I don’t get Americans’ obsession on “socialism”. Is it because of the cold war? The most capitalist places in the world, Hong Kong and Singapore, have plenty of public housing and offer public healthcare.
Is it socialist or capitalist? Who cares? As long as it works.
What logic is that? If I sold all my rentals what difference does it make? Your worst nightmare Prop 10 can’t touch me.
Strict rent control hurts landlords but helps boost property value drastically. So it’s actually beneficial to your average homeowners who just have one property.
Strict rent control actually hurts property value since the neighborhood will turn into ghettos. Oakland and SF were ghettos under strict rent control. Costa Hawkins gentrified both cities using the relaxed rent control.
SF home price uses to be cheap comparing with suburbs. It’s reversed after Costa Hawkins brought high quality people in
If Prop 10 passes, we should exit areas with too much tenant concentration. There will be two classes of neighborhoods. Owner majority neighborhood will thrive and become highly desirable, but tenant majority neighborhood will become crime ridden, rundown ghettos. Owners would want their neighborhood improve. Tenants would want good people and good business to stay out of their neighborhood so that rent will stay low and high income people would not try to replace them when they are evicted
@tomato will move out once his drug abusing ghetto neighbors fight with his kid. When he moves, another drug abusing criminal will take his apartment.
That is how a ghetto is made from rent control.
Strict rent control will serve as a tool for class segregation and racial segregation.
Ghettos have median house price north of 1.5M? These are impressive ghettos.
I am not for rent control. It’s bad economic policy. But I don’t buy the doom and gloom either. SF and Berkeley have always had much stricter rent control than the rest of Bay Area. And yet they also have very high property value.
Rent control keeps existing tenants in place paying low rent. That pushes up rent for potential renters. That tilts the buy-v-rent calculation towards buy so more buyers competing for houses. That pushes up house price. Keeping long time renters in place also gums up development. Less housing supply.
More demand and less supply means higher property value not lower. Experience of SF and Berkeley bore that out.
Too many theories flying around. My personal take is that rent control is not related to property values… there are more prominent factors at work that determines pricing.
Until you need to use the “free” medical care and realize the wait times.
People don’t realize those socialist countries charge everyone 40% effective income tax rates, plus local income tax, plus VAT. The effective tax rates in the US aren’t even close.
Go tell a median income family making $60k/yr their tax bill is going to triple. Then see how excited they are about socialism.
No, experience of SF, Berkeley and Oakland proved that rent control is bad for property value.
Without rent control, SF house price should be much higher than Millbrae in 1995.
All the history after 1995 is about Costa Hawkins, relaxed rent control, gentrified SF/Burkeley/Oakland. You forgot about Costa Hawkins in 1995.
Strict rent control only lasted 15 years from 1980 to 1995. Costa Hawkins came to rescue in 1995. The 23 years of rent control relaxation from 1995 to 2018 should not be mistaken
Learn from NYC whose goal is zero rent control.
US spends a much higher portion of GDP on healthcare than all other countries. These spending may not come from taxes like Canada or Germany. Instead they come from employers and employees, which act just like a tax. But spent much less efficiently than the rest of the world.
US healthcare is much better than Canada. Also US consumers pay a higher drug cost to benefit the human race and to subsidize the socialist countries’ social medicine
He should do so before that.
Both BAGB and you should define the applicable range (maths) clearly. Is BAGB referring only to certain neighborhoods or streets?
In other words, analysis of BAGB and manch are shit 
Rent control started around 1980. After 15 years, people in California wakes up to the grave consequences of strict rent control.
In 1995, California voters passed Costa Hawkins to repeal rent control for single family house, condo and new buildings. This great resolution saved SF, Berkeley and Oakland from perpetual ghettofication.
Now after 23 years of saving the people and Californian cities, some boneheaded communists want to destroy Costa Hawkins.
Costa Hawkins left apartment owners to public abuse. We should expand section 8 and repeal rent control totally.
I can understand the rationale of not putting SFHs under rent control since they are mostly held by primary house owners. What is the rationale to include condos? To encourage condo building as it is high dense?
Condos are also mostly owned by prime home owners, it’s the same as SFH
