|
fermun posted:
I'm pretty surprised by the poll results on this in the Inland Empire. There's tons of signature gatherers outside every Walmart and grocery store and there's giant billboards off the freeway showing "Last year's price of gas vs today's price - Stop the gas tax!" in an effort to defeat SB1. However, there has been a notable increase in the number of major projects going on in the region. We're still expanding like crazy and suddenly tons of long-overdue projects are getting built right now and the local reps have been sending out mailers basically saying "Hey, these 4 projects going on in your city today are getting done because of SB1 funding". Holding out a glimmer of hope  Badger of Basra posted:Extremely confused that the cross tabs say only 50% of Republicans want to repeal the gas tax and 57% of people in the Inland Empire want to keep it. Same, it's really the inverse of what I expected. IE isn't as red as most people think so maybe things are changing. FCKGW fucked around with this message at 17:17 on Sep 27, 2018 |
#
?
Sep 27, 2018 17:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 18:11 |
|
|
I'm super happy about the proposition name. The title alone is going to get a lot of no votes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2018 17:21
|
|
|
I'm quite sure a huge majority of voters vote yes or no on all propositions based on their titles.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2018 17:27
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:I'm quite sure a huge majority of voters vote yes or no on all propositions based on their titles. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2018 17:53
|
|
|
At the Santa Clara convention center for work and the neighboring hall is hosting the “Apartment Owners Association of California” whose magazine iirc has been in this thread. Their keynote today is “how to protect your property against tenant welfare” Gunna try and dip over there when I get a chance
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2018 18:18
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:At the Santa Clara convention center for work and the neighboring hall is hosting the “Apartment Owners Association of California” whose magazine iirc has been in this thread. Their keynote today is “how to protect your property against tenant welfare” lock the doors and set a fire
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2018 18:19
|
|
|
How in the gently caress is rent control a losing proposition how are more people smart on the gas tax than rent control what the gently caress is going on
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2018 18:43
|
|
|
Rent control, especially American style rent control, isn't the straightforward progressive win it's sometimes portrayed as. There are obviously some people it really helps a lot, but there's a bunch of downsides too.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2018 18:54
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:lock the doors and set a fire
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2018 19:10
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Rent control, especially American style rent control, isn't the straightforward progressive win it's sometimes portrayed as. There are obviously some people it really helps a lot, but there's a bunch of downsides too. Give us the full rundown Cicero
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2018 19:27
|
|
|
Overwhelming majority of economists agree that rent control reduces the quantity and quality of housing; having less housing supply means that market rates will be higher. It's mostly intended to benefit the poor, but in practice it doesn't do them too much good because it's not targeted very well. It favors "natives" over transplants or immigrants, and doesn't help anyone who has to move because, say, their family is now bigger, because it's only beneficial if you get in early and then stay put. IIRC it's also common to end up with people exploiting the system through sublets, and that can be hard to deal with properly. You can find plenty of economists who are okay with, say, minimum wage increases, but very few that think rent control is a good idea. There's a reason for this discrepancy. Actually successful housing affordability in the developed world comes from just building a shitton of housing, like Vienna or Singapore, as has been mentioned here already a bunch of times. Personally I'd be fine with German-style rent control (which is different from the American form) if we also got German-style land use, though. That'd be a huge improvement over the status quo. Cicero fucked around with this message at 19:40 on Sep 27, 2018 |
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2018 19:36
|
|
|
in vienna and singapore the housing is publicly owned and the rents are controlled by the government though?
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2018 19:43
|
|
|
Yup. Edit: actually in Singapore they mostly sell the flats to people, I think? But they're constructed by the government.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2018 19:45
|
|
|
Nobody being polled has an in-depth nuanced economics argument against rent control. 98% of people see rent control as "my rent does not get jacked up all the time" why are they voting against it in the most jacked up rental market in the US
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2018 19:57
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Nobody being polled has an in-depth nuanced economics argument against rent control. I think a significant portion think "government control of rent" and assumes that's going to mean like the government decides to raise their rent to pay for pools or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2018 19:59
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Yup. The govt technically still owns them afaik but just gives them a realllly long lease. They also have geographic racial quotas to prevent segregation. Basically a lot of stuff people would not allow in the US. I’m not familiar with the German system- how does it scale up? Seems super hard to implement for a nation that size.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2018 20:05
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Overwhelming majority of economists agree that rent control reduces the quantity and quality of housing; having less housing supply means that market rates will be higher. It's mostly intended to benefit the poor, but in practice it doesn't do them too much good because it's not targeted very well. It favors "natives" over transplants or immigrants, and doesn't help anyone who has to move because, say, their family is now bigger, because it's only beneficial if you get in early and then stay put. IIRC it's also common to end up with people exploiting the system through sublets, and that can be hard to deal with properly. Opposition to rent control has long been a shibboleth within econ departments nationwide, and certainly rent control has its problems. As you correctly mention, it's not great at targeting low income folks who need it most and puts newcomers to an area at a disadvantage. However, a lot of the supposed problems with rent control are actually problems with the ways people can circumvent it out of avarice (converting your newly rent controlled units to condos, for instance) and not rent control itself. This is a pretty good article making the case that rent control, implemented correctly, is good and a lot of the standard arguments against it are misguided.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2018 20:06
|
|
|
a_good_username posted:I’m not familiar with the German system- how does it scale up? Seems super hard to implement for a nation that size. German land use isn't anything super unusual, I think, but compared to the US it's a huge difference. IIRC there aren't any zoning classifications in Germany that only allow for detached single family homes (in almost all US cities, such zoning applies to most of the residential land), and just in general they tend to permit higher density usage, but they're better about having green space around than, say, Japan. The practical impact of German land use combined with the transportation system is that even in Munich, most expensive city in Germany because of a booming economy, if you go out on the S-Bahn Line (sometimes even U-Bahn) a bit you can get pretty reasonable rents in some suburb (which are denser than most major American cities, even ones surrounded by farmland) but still get to the city center via transit in like half an hour. Cicero fucked around with this message at 20:41 on Sep 27, 2018 |
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2018 20:37
|
|
|
KQED had quite a day yesterday.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2018 21:43
|
|
|
Cicero posted:I live in Germany right now, ... Ty this is interesting! I have friends living in Berlin and was curious how their rents were so relatively low.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2018 22:03
|
|
|
Oh wait, that's why rent control polls lower than the gas tax, people are living in their cars. Cool.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2018 22:04
|
|
|
There’s always an AntiProp 10 ad on my Facebook feed with some sad looking old white dude. Every single day it’s there. Just on that basis I figured I should be pro 10 and lo, I was right!
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2018 22:09
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:KQED had quite a day yesterday. It is a problem because when the boom bust cycle drops and no one is cashing in stock options it leaves a huge hole in the budget. Property taxes are much more steady but Prop 13 has hosed that up for us
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2018 22:11
|
|
|
a_good_username posted:Ty this is interesting! I have friends living in Berlin and was curious how their rents were so relatively low.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2018 22:50
|
|
|
predicto posted:It is a problem because when the boom bust cycle drops and no one is cashing in stock options it leaves a huge hole in the budget. Property taxes are much more steady but Prop 13 has hosed that up for us long term capital gains are taxed way too low, too. And it's a problem because we tax income as if it were synonymous with wealth; taxing real estate improves that equation somewhat, but ultimately is still a fairly inadequate way of doing what we really should do, which is tax wealth.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2018 23:01
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/SeanMcElwee/status/1045439024603762689 Brown still also has yet to sign the Net Neutrality bill SB 822. I was under the impression if he didn't sign it by the end of the month, then it became law, but apparently it will actually die. Euphoriaphone fucked around with this message at 23:39 on Sep 27, 2018 |
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2018 23:37
|
|
|
gently caress Jerry Brown. Bald motherfucker.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2018 00:34
|
|
|
Tacier posted:Opposition to rent control has long been a shibboleth within econ departments nationwide, and certainly rent control has its problems. As you correctly mention, it's not great at targeting low income folks who need it most and puts newcomers to an area at a disadvantage. Goon made explainer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdeirDrinWk
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2018 01:40
|
|
|
I assume people are also worried about it ending up like New York, where the wealthy people buy up the rent controlled apartments and then never move out of them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2018 02:01
|
|
|
ShutteredIn posted:gently caress Jerry Brown. Bald motherfucker. He ended up signing SB 100, so I am considerably less angry at him than I was when there were rumors that he might let the bill die.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2018 03:12
|
|
|
Does anyone have information on the economics of rent control broken down by rent control type? For example, most rent control I've seen allows the rent to increase between tenants, but I know that some places do not allow for that. It'd be interesting to see the advantages and disadvantages of each type of rent control.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2018 03:32
|
|
|
San Francisco style rent control (caps annual rent increase at 60% of inflation rate) is effectively Prop 13, just on a different pool of people. - It rewards people who arrived a long time ago over newcomers. - Identical places right next to each other have widely different tax bills/rents. - People who have a locked in below-market property tax rate/rent have enormous financial incentive to never move/sell. - People are decoupled from the housing marked and motivated to preserve neighborhood character/protect views/etc instead of densifying
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2018 06:02
|
|
|
Foxfire_ posted:San Francisco style rent control (caps annual rent increase at 60% of inflation rate) is effectively Prop 13, just on a different pool of people. yep the best solution to cost of housing/rent issues is always to build more housing, promote denser development, etc. All of these artificial solutions are well intentioned but mostly backfire
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2018 06:08
|
|
|
Foxfire_ posted:San Francisco style rent control (caps annual rent increase at 60% of inflation rate) is effectively Prop 13, just on a different pool of people. Thank you, I was thinking about making the prop 13 comparison but hadn't quite worked out the details. The whole evil mustache twirling developers* only building "luxury"** housing poo poo is a red herring. NIMBY bullshit and local zoning ordinances (not mutually exclusive) have made it practically impossible or straight up illegal to build affordable housing where it is needed even if someone wanted to do it (because if it's one thing companies love it's losing money). There is simply no mechanism by which SF style rent control, when combined with it's incredibly regressive zoning and anti-change housing policies, results in affordable housing for anyone except those who got in early and haven't moved in the past thirty years. If you want affordable housing in this state then take political power away from those who think it should have been frozen in amber in 1970 and make it happen. Removing literally the only incentive any private outfit has to build housing at all is not going to solve anything. * they still deserve the guillotine just for other reasons ** "granite countertops and bamboo floors in a 400 square foot shitbox that rents for $3000/mo
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2018 06:25
|
|
|
Oneiros posted:Thank you, I was thinking about making the prop 13 comparison but hadn't quite worked out the details. Just wait till the next recession hits. Then youll see rent control really gently caress people up when landlords go belly up from not being able to raise rents to compensate for lost income. Im trying to rebuild my house as fast as loving possible because i cant carry an 1350 mortgage and an 2000 apartment for ever
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2018 06:31
|
|
|
if they build a poo poo ton of luxury housing, that's completely fine. That means the rich people will live in all that new luxury housing rather than gentrify poor people out of their homes. The housing advocates in SF have been fighting the same fight for so long that they don't seem to care that their solutions don't actually work, like, at all, and there is no evidence that they ever have.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2018 06:34
|
|
|
predicto posted:if they build a poo poo ton of luxury housing, that's completely fine. That means the rich people will live in all that new luxury housing rather than gentrify poor people out of their homes. The typical affordable housing advocates in SF are more concerned with sticking it to "the man" and preserving the "character" of the city than they are actually building affordable housing or helping people. They are more concerned about the preservation of "historic" laundromats and McDonalds and gas stations than the actual people who live in their neighborhoods.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2018 06:50
|
|
|
SF has always exempted rent control on units for the first 20 years after construction. No style of rent control of any kind can be discussed without prop 10 passing, which is just a repeal of Costa Hawkins. These are the main three things that Costa Hawkins does: - It protects a landlord’s right to raise the rent to market rate on a unit once a tenant moves out. - It prevents cities from establishing rent control—or capping rent—on units constructed after February 1995. - It exempts single-family homes and condos from rent control restrictions. Comparing rent control with Prop 13 ignore that very important distinction of people taking advantage of Prop 13 want property values to go up so they have a higher net worth, people that want rent control want to have a way to budget for a place where they can live. Homeowners and all landlords love Costa-Hawkins because it exempts their property from rent control, so when they move elsewhere and rent it out, they get both Prop 13 and Costa Hawkins to mean they have few expenses and can charge out the rear end for rent. Also, it's good for people of different income levels to live in close proximity. The point of remodeling a unit and adding granite countertops to make it luxury housing is to either make it a condo or to demolish existing affordable housing stock and make it constructed after 1995. The primary factor in rent is property costs. San Francisco has always exempted rent control on units for the first 20 years after construction. Always.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2018 07:02
|
|
|
Hint: The solution is publicly funded and owned housing, not continuing decades of futile attempts to hammer a horrifically broken mess of public policy and market incentives into a functioning housing market.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2018 07:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 18:11 |
|
|
fermun posted:SF has always exempted rent control on units for the first 20 years after construction. No style of rent control of any kind can be discussed without prop 10 passing, which is just a repeal of Costa Hawkins. These are the main three things that Costa Hawkins does: So you further neuter any lingering incentives for people to build more housing or rent out property by removing all possibility of them being profitable or even meeting costs as inflation creeps over time. This will result in more affordable housing by _____________.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2018 07:08
|
|