not a human right. MV just banned free food at companies.
injection is a human right, so is sex. when’s the next sex center going to open in SF?
Sex is not a human right. Shitting on streets is. SF got you covered already. You should be thankful.
i don’t have 20 pounds of shit.