Pacific Northwest Thread

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Pacific Northwest Thread

Ernie Muppari: Aug 4, 2012; Keep this up G'Bert, and soon you won't have a pigeon to protect!

Uranium Phoenix posted:

Speaking of renting and horror stories, is there any trick to finding an apartment that isn't managed by Mephistopheles and/or contains a gateway to the Plane of Just Lots of Black Mold?

magic and a building that wasn't built in the 60s/70s when archietects in the pnw apparently forgot that ventilation and insulation were things buildings needed

# ? Jun 26, 2015 09:36

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 7, 2024 12:25

anthonypants: May 6, 2007; by Nyc_Tattoo; Dinosaur Gum

Ernie Muppari posted:

magic and a building that wasn't built in the 60s/70s when archietects in the pnw apparently forgot that ventilation and insulation were things buildings needed

You can experience this principle in reverse if you go to a place like the southwest, and none of the roads will have any drainage at all

# ? Jun 26, 2015 11:12

Gerund: Sep 12, 2007; He push a man

Best Friends posted:

I didn't say it stops development, I said it slows it, which is obvious. If you make new construction less profitable there will be less of it. And yes making running a property less profitable will on average lower quality. Why do you think the (relatively) cheap places in Kent you're looking at have lovely management? Magic? Gigantic coincidence?

Show me the rent control success stories. Show me where it has lowered average rents.

Public housing is great. Low income housing is great. Rent control is a clusterfuck and makes things worse for everyone but the lucky lottery winners and the highest end developers, who have an even more constrained supply to jack prices on their limited offerings for.

"New Construction" is a very silly thing to sell out all forms of regulation for, as nothing about new construction in the abstract actually creates reasonable and affordable construction. Luxury condos and dormitory-style bed boxes are just as likely to be built as multi-generational housing without state regulatory involvement.

# ? Jun 26, 2015 11:50

oxbrain: Aug 18, 2005; Put a glide in your stride and a dip in your hip and come on up to the mothership.

Ernie Muppari posted:

magic and a building that wasn't built in the 60s/70s when archietects in the pnw apparently forgot that ventilation and insulation were things buildings needed

Even the new places are built that way. There's no return on investment in making the place nice to live in when you can make it look fancy and charge the same. By the time someone realizes it's a shithole they've already signed a lease.

The same goes for new construction houses.

# ? Jun 26, 2015 14:39

SyHopeful: Jun 24, 2007; May an IDF soldier mistakenly gun down my own parents and face no repercussions i'd totally be cool with it cuz accidents are unavoidable in a low-intensity conflict, man

I work for a vendor that does a lot of work at multifamily properties and loving everybody is doing property rehabs right now. Either no-cause evictions or lease non-renewals to get the tenants out, throw a couple thousand dollars at a unit (Wood-look vinyl flooring! Stainless appliances! Quartz countertops!), and re-rent them at a significantly increased price. And it's happening even in the not-as-desirable places to live too, like Gresham and Vancouver. My SO and I keep talking about moving because our landlords keep jacking our rent up (9% this year), but then we look at the market and our options are basically to move into a shittier, smaller place and still pay the same in rent or finally decide to buy a house and try to jump on the bullet train that is the Portland SFR market and hope that we can somehow afford property taxes.

# ? Jun 26, 2015 16:32

Doorknob Slobber: Sep 10, 2006; by Fluffdaddy

Uranium Phoenix posted:

I'm looking for stuff in the Renton/Kent area

Found your problem. My advice is look on craigslist for things that aren't apartment complexes. As an example we found a 1 bedroom bottom floor of a house rental on Lake Washington in Seattle for $850 so you can find good stuff on craigslist sometimes.

Doorknob Slobber fucked around with this message at 16:55 on Jun 26, 2015

# ? Jun 26, 2015 16:51

seiferguy: Jun 9, 2005; FLAWED
INTUITION; Toilet Rascal

One of the top comments on the Seattle Times' article about gay marriage becoming legalized:

quote:

1 hour ago

Good, now everyone can stay put and not all move to Seattle!

# ? Jun 26, 2015 17:40

Schwack: Jan 31, 2003; Someone needs to stop this! Sherman has lost his mind! Peyton is completely unable to defend himself out there!

SyHopeful posted:

I work for a vendor that does a lot of work at multifamily properties and loving everybody is doing property rehabs right now. Either no-cause evictions or lease non-renewals to get the tenants out, throw a couple thousand dollars at a unit (Wood-look vinyl flooring! Stainless appliances! Quartz countertops!), and re-rent them at a significantly increased price. And it's happening even in the not-as-desirable places to live too, like Gresham and Vancouver. My SO and I keep talking about moving because our landlords keep jacking our rent up (9% this year), but then we look at the market and our options are basically to move into a shittier, smaller place and still pay the same in rent or finally decide to buy a house and try to jump on the bullet train that is the Portland SFR market and hope that we can somehow afford property taxes.

I just bought a house in St Johns and was only able to do so because it was a tax abatement development. I'm not sure if the builders in the area are doing any more, but that might be something worth looking in to. It took our property taxes from ~$4000/yr to $800. I'm only paying on the value of the land, not the value of the improvements. They may be available in other areas, but I really couldn't say for sure. My girlfriend only found out about it because she works for the county, they don't seem to need to advertise at all. I think she mentioned portlandmaps.com being useful for finding these things.

Schwack fucked around with this message at 19:27 on Jun 26, 2015

# ? Jun 26, 2015 19:24

Best Friends: Nov 4, 2011

Gerund posted:

"New Construction" is a very silly thing to sell out all forms of regulation for, as nothing about new construction in the abstract actually creates reasonable and affordable construction. Luxury condos and dormitory-style bed boxes are just as likely to be built as multi-generational housing without state regulatory involvement.

Neither I nor anyone sane is saying there should be "no forms of regulation" - my problem is specifically with rent control.

Which incidentally, as one of many problems, makes the luxury condo problem actually worse. If the threat of turning rent controlled hangs over middle class and lower housing, and supply of housing is even more constricted, those both further incentivize building luxury housing versus middle and working class housing.

Uranium Phoenix posted:

New York is a good example. In "Rent Regulation in New York: Myths and Facts" (2009), Timothy L. Collins goes through the myths surrounding rent control. He specifically notes on page 3 "There is no convincing evidence that moderate rent regulations depress construction rates." At the same time, it succeeded in depressing rents for 25,000 people, the vast majority of them poor or middle class. Incentives programs that rewarded investments into the units meant the units were well maintained. My only criticism is that the policy could have been broadened and expanded to do more good. The UK is also a superb example of how housing issues can be tackled.

(An older, similar document is here. For whatever reason, I can't seem to find the 2009 paper available online anymore).

Timothy Collins is a lawyer, and you will find lawyers on either side of any given issue assembling the best evidence they can for a policy. In his paper, the best he can say is "well you can't prove rent control made prices worse." Beyond that, by citing New York housing policy as a success story, that in and of itself shows how weak the argument is. If Seattle becomes like New York or San Fransisco as far as housing, that is as extreme as failure gets. You can't show a case where rent control corresponds to lowering average prices because it doesn't exist.

In contrast to Collins, we have the consensus of the economics profession.

http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel/poll-results?SurveyID=SV_6upyzeUpI73V5k0

Of note, Thaler's response, Thaler being a leading light of behavioral economics, which argues that mainstream economics discounts too much real world data and human biases, exactly the sort of economics criticism generally friendlier to leftist causes. Here is Thaler on the question:

Disagree
Next questions: does the sun revolve around the earth.

Here is Krugman:

http://www.nytimes.com/2000/06/07/opinion/reckonings-a-rent-affair.html

The analysis of rent control is among the best-understood issues in all of economics, and -- among economists, anyway -- one of the least controversial. In 1992 a poll of the American Economic Association found 93 percent of its members agreeing that ''a ceiling on rents reduces the quality and quantity of housing.'' Almost every freshman-level textbook contains a case study on rent control, using its known adverse side effects to illustrate the principles of supply and demand. Sky-high rents on uncontrolled apartments, because desperate renters have nowhere to go -- and the absence of new apartment construction, despite those high rents, because landlords fear that controls will be extended? Predictable. Bitter relations between tenants and landlords, with an arms race between ever-more ingenious strategies to force tenants out -- what yesterday's article oddly described as ''free-market horror stories'' -- and constantly proliferating regulations designed to block those strategies? Predictable.

And as for the way rent control sets people against one another -- the executive director of San Francisco's Rent Stabilization and Arbitration Board has remarked that ''there doesn't seem to be anyone in this town who can trust anyone else in this town, including their own grandparents'' -- that's predictable, too.

None of this says that ending rent control is an easy decision. Still, surely it is worth knowing that the pathologies of San Francisco's housing market are right out of the textbook, that they are exactly what supply-and-demand analysis predicts.

But people literally don't want to know. A few months ago, when a San Francisco official proposed a study of the city's housing crisis, there was a firestorm of opposition from tenant-advocacy groups. They argued that even to study the situation was a step on the road to ending rent control -- and they may well have been right, because studying the issue might lead to a recognition of the obvious.

So now you know why economists are useless: when they actually do understand something, people don't want to hear about it.

Rent control, like nuclear power and GMOs, is a case where the far left is directly contrary to science. It's embarrassing to see.

quote:

In places where landlords are consistently abusing tenants, ignoring maintenance to squeeze out extra profit, and other illegal or dishonest practices, that's a problem with the industry being poorly regulated or policed. Much like managers and businesses getting away with wage theft, landlords often get away with abusing tenants since in both instances police and agencies almost never go after these criminals. Given that these abuses overwhelmingly happen to the most vulnerable and with the least resources to have any recourse, it's a social justice issue as well. Rent problems are one of the many things that happen when the imbalance of the power of capital and labor is as skewed as it is.

Landlords are incentived to ignore those things because it isn't making them money on lower end housing. I agree regulation (or in Seattle's case, enforcement of existing regulation + regulation) is an answer here, but you are ignoring the implications that lower profit incentivizes the shittiest landlords that those landlords can get away with being. This is why rent controlled buildings are so often disasters. I posted in this thread because your own post makes the point so clearly against itself - you found that the cheap apartments had unbearably lovely landlords at the same time you want to make more apartments cheap. While I generally agree with both concepts of "let's make landlords good" and "apartments should be cheaper" you are missing the obvious connection between the two.

# ? Jun 26, 2015 20:05

Uranium Phoenix: Jun 20, 2007; Boom.

Best Friends posted:

Here is Krugman:

http://www.nytimes.com/2000/06/07/opinion/reckonings-a-rent-affair.html

The analysis of rent control is among the best-understood issues in all of economics, and -- among economists, anyway -- one of the least controversial. In 1992 a poll of the American Economic Association found 93 percent of its members agreeing that ''a ceiling on rents reduces the quality and quantity of housing.'' Almost every freshman-level textbook contains a case study on rent control, using its known adverse side effects to illustrate the principles of supply and demand. Sky-high rents on uncontrolled apartments, because desperate renters have nowhere to go -- and the absence of new apartment construction, despite those high rents, because landlords fear that controls will be extended? Predictable. Bitter relations between tenants and landlords, with an arms race between ever-more ingenious strategies to force tenants out -- what yesterday's article oddly described as ''free-market horror stories'' -- and constantly proliferating regulations designed to block those strategies? Predictable.

Collins addresses that point. (copy/pasting the whole thing since I still can't find it online; bolding mine)

quote:

"MYTH: Professional economists are uniformly opposed to rent regulations.

FACT: The views of professional economists on this subject are often distorted. The common misconception that economists universally oppose rent controls appears to find its source in a survey where economists were asked, among other things, if they agreed with the proposition that �a ceiling on rents reduces the quantity and quality of housing available.�31 Of the American economists responding, 77 percent �generally agreed� and 19 percent �agreed with provisions.� One has to wonder how anyone could reasonably disagree with such a statement: a rent �ceiling� would be a drastic measure that would certainly have dramatic market consequences. New York�s moderate rent regulations do not impose a ceiling on rents. The consensus on the effects of a rent ceiling hardly proves that economists are united in opposition to moderate rent regulations. These allow adjustments in rents to compensate for increases in operating costs and exempt new construction from coverage. Economists who have directly examined the impact of New York�s moderate rent laws have thoroughly questioned and criticized the conclusions of those who have considered only abstract models or only the effects of strict rent control laws.

As Michael Mandel, currently Business Week�s chief economist, has explained:
[E]conomics textbooks, like introductory books in other fields, often engage in oversimplification to make a pedagogical point. In this case, the textbook authors needed a way of illustrating the effects of imposing a price ceiling on a market, and rent control provided a vivid example to liven up the usual dry supply and demand diagram. But good examples make bad economics. A price ceiling, as defined by economists, is a uniform ban on selling a product above a certain price�. It is clear that such a policy inevitably leads to shortages. However, rent control laws in the United States are not price ceilings in this sense. Under all existing laws, rent control regulates the rent on most apartments built before a particular date, but new construction is exempted from any rent regulation. In New York City, for example, the rent laws do not cover apartment buildings constructed after 1974. This apparently small difference makes a tremendous difference in the effects of rent control. We teach in first year economics courses that the supply of a good is determined by the price at which it can be sold. In the case of housing supply, the construction of new apartments is determined by their rent, which under existing rent laws is unregulated. This suggests that these laws will not suppress the supply of new apartments (and ...may even increase supply).32

According to economist Phillip Weitzman, a former director of research and policy with the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development:
The existing empirical literature does not take into account the rise of second generation [moderate] rent controls, nor does it attempt to respond to the concerns expressed by tenants and neighborhood leaders for preservation of their homes and communities. It is also not clear that enlightened public intervention necessarily has all the adverse effects so confidently predicted by economists.33

Finally, consider the observations of Michael B. Teitz, Director of Research at the Public Policy Institute of California, professor emeritus at the University of California, Berkeley, and a former project leader for the Rand Corporation�s studies of housing and rent control in New York City:
The most important reason for rent regulation is created by the large swings in demand that take place in many housing markets over relatively short periods of time, in contrast to the length of the process by which competitive markets increase the supply of low‐priced housing. The high cost of finding new accommodation, the municipal restrictions on development and on minimum unit sizes, and the multidimensional attributes of the housing service that make it particularly important to consumers may justify the regulation of rent cycles. This brief review of economic theory shows how recent advances have made contemporary economists recognize the value of mild second‐generation rent controls.34 In New York, the city and state rent stabilization system is generally regarded as a mild secondgeneration form of rent regulation. In fact, given the scope and frequency of rent increases permitted, New York�s rent stabilization system is very mild indeed.

Rent control encompasses a large number of potential policies. Obviously focusing on the ones that case studies prove work is the right direction.

Best Friends posted:

Landlords are incentived to ignore those things because it isn't making them money on lower end housing. I agree regulation (or in Seattle's case, enforcement of existing regulation + regulation) is an answer here, but you are ignoring the implications that lower profit incentivizes the shittiest landlords that those landlords can get away with being. This is why rent controlled buildings are so often disasters. I posted in this thread because your own post makes the point so clearly against itself - you found that the cheap apartments had unbearably lovely landlords at the same time you want to make more apartments cheap. While I generally agree with both concepts of "let's make landlords good" and "apartments should be cheaper" you are missing the obvious connection between the two.

The New York rent control policy allows landlords to increase rent based on capital improvements to properties, incentivizing maintenance and upgrades. There's plenty of things in economics that incentivize bad things--hell, the profit incentive itself is an example. The solution is to either adjust incentives, as New York successfully did, or heavily regulate problematic buisnesses.

# ? Jun 26, 2015 21:20

Gucci Loafers: May 20, 2006; Ask yourself, do you really want to talk to pair of really nice gaudy shoes?

Curious, what's the average rent pacnw?

# ? Jun 26, 2015 22:06

Mrit: Sep 26, 2007; by exmarx; Grimey Drawer

Tab8715 posted:

Curious, what's the average rent pacnw?

That's a very difficult question. Some places are still very cheap(my mom rents an apartment in the Lynnwood area that is in decent shape and is 700/month) and some have gone insane(same quality of place a mile away, but ran by a rental company is going for 1200-1300/month).
This applies basically everywhere in Washington.

Edit: it's also not just the cost, it is the sheer rate of increase. Double digit percentage rent increases a year are the norm now.

# ? Jun 26, 2015 22:15

Fats: Oct 14, 2006; What I cannot create, I do not understand; Fun Shoe

My girlfriend's brother-in-law just moved up to Mill Creek, just north of Seattle, to a be a sheriff's deputy up there and they're paying 1440 a month for a 1 bedroom. :lol:

# ? Jun 26, 2015 22:24

seiferguy: Jun 9, 2005; FLAWED
INTUITION; Toilet Rascal

My girlfriend got a notice from her landlady that they were going to spike her rent by 21% in a year (she lives in Capitol Hill). It's absolutely insane.

# ? Jun 26, 2015 22:26

Best Friends: Nov 4, 2011

Uranium Phoenix posted:

Collins addresses that point. (copy/pasting the whole thing since I still can't find it online; bolding mine)

Rent control encompasses a large number of potential policies. Obviously focusing on the ones that case studies prove work is the right direction.

The New York rent control policy allows landlords to increase rent based on capital improvements to properties, incentivizing maintenance and upgrades. There's plenty of things in economics that incentivize bad things--hell, the profit incentive itself is an example. The solution is to either adjust incentives, as New York successfully did, or heavily regulate problematic buisnesses.

So you're doubling down on New York being a housing policy success story? That's absurd. New York is a terrible possible housing outcome. What specifically about New York housing policy would you like to see here, the average rents or the property quality?

As for the argument, again yes a lawyer paid to say it's good said its good. However, no amount of reposting that or finding special snowflakes changes the clear economic consensus. This is exactly like arguing climate change with creationists.

# ? Jun 26, 2015 23:13

oxbrain: Aug 18, 2005; Put a glide in your stride and a dip in your hip and come on up to the mothership.

Best Friends posted:

This is exactly like arguing climate change with creationists.

I can't tell if this sentence is intentionally idiotic or if I'm suffering from heat stroke.

# ? Jun 26, 2015 23:22

Best Friends: Nov 4, 2011

I goofed.

# ? Jun 26, 2015 23:30

reignonyourparade: Nov 15, 2012

Uranium Phoenix posted:

poo poo never getting repaired

For this at least, if a landlord takes long enough (or for particularly urgent things, literally as soon as you let the landlord know about it) you can hire someone to fix it, and then deduct the cost of fixing it from your rent.

# ? Jun 26, 2015 23:36

Uranium Phoenix: Jun 20, 2007; Boom.

Best Friends posted:

So you're doubling down on New York being a housing policy success story? That's absurd. New York is a terrible possible housing outcome. What specifically about New York housing policy would you like to see here, the average rents or the property quality?

As for the argument, again yes a lawyer paid to say it's good said its good. However, no amount of reposting that or finding special snowflakes changes the clear economic consensus. This is exactly like arguing climate change with creationists.

The limited rent control applied in New York is successful. Obviously since it's limited and there's a whole lot of other factors at play. New York itself has its own problems. The evidence complied shows there isn't a detraction of quality (probably due to the incentive program I mentioned above), and that it did indeed keep rents low for the protected units.

The former-lawyer-turned-director of New York's Rent Guidelines Board actually talks about how when he first assumed the position, he thought rent regulation was a bad idea, and changed his mind based analyzing the evidence. The analysis I'm citing (and the older one I linked) is based on a large compilation of studies and direct evidence. I will admit I have no gone through all the data and linked studies myself, but from your comments it seems to me you didn't even fully read the short article I linked.

If we're going to use a climate change analogy, this is like how in 2012 only 19% of weather reporters believe in climate change, while 97% of climate scientists do. People who have actually dedicated time to studying New York and other case studies of rent control agree the program works, whereas people in the related fields of economics but who focus on other areas of expertise (and are therefore not up to date on the latest rent research and may be relying on simplified explanations they learned, older studies, or talking about a specific kind of rent control that does not work) have a broad consensus that it doesn't work.

Another analogy to climate change: Is it more likely that real estate companies with their billions of dollars hiring lobbyists and ordering studies in order to keep their market deregulated are biased, or the guy in charge of synthesizing direct evidence and studies is biased?

# ? Jun 26, 2015 23:44

Best Friends: Nov 4, 2011

I did absolutely read the short article and it is not convincing. The best case you are going to find for rent control that I am aware of is "Time for Revisionism on Rent Control" by Richard Arnott in the Journal of Economic Perspectives, which basically says "it's theoretically possible some forms of rent control are good, maybe."

A tortured anology comparing economists to weathermen while the "true scientists" are lawyers, laymen, and ideologues is pretty hilarious.

Per Google, the average New York rent right now is $3039 for a one bedroom. That seems bad and probably not worth emulating. If you are looking for New York rent control studies specifically, go nuts on google scholar. One of the big points of contention in the above article is that New York is overstudied and maybe non-new York (and Toronto) rent control policies have different outcomes. New York rent control is extremely well studied and the consensus, outside of the one guy you googled who is a lawyer/politician, is negative.

# ? Jun 26, 2015 23:56

Ernie Muppari: Aug 4, 2012; Keep this up G'Bert, and soon you won't have a pigeon to protect!

well yeah but has anyone tried rent control on the sun?

# ? Jun 27, 2015 00:21

JohnnySavs: Dec 28, 2004; I have all the characteristics of a human being.

"Average" Rent in a place like New York is going to be skewed from what you'll actually find however due to all the fancy-pants $10-50k+/month luxury options.

Also, New York has a culture, history, geography, and economy very unlike the major PNW cities!

For the data-hungry HUD has a handy median rental prices report you can (in Excel/Sheets) filter by city/metro area. It's even broken down by number of bedrooms. Seattle's median rent prices are a good 20%+ higher than any other city in OR/WA for 0/1/2/3/4 bedrooms. I'm not surprised it's the highest but I didn't think everything else would be a distant 2nd. Portland barely breaks the top 5!

# ? Jun 27, 2015 00:45

DR FRASIER KRANG: Feb 4, 2005; "Are you forgetting that just this afternoon I was punched in the face by a turtle now dead?

What's the mean rent, though? Who gives a poo poo about the average?

# ? Jun 27, 2015 01:16

anthonypants: May 6, 2007; by Nyc_Tattoo; Dinosaur Gum

Best Friends posted:

Timothy Collins is a lawyer, and you will find lawyers on either side of any given issue assembling the best evidence they can for a policy. In his paper, the best he can say is "well you can't prove rent control made prices worse." Beyond that, by citing New York housing policy as a success story, that in and of itself shows how weak the argument is. If Seattle becomes like New York or San Fransisco as far as housing, that is as extreme as failure gets. You can't show a case where rent control corresponds to lowering average prices because it doesn't exist.

In contrast to Collins, we have the consensus of the economics profession.

Hmm, yes, in one hand we have a group of people who are advocating for the rights of the poor and disenfranchised, but on the other hand we have a group of people who have performed a cost-benefit analysis and determined that the poor can just live "somewhere else".

# ? Jun 27, 2015 01:58

Uranium Phoenix: Jun 20, 2007; Boom.

Best Friends posted:

I did absolutely read the short article and it is not convincing. The best case you are going to find for rent control that I am aware of is "Time for Revisionism on Rent Control" by Richard Arnott in the Journal of Economic Perspectives, which basically says "it's theoretically possible some forms of rent control are good, maybe."

Thanks. I would state his conclusion as a little less tentative than that. He finds the evidence against second generation rent controls "weak," and also notes that part of the reason for the opposition to rent control (and regulations in general) is because of the widespread embrace of free-market ideology.

quote:

A tortured anology comparing economists to weathermen while the "true scientists" are lawyers, laymen, and ideologues is pretty hilarious.

...which makes your accusation of pro-rent control people being "ideologues" pretty funny. Again, he is compiling a synthesis of data and studies done by experts and economists, especially those who make studying rent and housing their focus, so please stop setting up a strawman of what kind of people are on the different sides of this debate.

quote:

Per Google, the average New York rent right now is $3039 for a one bedroom. That seems bad and probably not worth emulating. If you are looking for New York rent control studies specifically, go nuts on google scholar. One of the big points of contention in the above article is that New York is overstudied and maybe non-new York (and Toronto) rent control policies have different outcomes. New York rent control is extremely well studied and the consensus, outside of the one guy you googled who is a lawyer/politician, is negative.

The insane rent of New York only tells you more needs to be done. Rent control is obviously only a part of that solution. The idea behind the control is to help poor people, which rent regulation does. The median rent for a controlled unit is $1020/month and helps people with a median income of $29,000--providing relief for people who would otherwise be priced out of having a place to stay at all. An important part about debating rent regulations is making sure you're not attributing unrelated negative outcomes to the controls. The high cost of living in NY is not because of rent control, as you're implying. Going back to negative reviews of apartment complexes because they're all run-down/have lovely abusive managers, that's obviously not because of controls because none exist in the area. An incentive program, like what NY has, that allows rent increases based on capital improvements of properties sure seems like it would help, though.

# ? Jun 27, 2015 02:33

Ham Equity: Apr 16, 2013; The first thing we do, let's kill all the cars.; Grimey Drawer

"Rent control" generally refers to a hard limit on a year-by-year percentage increase in the rent (usually something like a maximum of 5% per year).

It pretty clearly benefits the limited number of people who get in early on rent-controlled apartments and don't allow themselves to be forced out. It drives up the prices on available rentals because landlords know they won't be able to raise the rates later, discourages people from moving closer to their jobs, and doesn't have any sort of income-based control (rich people benefit just as much--if not more--from rent control as poorer people).

There's no good way of dealing with climbing housing costs, but rent control is pretty clearly a bad way, and I say this as someone who was priced out of his apartment a couple years ago (an apartment I loved, btw). The best way I've seen is to require a certain number of units be reserved for low-income housing, which allows you to means-test, and encouraging development of multi-family, non-luxury housing, which means pissing off the single-family-home NIMBY cunts. Single family homes suck donkey dick, and if you want to live in one, move to loving Lynnwood.

# ? Jun 27, 2015 03:13

sullat: Jan 9, 2012

Rent is pretty cheap out in Wenatchee. That's not too bad a commute to get to Seattle.

# ? Jun 27, 2015 03:27

mod sassinator: Dec 13, 2006; I came here to Kick Ass and Chew Bubblegum,
and I'm All out of Ass

sullat posted:

That's not too bad a commute to get to Seattle.

If you have a private helicopter.

edit: Actually can helicopters fly over the Cascades? Would be a hell of a trip I bet.

# ? Jun 27, 2015 03:34

Solkanar512: Dec 28, 2006; by the sex ghost

Thanatosian posted:

pissing off the single-family-home NIMBY cunts

This is really the only way. I mean, look at this whiny, navel-gazing bullshit -

single-family-home NIMBY cunts posted:

"I own property on Harvard Avenue," the woman in the photo above said during a public hearing earlier this month, just before choking up. "A lovely little two bedroom townhouse where we�re going to have 44 high-density apartments next to us. So, my husband�s and my dream of moving into Seattle and living where we�d only need one car or no car�I�m not sure that�s a dream anymore because of the way the street�s gonna get turned upside down due to this infill project."

How the "infill project" and torn-up street were destroying her dream of urban living was not exactly made clear, but she continued: "It shouldn�t always be about the next residents that are coming into town."

The crowd applauded. "We�re very, very fortunate to have a robust economy here in Seattle," the woman said. "But it shouldn�t always be about the people that are coming. What about the people that are here?"

gently caress them all, every last one of them.

# ? Jun 27, 2015 04:02

Accretionist: Nov 7, 2012; I BELIEVE IN STUPID CONSPIRACY THEORIES

I've read that Land-Value Tax is good for promoting density. Advocates view the property-tax as taxing both the land and any developments on the land. A Land-Value Tax is simply just on the land itself. This shifts the financial calculus a little on when high-density development is profitable and by how much, since it's not nearly as expensive in the long term. And since people tend not to own the land underneath their townhouse, condo or apartment, it saves the lower/middle class tons of money and helps increase demand for density, too.

Maybe something like this could be good? I haven't read up on it too much yet, though.

Accretionist fucked around with this message at 04:09 on Jun 27, 2015

# ? Jun 27, 2015 04:06

anthonypants: May 6, 2007; by Nyc_Tattoo; Dinosaur Gum

Solkanar512 posted:

This is really the only way. I mean, look at this whiny, navel-gazing bullshit -

gently caress them all, every last one of them.

I like how she says "own property on" instead of something less vague like "live on"

# ? Jun 27, 2015 04:52

DR FRASIER KRANG: Feb 4, 2005; "Are you forgetting that just this afternoon I was punched in the face by a turtle now dead?

anthonypants posted:

I like how she says "own property on" instead of something less vague like "live on"

It's to make sure you don't confuse her with a dirty rear end renter.

I also love how she wants it to be about more than "the next residents" when that's exactly what she was when she showed up.

I also don't understand how any of this interferes with her ability to get around town without a car either. What a loving shortsighted idiot.

# ? Jun 27, 2015 04:57

got any sevens: Feb 9, 2013; by Cyrano4747

HEY NONG MAN posted:

It's to make sure you don't confuse her with a dirty rear end renter.

I also love how she wants it to be about more than "the next residents" when that's exactly what she was when she showed up.

I also don't understand how any of this interferes with her ability to get around town without a car either. What a loving shortsighted idiot.

Yeah, it'd help her if more apartments were next door since it'd be more likely to deserve a bus stop.

But too many FYGM idiots in this state.

# ? Jun 27, 2015 06:02

Flobbster: Feb 17, 2005; "Cadet Kirk, after the way you cheated on the Kobayashi Maru test I oughta punch you in tha face!"

effectual posted:

Yeah, it'd help her if more apartments were next door since it'd be more likely to deserve a bus stop.

That's cute, you think she would ride the bus with the poors.

# ? Jun 27, 2015 06:12

glowing-fish: Feb 18, 2013; Keep grinding,
I hope you level up!

Kind of an obvious factor in the entire rent equation:

The Fed has been keeping the interest rate very low since 2008, and one of the reasons for that is that inflation, at least on consumer goods, doesn't seem to be a problem.

But is the fact that rents and wages seem to be under a lot of inflationary pressure a sign that interest rates should come up? Or does the Fed not want to raise interest rates when inflation seems to be confined to a few geographical locations and economic sectors? In other words, is it not time to raise the price of food in Arkansas because rent is high in Seattle?

# ? Jun 27, 2015 07:16

FRINGE: May 23, 2003; title stolen for lf posting

glowing-fish posted:

Or does the Fed not want to raise interest rates when

"Banks love 0% loans that they then pass out for >0%."
- Bernankes private diary

# ? Jun 27, 2015 07:31

anthonypants: May 6, 2007; by Nyc_Tattoo; Dinosaur Gum

glowing-fish posted:

Kind of an obvious factor in the entire rent equation:

The Fed has been keeping the interest rate very low since 2008, and one of the reasons for that is that inflation, at least on consumer goods, doesn't seem to be a problem.

But is the fact that rents and wages seem to be under a lot of inflationary pressure a sign that interest rates should come up? Or does the Fed not want to raise interest rates when inflation seems to be confined to a few geographical locations and economic sectors? In other words, is it not time to raise the price of food in Arkansas because rent is high in Seattle?

I think everyone is trying to forget there's a housing bubble because it popped once already

# ? Jun 27, 2015 07:52

Ernie Muppari: Aug 4, 2012; Keep this up G'Bert, and soon you won't have a pigeon to protect!

anthonypants posted:

I think everyone is trying to forget there's a housing bubble because it popped once already

my friend and i had a nice chat with a recent portlandian transplant the other day while we were waiting for the bus where he told us that apparently a lot of the stupid expensive lofts that've opened up in the last couple years are still vacant because lol at the idea that anyone moving here to pay less money for better housing is going to pay 2k a month for another lovely hipster tenment

# ? Jun 27, 2015 10:08

SyHopeful: Jun 24, 2007; May an IDF soldier mistakenly gun down my own parents and face no repercussions i'd totally be cool with it cuz accidents are unavoidable in a low-intensity conflict, man

Ernie Muppari posted:

my friend and i had a nice chat with a recent portlandian transplant the other day while we were waiting for the bus where he told us that apparently a lot of the stupid expensive lofts that've opened up in the last couple years are still vacant because lol at the idea that anyone moving here to pay less money for better housing is going to pay 2k a month for another lovely hipster tenment

I have a friend who lived in one of those towers on the South waterfront and she said like half of them were empty for the same reasons. However this was like 6 years ago.

# ? Jun 27, 2015 14:34

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 7, 2024 12:25

anthonypants: May 6, 2007; by Nyc_Tattoo; Dinosaur Gum

SyHopeful posted:

I have a friend who lived in one of those towers on the South waterfront and she said like half of them were empty for the same reasons. However this was like 6 years ago.

hahahahahahaha

# ? Jun 27, 2015 14:41

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Pacific Northwest Thread

«‹›258 »