DNC has tried and failed to serve Kushner collusion lawsuit papers since April

[Spartanmack]

If that's the more likely outcome, then you shouldn't complain about rent control driving prices up; you should complain about it holding back development. Something realistic, not an oversimplified econ 101 effect that doesn't reflect reality.



Or has it ever happened? Are there any examples? Or projections that it would happen anywhere if rent control was eliminated?

possible and more likely aren't the same thing. Citing a single case doesn't invalidate the "oversimplified econ 101 effect." There isn't a singular negative impact of this bad regulation and saying I have to complain about this result and not that result when impacts are multiple and not singular, is missing the point and is just another pedantic nit picking argument.

 

[tinselwolverine]

Maybe I don’t get it but I don’t see why remt control would change the outcomes of supply and demand on non-rent control units.

Let’s say with no rent control you have 100 units being bid on for 100 potential renters.

Now with rent control you take out the The bidding for on 30 units and you take out 30 bidders.

That leaves 70 units being bid for by 70 bidders.

Maybe I’m missing something but I don’t see why there would be a difference in the the pricing.

 

[Spartanmack]

there are dozens of articles out there about how Manhattan just saw a boom
in luxury skyscraper apartments, and rent prices have increased across the city.

and all this despite the number of Rent-controlled apartments dramatically decreasing over the years (link), now at historically low levels.

Seems like his gripe should be with the "rich trust fund kids" pricing his ass out of the market, not some old grandma who's been there longer than he's been alive...

But as a good Right-Wing Bot he's opposed to the estate tax as a matter of principle, and supports inherited wealth. what to do? what to do?

You may not be aware of this but global economic activity and free money have led to a combination of growth and inflation that have driven property values higher. I have no problem with trust fund kids out bidding me in a free market - I don't think it's my right to live somewhere just because I want to. I do have a problem with grandmas and rent control cheats artificially lowering supply so there those market based properties are bid even higher.

And I support the constitution and private ownership of property. I see the estate tax for what it is - double taxation which is specifically prohibited by law. You vilify inherited wealth as if you have some legitimate claim to it that somehow supercedes the will of the person who actually earned it and already paid taxes on it. So you vote for someone who will enact laws to take it despite the specific prohibition. You're a typical leftist sheep who thinks that being American gives you a claim on something you didn't earn and you have call me a right-wing bot. You're an idiot, plain and simple.

 

[Spartanmack]

Maybe I don’t get it but I don’t see why remt control would change the outcomes of supply and demand on non-rent control units.

Let’s say with no rent control you have 100 units being bid on for 100 potential renters.

Now with rent control you take out the The bidding for on 30 units and you take out 30 bidders.

That leaves 70 units being bid for by 70 bidders.

Maybe I’m missing something but I don’t see why there would be a difference in the the pricing.

real estate and thus housing is finite. The scenario isn't 100 units and 100 buyers, it's more like 100 units and 150 buyers. If 30% of them are rent controlled and occupied by people who couldn't otherwise compete for that housing at market prices - most of them wouldn't even be in the 150 buyers, now you have all the market price buyers bidding on 70 units instead of 100, so the marginal buyers of those 30 units get priced out. Or, if the market is at equilibrium with 100 buyers and 100 units, when you lower the price of 30 units and restrict access to people who wouldn't be in the 100, then you still have 100 buyers for the 70 units.

and the knock-on effect would be that now you have 80 buyers instead of 50 competing for the next layer of housing in the burbs.

 

[Gulo Blue]

possible and more likely aren't the same thing. Citing a single case doesn't invalidate the "oversimplified econ 101 effect." There isn't a singular negative impact of this bad regulation and saying I have to complain about this result and not that result when impacts are multiple and not singular, is missing the point and is just another pedantic nit picking argument.

Not when there's zero evidence or expert theory supporting your gripe. There's evidence and theory saying this effect gets swamped by other factors, maybe only the one example and who knows how much theory (just show me something convincing that goes the other way), but you're comparing something to nothing and siding with the nothing.

If the end result is that you are complaining about something that is unrealistic, then it's not nit picking. I'm not saying don't complain about price control. I'm saying don't say it pushes prices up when it actually holds prices down.

 

[Michchamp]

Maybe I don’t get it but I don’t see why remt control would change the outcomes of supply and demand on non-rent control units.

Let’s say with no rent control you have 100 units being bid on for 100 potential renters.

Now with rent control you take out the The bidding for on 30 units and you take out 30 bidders.

That leaves 70 units being bid for by 70 bidders.

Maybe I’m missing something but I don’t see why there would be a difference in the the pricing.

how it works is not really the point; he's just looking to selectively blame certain actors here, mostly the government and the poor, so he can defend "the market" & (unwittingly) defend the right of developers and rent-seekers rights to profit by cheating the government and scamming public money.

Yeah, the government insists on some number of rent stabilized units (not even controlled anymore) in each building but only in conjunction with the government giving the developers a handout, and here's the part he REALLY hates - without which most of these buildings wouldn't be built in the first place. the "free market" is largely a myth when it comes to building big things like this. they wouldn't get done without public subsidies, huge tax abatements, or loan guarantees.

Teh developers want to have their cake and eat it too: public subsidies for their buildings, NO strings attached - such as rent stability - and they get to pocket ALL the rent.

"Free market" bozos/apologists are their useful idiots.

Note rent stability isn't even that extreme; it just puts a cap on the amount they can raise rents every year or two years. Rent control is more so, but as noted above only a relative handful of people still get it.

 

[tinselwolverine]

real estate and thus housing is finite. If you have 100 units of housing and 20% of them are rent controlled and occupied by people who couldn't otherwise compete for that housing at market prices, now you have all the market price buyers bidding on 80 units instead of 100, so the marginal buyers of those 20 units get priced out.

I don?t think rent control is a social welfare program. I think anybody gets to bid on rent controlled properties. Unless I?m wrong it?s more of a lottery then anything else. You?re in the right place at the right time to make an offer on a rent controlled unit you get it.

Also and again unless I am wrong there is no advantageous price to the bidder To take possession of a rent controlled unit.

Once a tenant who has benefited from rent control vacates a unit, the landlord adjusts the price to the current market rate, and rent control goes into effect going forward with regard to raises in the rent.

And again, I don?t see how the existence of rent controlled units would have anything other than a depressing effect on the entire rental market.

 

[tinselwolverine]

Also it occurs to me that the laws of supply and demand would effect ownership of rent controlled buildings.

Let's say you're looking to invest in multi-unit rental properties - you know what properties you might acquire are subject to rent control, and which ones aren't.

If you think that for whatever reason, the building subject to rent control is a better investment than one not subject to rent control nevertheless, you have the option of purchasing that one.

If you think otherwise, you have the option of not purchasing that one, and instead, purchasing a different one.

 

[Gulo Blue]

It's kind of a strange left-right flip from the immigration issue. Cities put price control in place, knowing the drawbacks, but motivated (more from the left) to do something to preserve the culture of the city. In extreme cases you can easily see the point, like in parts of Shanghai and Vancouver where market forces can yield areas of largely deserted investment properties.

 

[Spartanmack]

Not when there's zero evidence or expert theory supporting your gripe. There's evidence and theory saying this effect gets swamped by other factors, maybe only the one example and who knows how much theory (just show me something convincing that goes the other way), but you're comparing something to nothing and siding with the nothing.

If the end result is that you are complaining about something that is unrealistic, then it's not nit picking. I'm not saying don't complain about price control. I'm saying don't say it pushes prices up when it actually holds prices down.

but there isn't 0 evidence, even in the Cambridge case because you can't isolate the impact of each input. They didn't just get rid of price controls resulting in a massive increase in rents. You can't say that investment in the community only happened because they got rid of rent control. it's silly to argue that every time you get rid of price controls, the end result will be higher rents across the board or that price controls are keeping market price rents lower. It's further complicated by the fact knock-on effect - rent control in Manhattan and Brooklyn doesn't just drive prices higher in those buroughs - the people who get priced out there then move on to the next best alternative and end up pricing out marginal buyers there.

 

[tinselwolverine]

real estate and thus housing is finite.

Also housing isn't finite at all. Land is finite but I've driven far and wide across a WHOLE lotta land with nuttin' on it.

New housing is being built all around me every day.

I did a google search for "why would an investor invest in a rent controlled multi-unit building" and I got a whole lot of links posted by people claiming to be real estate investors pointing out advantages - and of course disadvantages - of investing in a rent controlled multi-unit.

I'm not going to link to a specific one for various reasons, but a person could do the same search themself, if they wanted to.

One did point out that a lot of people confuse Section 8 housing with rent control, and that is absolutely right - the two things are very different.

 

[Michchamp]

Also it occurs to me that the laws of supply and demand would effect ownership of rent controlled buildings.

Let's say you're looking to invest in multi-unit rental properties - you know what properties you might acquire are subject to rent control, and which ones aren't.

If you think that for whatever reason, the building subject to rent control is a better investment than one not subject to rent control nevertheless, you have the option of purchasing that one.

If you think otherwise, you have the option of not purchasing that one, and instead, purchasing a different one.

You're right, but here's another thing that would happen:

1) Developer bids on the cheaper one for a lower price.

2) Buys it for the low price, but only because...

3) Decides he can make more money if he can kick the current rent controlled/stabilized residents out so he can knock it down, or rehab it and build luxury condos

4) to that end publishes a bunch of stories attacking the residents in the building as freebooters, lowlifes, frauds, and if some of them are black, really making a big deal about that, and villifying rent control and stabilization in general as bad because they are affecting his ability to make as much money as he decides he wants to make on managing this one (1) building.

(Trump actually did this and lost to the residents. but it goes on; every once and a while
you read about some dickbag NYC developer trying to kick an old lady or ladies out)

 

[Gulo Blue]

but there isn't 0 evidence

What evidence is there then?
Telling me I can't say "every time you get rid of price controls, the end result will be higher rents across the board" (which I didn't) isn't evidence.

 

[tinselwolverine]

You're right, but here's another thing that would happen:

1) Developer bids on the cheaper one for a lower price.

I guess some developers could also be property purchasers/investors; that said, development and property acquisition/investment/management are two entirely different things.

 

[Michchamp]

We need Spartanmack's Econ 101 professor to explain to us: how the economic theory of a hypothetical world with 1 hundred unit building, and 150 bidders, and nothing ever changing is applicable to a city with millions of residents, thousands of buildings with rents at different price points, new buildings going up, or old ones coming down,, continuous vacancy regardless of demand as people die or move, and other places they can live in, such as New Jersey, should they decide to have kids + house and yard, or because they don't like the city.

 

[tinselwolverine]

You're right, but here's another thing that would happen:

2) Buys it for the low price, but only because...

3) Decides he can make more money if he can kick the current rent controlled/stabilized residents out so he can knock it down, or rehab it and build luxury condos

I'm pretty sure there are restriction against this on properties already deemed to be subject to rent control mandates.

 

[Gulo Blue]

I'm pretty sure there are restriction against this on properties already deemed to be subject to rent control mandates.

There are, and Kushner is being investigated for allegedly violating those restrictions. That's how we got in this topic.

 

[Spartanmack]

I don?t think rent control is a social welfare program. I think anybody gets to bid on rent controlled properties. Unless I?m wrong it?s more of a lottery then anything else. You?re in the right place at the right time to make an offer on a rent controlled unit you get it.

Also and again unless I am wrong there is no advantageous price to the bidder To take possession of a rent controlled unit.

Once a tenant who has benefited from rent control vacates a unit, the landlord adjusts the price to the current market rate, and rent control goes into effect going forward with regard to raises in the rent.

And again, I don?t see how the existence of rent controlled units would have anything other than a depressing effect on the entire rental market.

I didn't fully read your previous post so I went back and edited mine.

Rent control in NYC works differently than that. Traditional rent control as I understand it is slowly being phased out. As apartments come to market, they're converted to market rate units when they turn over and I don't think the new rate is controlled for the new tenant. Landlords haven't been able to raise rents on those apartments for decades as they never turned over and people have run scams where they move out but continuously renew the lease and allow their kids or friends to live there at the low rate or illegally sublet it out at some price between the controlled rent and the market rent.

There was a case in the news where a guy's mother had died and he kept living in the apartment under her name for years. he got caught when he dressed up like an old lady and went to the social security office to try to keep her soc security payments going. Apparently, he didn't think to shave his beard.

Rent stabilization is different - I lived in a rent stabilized building my first 3 or 4 years. In those cases, rents are set at market prices when the units turnover and increases are limited to a certain percentage. When I lived there, rents in the city went up by less than the allowable increases (it was the 3 years after 9/11) but I had to negotiate with the landlord each year otherwise they would have just automatically increased the rates by the maximum allowable amount.

In the example turd was talking about where builders get tax breaks and other gov't perks on new construction, there absolutely is a means test for those "low income" units. However, as I said in my previous post, it ends up being a giant scam that doesn't do anything for the people they're designed to help.

 

[Spartanmack]

Also housing isn't finite at all. Land is finite but I've driven far and wide across a WHOLE lotta land with nuttin' on it.

New housing is being built all around me every day.

I did a google search for "why would an investor invest in a rent controlled multi-unit building" and I got a whole lot of links posted by people claiming to be real estate investors pointing out advantages - and of course disadvantages - of investing in a rent controlled multi-unit.

I'm not going to link to a specific one for various reasons, but a person could do the same search themself, if they wanted to.

One did point out that a lot of people confuse Section 8 housing with rent control, and that is absolutely right - the two things are very different.

The housing supply in NYC is finite. it's pretty hard to commute to Manhattan from central Illinois or even Ohio for that matter.

 

[Spartanmack]

We need Spartanmack's Econ 101 professor to explain to us: how the economic theory of a hypothetical world with 1 hundred unit building, and 150 bidders, and nothing ever changing is applicable to a city with millions of residents, thousands of buildings with rents at different price points, new buildings going up, or old ones coming down,, continuous vacancy regardless of demand as people die or move, and other places they can live in, such as New Jersey, should they decide to have kids + house and yard, or because they don't like the city.

if you don't get that, you need more than an econ 101 professor.